buell woes

[Tmall]

Originally Posted by smileyman

All the WSBK twins were given displacement advantages and then either carried extra weight or restrictors or both, but somehow manage to win more championships than any other config. V4s, RC30 & 45, had little restrictions but were of same displacement as the I4s.

Basically my theory is proven by the fact that you have to handicap a twin or V4 by weight or restrictors in order to get a fair race with the I 4s.

And you have to go no further than the Ape RSV4 to see what inherent advantages the V4 layout produces...

And again, in AMA, when Hayden won. He won with an advantage. The 1000 I4's had restrictor plates. And before that it ran against 750's.

A V4 has no real disadvantage over an I4 when it comes to revs. The valve area, and piston weight/size should be roughly the same.

Twins very rarely compete evenly. Only when Ducati came out with the Desmo valve arrangement (mechanically linked the entire time, as opposed to being closed with a spring) have they made comparable power to the equivalent I4. Even now, they use an 1198 instead of a 1000. And the Desmosidici ( based off of the gp bike, therefore gp specs are why it's a V4) is outrageously priced and make the same power if not slightly more than a Gixxer 1000, and costs seven times as much.

I love twins. I dislike I4's. But, facts are facts. Four cylinders can usually rev higher, therefore do more work, which gives them an advantage.

[smileyman]

I hear what your saying. I4s can rev higher produce more HP and speed, but i guess we have to disagree. I still feel the torque spread and throttle connection of a V will beat the all out HP of an I4 head to head, cc for cc.

And yeah, there have been many formulas for what is considered a fair fight between WSBK favoring Ducs and one certaim AMA boss handing Buell a championship. The twin loses out somewhat in rpm but gains in tractibility which in my racing history usually means money.

It has beared out for me in roadracing MC's, Stock car racing, and drag racing, torque means more than HP.

Now I am quick to agree on the performance to dollar facts of I4 vs V twin orV four.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by smileyman

All the WSBK twins were given displacement advantages and then either carried extra weight or restrictors or both, but somehow manage to win more championships than any other config. V4s, RC30 & 45, had little restrictions but were of same displacement as the I4s.

Basically my theory is proven by the fact that you have to handicap a twin or V4 by weight or restrictors in order to get a fair race with the I 4s.

And you have to go no further than the Ape RSV4 to see what inherent advantages the V4 layout produces...

Um have you seen the reviews of the non-cheater/non-heavily modified street version of that bike? Oh and who's talking about V4s? I love V4s, I had a V-Max!

Oh and come on broham, really? Everybody knows that the RC51 was so heavily modified and even so, it barely beat out the GSXR750 for the AMA championship.

Give me a break, it is no secret that WSBK has been kissing Ducati's ass for decades...

Okay, get two bikes of the same weight, same CCs, same caliber riders, no restrictions...one a V-Twin and one a I4. Tell me that you don't think that the I4 will win on the track.

[smileyman]

Me on a stock 1198 vs anyone short of Leon Hasam on a oem GSXR1000. LOL, I come up smiling, T Hee.
I was arguing torque vs HP, not really anything else. You can build a good torquey I4 and cheap too, but in the last 20 yrs a I4 has won only 4 championships in WSBK and 7 Championships in GP Rossi and Lawson not withstanding. I rest my case on torque fellas.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Me on a stock 1198 vs anyone short of Leon Hasam on a oem GSXR1000. LOL, I come up smiling, T Hee.
I was arguing torque vs HP, not really anything else. You can build a good torquey I4 and cheap too, but in the last 20 yrs a I4 has won only 4 championships in WSBK and 7 Championships in GP Rossi and Lawson not withstanding. I rest my case on torque fellas.

What? You can't do it can you? You can't even contemplate a CC for CC race. Again, you want to pit a 1200cc Vtwin vs a 1000cc I4 and you consider it a "fair" race. 20 years? I'll give you all the 2 stroke years which were not V-Twins,btw you keep cheating and bringing in the V4 (and the V5!) like it's the same thing. Okay 4 cylinder bikes are better than 2 cylinder bikes regardless of configuration. Argue that!

[smileyman]

I told you I am arguing Torque Vs HP. Read the whole thread again. That is why the V4 and the Twin both show up. My original statement was Torque beat HP!!! I can and would put an OEM twin against an OEM 4. Over 8, 24, or 70 laps the torquey motor will beat the HP motor, config be damned...
..

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by smileyman

I told you I am arguing Torque Vs HP. Read the whole thread again. That is why the V4 and the Twin both show up. My original statement was Torque beat HP!!! I can and would put an OEM twin against an OEM 4. Over 8, 24, or 70 laps the torquey motor will beat the HP motor, config be damned...
..

Well, why not a single then? We both know that the more CCs you have, the more torque you'll most likely have. So a V-Twin will beat a V4/5 of the same weight and CCs?.... NO WAY!!! Never happen. I don't think V-twins have ever raced 4 cylinders cc for cc... heck, even this year in the 600 class, Ducati is racing the 848 and losing miserably! I think the complaint is that they have to carry 16 more lbs but they get 250 more CCs! I love to argue this debate but I guess we'll agree to disagree... There will never be a way to prove it until some sanctioning body says screw it and starts a run what you brung class, all OEM, NO MODS, no limits!!! 'Busa? Okay. Ninja 250? Okay. Whatever. Totally stock. Now that would separate the men from the boys! Maybe set a price cap to keep crazy exotics out of the picture but otherwise...

[smileyman]

Your missing my point Lamps, I NEVER said V Twins would beat V4/5s of same cc or an I 4 of same cc. I said WHOMEVER Makes the config with THE MOST TORQUE WINS. Period. I4s have done it with the advent of electronic rider aids and riders like SPIES and TOSELAND X1 , ROSSI, LAWSON. x2. BUT not regulary against V 2s, V4s, And V5s. 20 years of run what you brung. I4s havent brought it.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Your missing my point Lamps, I NEVER said V Twins would beat V4/5s of same cc or an I 4 of same cc. I said WHOMEVER Makes the config with THE MOST TORQUE WINS. Period. I4s have done it with the advent of electronic rider aids and riders like SPIES and TOSELAND X1 , ROSSI, LAWSON. x2. BUT not regulary against V 2s, V4s, And V5s. 20 years of run what you brung. I4s havent brought it.

Oh.....hmmm but V-Twins don't win in MotoGp either and that's what we were talking about to begin with...this is a Buell thread, right? I started out arguing against V-twins and you came in with more torque wins races and.... ah who cares? It was a fun argument anyway!

[smileyman]

I was just trying to say torque rules.
V Twins and V4s and V5s make gobs of quality torque. for 20 yrs GP/MotoGP was ruled by V4s and V5s, same 20 yrs WSBK has been dominated by twins.

I raced in a very competitive SV650 class and with all the identical twins we worked real hard to find an advantage. Turns out the mildly tuned engines with the good mid range would lap better
than the highly modded and cammed up peak HP engines. They were more tractible and easy to make gearing compromises for different tracks, turned lap times that put them squarely mid pack of the 600 middleweight classes. So then we experimented with our 600s and same thing. Torquey was better save with the high rpms of the 4 cy inline the difference wasnt as great lap time wise.