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 10-12-2011, 11:12 AM   #91
Tripped1
Likely Lost.
 
Tripped1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sandy Eggo
Oddometer: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian™ View Post
Agreed - I'm really wondering about the streetability of this engine. Looks great for the HP/Torque numbers, but the torque curve it what worries me; it's not suitable for my riding.
Its got a fatter midrange than the vaunted CBR http://web5.soundandvisionmag.com/mo...0rr_-_dyno_run

(note dynojet..optimistic) but that evil duc makes 20 more hp than the CBR1000 at 6000 RPM


Its just looks strange because the peak is so high.....complete with a down slope from too much intake length or lack of airbox volume (volume I'd wager) Streetability is going to come down to crank weight and final drive anyway.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when its in customer hands.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenScummyTroll View Post
Show folks something with a clutch and carburetor, and it's like teaching a baboon to use a Macbook.
Tripped1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 11:24 AM   #92
Cakeeater
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Where it snows a lot
Oddometer: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJjeff View Post
I'm no engine expert, nor do I play one on TV so school me if i'm wrong.

But if were talking units of Hp and Ft/lb in the posted chart, why don't the lines cross at 5252 rpm. (provided the horizontal axis is RPM)
Yes, something is amiss.
Cakeeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 12:06 PM   #93
JJGeo
Gnarly Adventurer
 
JJGeo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Sunny Seattle
Oddometer: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxer-lust View Post
Geo what you said is true except that Bayliss was 2 seconds faster on the 1199 than on his WSB racebike...
If that would have been the case they would have been back in WSB instantly with a factory team running the 1199 instead of letting Checa take the title on basically a 5 year old machine...
What are you talking about? They couldn't have raced the 1199 this season...it wasn't ready and hasn't been homologated even f it had been. As far as not racing it next year in WSBK...they didn't race the 999 its 1st year either, and that bike turned out fine.

Anyway...turns out he beat his best time ever on an 1198 at Mugello by 0.6 seconds (not 2 seconds). He also claimed nothing currently on the street will match it. We'll see. The point being though, the frameless configuration doesn't appear to be an issue on the 1199.
__________________
'03 Yamaha R6
'06 Ducati 749S - DEAD
WMRRA #98
JJGeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 04:14 PM   #94
DesmoDog
Desmo's my dog
 
DesmoDog's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Michigan, USA
Oddometer: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJjeff View Post
I'm no engine expert, nor do I play one on TV so school me if i'm wrong.

But if were talking units of Hp and Ft/lb in the posted chart, why don't the lines cross at 5252 rpm. (provided the horizontal axis is RPM)
They don't cross where you'd expect because they use different scales. The HP curve uses the scale on the left axis, the Torque curve uses the scale on the right axis. If you use independent scales you can make them cross wherever you want them to.

If you look at what torque the engine is making at 5252, and compare that to what HP the engine is making at 5252, you'll see they're the same.

DesmoDog screwed with this post 10-12-2011 at 04:24 PM Reason: clarification... i hope
DesmoDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:23 PM   #95
rolarosa
Adventurer
 
rolarosa's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Edison, NJ
Oddometer: 88
Let's all wait and see what she'll do on two wheels with Checa at the helm!
rolarosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:46 PM   #96
Cakeeater
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Where it snows a lot
Oddometer: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesmoDog View Post
They don't cross where you'd expect because they use different scales. The HP curve uses the scale on the left axis, the Torque curve uses the scale on the right axis. If you use independent scales you can make them cross wherever you want them to.

If you look at what torque the engine is making at 5252, and compare that to what HP the engine is making at 5252, you'll see they're the same.
You are correct.

Seems silly to grid it with independent scales. Nice salesmanship however. Makes torque look huge at first glance.
Cakeeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 08:52 PM   #97
Tripped1
Likely Lost.
 
Tripped1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sandy Eggo
Oddometer: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakeeater View Post
You are correct.

