2004 GSXR-750
0-60 = 3.06 seconds
2003 VTX 1800
0-60 = 3.5 seconds.
My bike is only .44 seconds slower 0-60 than a GSXR-750...and it weighs over 300 pounds more.
Unless your actually running them up to top speeds (135mph+) the speed differences are not as great as you think.
Honda DN-01 700 "Sport Cruiser"
woah there killer. Chill I havn't said anything of the sort...remember how I started on the defensive here to the "cruisers are for fat, old, married guys".
I havn't said anything short of trying to disprove an ignorant assumption.
Why are you trying to make it seem like I'm on the offensive trying to convince everyone that their choice is wrong.
Show me where I said anything about sport bikes being a "bad" bike to own, or even where I really degraded sport bikes.
Just cause you all got your panies in a twist when I point out that the performance difference between a cruiser and sporty is not everything your pencil envy desired...and then back it up with facts...doesn't mean I'm bashin sport bikes.
I havn't said anything short of trying to disprove an ignorant assumption.
Why are you trying to make it seem like I'm on the offensive trying to convince everyone that their choice is wrong.
Show me where I said anything about sport bikes being a "bad" bike to own, or even where I really degraded sport bikes.
Just cause you all got your panies in a twist when I point out that the performance difference between a cruiser and sporty is not everything your pencil envy desired...and then back it up with facts...doesn't mean I'm bashin sport bikes.
-
Ninja Geoff
- Site Supporter - Gold
- Posts: 2980
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:55 pm
- Real Name: Geoff
- Sex: Male
- Years Riding: 7
- My Motorcycle: 2006 Kawasaki Ninja 650R
- Location: Leyden, MA
the 750 does it with less than half the displacment.Venarius wrote:2004 GSXR-750
0-60 = 3.06 seconds
2003 VTX 1800
0-60 = 3.5 seconds.
My bike is only .44 seconds slower 0-60 than a GSXR-750...and it weighs over 300 pounds more.
Unless your actually running them up to top speeds (135mph+) the speed differences are not as great as you think.
[img]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3563/41350009.jpg[/img]
and? It also does it on a bike thats almost half the weight...
Fine, when they make the 1800CC inline 4 then your performance will be worlds away...
But right now, in the real world of Bike's offered,
We can only use what's already out there.
Your point that it takes less than half the displacement is moot. All it does is serve to underline my original fact, big twins are that way to make the power down low. Your lighter, smaller displacement inline 4 makes power up high. You can't design a high revving big v-twin without sacrificing torque.
the bigger the pistons, the more power (torque) each pulse produces but the extra mass prevents it from spinning up to a higher RPM needed for high HP.
Fine, when they make the 1800CC inline 4 then your performance will be worlds away...
But right now, in the real world of Bike's offered,
We can only use what's already out there.
Your point that it takes less than half the displacement is moot. All it does is serve to underline my original fact, big twins are that way to make the power down low. Your lighter, smaller displacement inline 4 makes power up high. You can't design a high revving big v-twin without sacrificing torque.
the bigger the pistons, the more power (torque) each pulse produces but the extra mass prevents it from spinning up to a higher RPM needed for high HP.
-
scan
- Moderator
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:43 am
- Sex: Male
- Years Riding: 8
- My Motorcycle: 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1200R
- Location: Yellow Springs, OH
Cool enough. I've over-reacted.
I'm old, fat and married, dude. And I ride a naked, retro crotch-rocket. I hate calling it that. I always say "it’s a standard".
So anyway, it did sound a bit like you were working pretty hard to validate your point, and printed words can sometimes be missing inflection, or tone of your point.
I think most things on two wheels are pretty damn fast, and there are many numbers to support the argument either way.
The VTX1300 (ok, so I couldn't dig up 1800 quickly enough, but stick with me for a moment)
60 hp @5000 -77 ft lbs @ 3000
The 599 is 89 hp @9750 -47 ft lbs 9700
So yeah, you can see the torque is on early for the VTX (even 1300), but you reach a maximum hp available sooner. The 599 can pull up more revs and use the HP where torque for the size of a bike becomes irrelevant.
So each has it virtues.
112 @8500 - 80 ft lbs @6750 is a lot of fun, I can tell you from personal ZRX saddle experience.
It’s that we ride, not what - right?
Sorry for over-playing your intent.
I'm old, fat and married, dude. And I ride a naked, retro crotch-rocket. I hate calling it that. I always say "it’s a standard".
So anyway, it did sound a bit like you were working pretty hard to validate your point, and printed words can sometimes be missing inflection, or tone of your point.
I think most things on two wheels are pretty damn fast, and there are many numbers to support the argument either way.
The VTX1300 (ok, so I couldn't dig up 1800 quickly enough, but stick with me for a moment)
60 hp @5000 -77 ft lbs @ 3000
The 599 is 89 hp @9750 -47 ft lbs 9700
So yeah, you can see the torque is on early for the VTX (even 1300), but you reach a maximum hp available sooner. The 599 can pull up more revs and use the HP where torque for the size of a bike becomes irrelevant.
So each has it virtues.
112 @8500 - 80 ft lbs @6750 is a lot of fun, I can tell you from personal ZRX saddle experience.
It’s that we ride, not what - right?
Sorry for over-playing your intent.
* 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1200R *
"What good fortune for those of us in power that people do not think. " Hitler - think about that one for a minute.
"What good fortune for those of us in power that people do not think. " Hitler - think about that one for a minute.
I agree, your point about the 1300 and 599 is exactly on
Horsepower is actually a factor involving RPM and torque. the faster a engine spins the higher the RPM. 4's have small pistons, twins have large pistons. The larger pistons generate more power per pulse, but their larger mass prohibits them from spinning up to astronomical RPM's of nice inline 4 sport bikes. The smaller pistons in the sporty generate less power per pulse (little power at beginning of powerband) but their less mass lets them rev up to very high RPM, what, almost 17,000 RPM on a R-6 and my X can only rev to 5750 RPM.
