Motorcycle Horsepower Question

<tomorrow DeleteThis @erols.com> wrote in message
news:cbbd897b-e1c1-49fb-8ecb-a8d62c1f02bb@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I think people contemplating cat-back exhaust and cold-air intake
systems for their modern 4-wheeled vehicles, or thinking about putting
in a supercharger, etc, often make the same type of cost/benefit
analysis before spending their money.

=========

I just like the way they sound. Saves lives, too.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

Turby wrote:

> OK. So, you buy something that may give a few more HP than another
> product. Why? I can understand modifying a bike for better ergos,
> better handling, safety, and a bunch of other reasons. But at some
> point, more power is a worthless goal.

To many people, myself included, more horse power
can be translated into more fun, and there is no
such thing as too much horse power.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:47:21 -0500, Henry <9-11.DeleteThis@insidejob.gov> wrote:

>Turby wrote:
>
>> OK. So, you buy something that may give a few more HP than another
>> product. Why? I can understand modifying a bike for better ergos,
>> better handling, safety, and a bunch of other reasons. But at some
>> point, more power is a worthless goal.
>
> To many people, myself included, more horse power
>can be translated into more fun, and there is no
>such thing as too much horse power.

Sure there is. What would you do with a 1000hp bike? Blip the throttle
every once in a while? Park it and let people ogle your manhood? If
you rode the damn thing with a running dyno output, it'd never get
anywhere near its max.

This thread started as a discussion in the difference between a Shadow
600 and a sport 600. I submit there are about 5 categories of HP.
A severely underpowered.
B somewhat underpowered
C adequate
D fun
E hyperfun

Once you're going for hyperfun, what does another 10 hp get you? Look
at it this way. My 650 KLR accelerates faster off the line than my
1300 ST. That has nothing to do with horsepower. The feeling of speed
has more to do with acceleration than power. And that's more torque
and gearing than hp.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 12:42 pm, Turby <turbosur... DeleteThis @beach.comber> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:47:21 -0500, Henry <9... DeleteThis @insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >Turby wrote:
>
> >> OK. So, you buy something that may give a few more HP than another
> >> product. Why? I can understand modifying a bike for better ergos,
> >> better handling, safety, and a bunch of other reasons. But at some
> >> point, more power is a worthless goal.
>
> > To many people, myself included, more horse power
> >can be translated into more fun, and there is no
> >such thing as too much horse power.
>
> Sure there is. What would you do with a 1000hp bike? Blip the throttle
> every once in a while? Park it and let people ogle your manhood? If
> you rode the damn thing with a running dyno output, it'd never get
> anywhere near its max.
>
> This thread started as a discussion in the difference between a Shadow
> 600 and a sport 600. I submit there are about 5 categories of HP.
> A severely underpowered.
> B somewhat underpowered
> C adequate
> D fun
> E hyperfun
>
> Once you're going for hyperfun, what does another 10 hp get you? Look
> at it this way. My 650 KLR accelerates faster off the line than my
> 1300 ST. That has nothing to do with horsepower. The feeling of speed
> has more to do with acceleration than power. And that's more torque
> and gearing than hp.

I guess I disagree. My S4Rs had about (I say about because I didn't
dyno it, but I have seen 10-15 dyno traces of other stock S4Rs's)
114-117hp when I got it. Less than a year later, I installed the
Termignoni 50mm full spaghetti exhaust system, factory modified airbox
lid, free-flowing air filter, and Ducati Performance matched engine
ECU. Again, I did not dyno it, but Ducati claims an 18hp increase
with this kit, and most dyno traces confirm that neighborhood of
improvement, showing 128-134hp.

The bike doesn't particularly accelerate faster, although it probably
does, a little bit. It's not terribly lighter, but it probably
dropped about 15-20 pounds off the stock weight.

But it is MUCH more fun to ride.

Same thing with the change from my 1997 885cc 80hp Speed Triple to my
1999 955cc 100hp Speed Triple.

