Inline 4s

[rob13]

What is it with them? You either love them or you don't. Granted I've only been on 5 il4s but everyone just felt bland. On the other hand every twin or triple I've been on has at least had character even if i didnt particularly like the bike

[fizzwheel]

All the IL$'s I've ridden havent been bland, even the sheddy Bandit 600 I got give as a courtesy bike. The trick is to find where in the rev range the "Character" is.

The just need approaching with a different mindset, if you ride a 4 like a twin, its never going to be any fun. But then life would be boring if we all liked the same thing wouldnt it.

[muffles]

What do you mean by character? Any better way you can define it?

If I had to interpret that I'd say it was the acceleration (I guess...assuming you aren't talking about the sound, what else can the engine give). And yep, that's in a different place on an IL4 so....

if you ride a 4 like a twin, its never going to be any fun.

...is right IMO. That nutty top end rush on an IL4 can be quite addictive!

By comparison, my last ride on a twin left me feeling bored and soul-less (it was a K7 SV650S, standard). Half of that was the fact it felt wheezy and gutless (but then I was riding it at 5k+ all the time, naughty naughty) and the other half was the fact it had a standard exhaust and so I couldn't even get a nice sound out of it...

[STRAMASHER]

More difficult to ride and ride well than a "equivelent" 4.

Low frequency vibes (man:smt033)

Uncommon sound.

Instant punt.




I'm no IL4 hater, having owned 3 (400,600,1400) and 4 twins too. Its just for me, you know exactly what you are going to get from a four. From 400cc - Litre+. Impressive and easy but a little uninspiring.

Solution? Have more than one bike unless you are a serial changer.

[simesb]

On the other hand every twin or triple I've been on has at least had character even if i didnt particularly like the bike

If by character you mean exhaust note, then I guess most people will prefer the v-twin (on here at least ;)). Personally, I find the constant demand of the engine to rev it harder and harder more enticing than the lazy application of torque. But that doesn't mean that IL4s aren't perfectly tractable at low revs - just a different noise.

[simesb]

Hate IL4s

Because?

[Tim in Belgium]

I've liked 1s, twins and IL4s so far, all are good but different.

[mikerj]

I'm not a big fan of IL4's in general, they just sound so bland unless you are screwing the bits of them. Odd numbers of cylinders sound the best, give me a triple or a 5 cylinder(for a car) engine any day, closely followed by a V twin.

[simesb]

Don't know just do :mrgreen:

Hate is a fairly strong word. I could understand it if you didn't like the exhaust noise, or if you just prefer riding at lower revs, but to hate something for no reason is fairly dumb. :confused:

[Reeder]

I actually prefer the noise of an IL4 :smt097












8-[

[Milky Bar Kid]

Much prefer the burble of the twin but I love my IL4! When you get in that powerband its awesome!

[SoulKiss]

Much prefer the burble of the twin but I love my IL4! When you get in that powerband its awesome!

You still using the stock white powerband (or is it red on your bike, I cant remember off the top of my head)

You really should upgrade to a blue or black one ASAP

[dizzyblonde]

I love Vtwins. I don't like IL4s.

I like the 'bus' though, but thats because its big and fast, and belongs to Peg, so I'm biased.

[Milky Bar Kid]

You still using the stock white powerband (or is it red on your bike, I cant remember off the top of my head)

You really should upgrade to a blue or black one ASAP

I shall presume you are extracting the urine here......

[Dicky Ticker]

"Powerband" is that the same as "Go Faster Stripes" or is it something different?:D

[ArtyLady]

"Powerband" is that the same as "Go Faster Stripes" or is it something different?:D

:lol:

[SoulKiss]

I shall presume you are extracting the urine here......

Would I?

[Milky Bar Kid]

What's wrong with saying powerband???? The powerband is at the top of the rev range??? Me confuzzled!

[warrenhewitt10]

my next bike will probably be an inline 4, r6 or the likes, ill admit the sv sounds much nicer low down, and much nicer throughout how you would use it normally on the roads, but for the odd rake the scream of the i4 is fantastic. Dont really like the sound of the sv at really high revs.

Only i4 ive driven properly was my mates cbr600rr, and good god that was an experience

[BBadger]

Another fan of the twin or single but only because every 4 ive ridden i never got a good enough go to get comfortable with it....also i own a twin and single and love that instant pull from the word go.

[timwilky]

Yeah, V twins have some interesting characteristics. However, I think that whilst I only have a single bike, it will remain an IL4. Just need to justify 150 more cc.

The thing is you can have a gutless il4, or a ferkin hell il4. the same with V twins, you have the gutless SV650 70ish BHP or 130bhp sp2

[SoulKiss]

What's wrong with saying powerband???? The powerband is at the top of the rev range??? Me confuzzled!

A VERY informative article on Powerbands.

http://www.planetash.net/gos/powerbands.html

[Milky Bar Kid]

That is awesome SK! I especially like the script about a pink powerband!

[muffles]

Interesting comment that always comes up about the instant shove you get with twins - cos it doesn't always apply so much higher up the rev range, e.g. you could say that when comparing the SV at 3k, but comparing it at 8k...hmm, well it would be blown away by the 'instant shove' of my 750 (or my 600) at 8k.

I don't think either are more difficult to ride/ride well, just that they need different styles.

[mikerj]

Interesting comment that always comes up about the instant shove you get with twins - cos it doesn't always apply so much higher up the rev range, e.g. you could say that when comparing the SV at 3k, but comparing it at 8k...hmm, well it would be blown away by the 'instant shove' of my 750 (or my 600) at 8k.

