Horsepower

[emptysea]

i don't know that more horsepower makes a bike any more or less fun to ride. I suspect that " fun" is subjective. Some may find riding is more fun just knowing that they can pull into a wheelie in third gear, even if they would never do so. Some, count me in this group, prefer bring able to twist hard on that right grip and feel that push backward on their seat while knowing that they won't get tossed off the back entirely.

I tend to bristle at questions like "How much HP do you really need?" Next thing you know, some bureaucrat is deciding the answer for you.

[postoak_imp]

That video was funny! Hildo reminds me of youtuber dawino6260, but dawino likes Japanese bikes.

[curlyjoe]

There's no rational answer to your question, postoak. Humans—mostly men, I fear—have always had a bit of a yen for the biggest and the fastest. We are attracted top the bright, shiny things. Why, if you live in the city, would you buy a Porsche or an Aston Martin or a Ferrari or a Mustang or a Corvette or a CBR1000R or a ... you get the idea.

I think the answer is 'because you can' and because you want to say something like 'look what I can have'. It's also our way of replacing the brightly coloured feathers that Mother Nature denied us.

Before all the owners of these fine machines jump down my throat and tell me I'm maligning them, I accept, I do, that many people who acquire them do so because they have a genuine interest in motor cars or cycles and really enjoy the thrill of owning and using quality machines. It's fair enough. Good on you, but none of us belongs to a homogenous group.

I'm not sure that it is, as Mr Spock would have it, 'logical'. You don't need the horsepower; you don't need the speed; you don't need to support the petrol consumption; blah, blah, blah. But these high performance things are there, so people want them.

Why would you want a CB1100? It's probably bigger and heavier and more powerful that anyone really needs. My answer is that it's beautiful and I could have one so I did. Do I 'need' it? Not really.

Excellent post Cormanus.

In America, I rarely see traditional muscle cars these days. They seem to be replaced by large and powerful trucks driven by men that do not use them for anything work related and many of them drive aggressively.

Ferret posted some stats on motorcycle rider fatalities recently and I was surprised to see a steady increase in deaths of older men (+50 I think) riding large displacement (>1700 cc) cruisers and touring motorcycles. I guess these guys wanted the biggest and most powerful motorcycles but weren't able to handle these bikes safely.

Both my bikes have much more power than I need and perhaps I should have bought something in the 500-700 cc range but testosterone/adrenaline and logic do not correlate well among males.

[Rocky_imp]

There's no rational answer to your question, postoak. Humans—mostly men, I fear—have always had a bit of a yen for the biggest and the fastest. We are attracted top the bright, shiny things. Why, if you live in the city, would you buy a Porsche or an Aston Martin or a Ferrari or a Mustang or a Corvette or a CBR1000R or a ... you get the idea.

I think the answer is 'because you can' and because you want to say something like 'look what I can have'. It's also our way of replacing the brightly coloured feathers that Mother Nature denied us.

Before all the owners of these fine machines jump down my throat and tell me I'm maligning them, I accept, I do, that many people who acquire them do so because they have a genuine interest in motor cars or cycles and really enjoy the thrill of owning and using quality machines. It's fair enough. Good on you, but none of us belongs to a homogenous group.

I'm not sure that it is, as Mr Spock would have it, 'logical'. You don't need the horsepower; you don't need the speed; you don't need to support the petrol consumption; blah, blah, blah. But these high performance things are there, so people want them.

Why would you want a CB1100? It's probably bigger and heavier and more powerful that anyone really needs. My answer is that it's beautiful and I could have one so I did. Do I 'need' it? Not really.

I couldn't have said it better.
I already had (and have) a four-cylinder Honda that is both lighter and has more power than the 1100. I didn't "need it", but "it's beautiful and I could have one so I did."
That pretty well sums it up for me.

[Wisedrum]

You can twist the question 'how much horsepower
one needs?' the other way round' how less is enough?'.
I recently testrode a SR400 and right after the start I
noticed, the 23hp are not enough to supply my needs
in a motorcycle. Although I can get used to it, I decided
not to buy such a weak bike. For me it should not have
less than 50hp. This power don't give you the impression of not having the right answers for certain
situations, you may sometimes find yourself in. Wether they be good or not.

