horsepower and weight - do they matter?

[birdseye]

I'm not a fast rider but I'm not a slowcoach either. I overtake other riders about as often as they overtake me. Average if you like. But I never use the maximum power available from my bike engine and I suspect the same thing applies to almost everyone else out there. But bear with me here. Power is a measure of the ability to do work so you only ever use max power when your bike is working as hard as it can at the correct revs for max power and with the throttle wide open. Maximum speed on the motorway in sixth gear for example. When did you last do that? Or full throttle acceleration at the revs at which max power is developed - maybe for a couple of seconds at a time before you have to change gear or wind down. So if you fitted a data logger to your bike you would likely find that you either never used max power or only for a minute or two in a years riding. Yet claimed max power matters greatly when manufacturers sell a bike. And it seems to matter in posts on here too.

Weight is a different issue. I'm again average height , average fitness, gym twice a week etc, yet I find wheeling my GS out of the garage to be a heavy-ish job. Manhandling it on a gravel car park isnt always easy. So why is it that bike weights only ever seem to go up? The R80GS was 186kg the 1200 is 220 kg. Even the current 800 is over 210kgs. A 1960 Bonney was 178 kg. Surely we have progressed since then and can use lighter materials?

In short why are we being offered ever more powerful and bloated bikes/

 

[Roger GSA]

I agree with you. My LT has reverse gear and made the bike easier to handle. Its a pity it is not fitted as standard on more of todays bikes. I appreciate it would add weight but well worth considering.

 

[Ali-bear]

I think if you ever have one land on you that you'll find horse weight does matter very much indeed

 

[(RIP) Miff]

Ride a moped on a very busy dual carriageway.
Try to pick up a Goldwing when it's laying on top of you.

I think you'll know the answer after that

 

[Ogmios]

...
In short why are we being offered ever more powerful and bloated bikes/

Same as it ever was.
Look in any issue of MCN and what is pushed at us as the latest and greatest flavour-of-the-month always has more BHP than last months offering, which was the bestest there was until this month.
This works on the catchment the makers are aiming at;
those with least experience with motorcycles and least confidence in their own judgement and the most money to spend.

Whereas,
torque is cheap.

 

[rodsharp]

I agree with you Birdseye. My 1200 is fast enough for me most if not all the time but I wish it wasn't so bloody heavy to move about in confined spaces and when it has luggage its bordering on ridiculous.I keep thinking of what to get next but don't know the answer except it will have to be lighter and lower than a GS but still able to ride quite long distances,take luggage and a pillion ,not be too cramped for a six footer,and offer low down torque rather than high rev horsepower. Any suggestions??

 

[King Key]

This works on the catchment the makers are aiming at;
those with least experience with motorcycles and least confidence in their own judgement and the most money to spend.

Whereas,
torque is cheap.

Are you talking about W/C owners?

I can't say I've ever heard anyone say 'My bike has too much power, I wish it had less"

Thank goodness the R1200 hides it's weight well on the move or they would have problems.

 

[Blackal]

My argument with myself, in choosing NOT to go for a Multistrada or KTM Adv.............

"How much horsepower do I actually need in a big trailie-type bike?"

Don't need 150bhp - that's for sure.

Al

 

[Mad_Accountant]

I agree with you Birdseye. My 1200 is fast enough for me most if not all the time but I wish it wasn't so bloody heavy to move about in confined spaces and when it has luggage its bordering on ridiculous.I keep thinking of what to get next but don't know the answer except it will have to be lighter and lower than a GS but still able to ride quite long distances,take luggage and a pillion ,not be too cramped for a six footer,and offer low down torque rather than high rev horsepower. Any suggestions??

I'm with you all the way. When I'm on my r100r I feel the world is a happy place and why would I want anything better. Then I jump on the Triple Black GSA and all bets are suddenly off. Although there is a higher risk of putting the GSA on its side when stationary or wheeled about actually whilst on the move the GSA is a far safer ride. 60 bhp plays 110 bhp, 38 mpg plays 45+ mpg. Zilch plays Telelever suspension ABS and traction control.

I guess the R100r is for when I really can't cope with the weight of the GSA any more. That time has not yet arrived.

Having said that a day out on the old boxer is still a great experience.

And what bikes have I ridden almost daily (all year round) for the last 13 years? What is the only bike I have ridden in Paris wearing no helmet, shorts and t-shirt and is the only bike I have ever ridden 1000 miles in 24 hours?

Actually my C1s

There is an old saying that bhp sells bikes but torque makes them
go quickly.

 

[Steptoe]

In short why are we being offered ever more powerful and bloated bikes/

As if the bikes aren't heavy enough, just have a look at all the totally unnecessary crap people add to them.

They ought to try adding "lightness", the best thing you can do to a modern bike.

