Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why are motorcycles not better?
- Thread starter Amos Malone
- Start date
matty
Border raider.
Cars have improved over what they say were being churned out 20 or 30 years ago, but really the quoted kia in the 1 liter or 1.4 is nothing out of the ordinary certainly not re power or even MPG. In fact for a turbo its actually sub par and could be beaten soundly by a 1.4 turbo diesel car , which in 1322cc TDI VAG triple form with no turbo or injector swaps from stock just a very basic ecu peramiter tune be over the 100hp easily and approach 200 hp with just a few simple tweeks turbo injectors etc.
Why di i mention diesel cars in the bike vs car debate? Because its just as irelivent and at least both are turbo, the same can not be said on the bike reference.
Upon leaving the diesel aspect just to clarify the kind of power fron the afore said VAG 1322cc triple could be more of less diplicated with the 1.3 fiat alfa vauxhall JTD Turbo diesel, and to close both in tuned form or stock would be into the 70s UK gallon on MPG.
You can not really compare a NA bike with a turbo car and expect the same sort of HP gains per litre. A 100cc ford kent blocked MAE 997cc in the 1960s produced 100hp per litre way back then and from a three bearing cranked cast iron blocked dagenham cast lump, so the fact a 60 year newer turbo acchieves the same power is hardly ground moving.
Bikes have evolved where they need to be, both from an environmental footing as well as required practical saleable power that can be applied to the sittuations they are used in. You only need look at the IOM TT lap times of the supersport vs the superstock classes, this is clear evidence the manufacturers are really on the money when its required in stock road bikes.
Turbos are a big power maker and in a bike are probably capable with full factory development of being frankly incredible and perhaps a touch dangerous for the average joe to nip down the shop on.
You could look at the varrious bike specs re hp and see some shortfalls on curent models over 30 year old mode;s of the same capacity. But licencing laws in some countries need certain size bikes to make lower hp and this can often be the answer why in some cases.
If you look at two 500cc twins one from 1993 one from 2022 both similar engines yet the honda cmx rebel 500 is in the mid 30s HP and yet my 1993 kawasaki en500A3 bobber in stock form has a claimed 54 hp and this is born out even after 30 years when its up against my mates rebel 500 2019.
I think bikes v cars are doing just fine and after all bells and whistles aside cars can have a lot of gadgets many simply dont want or certainly dont need.
If i could buy a car with no electric windows and basic spec, no air con depending on where on earth you live, a basic car thats not only cheaper but better for the environment technicaly because its less carbon foot print and is lighter to boot. Bikes are doing just fine they are simply mostly normaly aspirated thats all.
Why di i mention diesel cars in the bike vs car debate? Because its just as irelivent and at least both are turbo, the same can not be said on the bike reference.
Upon leaving the diesel aspect just to clarify the kind of power fron the afore said VAG 1322cc triple could be more of less diplicated with the 1.3 fiat alfa vauxhall JTD Turbo diesel, and to close both in tuned form or stock would be into the 70s UK gallon on MPG.
You can not really compare a NA bike with a turbo car and expect the same sort of HP gains per litre. A 100cc ford kent blocked MAE 997cc in the 1960s produced 100hp per litre way back then and from a three bearing cranked cast iron blocked dagenham cast lump, so the fact a 60 year newer turbo acchieves the same power is hardly ground moving.
Bikes have evolved where they need to be, both from an environmental footing as well as required practical saleable power that can be applied to the sittuations they are used in. You only need look at the IOM TT lap times of the supersport vs the superstock classes, this is clear evidence the manufacturers are really on the money when its required in stock road bikes.
Turbos are a big power maker and in a bike are probably capable with full factory development of being frankly incredible and perhaps a touch dangerous for the average joe to nip down the shop on.
You could look at the varrious bike specs re hp and see some shortfalls on curent models over 30 year old mode;s of the same capacity. But licencing laws in some countries need certain size bikes to make lower hp and this can often be the answer why in some cases.
If you look at two 500cc twins one from 1993 one from 2022 both similar engines yet the honda cmx rebel 500 is in the mid 30s HP and yet my 1993 kawasaki en500A3 bobber in stock form has a claimed 54 hp and this is born out even after 30 years when its up against my mates rebel 500 2019.
I think bikes v cars are doing just fine and after all bells and whistles aside cars can have a lot of gadgets many simply dont want or certainly dont need.
If i could buy a car with no electric windows and basic spec, no air con depending on where on earth you live, a basic car thats not only cheaper but better for the environment technicaly because its less carbon foot print and is lighter to boot. Bikes are doing just fine they are simply mostly normaly aspirated thats all.
matty
Border raider.
The thing is do bikes need this urbo tpower advantage certainly for road use and practically even race applications.