You miss the point, if both were burbling along at 3k then you would need to drop a gear or two to get your 600 up to 8k. It's no longer instant shove.

[muffles]

You miss the point, if both were burbling along at 3k then you would need to drop a gear or two to get your 600 up to 8k. It's no longer instant shove.

No that's exactly my point, what if you were hammering it along at 8k - the twin can't compete (when compared to an IL4). It's no longer instant shove (for the twin).

[muffles]

I realise I may not have been clear btw - I am talking about *both* bikes being at 8k.

[simesb]

You miss the point, if both were burbling along at 3k then you would need to drop a gear or two to get your 600 up to 8k. It's no longer instant shove.

Except on the IL4 you might well be burbling along at 5 or 6k. 6k feels like low revs in the same way as 3k might on the SV.

[STRAMASHER]

I don't think either are more difficult to ride/ride well, just that they need different styles.

I have found riding in wet/icy/snow I prefer the soft delivery low down (ie not cutting about like Rossi) of a il4 compared to a twin.
Better throttle and clutch control required on a twin than a 4, harder to ride.

Cutting about like Rossi on a twin you need to know what you are doing if attempting to drop through the gears. I have never had a 4 try to lock up on me. Harder to ride well.
Slipper clutches/back-torque limiters are making it easier for us mechanically unsymapthetic dullards, but they make feck all difference in the slippy shicht.

I think you find out a lot about your bikes "character" in not dry conditions. Trying to be safe n' smooth, y'kna?

[Sir Trev]

I realise I may not have been clear btw - I am talking about *both* bikes being at 8k.

Quite a lot of us don't particularly like being at those sorts of revs. It's one of the reasons I chose a v-twin. The howl of a short stroke middle weight IL4 just doesn't do it for me.

[muffles]

Quite a lot of us don't particularly like being at those sorts of revs. It's one of the reasons I chose a v-twin. The howl of a short stroke middle weight IL4 just doesn't do it for me.

That's fair enough, I'm not arguing with what you like/don't like. Equally there are probably quite a lot (not necessarily on this site, after all it is a v-twin owner's site...) that don't particularly like being at low sorts of revs. And the grumbly sound of a v-twin doesn't do it for them.

All I'm saying really, I suppose, is that it seems a bit silly for people to say "I luvs the instant torque of a twin, I do" as though it's just "right" and it can't be turned around the other way to benefit an IL4. It's a personal choice not a simple, global, "truth"...

[Berlin]

What is it with them? You either love them or you don't. Granted I've only been on 5 il4s but everyone just felt bland. On the other hand every twin or triple I've been on has at least had character even if i didnt particularly like the bike

Hi Rob.

I think this is a conversion issue. If you're used to twins you'll tend to ride the IL4 like a twin whee you get on it and thats not going to get you anywhere.

Riding an Inline 4 is about the top 30% of the rev range unline a twin where its the middle 30%. You have to rev them and once you've got used to that then its a different world.

Despite half a season on the minitwin I'm still riding it like an IL4 looking for another 5K revs once I'm at the red line. Takes a while to change the mind set.

C

[fizzwheel]

Quite a lot of us don't particularly like being at those sorts of revs.

And quite alot of people on here write off IL4's without even having ridden one. They'll base their opinion on what they've read on the internet or what their mate told them. Rather than finding out for themselves.

I appreciate that you might not like it, but why not ? Engine was made to rev, you arent going to break it by doing so.

I've talked to many people who wont even try an IL4, because they think that they might not like it, thats hell of a lot of bikes to discount from riding purely based on its engine configuration.

It's a personal choice not a simple, global, "truth"...

Amen to that

[rob13]

Well, that was quite a response!

I think the issue isnt the noise, as I do actually like the sound of IL4's, but its the seat of the pants test which it seems to fail on. Having been used to various twins and rode singles and triples, I actually like the buzz/vibes etc which I feel through the bike. The IL4s are very smooth which I think is what puts me off. I like to feel the bike buzzing away beneath me.

[Reeder]

You sound like a girl ;)

[-Ralph-]

Character can mean a lot more than noise and acceleration. Vibration, power delivery, handling, anything you feel or hear when you're riding it.

Big singles thump, v-twins burp, triples howl, flat twin BMW's do that twisting thing.

What kind of IL4 are you talking about Robchester? There's a big difference between a 600 Diversion and a litre sportsbike, and another big difference again between that and a Bandit 1250.

I'd never buy an IL4 600 personally, but I'm currently shopping for a 150bhp Fazer 1000, which is a completely different kettle of fish. Though the fact that 4000-8000 revs on the Fazer is very comparable to the SV between 6000-10000 revs, is a big compliment for the way in which the little 71bhp SV delivers it's power. Take the Fazer above 8000 and there's no other way to describe it other than "it just goes mental".

[hardhat_harry]

After RF600, Hornet, R6, ZXR400, CBR600 and test riding loads of IL4's I finally saw the light, Triples and twins for me. Took the FZ1 out last month from Yamaha for a full days riding I have never been so bored with 150bhp in my life. By the time the engine had wound itself up to the power band it was time to decelerate into the corner and out of the band again.

[-Ralph-]

Took the FZ1 out last month from Yamaha for a full days riding I have never been so bored with 150bhp in my life. By the time the engine had wound itself up to the power band it was time to decelerate into the corner and out of the band again.

Hmmm, you need try try riding in a lower gear mate. You can ride round a corner at 10000 revs if you want to.

[Milky Bar Kid]

After RF600, Hornet, R6, ZXR400, CBR600 and test riding loads of IL4's I finally saw the light, Triples and twins for me. Took the FZ1 out last month from Yamaha for a full days riding I have never been so bored with 150bhp in my life. By the time the engine had wound itself up to the power band it was time to decelerate into the corner and out of the band again.

