Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: swooshdave on August 12, 2016, 11:34:22 AM
-
I've seen a wide range of hp figures for these bikes. Is there any validity to any of the numbers?
| V7 750 Sport | 70 hp |
| 750S | 82 hp |
| 750S3 | 90 hp |
| 850T | 55 hp |
| 850 LeMans MkI | 71 hp | 70 hp |
| 850 LeMans MkII | 81 hp |
| 850T3 | 68.5 hp |
|
-
Shetlands :laugh:
Dusty
-
"Brochure horsepower". :wink:
-
"Brochure horsepower". :wink:
Yep.
BHP = Brochure Horsepower!
-
My Mille is rated at 67, I think, which I have to assume would be crankshaft HP. That feels about reasonable compared to other motorcycles of known RWHP I've ridden.
-
Factory published numbers are usually at the crank.
-
Crankshaft measurement under ideal conditions. RWHP will be less. I will add that any measurement taken at the rear wheel is not what the engine rating is. Gearing and such alters the torque output which in turn affects the calculation of HP.
-
My 83 Le Mans III is rated at 78 hp according to Ian Falloon's book on Moto Guzzi Big Twins.
In real world riding, it feels about right.
-
Crankshaft measurement under ideal conditions. RWHP will be less. I will add that any measurement taken at the rear wheel is not what the engine rating is. Gearing and such alters the torque output which in turn affects the calculation of HP.
And, the early horsepower claims are just flat out lies.
-
My fully rebuilt V7 Sport did not get over 51 hp on the dyno, not broken in at the time but I doubt it would ever be much more, this all stock spec carbs and exhaust.
The 750S I am finishing has a B10 cam other than that identical engine, carbs, exhaust to the Sport, I plan on getting the 750S on a dyno to see if there is any gain, I am guessing 1 ~ 2 hp at best.
Rocketships they are not.
-
True story . At the height of the Spanish MX'ers , the Bultaco rep in England was providing specs to either the Green 'Un or the Blue 'Un on their latest 250 race bike . The journo asked about HP , to which the rep asked "what is Montesa claiming for their 250?" . The reply was 25 HP . The Bultaco guy said , "well , our's makes 26 HP then" :laugh:
Dusty
-
And, the early horsepower claims are just flat out lies.
Even today HP claims are exaggerated .
Dusty
-
Usually who ride a guzzi does not care about hp
-
On my T-3 after a big bore kit, 36mm carbs, V-7 Sport cam, Porting and polishing and S&W valve springs it hit just over 56hp and 54ibs of torque at the rear wheel.
GliderJohn
-
My fully rebuilt V7 Sport did not get over 51 hp on the dyno, not broken in at the time but I doubt it would ever be much more, this all stock spec carbs and exhaust.
The 750S I am finishing has a B10 cam other than that identical engine, carbs, exhaust to the Sport, I plan on getting the 750S on a dyno to see if there is any gain, I am guessing 1 ~ 2 hp at best.
Rocketships they are not.
Fresh engines make the least power. How many miles on it did you put before getting on the dyno? Don't bother with the 750S until you have a couple thousand.
-
Nothing has changed in 100 years from the marketing types. That is why the Nebraska tractor test lab was set up years ago to cut out the BS from the tractor manufacturers at least. My oldest tractor is a '47 VAC Case and is rated at 16 HP. Not sure my T3 has much more than that, but a bit of a apples and oranges comparison.
-
A friend put his 1000 LMIV on the Dyno at the Parry Sound Sport Bike Rally and got 62HP. Heads were done by Manfred along with the usual carb and exhaust mods. His bike would pull my 850 LM also with Manfred Hecht headwork so I assume mine is less.
Pete
-
Nothing has changed in 100 years from the marketing types. That is why the Nebraska tractor test lab was set up years ago to cut out the BS from the tractor manufacturers at least. My oldest tractor is a '47 VAC Case and is rated at 16 HP. Not sure my T3 has much more than that, but a bit of a apples and oranges comparison.