From a race perspective a turbo bike gives the power fair enough but do we ever consider drawing a line in the sand or just keep on and on to the next performance innovation indefinitely.
way back when turbos showed up in formula 1 we had 3 litre normal aspirated, and 1.5 turbo rules and other rules re ground effect etc. as things improved the rules were adopted to maintain competition.
I think all bikes could gain hp from turbos, but there are a lot of people just want a simple basic uncomplicated cheap motorcycle and this is exactly why the enfield interceptor was the most popular bike in the uk and parts of europe .
Back to the car thing and the gadgets in the spec, i believe the world is ready for a simple basic bare bones car with the engine tech trans brakes handling aerodynamics etc, but less glitzy luxury items and all should be in a cheaper lighter and as such environmentaly better and economical.
Bikes have more farkles these days but again not everyone wants or needs them, heated grips are nice i supose but not a single bike i own has them and i get by ok, its all a case of the individuals requirements from a car or bike and manufacturers pander to the whims of customers they think from research they can tap into.
Danno
Well-known member
I can go play in the woods for hrs on a gallon of gas only if it is 2 wheels. There are aerodynamic brick walls if you ride a bicycle. 25mph is a big one to push past. So 12-25 mph is very efficient with correct engine and gearing. At least for me it is. Rpm and load does kill fuel consumption so cutting my yard more often at lower rpm uses less gas than high rpm heavy loads cutting once. I can cut almost 3 times right off idle to 1 cut of a high rpm loaded up grass mess. So cutting every 3 days uses less gas than once a week in the green season.
Amos Malone
Well-known member
Self-cancelling turn indicators. Why have these not caught on on motorcycles?
JimVonBaden
Kool Aid!
What are you riding? These have been on BMWs since 2004.
Why do the motorcycle manufactures "need" to improve fuel mileage , what ever,ect... ?
We are buying them as fast as they make them.
We are buying them as fast as they make them.
Amos Malone
Well-known member
Mileage is only one of many things where manufacturers are lagging behind, and should not be considered a magic pill to fix all problems. The advantage of motorcycle size is not (IMHO) being fully utilised.
This is in itself is an indicator (pardon the pun) of the problem. If BMW can make them,,, why can the others not? (I don't think the G310 has them, but I could be wrong).
At the moment I'm riding Honda.
Are you still buying motorcycles?
If I am selling a product ,and it's selling as fast as I can produce it, why should I change the product ?
If the consumer doesn't like a product , they stop buying it.
Amos Malone
Well-known member
Amos Malone
Well-known member
It's like the oil companies, that use every opportunity to reduce production of oil, to raise the prices, to increase profits.
Why change the product? To make your product stand out, so you can sell more at higher prices, to increase profits.
Danno
Well-known member
We are now in the good new days of she is knockin and not stoppin. Well once the cam chain stretches and cam timing retards...I guess that is automatic enough if the piston survives. Or finding better fuel might work. There was a reason for manual controls. There is a reason for sunoco 94.Oh yeah. The good old days of manual ignition advance.
I couldn't get along with those. If I don't punch my turn signal cancel button every half mile I'd lose my mind. 100% an OCD thing for me. Even when I verify the signals are off I can't resist the urge.
" Leave it alone, dumbass. It's off.....it's off.....you don't need to punch it.... they're off.... leave it alo..." punch whew, I can breathe now...
I swear I'm gonna wear one out someday.
psykown
Well-known member
That is the only thing that is more "high tech" about my sportster than anything other bike I have owned and I absolutely can't stand it. I always signalling on the road because I hit it out of habit......dont even get me started on having a turn signal button on each handlbar
Danno
Well-known member
Alot of the older harleys get converted to one of 2 ways. Hold the button and it it flashes. The other is the flashing is button controlled. Comically both are self canceling. The no flasher method allows any frequency of manual controlled on off flashes.
Amos Malone
Well-known member
Interestingly enough sales of motorcycles amongst young people has been steadily declining for the last few decades. About the only people who buy larger motorcycles these days are old farts like me. Younger people, if they go for two wheeler at all, tend to choose electric scooters. Number of people passing their motorcycle test is declining while population is increasing.
The J.D. Power and Associates 2010 U.S. Motorcycle Competitive Information Study revealed that the average rider age increased from 40 in 2001 to 49 in 2010. I sincerely hope that this trend has slowed down, but doubt it has reversed. If it hasn't, the average riders age would be around 62 this year. 60-70 is an age where you're likely to either stop riding, or decide that your current bike will last until you do. The exceptions to that will not be able to carry the whole motorcycle industry alone.
I saw your thread on age before I got to this one. Can't say I'm surprised at the J.D. Power study.