Nonsense! Clearly weren't in the correct gear either that or you were on an EXTREMELY twisty road.

They are different riding styles and I like them both. The one thing I miss from the SV is the engine braking.

[simesb]

The one thing I miss from the SV is the engine braking.

I've never really noticed much difference. Brakes make you stop and engines make you go :D

I don't remember missing much engine braking when I was doing the test rides, or remember finding much more when I got back on the SV.

[Milky Bar Kid]

I have certainly noticed it. But again, probably just different riding styles. I was taught to use engine braking as well as the actual brakes when I did my advanced driving and I just ride similar to that I suppose. Horses for courses.

[rob13]

Well i've now ridden Suzuki's compliment of IL4 middleweights, the Bandit 600 & 650 and the GSXR 600 & 750. All of them whilst competent bikes just didnt put a grin on my face. Yes theyre fast and will rev for ever but I just didnt get it.

I've ridden 400, 450 and 600 singles, 500, 650, 750, 950 and 1200 Twins and the 675 triples and all of them had a certain extra something which I found when riding them.

Maybe I just enjoy tractors!

[fizzwheel]

You only notice the engine braking on the SV, because in compared to the brakes on your CBR the SV brakes are poor. So you use the engine braking as well or instead of to compensate. You ride your CBR a bit more you wont miss the engine braking at all.

The lack of engine braking in comparisoin between a twin and a four is a common observation, just brings me back to my earlier post, you need to modify the way you ride and your approach or style. If you dont you'll never get the best from it whatever bike you are on.

[hardhat_harry]

mmm maybe, I was following my mate on a R6 who regulary is in the Top 4 in the Thundersport 500 cup and we were both going for it (as they weren't our bikes).

Or maybe it was just an uninspiring bike.

Btw frame is very stiff and ride is choppy.

Nonsense! Clearly weren't in the correct gear either that or you were on an EXTREMELY twisty road.

They are different riding styles and I like them both. The one thing I miss from the SV is the engine braking.

[Milky Bar Kid]

You only notice the engine braking on the SV, because in compared to the brakes on your CBR the SV brakes are poor. So you use the engine braking as well or instead of to compensate. You ride your CBR a bit more you wont miss the engine braking at all.

The lack of engine braking in comparisoin between a twin and a four is a common observation, just brings me back to my earlier post, you need to modify the way you ride and your approach or style. If you dont you'll never get the best from it whatever bike you are on.

Erm, I get you Fizz but its because of the WAY I ride not because the SV brakes are crap. I have adjusted my riding with the CBR but just liked to roll off on the SV instead of having to brake on the CBR. Like I said, it's cos of the way I was taught.

It's not a flaw with the CBR, its just a difference. There are pros and cons.

[Scoobs]

Some of the best fun I have ever had on a bike has been on an IL4, but that is only because they have been so much more capable than the twins I have ridden in the past.

Having said that, my next bike will almost certainly be a twin and almost certainly not a sports bike.

It all depends what you want the bike for as much as the bike itself.

[mikerj]

You miss the point, if both were burbling along at 3k then you would need to drop a gear or two to get your 600 up to 8k. It's no longer instant shove.

The SV pulls really hard at 8k! If you were talking 10-11k then it's starting to gasp where the smaller I4s are really starting to come on song.

[speedplay]

I prefer the IL4.

Seems much smoother and when I took a pillion, much better for them too.
I noticed the lack of engine braking but then, thats why the new bike has better brakes.

[muffles]

The SV pulls really hard at 8k! If you were talking 10-11k then it's starting to gasp where the smaller I4s are really starting to come on song.

I'm guessing you meant to reply to my post? ;)

I can't say I agree, unfortunately - in my experience 8k had the SV tailing away, the graphs seems to show this too http://image.sportrider.com/f/9054529/146_0308_z+sv650_dyno+hp_torque_copy.jpg

My (former) '07 GSX-R600, and my '02 CBR600 would beat the SV clearly at that rev range. That's not even accounting for the fact 8k is mid-range on a GSX-R.

[amnesia]

I haven't had the riding experience of most on here, but I have test ridden a few different machines -650 Bandit, R1, 675, Speed Triple, GSXR750, GSXR600, FZ6, FZ1, TL1000R.

I have recently ridden a GSXR600 for a hundred miles or so, and it took me a while to adjust my riding style. I got bored with looking at the clocks thinking that the engine was going to explode, only to be doing 7 or 8k!

After a few miles I got used to where it wanted to be in the rev range, but I did find the high pitched whine very, very tiring. Maybe it was just the tone of the can. At the moment it was enough to put me off buying an IL4 600 next time round.

[yorkie_chris]

Character... you can't really describe it... it's just there?
Modern inline fours just don't have it.

I like the snuffling and snorting the SV makes with an open airbox, the shove you get from nowt that goes right to the redline (mine does anyway!).. and especially the resonance that 10000rpm worth of M4 applies to your very spleen!

Modern ones feel a bit soulless and stifled despite having way more power, the thou's are just completely brutal and you'll hardly ever see the top end.
And 600s, I haven't found one yet where the power felt as easily accessible. And I've chased a lot of them through the twisties and been catching their "I've got plenty of torque" motor on the way out of corners :mrgreen:


Oily GSXR engines are where it's at, they've got that bit more poke than the SV (like double, if you want to tune one) but still have that rattly snorty broken feeling so you're not bored riding this anodyne turbine like thing.

[yorkie_chris]

Seems much smoother and when I took a pillion, much better for them too.

