No small torque.

[henry]

D you regret mentioning it yet?

[Big Dave]

learned plenty.
mainly that I want a 1:1 scale slot car.
The puns (whilst admirable) I already had.

[Soul.Trader]

Yes batteries do suck (comparatively speaking).

Has anyone ever attempted a "combustion engine->generator->electric motor" system on a motorbike? Like they use on electric locomotives and large ships?

What would be the point? You'd have the worlds largest, heaviest motorbike, with enough torque to destroy a tyre in seconds, but which will be unable to do anything useful.

[madandy]

Torque, and anything else for that matter, is nothing without power.

Actually torque is everything. Power is nothing without torque and plenty rpm

[Big Dave]

It depends how you ride.

Stretch likes the Std Rocket III better because it has 30 more ponies than the Tourer - I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.

[Bonez]

It depends how you ride.

Stretch likes the Std Rocket III better because it has 30 more ponies than the Tourer - I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.

What was done to the motor to achive that difference Dave?

[_intense_]

Torque, and anything else for that matter, is nothing without power.

// blah blah blah nothing without control etc without skill etc without.....

and so on and so forth.
this spam fest could go on for ever.

[jrandom]

I like the Tourer because it has about 10 more ft lbs.

I like the Tourer because it comes out of the box with some goddamn nice-lookin' hard luggage, a screen that might let me button up my jacket collar without being choked in the wind, and a rear tyre that looks like it might actually allow one to go around corners.

Not that I've ridden one yet.

Does it, as I suspect, handle better than the standard model?

[Big Dave]

In the test I said:

'The Ed really likes the windscreen, I really like how easy it is to remove'.


I think it's just the tune. Like the old sprints and thunderbirds - they ramp 'em up or down on how they breathe, Cams and efi.

They don't nominate a compression ratio on any of the literature i have, might be too. I'll check.

[DMNTD:Me]

I like the Tourer because it comes out of the box with some goddamn nice-lookin' hard luggage, a screen that might let me button up my jacket collar without being choked in the wind, and a rear tyre that looks like it might actually allow one to go around corners.

Not that I've ridden one yet.

Does it, as I suspect, handle better than the standard model?

I agree re hard luggage
The tourer is rumoured to handle better,yes however when we get the demo tourer next week(I believe it may be the same bike BD has pictured) I'll be able to tell you(my opinion).

[Bonez]

They don't nominate a compression ratio on any of the literature i have, might be too. I'll check.

8.7:1

Max Power
140 hp @ 5750 rpm

Max Torque
200 Nm 147ft.lbf @ 2500 rpm

[Big Dave]

The Tourer is de-tuned to 106bhp @ 5400 rpm but makes up for it in increased torque.

The Cruiser produces 147ft.lbt of torque at 2,500 rpm whereas the Tourer develops maximum Torque of 154ft.lbf @ 2,025 rpm.

Power down thirty-four ponies – while torque is up – yes kids ‘up’ – seven of dem foot-pounds.

[Big Dave]

To quote the popular press:

the real difference is in the rear end. The Cruiser sports a quite massive 240/50 R 16 rear tyre while the Tourer is a more realworldly 180/70 R 16.

Not only does a 180 section save a chunk of cash when it comes to replacements – it also provides better cornering and overall handling.

[Big Dave]

I've also had a few instances of those 240 rear ends aquaplaning a bit. Love the way they look - but they do have some overhead.

[jrandom]

I've also had a few instances of those 240 rear ends aquaplaning a bit.

My rear ends only aquaplane on melted rubber.

Sometimes it's not easy being awesome.