[sqidbait]

>You can't turn 44 inch boggers on your 4x4 without a lot more gear reduction.



Well, sure. You've increased the load on the engine, so the torque that the existing gearing delivers may not be sufficient. Big wheels means more rotational and linear inertia to overcome.



You may have to regear if you want decent performance.



-- Michael

 

[KPaulCook]

Why I voted for Bush the first time and why I won't this time

With George W. I thought I was getting George Sr. Fiscally conservative. Smart in foreign affairs. etc. Instead we got a reckless budget deficit buster wacko who has half the brains his old man had. Remember the term "vodoo economics" that was his Dad's description of Reagonomics, Supply Side, Arthur Laffer thing. The deficit is real and it is getting much larger as a percent GDP than it got during the Reagan years. Bush Sr. did the courageous thing and raised taxes, Clinton folks and the Republican Congress balanced the budget and bingo an economic expansion took place. Cheney said deficits don't matter but any economist will tell you the do.

 

[KPaulCook]

Re: Don't confuse the guy...

"On the economy, the former Alcoa (AA: news, chart, profile) executive said he believed the economy would have grown about 6.0 percent annually in the third quarter of last year without the tax cuts, roughly two points slower than the staggering 8.2 percent reported by the Commerce Department.



"But the price we're going to pay for (the extra 2.2 percentage points of growth) is enormous because it reduces our fiscal flexibility to fix Social Security, which we desperately need to do," O'Neill said."

from click here

 

[TuneREX]

I agree. I don't know why everyone has such a problem with this bike. I don't see why it would be any harder to ride than a Goldwing or Electraglide. About your last statement...what makes you think such machines don't already exist. I have a ZRX1200 and I can assure you, 70-90mph roll-ons are its specialty. Or were you thinking specifically of cruisers?

 

[Buzglyd]

I guess because it weighs as much as it does yet is basically has no amenities (luggage, stereo, fairing, etc).



Imagine what it would weigh once outfitted for touring duty! 1000 lbs + ?

 

[sarnali]

Re: Ah.... The human condition.

I have a "cough" Mini -van! yes thats right I'm a soccer dad! who'd a thunk I'd wind up hauling my brats, half the stuff they own and my dogs everywhere I go.

 

[wrecks]

THis thread is getting too long

Let's agree to disagree.

I'm really only arguing with you for the sake of debate. You are right, peak torque values don't neccesarily reflect directly on performance. A Cummins Diesel may produce 500 foot pounds of torque at 1500RpM (or whatever) but that doesn't make that truck the fastest accelerating vehicle. The only way you could make a high-torque/low rpm engined vehicle accelerate quickly would be if you were able to rapidly decrease the gear reduction factor while the engine maintained its speed. (ie with a CVT). But we don't have a transmission that can withstand those stresses.

Still, what I am saying, is that a motor like the V2K's, with a massive low-rpm torque peak, offers useable performance without wringing it out. Sure, you could have a six cylinder 250cc engine turning 24000 RPM which TECHNICALLY transfers more torque to the pavement but that torque isn't as ACCESSIBLE. I have dragraced and beat 600cc supersport motorcycles with my heavier and less powerful VFR, but it takes a more skillfull rider to exploit the power that a peaky motor like a 600 offers.

Your facts come from a more educated position than mine. I'm not an engineer, just a lousy business student. But I know a bit of sh!t.

A bike like the V2k isn't at the cutting edge of technology, but I bet it would be a gas to ride.

 

[sqidbait]

Re: THis thread is getting too long

Let's agree to disagree.

Nah. That's no fun.



Still, what I am saying, is that a motor like the V2K's, with a massive low-rpm torque peak, offers useable performance without wringing it out.



And all I've been saying is that "massive" torque peak isn't all that massive. That's the point - unless you are willing to calculate thrust, you may as well ignore the peak torque value if you want to compare bikes.

I'll give you another way to look at it: [email protected]000 rpm is ~70hp. While 70hp isn't "wussy", it's not awe-inspiring either.



Sure, you could have a six cylinder 250cc engine turning 24000 RPM which TECHNICALLY transfers more torque to the pavement but that torque isn't as ACCESSIBLE. I have



I never advocated 24000 rpm bikes - I said if you just compare bikes based on the absolute engine torque peak, you could easily wind up making an invalid comparison. Hence the example of the R6 and XB12R.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ACCESSIBLE"?



dragraced and beat 600cc supersport motorcycles with my heavier and less powerful VFR, but it takes a more skillfull rider to exploit the power that a peaky motor like a 600 offers.