Not sure your T3 could pull a 3 bottom plow. :grin:
-
True story . At the height of the Spanish MX'ers , the Bultaco rep in England was providing specs to either the Green 'Un or the Blue 'Un on their latest 250 race bike . The journo asked about HP , to which the rep asked "what is Montesa claiming for their 250?" . The reply was 25 HP . The Bultaco guy said , "well , our's makes 26 HP then" :laugh:
That's funny. You probably know that Denco sold high performance parts, engines, and engine work for the Kawasaki triples in the '70s. The H2 engines were known as 120 hp, 133 hp, 149 hp, as three examples. Later it came out that when a Denco owned and driven H2 went through the quarter mile at 120 mph, that engine was then advertised as a 120 hp engine. As their drag racing improved, they had a 133 mph quarter, and a 149 mph quarter.
-
Years ago at VMD @ Mid-Ohio they had a dyno set up and would test anyone's bike for a nominal fee. I can't remember who it was, but one of the "Loopers" had his well-worn, completely stock 750 Ambassador tested just for the fun of it. The result? 34 hp at the rear wheel. :grin:
Interesting thing was the next bike on was an 883 Sportster with aftermarket mufflers. Same 34 rear wheel hp. :laugh:
-
45hp at the rear wheel. Shift and keep the rpm's up. That's what I tell people.
-
The old VW's had honest HP ratings -- 25hp in the very first, 36 by the late '50s, 40hp with the 1300, 50 and then 60 with the 1600's. I had a 36hp in a '57 bus that could roll a ton of cargo down the highway. It took a long time to get to speed (about 45). the real handicap was stopping it. :shocked:
I have a 1600 Honda engine in my 90hp outboard. If that puppy delivers 90hp it's cheating on me and giving it up to someone else.
-
I hit 47 with a not so pretty Norton. Sounds about right if the factory claim was 60 crankshaft/BHP
-
LeMans III stock is not making 78 hp, even at the crank, it just isn't. I'm sure it feels good, it a kick ass bike, but how do you really tell a real 63hp from a real 78hp from your ass? First you would need a solid true benchmark, followed by a very accurate memory, and the ability to swap to different machines, that make power in different ways.
No stock 850 Guzzi motor is putting out a real 78hp, it's just not going to happen.
-
The T5 was advertised at 68.5hp and 54ft-lb of torque
I had a Honda NT700 for a while and it was rated at 65hp and 66.2ft-lb
Other than the Honda being a little smoother and quieter they felt the same.
IIRC there was a big controversy back in the 70's about mfg advertised HP, especially the difference between the Duropean DIN numbers and the US stuff. Don't remember how it came about but a standard was published about how mfgs had to record hp numbers. I remember that one thing was that all accessories mounted in the car had to mounted to the engine on the dyno.
So, I suspect those same standards are in use today, which means very little in real numbers. But, what it means is that you can compare apples to apples when looking at mfg claimed hp figures and compare to another mfg claimed hp figures.
-
Rough numbers from memory/dawn of time. Unmodified and using the stock cams.
850T?-44
T3-42
SP/G5-45
MkI/II Le Mans-51
MkIII-54
MkIV and other big valves-57/58
Sport C-61/64
Then you get to FI.
Pete
-
LeMans III stock is not making 78 hp, even at the crank, it just isn't. I'm sure it feels good, it a kick ass bike, but how do you really tell a real 63hp from a real 78hp from your ass? First you would need a solid true benchmark, followed by a very accurate memory, and the ability to swap to different machines, that make power in different ways.
No stock 850 Guzzi motor is putting out a real 78hp, it's just not going to happen.
Chad,
I was quoting Ian Falloon's figures from his book.
My comment the "it feels right" did not come across as I meant it.
My meaning was that the bike " feels right", regardless of published hp numbers.
-
One thing to keep in mind in comparing Guzzi RWH to most other bikes is the greater pwer loss of a shaft drive in comparison to a well maintained chain. To use the 750 Ambo vs. 883 comparison, this would mean the Ambo engine was generating greater power at the crank than the Harley in order to come out even on the dyno. This is only relevant to bench racing :boozing:
-
Bevelhead Ducati Supersports according to a racer made, made 53 or so HP even with Imola cams-and that's with 40mm DellOrtos and Contis.