I'm sure there's some limit, but the level of fun on these bikes - all
ergonomically similar to begin with, and made almost ergonomically
identical by other mods were:

1. 1997 885cc 80hp S3
2. 1999 955cc 100hp S3
3. 2007 998cc 114hp S4Rs (stock)
3. 2007 998cc 130hp S4Rs (modified)

I'm looking at the new 1,078cc MV Agusta Brutale - a bike with ergos
almost exactly the same as my Speed Triples - but with a claimed 154hp
and thinking....... h'mmmmmm.

Without going to 1,000 hp, the differences in horsepower between these
bikes are enough to make a definite difference in the amount of fun I
have on them. I have no idea where the advantage ends. At least, not
yet, I don't.

And this is from a guy who once claimed on this forum that anything
over the 57hp that my '92 Ducati 750SS produced was wasted!
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 11:05 am, Turby <turbosur....TakeThisOut@beach.comber> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:08:43 -0800 (PST), "tomor...@erols.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tomor....TakeThisOut@erols.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 3:18 am, Turby <turbosur....TakeThisOut@beach.comber> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:38:04 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
>
> >> <robertboltond....TakeThisOut@gci.net> wrote:
> >> >I found a reference that said net horsepower was used beginning of 1971
> >> >per SAE J1349.  The same reference said J1349 was reissued (2004) to close
> >> >some loopholes.
>
> >> >http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455579&postcount=1
>
> >> >Here's an interesting reference -
> >> >http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03_6/vc9950.htm
>
> >> >California seems to require published horsepower to be net hp as defined
> >> >by SAE J1349.
>
> >> Net vs gross still refers to the output shaft of the _engine_, not
> >> rear wheel, which is where the big difference is, of course.
>
> >> FWIW, I have access to all the SAE specs at work, but I'm off work for
> >> a while, so it will be some time before I can post what they say. I
> >> think it is a moot point. HP is all just a pissing contest, whether
> >> it's engine or rear wheel, and it only matters in competition, where
> >> so many other factors are also so important, such as handling,
> >> strategy, competitive skill, traction, etc. In the real world, nobody
> >> cares about the last 10% of hp, or probably even much more than that.
>
> >Leaving aside the question of whether anyone can put the last 10% of
> >horsepower to use or not, imho, in the real world horsepower is much
> >more than a pissing contest.  People who do not compete at ALL spend
> >thousands and thousands of dollars in pursuit of additional
> >horsepower.   Being able to measure those results (regardless of WHERE
> >the results are measured) is one way to quantify the value returned
> >for the money spent in that pursuit.
>
> >Just as a tiny example, when I bought my 2006 Street Glide, I compared
> >the cost of my own 95-cubic-inch Screamin' Eagle upgrade on my '04
> >Road Glide to that of the 103-cubic-inch upgrade that various other
> >people had done, and based on their actual dyno results compared to
> >mine, decided that the 103 was a better bang for the buck, and chose
> >that.  No competion, no pissing contest, just a comparison of two
> >measurements.
>
> >I think people contemplating cat-back exhaust and cold-air intake
> >systems for their modern 4-wheeled vehicles, or thinking about putting
> >in a supercharger, etc, often make the same type of cost/benefit
> >analysis before spending their money.
>
> OK. So, you buy something that may give a few more HP than another
> product. Why? I can understand modifying a bike for better ergos,
> better handling, safety, and a bunch of other reasons. But at some
> point, more power is a worthless goal. You need a certain amount of
> power to ride successfully  - get up hills, get out of danger's way,
> get an adrenalin rush. But when it gets to the realm of comparing
> Ninjas to Hayabusas, there's no value in the numbers. If you say the
> 103 is more bang for the buck than the 95, that's economics, not
> power. It sounds like what you're really saying is the stock was
> underpowered for your needs, and either the 95 or the 103 is good
> enough in terms of power, but the 103 is the more economical choice.

Nope. I was saying that I gave ample consideration to value when I
compared the three options. The 95-cubic inch was NOT enough for me,
but I would have SETTLED for it if the cost of upgrading to the 103
was even more expensive per unit of increase than the 95. It wasn't.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily finished, nor that the
bike wouldn't be MORE fun with even MORE power.