And just if your interested...
The 1300 you quoted has times/power similiar to the 1200 sportster's and the such. The 1800 runs with about 105 foot pounds and 100hp. My bike, an S model (retro spoke wheels) weighs 750 pounds. So its quite heavy. As far as times, the 1800 runs a 0-60 in 3.5 and a quarter in mid 12's.
Just for the sake of knowledge.
I[m really interested to see what kind of times this new DN-01 has. With the little twin (mine's almost 3 times the displacement) I wonder... hopefully they designed it very light weight...
See ya out there.
Horsepower is actually a factor involving RPM and torque. the faster a engine spins the higher the RPM. 4's have small pistons, twins have large pistons. The larger pistons generate more power per pulse, but their larger mass prohibits them from spinning up to astronomical RPM's of nice inline 4 sport bikes. The smaller pistons in the sporty generate less power per pulse (little power at beginning of powerband) but their less mass lets them rev up to very high RPM, what, almost 17,000 RPM on a R-6 and my X can only rev to 5750 RPM.
And just if your interested...
The 1300 you quoted has times/power similiar to the 1200 sportster's and the such. The 1800 runs with about 105 foot pounds and 100hp. My bike, an S model (retro spoke wheels) weighs 750 pounds. So its quite heavy. As far as times, the 1800 runs a 0-60 in 3.5 and a quarter in mid 12's.
Just for the sake of knowledge.
I[m really interested to see what kind of times this new DN-01 has. With the little twin (mine's almost 3 times the displacement) I wonder... hopefully they designed it very light weight...
See ya out there.
RE: "I'm really interested to see what kind of times this new DN-01 has. With the little twin (mine's almost 3 times the displacement) I wonder... hopefully they designed it very light weight..."
The 2006 Deauville-700 will share the same engine as the DN-01. The 2006 Deauville Sport-Touring model with hard bags and large fuel tank weighs 520-lbs dry and 566-lbs wet. I would expect the DN-01 to weigh less. With most Harleys weighing 700-lbs and putting out 50-hp, the Deaville at about 500-lbs and 65-hp should do just fine for the intended market. The Deauville-700 will be out in March... I'll be curious to see the reviews on the engine performance.
Here are the 2006 Deauville specs:
ENGINE
Type Liquid-cooled 4-stroke 8-valve SOHC 52° V-twin
Displacement 680.2cm3
Bore x Stroke 81 x 66mm
Compression Ratio 10 : 1
Max. Power Output 48.3kW/8,000min-1 (95/1/EC)
Max. Torque 66.2Nm/6,500min-1 (95/1/EC)
Idling Speed 1,200min-1
Oil Capacity 3.2 litres
WEIGHT (DEAUVILLE)
Dry Weight 236kg
Kerb Weight 257kg
"The Deauville’s new, freer breathing combustion chambers and improved fuel delivery system combine to realise remarkably improved power output and performance. In fact, its stronger surge of power, especially as it translates to roll-on performance, is much more impressive than its mere 33cm3 increase in displacement would suggest."
---------------------------------------
The 2006 Deauville-700 will share the same engine as the DN-01. The 2006 Deauville Sport-Touring model with hard bags and large fuel tank weighs 520-lbs dry and 566-lbs wet. I would expect the DN-01 to weigh less. With most Harleys weighing 700-lbs and putting out 50-hp, the Deaville at about 500-lbs and 65-hp should do just fine for the intended market. The Deauville-700 will be out in March... I'll be curious to see the reviews on the engine performance.
Here are the 2006 Deauville specs:
ENGINE
Type Liquid-cooled 4-stroke 8-valve SOHC 52° V-twin
Displacement 680.2cm3
Bore x Stroke 81 x 66mm
Compression Ratio 10 : 1
Max. Power Output 48.3kW/8,000min-1 (95/1/EC)
Max. Torque 66.2Nm/6,500min-1 (95/1/EC)
Idling Speed 1,200min-1
Oil Capacity 3.2 litres
WEIGHT (DEAUVILLE)
Dry Weight 236kg
Kerb Weight 257kg
"The Deauville’s new, freer breathing combustion chambers and improved fuel delivery system combine to realise remarkably improved power output and performance. In fact, its stronger surge of power, especially as it translates to roll-on performance, is much more impressive than its mere 33cm3 increase in displacement would suggest."
---------------------------------------
-
jmillheiser
- Legendary 2500
- Posts: 2515
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:27 pm
- Sex: Male
- Location: Cheyenne, WY
See that's why I think this bike is born to fail.
With something this radical in designe Honda needs to back it up with a more powerful engine. I would be interested with that if it had 120hp and at least 65 foot pounds....maybe throw a RC51 V in there, or hell, even (I know its not quite the engine for the specs I want) their V twin 1800 in there.
But maybe I'm wrong. I know lots of people are intersted in bikes now that they are becoming shiftless, but I however would refuse to buy a bike with a clutch and all.
But I think that this design will do better in Japan than the US...until Honda realizes that we american's like things big and want more power.
With something this radical in designe Honda needs to back it up with a more powerful engine. I would be interested with that if it had 120hp and at least 65 foot pounds....maybe throw a RC51 V in there, or hell, even (I know its not quite the engine for the specs I want) their V twin 1800 in there.
But maybe I'm wrong. I know lots of people are intersted in bikes now that they are becoming shiftless, but I however would refuse to buy a bike with a clutch and all.
But I think that this design will do better in Japan than the US...until Honda realizes that we american's like things big and want more power.