Torque = the amount of work an engine can do. Horsepower = the speed an engine can perform said work. He explained it pretty well tho. Torque is power at the bottom of the powerband, Horsepower is power at the top of the powerband.
@@russthomasjr Torque is not an amount of work the engine can do. It is the amount of twisting force it can exert on the clutch. You could see torque as an 'amount of work' per revolution of the motor. This figure however does not mean too much if you do not know how fast the motor is revving. thus, you multiply torque by rpm. This yields power, power is indeed work per unit time. Two engines, one with 200 Nm of torque at 2000 rpm and another with 100 Nm of torque at 4000 rpm can do the same amount of work, because the first has the same power at 2000rpm as the second has at 4000rpm. The phrase "torque is power at the bottom of the powerband" is misleading, because torque is not power and the term 'powerband' is vague. An engine may have a high torque figure, but only reach said torque figure at a high rpm. An engine having high torque thus does not necessarily mean it pulls wel at low rpm. Of course, if you define the powerband to start at or near the point of maximum torque, said phrase works a bit better. But even in that case, a given amount of torque at 4000rpm does more work/yields more power than that same amount of torque at 2000rpm. Example: the ducati V4 has 124Nm at 9500 rpm. The new bmw R12ninet has 115Nm at 6500rpm. Yet, people will describe the V4 as having a high power engine, while they describe the bmw as having a high torque engine. The ducati has about the same amount of torque at 6500rpm as the bmw (and thus the same power at that rpm), with the difference that for the bmw that is the torque peak while for the ducati it is not. What this example shows, is that peak torque and power values and the ratio between them are not the full story. at 6500rpm, both the bmw and the ducati engine will pull equally hard (given the same gearing ratio etcetera), although they have different peak power, peak torque and power/torque ratio. I think it is most informative to look at multiple figures if you want to get a feel for the character of an engine: peak power and its rpm, peak torque and its rpm, the ratio between power and torque, the difference between the rpms of peak power and peak torque, and last but not least: where the dyno graphs start. For the ducati, the graph on the ducati website starts at 4000rpm. This tells you the rideability at (very) low rpms is suboptimal, because of course it is a highly tuned engine.
I recently found your channel. You go very in-depth in explaining and are very informative. I started on a ninja 250 and just recently got a ninja 650 this video was exactly how to describe the power of them and 18:09 very insightful as to my future bike thank you and I hope to see your channel skyrocket and become successful thank you.
You can also convert the horsepower to kW. Ratio = Horsepower (kW) / Torque (Nm) If you have a bike with 80hp and 80Nm, you can convert the hp multiplying 80(hp) by 0.7457. Ratio = 60kW / 80Nm Ratio = 0.75 In this case when comparing the ratios of different motorcycles, it is essential to use consistent units for accurate comparison.
You are 100% correct i have a bike that has torque of 75ft pounds/100 NM qnd 100 hp. Its not the fastest bike in the world but it pulls you back every time you open the trottle from very low rpms all the way to the top ,it can even powrr wheelie in low gears . Fun for roads
This is the main reason I like inline 3s and parallel twins so much. Inline 3s arent so commital to hp like the inline 4s are, while(current) parallel twins arent so committed to torque like the v-twins are. You get a good balance of hp and torque without one overbalancing the other. My street triple r is a 1.54
The simplest way to explain torque versus horsepower that isn't an oversimplification is a graph showing torque over wheelspeed in each gear. Get that for the bikes you're comparing. Then have a look how you like the curves and which is better in the speeds you're typically riding at, and assume you're two downshifts away from optimal gear when you're on the street.. That is because the gearing is literally what every simplified explanation skips, and it's definitely needed for the understanding.
What is often less said in these "engine output" discussions is the effect wide or narrow gearing has on the character of a particular motorcycle. Sportbikes of the high-reving nature usually have very narrow and very tall gearing; that allows the upshift at high RPM to drop just a few thousand. That's great if you shift at 14,000 rpm but what if you shift at 6000 rpm? Then the rpm drops just a tiny bit, thereby forcing another shift. The more street-oriented motorcycles have wider-spaced gearings...more of a compromise whereby shifting at lower rpm is pleasant but still narrow enough that a shift at high rpm won't completely drop you out of the power band. I do think the new Euro 5 standards have been weirdly favorable to motorcyclists; by essentially herding all these motors into big valve, short advance, long-stroke motors, all current Euro-5 motors have power down low and wide. On paper while these bikes seem to make less power, in practice they're much faster for most people because they're much easier to ride. And since they don't need to win races, they can be exceptionally large displacement engines that don't need to rev much, thus also being quite light without using exotic materials.
The move to the euro 5 engines is a hot debate I'm still not sure where I side entirely but I tend to agree with you. Ptwins and those flat powerbands are so uniquely capable and easy to ride its a shame people call them boring imo
I always make a power to weight ratio and torque to weight ratio when I'm looking at bikes. It's a good way to weed things out before the next step. You may also want to look at the power curves as well, to see when your power kicks in. As you stated your mark was above or below 5k. But I think alot of crusers make it rather low and inline 4s make it pretty high up. Thanks for the video keep going I like your videos.
I gave up on reading weights on bikes tbh, so many feel so much different in person class:class its almost impossible to guess. Rsv4 is the best example of a bike that feels like a feather between the legs but is a pig for its class if you were to walk it up a scale. Suzuki's as a whole as well always feel lighter between the legs than they are on paper
Duude, this is the third video i've watched from you. Super interesting topics, which nobody talks about precisely. This way to simply explain the feeling of a bike might not be super scientific but I think its the most understandable und feelable way to explain. For the future, it would be nice, if your researched data would be a bit more accurate. For example the Duke 890 doesn't have 68nm but 92nm. This is a pretty big gap. But keep on with this good stuff 👍 Sorry for my bad english, greetings from Germany!
My Z900 seems to be the best of both worlds. Has an inline 4 that makes reasonable HP & really good torque. Instant & continuous power throughout the rev range, while having sharp handling & being a reasonably comfortable bike to ride.
Highly recommend Dave Moss for setup tips and any of the big dirtbike forums and channels for the best breakdowns in simple terms of rebound, damping, preload etc. They'll be way better at explaining and the softer suspension of dirtbikes makes it much easier to see and understand in video explanations
Thanks I never understood this. I would only use CC size to assume one is faster over the other but once I got beat by a Gixer 750 while ridding a 900cc bike. ( both Stock)(straight-line -less than 1/4 mile) distance n realized I was missing a piece in this puzzle. Much appreciated.
I really appreciate your simplification on these subjects & im sure you’ve aided someone with this video. I just find it strange that we shop by numbers. To my the things I buy speak to me. I ride a fireblade, it doesn’t win in hp or torque. But, it feels right. If I had made my purchased based on numbers, I’d probably have bought a bike that was as fast as I liked, but had nothing else that made me enjoy my purchase. I think buying a bike should be a mix of these. I believe if you’re riding something you enjoy, you’ll put more effort into doing it properly. If you can’t tell I hate the whole “best beginner bike” stuff. That gives the illusion to the people we want to reach the most that you can’t die on 400cc. Though it’s less likely, it can happen. I am the idiot that started on a liter bike & since I spend most of my time on the street, I’m so glad I didn’t waste money on a bike I had no desire to own. Could I be a better biker with that experience? Possibly. Am I doing just fine with the choices I made? Definitely. Keep up the work, I really like the homey feel to your videos. You don’t do big edits, you get to the point & provide the information you set out to. It’s refreshing to have this type of content still available to me. Thanks
Oh no arguments there, I'm one of the biggest proponents of buy something you love the look of and feel proud to own numbers be damned. Nothing will make you try harder and spend more time with anything than something you have pride with. Only thing there is never buy something youre scared of, pride can't overtake fear and that causes an unfortunate amount of regrettable purchases for many. This is mainly to help with identifying bikes on paper like with the mt example if you want a little more scootin' power but love that engines characteristics shopping around that same ratio will net you a much more similar bike than a deviation away in either other direction. Same goes for downsizing as well, say you love your s1000r but just want something a bit more relaxed a striple 750 may be the answer youre looking for despite seemingly completely different bikes, triple vs inline 4.
