ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Road warriors
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-05-2012, 05:13 AM   #571
Disco Stu
I'm Barry F'n Gibb!!
 
Disco Stu's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: The Center of my Own Universe
Oddometer: 5,225
what they say about power corrupting is true. I've been using my k1200rs and futura to commute lately, since it's 27 miles each way. Today, my last day here, I set a new personal best, covering those 27 miles in 20 minutes flat. luckily i'm taking a job with only a 6 mile city commute, otherwise i'd probably injure myself on the k bike
Disco Stu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 05:32 AM   #572
Twinz
Studly Adventurer
 
Twinz's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: VT
Oddometer: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinty View Post
And the R1200ST is 505 lbs, 110 hp, for 4.6 lbs / hp.
I saw wet weight listed at 521 lbs, but it's still good...gotta be without bags though! It's actually not as ugly to me now as it was in '05!
__________________
Twinz, Montpelier, VT
04 aprilia Futura, Ash Black - love it!
Gone but not forgotten:
'94 R1100RS, '84 R100CS, '76 R75/6 (S fairing)
'80 Guzzi V50 II, '73 Guzzi V7 Sport
Twinz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:24 AM   #573
jfurf
Studly Adventurer
 
jfurf's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: The ATL, aka Spaghetti Junction
Oddometer: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryphon12 View Post
The wet weight is what you really need to see.
I always see people saying that on the internet. But I don't agree. Wet weight is useful to know if a rider is considering buying a new/used bike or about to maybe take a test ride.

But dry weight is actually more of an apples-to-apples comparison of how weight-efficient the bike was actually engineered since it's not distorted by different sized fuel tanks.
jfurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 06:51 AM   #574
Disco Stu
I'm Barry F'n Gibb!!
 
Disco Stu's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: The Center of my Own Universe
Oddometer: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfurf View Post
I always see people saying that on the internet. But I don't agree. Wet weight is useful to know if a rider is considering buying a new/used bike or about to maybe take a test ride.

But dry weight is actually more of an apples-to-apples comparison of how weight-efficient the bike was actually engineered since it's not distorted by different sized fuel tanks.
the dry weight is meaningless in the real world, unless you intend to ride your bike with an empty tank and no fluids in the engine and transmission. If you do so, please post videos.
Disco Stu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:13 AM   #575
jfurf
Studly Adventurer
 
jfurf's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: The ATL, aka Spaghetti Junction
Oddometer: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco Stu View Post
the dry weight is meaningless in the real world, unless you intend to ride your bike with an empty tank and no fluids in the engine and transmission. If you do so, please post videos.
No, it's not meaningless. All bikes require fluids/battery/etc. But some bikes have different fuel capacities, which skews the comparison. So as a metric, dry weight is actually a better tool to measure the weight of the materials used to build the bike.

You're right that the wet weight is useful to know, but it's not a good way of measuring lots of different bikes against one another.
jfurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:40 AM   #576
625SXC
Studly Adventurer
 
625SXC's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Oddometer: 545
The best weight is ready to ride MINUS fuel.
__________________
2007 FJR1300
2005 KTM 950 Adventure Black
2005 KTM 525MXC
2006 KTM 200 XC-W
2003 KTM 200SX/EXC hybrid
625SXC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:52 AM   #577
DannyZRC
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Merced, CA
Oddometer: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfurf View Post
No, it's not meaningless. All bikes require fluids/battery/etc. But some bikes have different fuel capacities, which skews the comparison. So as a metric, dry weight is actually a better tool to measure the weight of the materials used to build the bike.

You're right that the wet weight is useful to know, but it's not a good way of measuring lots of different bikes against one another.
dry weight doesn't include things like loctite or assembly lube, it's more or less a fictitious number derived from the sum of the calculated masses of a CAD file.

the only numbers worth anything aren't even given by mfg's, they're found by independent sources rolling the bike onto a scale.

It's just as fair to weigh bikes full of fuel and expect people to be able to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity, as it is to weigh the bikes empty of fuel and expect people to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity.

what doesn't make sense is to use the dry weight figures, which are unverifiable unless you want to fully disassemble a bike and clean it of all contamination and weigh all the parts, unless you do this all you're getting is a mfg claim which is pretty much always subject to a good degree of fudging.

I personally wouldn't mind if people started measuring CG location and MOI about various axes, and then for giggles measured the MOI's again at various engine and wheel RPMs. a guy can dream
DannyZRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 03:49 PM   #578
motocopter
Studly Adventurer
 
motocopter's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Location: Freemont County, Colorado
Oddometer: 533
Don't really see many sport tourers around here either. If I dismiss all the H-D's and sport bikes, there are few of anything to spot. Dual sports, BMW has that one covered around here. Saw a GS650 just today at Tractor Supply. I'm aware of four C14 riders locally.
__________________
- marc

2012 Concours 1400 | 2008 Z1000 | 1999 WR-400F
motocopter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 12:29 PM   #579
motocopter
Studly Adventurer
 
motocopter's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Location: Freemont County, Colorado
Oddometer: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyZRC View Post
...

I personally wouldn't mind if people started measuring CG location ....
Dry weight, wet weight, it really is all about how the bike carries its weight, right? With mass closer to the ground and the bike would feel lighter.