 

[Beemerman59]

I've lost 3 stone in the last 12 months and now my bloated Hexhead GSA feels so much more flighty and twitchy I'm thinking I need a steering damper....

 

[stevemersey]

Yes, rider weight and fitness, there is a thought. Cheapest way of gaining performance and being able to move that heavy bike around is lose some weight and get fit.

But on the original point, you don't have to buy a bloated 1200, there are plenty of smaller lighter bikes, and yet the biggest seller is the lardy R1200GS. Weird isn't it?

 

[Schtum]

My argument with myself, in choosing NOT to go for a Multistrada or KTM Adv.............

"How much horsepower do I actually need in a big trailie-type bike?"

Don't need 150bhp - that's for sure.

Al

How true - why would you want 150 bhp when 125 bhp and 92 lbs-ft is just perfect?

 

[Blackal]

How true - why would you want 150 bhp when 125 bhp and 92 lbs-ft is just perfect?

Don't get me wrong, I do love horsepower......

But the GS has two very important attributes for me:

1) Telelever suspension - prevents the geometry changing when braking at approach to corners.
2) Those "sticky-out" cylinders might just save my ankles if it all goes south...........

Al

 

[Schtum]

Don't get me wrong, I do love horsepower......

But the GS has two very important attributes for me:

1) Telelever suspension - prevents the geometry changing when braking at approach to corners.
2) Those "sticky-out" cylinders might just save my ankles if it all goes south...........

Al

Actually, old chap:

1) The Telelever actually lengthens the wheelbase slightly under braking. You are, of course, correct about the stability of the chassis which is down to both the Telelever and the Paralever rear end.

You can also have those benefits, including the sticky-out pots and 125 bhp with a new WC....

 

[Blackal]

Actually, old chap:

1) The Telelever actually lengthens the wheelbase slightly under braking. You are, of course, correct about the stability of the chassis which is down to both the Telelever and the Paralever rear end.

You can also have those benefits, including the sticky-out pots and 125 bhp with a new WC....

Excuse me Sir - I believe you dropped this?

Al

 

[Wilsdorf]

Yes they matter - the GS could do with more power and less weight, for people like me. Also, most owners who are happy with the power/speed etc. are a different type of rider, or have other bikes that they use for that - that is a luxury that most bike owners do not have.

 

[oldnfat]

I'm not a fast rider but I'm not a slowcoach either. I overtake other riders about as often as they overtake me. Average if you like. But I never use the maximum power available from my bike engine and I suspect the same thing applies to almost everyone else out there. But bear with me here. Power is a measure of the ability to do work so you only ever use max power when your bike is working as hard as it can at the correct revs for max power and with the throttle wide open. Maximum speed on the motorway in sixth gear for example. When did you last do that? Or full throttle acceleration at the revs at which max power is developed - maybe for a couple of seconds at a time before you have to change gear or wind down. So if you fitted a data logger to your bike you would likely find that you either never used max power or only for a minute or two in a years riding. Yet claimed max power matters greatly when manufacturers sell a bike. And it seems to matter in posts on here too.

Weight is a different issue. I'm again average height , average fitness, gym twice a week etc, yet I find wheeling my GS out of the garage to be a heavy-ish job. Manhandling it on a gravel car park isnt always easy. So why is it that bike weights only ever seem to go up? The R80GS was 186kg the 1200 is 220 kg. Even the current 800 is over 210kgs. A 1960 Bonney was 178 kg. Surely we have progressed since then and can use lighter materials?

In short why are we being offered ever more powerful and bloated bikes/

So, the new Suzuki V Strom would have really been on to something if they had managed to get the weight down from 228kg to about 200. A missed opportunity by Suzuki IMO to bring something different to the market.

 

[Ex-Call Centre Chimp]

I agree with you Birdseye. My 1200 is fast enough for me most if not all the time but I wish it wasn't so bloody heavy to move about in confined spaces and when it has luggage its bordering on ridiculous.I keep thinking of what to get next but don't know the answer except it will have to be lighter and lower than a GS but still able to ride quite long distances,take luggage and a pillion ,not be too cramped for a six footer,and offer low down torque rather than high rev horsepower. Any suggestions??

A 12 RT.

I don't know if it's lighter, no doubt someone will be along to correct me soon enough, but both of my RT's felt lighter & were far easier to manhandle than my GSA.

 

[birdseye]

Don't get me wrong, I do love horsepower......

But the GS has two very important attributes for me:

1) Telelever suspension - prevents the geometry changing when braking at approach to corners.
2) Those "sticky-out" cylinders might just save my ankles if it all goes south...........

Al

Agree totally. And no 2 does work - a bimbo in a 3 door hatch went straight on at a bend and hit me on those sticky out cylinders. Closing speed close to 100mph. Wrote off the bike and her car but not my leg

I guess the tiger 800 is the nearest to what we are discussing