Torque appeals more than top end

If you haven't yet seen it, then I thoroughly recommend this month's
"Bike".

Specifically, for their experiment in taking a stock R6, plus another
same, and doing some very basic re-tuning of the other one to sacrifice
a bit of top end for a bit more mid-range.

An then they did a sort of blind test with staffers and readers.

Absolutely fascinating. One of the most original feature ideas I've seen
in ages, and bears out the sort of guff that us old farts witter on
about - screaming top end horsepower, and that last fractional bhp, and
that 3mph advantage, is a waste of time (off the track).

 

Absolutely. I've known that since I was an apprentice. It goes with the
other one - 'there ain't no substiute for cubic inches'.

 

I un-subscribe after nearly 15 years and then I need the P&O number and
now you say it's actually interesting now. Blimey what were the chances
of that.

 

I've always preferred bikes with oodles of mid-range or bottom end to
ones where everything's stacked at the top end - I'll make an exception
for most two-strokes and some very small four-strokes, though.

Here, they were limited to what they could do to the bike by the fact
that they had to give it back to Yamaha, so it was largely some
different cams and a Power Commander. They got some incredible increase
in mid-range power and lost just 4bhp off the top end.

And everyone raved about how responsive the bike was.

 

Says nowt.

 

That's not surprising though, by increasing the torque, you will
increase the power as the engine speed increases, and the power will be
higher earlier if the torque is higher to start with.

Of course mechanical limitations may then affect the top bhp as this was
only allowed minimal adjustments.

No doubt you could improve all areas, but then you'd get into the realms
of R&D and find out why it becomes expensive to build a new engine.

Of course. It amazes me how many people prioritise the part of the
performance that can only be used for a fraction of the time you ride.

 

I'll go with that; bought a Fazer 600 yesterday, and whilst I accept it's
not your classic torque monster, I bloody love the way you don't *have* to
ring its neck all the time to enjoy riding it, like I seemed to have to with
some of the other stuff I've had.

 

Not that the SV is renouned for top end power, but I was considering
last night (as one does) what might follow it. I decided that a
significant increase in power is not necessary: it's not that often I
crack the throttle wide open anyway.

Although the SV has more torque than the Bandit I had before, I'd still
like more of that low down grunt: even the SV wants to be at 6,000rpm
before it really wants to pull hard.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Wasn't it "Aint no replacement for displacement". Anyway, yes.

 

Which is precisely why so many pundits seem to rate the old model as
better than the new.....

 

Thats what I like about my ZXR4, just leave the thing in top and surf the
waves of torque.

 

Get a SV1000 then

 

No, much as I like the SV, the next bike will be one more suited to
taking the wife + luggage. The SV just isn't balanced for that.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Brother loves his ZRX for just this reason , especially the roll on
acceleration. Much as I love screaming, revvy bikes, I can see the
attraction.

 

Revvy screaming bikes with not much power and no bottom end. <fx: looks
at FZR> Hmmm...

 

I've gone back to using the standard can on my '6R, instead of my Micron -
which utterly killed off the midrange. Having practised 1st gear wheelies
with the Micron on, the first time I tried with the standard one, I scared
the shit out of myself with how much more easily the front lifted.

 

Dunno, both work as well though

 

*snort*

Pardon?

--
Lesley
CBR600FW
SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster)
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally

 

<fx: revs furiously, is disappointed when skin stays on rice pudding.
Decides to abandon attempt on chocolate mouse cock>.