Re: [ST] Higher RPM for racing?

["Joel Ashman" <ashmite@xxxxxxxxx>]

>  You are keeping the engine on the boil anyway, really never letting it
> down below 6k or 7k on the REALLY tight corners, so the trade-off of the
> loss of down low power and driveability isn't an issue - you simply don't
> run the bike down there.


Make sense, but my question is, Could you run the motor down at 3000 RPM if
it that's where it's power was and it was cranking the rear wheel fast
enough to maintain the speed needed through the turns?

I guess this started when chatting with a friend from work who is a
mechanic.  We've been discussing fuel economy and modern engine design and
it seems most engines are heading towards new limits of Redlines.  But I was
thinking that an engine that didn't redline as high but had a proper tranny
and great HP and Torque would be just as useful on a track especially given
that higher engine RPM's mean greater heat, greater heat expansion, more
wear, increased friction.  I guess in my strange way of thinking, if you are
turning the rear wheel at the same speed, who cares how fast the engine is
turning if it's making peak HP and torque in the current gear?

We've been theorizing that with current gas prices, we may start seeing a
swing of more fuel efficient motors, and one means to achieve this is to
slow the average RPM down so that the motor isn't consuming as much fuel.
But to do this, the engine has to be able to perform as well at 1000 RPM as
it does at 2000 RPM. I'm using an old car of mine as an example that cruised
at 65mph at 2000 RPM.  It stands to reason that it would get twice the fuel
mileage at 1000 RPM.  Ok, I realize that the fuel injection computer and
other factors might affect this, but it's a good estimate.


> Hope that helps.


Yes, it does, Thanks!
_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com