| Author | Message | ||
     Tpoppa |
I love V2 sportbikes for their street manners, but... ...if you started with a blank slate and your goal was to win superbike races. There is really no reason to pick a V2. V4s and I4s aren't dominant by accident. | ||
| Jaimec |
If mass centralization is your religion, you can't beat an I4 for power and compactness. | ||
| 46champ |
Jon you are almost back to Lil Blackie. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
Blake, how many checkered flags have the V-twins taken in the last couple of years in the super bike class? I think my comment pretty well sums it up. The inline 4's pretty much dominate motorcycle racing. So once again I will go back and say it again, if you want to truly make a super bike, you had better give up on the v-twins. Myself personally, I don't want a super bike, I want either a sport touring or a good-looking dual sport motorcycle. Until they build one, I'll continue riding my Ulysses. | ||
| Rick_a |
Do you really think EBR would be struggling with the same level of support the top factory teams have? It has little to do with it being a twin. Similarly Ducati wins overseas as they have a lot of support behind the effort. Here they are a largely privateer effort. KTM is on the same boat...a small team with a lot of passion. (Message edited by Rick_A on March 19, 2013) | ||
| Ljm |
You all know that the Uly didn't come from the mind of Willie G. and the geriatric design department, right? It was and Elf creation, and they will come back to the concept. Maybe not immediately but on the horizon. As for the IL4 v. V2 argument, while the v-twin may lack some especially when compared on high speed tracks like Daytona, it has its strengths as well and guys like me and other buyers won't know the difference. Out on the street where most of us live, it is going to out handle most everything else and run with the rest of them. Or ahead of them | ||
| Blake |
Harald Kitch & the Pegasus Raceteam Buell 1190RR: 2011 German Open Superbike Champions over factory backed efforts by both BMW, and Ducati. Though losing the peak HP battle, in AMA SBK and WSBK, the twins are forced to carry extra weight compared to the IL4 entries. It's a bizarre rules recipe clearly designed to help the IL4 machines dominate the racing. Weight is HUGE in its effect when it comes to tire performance. Other factors are at play that ought not be ignored: Team experience, racing machine development, electronics development and support, racing team funding, rider/racer skill & passion to win... The premise that engine configuration is the primary governing factor for IL4-based Superbike race wins falls short. So too the false impression that those IL4 Superbike racing machines have much in common with the street bikes they pretend to represent. It's just marketing to fool the gullible. Don't be fooled. The EBR 1190RS however is the actual racing machine you can purchase. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
What I would really like to see EBR make is a very lightweight middle sized bike. Imagine a 500cc bike that weighs less than 320 pounds. If anyone could pull that off, it would be EBR. All the Japanese middleweights seem to hover around 430 pounds. | ||
| Smoke |
you have to fill all the blanks in the survey for it to complete. tim | ||
| Brumbear |
Yamaha Vtwin power and I4 run they were just the first to figure it out, or at least make it happen. Have ya heard the new R-1 coming down the road IMPRESSIVE  | ||
| Reepicheep |
Do the 1190's still have to add weight to be legal in AMA Superbike? | ||
| Brumbear |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww40TiNInZc | ||
| Rick_a |
I had forgotten about that. Fans would probably call the twins "cheaters" if they started winning without the weight on board. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
The twins get added weight but also have up to 200cc displacement advantage. | ||
| Jaimec |
As I recall, the added weight is to bring them within the same power/weight ratio as the IL4s. As you pointed out, they also enjoy 20% more displacement than the 4s too. Twins make great streetbikes with their flat powerbands and low, bottom end torque... but if you want to win RACES you need the high-revving horsepower that only four (or more) cylinders can give you (all else being equal). | ||
| Jaimec |
Note that Ducati, realizing they couldn't get a displacement advantage in MotoGP, went with a V4 design. They knew running a twin of the same displacement as the fours (and fives) of the competition would've resulted in an even more disastrous campaign than the last two years. MotoGP rules would've allowed Ducati a much lower weight with a twin than another engine configuration; but Ducati knew that wouldn't be enough to be competitive. Aprilia tried to split the difference by running a triple, but that was a bit of a disaster (roasted nuts, Mr. Edwards?). That had nothing to do with the number of cylinders, though... and even Aprilia has given up on the V-Twin design in their racebikes. | ||
| Hootowl |
"The twins get added weight but also have up to 200cc displacement advantage." More displacement means bigger, heavier pistons, and lower RPM. For example, I'll give you an unlimited displacement advantage if you run half the cylinders I do. I'm running a twin. I'll see you and your thumper at the races  The fours have a similar advantage over a v-twin. | ||
| Tpoppa |