@@delusion2987 I have never understood the illusion that something with “forgiveness” won’t still kill you. I’m also aware of how broad the term “beginner” is. I have 2 wheel experience, just didn’t have on the road with traffic, experience. For good reason no place off road requires 1000cc & I’m even willing to admit not many places on road require 1000cc, still my only way to have that experience is to just do it, which I am now. I personally feel the type of people who need a lower powered bike specifically to start on, shouldn’t be on a bike at all. My liter bike starts parked at 0mph. The fastest road around me is limited to 70mph. Most accidents occur around 35mph, which the small bike can also do. A bike I would have disliked & not taken seriously cause I know I’m only passing time till I upgrade to a 600cc that I don’t believe is a good street option at all, before I ultimately buy they liter bike & enjoy it. That sounds insane to me when I already know what I want to ride & I have the discipline to do so. I’m not saying this is one size fit all & everyone should buy their dream bike. Because, like you wonderfully stated, we can do what we want & since some people will buy motorcycles that really shouldn’t, we created a section of purchase tips for them. All I’m saying is those tips don’t apply to everyone. I haven’t seen a single starter bike that I would have enjoyed to own. I don’t have the disposable income to buy a bike I know im not gonna keep. There are many factors that go into the bikes we ride & I think we hyper focus on one aspect a bit too much. The truth is, I can die just as quickly on a single/twin 400-700cc bike if I don’t respect it & I’m fortunate enough to know that. I fall into a category we’re a starter bike would have been a punishment & possibly made me resent riding on the street altogether. I didn’t go through the training wheel phase as a kid & I think that highly affects why I feel this way. I just knew how to ride a bike. Again, I’m not saying people should buy the most powerful bike & call it a day. That is dumb. But, to tell someone who has done the necessary research to make a $20k purchase(including gear & gadgets) that they instead should buy this thing they know they don’t want cause it’s more “forgiving” & that will make them safe is absolutely bonkers. I’ve seen bodily injury occur on 125cc 2 strokes. I’m sure a ninja 400 has claimed someone. We are doing something inherently dangerous & I think it’s an oversight to believe having a different engine could change that more than my own ability. A fall from 5ft is enough to give you a tbi if you hit your head right. Adding any relative acceleration to that fall will only exacerbate that reality. Again for people that need starter bikes I’m glad manufacturers make them. But, the fact that I get bullied cause I started on the liter bike I wanted is wild to me. I can’t hear the insults cause of my exhaust, but when I stop the bike I watch the videos about how I’m gonna kill myself for starting on a 1000 & that’s just not true. Sorry for the rant. I’m just passionate & I don’t comment often. Stay safe my friend.
@@delusion2987 this is exactly why I have this take. We all get caught up in “how I would do it” & ignore the nuance of a situation. I’ll reiterate, I have plenty of riding experience, just didn’t have street experience. & again, forgiveness is subjective, it’s not absolute. The roads where I live don’t lawfully allow me enter a corner 20mph faster than I should. I abide the law & do the speed limit. I admit most people buy super sports for the wrong reasons & I don’t fall in that group. Yes, I have fun, but I am able to control myself & im not special. There are other people with similar levels of control. My entire point is that if we base our decisions off someone else’s recommendation without considering the nuance of a situation we potentially make an even bigger mistake. Nobody tells the old guy with 0 track experience not to buy the corvette. We leave him alone & let him enjoy it. Think about all the guys who bought 930 911s. They called that car the widow maker & im sure most people loved the car. But, as soon as someone wants to know what I rode before my fireblade & I answer with “250cc on dirt” their eyes pop out of their head like Jim Carey in the mask. Now I gotta hear all the death stories that conveniently leave out the ignorance that person was doing before they lost life. I’m just saying that you & I are different. I wear full gear no matter the weather, maybe gloves make you feel detach so you don’t wear them. I do the maintenance on my bike because I’m mechanically inclined, you may take yours to a dealer. I’m never gonna make you feel a way cause you prefer not to wear gloves & you visit the dealership. I’m aware there may be some nuance to your situation that makes it differ from my own. In the end I’m glad I made the purchase I did & I can only imagine the lack of enthusiasm I would have had if I had bought something I did not want. & the scolding, even you did it. Somehow my 10+yrs of riding experience means nothing cause it wasn’t on the street? So already understanding the operation & mechanics didn’t help me at all? The conversation about starter bikes relates to a specific type of person & personally I don’t feel that type of person should be on 2 wheels if they could find themselves doing 80 in a 45 right before a corner they knew was coming. That decision is the problem, not the bike. The bike is a million times better than me in every situation & I never let my inputs go to my head. A starter bike would have been boring for me & the days I should have rode, I’d have taken the car for convenience, leaving me with even less experience. Buying the bike I wanted gave me motivation to take riding seriously & think that aspect is more important than having something more “forgiving” to start. It’s only under the guise of upgrading. If you know you want an r1, but you start on an r3 cause you’re scared, you shouldn’t be on the r3. It can still kill you, only slower. But, if you don’t want anything higher performing than an mt07 & you decide to buy that bike & ride it into infinity then be my guess. If you want an r3 cause that’s all you need, cool. But, buying an r3 to “prepare” you for an r1 is ignorant cause they aren’t the same. If you didn’t learn from the mistakes you made on the r3, cause it’s so “forgiving” that you don’t notice it’s a mistake. When you over rev downshift on the r1, your wheel is in the air now. Something the r3 never did & something you can’t prepare for. I advocate safety & want people to be so. I just think dying on the hill of starter bikes to reach that safety isn’t as sound as paying attention & having the dedication to learn the skill. My issue isn’t so much with the idea of starter bikes, but the fact that people will tell me I’m wrong for not starting on a lower cc bike & I haven’t seen the evidence of that yet. The recommendation is fine, but that isn’t how we speak about starter bikes, most people talk of starter bikes as a requirement & I can completely disagree with based on the nuance of the situation. My girl wants to ride. Would she start on a liter? No fucking way. She may never own a liter bike. So a smaller cc for her makes sense. She also doesn’t know the style of bike so that will allow us to experiment with her purchase. The nuance of her situation is drastically different than mine & that to me is more important than buying that ninja 400 cause one day I want an h2, so I need to somehow prepare for that 200hp bike with a 90hp one🤣🤣kinda reminds me of racing stock auto cars in high school thinking I was talented cause I beat my friend to the next light. The car did all the work & I merely pointed it. To go from pointing an eclipse down a straight road to drifting an e36 was a steep learning curve & I ignorantly thought I had enough skill to do so cause I won a few unsanctioned drag races. Once I got over myself & dedicated the time to learn the skill of sliding a car, I got better. That eclipse taught me nothing but how slow 100mph actually is & the worst part is I didn’t know it at the time. Thanks for chatting with me, I’d be more than happy to continue this dialogue if you’re interested
@@delusion2987 maybe I’m successful because of my ability to compartmentalize. I did not buy a track bike & I don’t ride like the streets are one. I do push the bike, but on the street I never surpass 8/10 of my ability. It’s just not worth it most of the time for me to ride like the demon in me wants to. Imo the liter bike is a far better contender for street riding than a 600. The way you describe a rider being overwhelmed is closely related to 600cc class with all their power being made late in the powerband & they lack the bottom end torque you get from bigger bored bikes. The fact that 3rd gear literally does everything for me was a big factor in my choice. I understood to get the thrill my liter bike gives me at 7k revs, if need to rev a 600cc well beyond 10k & on the street I think it’s dumb to hover around double digit rpm in case I need to make a pass later. I enjoy that anywhere from 3k+ I have power to put down & this makes the bike more useful for me & how I ride. If your argument is that smaller bikes make you better on the track, then I 100% agree with that, but hence my compartmentalization, I’m not trying to be the fastest track rider omw to work. & if you believe that smaller bikes aid a learning curve, then you can’t dismiss the 10+yrs I threw my leg over many a bike that gave me experience to ride 1000s. I’d like to be a track rat & if I were, I’d probably track a smaller bike for a plethora of reasons. But, since I can only afford 1 at the moment, I chose the bike I wanted to sit on most. The one that felt most comfortable to me. The one that had fueling I understood. Suspension I trusted. Brakes that I knew would stop me. My argument is not that people should jump the line & buy a liter bike as I’m aware how much