Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GS Boxers' started by Dorsicano, Feb 3, 2011.
I always thought the design philosophy was based on sticking the pots out in the breeze for efficient cooling. With the Water Buffalo, there is no design argument to keep the same layout, other than to use as a very solid crash bar .
Too right it's not a BMW!
If the rumour machine is correct then Triumph will be offering a 135-140bhp competitor to the GS. For some (not me), that is a biggie. I'd rather wait until I can see and touch the real T1200 before coming to any conclusions but it does appear to have all the ingredients of a winner in this market. Needs a big tank (>20L, preferably 24) and Triumph should employ the guy who designed the GSA screen .
That is PART of the benifit, but the way the motor delivers the power is the other part. IMHO
Will there be a Moto Guzzi in the future? I just looked at the Stelvio which meets the Euro 3 standard that was put into place in 2000. Europe now has Euro 5 and Euro 6 will be in place by 2014. I don't know all of the regulations, but could there be escape clauses for small manufacturers? Maybe Moto Guzzi gets by on those grounds, maybe it's something else. Isn't also possible that Moto Guzzi is working on a water cooled engine, but is doing a better job of keeping things quiet.
Not "design simplicity," but rather "design elegance." Thumpers are simple. There are a few things that make BMW's boxer elegant: air flow, weight distribution, maintenance, and character. Changing from air/oil to liquid cooling only removes one aspect of the elegance.
OK, I agree and I really like the 90degree rotated cylinders, intake on top.
So you are saying that you have advance notice that Moto Guzzis will remain air/oil cooled for 2013?
A 180 degree firing order twin is going to have the same power delivery no matter the way the cylinders are arrayed. The perception of the smoothness will differ according to the cylinder arrangement. The mass of the crankshaft and flywheel will also influence power delivery and smoothness. As well as camshaft specifications and engine control electronics tuning.
I had the F800GS with the "Boxer sound" but I didn't like that engine, the boxer is so much better.
I'm no specialist but the vibrations around 5000-6000rpm were really bad (very fine vibrations).
Not sure why but I think it has to do with the counter balance arrangement.
So are you saying you could achieve exactly the same engine feel (not the low center of gravity) with a
The same power output and power curve. I left out the cylinder bore and stroke as part of what affects power output.
Your comment about the counter balancer is interesting. Ever since I first rode a 1200, I've felt that it has much more of a high frequency vibration than the 1150. I theorize that a counter balancer that is half the mass of the crank assembly driven at twice crank speed is only going to be effective in a specific rpm range.
I haven't ridden an F800 so I can't opine on it. The balancing method seems like it should be more effective. It isn't driven by a chain that can stretch and cause the balancer to go out of synch with the crank and become a vibration amplifier.
Never miss an opportunity, do you?
I've ridden lots of bikes of all kinds of configurations. I prefer the opposed twin, but thanks for your unasked for opinion on my perceptions!
I think the balancer rod on the F800 engines is pretty special but I've experienced much worse higher rpm vibrations compared the 1200GS, can't comment on the 1150. To me the low center of gravity and the unique engine (flat cylinders) make it an interesting engine or unique engine design, that's why I like it I guess.
The Ducati Supermono used a similar balance system as the F800.
I find the Triumph spec illustration to be spectacularly ugly, surpassing even the S10. After the success of the original Daytona 675, Triumph seems to have taken an overly complicated and inelegant design tack. Gag, puke.
Apologies for going OT.
Just got the Cycle World in the mail and they have a pretty clear picture of the 2013 Wet Head. It clearly shows the injectors on top of the cylinder at and the exhaust at the bottom. The also show the telelever with radial brakes. It is interesting how they camouflage the test mule by making it look like a rat bike.
It is the same pic that has been posted on here many times. Nothing new.
Flat opposed design must have it's advantages.
They are THE engine used in General Aviation.
If it isn't an auto engine conversion or a turbine or an old radial it's an opposed platform.
From a piper cub to big twin.
The VW beetle engine also
No denying that but what suits an aeroplane does not suit a motorcycle! Hang the pots out in the breeze, by all means, but only if the re are cooling advantages. Water cooling gives a much broader scope for engine layout - perhaps a layout that allows for lower C of G, reduces drag etc.
Personally, I like the simplicity of air-cooled bikes but, like with carburettors, they have to make them over-complicated these days just to get around the regulations.
The very valid point regarding access to valves should be less of an issue with longer service intervals possible these days. Triumph are quoting 10,000 miles for the Tiger 1200 and that might even be a 'minor', with valve inspections at 20K. It's the way things are going and part of the benefit, dare I say, that comes with a more modern engine design.