Which would you prefer?

[docc]

So what's the magic gadget that will yield one or the other?  Inquiring minds want to know...

Less weight?

 

("Add lightness . . ." . . . Colin Chapman)

[PJPR01]

 

So what's the magic gadget that will yield one or the other?  Inquiring minds want to know...

Less weight?

 

("Add lightness . . ." . . . Colin Chapman)

 

Aha...memories of Kundera's Unbearable LIghtness of Being...all clear now!  

[stewgnu]

Well 20% more hp would give, what, about 100hp? And 20% more mileage equals somewhere over 50mpg?? (Depending on throttle abuse).

 

I’m happy with the power output on mine. If it had more I’d be trying to wheelie it. And I don’t know how to wheelie so that could go very wrong!

So maybe the roads you ride would colour your opinion...

I’d have to say more mileage for me- more cash in the pocket.

 

We seem to have a 50/50 split in opinion here almost- I didn’t expect that!

[stewgnu]

 

So what's the magic gadget that will yield one or the other?  Inquiring minds want to know...

 

Less weight?

 

("Add lightness . . ." . . . Colin Chapman)

Put that fourth helping of pie down!

[Pressureangle]

With better port shape, combustion chamber shape, and camshaft I think 20% improvement in both is possible.

My 505" big block '68 Charger has seen 23+ mpg more than once, and I'm limited by the mechanical igniton timing.

[LowRyter]

With better port shape, combustion chamber shape, and camshaft I think 20% improvement in both is possible.

 

My 505" big block '68 Charger has seen 23+ mpg more than once, and I'm limited by the mechanical igniton timing.

 

I'd like to know the tranny and gearing .... not a TF 727 with 3.88 gears?   

[Chuck]

 

So what's the magic gadget that will yield one or the other?  Inquiring minds want to know...

Less weight?

 

("Add lightness . . ." . . . Colin Chapman)

 

Add simplicity and lightness..

Steve Wittman

[GuzziMoto]

This is a complicated question if you start to really think about it. On the surface, I would reflexively say 20% more power, please. But then, my favorite dirtbike EVER is a 1995 KTM 440. It has way more power in the dirt then I could ever need, making it the most fun I have ever had in the dirt. I was not much, if any, faster on it than I was on my DR350 or DRZ400. But I always smiled more when riding it. While I get the whole "It is more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow" thing ( I have owned mostly smaller bikes like an FZR400) I also have found that too much power is just enough.

But, digging deeper, often when you improve an engine design to get more power out of it you also make it more efficient so that it might not really be an either / or question. Additionally, as others have mentioned, 20% less weight would also improve both aspects (power to weight AND fuel mileage). But if I had to choose one thing to improve by 20% it would be power, with weight being next. I would accept 20% better fuel mileage, but it isn't something I would get excited about. I ride strictly for fun, there is no fun in fuel mileage for me.

We had a Buell X1 and a Buell Blast, both were immensely fun to ride. But if I had to pick one over the other I would much rather I still had the X1. In fact, if it wasn't for the mechanical issues with the Harley motor I would likely still have it. The Blast was always a lot of fun while you were riding it, but after you got off the thrill faded faster, so that next time you had to choose which to ride (the X1 or the Blast) you were much more likely to choose the X1 (assuming it was not broken down). The Blast got amazing fuel mileage, but the X1 would lift the front wheel under power. I really have no use for a motorcycle that goes 200 mph, but there are other ways of being fast. The X1 was fast in a completely usable way; around town, stoplight to stop light, or out on a country road. I used to say I prefer "quick" motorcycles to "fast" motorcycles. The X1 was seriously quick without a 200 mph top speed thing going on. My Daytona is the closest Guzzi I have to that X1. But the Griso and the V11 could easily be that X1 with 20% more power.

[Scud]

If my starting point was any Suzuki DR, I would go for more power. But there comes a point when more power also come with some complications. My TE510 Husqvarna, for example, was more powerful than my (same year) TE450. But the 510 would overheat. The 450 was therefore a better bike for me - it was also easier to control the power. My Husky 701 is far more powerful than a DR650 (plus the suspension is light-years ahead). If I were to get another lightweight dirtbike, I would probably go with the FE350 Husqvarna. Less power and more range than the same-frame 450 and 501 models - but slightly more nimble and better fuel economy. I like fuel economy on dirt bikes, because I like going on long rides without hauling extra fuel. One of my buddies is getting the FE350 soon - can't wait to try it.

 

However, if the question was HP, fuel efficiency, or better suspension, I'd take the suspension. That KTM 440 suspension must also be part of why you like it better than the Suzukis.

[Bbennett]

More power, I usually need to get off the bike after I run thru a tank of gas with current mileage anyway.

 

But as a previous poster said "less weight" (even better!)

[GuzziMoto]

If my starting point was any Suzuki DR, I would go for more power. But there comes a point when more power also come with some complications. My TE510 Husqvarna, for example, was more powerful than my (same year) TE450. But the 510 would overheat. The 450 was therefore a better bike for me - it was also easier to control the power. My Husky 701 is far more powerful than a DR650 (plus the suspension is light-years ahead). If I were to get another lightweight dirtbike, I would probably go with the FE350 Husqvarna. Less power and more range than the same-frame 450 and 501 models - but slightly more nimble and better fuel economy. I like fuel economy on dirt bikes, because I like going on long rides without hauling extra fuel. One of my buddies is getting the FE350 soon - can't wait to try it.

 

However, if the question was HP, fuel efficiency, or better suspension, I'd take the suspension. That KTM 440 suspension must also be part of why you like it better than the Suzukis.

I really loved the power it had. The immediate hit. It seemed like it was capable of bending time and space. The suspension was fine, better than the other two. But neither of the other two was bad. The power, though, just made me grin. A stupid, shit eating, grin.

[Nihontochicken]

The best improvement for my V11 Sport?  20% more power?  Naw.  20% more mileage?  Nope.  20% less weight?  Yeppers! 

[docc]

The best improvement for my V11 Sport?  20% more power?  Naw.  20% more mileage?  Nope.  20% less weight?  Yeppers! 

eh . . . that's a hundred pounds. My V11 would have to ride itself.

[Scud]

I really loved the power it had. The immediate hit. It seemed like it was capable of bending time and space. The suspension was fine, better than the other two. But neither of the other two was bad. The power, though, just made me grin. A stupid, shit eating, grin.

 

 

 

 

Oh, wait... the 440 was a 2-stroke, right? I was thinking 440 4-stroke. OMG that thing must have been beast.

[Chuck]

I've ridden other V11 Sports. The Mighty Scura's extra 10-15? hp makes her more better..