Triples, Twins, That's All

[Motogiro]

+5 ^^



Who here has ridden the CrossPlane I4? I rode an R1 and was very surprised at how it simply made a different vibration. I really thought it would be smoother but its not. Its power delivery is great but its far from vibration free.

I had an 09 R1 crossplane crank. I totaled it in 2010. Yes I was injured.

The R1 was geared high and for good reason. It produced torque down low and that bike was always out of the gate at a surprising rate. If I could afford another I'd be on one again. The bad thing about that bike is the introduction to a different way of making power. It makes it hard to go back to the standard I4 feeling. That's why I opted for a short stroke V-twin instead of another I4 bike. If I could afford to have an FZ6 and keep my SV I would certainly do it because of the great performance features as well as the do it all character of the FZ6.
People talk about the crossplane engine having less oomph in the top revs. I guess you could say your cargo shorts are great except they're not long enough to keep your ankles warm. The fact is it does not have less. It produces power the way it's supposed to with torque early on and less inertial torque interference from the crank and awesome throttle control. It's oomph is bottom and midband torque that is much wider than a conventional I4. So it's work is done early in the game.

Ask Hildo about torque! Lol! His Rat Harley is 70 HP and the Honda is 180 HP.
The Rat produces torque that overcome the static inertia of a much heavier bike. Yes. If the Honda was given enough distance it would overtake the Rat and leave the Rat in the dust but the idea is how torque give an advantage.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myGMlgk3PuI"]Rat Bike Harley vs Fireblade - YouTube[/ame]

You really can't compare metric or American cruiser V-twin engines to the Ducati, SV/Widowmaker, RC51 and Superduke/RC8 V-twin engines. No I didn't forget Eric Buell's/Rotax V-twins. They are all V-twins but the design likeness stops there which is evident when you twist the throttle. Now we're seeing 1200cc V-twins producing 180 HP. and with the advantage of inherent V-twin torque.

Here's a twin working out on Pikes Peak.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTiTPAusog4"]Greg Tracy's under 10:00 race run at Pikes Peak! - YouTube[/ame]

What about V-4's!? This is another great engine that I don't think we see enough of. RSV4, Tuono V4, and Honda is making the VFR again! Not as economical to produce or service?

I think we'll see a half faired I3 in the near future but then again shareholders are in boardrooms listening to marketeers! :tard:

 

[Carlos840]

That first video was great!

 

[FinalImpact]

That first video was great!

^^ saw that a while ago here. Pretty funny!

Cliff,
I wasn't trying to imply it didn't make power! I said it wasn't as Smooth vibration wise as I expected. But yes, very linear as it should be w/out the Zing at the End! So, where do we go to hear "that story of R1 vs Cliff?"

hindsight says our 6 is like a 2 stroke "on the pipe!" It has a nice Happy Spot! :thumbup:

 

[Water Bear]

Ask Hildo about torque! Lol! His Rat Harley is 70 HP and the Honda is 180 HP.
The Rat produces torque that overcome the static inertia of a much heavier bike. Yes. If the Honda was given enough distance it would overtake the Rat and leave the Rat in the dust but the idea is how torque give an advantage.
Rat Bike Harley vs Fireblade - YouTube

That is exactly the video I had in mind! Our engines develop peak horsepower up high, and poor torque down low. Torque is king when you aren't going 150 mph.

 

[FZ09Bandit]

don't have time to thank everyone for posting in this fine thread, but i will get around to it

man, i thought when i got this bike i had one of the quickest bikes on the road. and OK, i do! its fast

but how dare Yammy abandon me at the beginning of my riding career! i found these numbers for the triple. how can this be true? these are near liter bike numbers, quicker then a current gen r6 or a previous gen r6. it's 8/10th of a sec faster to 60mph then the FZ6 if these numbers are correct

how can Yamaha put THIS triple in such an....interesting looking bike? at least give us something that LOOKS half fast!