Hey don't blame the engine configuration for your lack of throttle control ;)

[speedplay]

Hey don't blame the engine configuration for your lack of throttle control ;)


Its not lack of throttle control, its some bird hanging onto the back that I didnt really want there....:rolleyes:

[fizzwheel]

I can't say I agree, unfortunately - in my experience 8k had the SV tailing away

Yup thats how it felt to me as well, both on my curvey and the pointies I've ridden.

[-Ralph-]

Strange, my SV starts pulling hardest at about 7.5k and carries onto pretty much to 500 revs off the redline. According to the dyno muffles posted above, peak power is at about 8750, and tails off slightly, but it's more of a flatten out than a tail off. You can see the step change at 7.5k in the graph too. At 8750 it's making 72.5 and at 10500 it's still making 69.5, then it will bounce off the rev limiter, it's only a 3 bhp drop. If the bike is tailing away noticeably at 8k there is something wrong with it (or it's restricted). Obviously as speed increases, wind resistance does too, whilst power drops slightly, but that only becomes noticeable on much smaller capacity bikes.

[suzukigt380paul]

well theres really only answer to the v twin and il4 get a v4,its got the character of a v twin and the power of a il4 with the higher rev limitof a il4,something around 781cc with honda on the tank

[fizzwheel]

Strange, my SV starts pulling hardest at about 7.5k and carries onto pretty much to 500 revs off the redline. According to the dyno muffles posted above, peak power is at about 8750, and tails off slightly, but it's more of a flatten out than a tail off.

I'm quite prepared to admit mine was a little tired with 36K on the clock, but thats still how it felt, I never really found any useful benefit about revving all the way to the limiter, used to change at 9K ish, but was definately on its way to feeling flat in terms of performance at that point.

Liz's pointy seems to feel like it rev's a bit harder for longer from memory but its so long since I've ridden that my memory is hazy.

Thing is to compare the two.

8K in 6th on the SV, compared with 8K in 6th gear on the GSXR, the GSXR feels hell of a lot more eager at that point than the SV ever did. Just surges forward whereas the SV to me in comparision feels slow.

I think this is more to do with the fact that the GSXR is twice the BHP of the SV. Rather than comparing IL4 with a twin.

[fizzwheel]

On reflection I think I just like revving the cr*p out of things.

My 16v Golf GTI, required rev's to make it go and I loved driving that. My GSXR is the same, its better with revs' to !

Liz's Ducati is a strange mix, has alot of low down punch, I cant match it on 6th gear roll on even though its giving away 25 - 30bhp. But it likes being rev'd to. Has a power band and rev's very freely and sweetly to the redline once past 6000rpm it really comes alive.

[hardhat_harry]

Power falls away at 9500 on my graph

I'm guessing you meant to reply to my post? ;)

I can't say I agree, unfortunately - in my experience 8k had the SV tailing away, the graphs seems to show this too http://image.sportrider.com/f/9054529/146_0308_z+sv650_dyno+hp_torque_copy.jpg

My (former) '07 GSX-R600, and my '02 CBR600 would beat the SV clearly at that rev range. That's not even accounting for the fact 8k is mid-range on a GSX-R.

[mikerj]

Strange, my SV starts pulling hardest at about 7.5k and carries onto pretty much to 500 revs off the redline.

Mine too, we obviously have good ones ;)

Peak torque occurs at around 7500RPM, so 500RPM later it's hardly dropped and still pulling very strong.

[-Ralph-]

I'm quite prepared to admit mine was a little tired with 36K on the clock, but thats still how it felt, I never really found any useful benefit about revving all the way to the limiter, used to change at 9K ish, but was definately on its way to feeling flat in terms of performance at that point.

Liz's pointy seems to feel like it rev's a bit harder for longer from memory but its so long since I've ridden that my memory is hazy.

Thing is to compare the two.

8K in 6th on the SV, compared with 8K in 6th gear on the GSXR, the GSXR feels hell of a lot more eager at that point than the SV ever did. Just surges forward whereas the SV to me in comparision feels slow.

I think this is more to do with the fact that the GSXR is twice the BHP of the SV. Rather than comparing IL4 with a twin.

You can't compare the two, an SV at 8000 revs is nearing peak power, a GSXR is just getting going, midrange is not in the same place, and your gixxer is a 750. Just as it wouldn't be fair to compared a 600 IL4 with an SV at 4000 revs.

I think we've concluded this debate many times on the forum, and the conclusion is it depends how you ride it and what you expect from the bike. If you want a bike to go mental and start building up past 100bhp 'cos you are at 8k revs an SV will disappoint. If you want to do an overtake without changing gear at 4000 revs a 600 IL4 will disappoint. Just look at the guy above complaining that a Fazer with an R1 engine didn't have enough power.

[-Ralph-]

Power falls away at 9500 on my graph

There are two graphs on there, one pointy, one curvy. And that's not a "fall away", it's a tiny drop of a couple of BHP.

[mikerj]

There are two graphs on there, one pointy, one curvy. And that's not a "fall away", it's a tiny drop of a couple of BHP.

Indeed, and just to put this one to bed, have a look at the dyno plots (http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/046_0607_middleweights_dyno_testing/photo_02.html) for all the popular middleweight bikes in 2006, at 8000RPM not even the Daytona 675 is producing as much torque as the SV650. The GSX-R is a good 10 lbft down over the SV at this point.

I think it's safe to say that if your SV isn't pulling hard at 8k then it's either restricted or there is something wrong with it.

