Torque vs. Horsepower, Someone Help Me Sort Out These Numbers

[Tom]

I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

The Magna I'm riding is, by the numbers, supposedly a fairly quick
bike. But it doesn't FEEL like it. I've been told that Magnas are
notorious for having a mid-range "flat spot" -- if I open up the
throttle and let it run up to about 8 or 9k, yes, the thing is so fast
that it scares me (almost ;) But frankly, there's just no sane place
or way to do that in the city, so most of the time the bike feels very
mild -- almost kinda wimpy.

The impression I get is that some of the bigger, more "torquey" bikes
(like the VTX1800 I've been lusting after) have much flatter torque
bands, and a lot more "oomph" at low RPM (I believe that the 1800
makes 100ft/lbs at around 3000 RPM, which is much more doable in
city/crowded highway riding).

So, even though the Magna and the VTX1800 have almost the exact same
1/4 mile times, it seems like the VTX would in some ways be considered
a much quicker bike (at least as far as acceleration goes -- in the
twisties, the Magna would run, not walk, away from it). And I'll
admit it, I'm an acceleration junky -- I don't really want to go 200
mph (or even much over 100), and carving serious mountain zig-zags is
a bit scary, but just being able to twist the throttle and go from 40
to 70 in a heartbeat is a real visceral thrill.

SO, what do you more mechanically-inclined folks think -- am I on the
right track, thinking that a larger-displacement bike will give me
more of the low-RPM pull that I love? What's the difference between
horsepower and torque, anyway? Is 1/4 mile a good measurement for the
subjective "quickness" of a bike?

Help a newbie(ish) out! :)

-- Tom

[Chris Hornberger]

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.

In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.

That's the short answer.

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.
In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.
That's the short answer.

And wrong.

HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

[Rob Gill]

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.
In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.
That's the short answer.

And wrong.
HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

5252 is known as Watt's constant.
Torque(work) = distance(length of a lever) X Force
Horsepower on the other hand is the rate at which torque is being created.

[Robert Barr]

Post by Rob Gill
Torque(work) = distance(length of a lever) X Force
Horsepower on the other hand is the rate at which torque is being created.

Torque isn't work. Torque through angular displacement is work.
Therefore, torque x rpm = work = rate of energy transfer.

[Gniewko]

Post by Robert Barr

Post by Rob Gill
Torque(work) = distance(length of a lever) X Force
Horsepower on the other hand is the rate at which torque is being created.

Torque isn't work. Torque through angular displacement is work.
Therefore, torque x rpm = work = rate of energy transfer.

Nope. Torque x rpm = power, NOT work. Power is work per unit time.

-Gniewko

[James]

Dang, I love this conversation:

http://www.midwestmotocross.com/0303/ednote.html

James
00CR250

Post by Gniewko

Post by Robert Barr

Post by Rob Gill
Torque(work) = distance(length of a lever) X Force
Horsepower on the other hand is the rate at which torque is being created.

Torque isn't work. Torque through angular displacement is work.
Therefore, torque x rpm = work = rate of energy transfer.

Nope. Torque x rpm = power, NOT work. Power is work per unit time.
-Gniewko

[Timberwoof]

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.
In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.
That's the short answer.

And wrong.
HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

And that's just the mathematical relationship between torque and power
when measured in pound-feet and horsepower.

Tom, let's go back do a quickie review of physics.

Any object has mass and velocity. Velocity is how fast it's going and in
what direction. If you're just sitting there, then relative to your
desk, you have zero velocity. If you're on a motorcycle riding on a
freeway going north then you have a velocity of 65MPH northbound.

To change an object's velocity, you need a force. What's interesting
about masses is that they exert exactly that kind of force on other
masses. We're close to the Earth (my butt is about two feet away from
the floor) so we feel its attractive force -- gravity. We say how strong
the Earth's gravity is by saying how fast something would accelerate if
you dropped it: 32.2 ft/s^2 (or 9.8 m/s^2). That is, every second that
something is falling, it will fall 32 ft/sec (or 9.8 m) faster.

My chair is keeping me from accelerating toward the Earth. It is
exerting an upward force on my butt of 130 lb to match the force of
gravity that's trying to accelerate me downward, which is 130 lb.

So a force is something that can accelerate a mass. A mass is something
that you need a force to accelerate. (And there are no immovable objects
or irresistable forces in this universe.) With me so far?

Work is a force applied over a distance. If you lift an object that
weighs one pound up one foot, you have done one foot-pound of work. If
you did it in one second, you could calculate the power it took: one
foot-pound per second. If you did it in half a second, the power would
be two foot-pounds per second. But if it took you two, say, ten seconds,
that would be 0.1 foot-pounds per second.

So now we have mass, force, work, and power. Mass just sits there.
Force tries to move it. Work moves it over a certain distance. Power
does that within a certain amount of time.

Let's turn to torque.

Find a handy bolt sticking out of the wall. Slip a wrench over it and
attach a weight to the end. If the wrench is one foot long and the
weight is one pound, then it is exerting a torque of one pound-foot on
the bolt. You multiply the length of the wrench (or "moment arm") by the
amount of force applied to the end. So if you had a 6" wrench and a
2-pound weight, that would be the same torque. Or a 10' wrench and a
tenth-pound weight, it would still be the same amount of torque. (My
wrenches are magical. They don't weigh anything.)

Now none of this is doing any work: the wrenches aren't turning. If you
turn the wrench through a whole circle by applying that pound of force,
that's work. If it took you one second, that's power. Let's say that
pushing that foot-long wrench around by applying one pound of force at
the end took you one second. The work done is one pound-foot-second per
revolution.

Let's say that bolt was on there good a tight and it took 60
pound-foot-seconds to turn it one full revolution. Well, it's 60 seconds
per minute, so that's the same as one pound-foot-minute per revolution.
And that is 1/5250 of a horsepower.

So now we have torque, work, and power. Torque is force around a circle.
Work is torque over a full circle. Power does that within a certain
amount of time.

It takes force to accelerate a motorcycle. A little force will
accelerate a motorcycle slowly; a lot will do it faster. Force on a
wheel is best measured by torque. With the right gearing, the little
motor that opens and closes the plastic tray on your computer's CD-ROM
drive can apply as much torque as you want ... it just can't do it very
fast. That's where power comes in: how fast the motor can do the work of
accelerating the motorcycle.

Torque all by itself is not terribly useful as a number for an engine's
ability. There's this gearbox and final drive that changes the torque to
whatever range is needed. In first gear, any given engine speed can
produce a lot more toque at the rear wheel than in top gear ... but more
slowly. We have gearboxes because piston engines have this annoyingly
nonlinear torque curve: they're better at making torque at some RPMs
than others, and they don't make any at zero RPM. So as long as the
gearbox has the right ratios, I don't really care what the peak torque
is -- I want the engine to have a more-or-less linear torque curve.

