horsepower and weight - do they matter?

Schtum said:
125 bhp with a new WC.... :)
Click to expand...

:eek: How many....!!? I'd never be able to make that sort of transition from my weezy old lebenfifty without getting a nosebleed everytime I opened the tap.... far too many...:rob
 
Coolcarbon said:
:eek: How many....!!? I'd never be able to make that sort of transition from my weezy old lebenfifty without getting a nosebleed everytime I opened the tap.... far too many...:rob
Click to expand...

You could just leave it in Rain mode all the time, Mike...... :)
 
This is an argument for direct injection 2 strokes. They are clean powerful and with exhaust valves very economical. They don't chunter on poor fuel mixture so don't wear the bores rapidly. They breath clean air so use less oil. No petrol to wash it out.

The BRP Rotax Skidoo engine has strong mid range for lugging through deep snow. But makes 160bhp from 800cc.

The GS is tall but a small hydraulic system could quickly change ride height on the fly. So short and long legged riders can all be happy. Citroen hydraulic suspension was a simple system.

Cost issues? Not really the engine is much cheaper to build. Powered brakes can also put less weight on the wheels.

For some reason, bike makers refuse to think out of the box so we get the same old same old with incremental development but little real innovation. BMW are the best for not following everyone else but the telelever and duolever are not exactly new. Both had been around for 20 years before BMW took them on. Telelever = Saxon. Duo lever = Hossack.


Sent from my phone with mangled spelling
 
birdseye said:
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/
Click to expand...


I think the GS image is designed to look and feel durable (wont get into that one too deep), but technology should allow some parts to get lighter I agree, its competitors like KTM and Triumph don't have the wishbone front or the wacking great shaft set up so can be lighter, and in the case of the KTM the engine is very light for its size (but you loose the heavy flywheel advantage) but the numbers of GS sold indicate those heavy bits add to the bike we all buy!!
 
This is a good thread! It's always been about peak power and always will be - but one of the traditional charms of BMs is that they never used to get involved, instead they concentrated on midrange, which as the OP states is the bit we use. To me this was always the appeal of their bikes, 'though of course, today they are starting to play the same game as the others and of course their sales have improved.

When the 1100GS first came out it was quoted as 80bhp, though some road tests of the time measured about 85bhp at the wheel. The Firebalde had come out a couple of years earlier and a mate of mine who had one could not live with my GS up to 60. I still maintain that my 1200 doesn't really feel any more 'gruntier' than my 1100......or have I got the rose coloured glasses on again?

Of course, all these things are relative - I remember my first test ride on a R100GS, I was amazed at the grunt when compared with my then R800GS. I had to have the 800 due to insurance costs (from the times when insurance was just based on cc).

Anyway, for me my 1200GS has more than enough power / performance for what I want. Does this mean I have reached maturity?
 
Horsepower is nice to have tho' weight is a little less desirable.

Each to their own but fond as I am of bigger, older Boxers they were a bit lacking in the oomph dept and just as heavy.
 
The BMW separates steering and suspension geometry so the bike rides like something much lighter while keeping a relatively lazy steering geometry.


Sent from my phone with mangled spelling
 
Read a few launch reports of the new gsa complaining that it gets unsettled at speeds over 160 kmh, ffs it is a enduro styled bike with the aerodynamics of a truck and fitted with huge panniers.
The horsepower race with this part of the market is getting out of hand. ktm has 150bhp this year and bmw 125, if ktm ups the ante will bmw follow and give the gs and gsa 140bhp next year.
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jon
Horsepower and Brake horsepower
Replies
11
Views
2,300
Bill
Bill


Back
Top Bottom