Horsepower vs Torque

[Scud]

 

easy... give me torque over power any day, look at the Guzzi, shit if a torque bike gets the start on a high HP bike and it should... a decent rider should keep that lead

Not really. The guzzi has a fairly flat torque curve - sitting between 50-60 NM from 3k all the way to 8 K , hence the relatively linear increase in power. So if you take a higher revving bike that also has a flat torque curve of 50-60 NM , they'd be neck and neck right up until the guzzi hit 8K , then the HRB would start pulling away AND STAY IN A HIGHER HP RANGE with every gearchange - so it'd keep pulling away.

 

 

 

well on paper is one thing imo often reality another, ie on the track is different to around the hills, torque is going to squrt you from corner to corner the high HP bike will still be trying to wind up

 

Like they say... "that's why they run the race."

 

IMO - a big, fat torquey motor is more fun than one that has a huge HP hit up high. I like a big, forgiving sweet spot, not a rush that makes me worry if I'm going to hit it unintentionally. It's a good point (earlier) that the V11 is really a mid-range motor, not a "tractor" or a revver. 

 

I think I'm just going to keep it at 5252 RPMs all the time now... then I don't have to wonder if I have more HP or TQ. 

[PDoz]

Dangerous, I think I know what you're talking about, but you said a GOOD rider which confuses me? I grew up with small capacity blue smokes ( ktm 125 / it 200 etc) - that twisty thing on the right bar was the on switch, that lever on the left foot was for speed adjustment.....the quickest I've ridden through the hills was on a wr200 , but I can relax on my gutless ktm 640 and ride the torque curve ALMOST as quickly. So are you referring to , perhaps, an equal rider putting in the same amount of effort? I notice you race a 350 blue smoker.

 

For another perspective, I had a ktm 400 in 2000 - it had a flat torque curve / linear power delivery and produced almost as much power as my 640 but WAY up the rev range.ie it had less peak torque, but a nice wide spread of torque. The 640 has a big torque hit down low, then a down sloping torque curve after that. From about 4000 to 6000 both bikes have similar torque, then the 640 tapers off and the 400 continues until about 9000. The 400 would tractor up hills that my 640 spins then bogs down on, the 400 was faster everywhere, but the 640 FEELS faster because that low down grunt hits hard.

 

Similar thing with my v11 - the stock pipes give a relatively flat torque curve but my madass pipes gives the big torque peak low, then flat afterwards. I'm faster with stock pipes, happier with the madass. ( possibly more relaxed with stock pipes - I'm still undecided on that) . I think I need to fly over to NZ and we can each do laps of the sth island on your bike, say with then without the madass pipes. Then we can sit down over some of that fantastic coffee and realise we need to do some ozzie trail riding to decide? I've got 3 weeks free in September.........

[fotoguzzi]

when I had my V11 I thought I knew torque... then I got a Buell XB12

 

[dangerous]

ohh man bring the XB Buell into the equasion... 12R in the garage with the V11, now it pokes 20 more HP than the V11 but the torque comes on so fast ya hit the hp and that gone just as quick, ya soon run out a gears, round a short track or the tight n curleys yes, the V11 beter on a long track even tho it has less hp... figer that one out

 

PDoz, farking cold her in sept, tho I do have my 1st rally of the season then... a mate and a few of his cobbers are comming over from perth in Nov to do a circute of the south Is.

I did Bris to Sydney in a day 11hrs by memory, could a done it again... but believe me 500k in NZ and ya rooted, its hard going.

 

Never had the stock cans on the V11, always had neptunes a local made pipe, so cant comment on how it affects  the performance, but with the cans off FARK reckon its twice as quick of the mark but soon runs out a puff... try this link https://www.facebook.com/darryl.dawson.54/videos/10153462687615833/

[PDoz]

Yeah, we spent 5 weeks 2 up touring through NZ and only clocked up about 8000 km , mostly because there were so many other things to do. I think our biggest day was 800 km and I was stuffed ( we've managed more than that on the dirt in the past). To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy to just revisit Queen Charlotte pass and that magical strip that went nth from there - but without the panniers to scrape in corners!

[GuzziMoto]

First things first. ALL motors make torque. They all make torque. The only question is how much torque and where it is spread.

A Suzuki SV650 makes peak torque of around 42 lb-ft. A Honda 700 from an NC or CTX (which is where all this started for me and why I started this thread) makes about the same amount of torque but lower in the revs. As I recall it was around 6000 rpm for the SV and 4200 rpm for the Honda. But the SV motor, in spite of being smaller, cranks out much more horsepower due to that torque being higher up in the rpm range, and as a result of that the SV is much faster. The Honda is easier to ride, but the SV is faster.

Torque is the force the motor can generate. Horsepower is how much work it can do with that force. Horsepower is really a measure of how fast it is. Having more torque lower in the rpms makes a motor easier to ride. But horsepower is what makes it go fast. They are not mutually exclusive, the key is to have the best balance between the two. A good spread of torque down low makes the bike easier to ride, but you still need torque higher in the rpm range if you want to go fast. It is a balancing act.

The V11 does not make a massive amount of torque, nor is it stacked in the lower rpm range. But from 3-4k up it pulls like made. Compared to some bikes it is a torque motor, compared to others it is a rev'er. But I think it is really a mid-range motor. It has to be wound up a little compared to something like a Buell 1200, and it does not make the power and revs of something like a big Ducati. But it offers a good balance between torque and horsepower, and that power is easily accessible.