[-Ralph-]

Indeed, and just to put this one to bed

Ha, ha, you reckon? ;)

[-Ralph-]

Indeed, and just to put this one to bed, have a look at the dyno plots (http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/046_0607_middleweights_dyno_testing/photo_02.html) for all the popular middleweight bikes in 2006, at 8000RPM not even the Daytona 675 is producing as much torque as the SV650. The GSX-R is a good 10 lbft down over the SV at this point.

I think it's safe to say that if your SV isn't pulling hard at 8k then it's either restricted or there is something wrong with it.

The trouble with comparing dyno graphs, is that you are comparing a bikes output at a fixed point in time. Open the throttle from a steady speed at 8000 revs and within a few seconds your doing 9000 revs, a few seconds later you are doing 10000, now go back to the dyno charts and see how the SV compares at 10000, only a matter of a few seconds after you opened the throttle.

This may be why people say the SV "tails off", it doesn't tail off it stays the same, whereas by comparison the IL4 continues to build and build more and more power.

[fizzwheel]

The trouble with comparing dyno graphs, is that you are comparing a bikes output at a fixed point in time.

Yup, but the graph only tells you the BHP & Torque at that point. What you cant graph or draw up, is how it feels to a rider.

My curvey felt flat after riding the GSXR, like I said in another thread, I opened the throttle, it made some more noise, vibrated a bit more and didnt feel like it was accelerating. Note I said "didnt feel like it" because it didnt, it felt sluggish and slow. You cant replicate how it felt to me using a dyno graph to point out peak torque etc etc etc.

Which is back to Ralphs point about how we all like different things...

[-Ralph-]

Yup, but the graph only tells you the BHP & Torque at that point. What you cant graph or draw up, is how it feels to a rider.

My curvey felt flat after riding the GSXR, like I said in another thread, I opened the throttle, it made some more noise, vibrated a bit more and didnt feel like it was accelerating. Note I said "didnt feel like it" because it didnt, it felt sluggish and slow. You cant replicate how it felt to me using a dyno graph to point out peak torque etc etc etc.

Which is back to Ralphs point about how we all like different things...

Were you replying to me or mikerj? 'Cos we just said exactly the same thing in different words.

[fizzwheel]

Were you replying to me or mikerj? 'Cos we just said exactly the same thing in different words.

Dunno, just waffling really :D

[muffles]

I hope you're all looking at the torque on that graph I posted, not the HP... ;) remember, torque is the thing that's going to give you that shove. And it does tail away after about 8k.

I owned a K3 for a year, and have ridden a mate's K7, and they both felt the same - even though the K3 was my first bike, and therefore it was the fastest thing in the world to me, I could STILL tell it dropped off. Yes you could get to the redline, but it had more of a punch up to ~8k.

[lukemillar]

You miss the point, if both were burbling along at 3k then you would need to drop a gear or two to get your 600 up to 8k. It's no longer instant shove.

??
Why would you burble along at 3k?

I have said this before about all engine configurations, be it twins, triples or 4's- Don't get hung up on the tach numbers! You use an engine wherever it is happiest i.e not labouring or over-revving. The only people who get hung up are the V-twin owners who say:

"Well, I travel in 4th gear at 4k rpm and it is 40mph, but when I do the same on an IL4, it is gutless"

[Villers]

Ive just come back to V-twins from IL4's for the time being. I can honestly say I like both, if I had to choose one to have forever it would more than likely be the 4 that would take my fancy. I find that despite the torque gains of a V-twin it doesnt make up for the drop in power for similarly sized engines. I doubt my RSV would noticably out perform a modern 1000cc IL4 at any point in the rev range.

Thing is its not ultimately about the power really. Otherwise I'd still be bombing about in 6th gear on the Hayabusa and having enough power to do whatever I want. Its about how you enjoy it. My RSV doesnt encourage me to go bat**** mental into 3 figure speeds and when i want it to be it can be quite a refined lazy ride for commuting. Commuting on something like a 600cc IL4 whilst trying to overtake etc is something I have left behind me as I no longer want to play hide and seek through the gear box for quick useable on-tap power. I love the way my V-twin rumbles its way through the rev range, making a racket but not so shrill my ears are bleeding when I get to work. I also loved the way my 'busa would roll on at 100mph in 6th and pull harder than anything I had ever ridden.

The two are very different for me and I love both in almost equal measure. I dont think its possible to say which one is best, as 'best' is incredibly subjective to the rider. For some best appears to mean 'fastest', for others its grin factor. As long as you enjoy it then its like arguing over what kind of steak is the best.

Ive tried a few triples in my time and these are supposed to be a combo of the two major genres but I didnt really enjoy it. What does have my mouth watering is the prospect of a 180bhp RSV4, and I wonder if this could be the missing link. Will have to wait a few years until I can buy one though :(

[Reeder]

Mate's dad has an RSV4 factory with the akropovic exhaust and one tooth less on front sprocket. Needless to say it goes like **** off a shovel.

[-Ralph-]

I hope you're all looking at the torque on that graph I posted, not the HP... ;) remember, torque is the thing that's going to give you that shove. And it does tail away after about 8k.

Torque gets you moving when you open the throttle, and give you the forward shove, but whether or not power builds and gives you blistering acceleration and speed as you get revs towards the red line, or whether it "tails off" is all about how many horses the bike produces. You can't look at either in isolation, the nature of the engine's power delivery is a combination of the two.

[sauluk]

I like il4's, I like twins (L & v), I like triples, I like bikes

[Ed]

I only really got to like my D650 (IL4) when at Scoobs's prompting I discovered the midrange. I used to try it out on the road to Montgomery and wow it was just fantastic.

Depends what you're after in a bike I spose.

