100 bhp is all I need debate - again

[rossirep]

No 100 is not enough..!!!

200 would be awesome fun to blast around on ...

[GrayWolf]

as for the MT matching the power of the Z1 900, well Ill take your word on the numbers, but if you took ten different bikes that all had the same HP rating, youd find they all had different quarter mile times, different top speeds, different braking distances, different 80-130 times etc etc - there is so much more to the equation than HP - I cannot understand the intense focus on HP all the time. what about power to weight, what about centre of gravity, what about torque? these things affect your ride and your experience much much more than a max hp number on any bike.

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/mod...ki_z1%2072.htm

QUOTE.... PERFORMANCE BIKE MAGAZINE
MT-01
1670 cc
84 bhp @ 4,500 rpm << most tests rate at 88bhp
146 Nm @ 3,750 rpm
Wheelbase 1525 mm
Dry weight 240 kg
Quarter mile 12.45 @ 108.33 mph
Top speed 133 mph (212kph) << disagree 205 is more realistic
0-60mph 3.75

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....

[scumdog]

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/mod...ki_z1%2072.htm

:

My XN85 has allegedly 85hp, does the 1/4 in just over the 12 second mark (faster if you ask the right people!) and about 125+mph top speed.
No real torque at low revs though.

[ducatilover]

My little toy will have everything for brekky, then make omelets out of anything left over.

[BMWST?]

Jeeze Mate its the TORQUE Myself and Mossy have been going on about overall, lower HP but massive torque in the usable speed/rev ranges. Anyway.. as you can see from the figures below, if you took an MT back to 1973: you truly would scare the fuck out of ANY Z1 rider, and to quote reviewers of the time? Overkill power (Z1). The MT just 'feels slow'; its a long stroke, slow revving motor, that simply powers (torque) its way along.

Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)
http://kz900.com/z1_specs_73-75.html
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/mod...saki_z1 72.htm

QUOTE.... PERFORMANCE BIKE MAGAZINE
MT-01
1670 cc
84 bhp @ 4,500 rpm << most tests rate at 88bhp
146 Nm @ 3,750 rpm
Wheelbase 1525 mm
Dry weight 240 kg
Quarter mile 12.45 @ 108.33 mph
Top speed 133 mph (212kph) << disagree 205 is more realistic
0-60mph 3.75

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....

no it isnt,its too far the other way..its got no top end what so ever has it...what we need is a modern interpretation of those 80s superbikes...gs 100 cb 900 gsx 1100 etc,they were about 100 hp,and had good power band too.you could ride the things around in top...overtake in top ...

[GrayWolf]

My little toy will have everything for brekky,

then make omelets out of anything left over.

<<<<<<<< Only after My little toy has shaken everything left over up, ready to make omeletes......

[ducatilover]

<<<<<<<< Only after My little toy has shaken everything left over up, ready to make omeletes......

Whilst my other one watches and cries like the bitch bike it is!

[GrayWolf]

Quote Graywulf:
Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....

no it isnt,its too far the other way..its got no top end what so ever has it...what we need is a modern interpretation of those 80s superbikes...gs 100 cb 900 gsx 1100 etc,they were about 100 hp,and had good power band too.you could ride the things around in top...overtake in top ...

HUH? its within 3mph top end of a Z1, so by your reckoning the Z1 has no 'top end' either.
By the 1980's the big bikes, XS1100 etc were all knocking on the door of 100bhp, so even the venerable Z1 was outclassed by 10-15mph top speed. As for overtaking in top, with a 'good power band'? Mate you only 'need' 2 gears 90% of the time while riding the MT,,, most of that reason is because of the long stroke it will 'lug' below 2000rpm in certain circumstances. It has a 'good power band' with a redline of 5.5k the power spread is from 2750 to 4500, very comparable to any other bike if you double the figures, at 11k redline a 4.5k power band very comparable to most bikes. As for no top end? the reason modern bikes are so fast is the power IS far more up the top end compared to the old bikes, hence why my old FJ outpulls my ZZR in real world use. The current crop of new bikes have all the wizardry of variable cam, timing, injection mapping.... so yes they really have every advantage in that respect.

[BMWST?]