Accelerating and maintaining top speed both require force and power. At
speed, there's no more acceleration to be done, but you have to push all
that air out of the way. So "Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH"
isn't true either.

[John P.]

Post by Timberwoof
Tom, let's go back do a quickie review of physics.

<Monty Python>
My.... Brain..... ...... ..... Hurts
</Monty Python>

[Moe Meantam]

Post by John P.

Post by Timberwoof
Tom, let's go back do a quickie review of physics.

My.... Brain..... ...... ..... Hurts

It's got to come out!

--
Al Brennan

'98 FLTRI
'98 T409 EN
'83 GR650
'57 6T owl tuna at hot mail dot com

[John Shirley]

Sometime before 08 Aug 2004, Timberwoof stated:

...<long, well-written, seemingly technically accurate description of mass,
force, work, horsepower, and torque removed>

Uh, it seems that you've got some spare time on your hands this weekend, eh?
;)

The REALLY amazing thing is that after one consider's the technical aspect
description of torque and horsepower, my lowly Ninja 250 is still capable of
doing 110 MPH even with it's Liliputian 27 RWHP and what, 14ft/lbs of
torque. =-)

[Timberwoof]

Post by John Shirley
...<long, well-written, seemingly technically accurate description of mass,
force, work, horsepower, and torque removed>
Uh, it seems that you've got some spare time on your hands this weekend, eh?
;)
The REALLY amazing thing is that after one consider's the technical aspect
description of torque and horsepower, my lowly Ninja 250 is still capable of
doing 110 MPH even with it's Liliputian 27 RWHP and what, 14ft/lbs of
torque. =-)

It just takes a while to accelerate up to that speed, and it won't go
much faster, right? It's using all of that power to push the air aside.

[Polarhound]

Uh, yeah.. What he said.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Timberwoof

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.
In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.
That's the short answer.

And wrong.
HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

And that's just the mathematical relationship between torque and power
when measured in pound-feet and horsepower.
Tom, let's go back do a quickie review of physics.
Any object has mass and velocity. Velocity is how fast it's going and in
what direction. If you're just sitting there, then relative to your
desk, you have zero velocity. If you're on a motorcycle riding on a
freeway going north then you have a velocity of 65MPH northbound.
To change an object's velocity, you need a force. What's interesting
about masses is that they exert exactly that kind of force on other
masses. We're close to the Earth (my butt is about two feet away from
the floor) so we feel its attractive force -- gravity. We say how strong
the Earth's gravity is by saying how fast something would accelerate if
you dropped it: 32.2 ft/s^2 (or 9.8 m/s^2). That is, every second that
something is falling, it will fall 32 ft/sec (or 9.8 m) faster.
My chair is keeping me from accelerating toward the Earth. It is
exerting an upward force on my butt of 130 lb to match the force of
gravity that's trying to accelerate me downward, which is 130 lb.
So a force is something that can accelerate a mass. A mass is something
that you need a force to accelerate. (And there are no immovable objects
or irresistable forces in this universe.) With me so far?
Work is a force applied over a distance. If you lift an object that
weighs one pound up one foot, you have done one foot-pound of work. If
you did it in one second, you could calculate the power it took: one
foot-pound per second. If you did it in half a second, the power would
be two foot-pounds per second. But if it took you two, say, ten seconds,
that would be 0.1 foot-pounds per second.
So now we have mass, force, work, and power. Mass just sits there.
Force tries to move it. Work moves it over a certain distance. Power
does that within a certain amount of time.
Let's turn to torque.
Find a handy bolt sticking out of the wall. Slip a wrench over it and
attach a weight to the end. If the wrench is one foot long and the
weight is one pound, then it is exerting a torque of one pound-foot on
the bolt. You multiply the length of the wrench (or "moment arm") by the
amount of force applied to the end. So if you had a 6" wrench and a
2-pound weight, that would be the same torque. Or a 10' wrench and a
tenth-pound weight, it would still be the same amount of torque. (My
wrenches are magical. They don't weigh anything.)
Now none of this is doing any work: the wrenches aren't turning. If you
turn the wrench through a whole circle by applying that pound of force,
that's work. If it took you one second, that's power. Let's say that
pushing that foot-long wrench around by applying one pound of force at
the end took you one second. The work done is one pound-foot-second per
revolution.
Let's say that bolt was on there good a tight and it took 60
pound-foot-seconds to turn it one full revolution. Well, it's 60 seconds
per minute, so that's the same as one pound-foot-minute per revolution.
And that is 1/5250 of a horsepower.
So now we have torque, work, and power. Torque is force around a circle.
Work is torque over a full circle. Power does that within a certain
amount of time.
It takes force to accelerate a motorcycle. A little force will
accelerate a motorcycle slowly; a lot will do it faster. Force on a
wheel is best measured by torque. With the right gearing, the little
motor that opens and closes the plastic tray on your computer's CD-ROM
drive can apply as much torque as you want ... it just can't do it very
fast. That's where power comes in: how fast the motor can do the work of
accelerating the motorcycle.
Torque all by itself is not terribly useful as a number for an engine's
ability. There's this gearbox and final drive that changes the torque to
whatever range is needed. In first gear, any given engine speed can
produce a lot more toque at the rear wheel than in top gear ... but more
slowly. We have gearboxes because piston engines have this annoyingly
nonlinear torque curve: they're better at making torque at some RPMs
than others, and they don't make any at zero RPM. So as long as the
gearbox has the right ratios, I don't really care what the peak torque
is -- I want the engine to have a more-or-less linear torque curve.
Accelerating and maintaining top speed both require force and power. At
speed, there's no more acceleration to be done, but you have to push all
that air out of the way. So "Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH"
isn't true either.

Hey, that's really good. Can I add that to the FAQ?

[Moe Meantam]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:14:46 GMT, Timberwoof

Post by Timberwoof
(my butt is about two feet away from
the floor) so we feel its attractive force

Dunno about anyone else, but I get a little creeped out hearing you
talk about the attractiveness of your butt.

--
Al Brennan

'98 FLTRI
'98 T409 EN
'83 GR650
'57 6T owl tuna at hot mail dot com

[Timberwoof]

Post by Moe Meantam
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:14:46 GMT, Timberwoof

Post by Timberwoof
(my butt is about two feet away from
the floor) so we feel its attractive force

Dunno about anyone else, but I get a little creeped out hearing you
talk about the attractiveness of your butt.

Hey, I'm an ice skater. Of course I have an attractive butt!

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Timberwoof

Post by Michael Sierchio
HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

And that's just the mathematical relationship between torque and power

Right -- because horsepower can't be measured directly -- what
a dynamometer measures is torque. Horsepower is a unit invented
to appeal to miners who used horses to drive pumps. Power is
energy per unit of time, whereas torque is a force unit.

[Margaret M.]

Timberwoof wrote:

snipola...