[-Ralph-]

torque is the thing that's going to give you that shove. And it does tail away after about 8k.

BTW, whether something "tail's away" on a dyno graph all depends on the vertical axis scale on the graph.

The SV produces 28 ftlb from 2500 revs, peaks at 47, and "tails off" to about 35.

Most of the IL4's produce 15ftlb at 3000 revs. Peak at about the same, and "tail off" at about 35 as well, albeit both at much higher revs

By comparison if you put the two on the same vertical axis scale, the SV would have a relatively flat torque curve, which is what makes it pull like a bigger bike lower down the rev range

[yorkie_chris]

??
Why would you burble along at 3k?

I have said this before about all engine configurations, be it twins, triples or 4's- Don't get hung up on the tach numbers! You use an engine wherever it is happiest i.e not labouring or over-revving. The only people who get hung up are the V-twin owners who say:

"Well, I travel in 4th gear at 4k rpm and it is 40mph, but when I do the same on an IL4, it is gutless"

Nah... you cruise along at what feels like a comfortable rpm.

Get on either bike and shift to what feels reasonable to bimble at: say 40mph and the SV will pull better from there.

[Sid Squid]

I don't prefer either, but technically speaking fours are better then twins. Technically twins don't make better power at the low end, they just run out of the necessary piston/valve area and thus their volumetric efficiency falls significantly when the revs rise, add to this that for a given capacity a twin's relatively heavy reciprocating parts reach their practical limits at a lower rotational speed and the piston speed limit, (which I understand is about 90m/s for a road engine about now), of the relatively longer stroke limits the max safe revs - racing twins spin much faster as their much reduced engine life is not important.
The suggestion that you need to rev the round things off a four to make it go is just plain wrong, they often make good power at the bottom and keep going when twins run out of puff. And even if they didn't it's just numbers on a dial, who cares where the needle is pointing? Pit your SV650 against a Panther and it would seem revvy, would this be a reasonable criticism of your SV?

Modern inline fours just don't have it.
You need to ride more Kawasakis - they definately have it, lots of it, that's not in question, what 'it' is is the question - and I'm not even going to try and explain what 'it' is - but lots of bikes have it, all different kinds and with all different sorts of engines. However a good example of what 'it' might be is best experienced from the seat of a Laverda triple, which is a big, heavy, hairy chested motorcycle that could best be described as visceral.

[monkey]

Someone was telling me just that the other day...

I think it's all swings and roundabouts. Until recently I had a twin, a triple and a four all of which I love/d in their own special way.

Cylinder snobbery is pants.

[monkey]

What about this? 48 cylinders anybody?

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/052009/small_48%20Cylinder%20Motorcycle.jpg (http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/s.php?f=052009&p=48_Cylinder_Motorcycle.jpg)

[muffles]

Torque gets you moving when you open the throttle, and give you the forward shove, but whether or not power builds and gives you blistering acceleration and speed as you get revs towards the red line, or whether it "tails off" is all about how many horses the bike produces. You can't look at either in isolation, the nature of the engine's power delivery is a combination of the two.

Of course, but by looking at torque, you're looking at a function of HP and rpm already, so it's by definition not looking at it in isolation...? Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, of course. Acceleration is provided by the torque so I can't see saying it is "all about the horses" is accurate....sorry. Again it might be me misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you're saying.

BTW, whether something "tail's away" on a dyno graph all depends on the vertical axis scale on the graph.

The SV produces 28 ftlb from 2500 revs, peaks at 47, and "tails off" to about 35.

Most of the IL4's produce 15ftlb at 3000 revs. Peak at about the same, and "tail off" at about 35 as well, albeit both at much higher revs

By comparison if you put the two on the same vertical axis scale, the SV would have a relatively flat torque curve, which is what makes it pull like a bigger bike lower down the rev range

I would agree the SV, on the same vertical scale, would have a flatter torque curve, yes. At a given (low) rpm I have no argument with the statement that an SV can accelerate better (precisely for the reasons you mention, it has more torque there).

However, you can still look at an SV dyno graph in isolation and see it does tail away - what you could mean is "how much" it tails away is dependent on the vertical scale (obviously).

To be honest I'm not quite sure what I'm arguing about here - whether the SV tails away (acceleration wise) after 8k? Is that in question - I don't think you're disagreeing with the dyno chart figures, so given that, the torque is falling away after ~8k...the HP isn't rising enough to match the RPM, so the torque formula shows it will reduce the torque (which the graph then shows)?

Looking at and comparing the SV chart with a GSX-R600 chart (http://www.areapnolimits.com/images/product/gsxr600_06_dyno_1005.gif) my personal view is that the torque is what I'm feeling as the difference. It's falling from ~8k on the SV and ~13k on the GSX-R. I would agree with that from my experience of these bikes. If we want to give some figures, then we can say that the SV is falling in the last ~27% of it's rev range, whereas the GSX-R is falling in the last ~18% of it's rev range. Perhaps because of this smaller percentage of the rev range spent "tailing away" it's not so noticeable on an IL4.

[muffles]

Someone was telling me just that the other day...

I think it's all swings and roundabouts. Until recently I had a twin, a triple and a four all of which I love/d in their own special way.

Cylinder snobbery is pants.

Also, I agree with this/hold this view the most - I only want people to stop trying to say one is better than the other!

[Mej]

I've liked 1s, twins and IL4s so far, all are good but different.

second this.

Love the noise of twins, but my 750 was anything but bland. Loves singles and did like the noise of the tripple i rode (d675).

[yorkie_chris]

torque hp yadda yadda

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm, not the other way around.