So to use weights in determining a bike purchase, shouldn't the buyer also straddle the bike considered?

My Goldwing didn't feel heavy as long as I didn't tilt it more than a few degrees but, my C14 at a few hundred pound lighter feels just as heavy. If either were to get past a point of no return, I'm jumping out of the way.

Want to experience heavy? Get on a BossHoss.
__________________
- marc

2012 Concours 1400 | 2008 Z1000 | 1999 WR-400F
motocopter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 01:44 PM   #580
Motard_Menace
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Motard_Menace's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Phoenix
Oddometer: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfurf View Post
But dry weight is actually more of an apples-to-apples comparison of how weight-efficient the bike was actually engineered since it's not distorted by different sized fuel tanks.
I think I get what you are trying to say here and I agree to some degree however I think that the size of the fuel tank and its subsequent weight with fuel should be considered overall when looking at weight since we don't ride without gas in the tank. The manufactures plan and take this into consideration when designing the bike so why shouldn't it be considered. I am sure more then one manufacturer has made a tank smaller just to save weight weight and handling characteristics. Who cares if one bike is 10 pounds heavier then another if it handles better so I agree that the design and center of mass etc...are just as critical. Dry weights are just something the manufacturer puts out to appease us the buyers so we can quote the statistics for our buddies. I understand you are driving at the materials used in the manufacturing process therefore it is a more apples to apples comparison but that really only applies if you are going to set them up for display. The actual rideable weight and pushing it around in the garage is more important............
__________________
2007 Triumph Tiger 1050


"If you Can't Fix it with a Hammer, it must be an Electrical Problem......"
Motard_Menace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 04:40 PM   #581
DannyZRC
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Merced, CA
Oddometer: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by motocopter View Post
Dry weight, wet weight, it really is all about how the bike carries its weight, right? With mass closer to the ground and the bike would feel lighter.

So to use weights in determining a bike purchase, shouldn't the buyer also straddle the bike considered?

My Goldwing didn't feel heavy as long as I didn't tilt it more than a few degrees but, my C14 at a few hundred pound lighter feels just as heavy. If either were to get past a point of no return, I'm jumping out of the way.

Want to experience heavy? Get on a BossHoss.
Low CG feels light when stopped since you're pivoting around the contact patch and the CG moves laterally, but High CG feels light when moving since you're pivoting around the CG and the contact patch moves laterally (and provides the roll forces, hence the longer moment arm of a high CG translating to lighter feel).

2 bikes with the same mass and CG location can still be differentiated by different moments of inertia about various axes, and the spinning crank can change the moment about the two axes around which it doesn't spin and this influence changes with RPM, as does the influence of the spinning wheels and theblahblahblahblahblah.

Sitting on doesn't give the same info as riding, and riding in one set of conditions doesn't give the same info as riding in another, and you get used to some things and not to others, and pretty soon the only way to really get to know a bike is to buy it and really get to know it.

DannyZRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 11:22 PM   #582
Motard_Menace
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Motard_Menace's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Phoenix
Oddometer: 299
You know the best part of this wet weight debate is that only 20 years ago everything just about was heavier then what we can buy now. Only a very few riders can even tap into 50% of a motorcycles ability.......we truly live in good times when it comes to motorcycle selection........
__________________
2007 Triumph Tiger 1050


"If you Can't Fix it with a Hammer, it must be an Electrical Problem......"
Motard_Menace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:43 AM   #583
Sniff
Adventurer
 
Sniff's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Merryland
Oddometer: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motard_Menace View Post
You know the best part of this wet weight debate is that only 20 years ago everything just about was heavier then what we can buy now. Only a very few riders can even tap into 50% of a motorcycles ability.......we truly live in good times when it comes to motorcycle selection........
+1 on this... I know I spend too much time whining about whether 118 hp is 'enough' and not enough enjoying the fabulously reliable, great handling bike that it is...
Sniff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:08 AM   #584
BanjoBoy
Studly Adventurer
 
BanjoBoy's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Northern CA
Oddometer: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motard_Menace View Post
You know the best part of this wet weight debate is that only 20 years ago everything just about was heavier then what we can buy now. Only a very few riders can even tap into 50% of a motorcycles ability.......we truly live in good times when it comes to motorcycle selection........
+ 1,000
Ride'in on the street, mor weight is better; to a point. I never thought I'd own a 600 lb bike, 'til I dun got me this 660 lb. FJR and am luv'in it. (Just like a big girl, thar's mor ta luv! )
It's so versatile, solid, stable, and planted at sane street speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniff View Post
+1 on this... I know I spend too much time whining about whether 118 hp is 'enough' and not enough enjoying the fabulously reliable, great handling bike that it is...
+ 1,000,000 The reliability!
Just pick a fucking bike 'n ride the thang already.
__________________
2007 FJR1300
2007 FZ6 (Dirt bike)
BanjoBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:49 AM   #585
Rider OP
Moderator Emeritus
 
Rider's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: The Heart Of It All
Oddometer: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanjoBoy View Post
Just pick a fucking bike 'n ride the thang already.
Amen!
__________________
2012 FJR1300 - In Search Of Fast Sweepers
My Voice
Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014