overkill a 400cc is for daily commute let alone a liter bike. I think the way we tier bikes pushes people into owning something they don’t want. Imo we talk of starter bikes like the liter bike is the finish line & I disagree with that. If the 400 is good enough to start on, then keep the bike & don’t go bigger. But, if you wanted bigger than 400cc, riding a 400cc won’t prepare you for that bigger bike. Will you have more experience? Yes. But, will it directly translate to the big bike? I don’t really think so. I would have never understood the rate of acceleration from my fireblade until I twisted the throttle. No matter how hard I yanked on the 400, it would never toss me back like my liter bike does. If I had gotten used to the freedom a lower cc bike gives in respect to throttle response, I could have gotten on my liter bike & looped it out of the dealership. I had a respect for the bike before I gave my money away & this factor plays in my ability more than buying a lower cc bike 1st. I’m aware how anecdotal this is & im 1 of 1. I just know if I were more gullible, I’d have bought a cbr300 & hated that I can’t use the interstate, got super fatigued from constant gear changing, & disappointed by its overall capabilities. On the days I was tired & didn’t want to take the 30min to put gear in, I wouldn’t have & the bike would have just sat & my little skill diminished. I don’t want that to happen to potential riders & if the line is buying something you didn’t want, I say don’t do that. Buy, the bike you want, with reason. Do the research. Make sure you like the seating geometry. Make sure it has the features you need. I live by abs. Choosing something reliable is more important than engine size to me. It’s all about how it operates. We don’t bat an eye at the cruiser cause of how it delivers power. I’ve ridden side by side cruisers. If I can go that slow in that setting, I can translate that to others. It’s a death trap we navigate no matter the bike. Put pedals on it & you could still die if you fell. Telling an idiot that shouldn’t be on a bike at all, that the 400 is perfect for him, cause you know he has bad impulse control is not the move. You need to send him to a doctor, not your salesmen at your cycle shop. Cause that idiot may survive the 400 & when he does, you know what he wants next & if he didn’t learn from the 400 cause of his lack of control, the liter bike will still eat him for lunch. It was something that worked for me & think it’s toxic how we speak on starter bikes like it’s a level up thing cause everyone will want to “level up” even when they don’t need to. The mt07 is probably the best commuter bike on the market. Truthfully we all should be riding one. But, I had the option to ride a bike I actually wanted & the difference in engine size is smaller than the bike I get recommended. I figured I could handle it if I stayed attentive & for the most part I was right. Do things get sticky? Sure, but I think it inherent of riding in general & doesn’t reflect the bike I’m on as much as we say in the community
@@delusion2987 well there is the misconception I believe that exist. I believe motorcyclist with 0 experience is a minority group. Most of us rode dirt bikes or mopeds or even tried to get our pit bikes to do 30mph. I’ve mentioned how long I’ve been throwing a leg several times & that still hasn’t registered with your logic. My fireblade is not the 1st bike I’ve owned unless we play semantics that I don’t think help the conversation. You reply as if I advocate for people jumping to a big bike when in reality I’m saying the big bike isn’t necessary. A big reason I own the big bike is how the genre was shaped for me as a kid. I grew up watching guys on 1300 busas. The gsxr 750 was considered a big bike. I was basically being indoctrinated to ride a big bike before I knew it & I believe it has a lot to do with the idea of “starter” bikes. The truth is, most bikes we allocate to that genre could be owned for a lifetime. Nobody needs more than 100hp on 2 wheels. I think we should spend more time talking about a bikes specific capability than comparing it to big brother. As I stated the mt07 is by far the best commuter bike with a bunch of close 2nds. In an ideal world no manufacturer would make a bike bigger. But, we live in a society where Kawasaki straps a damn supercharger to theirs. If you tell the guy his 400 is a starter bike rather than a good commuter bike, logic will eventually lead him to that supercharged monster that really shouldn’t be on the street. I’m not bashing the recommendation, only showing the holes within it. We are all different & no single bike will satisfy us all. So creating a list of bikes that the majority has outgrown to recommend to a minority who have no idea what they want is a disservice. The people whom would benefit from starting on a smaller bike can’t comprehend why that is until they ride the bigger bike. & what if the small bike they buy doesn’t fit them. Best case scenario, they quit ridding & live a long life or worse, they jump the 600, the 750, & go right for the supercharger cause a year on their “starter” bike means they’re ready for the wheel coming up in 5th gear. I think we should rename the role of “starter” bikes to something that actually explains what we mean when we speak on them. I came into bikes thinking there were “stepping stones” & since I have my experience I can skip some of those stones, when in reality motorcycling is a journey. There is no step to skip cause there is no finish line. If I knew what I know now, I probably would have never owned a liter bike or at most bought a RRR just to flex & put very little miles on it. The reality is being out of depth is a recipe for disaster in the kitchen & the court room also. But, you know how improvement works. You must come right up to the limit & learn to hold it there. Not back off permanently or go over that limit. If you give yourself the ceiling that most starter bikes provide, once you get on the big bike you are still out of your depth. Maybe less shallow than others, but certainly still out of your depth. I think it would be more wise to recommend good riding etiquette no matter the machine you use. This is why me “starting” on a liter bike hasn’t hindered me as bad as others. I keep a level head & never get too far ahead of myself. That has kept me alive more than choosing a smaller bike. I’m aware it’s anecdotal, but I’m still here to share my story so it must be true. I’d rather riders go a but the big bike to not ride it the way it was designed than to buy a smaller bike so they can ride the big bike the way it was designed. Hugely cause our laws don’t allow for it. Our roadways don’t allow for it, & most of all other commuters that we share the road with don’t allow for it. So my options are simple, do the maxwrist pass in oncoming traffic or just wait till I’m clear. Ride 10/10 on a road I’m not familiar with or make sure the bike & I get back home. These are inquires made regardless of the bike & I think if more riders rode that way, we would have less casualties & wouldn’t even use terms like starter bikes. I bet the manufacturers don’t call them starter bikes, but they make them cause they understand the language we use & if they offer a tamed version of the monster on the track & convince you to buy it, before long you’ll be back on the floor looking to buy the track monster. They make “starter” bikes for sales. Again, I’ve seen bodily injury on bikes so small they wouldn’t be considered road worthy. Should I have recommended that kid who paralyzed that he should have gotten something smaller than 50cc? How low do we go before we realize our actions dictate our interactions at every level. If it’s sensible to buy a smaller bike, then wouldn’t you agree it’s just as sensible to be easy with my right wrist? I’m curious of what the difference is from buying a “slow” bike vs riding my fast bike slow? Especially when I can do dumb stuff on the “slow” bike & still be harmed.
Regardless of motorcycle brands, would you choose a motorcycle that put's out 128 horsepower @ 12,000 rpms with 59 ft lbs of torque @ 9500 rpms and weighs 414 lbs (with a 765 cc engine) or would you choose a motorcycle that puts out 117 horsepower @ 10,000 rpms with 68.5 ft lbs of torque @ 7000 rpms and weighs 228 lbs (with an 890 cc engine)? The 765 cc engine is geared to be at 5,500 rpms @ 65 mph in top gear and the 890 cc engine is geared to be at 4,400 rpms @ 65 mph in top gear. Imagine that the both bikes would be loaded down with 235 lbs with rider and gear. Ironically, the larger 890 cc is considerably more fuel efficient by at least 6 mpg. This would be for mostly street riding but I love both of these bike and you can probably guess by the specs above which two bikes I am talking about -- one of them is on your list. Thanks, by the way, your closer to "1" thing is really kind of helpful; I never thought of it like that.
mt09 vs 765 rs 🤔 new mt09 sp have closer weoght distirbution to 765 rs more track focused than whelly = more weoght at front less uprtight position in such circumstances for me its close draw mt09 thanks more torq spin lower rpm maybe have lil better fuel conomy but elasticity at the same gear despite have biger low modrange tprq not necesssery as this is always conect to longer final gear ratio when power resist is similar and it even clock peak hp at lil lower rpm 👌🏻 like ypu write 4400 vs 5500 rpm at 65 mph according to dyno run eleasticity be pretty much very close at last gear from 65 to feg 100 mph 👌🏻 for me whatever here draw 👌🏻rs still be proabbaly lil faster at track thanks lil better topend thpugh dont know if or not it have wide peak like mt09 👌🏻
I’ve got a 23 Sportster S with a stage 1 kit and the exhaust from FPE. I’m going to get it dyno’d to see how much wheel it’s getting and i’ll toss it here for some info! Also got a bone stock 23 z h2 se, currently at 450~ miles. Fantastic bike and will always recommend people to test ride it!
