| Author |
Message |
    
Jmartz
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:10 am: | 
|
Low rpm torque is the character of HD designs. I have owned a few over the years. I feel they are easier to use and sound superbly. In 1973 I got my 1st IL4 a Kaw Z1 900. Weaker low end is their character but even so they still accelerate faster through most of the rpm range. |
Austinrider
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:20 am: |
|
I havent really looked into it further. I did confirm it at the track 5th gear/6500rpms (there about) reads 110 on my speedo.
No, I havent had it calibrated, should take it to a dyno and get it confirmed. Unfortunately, with our weather (heavy rains lately) the bike isnt going anywhere soon.
I'll proably get curious soon enough and really want to know whats going on with it. But Im in no big hurry on that topic.
|
Airbox
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 11:28 am: |
|
That is exactly why I sold my R1 and bought an XB12s. I needed to slow down as I was just going too fast on the R1 as that is where the biggest buzz is on an IL4. 170 was the best I saw on the clock and I expect there was a bit more too. 90 was like doing 50 and doing 40 was uncomfortable and it all became a bit boring. XB12s feels fast, has adequate if not good performance, I can still get my Knees down on the roundabouts at the same sort of speeds the R1 did them at and have seen 130 on the clock so far which feels like 170 did on the R1. Sorted, that will do for me and it is so much simpler to maintain than an IL4. Just need a Drummer and shortened back end for it !! |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Dittos on the high speeds at which the R1 performs. The FI, Exup fitted O2-03 model run pretty good down low over 2500. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Phil,
If you saw an indicated 110 at 6,500 rpm then your top speed (indicated) would be 127 mph, about a 6% reduction from stock. What did you alter in your drivetrain to affect such a change? I don't see anything mentioned in your profile. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:52 pm: |
|
Horsepower = how fast you hit the wall
Torque = how hard you hit |
Austinrider
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Blake -
Not to sound like a dummy (although my friends will say quit trying) but Im not sure exactly which parts were replaced on the Drivetrain.
When I asked Rob (the guy who did the work at CTHD) he said front and rear pulleys, belt and belt guards.
How this affected the speedo and top speed? Math I care not to look into at this time. I was running Utlimate4 race fuel this weekend also. Supposedly giving me more power. I watched my on track footage from the trackday and my speedo is reading 110 and about 6500 rpms. Wish I could share it with you guys, but its almost a CD in size. Let you see for yourself. (and have my lines ridiculed 
I brought it up to Rob, he said that he imagined it would lower the speed because of the change in the pulley sizes. I wish I had more info on it, but to be honest - my bike runs. Thats all I care about right now. When the dealership gets their dyno up and running, I will stick it on there and hit the rev limiter and figure out whats going on. Its just not a big priority for me right now.
When I get more time I will troubleshoot it and figure out what exactly changed and how I want to go about correcting it.
Ps.. anybody want to host a 560 MB video file for me? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 05:25 pm: |
|
Bomber,
You have two bikes, both accelerating at 60 mph. Which bike has more thrust at the rear wheel...
Bike "A" with 80 FT-LBs at 5,000 rpm
or
Bike "B" with 40 FT-LBs at 10,000 rpm? |
Nevco1
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:20 pm: |
|
Bike "A" |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:24 pm: |
|
Try again. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 08:25 pm: |
|
Remember the torque is at the crankshaft. |
Fullpower
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 09:43 pm: |
|
A=B |
Nevco1
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 08:45 am: |
|
Oh well, just be glad I don't work on bikes. LOL |
Bomber
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 08:54 am: |
|
Blake
My guess woulda been the same as Mr Power's . .. but only if the wind is outa the west and the other train was leaving Springfield at 9 am
my post was a repitition of a quote from an engineer buddy years ago who was attempting to school up a stoned english major . . . .offered more for it's entertainment value than anything else, but forgot the smiley face . . . |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:56 am: |
|
Fullpower got it right. 
Both bikes would end up with the same torque at the rear wheel. The transmission of the 10,000 rpm bike increasing its 40 FT*LB by twice the ratio that the 5,000 rpm bike's tranny does. There is NO substitute for horsepower.
For me though, I don't want to have to spin the engine to near turbine speed to get into the powerband. I think that is what Bomber is meaning. Big torque down low means not having to downshift. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:24 am: |
|
Pete Egan wrote a piece a couple of years ago that included the following (greatly simplified and shortened) observation . . .
even those folks who don't mind revving the daylights outa their motors tend to like it less over time, as they, ehem, mature . . .. . those of us who came up when Honda's 9K redlines were amazing never quite got comfy (at an emotional level) with riding a Waring Blender . . . .. . I've found that low revs and equal thrust is more to my taste than higher revs, all things being equal |
|
