Water Cooling for 2017?

[Jukebox]

What Chad said
"In my mind there are few applications better suited for air cooling than a motorcycle, why F"ck it up?"
Guzzi's have the jugs hanging out in the air stream, cooling heaven.
Do they make 150+hp no.
If they can still be Euro what ever compliant, then why would the spend the money.
I've always liked air/oil, thought the original GSXR was awesome thinking out of the square shit, for a Jap bike maker.

Harry

[lrutt]

then you have to worry about pump seals etc, hoses, thermostats, flushing, and if you own a BMW K bike, when they leak at the pump it goes into the oil from what I understand so you may not notice it. There was some such weird arrangement on those I recall.

But, to meet noise and emissions, water cooling helps, no doubt. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

I did always like the GSXR Suzis though with the oil cooling. The finning on their cylinders and heads were much finer than other bikes, looked sweet.

[twhitaker]

then you have to worry about pump seals etc, hoses, thermostats, flushing

The CX500 Honda has the water pump mounted on the back side of the cam between the crankcase and the transmission. When the seal goes you get an instant oil emulsion.

[charlie b]

That's what I mean by screwing up the design.  :)

[charlie b]

And you don't NEED water cooling on a bike, just as you don't NEED computer controlled ignition or FI.

[rocker59]

Every liquid-cooled motorcycle I've ridden puts more heat on the rider than air-cooled motorcycles.

The wind blowing across the radiator directs he warm air back over the rider.

My 1998 Triumph Sprint was really horrible.  The fuel tank would get hot and so would I, from the waist down.

I really noticed the radiator heat on the Indian Scout I recently rode.  When I pulled in from the ride and came to a stop, the fan came on and instantly bathed me in hot air.  Not comfortable.

Despite my knees nearly contacting the cylinders on my Sport 1100, the heat is barely noticeable on all but the hottest of days.  And, when stopped, I don't get bathed in the warm breeze from the radiator fan.

[sliphorn]

Are there any water-cooled bikes out there in which the manufacturer placed the radiator somewhere other than directly behind the front fork? I guess that would give the greatest air flow, but could you get enough cooling mounting a radiator in a more hidden area? Or hiding the radiator somewhere (under the seat? in front of the rear tire?), and using a small fan to blow air across it? Can you make a water-cooled bike without a gigantic square thing sticking out?

I'd be interested in seeing photos of any alternatives, or photos of what folks think is the best stylistic solution to ugly-radiator problem on a "naked" bike.

The Yamaha Super Tenere has a side mounted radiator hidden away.

[pyoungbl]

I'd love to have a smaller version of the NTX but not just a tarted up V7 with 40 RWHP.  One path would be a 500-600cc twin that is liquid cooled so the engine could produce more get-up-and-go (which also produces more heat).  Circulate that liquid by way of an electric pump and put the radiator some place where it fits but does not look awful.  Place a fan by the radiator to control the cooling. 

Before you turn your nose up at the thought of an electric water pump, consider that HD is using one now.  An electric pump has a bunch of advantages.  You can put the pump just about anywhere.  The pump is not connected to the oil system in any way.  An electric pump can be run at a constant speed or variable speed if needed, an engine driven pump must be sized to cool at idle and may well be pushing the fluid too fast at higher rpms.  When I had a G650GS (BMW 650cc thumper) there were water pump failures that were darn near impossible to cure so some owners tried the electric pump route with much success.

Peter Y.

[canuguzzi]

Just because a MG doesn't need water cooling doesn't mean it is a bad idea. If everything was based on need, the MGs would all look quite different. There are a lot of reasons not to make MG bikes into water buffaloes but all this stuff about seals and pumps isn't one of them. Sometimes the seals and pumps in water cooled bikes fail. So what, it isn't all that often and just because it happens on a BMW doesn't means it has to happen to a water cooled MG.

When, not if MG decides to move to water cooling, lets hope they get it right from the start and not need years to smooth out the kinks.

[charlie b]

If located and designed correctly you will get no more heat on you than with an air cooled bike.  If not designed well, then you can cook your legs with an air cooled bike just as easily as a water cooled.

[bad Chad]

I'm not saying liquid cooling isn't coming to MG, but it's been a loooong time coming.   I'm not exaggerating when I say,  during the late 80s, I read articles in the usual places that the end of the air cooled motor was not far off!  The story was, air cooled motors just could not be made to pass the ever increasing air quality standards; sound familiar?