A 1/4 drag race features a 100HP bike with 1# of torque vs a 1HP bike with 100# of torque. Who wins? Does the same bike win if it were a 10 mile long drag race?
at perfect gearing it be in 99 out of 100 version with more power and less torq 👌🏻 100 hp /1 nm at perfect gearing let say its 200 kg cruiser be able to defeat 1/4 mille in like 11,5 sec +/- vs 1 hp /100 nm version also at perfect gearing would need like im not sure if 1 minute be enough 🤔 it at 1 hp achieve maybe 30 km/h in let say 30 sec what mean avg 0,28 G what mean it reach it at around 125 metres and 30 km/h for whats left 275 metres +/- mean + 33 sec +/- yea it probably be above 1 minute 👌🏻 so yea 1 hp 100 nm version be good engine for your teeth cleaning machine at most especially if you have big inscisorrs 🤓 ….. and not for 200 kg cruiser which must overtake bus at 100 km/h relatively fast - at comfortable rate/pace/tempo with 100 kg driver and often 50-100 kg another person onboard or some bag etc 😉👌🏻 in fact thers couple other powibility to ypur wuestion i assume most often seen on road setup where gearing is at least acceptable good what is true for most motorcycles on road 👌🏻 1 hp 100 nm version can win only if gering be very faaar from perfect for 100 hp1 nm version or let say both have only 1 gear and no clutch at all and the same final gear ratio than on each distance up to certain distanc lenght 1hp 100 nm version win assuming it have everywhere on low the same rpm more tprq so more hp at those low rpm …above is this specified /certain distance depend on gear lenght 100 hp1 nm always win 👌🏻 it must catch up this what it loses asf ….. once you setup perfect gearing for each and its game over for 1 hp /100 nm version at each distance cos power:speed= force and acceelration depend on force level divide be all resist simple 👌🏻 real world egzample ypu have in cars technical specification catalogue stats where they give 0-100 km/h time for each version for the same car and version with more power and less torque is almost always faster 👌🏻 top speed also have alwaus more 👌🏻 feg peugeot 206 1,4 hdi version so 68 os hp 150 nm 0-100 in 14,7 vmax 165 km/h vs version 1,4 16 v 88 os hp 133 nm 0-100 11,7 sec vmax 178 km/h 👌🏻 real world egzample from motorcycle world let say h-d x440 38 nm 27 hp 0-100 10 sec vmax 140 km/h vs benelli tnt 302 26 nm 37 hp 0-100 8 sec vmax 155 km/h both similar drag and weight and drive train losess 👌🏻 those are egzample farr from your extreme numbers where 100 hp 1 nm is waaaay above conventional combustion engines capability cos rpm level for achieve 100 hp from 1 nm is waaay to much preciselly speaking +/- 712080 rpm 3/4 of 1 mln rpm and conventional combustion engine with 10 ccm cos we twlk about 1 nm will stand maybe like 50 k rpm os above it probably damage crank shaft etc anyways like +/- 10-15 times to much rpm than what our tehcnology can make without blew up engine into pieces 👌🏻let say…. but tendency is clear i quesss 👌🏻
it mean both would have similar power characterisitcs but for this also rpm at which egzist must be known still not full picture but let say engine characterisitc similar but level of power completellly diffrent so performance level on straights completellly diffrent yea he is lill offf with prediction what this ratio is capable to subscribe 😉👌🏻
I feel like when looking for a beginner bike, its more about what kind of look and ergonomics you want. All beginner bikes are gonna have about the same power (50hp/30tq) from a rebel 500 to a ninja 400. Do you want a sporty feel or do you want a relaxed feel? Naked bikes and sport bikes at this level have basically the same ergos, comfortable but sporty. Cruisers are going to be relaxed. After you ride for a bit you're naturally going to learn power delivery. Lets be honest. Intermediate and advanced riders aren't watching this to learn about power delivery.
When trying to look at a bike sideways on, instead of looking from the kickstand side and having to crouch and look up, would it be easier to look from the right side down standing??
@@skyoom1 I see. Commenting because I saw another one of your videos yesturday comparing the riding position between 3 bikes, shot from the same angle. Staring into the sun and looking at the shaded side of the bike and crouching on the floor seems more effort and less optimal results to me
@@krisswolf2011 that one ended up a logistical nightmare between getting the bikes there, a tree service coming to start cutting down trees within mic distance of where I originally intended to film, and trying to avoid being too close to people to avoid them in the video. I agree with you though and the videography is a work in progress for sure
Torque : how easy is it to lift the front wheel off the ground in ANY GEAR Horsepower : what is TOP SPEED of the bike in ANY GEAR your ratio the lower the number .7-1.2 is most likely to lift the front wheel off the ground and induce DEATH WOBBLE on the free way your ration 1.2-2.0 nice all around bike that will get you to work and in the parkinglot and put smiles on your face in the twisties and the straight aways your ratio the higher the number 2+ is most likely to GO FAST to get your butt out of trouble on the freeway TORQUE is the TRACTOR in the FEILD HORSEPOWER is the RACE CAR on the TRACK visual aesthetics are PERSONAL pick an ugly bike at your own risk you may just fall in love over time
Try riding a 600 supersport two up 450 pounds total and tell me how it feels on a big adventure bike like the gs you can pull and accelerate easy even with that kind of weight . If you are a 150 pound feather and only do solo riding then yeah no need for torque but if you are a big guy and put a passenger and or luggage you need that torque .
hp = top speed torque = acceleration I like your videos but 19mins is too long to explain what i put in four words wanna go top speed buy an inline 4 or v4 wanna accelerate fast get a v2 or parrelel twin i ride a mt07 which acceleration wise beats all these fast boys. im uk much more than a 700cc is pointless on our roads
Hey someone left you a well intentioned suggestion about shorts. Do NOT follow that advice. Use shorts, but do not use it the way they suggested. You’d be better off not using them at all. They’re stuck in a way of thinking from early in the shorts life when guy w/channels were still figuring shorts out. Whatever you do don’t use shorts as a way to blue ball ppl I to clicking your videos. It won’t work. Ppl will avoid your channel if you make a bunch of shorts that tease a video conclusion towards the end of the short and say to watch the full video for more info/the full story. NEVER do this except in very rare cases. You want your shorts to stand alone and deliver a cohesive message that viewers of it satisfied, or feeling anything g but REGRET or hate for you which is what they will feel if you spend 55/60 seconds talking about some neat concept only for you to say SORRY IF YOU WANT ME TO FINISH THE STORY YOU HAVE TO CLICK AND WATCH THE FULL VIDEO. Everyone hates that and some channels were literally destroyed by using that technique, this was the precursor to the “part 2” trend on shorts that was hated even more by many and rapidly ended because again channels were kicked off the algo by so many viewers giving thumbs down and saying do not reccomend and not interested in channel etc. Are you planning on making lots of Contant on a regular basis or was this basically a more focus project where you are making a series of videos to help beginner writers and then you’re basically done with it more or less ? Both are valid approaches. I’m just asking because if it’s the ladder, you don’t really need to focus a whole lot on shorts at all.
Appreciate the effort, but you lost me. Not a numbes guy. 40 years of riding, what I need from an engine is simple for me. If it accerates faxt enough to make me smile, i'm happy. If I still have power on tap while riding at increased speed sometimes considered questionabe, i'm happy. If I can quickly pass slow or risky traffic, at any speed, without the need to downshift, i'm happy. Give me a bike that I like visually and from the saddle with those 3 engine characteristics.....sold.
All we really should care about is getting an accurate torque-curve from the manufacturers, NOT peak torque/horsepower numbers. Also you can't separate torque and power in these circumstances, one can't exist without the other.
very simplifificty and in alot point lil wrong but whatever 👌🏻 proportion between torqueand power is parametres which avoid multiple stufff which impact on how motorcycle behave in regard to overalll engine capabilities but for 100% noobs let say its let say somehow lil ok let say 😉 👌🏻 as long as they also watch on level of peak power and not only this proportion betweeen torque and power level cos you can have this ratio on 0,5 level so huge torq integard to power level but because power level itself be very low let say 20 hp and 40 nm than yea this bike be waaaay weaker everywhere on rpm even on lowest rpm than let say something with this ratio of 2 but with peak power 200 than ypu have 100 nm and at 2000 rpm where forst version have 40 nm peak 2 version have like 70-80 nm so double of first version 👌🏻🤷🏻♂️but than also come into play gearing which also most dirver donttake into accout when subscribe how engine behave and they say massively BS often misleading engine lowend with final gear ratio asf aso ….also „torq how powerfull bike is under 5000 rpm and power above „ is 🤔 welll wrong cos torque i mean peak can be on waaaay above 5000 rpm but maybe in regard to cruisers vs sports bike thers some conections 👌🏻 cos usallly bike with more tprq than power have max torq lower often under or around 5 k rpm so in regard to this we can in fact say like this let say be lil but in regard to couple other point of view welll NOT REALLLY 😉👌🏻
Cool content enjoy your manner of delivery.
Them gloves are best/worst I've seen since the 80's. ✌
You need power to accelerate and go fast. Power = power. Torque = how little rpm you need to make power.
Torque = the amount of work an engine can do. Horsepower = the speed an engine can perform said work. He explained it pretty well tho. Torque is power at the bottom of the powerband, Horsepower is power at the top of the powerband.
@@russthomasjr Torque is not an amount of work the engine can do. It is the amount of twisting force it can exert on the clutch. You could see torque as an 'amount of work' per revolution of the motor. This figure however does not mean too much if you do not know how fast the motor is revving. thus, you multiply torque by rpm. This yields power, power is indeed work per unit time.
Two engines, one with 200 Nm of torque at 2000 rpm and another with 100 Nm of torque at 4000 rpm can do the same amount of work, because the first has the same power at 2000rpm as the second has at 4000rpm.
The phrase "torque is power at the bottom of the powerband" is misleading, because torque is not power and the term 'powerband' is vague. An engine may have a high torque figure, but only reach said torque figure at a high rpm. An engine having high torque thus does not necessarily mean it pulls wel at low rpm.