...and we just thought he looked cute on the ice. :-)
WTG, Woofie.
Mag

[Timberwoof]

Post by Margaret M.
snipola...
...and we just thought he looked cute on the ice. :-)
WTG, Woofie.
Mag

This is me being cute on the ice:
http://www.timberwoof.com/hockey/ontheice/index.shtml

[Margaret M.]

Post by Timberwoof
http://www.timberwoof.com/hockey/ontheice/index.shtml

Hard to believe what a little guy you are under all that padding. I
remember a few years ago when I visited your site for the first time.
I was surprised, to say the least. In Reeky, you seem larger than
life. :-) I particularly liked the gay hockey player stories. Then
again, I love anything that seems to break stereotype.
Mag

[Charles Soto]

Post by Margaret M.

Post by Timberwoof
http://www.timberwoof.com/hockey/ontheice/index.shtml

Hard to believe what a little guy you are under all that padding. I
remember a few years ago when I visited your site for the first time.
I was surprised, to say the least. In Reeky, you seem larger than
life. :-) I particularly liked the gay hockey player stories. Then
again, I love anything that seems to break stereotype.
Mag

Isn't it pronounced "ghee?" You know, all those french canadians...

Charles

[Margaret M.]

Post by Charles Soto
Isn't it pronounced "ghee?" You know, all those french
canadians...

Well, I know they're "oily". *groan*

*for the semi-literate...you know who you are*
ghee - a semifluid clarified butter made especially in India
Heh heh.
Mag

[Timberwoof]

Post by Margaret M.

Post by Timberwoof
http://www.timberwoof.com/hockey/ontheice/index.shtml

Hard to believe what a little guy you are under all that padding. I
remember a few years ago when I visited your site for the first time.
I was surprised, to say the least. In Reeky, you seem larger than
life. :-) I particularly liked the gay hockey player stories. Then
again, I love anything that seems to break stereotype.
Mag

Basically I'm making up for how I used to get beat up when I was a kid.
:p

[Chris Hornberger]

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Torque is the ability to move weight. Horsepower is power necessary to
maintain rpms under load, wind-resistance, etc.
In short, Torque gets you moving, Horsepower = MPH.
That's the short answer.

And wrong.
HP = (RPMs x torque) / 5252

Yeah, ain't Google grand?

Meanwhile, my apologies. I missed the fact that we were playing "most
technically accurate and obscure answer to a question asked in layman's
terms".

So, to refine my answer, the NET RESULT is that an engine with high torque
can move a heavier vehicle at a given RPM than an engine with lower torque,
and an engine that delivers higher horsepower can move a vehicle at higher
speed than an engine that delivers less horsepower.

[timeOday]

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"
The Magna I'm riding is, by the numbers, supposedly a fairly quick
bike. But it doesn't FEEL like it. I've been told that Magnas are
notorious for having a mid-range "flat spot" -- if I open up the
throttle and let it run up to about 8 or 9k, yes, the thing is so fast
that it scares me (almost ;) But frankly, there's just no sane place
or way to do that in the city, so most of the time the bike feels very
mild -- almost kinda wimpy.
The impression I get is that some of the bigger, more "torquey" bikes
(like the VTX1800 I've been lusting after) have much flatter torque
bands, and a lot more "oomph" at low RPM (I believe that the 1800
makes 100ft/lbs at around 3000 RPM, which is much more doable in
city/crowded highway riding).

Torque eh? Check out the new Triumph Rocket III. At 2300 CC, a
motorcycle of almost laughable proportions. 140 pound-feet of torque
from 2K to 3.5K RPM, decreasing steadily to 110 at 6000 rpm. Too bad
it's also over 800 lbs wet, but there you go.

[Tracer]

As I understand it,torque is "twisting force",the product of a big
crankshaft stroke.Horsepower is a unit of measurement which reflects the
peak ability to move a fixed weight a specific distance.Cubic centimeters
(engine size) can be produced therefore by a larger,or more numerous
bore(2,3,4,or 6 cylinders),or by a large stroke (as in the single cylinder
Dual sports.)Typically horsepower peaks at high rpm's,torque begins at low
revs,and peaks at lower rpms.It sounded good after a glass of wine anyway.
tracer

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"
The Magna I'm riding is, by the numbers, supposedly a fairly quick
bike. But it doesn't FEEL like it. I've been told that Magnas are
notorious for having a mid-range "flat spot" -- if I open up the
throttle and let it run up to about 8 or 9k, yes, the thing is so fast
that it scares me (almost ;) But frankly, there's just no sane place
or way to do that in the city, so most of the time the bike feels very
mild -- almost kinda wimpy.
The impression I get is that some of the bigger, more "torquey" bikes
(like the VTX1800 I've been lusting after) have much flatter torque
bands, and a lot more "oomph" at low RPM (I believe that the 1800
makes 100ft/lbs at around 3000 RPM, which is much more doable in
city/crowded highway riding).
So, even though the Magna and the VTX1800 have almost the exact same
1/4 mile times, it seems like the VTX would in some ways be considered
a much quicker bike (at least as far as acceleration goes -- in the
twisties, the Magna would run, not walk, away from it). And I'll
admit it, I'm an acceleration junky -- I don't really want to go 200
mph (or even much over 100), and carving serious mountain zig-zags is
a bit scary, but just being able to twist the throttle and go from 40
to 70 in a heartbeat is a real visceral thrill.
SO, what do you more mechanically-inclined folks think -- am I on the
right track, thinking that a larger-displacement bike will give me
more of the low-RPM pull that I love? What's the difference between
horsepower and torque, anyway? Is 1/4 mile a good measurement for the
subjective "quickness" of a bike?
Help a newbie(ish) out! :)
-- Tom

[Larry xlax Lovisone]

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

What's this... only sex education interested you in school???

The term horsepower was invented by the engineer James Watt...
He took noted of a 4 legged pony and deemed one horsepower at 33,000
foot-pounds of work in one minute. It is that arbitrary unit of measure
that has made its way down through the centuries and now appears on your
dyno chart...


1 HP...
Take your bike and hitch it up Watt's hay burning pony and yelled gitty
up... you will not move anywhere near quick but you'll feel the net
effect of 33,000 foot pounds of torque in a minute...