-
Its a bit of a head scratcher. The new v9s are claimed to put out 55hp at the crank. Yet every dyno I have seen puts them at 50-51hp to the ground? How can that be?
-
Its a bit of a head scratcher. The new v9s are claimed to put out 55hp at the crank. Yet every dyno I have seen puts them at 50-51hp to the ground? How can that be?
That seems right. What don't you like about that?
-
Your 850T is putting out about the same as your Commando. Superbike numbers in the day. Don't worry about it, just ride and enjoy. The fact is that 50 hp at the rear wheel is plenty to have fun with. As my Britbike buddy likes to say, "they roll down the road just fine"
-
Your 850T is putting out about the same as your Commando. Superbike numbers in the day. Don't worry about it, just ride and enjoy. The fact is that 50 hp at the rear wheel is plenty to have fun with. As my Britbike buddy likes to say, "they roll down the road just fine"
What I found fascinating was the numbers listed for the LeMans. They were probably that high to look similar to the 900SS.
-
My LeMans 3 @ 186000 km, 180 psi compression 44 rwh, the wife's somewhat newer K75s 45rwh.
Post rebuild about 10,000 km, big bore kit, mid range cam, 210 psi compression, 60 rwh.
Why a mid range can? Because you go to jail here and they crush your bike if you are caught using it to its full "potential" plus I do a lot of mountain riding where more torque is "nice"
So Peters sieve like memory would seem to be correct.
Also every dyno will read differently on different days etc etc.
Factory horse power figures are as reliable as a politicians promises........
-
Ok, I ran a stripped down 85 Cali 2 at the one mile standing start LSR track in Ohio. Stock gearing and the engine was stock but no mufflers and revised carb jetting.. Made four runs between 116-117 MPH. The bike may have went a few MPH faster with a longer run.
My 650 Triumph is a dedicated naked frame LSR bike holding a few speed records...Speeds are 125-128 MPH ,the bike is lower with less frontal area than a Guzzi. The Triumph on the dyno makes 55 rear wheel HP and 46 ft lbs of torque...
You can't compare different dynos and an inertia type "DynoJet", the most commonly used for bikes, will give slightly higher power readings than a "load" dyno like Superflow or Mustang.
So...I would say my 950 cc Cali 2 made about 50 rear wheel hp, or 55-57 at the flywheel..
-
I know the couple times I've cranked my 1985 California II up all the way, it scared the crap out of me! This is not my lovely touring barge!
-
That seems right. What don't you like about that?
Its just under a 10% loss, thats extremely good for a Guzzi shaft system. The v7 series is rated at 48Hp, but usually puts down about 40hp to the ground, a substantially higher loss rate percentage wise.
-
Its a bit of a head scratcher. The new v9s are claimed to put out 55hp at the crank. Yet every dyno I have seen puts them at 50-51hp to the ground? How can that be?
I don't remember this. Can you give a link to such a dymo test result?
Thanks.
-
To answer the OP's original question.. No. :smiley:
-
To answer the OP's original question.. No. :smiley:
Yes, I already knew that. Marketing was fast and loose back in those days.
I was just bemused by the vast difference in stated hp between the 850T and 850 LeMans (55 vs 70/80). I obviously need a LeMans...
-
Google will get you what you ask for.
-
Its a bit of a head scratcher. The new v9s are claimed to put out 55hp at the crank. Yet every dyno I have seen puts them at 50-51hp to the ground? How can that be?