Now that I've upgraded the suspension and brakes, a JIMS 120-cubic
inch, 125hp engine looks like a real good possibility somewhere down
the road a bit, once I recover financially from the current bout of
racing fever that I am stoking.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 9:42�am, Turby <turbosur....TakeThisOut@beach.comber> wrote:

> This thread started as a discussion in the difference between a Shadow
> 600 and a sport 600. I submit there are about 5 categories of HP.
> A �severely underpowered.
> B �somewhat underpowered
> C �adequate
> D �fun
> E �hyperfun

I submit that your analysis in no way answers the OP's question.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 1:13�pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor....DeleteThis@erols.com> wrote:
> And this is from a guy who once claimed on this forum that anything
> over the 57hp that my '92 Ducati 750SS produced was wasted!

OTOH, who is keeping track of everything you ever said?

Besides you, of course.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 4:57 pm, "." <anoblew....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:13�pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor....DeleteThis@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > And this is from a guy who once claimed on this forum that anything
> > over the 57hp that my '92 Ducati 750SS produced was wasted!
>
> OTOH, who is keeping track of everything you ever said?
>
> Besides you, of course.

Why on earth would you or anyone else care what I said 10 years ago?
If you or anyone else did, they could look through the usenet archive
on Google and find it. I've posted under the same name and e-mail
address for 11 and ahalf years.

Sounds to me like you have a major personal problem.

You should have that looked into.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 2:17�pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor....RemoveThis@erols.com> wrote:

> Why on earth would you or anyone else care what I said 10 years ago?

Then why refer to it? Are you getting paranoid that somebody will
remember that you were once satisfied with only 57 hp, and call you on
it?
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 5:27 pm, "Krusty Kritter" <albrecht DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:17�pm, "tomor...@erols.com" <tomor... DeleteThis @erols.com> wrote:
>
> > Why on earth would you or anyone else care what I said 10 years ago?
>
> Then why refer to it?

To show that people can grow and change their minds.

Obviously, and not at all surprisingly, you are incapable of
comprehending the concept.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 2:58�pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
> > > Why on earth would you or anyone else care what I said 10 years ago?
>
> > Then why refer to it?
>
> To show that people can grow and change their minds.

Oh. I see. I thought it was just your over-weening self-estimate that
causes you to list every motorcycle you've ever owned and how much
your house is worth, and on and on and on...
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

On Jan 11, 4:08 pm, "." <anoblew... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:58�pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
>
> > > > Why on earth would you or anyone else care what I said 10 years ago?
>
> > > Then why refer to it?
>
> > To show that people can grow and change their minds.
>
> Oh. I see. I thought it was just your over-weening self-estimate that
> causes you to list every motorcycle you've ever owned and how much
> your house is worth, and on and on and on...

Like some people do about their ancestors, you mean.
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question 

"Turby" <turbosurfer.TakeThisOut@beach.comber> wrote in message
news:pq8eo3d45laa68blehlf7t6ifml0qjp9oo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:38:04 -0900, "Robert Bolton"
> <robertboltondrop.TakeThisOut@gci.net> wrote:
>
>>I found a reference that said net horsepower was used beginning of 1971
>>per SAE J1349. The same reference said J1349 was reissued (2004) to
>>close
>>some loopholes.
>>
>>http://www.dodgetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455579&postcount=1
>>
>>Here's an interesting reference -
>>http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03_6/vc9950.htm
>>
>>California seems to require published horsepower to be net hp as defined
>>by SAE J1349.
>
> Net vs gross still refers to the output shaft of the _engine_, not
> rear wheel, which is where the big difference is, of course.
>
> FWIW, I have access to all the SAE specs at work, but I'm off work for
> a while, so it will be some time before I can post what they say. I
> think it is a moot point. HP is all just a pissing contest, whether
> it's engine or rear wheel, and it only matters in competition, where
> so many other factors are also so important, such as handling,
> strategy, competitive skill, traction, etc. In the real world, nobody
> cares about the last 10% of hp, or probably even much more than that.
>
Thanks. I for one would be interested in hearing the highlights of the
standard.

Robert
 >> Stay informed about: Motorcycle Horsepower Question