Honda Love

[ducatilover]

OK lets examine this... if you look at an MT (for arguement sake) 65 ft lbs per litre, so you can argue that it produces less ft lbs than a CBR (74lbs)
You then throw a car engine into the equation... different strokes mate!! It's still a much longer stroke than your 'busa engine, high revving or not.. and 'high revving' is likely to be 8-9000rpm not the 14k of a busa. You avoid answering the obvious re the BSA and a sidecar..... reciprocating mass..... the low revving long stroke motor has a much higher level of kinetic energy stored in the reciprocating components,,, thats why your sprot bike revs up so bloody fast, little to no reciprocating mass, and yes of course a 1670cc 'busa would destroy an MT. It's STILL a short stroke high revving, fast pick up 4 cyl, compared to a long stroke V twin with push rods, not even OHC.... funny thing is without a turbo, the MT has easily been tuned to 115 bhp and around 130ft lbs of torque. A 'very low boost' turbo one produced 160bhp and almost 200 ft lbs....... still none of these versions rev higher than 6k rpm.
the biggest 'crippler' for any large bore, long stroke motor is the inability to move sufficient 'mass of air' on induction and exhaust. Something a 4 cyl will always do better. Half the capacity per cylinder and equally as large airbox/injector/carby/exhaust.
You can enjoy your 4 cyl, I still have one (ZZR1.1) if I want the rush when riding ....... I prefer feeling the motor working as I open the throttle

Righto, grab me a BSA and a CBR thou, we'll do a roll on up a hill with weight strapped to each. Not a fair example though. As the BSA is lacking in displacement.


Another example
Gear a ZZR11 and an XV1100 to be doing the same revs at any given speed (similar displacement, one a higher revving motor, the other a long stroke/low revs motor) load 'em up, do roll on tests up a hill.
That's a reasonably fair test innit?


Or an even better example, the current VMAX is 1679cc isn't it?
Find one, do the same test but with your MT.
The VMAX has a better designed engine and makes fairly nice power/cc and great torque/cc. Perfect for my case


Can I ride all the bikes in these tests too please?

Remember, all bikes in the tests must be doing the same revs at 100k.
If the MT diddles 'em all, I'll buy a beer per victory. (No not the Victory bikes, horrid things)

[GrayWolf]

Righto, grab me a BSA and a CBR thou, we'll do a roll on up a hill with weight strapped to each. Not a fair example though. As the BSA is lacking in displacement.


Another example
Gear a ZZR11 and an XV1100 to be doing the same revs at any given speed (similar displacement, one a higher revving motor, the other a long stroke/low revs motor) load 'em up, do roll on tests up a hill. >>> And as I own a ZZR1100, I have pointed out, the MT is about as quick, if not slightly quicker through bends.
That's a reasonably fair test innit?


Or an even better example, the current VMAX is 1679cc isn't it?
Find one, do the same test but with your MT.
The VMAX has a better designed engine and makes fairly nice power/cc and great torque/cc. Perfect for my case


Can I ride all the bikes in these tests too please?

Remember, all bikes in the tests must be doing the same revs at 100k.
If the MT diddles 'em all, I'll buy a beer per victory. (No not the Victory bikes, horrid things)

You still avoid the point, they are ALL 4cl bikes Vs a twin. All short stroke Vs Long stroke.. even the Vmax stroke is considerably shorter than an MT and the displacement is 'substantialy' oversquare..... hence why the 'big bang' motor works so well 'mimics' the displacement of a big twin, but with a short stroke crank... Perfect example of a short stroke big inch V twin is the M109 produces 125bhp and high torque figures... but still has the limiting factor of shifting enough air/gas, and only firing every other revolution.
Vmax still has less displacement per cylinder, so has a better throughput of air/gas in and out per CC. beside the V boost system when operating.

As for the weight on a CBR Vs an A10? that isnt an accurate test, there is drag, friction and OFFSET mass to overcome.... strapping lead weights is not in any way an accurate representation.. however, my first guess would be on a ride to say Hamiltron? If you went over the Taka's The CBR clutch would be fried before you got to far.

[ducatilover]

I thought the debate was a better designed engine works better?
I'm lost, so I'm bowing out (I lose)

I still do want to ride the MT though

[FJRider]

I thought the debate was a better designed engine works better?

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

[ducatilover]

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

An engine with a big penis wins everytime.

[AllanB]

Surely it would depend on the purpose of an engine's intended use .... be it a cruiser/tourer/sunday scratcher/race bike.

Correct. As much as I like the look of a clean V cruiser and the power of a well designed one I do believe there is a large market for a IL4 version as a point of difference if you don't want a HD clone (or a HD for that matter).

I'm talking a clean sheet engine design or at least a severe modification to a existing one. So it may have a square or long stroke design and only rev to 6 -7 k if desired. Take all the good stuff learnt over the past 50 years and design a absolute grunter. The use of the V twin in this market by the copiers is fashion.

Interesting to read that Ducatis latest and greatest V twin designed to rev is getting negative comments about it's loss of midrange. Big bore, shorter stroke to gain revs .....

[ducatilover]

Interesting to read that Ducatis latest and greatest V twin designed to rev is getting negative comments about it's loss of midrange. Big bore, shorter stroke to gain revs .....