Wouldn't that be due to the frictional losses through the drive train ? Power is a rate of doing work, force x distance/ time , in the case of a rotating crank it's torque x rpm. If there were no losses in the drive train then the calculation of torque x rpm at the crank would be the same as that at the rear wheel. If you had say 10 Nm x 5,000 rpm at the crank the calculated figure would be 50,000 watts or 50 KW , with no frictional losses that figure at the rear wheel after the gearbox has it's say, could be more like 50Nm x 1000 rpm for a power rating of again 50,000 watts or 50 KW . That's an idealised example obviously, but the point is that an engine doesn't "put out" power, it's a mathematical expression of a rate of doing work. If a Guzzi Le Mans goes up a one mile hill in one minute a certain amount of work has been done in a given time, an equally weighted Suzuki GSXR 1,000 might do it in 30 seconds, the power figure would be double that of the Guzzi in that case given that the work was done in half the time. FORCE x DISTANCE / TIME
-
Huzo , go back and reread Chad's post , you aren't understanding his point .
Dusty
-
Google will get you what you ask for.
Are you sure?
-
MY Breva 1200 is rated at 95 hp. I have yet to see a dyno test of that 2 valve head, motor, Breva, Griso or Norge, that makes over 73. Not sure if my Sport makes a touch more or not, but even for a shaft drive bike, that's a pretty hefty drop. Mind you, that's 95 measured at the brochure. Most Japanese manufactures of sporting bikes have moved on from horsepower lies, and now lie about dry weight and rpm's. If my Breva was Japanese, it would weight 450 pounds and rev to 11 grand! :)
-
There's only 2 things in this world guaranteed to increase horsepower, without touching the motor, and that's a brochure, and nostalgia.
-
There's only 2 things in this world guaranteed to increase horsepower, without touching the motor, and that's a brochure, and nostalgia.
I can offer a third,
get the rider to loose 15 lbs, that should add the equivalent of 5 hp.
My bikes keep loosing hp as the years go by and my waistline swells
-
LOL, yep.
I listened a a guy at the Sun morning gathering go on and on about his Duc 1199 and how much money he was spending to save a few ozs here and there which really added up to about 5lb saved in weight. He was so proud he looked like a new father. No one bothered to point out to him the 30lb gut he was carrying on the bike.
My brother does long distance bike racing and they have the same type. Save a few oz by spending several hundred/thousand more on the bike, yet are 20lb overweight.
PS when I had to lose weight a few years ago (30lb) I was shocked at the difference in the feel of the bike. Gave me more incentive to not gain it all back.
-
My losing 35ibs and when I don't need them removing the side bags makes a noticeable difference.
GliderJohn
-
Huzo , go back and reread Chad's post , you aren't understanding his point .
Dusty
Yeah Dusty, with me that's always a distinct possibility, but I thought it was addressing the issue that Chad raised regarding how you can have a claimed figure higher at the crank than what is shown at the rear wheel, but sorry if I'm off topic.
-
Yeah Dusty, with me that's always a distinct possibility, but I thought it was addressing the issue that Chad raised regarding how you can have a claimed figure higher at the crank than what is shown at the rear wheel, but sorry if I'm off topic.
No worries mate , it was kind of confusing . I think he was referencing the lesser reduction of HP on the V9 as compared to the losses on the V7 .
Dusty
-
Yeah no worries mate. BTW how ya' been ?
-
A friend put his 1000 LMIV on the Dyno at the Parry Sound Sport Bike Rally and got 62HP. Heads were done by Manfred along with the usual carb and exhaust mods. His bike would pull my 850 LM also with Manfred Hecht headwork so I assume mine is less.
Pete
I put my '89 LeMans 1000 on the Dynojet dyno at Daytona Bike Week years ago, when the bike was only a couple of years old. K&N filters, rejetted, Dyna ignition, Staintune exhaust. It pulled 67 on their dyno, and it was the roll-on king against any other Guzzi of the time I tried it against. Big Harleys on the same day were pulling low 60s so I guess it compares somewhat accurately.
Mark
-
Yeah no worries mate. BTW how ya' been ?
Ripper . And you ?
Dusty
-
I put my '89 LeMans 1000 on the Dynojet dyno ... It pulled 67 on their dyno.......
Mark
That's good!
