No small torque.

**Big Dave** · 19th May 2008, 11:54

I watched it win the Nationals live on ESPN. Two weeks ago maybe. Beat a Suzuki - mainly on reaction time atchally.

**imdying** · 19th May 2008, 11:57

Basically, it's a VRod with the crap scared out of it by a turbo (great torque builder as we know). There's a few stateside companies doing bolt on kits

**Mikkel** · 19th May 2008, 12:05

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

But yeah, that's a great example of the boy-racers creed: 'If you throw enough money at a piece of shit you'll get a very fast piece of shit!'

And what's the deal with the Rossi leathers?

Last time I checked Rossi didn't ride a HD.

**imdying** · 19th May 2008, 12:13

Originally Posted by Mikkel

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

I don't know what you mean? Turbos increase VE, which increases torque. Power is just a measurement of torque at a specified RPM, any measured power increases after fitting it is just a by product of the increased torque.

**Mikkel** · 19th May 2008, 12:27

Originally Posted by imdying

I don't know what you mean? Turbos increase VE, which increases torque. Power is just a measurement of torque at a specified RPM, any measured power increases after fitting it is just a by product of the increased torque.

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...

**Big Dave** · 19th May 2008, 12:59

Originally Posted by imdying

Me, I like the hard luggage on the new Tourer... but I love the crazy styling of the Rune, that'd be the one I'd want to try first

Rocket has a better surge, the Rune has longer legs.
Not much difference in the Road manners. Both go all right - particularly if you have the ballast to manhandle them.

Rune is my fave sounding bike. Rocket more practical.

**jrandom** · 19th May 2008, 13:09

Originally Posted by Mikkel

Bullshit - otherwise you'd see turbo-diesel engines dominate the racing scene...

Ahem, cough, cough, etc.

**Mikkel** · 19th May 2008, 13:14

Originally Posted by jrandom

Ahem, cough, cough, etc.

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.

**FilthyLuka** · 19th May 2008, 13:17

Originally Posted by Mikkel

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?

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/20...el-motorcycle/

"100hp and 144 foot pounds of torque at 2600rpm" Its not too bad, im sure you could squeez a few more ponies out

**xwhatsit** · 19th May 2008, 13:19

Originally Posted by Edbear

I notice the difference between my bike and the C90 as far as torque goes, but the only place my Bro-in-law had an advantage on the road was up a fairly steep hill with both of us two-up. In order to maintain the same pace, I was full throttle and he was about half throttle in top gear. I could have changed down of course, but I was testing the difference between our bikes. Outright performance was a lot closer than the engine sizes would indicate.

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?

**Big Dave** · 19th May 2008, 13:22

Originally Posted by xerxesdaphat

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?

Talka da cubic hinches.

**xwhatsit** · 19th May 2008, 13:24

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Talka da cubic hinches.

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.

**Mikkel** · 19th May 2008, 13:24

Originally Posted by FilthyLuka

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/20...el-motorcycle/

"100hp and 144 foot pounds of torque at 2600rpm" Its not too bad, im sure you could squeez a few more ponies out

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.

Also, you have to wonder why there, bar a few notable exceptions, hasn't been any diesel engines use in professional racing. (not counting disciplines such as truck racing)

**Ixion** · 19th May 2008, 13:24

Originally Posted by xerxesdaphat

.. I didn't know C50/C90 s 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.