It needed a loss in mid range torque.
Without the use of variable valve timing etc there will still be a high rpm/low rpm power trade off.
Look at the twin air Alfa/Fiat motors, infinately variable valve timing on the intake side, massive power/torque at all revs.
There is far, far more to it than the simple "solution" of having a long throw crank/short rods.
Long stroke motors can be made to rev.
Short stroke motors can make massive torque, everywhere.

[Daffyd]

Honda used the V4 sabre motor (cant remember the bikes name, sorry)

Would that be the Magna?

[AllanB]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.

[ducatilover]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.

That's a tasty looking machine!

[dangerous]

2007 Concept bike. Alas it remained that.

awesome... looks like the GL 1500 six, funny thing is had they built it it would have sold big time.

[GrayWolf]

It needed a loss in mid range torque.
Without the use of variable valve timing etc there will still be a high rpm/low rpm power trade off.
Look at the twin air Alfa/Fiat motors, infinately variable valve timing on the intake side, massive power/torque at all revs.
There is far, far more to it than the simple "solution" of having a long throw crank/short rods.
Long stroke motors can be made to rev.
Short stroke motors can make massive torque, everywhere.

yes/no... long stroke motors can be made to rev, to a point. The fact the piston EG MT01 is travelling 3.8inches, the limiting factor to rev ceiling and pick up, is piston speed, even with the modern design of piston, this is still a critical limiting factor.

In all honesty, you keep saying you want to ride an MT, I think you'd be highly disappointed. I'd expect your comment to be similar to TT's,,, of it being 'breathless'....
Our 'discussion' re engines, you see only BMEP, and 'efficiency' not the WAY power is delivered by different engine configurations.... I guess the easiest way would be to say after your 600, the MT would be like driving a diesel engine. As for your comparison of an VX1100 vs ZZR1100.... as the rev ceiling for both is completely different 8k Vs 11.5k,, setting the revs identically at 100kph in top gear would result in 2 outcomes, 1, set revs to XV at 100k's, ZZR is below its 'power zone of 6k' so the gap would be more narrow than you'd expect . If you raised the XV to identical revs of the ZZR, it may just pip it for a short space of time.
You keep including car engines as examples, reality is how MANY bikes have variable valve timing? makes it a 'moot' point in the present discussion.
I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

[ducatilover]

yes/no... long stroke motors can be made to rev, to a point. The fact the piston EG MT01 is travelling 3.8inches, the limiting factor to rev ceiling and pick up, is piston speed, even with the modern design of piston, this is still a critical limiting factor.

In all honesty, you keep saying you want to ride an MT, I think you'd be highly disappointed. I'd expect your comment to be similar to TT's,,, of it being 'breathless'....
Our 'discussion' re engines, you see only BMEP, and 'efficiency' not the WAY power is delivered by different engine configurations.... I guess the easiest way would be to say after your 600, the MT would be like driving a diesel engine. As for your comparison of an VX1100 vs ZZR1100.... as the rev ceiling for both is completely different 8k Vs 11.5k,, setting the revs identically at 100kph in top gear would result in 2 outcomes, 1, set revs to XV at 100k's, ZZR is below its 'power zone of 6k' so the gap would be more narrow than you'd expect . If you raised the XV to identical revs of the ZZR, it may just pip it for a short space of time.
You keep including car engines as examples, reality is how MANY bikes have variable valve timing? makes it a 'moot' point in the present discussion.
I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

I love low revving engines, relaxed motors like the MT. Doesn't mean I can't be an advocate for technologically advanced motors
I doubt I'd be disappointed with 150nm, I think you'd have to sew my face shut after it splits from grins.

I'll carry on beleiving what I do, even though I'm wrong. Just hand me the bloody keys

(btw the I legally one eyed, so my ignorance is actually okay)

I went out on my lack of torque bike today (a whopping 68nm) and enjoyed it immensely.

[nudemetalz]

............................I'd agree with another poster, a purpose made 1600cc 4cyl for torque with a 'low' rev ceiling would be bloody awesome,, just look at what Triumph produce with the Rocket motor

Just very slightly off the subject,..Honda have released the NC700X which has a rev ceiling of only 6500rpm, relying on built for torque.
Every single road-test I've read so far complains about it running out of revs way too quick,...ironic that it's closest competitor is the Kwaka Versys has a redline of 10,500rpm and is approx same displacement and apparently have a decent amount of torque to boot.

[GrayWolf]

Just very slightly off the subject,..Honda have released the NC700X which has a rev ceiling of only 6500rpm, relying on built for torque.
Every single road-test I've read so far complains about it running out of revs way too quick,...ironic that it's closest competitor is the Kwaka Versys has a redline of 10,500rpm and is approx same displacement and apparently have a decent amount of torque to boot.

Isnt it funny how 'generational' influence? works... I grew up with bikes that revved out at around 6k (brit iron) then Jap bikes that redlined at 8-8.5k rpm.... To me the modern redlines of 13-14k on large capacity bikes, and the 16-20k redlines of the sprot 250's... that just seems insane... The NC700 sounds a great bike, lets hope people get on board the idea that revs are not always the way to go.....