Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by 81forest, Feb 18, 2015.
I take it that is why you are CaptCapsize...
You got that right!
Well actually I got the nickname from my tendency to fly the hull of my Hobie Cat too high, thus capsizing. Unfortunately that tendency to tip over carried over to my off road riding. Being old I need lots of naps...my WR obliges with dirt naps.
Classic. I do like the real reason.
No 200hp bike on the street is making motorcycling practical, to say you only need at most 50hp on the street. 50hp will move any of us, even the fat asses uphill, perhaps not with any authority or fun factor, but it'll get it done.
But, that kind of irrelevant logic has no place in American motorcycling. We are ridden by what moves our soul and ego more than anything else. Its not logic or need, it is simply WANT! So bring on da power!!!
For that matter. If you live in a dry temperate climate with minimal rain, and average sunny days of 75 to 80F nearly 360 days a year, so you can ride every single day of the year, then riding makes sense. But I can't afford to live in San Diego CA, nor would I want to live there.
I recall Egli once built a bike for a customer. Big motor, turbo and Nitrous. They said if the guy tried to use all the power the bike would be unmanageable. There is a little traction problem. Even strait line speed rigs (like salt racers) use massive tires to get grip. Not streetable. https://eglimotorcycles.com/en/eglimotorcycles-en/
That long strait desert road might look like a great place to open it up, but one prairie dog (and there are lots) and you die. I found 70 - 75 HP (bmw K100RS, 2v) was more than I could use. The aeros wouldn't kick in until 80mph, then the bike would settle on the suspension and it was gone. I had to change the rear end ratio to keep from rear ending people on entrance ramps. No you don't have to twist the throttle, but if you don't what use is the power? It's another variation of the poseur bike. Good for bragging rights at Starbucks. With 250+ hp (moto GP land) you need a track, not the street.
It is not a traction problem with the LSR bikes, but rather that the tires will not stay together at 250 mph and above. There are no motorcycles rated to go that fast for that long. Currently the fast bikes are using car tires shaved down on the outer edges to get a bit of a rounded profile. Other lower speed bikes will shave road race tires to keep heat down and get a bit narrower lighter weight tire with less heat build up. It is less about grip and more about staying together at the highest speed levels from what I read.
Here is the LSR thread, look at the bikes you will see they have to run what they can get which are wide sport bike tires, no one is making one to suit their needs. If they can run narrower they do.
If you look at the serious high speed cars the tires are far narrower than most regular street tires. They use large diameter wheels/tires and the tires are very narrow. Go look it up for yourself. Seems they want to keep rotating mass and mass in general, down.
You do realize too that some of those who want 200 hp do track days and drag race, right? So they may have 200 hp on the street, but they may just be using it on the track.
The other thing is if you do the math, high horsepower does correspond with high torque. The capability to pull a vehicle along.
There are a lot of individual assumptions that cause these arguments to go on and on in threads. For example, the OP and KTM are talking about a motorcycle designed to utilize its performance. Bigger brakes, advanced riding modes and corning ABS, advanced suspension, ridiculously expensive tires. All of that costs big bucks and KTM was talking about $113k - to over $200k per bike. From that we go to guys bolting nitrous onto a stock old school bike. You got drag strips, MotoGP tracks, and other people just talking about onramps to the freeway. Okay then, no wonder opinions vary.
I can tell you that from personal experience, traction IS a big factor on the salt. Salt is hygroscopic and will pull moisture from the air. The salt is also frequently flooded from thunderstorms up in the mountains. The best time for good traction is on a very hot day when the salt hasn't been flooded in a long time. Tires are a big problem today because nobody makes specialty LSR tires that are useful for motorcycles. We used Mickey Thompson tires until we ran out of them. We always had wheelspin at 200 mph+, and the tach would indicate that compared to the time slips, we were at revs for 15-20 mph over actual speed.
So you are running the widest tires you can get? You should be able to find a nice wide car tire capable of 300 mph, right? Why not use it? I know the answers to most of my questions, they bring up the point that both you and I listed - a reasonable size/width tire for motorcycles that can survive 300+ mph.
Most race bikes have traction issues, road racers frequently have the rear tires spinning faster than the actual speed on the straights. Even drag racers under perfect conditions will have some tire slip, puts the rubber down on the track.