Seems silly to grid it with independent scales. Nice salesmanship however. Makes torque look huge at first glance.
.....the torque is pretty huge...ye gods, 130ft/lbs at 8500 RPM

Especially considering how over-square ..errr supreoquatro....the pistons are.

Usually the shorter stroke means that there is less torque compared to a similar displacement motor with a longer stroke (look at the numbers between a stroked -mouse 377ci and a de-stroked 400ci, both are 377ci motors, but the extra 1/4" bore on 40 block makes it MUCH more rev happy, and less "torquey" compared to a long-rod 377"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenScummyTroll View Post
Show folks something with a clutch and carburetor, and it's like teaching a baboon to use a Macbook.
Tripped1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 06:08 AM   #98
NJjeff
Studly Adventurer
 
NJjeff's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: NJ
Oddometer: 957
Desmodog

Thanks for the clarification, I do see what your saying now.

It's still confusing to plot it that way.
NJjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 06:42 AM   #99
OldPete
Be aware
 
OldPete's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Los Alamitos, CA
Oddometer: 3,762
For any cam chain nay sayers:

Looks like a simple run with only two sprockets and not even a two to one reduction. Further reduction is taken care of at the gearing.
Should last better than most. IMO
OldPete is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 06:50 AM   #100
Cakeeater
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Where it snows a lot
Oddometer: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripped1 View Post
.....the torque is pretty huge...ye gods, 130ft/lbs at 8500 RPM

Especially considering how over-square ..errr supreoquatro....the pistons are.

Usually the shorter stroke means that there is less torque compared to a similar displacement motor with a longer stroke (look at the numbers between a stroked -mouse 377ci and a de-stroked 400ci, both are 377ci motors, but the extra 1/4" bore on 40 block makes it MUCH more rev happy, and less "torquey" compared to a long-rod 377"
No, the torque is not 130. That's what we're talking about. The torque according to the factory is 98 ft/lbs, according to the grid on the opposite side of the chart. That's what we were talkign about, and that's why I called it a nice bit of salesmanship. Most people, me included, thought that at first glance.

But 98 ft. seems much more realistic, if inflated as all companies seem to do. If I recall that figure is more a function of engine size and there's not as much variable. A Harley xr1200 sportster engine supposedly puts out 74 ft.lbs. Just doesn't spin nearly as fast...thus much less peak horse power.

My guess...and this is just a guess...is that when it's hooked up to a dyno this engine will make about 80 to 85 ft/lbs at the rear wheel..
Cakeeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 07:28 AM   #101
Moronic
Beastly Adventurer
 
Moronic's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Oddometer: 1,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripped1 View Post

Usually the shorter stroke means that there is less torque compared to a similar displacement motor with a longer stroke ...

I think if you look around you'll find that is not directly the case. The effect you report is rather a function of the bore size, which determines the maximum valve size. Narrow-bore motors have small valves, therefore their torque peaks at lower revs. They feel torquey because there's no point revving them. But their peak torque is no greater than for the wide-bore motor with big valves; commonly it is lesser.

The 1198 vs 1199 comparison provides a case in point: according to Ducati anyway, the wide-bore 1199 makes slightly more max torque.

I've seen a few suggestions that the current gen 1198 would be a better street motor because it makes a bit more torque until well into the mid-range. I'm not so sure that matters. I've an idea a slightly softer delivery than the 1198 offers could be a plus; or that in any case, the 1199 will have plenty everywhere. Just speculation - haven't had the privilege of riding an 1198.
Moronic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 09:05 AM   #102
capriccio
Beastly Adventurer
 
capriccio's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Oddometer: 2,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moronic View Post
I think if you look around you'll find that is not directly the case. The effect you report is rather a function of the bore size, which determines the maximum valve size. Narrow-bore motors have small valves, therefore their torque peaks at lower revs. They feel torquey because there's no point revving them. But their peak torque is no greater than for the wide-bore motor with big valves; commonly it is lesser.

