Motorcyle power/weight ratios

[curlyjoe]

For my own curiosity, I decided to put together a spreadsheet containing data including curb weight, peak hp, peak torque, hp/weight ratios and torque/weight ratios of various motorcycles that I find intriguing. The sheet is sorted by HP/weight ratio from highest to lowest. It's interesting that HP/weight ratio doesn't track perfectly with Torque/weight ratio and I was surprised to see the NC700X near the bottom of the list . Sometime in the future, I may want a lighter bike so tracking this sort of data might prove useful. Feel free to edit and add other motorcycles to the list.

 

[beardyweirdy@me.com_imp]

I'll have a look at that, thanks.
I've thought for sometime that the motorcycle press should weigh bikes as well as dyno off the rear wheel. That way we could get an acurate P/W ratio. It's probably the best indication of how the bike will feel just reading the specs.
Ps. I know they print the dry/curb weights supplied from the manufacturer but I'm not sure how accurate those are and if there is indeed any kind of standards.

 

[dave]

Interesting chart, thanks for posting. Maybe someone can add additional bikes like the original Yamaha XS1100, the original Honda CB750, original Kawasaki Z1, and maybe even throw in a Harley?

 

[14CharlieBravo11_imp]

The chart is a good idea. A good source for info on all kids of bikes is here

 

[JF Coastal_imp]

Cool chart Joe !

Anyone have any simple way to weigh a motorcycle ? My CB1100 definitely doesn't weigh 570 anymore.

 

[beardyweirdy@me.com_imp]

I've also been looking for a simple way to find out how much weight my bike has dropped. It would be interesting to know... it certainly feels better. That is actually all that matters but I'd still like to know even though it goes against everything it do to try not to quantify things with numbers! ;-) it's a male thing I think....

 

[Tezza_imp]

Hasn't changed much from 1973. Here is the specs for my Kawasaki Z1.
82HP,weight 546lb wet,max torque 54.3lb/ft. Wheel base 59 inches. Brakes are a bit weak and fuel economy is obviously down but not too far away from the CB1100.

 

[curlyjoe]

I updated the power/weight ratio spreadsheet with a bunch of new bikes included the ones requested.

For those of us looking for a lighter bike as we age, the FZ series looks interesting. They are relatively light and have excellent/good power/weight ratios. I don't like the looks but they do have 2 wheels which is great.

The cruisers (Gold Wing and Street Glide) have relatively low HP/weight ratios but the torque/weight ratios are OK. I marked the latter values in red.

 

[Wisedrum]

Hasn't changed much from 1973. Here is the specs for my Kawasaki Z1.
82HP,weight 546lb wet,max torque 54.3lb/ft. Wheel base 59 inches. Brakes are a bit weak and fuel economy is obviously down but not too far away from the CB1100.

I doubt the last claim concerning fuel consumption.
My CB takes round 4,6l averagely over 34.000km.
No matter how you will drive the old Kawa 900, you wiil
be far away from this value.

Wisedrum

 

[Cormanus]

Thanks for all the work curlyjoe!

 

[pekingduck]

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.

 

[Elipten_imp]

I have wondered the same thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[PowerDubs_imp]

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.

 

[BestStandard_imp]

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!!!

Google Search:

 

[Jim21680_imp]

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)

 

[pekingduck]

But if we add rider/driver weight, bikes don't look so good.

 

[rotor]

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

 

[curlyjoe]

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.

 

[curlyjoe]

The 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.