6.28 HP...
Enough about critters... let's install a fuel burning reciprocating
engine in your bike with the same 33,000 foot pounds of torque and spin
it just 1 rpm this will gain us 6.28 HP... OK that's quicker but we're
still basically horsing around...
(33,000 X 1 / 5252 = 6.28HP)

33,000 HP...
Horsepower Junkies dream about 33,000 foot pounds of torque spinning at
a lowly 5252 RPM... why??? because torque equals horsepower at 5252
RPMs... (Check any dyno chart) Ok now you have some serious go straight
into orbit velocity...
33,000 X 5252 / 5252 = 33,000 HP


Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

[Tank U]

Post by Larry xlax Lovisone

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

What's this... only sex education interested you in school???
The term horsepower was invented by the engineer James Watt...
He took noted of a 4 legged pony and deemed one horsepower at 33,000
foot-pounds of work in one minute. It is that arbitrary unit of measure
that has made its way down through the centuries and now appears on your
dyno chart...
1 HP...
Take your bike and hitch it up Watt's hay burning pony and yelled gitty
up... you will not move anywhere near quick but you'll feel the net
effect of 33,000 foot pounds of torque in a minute...
6.28 HP...
Enough about critters... let's install a fuel burning reciprocating
engine in your bike with the same 33,000 foot pounds of torque and spin
it just 1 rpm this will gain us 6.28 HP... OK that's quicker but we're
still basically horsing around...
(33,000 X 1 / 5252 = 6.28HP)
33,000 HP...
Horsepower Junkies dream about 33,000 foot pounds of torque spinning at
a lowly 5252 RPM... why??? because torque equals horsepower at 5252
RPMs... (Check any dyno chart) Ok now you have some serious go straight
into orbit velocity...
33,000 X 5252 / 5252 = 33,000 HP
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

If I can locate the starter button, my job is done!

Pie "R" square when the pie "R" Pizza Pie.

[Moe Meantam]

Post by Tom
I've never really understood the difference between torque and
horsepower. Is torque at a given RPM a better measurement of "power?"

Oh bloody hell here we go again. :-)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fpte.htm

"Torque is a force that tends to rotate or turn things."

"Work is simply the application of a force over a distance, with one
catch -- the distance only counts if it is in the direction of the
force you apply... Work is energy that has been used."

"Power is a measure of how quickly work can be done. Using a lever,
you may be able to generate 200 ft-lb of torque. But could you spin
that lever 3,000 times per minute?"

Anyhow, to get to the gist of your question, yep, the big twins tend
to have a flatter torque curve than the small inline fours, but, as
with everything in life, it is not black and white, but very gray.

Go on some test rides and buy what blows your skirt up. without
thinking too much about the physics. You know, like with girls. You
can pick something you like and have a lot of fun, without doing a lot
of study on pheremones and recombinant DNA.

--
Al Brennan

'98 FLTRI
'98 T409 EN
'83 GR650
'57 6T owl tuna at hot mail dot com

[buck12ga]

You know, like with girls. You

Post by Moe Meantam
can pick something you like and have a lot of fun, without doing a lot
of study on pheremones and recombinant DNA.
--
Al Brennan

Wow, what an excellent analogy! LMAO!

buck

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Tom
SO, what do you more mechanically-inclined folks think -- am I on
the right track, thinking that a larger-displacement bike will
give me more of the low-RPM pull that I love? What's the
difference between horsepower and torque, anyway? Is 1/4 mile a
good measurement for the subjective "quickness" of a bike?

In general larger bikes with larger cylinders give better low-RPM
torque. If you're not the kind of guy who likes to wring the snot
out of an engine, then, yeah a big twin is probably for you.

What you need is to find some dyno charts of the bikes you're
interested in.

Case in point, compare these:
Loading Image...
http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/cruisers98/dyno.html

You'll notice that the Magna makes about 45 ft-lbs of torque, but
peaks at over 80 HP. While a bike like the Intruder 1500 makes 75
ft-lbs of torque, but only manages to peak at less than 60 HP.

The other thing to notice is the RPM at which these things peak. The
Intruder peaks torque at 3500 RPM and HP at 4500 RPM.

The Magna, however, peaks torque at 7500 RPM and HP at 9000 RPM.

The point being, to get the most out of the Magna engine, you have to
rev it a lot higher than the Intruder.

Lots of Americans don't like to highly rev their engines. We were
raised on big sloppy V-8s that exploded if you revved them to 7000
RPM.

But Japanese engines are designed to be revved like that. Indeed,
they *want* to be revved like that.

So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.

[Steve T]

"M. J. Freeman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
:bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.

In English:

If you like to putt and thunder, (NASCAR) get a V-twin.
If you like to whiz and whirr,(Formula 1, Indy) get a sport bike.

I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Steve T
:So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
:bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.
If you like to putt and thunder, (NASCAR) get a V-twin.
If you like to whiz and whirr,(Formula 1, Indy) get a sport bike.

Not neccessarily. The Vmax and Magna both have zippy engines, and
are most definitely not sportbikes. Then there are too-comfortable-
to-be-a-sportbike bikes like the Bandit 1200 and FZ1.

Post by Steve T
I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
Celica.

So, out of curiousity, have you actually *driven* a Porsche?

Post by Steve T
I guess I should ride a Harley.

Or VTX, etc.

[Steve T]

"M. J. Freeman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:Not neccessarily. The Vmax and Magna both have zippy engines, and
:are most definitely not sportbikes. Then there are too-comfortable-
:to-be-a-sportbike bikes like the Bandit 1200 and FZ1.

There are exceptions to every rule. In general, sport bikes are
high rpm motors, v-twins (2 cylinder) are low rpm motors. How
many cylinders do the Vmax and Magna have?
:
:> I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
:> Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
:> Celica.
:
:So, out of curiousity, have you actually *driven* a Porsche?
:
But of course... and a Ferrari... And a 62 Galaxy with a 406 and
a 6-pack. Guess which one I would rather drive. My favorite car
that I have owned was a 68 Olds 442 with a 454 4-barrel. The MGs
were fun, but the Olds was more fun. (Although, I would think
about a 66 XKE convertible)

:> I guess I should ride a Harley.
:
:Or VTX, etc.

Or a Triumph Rocket III!!!

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Steve T
:Not neccessarily. The Vmax and Magna both have zippy engines, and
:are most definitely not sportbikes. Then there are too-comfortable-
:to-be-a-sportbike bikes like the Bandit 1200 and FZ1.
There are exceptions to every rule. In general, sport bikes are
high rpm motors, v-twins (2 cylinder) are low rpm motors. How
many cylinders do the Vmax and Magna have?

Four and four. In fact, V-fours. The V-Max was Yamaha's answer to the
V65 Magna. Which, sadly, Honda discontinued after '85.

On the other hand, there are a number of sportbikes with big V-twins.
TL1000S, SuperHawk, all the Ducatis, all the Moto Guzzis, etc. I guess
in motorcycles there are more exceptions than rules.

[Steve T]

"M. J. Freeman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:I guess
:in motorcycles there are more exceptions than rules.

Not really. Most sport bikes have short stroke, high RPM motors
that make horsepower rather than torque.

The Magna and VMax are relatively high rpm motors when compared
to most V-twins. I see them as a balance between torque and HP.
The Rocket III on the other hand seems to have both.

The 4 cylinder Beemers and the Gold Wing are in yet another
category, cars on two wheels.

I think there are several categories of motorcycle engines. Each
has its own advantages and disadvantages, thus, different people
with different riding styles prefer different styles of engine.

I try to keep at least two or three different types in my garage
at all times. Of course, I want at least one of each.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:I guess
:in motorcycles there are more exceptions than rules.
Not really. Most sport bikes have short stroke, high RPM motors
that make horsepower rather than torque.

