| Author |
Message |
    
Spiderman
| | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 07:55 pm: | 
|
Mb,
At 7k my HP line was sharp and still climbing, If the valve train could handle it I think your right  |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 - 08:10 pm: |
|
Spiderman:
"FYI" the XBRR has large valve stems(not 7MM) and the valve heads are a little bigger ...
In BUELLing
LaFayette |
Mbsween
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 09:08 am: |
|
LaFayette,
I don't think the XBRR motor would make a daily driver, probably needs a bit more maintenance, although I'm sure it be a heck of a lot of fun to ride.
Spidey,
I remember when I first got the X1 I'd smack into the rev limiter all the time as the power was still climbing. It was a difficult thing to get used to.
Wouldn't it be cool if Buell/Harley could figure out some valve arrangement, significantly different that whats out there (ala Ducati), that would permit a 9 - 10K RPM ceiling that didn't need much of in the way of maintenance? Maybe they'll need some of those frictionless, massless plates my physics professors were always talking about  |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 10:31 am: |
|
Arrghhh... Comparing Torque and HP is not like comparing apples to oranges, nor is it like asking if mom is stronger then dad.
It's more like measuring in feet, deciding the number isn't big enough, remeasuring in inches, then declaring it just got longer 
Torque tells you *nothing* about a bike that is moving at all. As I have said before, I can gear my dremel tool so it will make 1000 foot pounds of torque... no problem. I will *never* be able to make that dremel tool generate even 1 horsepower.
Hell, I can make a 80 foot pound of torque "motor" out of a 2"x4" board and a 10 lb sack of flour.
What you "feel" is not torque, what you feel is a good distribution of horsepower, even at low engine RPM's. You are right it is a good and happy thing, and makes Buells a far better street bike then competitors that make higher peak horsepower at high RPMS, but could not outrun a moped at low RPMS.
You can call it torque if you want, but you are wrong. Because once torque actually *moves* even a little, you are talking about horsepower. |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 11:39 am: |
|
Mbsween:
If "i" had a XBRR with lights and ROAD RACE TUNED it would be no problem for me as a daily ride ... The RACE EXHAUST SYSTEM is far quieter than 95% of the BUElls riden on the street right now ...
Reepicheep:
Lets not get the mix too deep or you will have to many minds "THINKing" !!!
In BUELLing
LaFayette |
Spiderman
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 12:35 pm: |
|
The more you talk the more I realize you are full of "Buellshit" |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Spiderman:
Buellshit is spelled "BUELLschitte" !!!
It was good that "i" met you at DAYTONA as it helps me to understand ...
In BUELLing
LaFayette |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Torque and HP are a good way to measure common engines with the same tranny gears.
When you factor in other engine styles or gear ratios is when its hard to compare pure dyno numbers.
Example my 1.9 liter engine in my car puts down only 180hp. But it will keep up with cars that have 50 more HP. How is that possible?
Gears that allow my diesel engine tourqe (350ft/lbs) to pull hard in each gear.
Most people neglect the importance of gears that allow torque created to be applied to the ground. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 01:36 pm: |
|
""TORQUE" on the ground"
Now you're talkin'! The drivetrain is just a big torque multiplier, especially for those annoying ultra-high revving IL4 type machines.
The 600cc repli-racers put more "torque on the ground" than a Buell, which is why they are faster. As long as one can tolerate having to get the things spinning up to 8,000 rpm before entering the meat of the powerband, they work fine.
In terms of top speed, I don't think the 600cc FX machines have anything on an XBRR. In fact I think it may be the other way around. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 01:38 pm: |
|
Bill,
I totally dig your 2x4 and sack of flour torque-motor example.
  |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 02:05 pm: |
|
quote:"Give me a lever long enough and I can move the Earth."
Archimedes
The Space Needle, in Seattle, recently had its motor upgraded to a 1.5HP unit from it's original 1HP unit. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 10:19 am: |
|
Now you're talkin'! The drivetrain is just a big torque multiplier, especially for those annoying ultra-high revving IL4 type machines.
The 600cc repli-racers put more "torque on the ground" than a Buell, which is why they are faster. As long as one can tolerate having to get the things spinning up to 8,000 rpm before entering the meat of the powerband, they work fine.
In terms of top speed, I don't think the 600cc FX machines have anything on an XBRR. In fact I think it may be the other way around.
Having a proper tuned engine to match the tranny is what is important. This is something most engine builders neglect.
Crude example - A 15k RPM jap bike is geared so that it places the engine torque of 2 rotations into one.... Thus making a 50ft/lbs into 100ft/lbs of power by using the RPMs.
The XBRR might be better on the top end only if the peak speed is kept near the end of the torque power band of the engine.
Some of Those big rigs blasting down the highway with 80,000lbs at 80mph only have 350hp and only work with 300-600 RPMs of power range between shifts. |
|