2014 Yamaha FZ-09 - 0-60 mph 2.7 - Quarter Mile 10.6

Wonder what the times would be with good suspension and the front wheel down in A MODE which is damn impossible

 

[thisisbenji]

That is exactly the video I had in mind! Our engines develop peak horsepower up high, and poor torque down low. Torque is king when you aren't going 150 mph.

Just gotta launch at peak torque, I usually stick to around 8,000 though. My tires can't handle much more than that.

 

[Water Bear]

Just gotta launch at peak torque, I usually stick to around 8,000 though. My tires can't handle much more than that.

The point is, Harleys develop more peak torque, and at lower RPM. Triples and twins in general probably do this.

More torque means more acceleration. (Edit: With the caveat that you keep weight the same).

Further edit: And now that I think about you can't get 8k rpm of torque on the ground at launch for the simple reason that the rear wheel speed isn't matching 8k rpm of engine speed, so you have to clutch slip.

 

[kenh]

I understand that from a business standpoint the larger displacement fewer cylinder engines will win out as they satisfy the numbers and that's what it is really about. However ever since I first listened to a Lamborghini Countach with a V-12 and I believe a displacement of around 5 litters, in the late 1970's, I fell in love with that multi-cam/multi-valve configuration. The FZ-6 embodies that same concept and produces that same music.

 

[2old2ride]

I agree on what you said, but go ride a FZ09 and your opinion will change. I guarantee it.

Btw, I'd say 10% is a pretty good number. Considering the amount of bikes that even see road miles is probably low judging by the mileage of supersports on craigslist. I'm still baffled at how a 6 year old bike only has 3,000 miles, I put twice that much on mine each year.

I did. Last friday, 4 days ago. I just turned 21,000 and took it in for the valves. I'm comfortable working on bikes EXCEPT FOR VALVES. Not sure why but I just screw up by the numbers. All my fingers become thumbs and I lose about 2 parts per second. After I did the valves on a 600 can 'o tuna 3 times before taking my walk of shame, I figured I had found my limitation and there was no point in pressing the issue. So I don't do valves. Anyway, he 'lent' me an FZ-09 to ride while mine was getting worked on.
I like my Fazer better.
I like going fast. That is why I ride. My FZ-6 has a better top end then the 09. The 09 has more torque but after a few million miles riding courier in my youth, I can finesse traffic well enough to not need the torque. I didn't wring out the 09 or even stress it like I do mine but I think my Fazer handles better. It for sure transitions better but that might be tires. I'm running M20's and the 09 had Dunlops IIRC. They were the better Dunlops, made out of imported wood. The 09 was a better point and shoot bike, maybe the best point and shooter for the money. I haven't ridden a new Kaw 800 (750s?) so I don't know for sure. Brakes were about the same, despite the 09 having more fancy stuff. Course, I have SS Brake lines and it might have just been the feel was better. The more confident one is in their brakes, the better one uses those brakes. SS lines on the 09 might have improved them to be as good as my Fazer.
I like the cowl on my bike. That cowl gives me the edge in top speed. HP is about the same. Close enough to not matter.
He offered me the 09 for 7299, which tells me he was trying. i just really like my Fazer better. The 09 is lighter but some of that is no center stand (8 Lbs, I think) and the smaller gas tank. If I was going to switch bikes, I would look around for a '07 600rr in good shape and put a LSL handlebar conversion kit on it.
Instead this winter I will pull the cat and the fake exhaust and see about going to a single muffler under the seat. Or maybe a pair mounted off the headers. That and the center stand falling off might get me under 430. I'm at about 440 now.

 

[Motogiro]

^^ saw that a while ago here. Pretty funny!

Cliff,
I wasn't trying to imply it didn't make power! I said it wasn't as Smooth vibration wise as I expected. But yes, very linear as it should be w/out the Zing at the End! So, where do we go to hear "that story of R1 vs Cliff?"

hindsight says our 6 is like a 2 stroke "on the pipe!" It has a nice Happy Spot! :thumbup:

No, I didn't think you were saying anything about lack of power. I'm just ramblin about the R1 crossplane.

