Joined
·
45 Posts
Whats the new harley that is supposed to spank all jap litter bikes- is it a super bike or a sport cruzer?
You're a bit late for April Fool's, aren't you??Kingsolver said:Whats the new harley that is supposed to spank all jap litter bikes...?
Just to point a few things, 375 is not the dry weight, 375 is its running weight , and its officially 146Hp and 84 lb-ft.Mister Tee said:Interesting - that is the bike with the Rotax designed V-twin. Specs call for 147 hp and 82 lb-ft of torque - the horsepower is about on par for a 750 cc class machine. But, the dry weight is 375 lbs, which is also on par with a 750 cc class machine. It won't be class competitive with other 1000 cc supersports, but it's probably a fun ride nonetheless.
i think he was comparing the weight and general horsepower....not many sportbikes have that kind of tourque.JeffNights said:Just to point a few things, 375 is not the dry weight, 375 is its running weight , and its officially 146Hp and 84 lb-ft.
Buell designs thier bikes for the road and the twisty rides.
p.s. what 750CC class machine puts out 84lbs of tourque?
Correct - torque specs are fairly meaningless since you can compensate with gearing if you want - it's the torque to the wheel that counts, not at the crankshaft.Meat_Shield said:i think he was comparing the weight and general horsepower....not many sportbikes have that kind of tourque.
On a technical standpoint, i beg to differ, Tourque is actually the only measureable stat, Horsepower is actually just a formula equation.Mister Tee said:Correct - torque specs are fairly meaningless since you can compensate with gearing if you want - it's the torque to the wheel that counts, not at the crankshaft.
That said, I'm sure that big V-twin has a nice, flat torque curve, so I'm not discounting it at all. It looks like an impressive bike. I'd like to ride it.
Originally posted by Mister Tee
Correct - torque specs are fairly meaningless since you can compensate with gearing if you want - it's the torque to the wheel that counts, not at the crankshaft.
That said, I'm sure that big V-twin has a nice, flat torque curve, so I'm not discounting it at all. It looks like an impressive bike. I'd like to ride it.
Note that he didn't mention horsepower.Originally posted by JeffNights
On a technical standpoint, i beg to differ, Tourque is actually the only measureable stat, Horsepower is actually just a formula equation.
Ok, we will have to agree to disagree on your math.mkeeney said:Note that he didn't mention horsepower.
While it's true that torque is the measured quantity, it is torque at the wheel that produces acceleration. 40 ft-lbs. of torque at 10000 rpm engine speed is twice as much torque than 100 ft-lbs of torque at 2000 rpm engine speed when geared down to the same wheel speed.
Maybe I didn't explain the example well enough. The math is right though. There's nothing to disagree on.JeffNights said:Ok, we will have to agree to disagree on your math.
+1Mister Tee said:The point that I was trying to make is that acceleration and top speed are both limited by horsepower, not by torque. Any combination of RPM and torque that will result in equal horsepower, will give equal performance, geared appropriately.
The thing that makes big V-twin motors different than inline 4's in terms isn't that they can generally produce a higher numerical crankshaft torque, but it's because the torque (and horsepower) curve is more LINEAR, so there is more horsepower and torque available over a greater RPM range.
So, given equal horsepowers, big V-twins = less shifting, possibly of which could translate to faster acceleration under practical riding conditions, but not higher speeds.