What's the difference in thrust values between your VFR and a 600?



A bike like the V2k isn't at the cutting edge of technology, but I bet it would be a gas to ride.



I never said that it wouldn't be. Most bikes are fun.

-- Michael

 

[runner00]

I talking strictly cruisers. I always felt they were generally underpowered.

 

[KPaulCook]

Re: Don't confuse the guy...

"All together, the Congresional Budget Office has forecast a 2004 deficit of $480 billion — instead of the $262 billion surplus Bush predicted for this year in his first budget, assuming his policies were enacted"

click here

 

[SeanAlexander]

Mostly just working through some issues. However, teacher is kind of hot and perhaps my stab at extra credit was misguided by my distraction with her appearance.

 

[cruiz-euro]

"You are confusing the speed of the bike (mph), with the speed of the engine.(rpm)"



Well well well Michael, I am claiming you confuse RPM with the torque. The RPM-gearing calculations do not help, as I can get from my model RC car's .16 engine more torque than a Sherman tank, if suitable gearing is found.



So the torque that is worth talking is solely engine torque. And a torquey motor is not a wheezy 7,400RPM thingie, but one where the stuff comes by $hitloads at 1,800 RPM.



When you pull effortlessly at idle RPM at any speed, that is torque.



There are 2 ways to regonize torque:



1) read the dyno graphs, or

2) ride the bike



Either method will prove without doubt that those litre bikes do not compare to this Kawimonster.



- cruiz-euro

 

[sqidbait]

The RPM-gearing calculations do not help, as I can get from my model RC car's .16 engine more torque than a Sherman tank, if suitable gearing is found.



Gearing is a trade off between speed and torque. You'll get the torque, but at a speed of 0.0000001 mph. Not very useful, wouldn't you agree?



So the torque that is worth talking is solely engine torque. And a torquey motor is not a wheezy 7,400RPM thingie, but one where the stuff comes by $hitloads at 1,800 RPM.



Because, as we all know, bikes don't have gears or a transmission and the reduction ratio between the engine and rear tire is always 1:1. (cough, cough )



Either method will prove without doubt that those litre bikes do not compare to this Kawimonster.



Totally true. Litre bikes will do the 1/4 mile in the 10s, while the Vulcan will be somewhere in the 12s.

The Vulcan might be the right choice for you, but I'd rather have something with some gumption. I'll take the FZ-1.

-- Michael

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: Don't confuse the guy...

WHO CARES

Reduces their fiscal flexibility to "fix" social security? As if a ponzi scheme could be "fixed"?

You don't need a dime to fix social security. All that's required to fix it is to pass a bill that completely dismantles it and eliminates the social security tax. Problem solved.

 

[Abe_Froman]

Re: Why I voted for Bush the first time and why I won't this time

The "courageous" thing is to raise taxes? That's hilarious. Taking other people's money at the point of a gun is about the least courageous thing one can do.

Clinton didn't do anything to balance the budget, he was the normal tax and spend democrat. The economy eliminated the deficit (and if you believe it was actually eliminated, I've got some land to sell you.)

All your reasons for voting against Bush are entirely valid but if you think Democrats are going to fix the central problem of a bloated government you are dreaming as their candidates fall over each other in the rush to institute a command economy and socialist state.

Any economist will tell you that raising taxes will not cause an economic expansion and reducing taxes will not cause a recession. They will only slow the expansion in the case of tax increases and speed the expansion (or slow the recession) in the case of tax decreases.

All of this assumes that the federal government should be the one with their hand on the throttle. It shouldn't. Depression or boom government should keep their hands out of it.

 

[13630]

Re: Is Motorcycle Online going to change its name to Cruiser Online?

"So, Americans like light, crisp, tasteless beer that doesn't fill you up, but for motorcycles they like big, fat, slow, ponderous, loud, horribly braking hippos adorned with cupholders, ash trays, and frilly leather dingleberries. "

Half of them do. The other half like bikes that require you to rev them to 50000 rpm to make more than 30hp, ride with your knuckles dragging on the ground and your ass in the air, chew through tires every 1000 miles, and double your monthly payment through insurance costs. On top of all that, they are obselete two years after you buy them and are then only useful as an anchor when you get tired of it, because no one would pay good money for a two-year-old bike that's 1/1000th of a second slower around Willow Springs.

 

[13630]

"Going slow is fun?!?!? When did this s*** start!?!? I never noticed anything fun about it....."



A friend of mine has exactly the same opinion- it's no wonder he can't find a girlfriend...