+- The CB1100 Community Forum (https://cb1100forum.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Other Stuff (https://cb1100forum.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Motorcycling - General (https://cb1100forum.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Motorcyle power/weight ratios (/showthread.php?tid=13522)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - pekingduck - 05-24-2017
I don't know how Ducati can make bikes like the Monster 1200 that weigh less than the CB500X or BMW G650GS but make 3X the horsepower.
I guess I'm really wondering why other bikes need to be so heavy.
Motorcyle power/weight ratios - Elipten_imp - 05-24-2017
I have wondered the same thing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - PowerDubs_imp - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 11:40 AM)pekingduck_imp Wrote: I don't know how Ducati can make bikes like the Monster 1200 that weigh less than the CB500X or BMW G650GS but make 3X the horsepower.
I guess I'm really wondering why other bikes need to be so heavy.
The answer- like most things in life- money.
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - BestStandard_imp - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 11:40 AM)pekingduck_imp Wrote: I don't know how Ducati can make bikes like the Monster 1200 that weigh less than the CB500X or BMW G650GS but make 3X the horsepower.
I guess I'm really wondering why other bikes need to be so heavy.
Other bikes don't have a frame that will fit in your lunchbox!!!
https://www.google.com/search?q=ducati+monster+1200&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOh4DO_4nUAhXFJiYKHSL6DuQQ_AUICSgB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgdii=KGKZqRmihpwv9M:&imgrc=4oItoiUfQOar2M:
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - Jim21680_imp - 05-24-2017
I won't get into the conversions, but I copied this from another motorcycle forum and it gives some good perspective.
If my math is right, I think the CB1100 wedges in just below the Corvette, at around 250W/kg.
63W/kg: Hummer H1 06 (300hp)
73W/kg: Ford Focus 09 (140hp)
129W/kg: Mini Cooper 08 (208hp)
141W/kg: Mazda RX-8 03 (232hp)
145W/kg: Harley Davidson Soft Tail Fat Boy 09 (63hp)
145W/kg: BMW 7 Series 06 (439hp)
154W/kg: Ford Mustang 05 (310hp)
179W/kg: Lotus Elise SC 08 (218hp)
265W/kg: Chevrolet Corvette C6 z06 10 (505hp)
271W/kg: Porsche 911 GT2 07 (523hp)
318W/kg: Lamborghini Murcielago 09 (661hp)
403W/kg: McLaren F1 GT (627hp)
475W/kg: Supermarine Spitfire Fighter 36 (1,470hp)
500W/kg: Suzuki Hyabusa 10 (197hp at crank)
517W/kg: Ferrari FXX 05 (801hp)
548W/kg: Yamaha R6 09 (133hp at crank)
590W/kg: Kawasaki zx14r 12 (210hp at crank)
668W/kg: Honda CBR1000RR 09 (178hp at crank)
700W/kg: Suzuki GSX-R750 11 (147hp at crank)
746W/kg: Yamaha R1 10 (179hp at crank)
787W/kg: BMW s1000RR 10 (193hp at crank)
810W/kg: Suzuki GSX-R1000 10 (191hp at crank)
925W/kg: Killacycle Electric Drag Racebike (350hp)
1150W/kg: BMW Williams FW27 Formula 1 (925hp)
1194W/kg: Honda RC211V MOTOGP (237hp)
1376W/kg: Boeing 747-300 (328,000hp)
4,199W/kg: BAC Concorde (443,000hp)
5,717W/kg: NHRA John Force Funny Car 08 (8,000hp)
8,238W/kg: F35 Lightning (147,000hp)
10,402W/kg: SR71 Blackbird (427,000hp)
12,203W/kg: F22 Raptor (323,000hp)
118,000W/kg: Space Shuttle Endeavour (w/ tanks/boosters) (44,000,000hp)
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - pekingduck - 05-24-2017
But if we add rider/driver weight, bikes don't look so good.
Mass+100 - rotor - 05-24-2017
You are better man than I; I keep putting a similar thing on back of an envelope, over and over again each time I'm buying (or toying with the idea of doing so
...When it comes to mass, I do not use the bike mass only, but the bike plus 100 kilograms (for the rider and gear). Why? Extremely light bikes loose some of their power over mass coefficient advantage - and this is what models the real conditions better than just the machine mass. If I was ever to consider two-up touring, for such bikes it should probably be mass+180 kilograms.
My lists include the seat height and rake angle, but not the torque numbers. This is the list of things I need to know to find real contenders.
May I suggest that you put units in the column headers? If it was possible to generate (since the numbers are already sitting in a spreadsheet?) the output in SI units (for instance, power in Watts over mass in kilograms) this would be terrific (for us in the rest of the World
RE: Mass+100 - curlyjoe - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 03:36 PM)rotor_imp Wrote: You are better man than I; I keep putting a similar thing on back of an envelope, over and over again each time I'm buying (or toying with the idea of doing so
When it comes to mass, I do not use the bike mass only, but the bike plus 100 kilograms (for the rider and gear). Why? Extremely light bikes loose some of their power over mass coefficient advantage - and this is what models the real conditions better than just the machine mass. If I was ever to consider two-up touring, for such bikes it should probably be mass+180 kilograms.
My lists include the seat height and rake angle, but not the torque numbers. This is the list of things I need to know to find real contenders.
May I suggest that you put units in the column headers? If it was possible to generate (since the numbers are already sitting in a spreadsheet?) the output in SI units (for instance, power in Watts over mass in kilograms) this would be terrific (for us in the rest of the World
Good suggestions rotor. It's supposed to rain today and tomorrow so I'll continue to work on the spreadsheet. For me, low end torque (2000-3000 RPM) and a relatively flat torque curve is more important than peak HP.
RE: Motorcyle power/weight ratios - curlyjoe - 05-25-2017
The [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g659teIzT1P_Nrja0PpFwA7KWRmtF6EXDhaWJinNrJo/edit#gid=0]spreadsheet was updated with both english/metric values and added power/weight ratios with 100 Kg and 220 lb rider.
If anyone would like to see additional bikes added, let me know.