The 1198 vs 1199 comparison provides a case in point: according to Ducati anyway, the wide-bore 1199 makes slightly more max torque.

I've seen a few suggestions that the current gen 1198 would be a better street motor because it makes a bit more torque until well into the mid-range. I'm not so sure that matters. I've an idea a slightly softer delivery than the 1198 offers could be a plus; or that in any case, the 1199 will have plenty everywhere. Just speculation - haven't had the privilege of riding an 1198.
Stroke is torque! Given similar bores, the engine with longer stroke is the torquier(New word) engine. The reason is, the power from the combustion chamber has a longer time to act on the piston, but longer strokes are not good for horsepower which requires higher rpm. If your piston takes a long time to finish its stroke, the speed which the piston would have to travel to achieve the higher rpm would wear and stress the engine like a racing engine and make it useless for the street. Engine designers use lower piston speeds for touring engines to increase its life and for sport engines large bores with very short strokes so they can get the higher rpm without the destructive piston speeds. Obviously Ducati and Harley are good examples at both ends.
__________________
Treat others as you would your loved ones and respect your loved ones as you would others.

Capriccio.

capriccio screwed with this post 10-13-2011 at 10:56 AM
capriccio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 07:06 PM   #103
Moronic
Beastly Adventurer
 
Moronic's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Oddometer: 1,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by capriccio View Post

Stroke is torque! Given similar bores, the engine with longer stroke is the torquier(New word) engine.
Possibly. But for the fairly obvious reason that given similar bores, the engine with the longer stroke is also the bigger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by capriccio View Post

The reason is, the power from the combustion chamber has a longer time to act on the piston.
Given similar engine capacities, there is however the small matter of the larger piston in the shorter-stroke engine offering a proportionally greater area on which combustion chamber pressure can act.

I've an idea this balances any advantages from the longer stroke just about perfectly.

But capriccio, it is hard to believe you're not well on top of this. You're funning with us, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPete View Post
For any cam chain nay sayers:

Looks like a simple run with only two sprockets and not even a two to one reduction. Further reduction is taken care of at the gearing.
Should last better than most. IMO
Thanks for that. I was a bit worried, but I see your point. Low load, too, with that desmo actuation.

Wonder how easy they would be to replace.





Not, I am guessing.
Moronic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 11:26 PM   #104
Infallible
Into the Wild Blue Yonder
 
Infallible's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: one and one is two
Oddometer: 1,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolarosa View Post
Let's all wait and see what she'll do on two wheels with Checa at the helm!
they will win because WSBK is the Ducati cup in disguise regardless of who is at the helm. With that being said, this new 1199 will make a fantastic addition to my garage....
Infallible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 11:40 PM   #105
Tripped1
Likely Lost.
 
Tripped1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sandy Eggo
Oddometer: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakeeater View Post
No, the torque is not 130. That's what we're talking about. The torque according to the factory is 98 ft/lbs, according to the grid on the opposite side of the chart. That's what we were talkign about, and that's why I called it a nice bit of salesmanship. Most people, me included, thought that at first glance.
Oh hell, you are right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakeeater View Post
But 98 ft. seems much more realistic, if inflated as all companies seem to do. If I recall that figure is more a function of engine size and there's not as much variable. A Harley xr1200 sportster engine supposedly puts out 74 ft.lbs. Just doesn't spin nearly as fast...thus much less peak horse power.

My guess...and this is just a guess...is that when it's hooked up to a dyno this engine will make about 80 to 85 ft/lbs at the rear wheel..
From when I've seen at the dyno, Ducati doesn't really over rate terribly. I whatch a guy with an 2009 R1 get totally deflated when the 1098S on the dyno next pulled 9 more horsepower with no other mods than the exhaust...that Yamaha was rated 18hp higher than the Duc, both had full exhuast and proper tunes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenScummyTroll View Post
Show folks something with a clutch and carburetor, and it's like teaching a baboon to use a Macbook.
Tripped1 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 03:45 PM.


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