Dry v Wet v Kerb Weight

In this week's issue of AMCN, a reader has written in to ask why AMCN lists the
different weight measurements for different bikes and why can't it have the same
weight type for all bikes.

AMCN responded saying that each manufacturer who offer bikes for reviews do it
differently and that it often can't get the bikes weighed.

Fair enough. However, I'd like to know - what's the difference between wet and
kerb weight?

I first noticed this kerb weight thing when I read the first reviews of Honda's
VFR1200. It listed the bike as around 260kg "kerb weight".

Despite lots of Googling and question asking in various forums I never did find
out how much it weighs compared to my dry weighted 217kg Blackbird...

 

I'm pretty sure kerb weight and wet weight are the same measurement.
Bike with a full radiator, sump and petrol tank, ready to ride.

Nev..

 

At one extreme Guzzi list kerb weight which, in their case, is as ridden,
with a full tank of fuel. I've also seen kerb weight as with 4 litres of
fuel. The difference would be 20 litres or 14 kg for a Guzzi.

Manufacturers that list dry weight generally mean, no fuel, no oils and no
battery. Makes their bikes sound really light. A full tank of fuel will add
14 kg for a 20 litre tank. Oils will add another five, and the battery at
least eight, which will get your Bird to 244, not that much les than the
VFR.

When I had my first Guzzi I filled the tank and rode it to a weighbridge.
Parked on the bridge and asked the guy how much. He said do you want to know
how much it weighs or do you need a ticket? I said Huh? He said, it weighs
241 kg but if you want that in writing I'll have to charge you $5. The
brochure said it weighed 240 kg.

Theo

 

Theo Bekkers wrote...

Thanks Theo, but I was more interested in how they worked out this new kerb
weight standard.

But, as for dry weight, if they're all weighed the same, at least there's a
basis for comparison.

Now, with kerb, wet and dry weight measurements I have no fucking idea any more
(or some may say, "any less").

And the bike mags could do us a better service by standardising their reviews.
Lash out, buy a bloody weightometer and use it. Don't merely rely on press
releases for their reviews.

 

Worth having a look at:-
http://ols2.rta.nsw.gov.au/rvd/sear...c38KbxiObO0Schb0glbGmkTylN4?submitValue=start

The RTA's weight numbers don't always agree with the manufacturer's
quoted numbers, and I believe the RTA may actually weight a real life
one. How much fuel, oil and coolant may be in it at the time.... <shrug>

Sorry, I dunno how to make a wee URL.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

For long URLs , you can either put angle brackets around the URL ,
eg < long url address > to keep the address altogether without breaks
or you can use TinyURL to make a short URL.

< http://tinyurl.com/ >

 

And even if they had a standardised weight system, it still wouldn't be
a level comparison, because two bikes of similar style and weight might
have completely different weight distributions - CoG etc, eg a standing
upright harley style 45° V-twin with a fuel tank mounted traditionally
above the engine/frame vs a bike with a yamaha style leaning forward
4cyl engine mounted very low and an under seat mounted fuel tank.

Nev..