| Author |
Message |
    
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 06:03 pm: | 
|
You'll be seeing a V4 from Harley in the new future, bet on it. It may have been here already if it weren't for the economy.
That would be a great addition to the line-up. Should make a lot more power than the V-Rod series, and could still be made to sound pretty good.
Don't know how the faithful would react. Two nights ago a bar tender at our local "biker" bar informed me that Buells are yuppie bikes, but at least they have a Harley engine. |
Sparky
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 08:14 pm: |
|
IL4 vs V4, basically the IL4 can be lighter with the same displacement because only one head and cylinder assembly is required vs 2 for the V4. Lighter is better in racing. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Makes sense Sparky. Remember those old square four two-crank shaft two strokes.
There's some extra parts. |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 10:52 am: |
|
Doesn't the current Honda Interceptor, I think it's a 750+cc, run a V4? |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 10:56 am: |
|
"Two nights ago a bar tender at our local "biker" bar informed me that Buells are yuppie bikes, but at least they have a Harley engine."
I hear that I'm a "poser" alot more on my VRod than I ever did on my Buell. |
Hexangler
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 11:02 am: |
|
Poser--it's not the bike, it's the rider! |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 11:04 am: |
|
Harley armoured jacket, gloves, helmet, boots and glasses. I pose to live.
(Message edited by Buellinachinashop on July 31, 2009) |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 11:37 am: |
|
I hear that I'm a "poser" alot more on my VRod than I ever did on my Buell.
I would like to have a HD touring bike someday, but want nothing to do with the lifestyle crowd. Why a Buell is a yuppie bike is far beyond me, makes no sense at all. There is no respect whatsoever for a functional motorcycle if it does not have the right look. I don't get these people at all. They are like kids with Pokemon gear. HD jacket, shoes, underwear, coffee. Bandanna around the head instead of a helmet. Looks like Halloween every day at the bar down the street from me, where I was educated about the yuppiness of Buells.
Ignorance is bliss. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 12:23 pm: |
|
But Sparky, maybe there is more to consider than just weight? For instance what configuration engines are the top three factories in MotoGP running?
(Message edited by Blake on July 31, 2009) |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Oh. The NHRA drag bikes. Gotcha. My bad. I thought you meant the 1125RR and the V-Rod Destroyer or whatever it is called. I agree, the NHRA bikes don't have a lot in common with their namesake street machines. But they are allowed tech rules to make for better racing among different configurations of engines.
S&S is sure doing a great job with their engine.
I too enjoy Mr. Cameron's writing. |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Friday, July 31, 2009 - 12:55 pm: |
|
These arguments are retarded.
On the I4 side of the equation: Let's understand that people like to be able to measure concrete things. How many engineers are there here that can attest to that? Now, rationally, we can talk about power to weight mattering most or that a given engine configuration is inherently less capable than another - but at the end of the day, the seemingly dominant aspect of power output (displacement) is kinda tough to ignore.
On the, uh, Buell / AMA / Diversity side of the equation: Good racing is good racing. Historically, cars have been able to compete with various equalizing factors. Flat 6 Porsches well under 3 liters ran against monster cubed American Muscle - and the racing was good. Besides, why can't you guys figure out Dynamic Displacement? F1 is a great example. The FIA has lowered displacement limits - and the only thing that's happened is that the cars make just about the same power - just at higher revs. And this ridiculous focus on swept volume is nuts. You might as well focus on the number and length of someone's cylinder head studs.
My idiotic perspective: We DO need concrete measurement. Dynoing, well... Engine management being so available and sophisticated these days, it's easy to envision an ECU lying while on the dyno. ("I SWEAR I can't run a 4:40. Dunno how it happened on the track.") Why can't we go with EXTERNAL engine displacement? How much room does the engine take up? Or maybe engine weight? Build a rotary. Build a direct injected 2 stroke. Build whatever the eff you want. Make it 450 cc and 6 lungs - or make a 1200cc twin. Does it fit in the box (literally)? Great - come race. How about restricting the amount of fuel that can be carried? There's a freakin' idea - achieve power through efficiency. Last I checked, it takes a given amount of fuel to make a given amount of power.
The I4 contingent needs to either build 1125cc twins and shut up (let's face it, you probably COULD develop more power if you really tried) or wait until the Buell teams start to develop their packages into the more pwoerful / less reliable / more costly realm - at which time they'll get some sort of rewrite about displacement or something.
These arguments are lame. Watch & enjoy the races. Root for whoever you want.
If you've never raced at least a whole season in ANYTHING, go do so, then come back and talk about this stuff. The more you learn, the less clear cut these issue become.
-Saro |
|
