Sorry mate. A bit slow getting back to this as I didn't get home from work until 3AM last night, as I stopped off at the Wolf Den to surf some bike porn.
Now, where were we?...lol. (BTW, I know we Aussies like to thread hijack and joke about it, but if this discussion is bothering anyone, please say so, and we can start another thread. This'll more than likely be my last post on this off topic bit anyhow...lol.
Ah yes...that flat torque curve.
Can't apply max torque cranked over with a knee on the deck. The throttle needs to be eased on gradually, so the rear tire keeps squirming all the way up to the next gear. This is why I reckon the FZ chart looks better. The power becomes available as you need it, and it's still there later on, if you know what I mean. The gobs (I believe that's the standard slang measure of torque in current usage
...lol) of torque might help for rolling on in a straight line, but aren't of much use with the rear tire slipping and sliding near the edge of traction through a turn, especially on the off camber bumpy glazed bitumen we have on my local faves..lol.
Even in a straight line the roll on isn't that spectacular IMO, judging by that Buell pictured above and two different MT01's I've ridden with that have a similar Torque to weight ratio as a Buell. Even the FZ6 was a match for the MT01's after the first 3-4 metres when taking off from the lights (the standard traffic light drag race...lol.), after all if you're slipping the clutch right on a screamer, the front wheel starts to lift almost immediately and that's about as much torque as you can use.
The biggest advantage I can see to a low revving torque producing engine is the engine life game. Each rev is one rev closer to death. If your bike doesn't rev the donk should last longer. This I'm sure is one reason why the sports tourers are 'De-tuned. Sports riders theoretically want the ponies, but commuters do all the km/miles so they have them revving less so they go for a 'Happy Medium'. In this neck of the woods with the selection of roads available, I reckon the screamer end of the happy medium is the more versatile option.
If I'm on the gas through the apex, and feeding it on at the limit of traction, an FZ8 (back on topic
...lol) will, with it's reasonable (relatively speaking) torque will keep up for a short distance (due to traction limits being equal for both bikes) and will then start to fall off as I really start to roll on. Then he'll run off the edge of his power curve and have to change gears, and will be trying to push a 'taller gear'. In the 2oo metres to the next turn he will fall back drastically. If he could rev longer he'd be at the 'start to fall off' section for longer but will be falling off a little more for the same result (that's dictated by HP). But, he could also probably have a better go at it on the 'D' road if it was a screamer...lol.
Definitely not saying the FZ8 is garbage. It'll definitely be fun in the hills, and go harder than an FZ6. I like the looks, I think it'll sell well:cheer:. I just expected a more revvy option in keeping with the FZ6 and 1.
From that second link, the grab rails on the faired version and none for the nekkid (like the FZ1) will keep the nekkid version looking a bit sportier like the Z's and give you the grab rails on the more touring inclined bike. Makes sense IMO. :thumbup:
I've got typers cramp
...lol.
Nice to have a reasonable discussion on a different point of view, without the carp and abuse that are rife on some forums.:cheer:
Oh. And no one's is bigger than mine....LMAO
Cheers
Mike
on my way up or he rides in a straight line. Not even a 200rwhp job. The ZR7 hinged pogomobile flogged R1's up there in the very tightest bits.
