| Author | Message | ||
     Xl1200r |
Are there any standards for this stuff? I'm asking because I've been looking into a couple bikes, just comparing weights for fun, but the numbers are seeming odd to me. Here are my examples: Triumph Sprint GT Dry: 463, Wet: 590, Difference: 127 Triumph Spring ST Dry: 456, Wet: 554. Difference: 98 Kawasaki Concours14 Dry: 615, Wet: 689, Difference: 74 Buell S3T Dry: 465, Wet: 518, Difference: 53 As you can see, the range from dry to wet goes from 50lbs to 130lbs. Are there really 70lbs of extra fluids on a Sprint GT versus an S3T??? I understand that wet and/or dry weights may or may not include things like engine oil, coolant, brake and clutch fluid, batteries, etc. Even more weird is the two Triumphs. They have, essentially, the same gas tank, the same engine and the same suspension... but the GT gains 30lbs more than the ST when going dry to wet. You'd think the testing criteria would be the same between these two bikes. Just trying to figure out what the dealio is... | ||
| Pwnzor |
I have often wondered this myself. I'm sure we have a resident expert somewhere among our ranks. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Wikipedia has a page on moto specs, and regarding weights it basically says there's no standards for either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_testing_an d_measurement#Dry_weight | ||
| Sifo |
For even more confusion, weigh your own bike and compare to the advertised weight. | ||
| Bott |
the 'reported' 1/4 mile et and trap speeds are another source of humor. | ||
| Bbbob |
I work at a motorcycle dealer...there really is no standard...my understanding is "dry" is without any fluids or battery in the bike...when looking at the dry vs wet weight on many bikes the difference seems "right", but there are other bikes where the difference seems too much, so I don't know if some brands include saddle bags (if std equip) or other equipment in the wet weights...if you look at the specs for the new BMW K1600GT/L it says "wet" is with 90% of fuel capacity... | ||
| Rick_a |
Don't forget curb weight. That's another popular one. | ||
| Tpoppa |
Dry weight can be without fluids, battery, tires, etc. Basically anything that is considered to be consumeable. | ||
| Hootowl |
LOL, then my dry weight is a svelte 160 pounds. The extra fat I'm lugging around is consumable  | ||
| Xl1200r |
I'd imagine curb and wet weight to be close, if not the same. I wish this was easier to follow... the dry weight really has no bearing on anything, so I wish there was a standard for wet weight - all fluids full and gas in the tank. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Dry = in the packing crate. Wet = ready to ride away. Near enough. | ||
| Danger_dave |
FWIW it's not that important anyway. The vehicle's height at the COM is more important than the actual mass. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Dry weight, like horsepower, is measured at the brochure.  One official story (I think I read this in Cycle World) is that the origins of dry weight were the "budget" of weight that was engineered into a final motorcycle. So each part going into the bike had a projected weight, and they added that up to a total that measured "dry weight". This was necessary, as the brochures and advertisements were going out long before the final production bike was actually built. This approach inevitably missed a bunch of stuff, and included a lot of guessing. And was often probably simply made up. | ||
| Anonymous |
Dry weight is a bizarre contrivance invented by marketing people. It is done by deducting tires, battery, all fluids, etc. If the truth were completely out it would stop being used. But as long as major manufacturers use it, and customers believe it, then everyone has to play by those rules. Otherwise consumers won't buy your "heavier" bike. Wet weight is weight of a real bike, less gasoline. It's what should be used. Triumph is notoriously the worst violator on the dry weight thing, I think they leave the crankshaft out also. | ||
| Court |
My dry weight is 142#. | ||
| Davegess |
Man your are pudgy, I'm 128 | ||
| Reepicheep |
I haven't weighed 142 since 6th grade.... | ||
| Danger_dave |
I have limbs that weigh 128. Wet. | ||
| 86129squids |
How about "moist weight"? | ||
| Danger_dave |
Long.............................................. ...................wait. | ||
| Davegess |
That's my DRY weight. I am not stating my WET weight. | ||
| Aesquire |
Cycle World used to weight bikes with half a tank of gas, oil, battery and all other fluids topped off. The reasoning was no bike can run with no gas, you don't have a full tank except for a very short time, and half full is going to be the state you actually ride at... +/- about a half tank of gas. Close enough, or as close as can be consistently weighed. Dry weight is fiction. Horsepower is mostly lies. Remember when the writer types were upset that the new Yamaha didn't have a Jillion rpm red line as indicated by the test bikes the writers were allowed to ride around the track? ( don't remember off the top the exact # ) Thousands of words were typed, worldwide speculating about HP figures, unobtanium valve springs, etc. based on the observed red line on a test bike tach. Bogus. Still, it was a pretty nice bike, according to the folk who tested it, both before and after the rpm scandal. Or so I'm told. I'm unlikely to ride that year 600 crotch rocket, and more likely to haul a basket of parts into the house that actually comes close to the "dry weight" of an older bike. What comes out of the shop will undoubtedly mass more, what with oil, tires, etc. no doubt massing more than the gunk I scrape off the basket case while it's in process. | ||
| Danger_dave |
| ||
| Arcticktm |
Every OEM figures out their own way. They can be massive lies or pretty close. As mentioned, some of the honest difference is that we didn't always have all the final parts when we had to give the Marketing guys all the numbers for the brochures. American Snowmobiler used to weigh all the test sleds at the new model year shootout with full tanks of gas. They quit doing this after some OEM's bitched about it a lot (read: mostly Yamaha). I always put my sleds on a scale whenever possible, but again, not always with the final parts. Buyer beware. I pay little attention to those numbers, unless a magazine or someone other than the OEM did the weighing. | ||
| Xl1200r |
How can they not be in any kind of legal trouble for that? Is it not false advertising? "Our bike weights 154lbs! But, that's with a prototype engine made of wax and half of the braking system not installed." | ||
| Arcticktm |
Interesting question that I have no firm answer for. Maybe no one has wanted to go to the trouble and expense of taking it to court. It has been done for horsepower, though. The OEM response would likely be to pull the info from future brochures. I seem to recall one of the competitors did that when I was doing sleds. | ||
| Davegess |
They say it weighs x dry. Since there is no legal definition of "dry weight" they can define it any way they want AND since they don't have to tell us the definition "dry weight" is a useless number. | ||
| Reepicheep |
And they make the volume knob go up to 11! | ||
| Sifo |
Umm... Why does it go to 11?  | ||
| Britchri10 |
Spinal Tap! | ||
| Danger_dave |
 | ||
| Sifo |
Because when you need that little something extra to push you over the edge, you can just turn it to 11!  |