Had my LM 1000 on the dyno with new piston rings, overhauled heads, Sachse ignition, Mistral manifold and crossover, Lafranconi Comp, Scola 3.2 cam, original air filter housing without filter, properly jetted to finally achive 75 hp at the rear wheel, yahoo :cool: That are roughly 84-85 crankshaft hp, barely a few more than the claimed 82 brochure pony's. This number was imho a pure marketing value to be far enough above the BMW R 100 RS. A "7" as first number did for sure not sound impressive enough, 82 suggested 80 for sure :grin:
Kai
-
Pete has said that about 75hp to the floor is the most your going to get out of a 2v big block, seems reasonable, to me.
The b1100 claimed 86hp, and I think the b1200 was 95hp. 9 more hp, from 80 odd cc? Seems like a big stretch to me!
-
Pete has said that about 75hp to the floor is the most your going to get out of a 2v big block, seems reasonable, to me.
The b1100 claimed 86hp, and I think the b1200 was 95hp. 9 more hp, from 80 odd cc? Seems like a big stretch to me!
<throwing down gauntlet> Ok, that does it. I gotta dollar that sez the Mighty Scura will do more than 75 hp. :boxing: :smiley:
-
I hear that Scura has so much power that it will eat the transmission.
-
<throwing down gauntlet> Ok, that does it. I gotta dollar that sez the Mighty Scura will do more than 75 hp. :boxing: :smiley:
Dunno how much outright power that thing makes but it's midrange torque is just stupid.
For most 2V big blocks in *Normal* trim though mid seventies is where it's at, carbed or FI. Yes, you can extract more, a fair bit more, but it will reduce service life and reliability exponentially.
Pete
-
My 990cc race bike with all the neat-o manfred hot cams and porting dyno'd at 70HP rear wheel, and a boat load of torque. YMMV
-
Ok, I ran a stripped down 85 Cali 2 at the one mile standing start LSR track in Ohio. Stock gearing and the engine was stock but no mufflers and revised carb jetting.. Made four runs between 116-117 MPH. The bike may have went a few MPH faster with a longer run.
My 650 Triumph is a dedicated naked frame LSR bike holding a few speed records...Speeds are 125-128 MPH ,the bike is lower with less frontal area than a Guzzi. The Triumph on the dyno makes 55 rear wheel HP and 46 ft lbs of torque...
You can't compare different dynos and an inertia type "DynoJet", the most commonly used for bikes, will give slightly higher power readings than a "load" dyno like Superflow or Mustang.
So...I would say my 950 cc Cali 2 made about 50 rear wheel hp, or 55-57 at the flywheel..
Rough, what are the dates for the Ohio LSR. Let me know if you plan to take your Triumph(s) down again. I'd like to take the LeMans down see what it will do. A number of period road tests clocked it over 130 in stock trim. Not sure mine will go that fast but would bet 125 is in the cards. With a fresh motor (now 25K miles old) I am pretty sure it would top 130.
Not a road test but references one.
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-italian-motorcycles/1976-moto-guzzi-850-le-mans.aspx
Pete
-
Rough, what are the dates for the Ohio LSR. Let me know if you plan to take your Triumph(s) down again. I'd like to take the LeMans down see what it will do. A number of period road tests clocked it over 130 in stock trim. Not sure mine will go that fast but would bet 125 is in the cards. With a fresh motor (now 25K miles old) I am pretty sure it would top 130.
Not a road test but references one.
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-italian-motorcycles/1976-moto-guzzi-850-le-mans.aspx
Pete
Pete, the next Ohio race is 9-30 through 10-2 I most likely won't be there because my junk is apart right now......It's 250 bucks to race...You need to safety wire the axles and have a lanyard kill switch, a full face helmet with a 2005 or newer Snell rating or European equivalent and full leathers that zip together with stitched metal zippers....The website is here...http://ecta-lsr.net
/ (http://ecta-lsr.net
/)
This may be the last Ohio race.....The town of Wilmington Ohio was devastated 6 years ago when a large air freight company left town,6000 were laid off...They left a nearly new 10,000 foot runway to the town as a consolation prize....East Coast timing is on a month by month deal with the town to use the runway...Now Amazon Fulfillment is close to closing a deal to use the runway and bring needed jobs....The runway will be listed as active again making use for racing vehicles near impossible under FAA rules...