Of course, if you define the powerband to start at or near the point of maximum torque, said phrase works a bit better. But even in that case, a given amount of torque at 4000rpm does more work/yields more power than that same amount of torque at 2000rpm.
Example: the ducati V4 has 124Nm at 9500 rpm. The new bmw R12ninet has 115Nm at 6500rpm. Yet, people will describe the V4 as having a high power engine, while they describe the bmw as having a high torque engine. The ducati has about the same amount of torque at 6500rpm as the bmw (and thus the same power at that rpm), with the difference that for the bmw that is the torque peak while for the ducati it is not. What this example shows, is that peak torque and power values and the ratio between them are not the full story. at 6500rpm, both the bmw and the ducati engine will pull equally hard (given the same gearing ratio etcetera), although they have different peak power, peak torque and power/torque ratio.
I think it is most informative to look at multiple figures if you want to get a feel for the character of an engine: peak power and its rpm, peak torque and its rpm, the ratio between power and torque, the difference between the rpms of peak power and peak torque, and last but not least: where the dyno graphs start. For the ducati, the graph on the ducati website starts at 4000rpm. This tells you the rideability at (very) low rpms is suboptimal, because of course it is a highly tuned engine.
I recently found your channel. You go very in-depth in explaining and are very informative. I started on a ninja 250 and just recently got a ninja 650 this video was exactly how to describe the power of them and 18:09 very insightful as to my future bike thank you and I hope to see your channel skyrocket and become successful thank you.
You can also convert the horsepower to kW.
Ratio = Horsepower (kW) / Torque (Nm)
If you have a bike with 80hp and 80Nm, you can convert the hp multiplying 80(hp) by 0.7457.
Ratio = 60kW / 80Nm
Ratio = 0.75
In this case when comparing the ratios of different motorcycles, it is essential to use consistent units for accurate comparison.
Loving the content! I'm looking to start riding by the end of the year, I really appreciate the technical and practical tips you give!
You are 100% correct i have a bike that has torque of 75ft pounds/100 NM qnd 100 hp. Its not the fastest bike in the world but it pulls you back every time you open the trottle from very low rpms all the way to the top ,it can even powrr wheelie in low gears . Fun for roads
This is the main reason I like inline 3s and parallel twins so much. Inline 3s arent so commital to hp like the inline 4s are, while(current) parallel twins arent so committed to torque like the v-twins are. You get a good balance of hp and torque without one overbalancing the other. My street triple r is a 1.54
So simple. Thank you.
Keep going man! Great content and to the point, love it 💪🏿
The simplest way to explain torque versus horsepower that isn't an oversimplification is a graph showing torque over wheelspeed in each gear. Get that for the bikes you're comparing. Then have a look how you like the curves and which is better in the speeds you're typically riding at, and assume you're two downshifts away from optimal gear when you're on the street.. That is because the gearing is literally what every simplified explanation skips, and it's definitely needed for the understanding.
What is often less said in these "engine output" discussions is the effect wide or narrow gearing has on the character of a particular motorcycle. Sportbikes of the high-reving nature usually have very narrow and very tall gearing; that allows the upshift at high RPM to drop just a few thousand. That's great if you shift at 14,000 rpm but what if you shift at 6000 rpm? Then the rpm drops just a tiny bit, thereby forcing another shift.
The more street-oriented motorcycles have wider-spaced gearings...more of a compromise whereby shifting at lower rpm is pleasant but still narrow enough that a shift at high rpm won't completely drop you out of the power band.
I do think the new Euro 5 standards have been weirdly favorable to motorcyclists; by essentially herding all these motors into big valve, short advance, long-stroke motors, all current Euro-5 motors have power down low and wide. On paper while these bikes seem to make less power, in practice they're much faster for most people because they're much easier to ride. And since they don't need to win races, they can be exceptionally large displacement engines that don't need to rev much, thus also being quite light without using exotic materials.
The move to the euro 5 engines is a hot debate I'm still not sure where I side entirely but I tend to agree with you. Ptwins and those flat powerbands are so uniquely capable and easy to ride its a shame people call them boring imo
I always make a power to weight ratio and torque to weight ratio when I'm looking at bikes. It's a good way to weed things out before the next step. You may also want to look at the power curves as well, to see when your power kicks in. As you stated your mark was above or below 5k. But I think alot of crusers make it rather low and inline 4s make it pretty high up. Thanks for the video keep going I like your videos.
I gave up on reading weights on bikes tbh, so many feel so much different in person class:class its almost impossible to guess. Rsv4 is the best example of a bike that feels like a feather between the legs but is a pig for its class if you were to walk it up a scale. Suzuki's as a whole as well always feel lighter between the legs than they are on paper
Duude, this is the third video i've watched from you. Super interesting topics, which nobody talks about precisely. This way to simply explain the feeling of a bike might not be super scientific but I think its the most understandable und feelable way to explain.
For the future, it would be nice, if your researched data would be a bit more accurate. For example the Duke 890 doesn't have 68nm but 92nm. This is a pretty big gap. But keep on with this good stuff 👍
Sorry for my bad english, greetings from Germany!
They use foot-pounds (ft-lb) in the US! So it's 68ft-lb
@@questioner01 ahh good point, thanks !
Hers an easy way to understand
Torque = how hard you have to hold on to the handle bars
HP=how fast you can go/speed
Loved your content! Can you do how to do proper body position in the corner and in the twisties :) I appreciate it!
Got it on the list ✍️
My Z900 seems to be the best of both worlds. Has an inline 4 that makes reasonable HP & really good torque. Instant & continuous power throughout the rev range, while having sharp handling & being a reasonably comfortable bike to ride.
Thank you for the helpful content ! Could you please make a video about preload and how to set up the forks for the individuell rider ?
Highly recommend Dave Moss for setup tips and any of the big dirtbike forums and channels for the best breakdowns in simple terms of rebound, damping, preload etc. They'll be way better at explaining and the softer suspension of dirtbikes makes it much easier to see and understand in video explanations
@@skyoom1 Thank you for the quick respond 💪
Thanks I never understood this. I would only use CC size to assume one is faster over the other but once I got beat by a Gixer 750 while ridding a 900cc bike. ( both Stock)(straight-line -less than 1/4 mile) distance n realized I was missing a piece in this puzzle. Much appreciated.
My boy printed it out the “notepad” document 😅
Hours editing and watching tutorials or click print real quick 😂
@@skyoom1 it got the job done it was just funny when u popped out with it lol
@@skyoom1 appreciate the videos but. Very informative
was hoping to see vmax 1700 not sure how fast my vmax is
I really appreciate your simplification on these subjects & im sure you’ve aided someone with this video. I just find it strange that we shop by numbers. To my the things I buy speak to me. I ride a fireblade, it doesn’t win in hp or torque. But, it feels right. If I had made my purchased based on numbers, I’d probably have bought a bike that was as fast as I liked, but had nothing else that made me enjoy my purchase. I think buying a bike should be a mix of these. I believe if you’re riding something you enjoy, you’ll put more effort into doing it properly. If you can’t tell I hate the whole “best beginner bike” stuff. That gives the illusion to the people we want to reach the most that you can’t die on 400cc. Though it’s less likely, it can happen. I am the idiot that started on a liter bike & since I spend most of my time on the street, I’m so glad I didn’t waste money on a bike I had no desire to own. Could I be a better biker with that experience? Possibly. Am I doing just fine with the choices I made? Definitely. Keep up the work, I really like the homey feel to your videos. You don’t do big edits, you get to the point & provide the information you set out to. It’s refreshing to have this type of content still available to me. Thanks
Oh no arguments there, I'm one of the biggest proponents of buy something you love the look of and feel proud to own numbers be damned. Nothing will make you try harder and spend more time with anything than something you have pride with. Only thing there is never buy something youre scared of, pride can't overtake fear and that causes an unfortunate amount of regrettable purchases for many.
This is mainly to help with identifying bikes on paper like with the mt example if you want a little more scootin' power but love that engines characteristics shopping around that same ratio will net you a much more similar bike than a deviation away in either other direction. Same goes for downsizing as well, say you love your s1000r but just want something a bit more relaxed a striple 750 may be the answer youre looking for despite seemingly completely different bikes, triple vs inline 4.