Quote Graywulf:
Z1 900... 82bhp, 54ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 ---- 12.3 seconds, top speed 130mph (209kph)
MT-01.....84bhp, 110ft lbs of torque, standing 1/4 -- 12.45 seconds, top speed 127mph (205kph)

Actually I have frequently said it feels like a 'real bike' from those days... that compo' really lets me understand why I love the thing.. it IS a 'throwback' bike....




HUH? its within 3mph top end of a Z1, so by your reckoning the Z1 has no 'top end' either.
By the 1980's the big bikes, XS1100 etc were all knocking on the door of 100bhp, so even the venerable Z1 was outclassed by 10-15mph top speed. As for overtaking in top, with a 'good power band'? Mate you only 'need' 2 gears 90% of the time while riding the MT,,, most of that reason is because of the long stroke it will 'lug' below 2000rpm in certain circumstances. It has a 'good power band' with a redline of 5.5k the power spread is from 2750 to 4500, very comparable to any other bike if you double the figures, at 11k redline a 4.5k power band very comparable to most bikes. As for no top end? the reason modern bikes are so fast is the power IS far more up the top end compared to the old bikes, hence why my old FJ outpulls my ZZR in real world use. The current crop of new bikes have all the wizardry of variable cam, timing, injection mapping.... so yes they really have every advantage in that respect.

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want

[mossy1200]

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want

Two up plus gear and trailer getting 220km from 13 litres between filling. Efficient enough for me.

Its like trying to compare a diesel turbo ute with a sports car. Sports car will get you there fast but you will need do a few more trips if your moving house.

[ducatilover]

i understand every thing you say...but with all that capacity and torque its only the same as a z1....there must be a more efficient way of acheiving what i want

There is, it's called a VMAX, or any modern IL4.

[BMWST?]

Two up plus gear and trailer getting 220km from 13 litres between filling. Efficient enough for me.

Its like trying to compare a diesel turbo ute with a sports car. Sports car will get you there fast but you will need do a few more trips if your moving house.

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

[mossy1200]

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

If we all had the same taste every bike would be the same and everyone would own the same car and all live in identical houses.
MT is kind of like a big block muscle car on mild tune. Isnt that fast compaired to a high reving sports car but it still has appeal.

[GrayWolf]

that is quite good,but i just cant get my head around a 1700 cc bike.

I understand what you say, but the fact you 'dont get it'.. you dont need to run down the MT...it's design purpose is for Torque, not HP, none of your modern sprot bikes or the 1980's super bikes have a higher torque peak then their HP peak.. thats the MT's forte.
Even the spectacular power bike V max cannot do that; 200hp, 123ft lbs torque (BTW I owned a 1991 R100GS when I came to NZ, fantastic bike btw. It's one of those bike you look back on ownership with a smile).
I dont care how many bikes can get up a hill, or 'destroy' a straight faster than me.. I am loping along at 2-3k rpm on a bike that is just plain enjoyable to ride.... Mossy calls the MT a turbocharged diesel ute...

I'd compare it as... if a sprot bike is a cheetah. Fast, agile and highly tuned (fragile)
The MT is a charging rhino.. solid, powerful and once on the move nigh on bloody impossible to stop.

[ducatilover]

I understand what you say, but the fact you 'dont get it'.. you dont need to run down the MT...it's design purpose is for Torque, not HP, none of your modern sprot bikes or the 1980's super bikes have a higher torque peak then their HP peak.. thats the MT's forte.
Even your BMW cannot do that.. (and I owned a 1991 R100GS when I came to NZ, fantastic bike btw. It's one of those bike you look back on ownership with a smile).
I dont care how many bikes can get up a hill, or 'destroy' a straight faster than me.. I am loping along at 2-3k rpm on a bike that is just plain enjoyable to ride.... Mossy calls the MT a turbocharged diesel ute...

I'd compare it as... if a sprot bike is a cheetah. Fast, agile and highly tuned (fragile)
The MT is a charging rhino.. solid, powerful and once on the move nigh on bloody impossible to stop.

But, the sportier bikes are made for more HP and your HP number will always be higher than the torque number, usually if the NM rating on your engine is greater than 10% of the CC rating, you have a brilliant motor.
No denying that the MT makes a ridiculous amount of torque for a vehicle that's ~260kg wet.