Torque... applied through gears and on moment arm of tyre contact patch to spindle produces a tractive effort.

Call that tractive effort F... F = ma a = F/m


Past peak torque, rate of acceleration is reducing.

[SoulKiss]

You need to ride more Kawasakis - they definately have it, lots of it, that's not in question, what 'it' is is the question

Like my lovely 08 Z750 :)

[G]

I love all bikes. Each serve a purpose.

I'll be switching to a twin next, but I still love IL4. It just depends what you want out of riding at any particular time in your life.

[yorkie_chris]

I don't prefer either, but technically speaking fours are better then twins. Technically twins don't make better power at the low end, they just run out of the necessary piston/valve area and thus their volumetric efficiency falls significantly when the revs rise, add to this that for a given capacity a twin's relatively heavy reciprocating parts reach their practical limits at a lower rotational speed and the piston speed limit, (which I understand is about 90m/s for a road engine about now), of the relatively longer stroke limits the max safe revs - racing twins spin much faster as their much reduced engine life is not important.
The suggestion that you need to rev the round things off a four to make it go is just plain wrong, they often make good power at the bottom and keep going when twins run out of puff. And even if they didn't it's just numbers on a dial, who cares where the needle is pointing? Pit your SV650 against a Panther and it would seem revvy, would this be a reasonable criticism of your SV?.

You could apply same arguments against fours and for sixes, and look how well they lasted :mrgreen:

Twins making better power at low end can be lots of things, geometry of intake tracts, cam profiles and timing, carburetion, allsorts of things most of which could be applied to a four.

Redlines and such, if you have a twin of similar ratio to a four and similar peak piston speed it will probably rev about the same.
Compare the 'busa to the SV...


One thing worth mentioning with twins is crankcase pumping loss, they have 2 fluctuations offset by 90 deg... where a four has two pairs of them offset by 180 degrees so they cancel out. Means less losses shipping gas in and out of crank breathers and hence more power/economy.

[muffles]

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm, not the other way around.

Actually...both ways round, unless there is a special definition in engineering ;) (I can only tell you for mathematics, not engineering, but you can refactor a function so that it is a function of any of it's variables)

Other than that, you said the important bit which I was trying to say - the rate of acceleration is reducing, which is the tailing off effect...

[yorkie_chris]

Well yeah obviously you can switch the sum around, but when you have a dyno trace the directly measured result is the torque.

From right back in ye olde times when it was measured by force on a torque arm from a brake drum... thus brake horse power.

[muffles]

Well yeah obviously you can switch the sum around, but when you have a dyno trace the directly measured result is the torque.

From right back in ye olde times when it was measured by force on a torque arm from a brake drum... thus brake horse power.

Can't argue with that...I was just being picky ;)

[-Ralph-]

Muffles, yes you misunderstood me. I wasnt saying the HP was more important than torque, in fact you could forget about that it was equally important, or as you pointed out revs were eqaully important as one is just a measure of the other two.

Tailing off is not so easy to quantify, its a matter of opinion and depends what the rider means by tailing off. Does the rate of acceleration decrease after 8k, yes it does, but it is still accelerating at a good rate and will continue to do so until it hits the red line. It doesnt suddenly die away to nothing, forcing to change gear like a lot of diesel engine do.

[Sid Squid]

You could apply same arguments against fours and for sixes, and look how well they lasted :mrgreen:
Very true, I limited my comments merely to the question asked - this is a big subject, we could go on for a loooong time. General speaking the reason, (as I am undoubtedly sure you well understand), for the lack of modern sixes is simply size, an inline six, a la CBX, Z13 and Sei is a silly configuration for a motorcycle engine, a V6 might be better though*, but law of diminishing returns etc means that fours have the best balance of P/V area and managability of fitting in a sensible shape/size chassis.
V6 Kawasaki 750/1000 would be fun though :D.

More stuff
Also all true, but I didn't wish to get too technical and - as I am also sure you know well - was speaking in general terms, by which I mean two engines of similar capacity but of each configuration, twin and four, would, again very generally, have the dis/advantages mentioned. You could build a extra long stroke four or a ultra short stroke twin if you wished, but you'd possibly be compromising the better nature of each, and, dependant on the purpose to which the engine would be put, the strengths of various engine configurations have much to recommend them, or not, depending.

*I've been thinking about this and I can't remember a V6 motorcycle, with the exception of a Laverda which may have been a short lived endurance racer or perhaps just a prototype, anyway I have a dim recollection** of err... something. Probably.

** Generally I only have a dim recollection. at best, of yesterday.

[mikerj]

Thing is to compare the two.

8K in 6th on the SV, compared with 8K in 6th gear on the GSXR, the GSXR feels hell of a lot more eager at that point than the SV ever did. Just surges forward whereas the SV to me in comparision feels slow.

I think this is more to do with the fact that the GSXR is twice the BHP of the SV. Rather than comparing IL4 with a twin.

It's nothing to do with peak BHP at that point, and everything to do with gearing. The GSX-R has lower overall gearing in 6th than the SV (i.e. lower mph/1000RPM), so a greater torque multiplying effect which (more than) compensates for the lower torque the engine is producing. If you geared the SV the same as the GSX-R then the SV would pull harder - though it would then be revving it's nuts off when you reached a sensible cruising speed.

However, this is getting away from the original statement that the SV's acceleration is noticeably tailing off at 8k, when clearly a healthy one will only be down from peak torque by a gnats tadger and therefore still be pulling hard.

[fizzwheel]

I dont think theres alot in it if I have understood my google results.