If a bike offers more, okay I take it, not really needing it as in the case of the CB, which was bought, 'cause I like this kind of a motorbike, which is rare these days on the market.
Mostly other bikes, that offer even a lot more power,
don't fit my imagination of a motorcycle.
Way to absurd optically and mostly with a riding position, that is far away from feeling halfway comfortable on the long run.
Apart from the fact, that most really powerful bikes will accelerate, as if the devil is hunting you, if you want to, besides from running real fast, which is another, somehow senseless story.
The CB does the acceleration thing anyway in its own way.....

[Sam Mac_imp]

The CB has all the power I need or want. I had a Harley Night Rod 120 +- HP crappy bike. I had a BMW S1000RR 195 is HP incredible machine but not for the roads, it belongs on the track and the riding position is uncomfortable unless your doing at least double the posted limit. 100 in a 45 on the Blue Ridge Parkway will be a go straight to jail. The CB is the perfect ride for this old fart.

[the Ferret]

I think manufacturers are starting to build motorcycles more for everyday use and actually backing off the horse power thing. The new Triumphs for example all have fat healthy torque curves at the expense of high horsepower (new Street twin, new Bonneville and new Thruxton for example). The Honda NC700/750 series is another example as was the CTX1300. Then again, for the most part Honda has always favored ridability to pure outright horsepower. Tuned for torque is a popular term for neutered superbikes like the new FZ-10. Even though it has ungodly amounts of horsepower (compared to say the CB1100), it doesn't have nearly as much as the R-1 it's derived from, and is actually much easier to ride. That pleases some, dissapoints others who have been clamoring for true naked superbikes.

I find 100 hp and 75 ft lbs of torque and 550 pounds wet weight great motorcycle numbers for everyday riding, solo, two up, with luggage, without luggage, docile and sporty and the CB is close enough to that for me.

There will always be the "give me more horsepower" crowd, no matter how much horsepower they are given. Just as there will always be individuals who will do anything to the extreme... snow skiing, wave surfing, mountain climbing, Iron man competitions, flying in those flying squirrel suits, etc.. some just need the stimulation and challenge.

[LongRanger_imp]

I'd suggest there's an inverse relationship between the rider's age and the amount of horsepower that's acceptable. I got huge thrills with my 130 hp K1200RS twenty years ago, but today my 80-ish hp CB1100 is perfect for how I ride (the two bikes weigh about the same). The most endearing bike I've owned was my 38 hp, 400 lb Moto Guzzi V7 Classic. It was more than sufficient for one-up riding. My 23 hp CBR250R could sit at 80 mph all day and was great fun on twisty roads.

[Wisedrum]

I'd suggest there's an inverse relationship between the rider's age and the amount of horsepower that's acceptable. I got huge thrills with my 130 hp K1200RS twenty years ago, but today my 80-ish hp CB1100 is perfect for how I ride (the two bikes weigh about the same). The most endearing bike I've owned was my 38 hp, 400 lb Moto Guzzi V7 Classic. It was more than sufficient for one-up riding. My 23 hp CBR250R could sit at 80 mph all day and was great fun on twisty roads.

Same goes for the W800, a fullfilling combination
of food for the soul and rideability.
Maybe not for all bikers... .I don't care
about that.

Wisedrum

[postoak_imp]

I'm the last one who would restrict someone to what they "need". My point, well one point, was are bikes with more HP sometimes less fun to ride than ones with less? Is a bike that will hit 100 mph in 1st gear and has 6 gears all that fun?

That brings up another point. Along with the ever increasing demand for more HP, there's also a demand for "one more gear". It seems to me a bike with more HP could do with fewer gears, not more. Aren't gears a way of keeping an under-powered bike centered in its maximum torque range?

And then there's "low and mid-range torque" that is touted so much these days. I've never had a sport bike much less a super-sport, so I don't know what they're like, but a bunch of guys seem to think they are an awful lot of fun with high-range torque.

Is a desire for more HP, more gears, and low-midrange torque even consistent?