 

As to two strokes, I have mentioned my old KTM 440 here before. It is an absolute beast in the woods. Most of the time in the woods the throttle is closed, and it is usually opened in short bursts. Those short bursts are followed by long moments of quiet, unless I am screaming.

Honda used to make a CR500, it had massive amounts of torque. It actually made too much torque down low for most people and often modifications were geared towards moving that power up higher to make the bike more ride-able. My 440 was pretty ride-able from the factory, but only you consider what it was.

[Tom M]

I think Lucky Phil had the best explanation but I'll throw in my 2 cents even though it may not be 100% correct. 

 

HP = rpm x torque/5252

 

Torque is the measured force, HP is calculated using the measured torque value and the 5252 constant.  The m in rpm is time, so I think of HP as torque measured over time.  Time is the RATE that Phil mentioned.

 

Hey GM, I had a Maico 440 that was a great woods bike once I learned better throttle control.  It sounds like your KTM was very similar.  I used a buddy's '85 CR500 for a while too but it was too much of a beast in the tight woods.  Like all 2 stroke big MXers you needed have your chin over the crossbar on both of them before you opened the throttle all the way or you'd flip over backwards.  Damn those were fun!

 

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2015/04/article/memorable-motorcycle-1980-maico-440-enduro/

[GuzziMoto]

Yes, those were fun. I still have my 440, but I don't get to ride it much.

Lucky Phil pretty much nailed it, that is the math formula used to calculate horsepower from torque. Typically engine dynos measure force (torque) and then calculate horsepower from there. Chassis dynos realistically measure horsepower and then reverse the math to get torque. That second bit about chassis dynos can be a very debatable, but in my opinion that is how they work in a nut shell. The part about the math formula is what it is. That is how horsepower is calculated.

More difficult, and more open for debate, is understanding the difference between horsepower and torque as well as what they mean.

Often people refer to a motor as torquey, without paying attention to where that torque is rpm wise.

[docc]

For typical day-to-day road riding, I might say the contrast becomes a matter of proclivity, perhaps even mood, of the rider. While the V11 doesn't care to be lugged along like, say, the (new) Indian Chief twin, it has a lovely, satisfying pull from about where the Indian leaves off. 

 

Equally, the V11 will never be a screamer in the rev ranges pioneered by Honda with small, light engine parts where the motor has to be kept on the boil at all times (my old '93 VFR comes to mind). Yet, when the mood strikes, the V11 can be 'brought to song' in that 6500-redline range - 'on the cam', as it were.

 

Best of both worlds?  A fine blend, I'd say, and quite up to my day's whim or the delight of the road at hand.

 

Not long ago, I read a journalist's description of a motor being "all cam and no crank" as describing a high-revving horsepower maker.

 

I'm likely more in the "crank over cam club," yet it's good fun to ride the V11 along the margins of the Venn Diagram that blends those sensations. Perhaps a part of its (somewhat) mystical character, some days she is thrilled to Tango and others quite ready to skydive. 

 

Let your proclivity prevail!

[czakky]

Well said!

Sounds like you took a spin on the new Chief? How was it?

Not a cruiser guy but it certainly is an interesting bike.

[docc]

Well said!

Sounds like you took a spin on the new Chief? How was it?

Not a cruiser guy but it certainly is an interesting bike.

I kept hitting the rev limiter (no tach) and finally just left in sixth gear - it didn't mind a bit ( all "crank").  A few weeks later I rode the Guzzi Cali 1400 - still a cruiser, but more engaging motor, better brakes, and more inspiring handling. Not my kind of bikes, but they certainly epitomize the "torque" side of the comparison.

 

Some time ago, I rode a Triumph Speed Triple. The howling horsepower experience haunts me yet. 

[JBBenson]

For me it's always about tractability: what the power feels like and how easily it can be controlled. My LM 3 and my V11 have the same "friendly" but grunty power that I fell in love with.

 

Sure, my Yamaha Seca 650 Turbo had a lot of horsepower for it's day (rated at 90 @ 9000) but it was barely controllable: peaky, with a sudden whoosh that came on with a raspy shriek. It was heady power but not really useful.

[GuzziMoto]

The Triumph 675 motor, especially in the Street Triple, calls to me.

I used to have a Yamaha FZR 400 a long time ago, and that was serious fun.

I am sure the Triumph 675 triple is even better.

I like motors with large amounts of mid-range power like the Guzzi's. But a more top end motor can be serious fun in its own right. Not really the best tool for the same job as the Guzzi, but still an awesome tool for carving up backroads.

[LowRyter]

Agree Docc, those Indian (and Victory) motors just get fun when the rev limiters kick in.  Maddening.  The cruiser riding position pretty extreme too.

 

I think the Cal 14 just about nails it for big twin tourer.  The only negative, I think the riding position should be a little more upright like my EV.  They've proven to be pretty reliable bikes so far- other than a few broken crossovers. 

[czakky]

In line with a FZR 400 I've always lusted after a CB-1. As much as I love parking my V11 in 3rd and rolling on the midrange lazily. Somehow now having an involved gearbox constantly switching gears is kinda cool too!

Motorcycles like women and beer love em all!