Talking Torque

Anyone read this month's BIKE mag?

Amongst all the drooling over the new GSXR thou (please santa, I've been a good boy honest...) there was an interesting article about detuning an R6.

Unsurprisingly the journos found that the average user (and the three BIKE testers) preferred the detuned motor (running a cam profile copied from a 15yr old FZR) to the highly tuned top-end motor of the new R6.

I was amazed that this was news! How many riders regular exercise the 12-15000 rev range in their day-to-day riding. Trackdays - fine, bring out the fours and rev the nuts off them (and I'll still catch you in the bends), but for useable, grin inducing ridable power the v configuration is going to win most days!

Not sure about you lot but this is one of the reasons I am here. I bought the SV cos I love the torque of a vtwin (and could not afford the insurance on the SVthou) over the ring-the-nuts-of-it effort required to get the best out of an equivalent sized Jap four.

Coming off any roundabout I find that the clean power delivery of the v-twin is preferable over the gear-change riverdance impression needed to maintain the high-revs on a four.

Anyone else agree?

We were chatting about that article last night, though nobody could remember what magazine it was in. Not entirely a surprise for most people, no.
Alot of people see it as a choice between a cruiser, a crappy commuter or a sportsbike (obviously a generalisation) and so they choose the sportsbike.
They often don't realise that for the type of riding that they're realistically going to be doing, something a little more down to earth is much better.
Of course, all generalisations, but for day to day riding, it can't be denied that mid-range pull becomes more important than top-end rush.

The other thing that amazed them is that they only lost 4bhp from the top end, down to 100 from 104 on their dyno. When 18 out of their 20 testers prefered the detuned bike, it makes me wonder why the Japanese don't tune it like that as standard and let the racers and speed freaks put in a hotter cam if they want to tune it up.

For a moment I thought this was about that dodgy bike film..

For me, low-down stomp is what it's all about. I would be surprised if I ever have anything else other than a twin.

There was an article in one of this months car mags (don't know which one, I was just browsing in Tesco) that said that the new TVR was a lot of fun even at very low speeds (loads of bottom end grunt and makes you know it) whereas the sublimely accomplished Merc AMG SL65 was boring until you got into highly illegal speeds.

I see this as being like the SV and a super-sport inline four. While the latter might technically be far superior in every aspect, you have to be riding at licence-loosing speeds in order to fully enjoy it, whereas with the SV it's ear to ear fun the second you dump the clutch at the lights.


.

Ive been preaching this for sometime.
Even though ive been told to have my head examined for changing ZX6R
for the SVS, the Suzuki is much more rideable, for what i want anyway.
(but then im no Valentino Rossi!)

Originally Posted by wyrdness

......it makes me wonder why the Japanese don't tune it like that as standard.......

BHP sells bikes in the supersport market.

Oh, and my IL4 is only 2 ft.lbs of torque down on the SV (according to manufacturer's figures) with a 46cc smaller engine. That's pretty much in line with the percentage difference in engine capacity.

V-twins don't make more torque than IL4s - the opposite is true (compare a Fireblade to a 999, for example). The difference is the revs at which peak torque is made - the IL4 will probably make peak torque at higher revs but that will still be in it's mid-range.

I won't mention the extra 20-odd bhp

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

The difference is the revs at which peak torque is made - the IL4 will probably make peak torque at higher revs but that will still be in it's mid-range.

Exactly the point.
Still, each to their own, I think I've now started riding the SV more like an IL4, anyway. I spend most of my time at about 7k so I'm in reach of a decent burst if I need it.

In the past I've chatted to people and we've commented that the 650 runs out of steam at about 90mph, I now take it back. If you stay in 4th you can keep going pretty hard for a while yet.

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

BHP sells bikes in the supersport market.

So do good reviews. If Bike magazine's testers reckon it's better with 4bhp less at the top end and a fatter midrange, then they might give it a better review, which can only benefit sales.

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

V-twins don't make more torque than IL4s - the opposite is true (compare a Fireblade to a 999, for example). The difference is the revs at which peak torque is made - the IL4 will probably make peak torque at higher revs but that will still be in it's mid-range.

It is also to do with the flatness of the torque curve.

A V twin has a flat torque curve - eg it produces a lot more at low revs than a IL4 does. An IL4 has a steeper torque curve, not much at low revs and it climbs as the revs rise.

The reason a V twin is so ridable is because of the low down torque, not the outright max torque as such.