"Horsepower rather than torque"? Well, that makes no sense.

[Moe Meantam]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:07:06 GMT, Timberwoof

Post by Timberwoof

Post by Steve T
:I guess
:in motorcycles there are more exceptions than rules.
Not really. Most sport bikes have short stroke, high RPM motors
that make horsepower rather than torque.

"Horsepower rather than torque"? Well, that makes no sense.

A better description would be peaky torque, high RPM versus flat
torque, low RPM. That's really what we're talking about. For the
uninitiated, the typical sprotbike has a peaky torque curve, where it
does not develop significant tour que until about halfway up its RPM
range, and then the tour que number shoots up dramatically. Your
typical V-twin cruiser develops roughly the same tour que number
throughout its entire RPM range. Add that the halfway point for the
generic sprotbike is above redline for the generic V-cruiser.

Exceptions, of course, occur, and approximations have been liberally
employed for purpose of discussion. :-)

--
Al Brennan

'98 FLTRI
'98 T409 EN
'83 GR650
'57 6T owl tuna at hot mail dot com

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Timberwoof

Post by Steve T
Not really. Most sport bikes have short stroke, high RPM motors
that make horsepower rather than torque.

"Horsepower rather than torque"? Well, that makes no sense.

Right. Your response was politer than mine would have been,
so I'll just second your comments.

[Steve T]

Michael Sierchio <***@tenebras.com> wrote:

:Timberwoof wrote:
:
:> In article <***@4ax.com>,
:> Steve T<***@no48panspam.com> wrote:
:
:>>Not really. Most sport bikes have short stroke, high RPM motors
:>>that make horsepower rather than torque.
:>
:> "Horsepower rather than torque"? Well, that makes no sense.
:
:Right. Your response was politer than mine would have been,
:so I'll just second your comments.

Give me a break. I didn't say "no torque." You both knew exactly
what I meant and are nit picking unnecessarily.

My HD makes more torque and less horsepower when compared to a
high-rpm sport bike which makes more horsepower and less torque
than my HD.

You knew that. You are just rude.

Pardon my piggyback on your post. Woof is in my killfile for
obvious reasons.

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Steve T
Give me a break. I didn't say "no torque." You both knew exactly
what I meant and are nit picking unnecessarily.
My HD makes more torque and less horsepower when compared to a
high-rpm sport bike which makes more horsepower and less torque
than my HD.
You knew that. You are just rude.

You're right! I was exercising restraint. You should see me
when I get worked up.

My point is that torque is measurable, and horsepower is
calculated. You don't get one without the other.

As for another poster's suggestion that Vee twins produce
more torque, my Ducati 749 has a power curve that looks
very much like a Japanese inline four. The two-valve
Ducs still have a flatter torque curve. The design of
the cylinder matters more than the number of cylinders.
The unlimited mono class of AFM has thumpers spinning
at 9000-10000RPM, and a 3000RPM idle is pretty good
for these engines. You wouldn't say that they're "torquey."

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Steve T
My HD makes more torque and less horsepower when compared to a
high-rpm sport bike which makes more horsepower and less torque
than my HD.

*Some* high-revving sport-bikes. A Hayabusa makes almost 90 ft-lbs of
torque.

I think what you mean is your HD makes more torque at low RPM.

[Steve T]

"M. J. Freeman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:*Some* high-revving sport-bikes. A Hayabusa makes almost 90 ft-lbs of
:torque.
:
:I think what you mean is your HD makes more torque at low RPM.

My Harley makes more torque than a Hayabusa at every RPM (within
its range 6500rpm redline). It is well over 90 pound feet.

The Hayabusa makes lots more horsepower than my Harley throughout
most of its rpm range.

The Hayabusa is a good example of a bike that makes considerably
more HP than pound feet.

[buck12ga]

Post by Steve T
:*Some* high-revving sport-bikes. A Hayabusa makes almost 90 ft-lbs of
:torque.
:I think what you mean is your HD makes more torque at low RPM.
My Harley makes more torque than a Hayabusa at every RPM (within
its range 6500rpm redline). It is well over 90 pound feet.
The Hayabusa makes lots more horsepower than my Harley throughout
most of its rpm range.
The Hayabusa is a good example of a bike that makes considerably
more HP than pound feet.

But Steve, your HD is obviously not stock. 90 Ft Lbs is an awfull lot for
a stocker. Compare your HD to a modified Busa.

buck

[Steve T]

buck12ga <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:But Steve, your HD is obviously not stock. 90 Ft Lbs is an awfull lot for
:a stocker. Compare your HD to a modified Busa.

Mine is only mildly modified. If I stroked it I could get lots
more torque and horsepower. I suspect that the Busa wouldn't gain
nearly as much as my HD without hurting the motor's reliability.

I'm no expert on performance modifications on Japanese
superbikes.

Harleys easily make about 1 horsepower and 1 foot pound of torque
per cubic inch. Stock, they only make about 3/4 of that. You can
gain another 25% or more in performance with less reliable
modifications.

[buck12ga]

I suspect that the Busa wouldn't gain

Post by Steve T
nearly as much as my HD without hurting the motor's reliability.

Steve, actually the exact opposite is true. The oversquare and DOHC-four
valve configuration of the four cylinder Busa engine allows it to survive
much higher output, per litre, than the wildly undersquare Harley
Davidson engine. Piston speed simply limits the RPM potential of the big
twin. Supercharged and turbocharged Busa's regularly make 250 HP in
reliable street going examples. Think Indy Car or Formula One when
considering the Busa powerplant. There has been a indisputable evolution
of the internal combustion racing engine. OHV engines made the UL or
flathead obsolete in competition. In the interest of more valve area and
higher RPM strokes got shorter and engine speeds got higher. OHC engines
spelled the doom of OHV engines in competition, all things being equal.
DOHC engines have a mechanical advantage over OHV ones even if they *are*
limited to the same RPM. Yes, OHV Nascar engines rev way high and have
commendable reliability but imagine, if you will, a DOHC four valve
engine of similar displacement, there would be no contest.

To be competitive with Suzuki four cylinder prostock drag engines, Vance
& Hines made their HD V-Rod engine into an OHV configuration. This allows
them to have an increased displacement limit of 2,000cc(maybe it's
2600cc), while the four cylinder DOHC Suzuki is restricted to 1600cc. I
believe the twin also gets a weight break as well. Amazing the lengths
the sanctioning bodies will go through to make everyone competitive. This
is not to say that I don't like Harley Davidsons, or their engines, I do.
It just seems to me that many HD enthusiasts want to believe their HDs
are something they are not. YMMV.

buck

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:*Some* high-revving sport-bikes. A Hayabusa makes almost 90 ft-lbs of
:torque.
:I think what you mean is your HD makes more torque at low RPM.
My Harley makes more torque than a Hayabusa at every RPM (within
its range 6500rpm redline). It is well over 90 pound feet.
The Hayabusa makes lots more horsepower than my Harley throughout
most of its rpm range.
The Hayabusa is a good example of a bike that makes considerably
more HP than pound feet.