GSXR 6th gear ratio = 5.424:1
SV 6th gear ratio = 5.331 :1

IIRC 7000rpm on the SV was near as damn it 100mph, I got a SP30 when I was running my GSXR in and had a 7000rpm limit, speed I got done for was 93.2mph.

[mikerj]

My Google results showed a substantial difference:

2005 GSX-R600 (http://www.aperaceparts.com/tech/05gsxr600.html) 6.404:1

2003 SV650S (http://www.aperaceparts.com/tech/specssv650.html) 5.218:1 (5.337:1 for the naked version)

Perhaps the gearbox or final drive ratios on the GSX-R were changed a lot in different years?

[yorkie_chris]

try gearing commander for numbers like that

[fizzwheel]

Perhaps the gearbox or final drive ratios on the GSX-R were changed a lot in different years?

Possibly, but my ratio's are for the GSXR 750, but yours if for the 600.

I was comparing what the SV felt like to me with how the 750 feels in 6th gear...

My fault for not making it clear.

[muffles]

However, this is getting away from the original statement that the SV's acceleration is noticeably tailing off at 8k, when clearly a healthy one will only be down from peak torque by a gnats tadger and therefore still be pulling hard.

I'm a tad confused - are you saying the graphs I posted are not of healthy engines? I'm not saying there is a sudden drop at 8k, but yes indeed, it is dropping away to eventually finish around 10 lb-ft lower (~45 to ~35). If we're comparing the GSX-R at 8k the torque is flat/on the up at that point (haven't got graph up right now to see) so it's certainly going to feel like it's pulling harder. The thing is it's all relative to the acceleration you experienced up to that point. Up to 8k on the SV, you had better acceleration, so you feel like it tails away. Up to 8k on the GSX-R, you had worse/same acceleration so you feel it's either the same or better (and certainly doesn't tail away).

[-Ralph-]

Up to 8k on the SV, you had better acceleration, so you feel like it tails away.

Muffles, I don't think anybody is arguing which bike is faster at 8k.

And whether or not the graphs are of a healthy engine is pretty irrelevant, because they give you facts and figures on engine output, and tell you nothing about the real world connection between the rider, the throttle and the bikes real forward motion. That is influenced by gearing, aerodynamics, the weight of the rider, etc, etc. They can be used to support an argument about how the bike "feels", but they can't be used to define how the bike will feel.

People are debating the statement that the SV "tails away" after 8k. Therefore you need to define what you mean by "tails away"

(A) Doesn't pull any harder after 8k, but it's still accelerating the same.
(B) Doesn't pull quite as hard after 8k as it was before, but it's still accelerating well.
(C) A significant and noticeable drop in how hard the bike is pulling after 8k. Is not accelerating anymore, but maintaining the same speed.
(D) It's deceleration and loosing speed, best to change up gear if you don't want the guy behind up your ar$e
(D) Forget it, you hit a wall, the front forks take a dive, and you have to grab another gear quick.

All of the above scenarios could be true on a small capacity bike or a two stroke, or a diesel car or van.

On my SV it's somewhere between A and B, but I have no overwhelming feeling that I have to change up gear, the bike is still pulling plenty hard enough, from 8k right the way to the red line. I'm 16 stone BTW. I always have to add the caveat in these debates that my SV is geared down.

I have on the very odd occasion bounced my SV off the limiter, when was wringing it's neck and wasn't paying attention to the revs. This happened to me a couple of times after I changed to an aftermarket exhaust, because the exhaust note I had got used to warning me how hard I was revving the bike had changed. If the acceleration tailed away that badly after 8k, you'd never get the bike anywhere near the rev limiter without realising.

[muffles]

Muffles, I don't think anybody is arguing which bike is faster at 8k.

And whether or not the graphs are of a healthy engine is pretty irrelevant, because they give you facts and figures on engine output, and tell you nothing about the real world connection between the rider, the throttle and the bikes real forward motion. That is influenced by gearing, aerodynamics, the weight of the rider, etc, etc. They can be used to support an argument about how the bike "feels", but they can't be used to define how the bike will feel.

People are debating the statement that the SV "tails away" after 8k. Therefore you need to define what you mean by "tails away"

(A) Doesn't pull any harder after 8k, but it's still accelerating the same.
(B) Doesn't pull quite as hard after 8k as it was before, but it's still accelerating well.
(C) A significant and noticeable drop in how hard the bike is pulling after 8k. Is not accelerating anymore, but maintaining the same speed.
(D) It's deceleration and loosing speed, best to change up gear if you don't want the guy behind up your ar$e
(D) Forget it, you hit a wall, the front forks take a dive, and you have to grab another gear quick.

All of the above scenarios could be true on a small capacity bike or a two stroke, or a diesel car or van.

On my SV it's somewhere between A and B, but I have no overwhelming feeling that I have to change up gear, the bike is still pulling plenty hard enough, from 8k right the way to the red line. I'm 16 stone BTW. I always have to add the caveat in these debates that my SV is geared down.

I have on the very odd occasion bounced my SV off the limiter, when was wringing it's neck and wasn't paying attention to the revs. This happened to me a couple of times after I changed to an aftermarket exhaust, because the exhaust note I had got used to warning me how hard I was revving the bike had changed. If the acceleration tailed away that badly after 8k, you'd never get the bike anywhere near the rev limiter without realising.

I agree, between A & B. You're right I probably should have clarified better what I meant, I think I did that in my previous post but it wasn't as clear as you've stated it.

My original point was that yes the IL4 would be faster at 8k - this point only came about because I was countering the "twins are better because of the low down shove" point (as in - why is low down necessarily good? Why is high up not good? It's implicit that it's not good in that point). Point to point to point :lol: