| Author |
Message |
    
R1DynaSquid
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:25 am: | 
|
Torque numbers for a few bikes.
XB12R 77.5 ft lbs @ 6750
CBR1100XX 83.7 @ 7250
ZX12R 91.4 @ 7750
GSXR1000 78 @ 8250
R1-03 model 73.4 @ 8250
R1-04 model 81.2 @ 10500 |
R1DynaSquid
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:28 am: |
|
Smadd, yes the roll on times are from Motorcyclist as are the torque figures.
But I checked several different sources & in each case the numbers came up the same. |
Kaudette
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:50 am: |
|
No way is that the 600 Bandit - even if you wring the neck of the little thing it will NOT keep up to 100 mph with an Aprilla Mille or 999 - NO WAY...
I think your source got the 1200 Bandit mixed up - the 600 with the 1200.
Sure, the litre bikes are faster but you better be in a straight line as when the wheel lifts at 90 when you shift into 2nd gear things tend to get a bit hairy...
I'll take my 999S Red Please!  |
Wrswthrstate
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 08:56 am: |
|
Check Sportrider.com. they have a ton of numbers. |
Wrswthrstate
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 09:09 am: |
|
Dyna took the fastest roll on times out of each manufacturer group, there are plenty of bikes from every manufacturer that the Buell (XB12R) beats. The Buell beats every RC 51 made in top gear roll-ons, forget to post those numbers?? But there are other Honda's that wax the 12R.
Like I tell my buddies, if I wanted the fastest bike on the street, I would have boughten it. You have to take the good with the bad, and decide weather personality is more important then the body (o)(o), sounds like a question a lot of guys are wrestling with. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:31 am: |
|
I have ridden a bandit 600 and am not buying that number. A 1200, for sure.
|
Glitch
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:33 am: |
|
If my Bandit had done that I might have kept it. |
Johncr250
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
I used to own an RC51 and the reason their performance numbers are so (relatively) slow is that in order to pass EPA sound testing they are all rediculusly overgeared.
You have to go way over 100 MPH just to get out of 2nd gear. But once you drop the countershaft sprocket a few teeth hold on.
Many bikes including Buells have the potential to go alot faster when they are just setup correctly. |
Wrswthrstate
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Sportrider lists roll on times for the '01 Bandit 1200S, as 60-80 at 4.08, and 80-100 at 6.3 with no data for quarter mile of top speed.
Does anybody have numbers for some of the new naked bikes out there? |
R1DynaSquid
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:12 am: |
|
the fastest roll on times out of each manufacturer group,
And I took the time for the XB12 rather than the XB9 because the topic was The 12's beat most everything out there for that I think, and that's not just spec sheet racing What should I have used? A Rebel 450?
BTW...there were also quite a few bikes other than those I posted which are faster also. I didnt feel like posting 35 bikes however. |
Wrswthrstate
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:17 am: |
|
Blah Blah Blah,
|
Wrswthrstate
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:20 am: |
|
Actually in those specific roll on categories the XB12 beats quite a few of the I4's (more then half), but thats about as far as it goes.
The sportrider site is a good site for test info though and the numbers were almost identical to the ones posted by Dyna.
|
Kaudette
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Dyna - you still have your HD? And the Buell?
You know, I'm seriously considering a medium term plan to pick up a Duc 999S with magnesium wheels and a full 54mm termi setup - 140hp twin that should just fly like the wind.
I will still keep the XB12S and will most likely at some point in the next 5 years try to pick up a BMW 1200GS for the long trips. I can clearly see a place for each in my basement/garage, and a purpose for each out on the open road. I don't think I could be fully content with only one of the above.
That being said, each brings it's unique joys to the riding experience which more than compensates for the speed/character/comfort issues with each.
Some try to find the perfect bike for all occassions - I prefer the perfect occassion for THE bike.
So Dyna - how does your HD stack up to the R1 in the quarter mile?? Does it really matter? Didn't think so. |
R1DynaSquid
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Some try to find the perfect bike for all occassions - I prefer the perfect occassion for THE bike.
Kaudette, exactly. Thats why I have different bikes for different styles of riding. The arguments fly when folks seem to think that 1 bike can do it all best.
|
Smadd
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:57 pm: |
|
"So Dyna - how does your HD stack up to the R1 in the quarter mile?? Does it really matter? Didn't think so."
What a concept! Having a bike that you don't have to defend through numbers! A bike you can just putt comfortably along on, enjoying the ride! Sometimes it is refreshing... and very stress relieving... to just hop on the 'ol big twin for a relaxing jaunt down the road. Good therapy. I need another one... as I need all the therapy I can get! (Hmmmm... perhaps the "City" bike is one way Buell can get beyond the "numbers" shoppers.)
Steve |
Mikep
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 01:40 pm: |
|
The reason the bikes with the highest HP get to 100 mph faster is because (and yes, you do have to take into account the gross racing weight) HP is a measure of how fast you do the work. More HP (given equal weight) = faster 0 - 100 mph time. Simple.
mikeyp |
Mr_cuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Nuts! Just when I was feeling like we have some little corner of the spec sheet we could wave if the conversation went that way, Dyna took it away! I thought the 12 was more dominant in those times than it is, but as Homer says "Oh well, live and learn." I used to own a SuperHawk, and that too has only one little spec. advantage, 60-80 roll on, and unless I am mistaken, at the time it could beat an R1 at that one little thing, but that was then this is now, and this is a Buell board, not SuperHawk. Obviously, for whatever reason, most all of us chose the XB over the GSXR1000, R1, or ZX. So at least HERE it is the winner in the Cuellness Contest. If there is a such a thing. Maybe there isn't. I'll shut up now. |
Hogs
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Mikep would not the Torque curve mean more to that than the hp???I wd. think the more torque UP to a certain Speed wd. pull one faster ..maybe its not 100mph but maybe its 80 or 75 or 90 Torque is the pulling power here not hp. all other being equall.But I may be 100 % wrong ..BUT then again.... |
Hogs
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 04:45 pm: |
|
a bike with lots of hp but low on torque.. and one with loads of torque and low on hp all other being equall which wd. get to 100 mph say first?? |
Johncr250
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 09:49 pm: |
|
The XB`s might not be able to keep up latest and greatest of Literbikes in terms of HP, but they are not slow by any means! |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:35 pm: |
|
HP is torque at the rear wheel. HP will always win. The overall drive ratio converts little torque and high rpm at the crankshaft to high torque at the rear wheel.
The only place a low torque engine sucks is in the bottom end until it can spin up to at least the halfway point in its rev range. Once it's there in the meaty part of its torque curve, the torque at the rear wheel is also there.
edited by blake on July 20, 2004 |
Hogs
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Blake
Having said that ..Where does all the torque that a xb12 put out way down low compare to a jap bike which has less and really then not until 6 or so thousand comes on ..so hows that for an advantage on pulling power same weight lets say as a jap bike or whatever bike compare to a xb12 pulling down low... I know like I said on my Stroker big twin I eat 10 second lay daown down jap bikes with wheelie bars the whole nine yards down atleast to about halfway down the quater mile strip and then they leave me sitting still as to speak..and I know my xb12r pulls as strong as the stroker if not more due to the big difference in weight.. So I wd. Think I wd. smoke a R1, whatever At least to halfway down the quater mile track... |
Josh_
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:46 pm: |
|
>Torque numbers for a few bikes.
peak FJR1300 87.6 @ 6800RPM
>compare to a jap bike which has less and really then not until 6 or so thousand comes on
FJR1300:
2500RPM - 65ftlbs
9000RPM - 65ftlbs
(see peak torque above)
|
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:15 am: |
|
Chris,
Think of the tranny as a torque multiplier. The trannies for high revving IL4s multiply the engine torque by about twice what the tranny for a Buell does at the same road speed.
For instance, a turbine engine spinning at 20,000 rpm may only put out 50FT-LBs of torque, but it is putting out 190 HP. What matters most for racing is HP, that's it.
Big torque give you more HP down low.
HP=T*RPM/5252
or...