But all those numbers go right out the window when that torque and shaft
speed is stuffed through a transmission. In the end, you still get
torque and power coming through the rear wheel and pushing the
motorcycle, and the one with more will go faster.

Comparing torque and power is like comparing amperes and watts. The
statement, "Type A makes more amperes than watts, but type B makes more
watts than amperes," is about as useful as the comparison between the HD
and Hayabusa engines above.

[Tom Quackenbush]

Steve T wrote:
<snip>

Post by Steve T
My Harley makes more torque than a Hayabusa at every RPM (within
its range 6500rpm redline). It is well over 90 pound feet.
The Hayabusa makes lots more horsepower than my Harley throughout
most of its rpm range.

<snip>

I just Googled "Hayabusa redline" and came up with 10,900 rpm. If that is
accurate I don't see how the Harley can produce more torque than the
Suzuki at all rpms to 6,500 while the Suzuki produces more horsepower
throughout most of it's range (0 to 6,500 rpms is more than half of the
range).

At any given rpm, horsepower is directly proportional to torque, yes?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post.

R,
Tom Q.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:07:47 -0400, Tom Quackenbush

Post by Tom Quackenbush
<snip>

Post by Steve T
My Harley makes more torque than a Hayabusa at every RPM (within
its range 6500rpm redline). It is well over 90 pound feet.
The Hayabusa makes lots more horsepower than my Harley throughout
most of its rpm range.

<snip>
I just Googled "Hayabusa redline" and came up with 10,900 rpm. If that is
accurate I don't see how the Harley can produce more torque than the
Suzuki at all rpms to 6,500 while the Suzuki produces more horsepower
throughout most of it's range (0 to 6,500 rpms is more than half of the
range).
At any given rpm, horsepower is directly proportional to torque, yes?
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post.
R,
Tom Q.

check out this link
http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa/

about 3/4 way down are hp/torque charts you can click on.

It would be nice to compare this to his Harley's dyno.


Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Chris Hornberger]

Post by Ben Kaufman
check out this link
http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa/
about 3/4 way down are hp/torque charts you can click on.
It would be nice to compare this to his Harley's dyno.

Yeah, but comparing a 'Busa and a Harley is like comparing apples and F150s.
You have to factor in gearing, weight, aerodynamics, aspiration, road
friction, etc.

These things are as different from each other as any bikes can be. About the
only thing they have in common is the fact that they'll both fall over
unattended.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 06:20:15 -0400, "Chris Hornberger"

Post by Chris Hornberger

Post by Ben Kaufman
check out this link
http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa/
about 3/4 way down are hp/torque charts you can click on.
It would be nice to compare this to his Harley's dyno.

Yeah, but comparing a 'Busa and a Harley is like comparing apples and F150s.
You have to factor in gearing, weight, aerodynamics, aspiration, road
friction, etc.
These things are as different from each other as any bikes can be. About the
only thing they have in common is the fact that they'll both fall over
unattended.

No one said that they were both "apples." It's just a discussion about
different types of engines.

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Steve T]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:

:No one said that they were both "apples." It's just a discussion about
:different types of engines.

Very different, but both are lots of fun to ride (well, OK, the
Busa is "scary-fun")

[Steve T]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:


:
:check out this link
:http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa/
:
:about 3/4 way down are hp/torque charts you can click on.
:
:It would be nice to compare this to his Harley's dyno.
:
Thanks Ben. Now I don't have to work from memory.

The Busa has a much flatter torque curve than I remember and peak
HP is well above what I remember.

My HD torque is a little better than the Hayabusa for the first
5000 rpm, mostly because the curve is flat between 88-98 pound
feet. They are pretty even to about 5700 and then I'm out of
business.

There's no comparison in horsepower after about 3000 rpm, but you
knew that.

I don't have a printed copy to scan, but several have been posted
over at a.b.p.m.h Roger Mauck has several printouts with several
different bike configurations.

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Steve T
The Busa has a much flatter torque curve than I remember and peak
HP is well above what I remember.

Now if Suzuki would just put the 'Busa engine in a Bandit-like bike
with a shaft drive, I'd be oh-so-happy.

Oh, and actually offer the thing in the U.S. The Suzuki GSX1400 looks
like it be a hell of a bike, but you can't get it here.

Check out the dynos at:
http://www.mcnews.com.au/testing/suzuki/gsx1400/Dyno.htm

120 ft-lbs of torque at 5000 RPM. Hell yes! Sign me up.

[Steve T]

Tom Quackenbush <***@bogusinfokingcon.com> wrote:

:At any given rpm, horsepower is directly proportional to torque, yes?

Correct me if I'm wrong butt...

I seem to remember the Busa making HP in the 130 range and torque
in the 65-90 foot pound range. The Busa torque curve wasn't flat.

My 95ci HD makes a peak of mid eighties HP and 93-98 pound feet
with a relatively flat torque curve from 2300 to 5700 RPM. The HP
curve runs up at about 45 degrees.

That indicates to me that I'm beating the Busa on torque
throughout the operating range and the Busa makes more HP than my
HD at pretty much every rpm.

Tell me where I'm wrong here. I don't claim to be an expert, but
I think I can read my torque/hp chart. I've only seen a Busa
chart once in a motorcycle rag. I'm working from memory on that
one.

[M. J. Freeman]

Post by Steve T
I seem to remember the Busa making HP in the 130 range and torque
in the 65-90 foot pound range. The Busa torque curve wasn't flat.
My 95ci HD makes a peak of mid eighties HP and 93-98 pound feet
with a relatively flat torque curve from 2300 to 5700 RPM. The HP
curve runs up at about 45 degrees.
That indicates to me that I'm beating the Busa on torque
throughout the operating range and the Busa makes more HP than my
HD at pretty much every rpm.
Tell me where I'm wrong here. I don't claim to be an expert, but
I think I can read my torque/hp chart. I've only seen a Busa
chart once in a motorcycle rag. I'm working from memory on that
one.

My original point was just that high-revving "sportbike" engines aren't
necessarily "low torque." Even if your HD makes more torque, you've
still got to admit the 'Busa torque curve ain't "low."

In the end, it's hard to generalize too much about motorcycle engines
based simply on displacement and configuration.

[Steve T]

"M. J. Freeman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

:My original point was just that high-revving "sportbike" engines aren't
:necessarily "low torque." Even if your HD makes more torque, you've
:still got to admit the 'Busa torque curve ain't "low."

You're right about that. The actual curves that were just posted
are pretty impressive.

