revtothelimit - motorbike forum

Potter wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:50 am That's my point, <40bhp and 180kg means it's going to be dull and there isn't really any need for it, unless lightness costs money.

Some people just like (or even need) to ride bikes. Cheapish, lightish bikes, with enough power to make them suitable for main roads, but quite fun on tiny back roads with blind bends, where 20 mph cornering is 'on the limit'.

I could buy a Fireblade, or a GS, or almost anything else. I chose to buy a smallish, lightish 500. If the Triumph 400 had been available I might have bought that instead. Not everyone needs to brag about how powerful their bike is, my penis is fine thank you.

They weigh more than WSB bikes

I always said anything over 60bhp is wasted on me, which it is. I find I can stretch the legs of a smaller capacity bike on B-roads and feel like I'm getting the full up and down the box experience without getting into prison sentence territory! By way of contrast, now I don't really go fast on a bike, or anything like it, I'm enjoying the effortless power of bigger CC engines and the lazy roll on/off throttle between gentle bends, with the occasional plod annoying winding in of the horizon!

I agree it should be lighter, but I will take 180 kg as an improvement over 200+ kg.

Superdreams weigh 175KG wet, how does it weigh more than a Superdream, it's about the same power as a 400 Superdream as well.
When I was looking at buying a new bike I considered smaller 4 strokes, then I remembered how crap they are and bought a 750.

I didn't think I was a power snob until I purchased an NT700 for general commuting journeys - what's that, about 75bhp and about 700kgs???? I hated it and it lasted less than a Taipan or Weeksy bike!

Sure there must be a power vs. weight sweet spot somewhere? My current bike is circa 125bhp but too heavy at 240kg wet

The Bonnie actually feels quite nippy with just 50bhp.

There needs to be 'terrible brakes and tyres' somewhere in this power/weight sweet spot consideration

IMO 0.333 bhp per kilo is the absolute minimum power to weight ratio for a bike, anything lower than this is going to be pretty dull

Though that would mean 12bhp learner bikes should weigh 36KG - so I may well be talking out of my arse (again)

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:26 pm The Bonnie actually feels quite nippy with just 50bhp.

There needs to be 'terrible brakes and tyres' somewhere in this power/weight sweet spot consideration

That's classed as character though!
A Bonnie sounds good to me but I keep finding myself looking at Royal Enfield's again.

Le_Fromage_Grande wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:30 pm IMO 0.333 bhp per kilo is the absolute minimum power to weight ratio for a bike, anything lower than this is going to be pretty dull

Though that would mean 12bhp learner bikes should weigh 36KG - so I may well be talking out of my arse (again)

ISTR the legal maximum is 0.2kW/kg for A2 bikes? Which is about the same as your absolute minimum

I like the scrambler one

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:46 pm

Le_Fromage_Grande wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:30 pm IMO 0.333 bhp per kilo is the absolute minimum power to weight ratio for a bike, anything lower than this is going to be pretty dull

Though that would mean 12bhp learner bikes should weigh 36KG - so I may well be talking out of my arse (again)

ISTR the legal maximum is 0.2kW/kg for A2 bikes? Which is about the same as your absolute minimum

I don't think I've ever ridden an A2 compliant bike, lowest power / highest weight bike I've owned apart from a moped was a CB400 Super Four, the only 125s I've owned have been motor cross bikes.

When the new RE Scram 450 (new water-cooled engine) comes out it will be interesting to match it up against the scrambler in terms of performance and price.

The scrambler looks nice enough to me but the KTM Duke 390 is 40+kg lighter - The Duke only really worked if you were above 6k revs all the time though, I suspect the Trumpets will be a bit torquier.

Potter wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:04 am my 1936 500cc Rudge makes 45bhp

You sure?

Something looks off with the scale of one part to another.

Just noticed it says 10k mile service intervals. Wonder how much oil it's got, not sure I'd wanna leave any bike 10k miles with the same oil. Although I know bikes have started to stretch intervals like cars do.

Supermofo wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:06 pm Just noticed it says 10k mile service intervals. Wonder how much oil it's got, not sure I'd wanna leave any bike 10k miles with the same oil. Although I know bikes have started to stretch intervals like cars do.

I wouldn't leave mine 8 years either.

Le_Fromage_Grande wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 1:42 pm Superdreams weigh 175KG wet, how does it weigh more than a Superdream, it's about the same power as a 400 Superdream as well.

A 400 superdream was 171kg dry according to the manual, so when you see 175kg wet that's without fuel, so like for like with a full 14 litre tank, it'll be 185kg.

35hp back then when nobody had a Dyno versus 40hp now when every magazine can fact check you, may or may not be the same breed of pony.

Potter wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:50 am That's my point, <40bhp and 180kg means it's going to be dull and there isn't really any need for it, unless lightness costs money.

Of course lightness costs money. Carbon tanks cost more than steel, titanium exhausts cost more than steel, aluminium frames cost more than steel, and so on.

And it's not like you can just leave bits off. Both bikes still need a frame, engine, wheels, and some bits to hold those together. Not a lot left to delete on a bike.

JackyJoll wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:20 pm

Potter wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:04 am my 1936 500cc Rudge makes 45bhp

You sure?

I'm sure a race tuned Ulster might make 45. I'd be staggered if the council spec 500 made much more than 30bhp.

My 2014 500cc single doesn't make 30, but then it's only got 2 valves and the Rudge has four iirc?