1100 EVO Vs Sportster

[twolanefun]

Sorry man  

I DO try to be slavishly devoted to the facts, but we all have our own biases.


Well, think about it.

796 - 76 hp / 51 torques - 418.5# wet - 11.97 1/4 mile

XR1200 - 79 hp / 68 torques - 580# wet - 12.25 1/4 mile

Though the smooth thing could be where in the powerband you were riding.

I dunno, the XR at that weight is just never going to be the nimble carver that your Monster is, but it CAN still be a blast to ride assuming "it's your bag baby".

As Eric Clapton said in the 80's "It's in the way that you use it".

 

And it's just not all about numbers, the numbers on my Diavel seem to blow away all the others in my garage. But they all perform quite well and in reality on a 2 lane country road my XR, M900 etc.. is just as much fun as the Diavel which has tons more power and better brakes. I like the feel of all the bikes, you just have to remember what bike you are riding and enjoy it for what it is. - Gene

[Kev M]

796 is 87 BHP / 58 ft.lbs. NOT your wife's 696. 

Those are REAR WHEEL figures you silly old coot   


The 696 would be 68 hp then.

And it's just not all about numbers, the numbers on my Diavel seem to blow away all the others in my garage. But they all perform quite well and in reality on a 2 lane country road my XR, M900 etc.. is just as much fun as the Diavel which has tons more power and better brakes. I like the feel of all the bikes, you just have to remember what bike you are riding and enjoy it for what it is. - Gene

ABSOLUTELY... hey I get it, 9 out of 10 times I pull my V7 out of the garage, the LEAST powerful/slowest bike in our fleet.

Pic from the old garage (they don't line up as neatly in the new place):

[twolanefun]

My Garage http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20][url=http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20]http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20

 

- Gene

[Kev M]

My Garage http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20][url=http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20]http://www.diavel-forum.com/index.php?/topic/23481-garage-pics/page__st__20

 

- Gene

Nice, mine's a work in progress and since the wife and I are considering adding a third bay eventually I'm not quite ready to exile one of the cars to the driveway yet in hopes that I'll continue to have room:

[Curmudgeon]

Those are REAR WHEEL figures you silly old coot   

The 696 would be 68 hp then.

Although I resemble that remark..., where did you get these alledged RWHP and 1/4 mile times? 

While Ducati gives EC crank numbers these days, so does everybody else. Not real world numbers but comparable and from the EC certification paperwork.

[Kev M]

Although I resemble that remark..., where did you get these alledged RWHP and 1/4 mile times? 

While Ducati gives EC crank numbers these days, so does everybody else. Not real world numbers but comparable and from the EC certification paperwork.

Sorry, should have cited my reference. For such things I always go with Motorcycle Consumer News (MCN) unless otherwise stated.

I keep a spreadsheet on a lot of bikes in which I'm interested, and generally speaking the MCN Rear Wheel Numbers tend to fall inline with most other major mags, with the occasional anomaly.

To keep in in perspective here are a few more numbers from them


696 - 68 rwhp / 30 torques (other sources says 40-44 torques) - 408#wet - 12.21 1/4 mile

796 - 76 hp / 51 torques - 419# wet - 11.97 1/4 mile

XL883L - 48 hp / 48 torques - 567# wet - 14.60 1/4 mile

XL1200N - 57 hp / 64 torques - 564# wet - 13.21 1/4 mile

XR1200 - 79 hp / 68 torques - 580# wet - 12.25 1/4 mile

[SDRider]

Sorry, should have cited my reference. For such things I always go with Motorcycle Consumer News (MCN) unless otherwise stated.

I keep a spreadsheet on a lot of bikes in which I'm interested, and generally speaking the MCN Rear Wheel Numbers tend to fall inline with most other major mags, with the occasional anomaly.

To keep in in perspective here are a few more numbers from them


696 - 68 rwhp / 30 torques (other sources says 40-44 torques) - 408#wet - 12.21 1/4 mile

796 - 76 hp / 51 torques - 419# wet - 11.97 1/4 mile

XL883L - 48 hp / 48 torques - 567# wet - 14.60 1/4 mile

XL1200N - 57 hp / 64 torques - 564# wet - 13.21 1/4 mile

XR1200 - 79 hp / 68 torques - 580# wet - 12.25 1/4 mile

Where does the 1100 EVO fall? 

[Kev M]

Where does the 1100 EVO fall? 

ha ha, off the f'n chart!

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry, should have cited my reference. For such things I always go with Motorcycle Consumer News (MCN) unless otherwise stated.

So who does the MCN testing and what makes it consistent, meaning corrected for temps and barometric pressure? With the EC data you know it's accurate and there are BIG fines if it isn't. Tends to be on the low side in case some bikes are at the lower end of the manufacturer's spec. Some are hotter. 