And then, there's the Rocket III.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:At any given rpm, horsepower is directly proportional to torque, yes?
Correct me if I'm wrong butt...
I seem to remember the Busa making HP in the 130 range and torque
in the 65-90 foot pound range. The Busa torque curve wasn't flat.
My 95ci HD makes a peak of mid eighties HP and 93-98 pound feet
with a relatively flat torque curve from 2300 to 5700 RPM. The HP
curve runs up at about 45 degrees.
That indicates to me that I'm beating the Busa on torque
throughout the operating range and the Busa makes more HP than my
HD at pretty much every rpm.
Tell me where I'm wrong here. I don't claim to be an expert, but
I think I can read my torque/hp chart. I've only seen a Busa
chart once in a motorcycle rag. I'm working from memory on that
one.

Once the power goes though the transmission, the RPM and torque figures
change. I'd guess that in equivalent gears (1st for starting out,
whatever gear you want for highway cruising), the rear wheel torque and
HP can be higher for the 'Busa. I say "can be" because what it actually
is depends on the throttle setting.

[Tom Quackenbush]

Steve T wrote:
<snip>

Post by Steve T
Correct me if I'm wrong butt...

Hey, watch who you're calling "butt".

Post by Steve T
I seem to remember the Busa making HP in the 130 range and torque in the
65-90 foot pound range. The Busa torque curve wasn't flat.
My 95ci HD makes a peak of mid eighties HP and 93-98 pound feet with a
relatively flat torque curve from 2300 to 5700 RPM. The HP curve runs up
at about 45 degrees.
That indicates to me that I'm beating the Busa on torque throughout the
operating range and the Busa makes more HP than my HD at pretty much
every rpm.
Tell me where I'm wrong here. I don't claim to be an expert, but I think
I can read my torque/hp chart. I've only seen a Busa chart once in a
motorcycle rag. I'm working from memory on that one.

Even without looking at specific charts, your two statements seem to
contradict each other. If your Harley is making more torque at any
given RPM than the Suzuki, that means it's making more horsepower than
the Suzuki at that RPM.

If the Harley is making more torque at every RPM from 0 to 6500, that
means it's making more horsepower at every RPM from 0 to 6500. If
that's the case, than the Suzuki isn't making more horsepower than the
Harley throughout most of its operating range.

I don't claim to be an expert, either. If there's a flaw in my logic,
let me know.

R,
Tom Q.

[Steve T]

Tom Quackenbush <***@bogusinfokingcon.com> wrote:

: If the Harley is making more torque at every RPM from 0 to 6500, that
: means it's making more horsepower at every RPM from 0 to 6500. If
: that's the case, than the Suzuki isn't making more horsepower than the
: Harley throughout most of its operating range.

So at least up to 5400 or 5500 rpm (having looked at the Busa
chart), I've got the Busa beat with my Harley.

Ha! Now, all I have to do is put a rev limiter on all Hayabusas
and I'll kick their ass.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
: If the Harley is making more torque at every RPM from 0 to 6500, that
: means it's making more horsepower at every RPM from 0 to 6500. If
: that's the case, than the Suzuki isn't making more horsepower than the
: Harley throughout most of its operating range.
So at least up to 5400 or 5500 rpm (having looked at the Busa
chart), I've got the Busa beat with my Harley.
Ha! Now, all I have to do is put a rev limiter on all Hayabusas
and I'll kick their ass.

Those Hayabusas have a secret weapon. There's this little lever on the
left side, right in front of the footpeg. What the riders do if they
need more torque is to pull in the clutch and then keep pressing down on
that lever a few times. That activates the Super Secret Torque
Multiplier, which dramatically increases the amount of rear-wheel torque
with each press of the lever. Don't tell anyone. We want to keep it a
secret.

[buck12ga]

Post by Timberwoof
Those Hayabusas have a secret weapon. There's this little lever on the
left side, right in front of the footpeg. What the riders do if they
need more torque is to pull in the clutch and then keep pressing down on
that lever a few times. That activates the Super Secret Torque
Multiplier, which dramatically increases the amount of rear-wheel torque
with each press of the lever. Don't tell anyone. We want to keep it a
secret.

That is true. Thing is, they don't even need the secret weapon. Just
compare top gear roll-on times on the Motorcyclist Performance charts.
The Busa and the big GSXR are scary quick, at highway speeds, *without* a
downshift. Truth is, it would take a HD that was highly modified (almost
unstreetable)to even come close to these numbers.

buck

[Ben Kaufman]

Post by Steve T
:Not neccessarily. The Vmax and Magna both have zippy engines, and
:are most definitely not sportbikes. Then there are too-comfortable-
:to-be-a-sportbike bikes like the Bandit 1200 and FZ1.
There are exceptions to every rule. In general, sport bikes are
high rpm motors, v-twins (2 cylinder) are low rpm motors. How
many cylinders do the Vmax and Magna have?
:> I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
:> Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
:> Celica.
:So, out of curiousity, have you actually *driven* a Porsche?
But of course... and a Ferrari... And a 62 Galaxy with a 406 and
a 6-pack. Guess which one I would rather drive. My favorite car
that I have owned was a 68 Olds 442 with a 454 4-barrel. The MGs
were fun, but the Olds was more fun. (Although, I would think
about a 66 XKE convertible)
:> I guess I should ride a Harley.
:Or VTX, etc.
Or a Triumph Rocket III!!!

I think that it's more than an "exception." They are not dominant but there are
atleast 10 different V-twin sport bikes out there.

Buells,
Honda RC-51 and super hawk
Ducati Supersport 600 and 1000
Motoguzzi MGS-01Serie and Corsa
Suzuki Sv-650s and SV-1000s

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

[Steve T]

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-***@pobox.com> wrote:

:They are not dominant but

Exactly.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:Not neccessarily. The Vmax and Magna both have zippy engines, and
:are most definitely not sportbikes. Then there are too-comfortable-
:to-be-a-sportbike bikes like the Bandit 1200 and FZ1.
There are exceptions to every rule. In general, sport bikes are
high rpm motors, v-twins (2 cylinder) are low rpm motors.

That's only because the V-twins have pistons twice as large as those of
an inline-four with the same displacement.

My R1100GS, a 180-degree v-twin, has about the same RPM range as my
Civic Si, an inline-four.

Post by Steve T
How
many cylinders do the Vmax and Magna have?
:> I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
:> Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
:> Celica.
:So, out of curiousity, have you actually *driven* a Porsche?
But of course... and a Ferrari... And a 62 Galaxy with a 406 and
a 6-pack. Guess which one I would rather drive. My favorite car
that I have owned was a 68 Olds 442 with a 454 4-barrel. The MGs
were fun, but the Olds was more fun. (Although, I would think
about a 66 XKE convertible)

I would not want a car with a solid rear axle and a Panhard rod. They
get all wiggly over bumps. Ewww.

Post by Steve T
:> I guess I should ride a Harley.
:Or VTX, etc.
Or a Triumph Rocket III!!!

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
:bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.
If you like to putt and thunder, (NASCAR) get a V-twin.
If you like to whiz and whirr,(Formula 1, Indy) get a sport bike.
I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.

How about BMW R1100S?

