Bathurst 1000

<beatific smile> Yeahhhh....;-)

JL
(and apologies to all triples out there - yes I like them too - and
I'd love to have a 6 or an 8 one day ;-)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Singles are great for dirtbikes, twins are great for around town, triples sound
the best and fours are the best when you want to go really really fast.

Fraser

 

Err... not really. That sounds like having grunt instantly available
and (assuming you still want it) continuing to be available when you
change up.
Of course this would have to happen in other than the top-gear that we
generally travel in.

 

Personally I'd LOVE a diesel! I have fantasies of grafting a Jap 800cc
triple TDI onto a BMW or 'Guzzi gearbox and I can't imagine why the
major bike companies haven't already offered us one.

 

I'm not sure I'd say 'sounds better than a big twin', but a big triple
under acceleration (say a Sprint) does sounds lots better than a big 4
IMO. The motors feel nicer than an inline 4 also.

I'd certainly have a triple in my garage if I was picking my 5 bike
dream garage


G-S

 

Pfft Diesels belong in trucks and pseudo-trucks(1), they don't sound
good, they don't perform well in light vehicles (compared to a petrol
or electric equivalent). I'd rather have an electric thanks.

JL
1 4wd's, SUVs whatever you want to call them

 

Ahhh OK, so what you meant is "I like under-square motors" and weren't
experienced enough or smart enough to know how to articulate that.

If you want low max rpm with the torque at the bottom of the rev range
that's the engine config you want- it's got bugger all to do with the
quantity of the cylinders(1). Singles, twins or 4's will all display
that characteristic if the stroke is considerably longer than the bore
is wide. Add a big heavy flywheel in there if you want to just stay in
top gear the whole time.

Of course you give away most of the performance you could be
obtaining, that's why not many build engines to that config anymore -
pretty much all of them are in truck, boats and locomotives (and
usually in diesel).

If you're that lazy you probably should put an automatic transmission
on there while you're at it.

JL
1 the perceived correlation is actually more to do practicalities of
physical layout choices back when god was a boy as much as anything -
pretty much all modern engines are over square nowadays with the
exception of some throw back agricultural machinery.

 

Mine... : )

 

Am I making this up, or have the recent winning cars at the Le Mans
24-hour race not been diesels?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Personal experience and my own opinion. If you don't like it feel free to give
yours.

Fraser

 

I loved the scream that came out of my 675. Best noise ever.

Fraser

 

You and me both.

The half man-half horse in this video just sounds beautiful:


--
TimC

You're saying cats are the opposite of bijectiveness? -- ST in RHOD

 

Fraser Johnston wrote:

That would have been the Daytona?

It's a pity that the only way you can really enjoy the sound of the
Daytona 675 is when it's on the dyno.

Actually riding one is just too silly for words. ;-)

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Tell me about it. I got rid of it because it crippled me. I'm on the lookout
for a street triple now.

Fraser

 

Compare the BMW 320i and 320d engines in this link

http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2008/compare.html

The 320d is lclaimed to have a top speed of 228, the 320i 220
Acceleration to 100? 320d 8.0, 320i 9.0

I've driven both, for performance I'd choose the diesel any day. All
that and 6.0 l/100km.

Theo

 

Why? Which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range?
Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it
grunt." wasn't clear when I posted it half a week ago?
Hardly my fault that you read that as "I ride a twin but would rather a
supersports 4 because I like my torque-band at 10,000rpm".

 

And you continue to mistake of thinking the number of cylinders is the
relevant method of obtaining the rpm config you profess to like. The
4cylinder I replaced with my current twin had oodles of "low down
don't have to go looking for it grunt". My current twin has it's
torque peak further up the rev range than the 4 did. In fact the 4 had
probably half as much again grunt anywhere in the rev range as the
twin does.

It's not the cylinder quantity, it's the engine config (mostly the
bore stroke, but also the number of valves, the placement of valves,
the diameter and length of the exhaust and the presence or absence of
cross pipes in the exhaust train).

JL
And for the record the only bike i've ever owned with the torque band
that high is the two stroke

 

And which bit of "Yeah but who wants torque up the rev-range?
Twin-lovers like that lazy, low-down, don't have to go looking-for-it
grunt." led you to make such a bizarre conclusion JL?

Even if it wasn't insanely-hysterical; can you post some evidence to
show that a 4 has 50% more torque everywhere in the rev-range than a
comparable twin has?

Or is it just silly words and childish name-calling?

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:22 GMT

I love V-twins, but the two I own make most of their go high in their
rev-range.

But then they were made by a company that is making the same bikes
they made when they were some of the fastest production bikes
available.

Not all twin cylinder bikes do the tractor thing and not all people
who like them like tractors.

Zebee

 

One of the gruntiest bikes (at low revs) I've ridden was the K100RT I had
a while back. Under-square motor (stroke dimension greater than the bore
dimension) and it would pull cleanly from 1500 revs. A four cylinder bike
and grunty right through the rev range. Dunno if there is anything else
on the market currently that is under-square (with the exception of the
likes of Enfield Bullets).

What I've seen of big sports twins is that they are way over-square,
giving lots of hp and torque, but further up the rev range.

cheers, Bill

 

So you keep repeating. Have you got any evidence to back it up though?
I can't find a Norge or an 850 but there's a few Guzzi dyno runs here
and they all look pretty damn fat torque down low:
http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8556