@@delusion2987 I have never understood the illusion that something with “forgiveness” won’t still kill you. I’m also aware of how broad the term “beginner” is. I have 2 wheel experience, just didn’t have on the road with traffic, experience. For good reason no place off road requires 1000cc & I’m even willing to admit not many places on road require 1000cc, still my only way to have that experience is to just do it, which I am now. I personally feel the type of people who need a lower powered bike specifically to start on, shouldn’t be on a bike at all. My liter bike starts parked at 0mph. The fastest road around me is limited to 70mph. Most accidents occur around 35mph, which the small bike can also do. A bike I would have disliked & not taken seriously cause I know I’m only passing time till I upgrade to a 600cc that I don’t believe is a good street option at all, before I ultimately buy they liter bike & enjoy it. That sounds insane to me when I already know what I want to ride & I have the discipline to do so. I’m not saying this is one size fit all & everyone should buy their dream bike. Because, like you wonderfully stated, we can do what we want & since some people will buy motorcycles that really shouldn’t, we created a section of purchase tips for them. All I’m saying is those tips don’t apply to everyone. I haven’t seen a single starter bike that I would have enjoyed to own. I don’t have the disposable income to buy a bike I know im not gonna keep. There are many factors that go into the bikes we ride & I think we hyper focus on one aspect a bit too much. The truth is, I can die just as quickly on a single/twin 400-700cc bike if I don’t respect it & I’m fortunate enough to know that. I fall into a category we’re a starter bike would have been a punishment & possibly made me resent riding on the street altogether. I didn’t go through the training wheel phase as a kid & I think that highly affects why I feel this way. I just knew how to ride a bike. Again, I’m not saying people should buy the most powerful bike & call it a day. That is dumb. But, to tell someone who has done the necessary research to make a $20k purchase(including gear & gadgets) that they instead should buy this thing they know they don’t want cause it’s more “forgiving” & that will make them safe is absolutely bonkers. I’ve seen bodily injury occur on 125cc 2 strokes. I’m sure a ninja 400 has claimed someone. We are doing something inherently dangerous & I think it’s an oversight to believe having a different engine could change that more than my own ability. A fall from 5ft is enough to give you a tbi if you hit your head right. Adding any relative acceleration to that fall will only exacerbate that reality. Again for people that need starter bikes I’m glad manufacturers make them. But, the fact that I get bullied cause I started on the liter bike I wanted is wild to me. I can’t hear the insults cause of my exhaust, but when I stop the bike I watch the videos about how I’m gonna kill myself for starting on a 1000 & that’s just not true. Sorry for the rant. I’m just passionate & I don’t comment often. Stay safe my friend.
@@delusion2987 this is exactly why I have this take. We all get caught up in “how I would do it” & ignore the nuance of a situation. I’ll reiterate, I have plenty of riding experience, just didn’t have street experience. & again, forgiveness is subjective, it’s not absolute. The roads where I live don’t lawfully allow me enter a corner 20mph faster than I should. I abide the law & do the speed limit. I admit most people buy super sports for the wrong reasons & I don’t fall in that group. Yes, I have fun, but I am able to control myself & im not special. There are other people with similar levels of control. My entire point is that if we base our decisions off someone else’s recommendation without considering the nuance of a situation we potentially make an even bigger mistake. Nobody tells the old guy with 0 track experience not to buy the corvette. We leave him alone & let him enjoy it. Think about all the guys who bought 930 911s. They called that car the widow maker & im sure most people loved the car. But, as soon as someone wants to know what I rode before my fireblade & I answer with “250cc on dirt” their eyes pop out of their head like Jim Carey in the mask. Now I gotta hear all the death stories that conveniently leave out the ignorance that person was doing before they lost life. I’m just saying that you & I are different. I wear full gear no matter the weather, maybe gloves make you feel detach so you don’t wear them. I do the maintenance on my bike because I’m mechanically inclined, you may take yours to a dealer. I’m never gonna make you feel a way cause you prefer not to wear gloves & you visit the dealership. I’m aware there may be some nuance to your situation that makes it differ from my own. In the end I’m glad I made the purchase I did & I can only imagine the lack of enthusiasm I would have had if I had bought something I did not want. & the scolding, even you did it. Somehow my 10+yrs of riding experience means nothing cause it wasn’t on the street? So already understanding the operation & mechanics didn’t help me at all? The conversation about starter bikes relates to a specific type of person & personally I don’t feel that type of person should be on 2 wheels if they could find themselves doing 80 in a 45 right before a corner they knew was coming. That decision is the problem, not the bike. The bike is a million times better than me in every situation & I never let my inputs go to my head. A starter bike would have been boring for me & the days I should have rode, I’d have taken the car for convenience, leaving me with even less experience. Buying the bike I wanted gave me motivation to take riding seriously & think that aspect is more important than having something more “forgiving” to start. It’s only under the guise of upgrading. If you know you want an r1, but you start on an r3 cause you’re scared, you shouldn’t be on the r3. It can still kill you, only slower. But, if you don’t want anything higher performing than an mt07 & you decide to buy that bike & ride it into infinity then be my guess. If you want an r3 cause that’s all you need, cool. But, buying an r3 to “prepare” you for an r1 is ignorant cause they aren’t the same. If you didn’t learn from the mistakes you made on the r3, cause it’s so “forgiving” that you don’t notice it’s a mistake. When you over rev downshift on the r1, your wheel is in the air now. Something the r3 never did & something you can’t prepare for. I advocate safety & want people to be so. I just think dying on the hill of starter bikes to reach that safety isn’t as sound as paying attention & having the dedication to learn the skill. My issue isn’t so much with the idea of starter bikes, but the fact that people will tell me I’m wrong for not starting on a lower cc bike & I haven’t seen the evidence of that yet. The recommendation is fine, but that isn’t how we speak about starter bikes, most people talk of starter bikes as a requirement & I can completely disagree with based on the nuance of the situation. My girl wants to ride. Would she start on a liter? No fucking way. She may never own a liter bike. So a smaller cc for her makes sense. She also doesn’t know the style of bike so that will allow us to experiment with her purchase. The nuance of her situation is drastically different than mine & that to me is more important than buying that ninja 400 cause one day I want an h2, so I need to somehow prepare for that 200hp bike with a 90hp one🤣🤣kinda reminds me of racing stock auto cars in high school thinking I was talented cause I beat my friend to the next light. The car did all the work & I merely pointed it. To go from pointing an eclipse down a straight road to drifting an e36 was a steep learning curve & I ignorantly thought I had enough skill to do so cause I won a few unsanctioned drag races. Once I got over myself & dedicated the time to learn the skill of sliding a car, I got better. That eclipse taught me nothing but how slow 100mph actually is & the worst part is I didn’t know it at the time. Thanks for chatting with me, I’d be more than happy to continue this dialogue if you’re interested
@@delusion2987 maybe I’m successful because of my ability to compartmentalize. I did not buy a track bike & I don’t ride like the streets are one. I do push the bike, but on the street I never surpass 8/10 of my ability. It’s just not worth it most of the time for me to ride like the demon in me wants to. Imo the liter bike is a far better contender for street riding than a 600. The way you describe a rider being overwhelmed is closely related to 600cc class with all their power being made late in the powerband & they lack the bottom end torque you get from bigger bored bikes. The fact that 3rd gear literally does everything for me was a big factor in my choice. I understood to get the thrill my liter bike gives me at 7k revs, if need to rev a 600cc well beyond 10k & on the street I think it’s dumb to hover around double digit rpm in case I need to make a pass later. I enjoy that anywhere from 3k+ I have power to put down & this makes the bike more useful for me & how I ride. If your argument is that smaller bikes make you better on the track, then I 100% agree with that, but hence my compartmentalization, I’m not trying to be the fastest track rider omw to work. & if you believe that smaller bikes aid a learning curve, then you can’t dismiss the 10+yrs I threw my leg over many a bike that gave me experience to ride 1000s. I’d like to be a track rat & if I were, I’d probably track a smaller bike for a plethora of reasons. But, since I can only afford 1 at the moment, I chose the bike I wanted to sit on most. The one that felt most comfortable to me. The one that had fueling I understood. Suspension I trusted. Brakes that I knew would stop me. My argument is not that people should jump the line & buy a liter bike as I’m aware how much overkill a 400cc is for daily commute let alone a liter bike. I think the way we tier bikes pushes people into owning something they don’t