Banner Grade Road. After riding hot n heavy for about 3 hr's, in hindsight riding beyond what we should have been for health and safety which was evident every other week with a group member crashing. Bawls...yes Smarts....no....:spank:

I will PM you the rest of the details...

 

[thisisbenji]

The point is, Harleys develop more peak torque, and at lower RPM. Triples and twins in general probably do this.

More torque means more acceleration. (Edit: With the caveat that you keep weight the same).

Further edit: And now that I think about you can't get 8k rpm of torque on the ground at launch for the simple reason that the rear wheel speed isn't matching 8k rpm of engine speed, so you have to clutch slip.

I guess, I just don't see how a HD can be faster than a super bike torque or not.

Sure, they might be the same as far as acceleration goes, but I just can't see it beating out a sport bike.

2011 Performance Cruiser Smackdown Conclusion - Motorcycle USA

I mean the FZ6 will spin it's wheel all the way until I'm at peak power in 1st. I'm sure a liter bike would do the same.

I did. Last friday, 4 days ago. I just turned 21,000 and took it in for the valves. I'm comfortable working on bikes EXCEPT FOR VALVES. Not sure why but I just screw up by the numbers. All my fingers become thumbs and I lose about 2 parts per second. After I did the valves on a 600 can 'o tuna 3 times before taking my walk of shame, I figured I had found my limitation and there was no point in pressing the issue. So I don't do valves. Anyway, he 'lent' me an FZ-09 to ride while mine was getting worked on.
I like my Fazer better.
I like going fast. That is why I ride. My FZ-6 has a better top end then the 09. The 09 has more torque but after a few million miles riding courier in my youth, I can finesse traffic well enough to not need the torque. I didn't wring out the 09 or even stress it like I do mine but I think my Fazer handles better. It for sure transitions better but that might be tires. I'm running M20's and the 09 had Dunlops IIRC. They were the better Dunlops, made out of imported wood. The 09 was a better point and shoot bike, maybe the best point and shooter for the money. I haven't ridden a new Kaw 800 (750s?) so I don't know for sure. Brakes were about the same, despite the 09 having more fancy stuff. Course, I have SS Brake lines and it might have just been the feel was better. The more confident one is in their brakes, the better one uses those brakes. SS lines on the 09 might have improved them to be as good as my Fazer.
I like the cowl on my bike. That cowl gives me the edge in top speed. HP is about the same. Close enough to not matter.
He offered me the 09 for 7299, which tells me he was trying. i just really like my Fazer better. The 09 is lighter but some of that is no center stand (8 Lbs, I think) and the smaller gas tank. If I was going to switch bikes, I would look around for a '07 600rr in good shape and put a LSL handlebar conversion kit on it.
Instead this winter I will pull the cat and the fake exhaust and see about going to a single muffler under the seat. Or maybe a pair mounted off the headers. That and the center stand falling off might get me under 430. I'm at about 440 now.

I'd say 15 hp at the rear wheel is a noticeable difference in top end...., maybe your just so used to the FZ6 that the FZ09 felt foreign to you?

 

[Water Bear]

I guess, I just don't see how a HD can be faster than a super bike torque or not.

Sure, they might be the same as far as acceleration goes, but I just can't see it beating out a sport bike.

Indeed, it's kind of strange.

I don't know if I should post this or not, but here goes.

Torque is the rotational equivalent of force. Force causes an object to start moving straight ahead, and torque causes objects to rotate.

Here is where I have to make some assumptions: The torque of an engine literally refers to the torque it generates (often measured at the rear wheel). My guess about how a dyno works is that you put the engine in top gear so that the gear ratio is as close to 1:1 as possible and then, knowing the moment of inertia of the rollers the rear wheel is attached to, you can easily calculate the engines torque based on how fast the rollers accelerate.