T=HP*5252/RPM
At the rear wheel you replace engine rpm with wheel rpm you get the torque being put down at the rear wheel. So you can see that a bike with half the torque but twice the revs of another will have the same HP. Or bikes with the same HP will achieve comparable torque at the rear wheel.
A skilled drag racer on an R1 or even and R6 will eat your lunch. They can launch at high revs and feather the clutch to keep the engine there in the optimum powerband until the bike is up to speed where the clutch is then fully engaged.
I hope that makes sense. |
Hogs
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:52 am: |
|
Well Blake it all makes sense on paper I guess as you say....However. It still don`t explain BY the seat of the pants Feel I get on my xb12 compare to my big inch stroker like I say which has to weigh in plus 100 to 150 lbs heavier than the xb12 which feels to me moves down the road as quick if not Quicker... Why I smoke 10 to 10.5 jap bikes on the quater mile to atleast halfway down the quarter mile track, and yes at approx: that point they scream by me like I`m sitting Still..I take it that one af the reasons IS HArleys run out of gearing plus Horsepower as you say...IT sure looks GOOD heres a guy on a Street big twin HArley line up on the quater mile against these lay down jap rockets Built for the quarter mile NOT street and I Smoke em every time ..You got to like that it LOOKS good.. So all the paper logic etc. etc. MEans •••• in actual sight when one sees with their own eyes ..as I said before IF I can play on the street etc. and have atleast or more pulling power torque up to 70 ,80,90 as all them Rockets I Dont give a •••• that all can do 300 miles an hour •••• who gives a •••• on a BUell never bought it for that..IF I did want to go those speeds I wd. have bought the same bike a buddy I was talking to last night has ZX10r Wicked bike for the twisties and TOP END but I`m sure I can play with him like I say up to 70 ,or 80 or so mph..on my XB.. Explain that if you can Blake and Thanks for the info...btw I`ll put this to rest LOve my XB :-) TORque down LOW RULES...:-))) |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 08:40 am: |
|
One other relevant point... Both torque and horsepower figures are instantaneous, not area under the curve.
Think of it this way. I am going to make you either a billionaire for life or a millionaire for life. You would rather be a billionaire, right?
What if I said the millionaire gets the money today, until they die. But the billionaire gets the money at the age of 95, until they die. Then which do you want to be? A billion is a lot more, but it does not help you if you don't have it when you need it.
The nature of the area under the curve is where the Buells rule relative to the middleweight bikes, like the 600 inline fours or the SV650.
Relative to the hyperbikes, like the TL1000, RC51, R1, the Buell is "not bad". You basically get the part of the powerband that most of these riders end up using on a regular basis for normal street riding, just not "the rest of it", the parts they would use on the track, or for an occasional weekend straightline romp to "scare themselves silly" and get their bike impounded.
Thats why I love my Buell. I like the fact that at any RPM, I can just twist the throttle, and get a really hard pull. I could care less about the absolute top end, I never use it. So the Buell gives me the bottom half of a TL1000, or GSXR1000 or whatever, without the top half. That's plenty for me (and in reality, what most riders of the hyperbikes actually use on the street 99.9% of the time).
One more factor on area under the curve. A bike that has a high horsepower peak at high RPM, but low horsepower at lower RPM (like a 600cc inline four) accelerates like you are going down a roller coaster.... teter on the edge... fall over... speed builds... speed builds.... speed builds... and you are flying. A bike with good horsepower down low and a nice flat torque curve feels more like being shot out of a rubber band.... Pow!... then a steady hard pull.
The roller coaster will win in the long run, but (IMHO) being shot from a rubber band is a hell of a lot more fun. Both types of bike have their place though, and both are reasonable to enjoy.
|
Hogs
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Reepicheep I`m with ya 110% Buddy :-) The old rubber band Feeling MHAhahahah Right on Bro... |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 07:17 pm: |
|
Chris,
Your Harley is likely geared much lower, which is a big advantage in a 1/8 mile race. Your Harley is also longer and lower, which is a huge advantage in 1/8 mile racing. Your opponents are fighting wheelies and still feathering the clutch in 1st gear while you are power-shifting into 2nd at WOT. Make more sense now?  |
|