[Moe Meantam]

Post by Steve T
:So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
:bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.
If you like to putt and thunder, (NASCAR) get a V-twin.
If you like to whiz and whirr,(Formula 1, Indy) get a sport bike.

Nice analogy, but those NASCAR guys pull over 9K in the straights.

Post by Steve T
I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.

Join the darkside!

--
Al Brennan

'98 FLTRI
'98 T409 EN
'83 GR650
'57 6T owl tuna at hot mail dot com

[Steve T]

Moe Meantam <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

:Nice analogy, but those NASCAR guys pull over 9K in the straights.
:
They explode at 9.3K. I could probably do that with my HDs if
they only had to last 300-500 miles.

:>I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
:>Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
:>Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.
:
:Join the darkside!

I can't afford a BMW. I'll stick with Harley. They are cheaper.

[Timberwoof]

Post by Steve T
:Nice analogy, but those NASCAR guys pull over 9K in the straights.
They explode at 9.3K. I could probably do that with my HDs if
they only had to last 300-500 miles.
:>I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
:>Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
:>Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.
:Join the darkside!
I can't afford a BMW. I'll stick with Harley. They are cheaper.

Wow. I'm so surprised! You're right! A Harley-Davidson is cheaper than a
BMW.
HD 1200 Sportster Roadster: $8615
BMW K1200LT: $20,130

And it turns out that a BMW is cheaper than a Harley-Davidson, too.
BMW R1150R: $10550
HD FLHTCUI Ultra Classic Electra Glide: $20,405

[Odinn]

Post by Moe Meantam

Post by Steve T
:So, my advice is to either un-learn your fear of high RPM, or buy a
:bike that peaks at the low RPM where you're currently comfortable.
If you like to putt and thunder, (NASCAR) get a V-twin.
If you like to whiz and whirr,(Formula 1, Indy) get a sport bike.

Nice analogy, but those NASCAR guys pull over 9K in the straights.

Post by Steve T
I'll take the 502 crate motor with two four-barrels over the
Ferrari; a GTO with a 389 over a Porsche; a 327 Chevelle over a
Celica. I guess I should ride a Harley.

Join the darkside!

9500 RPMs at Michigan this last weekend :)

[Steve T]

Odinn <***@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote:

:9500 RPMs at Michigan this last weekend :)

Formula 1: 18,000 RPM.

[buck12ga]

Post by Steve T
:9500 RPMs at Michigan this last weekend :)
Formula 1: 18,000 RPM.

Yup, Formula 1 has the pneumatic valves. Can you imagine, instead of
conventional valve springs, a little shot of air closes the valves. Some
teams also use pneumatic valves in MotoGP motorcycle racing.

buck

[Odinn]

Post by Steve T
:9500 RPMs at Michigan this last weekend :)
Formula 1: 18,000 RPM.

Average NASCAR specs

Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
Horsepower: 750 hp @ 8000 RPM
Torque: 520 ft. lbs. @ 6200 RPM
Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.

Average F-1 specs

Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
Horsepower: 900 hp @ 18,000 RPM
Torque: 265 ft. lbs. @ 16,000 RPM
Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.

[Michael Sierchio]

Post by Odinn
Average NASCAR specs
Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
Average F-1 specs
Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.

Which doesn't tell the whole story -- F1 cars need only last
2 hours, have a lot more rubber, and wicked downforce.

"Well, she'll do 202, but she won't do 203."

- A.J. Foyt, after crashing a stock car

[Odinn]

Post by Michael Sierchio

Post by Odinn
Average NASCAR specs
Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
Average F-1 specs
Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.

Which doesn't tell the whole story -- F1 cars need only last
2 hours, have a lot more rubber, and wicked downforce.
"Well, she'll do 202, but she won't do 203."
- A.J. Foyt, after crashing a stock car

Of course it doesn't tell the whole story, just as the RPMs hit doesn't
tell much of a story. It was just a comparison.

[Jack Bunce]

Post by Michael Sierchio
...
Which doesn't tell the whole story -- F1 cars need only last
2 hours, have a lot more rubber, and wicked downforce.

Nope... they have to last the whole weekend. Change the engine and you
loose 10 places on the grid.

[Steve T]

Odinn <***@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote:

:Average NASCAR specs
:
:Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
:Horsepower: 750 hp @ 8000 RPM
:Torque: 520 ft. lbs. @ 6200 RPM
:Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
:
:Average F-1 specs
:
:Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
:Horsepower: 900 hp @ 18,000 RPM
:Torque: 265 ft. lbs. @ 16,000 RPM
:Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.

I guess my comparison of

NASCAR=Torque
F-1=HP

wasn't so far off.

[Odinn]

Post by Steve T
:Average NASCAR specs
:Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
:Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
:Average F-1 specs
:Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
:Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.
I guess my comparison of
NASCAR=Torque
F-1=HP
wasn't so far off.

Yup. But then again, you don't need as much torque to move a 1200 lb
car as you do a 3400 lb car :)

[buck12ga]

Post by Odinn

Post by Steve T
:Average NASCAR specs
:Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
:Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
:Average F-1 specs
:Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
:Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.
I guess my comparison of
NASCAR=Torque
F-1=HP
wasn't so far off.

Yup. But then again, you don't need as much torque to move a 1200 lb
car as you do a 3400 lb car :)

And, you can make more torque with a 6 liter engine than with a 3 liter
one.

buck

[Timberwoof]

Post by buck12ga

Post by Odinn

Post by Steve T
:Average NASCAR specs
:Engine Size: V8 358CI (5866 cc)
:Curb Weight: 3,400 lbs.
:Average F-1 specs
:Engine Size: V10 3000cc (183 CI)
:Curb Weight: 1,200 lbs.
I guess my comparison of
NASCAR=Torque
F-1=HP
wasn't so far off.

Oh, come on. Take the output of the F-1 engine through a transmission
with a 0.39 gear ratio and you get...
Torque: 684 ft. lbs @ 6200 RPM.

(.39 is a ratio cleverly chosen to bring the F1's engine RPMs at its
torque peak to the same RPM as the NASCAR engine at its torque peak.
Multiply the RPMs and divide the torque.)

Now to make the comparison really interesting, let's select a gear ratio
to put the NASCAR's engine RPMS up to the range of the F-1 engine:
2.58.

Now the NASCAR engine makes 201 ft.-lb. @ 16,000 RPM.

What are the gear ratios in these race cars? I bet that in first gear
the F-1 car has loads more torque at the rear wheel than the NASCAR car.

The F-1 engine is more powerful than the NASCAR engine. Since both are
connected to transmissions that give optimal engine speeds for road
speed, the raw numbers don't really count for much.

Post by buck12ga

Post by Odinn
Yup. But then again, you don't need as much torque to move a 1200 lb
car as you do a 3400 lb car :)

And, you can make more torque with a 6 liter engine than with a 3 liter
one.

Nope. You can make as much torque as you want with an engine hooked up
to a gearbox.

This either/or thing with torque/HP is nonsense.