So if engine A develops more torque than engine B at a certain RPM, then quite literally engine A accelerates a given specified wheel faster than engine B will.

It is also a fact that if your rear wheel is not slipping, the rotational speed and acceleration of your rear wheel is linked to your lateral motion. In other words, if engine A can rotate your rear wheel faster than engine B, your bike has to move forward faster.

Power is literally the time rate of doing work, which is force per distance per time. An engine with very low power can't apply much force the faster the object it is accelerating is moving. Imagine you are pedaling a bicycle, with gears so tall it could hypothetically travel 70 miles per hour. If you were rolled off the back of a truck bed gently onto the interstate at 70 miles per hour, your legs cannot physically apply enough force to the pedals to counter the deceleration of drag. Of course real engines don't have exactly that problem, but the idea is the same. An engine with low power just can't accelerate the rear wheel very well when the bike is in motion.

This is why torque is more useful to the average rider. We are constantly accelerating and decelerating at low speeds, rarely above 80 miles per hour. Engines with low torque but high horsepower are capable of accelerating well when they're already at high speed. For this reason, high horsepower isn't useful when you aren't traveling at high speed.

Edit: Addendum: Horsepower is actually calculated from torque (and rpm, IIRC). This is why bikes that develop high horsepower at high revs also develop their torque high in the rev range. Also to directly answer your question, if your rear wheel is spinning freely then it is not transferring all the torque given to it to the ground, so you aren't accelerating as fast as you should be.

 

[thisisbenji]

Engines with low torque but high horsepower are capable of accelerating well when they're already at high speed. For this reason, high horsepower isn't useful when you aren't traveling at high speed.

Also to directly answer your question, if your rear wheel is spinning freely then it is not transferring all the torque given to it to the ground, so you aren't accelerating as fast as you should be.

Exactly, the FZ6 already has plenty of power to spin the rear on a launch, so why would I need more torque? More torque in this situation just creates more wheel spin. My car makes tons of torque down low, but I can't using it on a launch or it won't hook up.

Of course more torque is better when your cruising around, but in a drag race or at the race track I don't think it makes much of a difference. I'd much rather have a ZX14R or stretched super bike in a drag race than more torque down low.

When you launch you need some what low power down low so you can hook, then ideally after the bike hooks up you want power to build as your increasing speed. If all of your power is right off idle you'll just do a huge burn out. The ZX14R hits peak torque at 7,500 rpm hardly low down for a bike that tops out at 11,000 rpm.

Additionally, in a drag race it turns out that your only traveling at a low speed for maybe 3 seconds, the other 7-8 seconds your at a high speed. So I guess I just don't see the point your trying to make.

 

[Water Bear]

Exactly, the FZ6 already has plenty of power to spin the rear on a launch, so why would I need more torque? More torque in this situation just creates more wheel spin.

it is not too much torque that spins your rear wheel, its that the engine speed and rear wheel speed are so far out of sync. you are suddenly mating an unmoving object to an object moving 8000 rpm.

I can generate huge torque on a nut with a sufficiently long breaker bar while moving that nut at much less than 5 rpm.

Edit: To be fair you can obviously spin a wheel just by applying too much torque, but the fz6 can't apply torque properly to the ground because the rpms just don't match.

 

[scidork]

I think his point is that the 3 second average when exaggerated will be 2 on a high torque machine but 4 on a low torque machine. Even though the higher hp bike will eventually move faster, that initial head start could be hard to beat. Another viewpoint is the higher torque should accelerate faster while higher horsepower will continue to accelerate longer (like the wrench analogy but sort of opposite, a short wrench will turn the nut faster for a given movement of the wrench end but the longer wrench will tighten it more in the end than the short wrench can).