want. Imo we talk of starter bikes like the liter bike is the finish line & I disagree with that. If the 400 is good enough to start on, then keep the bike & don’t go bigger. But, if you wanted bigger than 400cc, riding a 400cc won’t prepare you for that bigger bike. Will you have more experience? Yes. But, will it directly translate to the big bike? I don’t really think so. I would have never understood the rate of acceleration from my fireblade until I twisted the throttle. No matter how hard I yanked on the 400, it would never toss me back like my liter bike does. If I had gotten used to the freedom a lower cc bike gives in respect to throttle response, I could have gotten on my liter bike & looped it out of the dealership. I had a respect for the bike before I gave my money away & this factor plays in my ability more than buying a lower cc bike 1st. I’m aware how anecdotal this is & im 1 of 1. I just know if I were more gullible, I’d have bought a cbr300 & hated that I can’t use the interstate, got super fatigued from constant gear changing, & disappointed by its overall capabilities. On the days I was tired & didn’t want to take the 30min to put gear in, I wouldn’t have & the bike would have just sat & my little skill diminished. I don’t want that to happen to potential riders & if the line is buying something you didn’t want, I say don’t do that. Buy, the bike you want, with reason. Do the research. Make sure you like the seating geometry. Make sure it has the features you need. I live by abs. Choosing something reliable is more important than engine size to me. It’s all about how it operates. We don’t bat an eye at the cruiser cause of how it delivers power. I’ve ridden side by side cruisers. If I can go that slow in that setting, I can translate that to others. It’s a death trap we navigate no matter the bike. Put pedals on it & you could still die if you fell. Telling an idiot that shouldn’t be on a bike at all, that the 400 is perfect for him, cause you know he has bad impulse control is not the move. You need to send him to a doctor, not your salesmen at your cycle shop. Cause that idiot may survive the 400 & when he does, you know what he wants next & if he didn’t learn from the 400 cause of his lack of control, the liter bike will still eat him for lunch. It was something that worked for me & think it’s toxic how we speak on starter bikes like it’s a level up thing cause everyone will want to “level up” even when they don’t need to. The mt07 is probably the best commuter bike on the market. Truthfully we all should be riding one. But, I had the option to ride a bike I actually wanted & the difference in engine size is smaller than the bike I get recommended. I figured I could handle it if I stayed attentive & for the most part I was right. Do things get sticky? Sure, but I think it inherent of riding in general & doesn’t reflect the bike I’m on as much as we say in the community
@@delusion2987 well there is the misconception I believe that exist. I believe motorcyclist with 0 experience is a minority group. Most of us rode dirt bikes or mopeds or even tried to get our pit bikes to do 30mph. I’ve mentioned how long I’ve been throwing a leg several times & that still hasn’t registered with your logic. My fireblade is not the 1st bike I’ve owned unless we play semantics that I don’t think help the conversation. You reply as if I advocate for people jumping to a big bike when in reality I’m saying the big bike isn’t necessary. A big reason I own the big bike is how the genre was shaped for me as a kid. I grew up watching guys on 1300 busas. The gsxr 750 was considered a big bike. I was basically being indoctrinated to ride a big bike before I knew it & I believe it has a lot to do with the idea of “starter” bikes. The truth is, most bikes we allocate to that genre could be owned for a lifetime. Nobody needs more than 100hp on 2 wheels. I think we should spend more time talking about a bikes specific capability than comparing it to big brother. As I stated the mt07 is by far the best commuter bike with a bunch of close 2nds. In an ideal world no manufacturer would make a bike bigger. But, we live in a society where Kawasaki straps a damn supercharger to theirs. If you tell the guy his 400 is a starter bike rather than a good commuter bike, logic will eventually lead him to that supercharged monster that really shouldn’t be on the street. I’m not bashing the recommendation, only showing the holes within it. We are all different & no single bike will satisfy us all. So creating a list of bikes that the majority has outgrown to recommend to a minority who have no idea what they want is a disservice. The people whom would benefit from starting on a smaller bike can’t comprehend why that is until they ride the bigger bike. & what if the small bike they buy doesn’t fit them. Best case scenario, they quit ridding & live a long life or worse, they jump the 600, the 750, & go right for the supercharger cause a year on their “starter” bike means they’re ready for the wheel coming up in 5th gear. I think we should rename the role of “starter” bikes to something that actually explains what we mean when we speak on them. I came into bikes thinking there were “stepping stones” & since I have my experience I can skip some of those stones, when in reality motorcycling is a journey. There is no step to skip cause there is no finish line. If I knew what I know now, I probably would have never owned a liter bike or at most bought a RRR just to flex & put very little miles on it. The reality is being out of depth is a recipe for disaster in the kitchen & the court room also. But, you know how improvement works. You must come right up to the limit & learn to hold it there. Not back off permanently or go over that limit. If you give yourself the ceiling that most starter bikes provide, once you get on the big bike you are still out of your depth. Maybe less shallow than others, but certainly still out of your depth. I think it would be more wise to recommend good riding etiquette no matter the machine you use. This is why me “starting” on a liter bike hasn’t hindered me as bad as others. I keep a level head & never get too far ahead of myself. That has kept me alive more than choosing a smaller bike. I’m aware it’s anecdotal, but I’m still here to share my story so it must be true. I’d rather riders go a but the big bike to not ride it the way it was designed than to buy a smaller bike so they can ride the big bike the way it was designed. Hugely cause our laws don’t allow for it. Our roadways don’t allow for it, & most of all other commuters that we share the road with don’t allow for it. So my options are simple, do the maxwrist pass in oncoming traffic or just wait till I’m clear. Ride 10/10 on a road I’m not familiar with or make sure the bike & I get back home. These are inquires made regardless of the bike & I think if more riders rode that way, we would have less casualties & wouldn’t even use terms like starter bikes. I bet the manufacturers don’t call them starter bikes, but they make them cause they understand the language we use & if they offer a tamed version of the monster on the track & convince you to buy it, before long you’ll be back on the floor looking to buy the track monster. They make “starter” bikes for sales. Again, I’ve seen bodily injury on bikes so small they wouldn’t be considered road worthy. Should I have recommended that kid who paralyzed that he should have gotten something smaller than 50cc? How low do we go before we realize our actions dictate our interactions at every level. If it’s sensible to buy a smaller bike, then wouldn’t you agree it’s just as sensible to be easy with my right wrist? I’m curious of what the difference is from buying a “slow” bike vs riding my fast bike slow? Especially when I can do dumb stuff on the “slow” bike & still be harmed.
Regardless of motorcycle brands, would you choose a motorcycle that put's out 128 horsepower @ 12,000 rpms with 59 ft lbs of torque @ 9500 rpms and weighs 414 lbs (with a 765 cc engine) or would you choose a motorcycle that puts out 117 horsepower @ 10,000 rpms with 68.5 ft lbs of torque @ 7000 rpms and weighs 228 lbs (with an 890 cc engine)? The 765 cc engine is geared to be at 5,500 rpms @ 65 mph in top gear and the 890 cc engine is geared to be at 4,400 rpms @ 65 mph in top gear. Imagine that the both bikes would be loaded down with 235 lbs with rider and gear. Ironically, the larger 890 cc is considerably more fuel efficient by at least 6 mpg. This would be for mostly street riding but I love both of these bike and you can probably guess by the specs above which two bikes I am talking about -- one of them is on your list. Thanks, by the way, your closer to "1" thing is really kind of helpful; I never thought of it like that.
mt09 vs 765 rs 🤔 new mt09 sp have closer weoght distirbution to 765 rs more track focused than whelly = more weoght at front less uprtight position in such circumstances for me its close draw mt09 thanks more torq spin lower rpm maybe have lil better fuel conomy but elasticity at the same gear despite have biger low modrange tprq not necesssery as this is always conect to longer final gear ratio when power resist is similar and it even clock peak hp at lil lower rpm 👌🏻 like ypu write 4400 vs 5500 rpm at 65 mph according to dyno run eleasticity be pretty much very close at last gear from 65 to feg 100 mph 👌🏻 for me whatever here draw 👌🏻rs still be proabbaly lil faster at track thanks lil better topend thpugh dont know if or not it have wide peak like mt09 👌🏻
Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x Speed (RPM) / 9.5488
OR
Power (HP) = Torque (lb.in) x Speed (RPM) / 63,025
I’ve got a 23 Sportster S with a stage 1 kit and the exhaust from FPE. I’m going to get it dyno’d to see how much wheel it’s getting and i’ll toss it here for some info!
Also got a bone stock 23 z h2 se, currently at 450~ miles. Fantastic bike and will always recommend people to test ride it!
Thank you I needed this video.
Very cool thanks. Only one comment. Yamaha MT07 torque: 67 Nm, MT09 torque: 93 Nm. In Europe at least :) More vids like this!!!