ECTA may wind up in Arkansas at an old SAC base...It's all uncertain....But the SAC runway in Maine is a great place to race and a 1-1/2 run....End of this month http://www.loringtiming.com/ (http://www.loringtiming.com/)
Pete, around 1992 I bought a well used Lemans 1 from a guy in Honeoye Falls...On 390 south of Rochester I got into it some Harley guys and held the Guzzi wide open for a really long time....The instruments were unreadable but I say it was 130 MPH...
-
Oh Pete....You have to make it to the LSR track.....It's easy to go fast, this is my vibrating old Triumph doing 125 MPH at Ohio with no more drama than getting on the expressway :laugh:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75289626@N08/15430128095/in/dateposted-public/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75289626@N08/15430128095/in/dateposted-public/)
-
I think I have all the bases covered regarding helmets and leathers. Not sure its worth 250 bucks though. Maybe I can talk one of my LEO friends into borrowing a radar gun and head out to 490. :grin:
Pete
-
I loved my old T3. The motor felt very torquey, but I honestly doubt there was more than 50bhp meeting the tarmac. It pulled well to 400rpm, but it didn't like spinning up more than that - it would, but it just made more noise.
My LeMan 3 was very different. It had been used for road racing in Italy when I bought it as a "Q" plate import. It had 950 kit, extended sump, gear timing, 40mm DelOrto pumpers, and a Lafranconi system. That felt much more powerful, although I'd be hard pressed to guesstimate the output. It was not as quick as the Speed Trifle that came next - and that was claimed to be 106, I think. So I guesstimate over 80.
-
I think I have all the bases covered regarding helmets and leathers. Not sure its worth 250 bucks though. Maybe I can talk one of my LEO friends into borrowing a radar gun and head out to 490. :grin:
Pete
Think of the bragging right when the BS er's start swapping lies about top speed you can whip out your officially timed speed receipt . :thumb:
-
Think of the bragging right when the BS er's start swapping lies about top speed you can whip out your officially timed speed receipt . :thumb:
Timed Speed Receipt: $250
Look on your bench racing buddies faces: Priceless
-
Rough, what are the dates for the Ohio LSR. Let me know if you plan to take your Triumph(s) down again. I'd like to take the LeMans down see what it will do. A number of period road tests clocked it over 130 in stock trim. Not sure mine will go that fast but would bet 125 is in the cards. With a fresh motor (now 25K miles old) I am pretty sure it would top 130.
Not a road test but references one.
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-italian-motorcycles/1976-moto-guzzi-850-le-mans.aspx
Pete
Here are MIRA road test results from 1976 (Lemans) and 1975 (T3), the most authoritative I've been able to find.
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p135/motocomo/The%20MIRA%20Files%20table.png)
So the table shows about 123 mph, two-way average, for the LeMans, and nearly 117 for the T3. My T3 revs well right to redline, and once went 116 (one-way), as near as I could figure from later mile-post calibration (pre GPS). Maybe not too surprisingly, the 850-T3 was a bit faster than the vaunted, but smaller, 750-S3, in the MIRA tests.
So I doubt 130 was reliably measured for the original LeMans, though I'd like to see more evidence.
Contemporary horsepower measurements (outside the factory) are as rare as hens' teeth.
Moto
-
Nice chart. It show the LeMans they tested ran a 14 sec 1/4er at 99 mph. Mine has a close ratio gearbox with very high first gear (almost as high as second on the standard gearbox) and ran 13 flat at 103. Somewhere the the timing slips exist but I haven't seen them in years.
Pete
-
Nice chart. It show the LeMans they tested ran a 14 sec 1/4er at 99 mph. Mine has a close ratio gearbox with very high first gear (almost as high as second on the standard gearbox) and ran 13 flat at 103. Somewhere the the timing slips exist but I haven't seen them in years.
Pete
I don't doubt you. I'll bet your LeMans isn't bone-stock, which is what was tested. The last column in the table, by the way, was a racer of some sort, based on a LeMans, with 10.5:1 compression and a hot cam. It did an 11.8 second quarter, at 112.