[Kev M]

So who does the MCN testing and what makes it consistent, meaning corrected for temps and barometric pressure? With the EC data you know it's accurate and there are BIG fines if it isn't. Tends to be on the low side in case some bikes are at the lower end of the manufacturer's spec. Some are hotter. 

They do it themselves. And though not perfect like any their consistency with other magazine data seems to speak for itself and their lack of advertiser revenue speaks to lack of bias.

As for EU fines I've never heard of a single instance of such. Would you cite some references?

Not to mention, how would a testing body verify crank numbers? Buy a test bike, remove motor, place on test machine? Seems highly impractical and unlikely, which is probably why I can't think of a single instance it is regularly done.

Again, I'm not saying MCN is any sort of bible, but it's a reasonably consistent and reliable source of comparative data that I've been given no compelling reason to doubt en mass.

[Stabel1]

Hey. I got me a 48 a few weeks back. Torque is fine with the 1200 and the Sound

[Stabel1]

....and the sound could be better. No suspension and poor brakes compared to the monster but i like it anyway. It is completely different, everything is metal, everything sems outdated...but that is what makes it special. Give it another chance.
Klaus

[Curmudgeon]

As for EU fines I've never heard of a single instance of such. Would you cite some references?

Not to mention, how would a testing body verify crank numbers? Buy a test bike, remove motor, place on test machine? Seems highly impractical and unlikely, which is probably why I can't think of a single instance it is regularly done.

Not intimately familiar with the EC protocols but know that they are very precise and exacting with repect to test procedures, weights and measures. Manufacturers submit vehicles for testing. The numbers have to match or else. Huge taxes are assessed on vehicles based on CO, etc. Couldn't tell you who got caught or who had to go back to the drawing board. The trade pubs might report this stuff. NOT anything consumers read unless a usual news channel breaks the story for some reason. They "could" but possibly don't consider it "news". I've been told by engineers that the EC is totally draconian.

It may shock you to learn that the USDOT and EPA maintain test facilities in Flint, MI and a couple of other locations with dynos and evaps sheds, etc. Every vehicle on the road in the U.S. has been through them. The "gummit" doesn't have to "buy" anything.  Had to do a short cycle certification in Flint in 1998 on a vehicle and that took tree days. HUGE costs involved. It's in the price of everything with wheels you buy.

Some of my trade subs have not expired and I get 20 - 40 alerts / day on Newsmarket. Trade only. For exanmple, just this past week Benz got hit with a fine on two vehicles based on verified, published fuel mileage. Knowing the Schwabians, I doubt they departed from the specified test cycle and got their in-house testing wrong. No word yet on whether they'll contest the EPA findings. Given the costs associated with re-testing, it may be cheaper to pay up and move on.

Regardless, there is a level playing field in the EC for published numbers and they are consistent. 

[Kev M]

Hmmm, do EU publications not provide rwhp figures then? I've only seen a handful and don't recall, but I'd expect if they have such great, reliable,  crankshaft numbers then why would they bother?

Of course here in the US all we ever see (other than manufacturer supplied crank figures is rear wheel).

Anyway, I don't know anything about USDOT/EPA test facilities except what I've read on the .GOV websites which seem to explain that most manufacturers self test for the supplied EPA fuel ratings (and maybe I read that the government spot checks a certain amount).

But that's fuel mileage, and not HP.

Again, I've never heard of DOT or EPA even mentioning HP with regards to EPA certification. Never mind a manufacturer in the US being fined for claims regarding HP.

Besides, again, how would the EU or EPA arrive at the CRANKSHAFT numbers when testing assembled vehicles? Is there a reliable enough calculation for frictional drive train losses?

I dunno man, you're gonna have to explain this all to me better.

[Howie]

SAE, metric and DIN horsepower are measured at the crankshaft, standard accessories (items like alternator, power steering) on, somewhat different to each as are the correction factors.  Before 1973 SAE horsepower was gross, meaning no accessories.   Motorcycle Consumer News uses the typical DynoJet measuring at the rear wheel.  Automotive engineers use kilowatts as the power rating.  HP and PS are used in general chat and advertising.  

Manufacturers test and are checked by the feds.  I can't find it on the internet other than unofficial sources but manufacturers have been caught cheating on fuel economy, emissions and power, though not often.  Just remembered, I could have collected in a class action suit on my Lawn Boy.  They were caught cheating on horsepower rating along with some others.  My share wouln't have been worth the work.

I have no idea how the EPA dyno does it, but we had a chassis dyno back at school in the late 70's that did it by killing cylinders and somehow calculated the difference.  How was the calculation done and how accurate was it?  Maybe I knew then, but I have not a clue now.