Question for 1200 ADV WC owners....

[phooey]

I have to say, I agree.
Varying between 48 and 96 Km/h... even travelling at human-type speeds, he should have been keeping it between third and fifth.
When you've got open back lanes in front of you, why not?

It depends on how you ride.

Some riders are all throttle and brakes. Their choice. Some riders can ride quickly and smoothly in appropriately high gears using the throttle to adjust entry and exit speeds. Their choice. Machine sympathy plays a part - I don't wear out tyres and brakes or clutches frequently and I use less fuel as a result. My choice. Road conditions were a factor - wet with deposits of gravel and mud. The smoother you ride the less you ask of your tyres in terms of traction.

I think I know what I'm doing

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

The LC produces 97Nm @ 2,500rpm and 95Nm @ 2,000rpm

The twin cam torque is only specced down to 2500rpm and only produces about 85Nm.

The LC produces more low down grunt than any of the previous 1200s.- simples.

The TC has a heavier flywheel - simples.

Andres

 

[Engineer]

The TC has a heavier flywheel - simples.

Andres[/QUOTE

does it.

 

[Engineer]

On paper, yes. To me, the LC doesn't have anywhere near the grunt, right from idle, that my hexhead and camhead bikes had.
I can clearly feel the extra power from about 3 000 RPM onward. Then, from 4 800, it takes off like an SR-71 being chased by a surface-to-air missile.

I have had both the first 1200 and the twin cam and to be honest I cannot say that either of those bikes felt torquier than the LC at low revs and the figures bear this out - in fact the twin cam torque isn't specified below 2500 which is a higher rpm than the LC is specified down to - Maybe it's becauase the LC has so much more torque as it gets going that it fools people into thinking it is weaker at very low revs. People used to same the same about the original 1200 compared to the 1150 - it's all an 'optical' illusion methinks

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

I have had both the first 1200 and the twin cam and to be honest I cannot say that either of those bikes felt torquier than the LC at low revs and the figures bear this out - in fact the twin cam torque isn't specified below 2500 which is a higher rpm than the LC is specified down to - Maybe it's becauase the LC has so much more torque as it gets going that it fools people into thinking it is weaker at very low revs. People used to same the same about the original 1200 compared to the 1150 - it's all an 'optical' illusion methinks

Nope, you're wrong Peter - I refer you to my earlier post.

My 1190 whoops WC arse when it comes to torque, right across the rev range. That said, my 05 1200GS felt much 'gruntier' low down than my 1190. Why? Because it had a heavier flywheel which meant it carried greater inertia.

Why do you think the WC spins up so much quicker than a TC?

Andres

 

[Engineer]

Nope, you're wrong Peter - I refer you to my earlier post.

My 1190 whoops WC arse when it comes to torque, right across the rev range. That said, my 05 1200GS felt much 'gruntier' low down than my 1190. Why? Because it had a heavier flywheel which meant it carried greater inertia.

Why do you think the WC spins up so much quicker than a TC?

Andres

torque is a result of the force produced by the combustion process, it has nothing to do with the mass of the flywheel - if that were the case all you have to do is put in a bigger and bigger flywheel to get a 'free' increase in torque, which is clearly nonsense.

 

[Engineer]

Nope, you're wrong Peter - I refer you to my earlier post.

My 1190 whoops WC arse when it comes to torque, right across the rev range. That said, my 05 1200GS felt much 'gruntier' low down than my 1190. Why? Because it had a heavier flywheel which meant it carried greater inertia.

Why do you think the WC spins up so much quicker than a TC?

Andres

P.S. The 1190 Adventure produces less peak torque than the WC

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

torque is a result of the force produced by the combustion process, it has nothing to do with the mass of the flywheel - if that were the case all you have to do is put in a bigger and bigger flywheel to get a 'free' increase in torque, which is clearly nonsense.

Obviously.

However, the 'feel' of the bike, especially at lower revs, has everything to do with the mass of the flywheel, and that's what's been talked about here.

P.S. The 1190 Adventure produces less peak torque than the WC

Mine doesn't

Andres

 

[Engineer]

Obviously.

However, the 'feel' of the bike, especially at lower revs, has everything to do with the mass of the flywheel, and that's what's been talked about here.



Mine doesn't

Andres

Ok it's 'feel' then not torque hmmmmmmmm I wonder what numbers 'feel' is measured in, some sort of religious units I guess

 

[Toddmeister]

Mine doesn't

Andres

It has less than mine though (by 4.5ft/lb)

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

It has less than mine though (by 4.5ft/lb)

I stand corrected

Andres