Everything else being equal...4 small pistons can accommodate higher rpms than than 2 big pistons. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Added weight couldn't be for balancing power/weight ratio if I4's have higher HP. Unless you're talking torque, but I've never heard that argument. Seems that when twins and 4's are at the same displacement the 4's have a huge advantage. When you give the twins a little more size to close the power gap you start giving an advantage to the twin due to the power delivery and acceleration. So to close that gap you add a little weight to the twin, which slows down it's acceleration and corner speed a bit. It makes sense in those simple terms. I know that there's WAY more to it than that but I think that is why the rules are the way they are. Back on topic. I hope a 675 triple or a middle-weight twin won't be long coming from EBR. If there was a comment section in the Survey that would be my message to EBR. I understand the need to focus but I think a middle weight is more likely to be my next bike. | ||
| Sifo |
The middle weight triples are terrific IMO. Aside from my wife's, I know a couple others that have them. Great compromise between a twin and I4. MV Agusta finally has their 675 triple out. Wasn't Yamaha making some noise about a 675 triple? They make great liter bikes too! It would be a great niche for EBR if they want to venture from a twin. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Champ - Nice of you to remember Lil' Blackie - I put a lot into that gal. BTW, she is still alive an well, belongs to an enthusiast about 50 miles up island. Actually, my Streety, "The Grey Lady", reminds me more of Ol' Yaller, my yellow XB9S. As it is revier, and has a sit up riding position. It is much lighter, though, especially as I removed about forty pounds of stuff, and it now weighs just about 400 lbs. with half a tankful, and it is built to a much higher standard. The Triumph handles great too, although it isn't really fair to compare a bike running Dunlop 207's, (anyone remember them?) with one running new Michelin Pilot Power 3's, is it? | ||
| Fahren |
I'm coming from a similar place as Fast1075: I honestly would not know where to take such a fast bike out on the street, and if I were to track, it would be on a smaller, not-so-nice Ninja or something like that. Much as I cheer and support Erik Buell's vision, passion and drive with EBR, my input would be useless to his current line of questioning. Loved the Blast, love the tubers, love the Ss. | ||
| Hughlysses |
The middle weight triples are terrific IMO. <snip> It would be a great niche for EBR if they want to venture from a twin. From the May 2010 issue of "Cycle World" on Buell's demise: Sounds to me like the designs exist for a 3-cylinder middleweight sport bike. EBR may not own the designs (then again, they might), but I'll bet their engineers remember all the important details and exactly how they'd go about designing them even if they had to start from scratch. (Message edited by Hughlysses on March 20, 2013) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The only things I do not like about my Uly is the key placement helmet lock placement and the weight. After sitting on a carbon 1190RS, the bike was almost like a bicycle between my legs. If there was a optional riding position similar to a CR w/high bars or maybe a XB12Ss and also had a belt drive I'd definitely be interested. IMO, belts are so much better/easier than dealing with chains. I know I am not alone on that one but I am liking style of the new Ducati Hyperstrada. And also like the Aprilla Dorsoduro 1200. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Well, if they do an Adv style machine then I certainly would want the final drive of that to be shaft. | ||
| Blake |
Jaimie, Please do some comparative studying on relative volumetric efficiency and attainable engine speed for twins versus four cylinder engines. The fours get higher engine speeds and higher volumetric efficiency (8 intake valves vs 4 for the twin). But they gain it through the benefit if double the cylinders, valves, throttle bodies... The ignorant get stuck on displacement on account it's all they know of engine performance. You know better. This discussion is as old as BadWeB. It's frustrating to see such ignorance relentlessly propagated. But the IL4 factories sell it like crazy. | ||
| Jaimec |
Blake, We KNOW you're a die-hard twin fan... but give it up already!! If twins were that great, why isn't Ducati running one in MotoGP? Why did Aprilia abandon their twin for a V4?? If you want power, you want more cylinders. Smaller pistons have less reciprocating mass and more cylinders mean a smoother power delivery without the requirement of a big honking flywheel. All of that means higher acceleration and top speeds. Otherwise, Lamborghini and Bugatti would be using pushrod V-8s and not DOHC 12 and 16 cylinder engines. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Lamborghini and Bugatti are using turbo chargers also. Which gives much more power for a given displacement. And so would a direct injection two stroke, which gets close to 2x the power for the same displacement. There are lots of ways to get power out of a motor, all with pro's and con's. Inline fours are just one path... and arbitrarily putting a limit on displacement is just one of many ways to arbitrarily limit power. No different than limiting the number of cylinders to 3 or less. The twins are being "legislated" to a slight technical disadvantage. (Message edited by reepicheep on March 20, 2013) | ||
| Tpoppa |
I'd really like to see someone make an I6 superbike around 900cc. | ||
| Hootowl |
Apparently I no read good. Jamie, you appear to be disagreeing with Blake, but you're saying the same thing he did about four cylinders being better than two for making HP. Perhaps my brain is still foggy this morning. |
