No small torque.

[Big Dave]

Still -- why name your big manly crusier after an ancient step-through?

Suppose you'll tell me now that Honda named their dirt bikes after Harleys.

I prefer the ZZZZZCBR-XXXXXXXXZXZ

[Mikkel]

That doesn't make sense... what about a V-twin diesel?

Ah yes, I forgot about those.

I prefer the ZZZZZCBR-XXXXXXXXZXZ

That's not a fast bike - there's only one R...

[xwhatsit]

Oh yes, definately so. Slowly, to be sure, but that's to be expected from such a type of bike. Actually, down hills is trickier, given the rather dubious brakes.

Ah. That'd be because of torque I suppose. Torque -- provided by the 1st gear reduction -- but slowly, because of the lack of horsepower (only about 4hp).

And that's where your silly torque-is-everything argument falls down.

[Big Dave]

A
That's not a fast bike - there's only one R...

We only mention them on talk like a pirate day.

[Edbear]

Hmm, you always confuse me when you're talking about your bike. C50. And now you're saying your brother has a C90? I didn't know Cubs could carry pillions up hills?

Oh yes, definately so. Slowly, to be sure, but that's to be expected from such a type of bike. Actually, down hills is trickier, given the rather dubious brakes.

I took my bike licence test on a friend's C90 stepthru and as part of the test I had to do a hill start.... Well it couldn't and I actually had to push it up the small hill and I was a very skinny kid at the time...

[Crasherfromwayback]

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene... Not only are they more torquey - they are more fuel efficient as well.

Balls and skills are what wins motorsport races - if those two are about equal between competitors, such as is the case for international professional, then the vehicle becomes important.


And I wouldn't be surprised to see a Rocket III beating most things on a 1/8 mile. The weight distribution and broad torque curve would allow you to get a lot of power down early - and that counts heaps in the drags.

You obviously know as much about racing as you do torque.

'Torque' allows you to drive out of a corner faster. You then carry more speed down the straights. This is turn, allows you to produce better lap times. Better lap times than the people you're racing allows you to win said race.

Drag racing is all about getting off the line better than the person you're racing. Torque allows you to do this. Much like road racing. And come to think of it...Moto-X.

Yeah, turbos only really provide torque, no power gain worth mentioning...

And there you have it. F1 cars (as you've mentioned) used to be turbo charged. They got too fast.

That's exactly what I mean...

All this bogus talk about power vs. torque - you can not have power without torque, at least not from an internal combustion engine.

Whereas, you can have torque without power - in which case you're not going anywhere.

As such, if you want to go anywhere you want POWER. A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently. A torque figure in and off itself doesn't say anything at all - a power figure on the other hand tells you more...

100% BULLSHIT.

Trust me, being a Dane and all, I could hardly have forgotten about Audi's Les Mans involvement. I'm sure the name Tom Kristensen would be familiar in this regard.

Mercedes also made a diesel car capable of 300+ km/h many many years ago - but the exact name and year eludes me right now.

Can we agree that it is the exception though?


Additionally, with Les Mans being an endurance race I'm sure we can agree that fuel-efficiency and reliability is that much more critical compared to say super-saloon or F1.

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1569608]Don't get me wrong, I don't see any issues with diesel engines being used for motorcycles - I'm actually quietly wondering why they indeed haven't become commonplace... They have the characteristic that a lot of people seems to be looking for in a bike - good low down torque. ...and it's more efficient than a V-twin.
/QUOTE]

The weight a diesel engine must weight makes it a difficult proposition for a bike. See answer #1.

[Badjelly]

All this bogus talk about power vs. torque - you can not have power without torque, at least not from an internal combustion engine.

Whereas, you can have torque without power - in which case you're not going anywhere.

As such, if you want to go anywhere you want POWER. A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently. A torque figure in and off itself doesn't say anything at all - a power figure on the other hand tells you more...

100% BULLSHIT.

In my opinion, what Mikkel said is 0% bullshit.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you disagree with we could get somewhere?

[Crasherfromwayback]

In my opinion, what Mikkel said is 0% bullshit.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you disagree with we could get somewhere?

Sure. If you read my posts on the matter, you'll see that I think what Mikkel said regarding 'torgue' is 100% bullshit. This (my opinion and why) is also explained. I've formed my opinion through being reasonably mechanically inclinded, and having raced all sorts of bikes/disiplines over many years.

How and why do your form your judgement?

[Badjelly]

Sure. If you read my posts on the matter, you'll see that I think what Mikkel said regarding 'torgue' is 100% bullshit. This (my opinion and why) is also explained. I've formed my opinion through being reasonably mechanically inclined, and having raced all sorts of bikes/disciplines over many years.

How and why do your form your judgement?

OK, so do you disagree with this?

A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently.

[avgas]

What gets me is that the sales hype for new bikes state that it produces XXX Nm of torque at idle.
Yet they don't state this for all those 'mobility scooters' out there.
I think they are trying to appeal to the wrong market - the rest of us never ride at idle.

[Big Dave]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.

[Crasherfromwayback]

OK, so do you disagree with this?

A torque vs. rpm graph contains exactly the same information as a power vs. rpm graph, albeit presented differently.

Of course a torque vs rpm and an HP vs rpm graph contain exactly the same info. They're both relative, and are both showing when and where max output occures in the rev range.

What I said was 'torque' wins races, HP claims are wank fuel.

Have you not ever noticed how the guys riding the GP bikes all want better 'drive' out of the corners?

Why? So they can do better lap times. TORQUE.

[Thunder 8]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.

Have to agree with that as im riding with approx 300 ftlbs of torque......twist and go.....heh heh sorry couldnt help myself.

[avgas]

Can we agree that it is the exception though?

Nope - banned or not developed in the right areas is how i feel about diesels.
They were told they couldn't race in the BTCC.
Bikes only got non-performance diesels.
Trucks and BF-vehicles get some of the high horsepower stuff.
Saying the diesels are non-performance clappers is like saying the only good 2-strokes are in vespas.
2-stroke turbo diesels are nuts, make turbine engines feel like they are a waste of time....

[avgas]

Be that as it may - A road bike with lower power and more torque is better than a road bike with big power and low torque.

Actually its when the curves match where you get the real fun. Dont believe me go get on a thumper with a 20kph sprocket. Wheels goes up, you change gears wheel goes down, then repeat. Likewise the opposite - i call it CBR250itist.
haha