Torque and power are traded around though by a bike that makes less low end torque having high tooth count lower gears (more teeth effectively trades rotational speed for torque). With that logic though, a 125 that could rev to something unrealistic like 50 or 100 krpm would (ignoring a loss of burn efficiency and what not as the combustion time dwindled and other reasons why a torque and power curve usually fall off) could perform like or better than a liter bike. It would require a pretty low 1st gear but once the motor was screaming, it should theoretically produce similar power (ie 1 liter at 1 k rpm should be about 1/8 liter at 8 k rpm since the same combustion volume, piston surface area, etc are then equivalent as long as various losses are ignored). Produced torque at the motor is low but compensated by trading in some of that rotational speed for torque at the real wheel with some creative gearing.

 

[thisisbenji]

You can apply torque all you want to a nut, but it's not going to getting you down the track any faster.....

There's a limit to the amount of power that can be applied to a stationary rear wheel, typically once you moving fast enough to be able to apply more power your high enough in the RPM range to be using your HP figures and not torque figures. After that we have these things called gears... they keep the bike around peak HP.

My car for example, at any point in 1st gear if I floored it all I would get is wheel spin. So I can't use full power, once I'm going fast enough to use full power I'm in 2nd gear, by this point I'm in the upper range of my power and torque doesn't really matter anymore.

I do agree though, if I had unlimited grip high low end torque would make a wicked fast vehicle. Sadly, that's not the way the world works.

 

[iviyth0s]

Shouldn't we all be arguing about the best tires not engines, catch sooner and you might not need that extra initial torque

I'm a man who just wants everything to be super light and not need all the power/torque to do the same job. I love that small displacement motorcycle that whoops bigger ones in everything other than straight line drags (power contests). Drag racing, IMHO, is stupid and not what motorcycles are about.

If I wanted to invest in drag racing, I'd build a rocket propelled "vehicle" on rails lol

 

[FZ09Bandit]

Torque is the only reason the triple can stay in the mid 10s In a 1/4 mile.

 

[Motogiro]

Shouldn't we all be arguing about the best tires not engines, catch sooner and you might not need that extra initial torque

I'm a man who just wants everything to be super light and not need all the power/torque to do the same job. I love that small displacement motorcycle that whoops bigger ones in everything other than straight line drags (power contests). Drag racing, IMHO, is stupid and not what motorcycles are about.

If I wanted to invest in drag racing, I'd build a rocket propelled "vehicle" on rails lol

It's really not about drag racing and more about rider usable power where the you ride most of the time. An I3 or V-twin is not heavier than the I4

If you took a scale and on one side of the scale you put 200 pound weight. On the other side you were going to put 200 pounds counter weight. Now you haven't put the 200 pounds counter weight on the scale yet. If you broke the 200 pounds counter weight into 50 pound segments and dropped each one separately in 2 second intervals eventually you would start lifting the 200 pound weight. Now think of the same scale with the same weight but instead you are going to drop two 100 pound segments at 1 second apart. In your mind does the lifting of the 200 pound weight occur faster with the 50 pound counter weight segments at 2 second intervals or 100 pound counter weight segments at 1 second intervals.

 

[FZ09Bandit]

Shouldn't we all be arguing about the best tires not engines, catch sooner and you might not need that extra initial torque

I'm a man who just wants everything to be super light and not need all the power/torque to do the same job. I love that small displacement motorcycle that whoops bigger ones in everything other than straight line drags (power contests). Drag racing, IMHO, is stupid and not what motorcycles are about.

If I wanted to invest in drag racing, I'd build a rocket propelled "vehicle" on rails lol

If you are trying to say that an fz6 will run a better lap time than a lighter triple that pushes 20more hp and torque given the same riders skill set will leave you sorely dissapointed.

And I'm talking about a real track no drag, your power band starts way higher. Keeping it there or not. A higher power band will yield to a bike with a much lower on on any turn. I could take a curve at 3-4k and still produce more of everything than your 8-12.

Not trying to start a "my stuff better" but you can save weight by dropping a cylinder and upping the CC. Don't think that we are harlys just because we are closer by the cylinder scale.

And I will admit that the sounds of a high revving i4 is pure extasy, right up to the point I cross that hill and get a ticket lol.