A 1/4 drag race features a 100HP bike with 1# of torque vs a 1HP bike with 100# of torque. Who wins? Does the same bike win if it were a 10 mile long drag race?
at perfect gearing it be in 99 out of 100 version with more power and less torq 👌🏻 100 hp /1 nm at perfect gearing let say its 200 kg cruiser be able to defeat 1/4 mille in like 11,5 sec +/- vs 1 hp /100 nm version also at perfect gearing would need like im not sure if 1 minute be enough 🤔 it at 1 hp achieve maybe 30 km/h in let say 30 sec what mean avg 0,28 G what mean it reach it at around 125 metres and 30 km/h for whats left 275 metres +/- mean + 33 sec +/- yea it probably be above 1 minute 👌🏻 so yea 1 hp 100 nm version be good engine for your teeth cleaning machine at most especially if you have big inscisorrs 🤓 ….. and not for 200 kg cruiser which must overtake bus at 100 km/h relatively fast - at comfortable rate/pace/tempo with 100 kg driver and often 50-100 kg another person onboard or some bag etc 😉👌🏻 in fact thers couple other powibility to ypur wuestion i assume most often seen on road setup where gearing is at least acceptable good what is true for most motorcycles on road 👌🏻 1 hp 100 nm version can win only if gering be very faaar from perfect for 100 hp1 nm version or let say both have only 1 gear and no clutch at all and the same final gear ratio than on each distance up to certain distanc lenght 1hp 100 nm version win assuming it have everywhere on low the same rpm more tprq so more hp at those low rpm …above is this specified /certain distance depend on gear lenght 100 hp1 nm always win 👌🏻 it must catch up this what it loses asf ….. once you setup perfect gearing for each and its game over for 1 hp /100 nm version at each distance cos power:speed= force and acceelration depend on force level divide be all resist simple 👌🏻 real world egzample ypu have in cars technical specification catalogue stats where they give 0-100 km/h time for each version for the same car and version with more power and less torque is almost always faster 👌🏻 top speed also have alwaus more 👌🏻 feg peugeot 206 1,4 hdi version so 68 os hp 150 nm 0-100 in 14,7 vmax 165 km/h vs version 1,4 16 v 88 os hp 133 nm 0-100 11,7 sec vmax 178 km/h 👌🏻 real world egzample from motorcycle world let say h-d x440 38 nm 27 hp 0-100 10 sec vmax 140 km/h vs benelli tnt 302 26 nm 37 hp 0-100 8 sec vmax 155 km/h both similar drag and weight and drive train losess 👌🏻 those are egzample farr from your extreme numbers where 100 hp 1 nm is waaaay above conventional combustion engines capability cos rpm level for achieve 100 hp from 1 nm is waaay to much preciselly speaking +/- 712080 rpm 3/4 of 1 mln rpm and conventional combustion engine with 10 ccm cos we twlk about 1 nm will stand maybe like 50 k rpm os above it probably damage crank shaft etc anyways like +/- 10-15 times to much rpm than what our tehcnology can make without blew up engine into pieces 👌🏻let say…. but tendency is clear i quesss 👌🏻
Simple, Torque force of work at given rpm. Horse power rate of work.
The Panigalve V4 has 216hp/124Nm = 1,74 ratio ... same as a Ninja 400. How do you interpret that?
it mean both would have similar power characterisitcs but for this also rpm at which egzist must be known still not full picture but let say engine characterisitc similar but level of power completellly diffrent so performance level on straights completellly diffrent yea he is lill offf with prediction what this ratio is capable to subscribe 😉👌🏻
would love to see you ride
Pls keep making vids
I feel like when looking for a beginner bike, its more about what kind of look and ergonomics you want. All beginner bikes are gonna have about the same power (50hp/30tq) from a rebel 500 to a ninja 400. Do you want a sporty feel or do you want a relaxed feel? Naked bikes and sport bikes at this level have basically the same ergos, comfortable but sporty. Cruisers are going to be relaxed. After you ride for a bit you're naturally going to learn power delivery. Lets be honest. Intermediate and advanced riders aren't watching this to learn about power delivery.
100lbs torque and over is great feeling .for road .
When trying to look at a bike sideways on, instead of looking from the kickstand side and having to crouch and look up, would it be easier to look from the right side down standing??
Oh absolutely, but trying to keep these papers from running away while messing with the camera ended up with this being the solution 😂
@@skyoom1 I see. Commenting because I saw another one of your videos yesturday comparing the riding position between 3 bikes, shot from the same angle.
Staring into the sun and looking at the shaded side of the bike and crouching on the floor seems more effort and less optimal results to me
@@krisswolf2011 that one ended up a logistical nightmare between getting the bikes there, a tree service coming to start cutting down trees within mic distance of where I originally intended to film, and trying to avoid being too close to people to avoid them in the video. I agree with you though and the videography is a work in progress for sure
Harley guy says it's all torque as the Kawasaki guy says goodbye.
Torque : how easy is it to lift the front wheel off the ground in ANY GEAR
Horsepower : what is TOP SPEED of the bike in ANY GEAR
your ratio the lower the number .7-1.2 is most likely to lift the front wheel off the ground and induce DEATH WOBBLE on the free way
your ration 1.2-2.0 nice all around bike that will get you to work and in the parkinglot and put smiles on your face in the twisties and the straight aways
your ratio the higher the number 2+ is most likely to GO FAST to get your butt out of trouble on the freeway
TORQUE is the TRACTOR in the FEILD
HORSEPOWER is the RACE CAR on the TRACK
visual aesthetics are PERSONAL pick an ugly bike at your own risk you may just fall in love over time
Try riding a 600 supersport two up 450 pounds total and tell me how it feels on a big adventure bike like the gs you can pull and accelerate easy even with that kind of weight . If you are a 150 pound feather and only do solo riding then yeah no need for torque but if you are a big guy and put a passenger and or luggage you need that torque .
Ah so the Ducati V4 should be my next. ;)
I ride a 2023 MT-10, your analogy doesn't really fit with it.
hp = top speed torque = acceleration
I like your videos but 19mins is too long to explain what i put in four words wanna go top speed buy an inline 4 or v4 wanna accelerate fast get a v2 or parrelel twin i ride a mt07 which acceleration wise beats all these fast boys.
im uk much more than a 700cc is pointless on our roads
✨✨✨👍👑💯
Hey someone left you a well intentioned suggestion about shorts. Do NOT follow that advice. Use shorts, but do not use it the way they suggested. You’d be better off not using them at all.
They’re stuck in a way of thinking from early in the shorts life when guy w/channels were still figuring shorts out.
Whatever you do don’t use shorts as a way to blue ball ppl I to clicking your videos. It won’t work. Ppl will avoid your channel if you make a bunch of shorts that tease a video conclusion towards the end of the short and say to watch the full video for more info/the full story.
NEVER do this except in very rare cases. You want your shorts to stand alone and deliver a cohesive message that viewers of it satisfied, or feeling anything g but REGRET or hate for you which is what they will feel if you spend 55/60 seconds talking about some neat concept only for you to say SORRY IF YOU WANT ME TO FINISH THE STORY YOU HAVE TO CLICK AND WATCH THE FULL VIDEO.
Everyone hates that and some channels were literally destroyed by using that technique, this was the precursor to the “part 2” trend on shorts that was hated even more by many and rapidly ended because again channels were kicked off the algo by so many viewers giving thumbs down and saying do not reccomend and not interested in channel etc.
Are you planning on making lots of Contant on a regular basis or was this basically a more focus project where you are making a series of videos to help beginner writers and then you’re basically done with it more or less ? Both are valid approaches. I’m just asking because if it’s the ladder, you don’t really need to focus a whole lot on shorts at all.
Appreciate the effort, but you lost me. Not a numbes guy.
40 years of riding, what I need from an engine is simple for me.
If it accerates faxt enough to make me smile, i'm happy.
If I still have power on tap while riding at increased speed sometimes considered questionabe, i'm happy.
If I can quickly pass slow or risky traffic, at any speed, without the need to downshift, i'm happy.
Give me a bike that I like visually and from the saddle with those 3 engine characteristics.....sold.
Nothing wrong with that at all my friend 🙂
All we really should care about is getting an accurate torque-curve from the manufacturers, NOT peak torque/horsepower numbers. Also you can't separate torque and power in these circumstances, one can't exist without the other.
That'd be too convenient so manufacturers would never
very simplifificty and in alot point lil wrong but whatever 👌🏻 proportion between torqueand power is parametres which avoid multiple stufff which impact on how motorcycle behave in regard to overalll engine capabilities but for 100% noobs let say its let say somehow lil ok let say 😉 👌🏻 as long as they also watch on level of peak power and not only this proportion betweeen torque and power level cos you can have this ratio on 0,5 level so huge torq integard to power level but because power level itself be very low let say 20 hp and 40 nm than yea this bike be waaaay weaker everywhere on rpm even on lowest rpm than let say something with this ratio of 2 but with peak power 200 than ypu have 100 nm and at 2000 rpm where forst version have 40 nm peak 2 version have like 70-80 nm so double of first version 👌🏻🤷🏻♂️but than also come into play gearing which also most dirver donttake into accout when subscribe how engine behave and they say massively BS often misleading engine lowend with final gear ratio asf aso ….also „torq how powerfull bike is under 5000 rpm and power above „ is 🤔 welll wrong cos torque i mean peak can be on waaaay above 5000 rpm but maybe in regard to cruisers vs sports bike thers some conections 👌🏻 cos usallly bike with more tprq than power have max torq lower often under or around 5 k rpm so in regard to this we can in fact say like this let say be lil but in regard to couple other point of view welll NOT REALLLY 😉👌🏻