The article mentioned that some publications had reported stock LeMans I top speeds of 130 mph, but one-way, with a tail wind. It concluded by saying the LeMans is clearly a 135-mph bike, meaning after suitable hot rodding.
The magazine that published the original test results in the 1970's was one of the big British ones, The Motorcycle, maybe (I don't recall now). The retrospective article including the original results was written by an original road tester for the first article, John Nutting, and appeared in Classic and Motorcycle Mechanics, October, 2001.
By the way, I can't figure out what version of a "V1000" appears in the table. It doesn't perform very well. Probably a Convert?
Moto
-
Think of the bragging right when the BS er's start swapping lies about top speed you can whip out your officially timed speed receipt . :thumb:
Rodekyll was clocked by an LEO going over 40 in reverse on his trike. 😆 I guess that makes his Guzzi the fastest backwards.
-
43mph in the controlled puddle-of-pee-reverse-gear benchmark. One way (wasn't interested in the other way). Rain, no tail wind.
The bike will go faster backwards, but not with me on it.
-
True story . Circa 1933 Fred "Leadfoot" Bodine , Father of Loyd "Balloonfoot" Bodine (whole nuther story there) set the LSR for going backwards in a French Delage . The car had a separate gearbox for reverse , allowing the use of all 4 transmission ratios in either forward or backwards travel . In an incredible feat of driving , he piloted the Delage to a speed of 120.22 KPH 74 MPH for you Brits and Americans) in reverse , breaking the old record of 6 KPH set by Wilmer (the turtle) Henri in a Trevithick "Puffing Devil" in 1802 when the test team accidentally started the steam powered Devil's engine while backing it off the trailer . Witnesses at "Leadfoot" Bodine's record breaking attempt were amazed when Leadfoot passed by blinded by his driving scarf which had wrapped around his head . Apparently he had neglected to compensate for the reversed air flow :shocked:
Dusty
-
Only sissies wear scarfs in backwards racing. Real men wear diapers.
. . .And what's this 4-speeds nonsense? I did mine with NO gears backwards. So I win!
-
Le Mans indicating 70 on the clock is doing 56.4mph! Is that what the chart means? If so,it would explain why my LeMans appeared to top 140 mph. Admittedly it had been breathed on quite a lot - including an extra 100cc.
-
Le Mans indicating 70 on the clock is doing 56.4mph! Is that what the chart means? If so,it would explain why my LeMans appeared to top 140 mph. Admittedly it had been breathed on quite a lot - including an extra 100cc.
So you're saying the 160mph speedometer on my 850T isn't there because it can go that fast but it's to compensate for the speedometer reading too fast? :bike-037:
-
Le Mans indicating 70 on the clock is doing 56.4mph! Is that what the chart means? If so,it would explain why my LeMans appeared to top 140 mph. Admittedly it had been breathed on quite a lot - including an extra 100cc.
Yes!
I believe the T3, S3 and LeMans all share the same basic Veglia instrument (though the LeMans reads higher). Considering the differences in values between the three bikes to be errors, a regression gives a common slope of 0.87, which is the factor by which one could/should reduce the observed reading to get a better true speed estimate. (The linear fit looks appropriate.)
This calculation translates your observed 140 mph to .87 * 140 = 121.8 actual mph. :sad:
Moto
P.S. They all read to 160 mph. I'd forgotten my NOS replacement had a different range from my original. It goes to 140 mph. (From a small block, I think.)
-
Nice chart. It show the LeMans they tested ran a 14 sec 1/4er at 99 mph. Mine has a close ratio gearbox with very high first gear (almost as high as second on the standard gearbox) and ran 13 flat at 103. Somewhere the the timing slips exist but I haven't seen them in years.
Pete
Generally ,a 100 mph 1/4 mile is around 13.5=13.3 seconds.... The test bike was eased off the line .............. 13 flat sounds about right for a properly tuned LeMans..
-
... The test bike was eased off the line ..............
You're right! From the article: "I had struggled a year earlier to get the standard Le Mans off the standing quarter line and failed to break 14 seconds...." I should have noted that earlier.