[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [ST] Higher RPM for racing?
(Torque) X (rpm) => HP
So your 6000 rpm motor has TWICE the torque of the 12000 rpm motor.
Somebody did a very bad job building the 12000 rpm engine.
A wide power band (flat curve) is always a good thing. But for the track you only need a power band as wide as the spacing between gears.
David W. Funk
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Joel Ashman" <ashmite@xxxxxxxxx>
> OK so I need a little education... When did it become preferable to have
> higher RPM for racing? It seems to me (a non racer) that given 2 motors with
> the same displacement, one with 12000 RPM and 150 HP (and a peaky curve) and
> a 6000 RPM 150 HP (flat curve) that the lower one would be more usable on
> the track. Hit a gear and hold it in a turn instead of shifting. I hated
> the ride I had on a newer R6. I had to downshift 3 times to pass a car
> downhill, while on my Sprint, I just nail the throttle and go. Also, it the
> two above motors consumed the same amount of fuel per cycle, the 6000 RPM
> would get better mileage and therefore pit less for refueling.
> Again, I'm just curious, and its really because I dislike the streetability
> of the modern racing style bikes. I can never talk someone out of a
> Hyabusa who just wants a bike to cruise around and to work and back. Gimme
> a V-twin or Triple anyday.
> (Which leaves me to choose between the Monster 695 or the Speed Triple next
> Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
> Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com