Having done off road and some flat track I would venture to say you will never get a tire that will have near 100% traction because the salt and the dry lake surfaces are not like pavement. They are essentially a compressed powder that will slip regardless. Thus the salt all over the machines after a run. You cannot run a tire that would actually grip like a flat tracker does, because the tread cut would never survive the heat generated due to the speed. It would shred itself. Am I nearly right?
I have 2 bikes.
'10 Husaberg FX450, 40-45hp?
'06 Ducati 620 Multistrada, +_ 60hp.
Both move me just fine (6'/180#), with plenty of authority and fun factor - esp. the Berg.
I agree. My most powerful bike is my 07 BMW R1200RT, and it maybe delivers 90hp to the rear wheel, plenty good for me, nice and torquey. My 03 Vulcan VN1600 gets about 60hp to the rear wheel, and about the same torque as my BMW, just at about 2,000 lower rpm. Both move me just fine.
I have ridden bikes with much more hp, but its really the torque, and where that torque is in the power band that means the most to me. I want the torque where I can use it. Higher hp also means more torque, but still needs to produce the torque I want where I can use it.
My bike has 140nm of torque. It is wonderful....just wonderful.
If a 200hp bike doesn't belong to the road so doesn't the Bugatti or any supercar out there.we all want Better and faster vehicles as the evolution is happening in all vehicles should be in the bikes as well..
Seems to me that most companies spend more time to "castrate" the bikes rather than trying to maximum hp and with a combination of laws restrictions emitions etc if you finally tune your bike property ends up to be semi illigal to any country annual inspection.
We want our bikes fast that doesnt mean we will not comply with the law.
Here Germany we don't have speed limits that doesn't means everyone is going mad Max speeding.As well a 200hp bike will a lot of times put you out of trouble when the car behind you is speeding or you need to overpass etc.
A big example is the H2 R and a numerus high prerformance bikes which unfortunately ..cannot be plated...
Is in the hand for everyone to what are going to do with their vehicle if is a car or bike or boat as long they have pay it.
..lots of videos,car crushes,plane crushes.
the girl in the video is driving a 125hp bike so this didn't happen because of the hp more because of rider skills..
Not to mention on a bike a good deal below 200hp
I am curious; how many of you have actually ridden a 200+ hp at the rear, on the road?
I haven't, but even half that is way more than I want, need, willing, or able to use on a public road, so it would be a moot point.
Want: yes, if you don’t want one then don’t get one.
Need: heck nobody needs a motorcycle, and anything over 25hp is not needed. With 25hp you can keep up with traffic and do the speed limit.
Use: I am not sure what that means. Do you mean use all 200 legally! Well yes you can! Do you mean the top speed that is reachable.
Heck you cannot “use” 60hp, if that is your definition of use!
Let’s face it, motorcycle are not safe and the primary cause of accidents is the car’s fault.
So what makes a bike with 200 hp any more safe!
I would argue that in some respect my zx14r was safer than a lot of bike.
Brakes were fantastic
Handling was far superior to most low horse power bikes.
Traction control, power setting, ABS, low center of gravity. Tires that gripped in the rain! The ability to get out of a situation. Plus, here is the big one: it was able to go slow. It handle very well at slow speeds.
It is the driver that is safe or unsafe, because of HP, not the bike!
I had Hayabusa for many years as well cbr1000rr as well zxr12 as my only vehicle.
All of them are less than 200hp and the option of the companies for buy a 200hp stock is really limited (depends the wallet).
tone of people have turbo Hayabusa or other that exceed the 200hp and still are alive and enjoying their vehicles.when excist cars with +1000hp that you can just go and buy if you can afford should be the bikes too.anyway you obviously can hurt damage more people with a super car out of control than a super bike.
Now if should be some kind of driver license for these category maybe but we all know how this will end up will be defenately about paying some extra tax than actually testing drivers abilities.
I wasn't trying to suggest a certain level of HP makes a bike unsafe, just that one doesn't need to ride a 200+ HP bike to have an opinion. By "use" I mean use it to it's full capability.
I do disagree it makes a bike "safer". At some point lack of HP can be an issue, but if a rider has the skill to make use of it, they have the skill to not "need" it.