Thirty years have rolled under the wheels of many a fine air cooled motorcycle, and I suspect the end is quite a bit farther away than the sky is falling crowd would have us believe

[canuguzzi]

As soon as motorcycles are required to pass smog tests air cooled motorcycle engines will go away. California doesn't require emissions testing for motorcycles but when they do, that will go a long way to help change the remaining manufacturers that use air cooled engines. Those articles you read were probably making assumptions about the smog tests since that used to be one reason why they said all that.

MG likely has a design ready because they'd be really dumb to wait until a law here of there changed and get caught without a model to sell that could meet a new certification level.

People used to say a motorcycle wouldn't ever have a cat on them either. I was around then.

[bad Chad]

They likely do.   I'm just saying the end of the air cooled engine has been just around the corner for thirty years.  I wouldn't bet the farm if I were you.

[bpreynolds]

I agree with Rocker in that it's funny that my water cooled bikes all tended to run a bit hotter than "most" of my air cooled ones.  Having said this, the 2011 Stelvio I owned IMHO was just too hot for my tastes, the big Breva I test drove a couple times, even hotter.  Reports are that the 1400 Cali turns out some heat too.  Just saying.

I have trouble believing the whole "water cooled bikes are more trouble" argument since there are at least a zillion out there with 100k or more on them that seem to run fine.  What I do believe is that there are some manufacturers who do it better than others and have less fails.  But yes, it is one more thing that could fail or be troublesome if not done properly.

And once again I guess I differ from a great many in this thread in thinking that Guzzi should move towards it, not because of standards, or cooling, or modernization for modernization's sake; rather, I think they should do it simply for the potential power gains.  Again, MHO here but I just think it would be in the interest of the company, despite what my heart might say.  The Norge seems like a great bike.  I know the Stelvio is a great bike.  I know the V7 is a wonderful machine.  I know they have enough power for me, but all three, especially the two former are quickly slipping behind in their relative classes with regard to power/weight as to almost be irrelevant from a market perspective - not that Guzzi is relevant in any market perspective, but they gotta make money just like everyone else.  The V7 has remained a big seller and likely will for a while, but the Scramblers and soon to be released bigger Bonnie will have some say about that.  Or not.  I'm not an economist.  And you know now that I think about it, screw water cooling.
 

[jas67]

If located and designed correctly you will get no more heat on you than with an air cooled bike.  If not designed well, then you can cook your legs with an air cooled bike just as easily as a water cooled.

My B11 bakes my knees and upper shins.    I get WAY more heat on me from it than either of my water cooled bikes (2001 VFR800, 2003 F650GS).

[Murray]

Perceived heat would have a lot more to do with catalytic converters and lean burn motors more than the type of cooling system used IMO.

[Kev m]

Bpray and Jay, the 1100 is an example of a poorly executed bike design with regards to airflow and heat. That particular bike showed cylinder head temps that were at least 50-75°F cooler than my EFI Harley Sportster. However, my Sportster was/is consistently more comfortable to ride in hot weather because the airflow better manages the heat with respect to the rider.

BpRay, the only water-cooled bike I've owned WAS a Honda. I'm not talking about them being less reliable, just that they literally have more components that require maintenance. And that is time away from my family that I literally have no need to spend for something that doesn't offer me any benefit.

[cruzziguzzi]

Are there any water-cooled bikes out there in which the manufacturer placed the radiator somewhere other than directly behind the front fork? I guess that would give the greatest air flow, but could you get enough cooling mounting a radiator in a more hidden area? Or hiding the radiator somewhere (under the seat? in front of the rear tire?), and using a small fan to blow air across it? Can you make a water-cooled bike without a gigantic square thing sticking out?

I'd be interested in seeing photos of any alternatives, or photos of what folks think is the best stylistic solution to ugly-radiator problem on a "naked" bike.

Britten.

Todd.

[bpreynolds]

Bpray and Jay, the 1100 is an example of a poorly executed bike design with regards to airflow and heat. That particular bike showed cylinder head temps that were at least 50-75�F cooler than my EFI Harley Sportster. However, my Sportster was/is consistently more comfortable to ride in hot weather because the airflow better manages the heat with respect to the rider.

BpRay, the only water-cooled bike I've owned WAS a Honda. I'm not talking about them being less reliable, just that they literally have more components that require maintenance. And that is time away from my family that I literally have no need to spend for something that doesn't offer me any benefit.

I still think the B11 was a great bike and even with that chrome paralever plastic thing, far, far more attractive to my eyes than its competition (R bikes) of the same generation.  Oddly, when I think back the first thing about the bike that really, really impressed me was the handlebars.  Sturdy looking.  Big.  Almost like thick reverse clip ons or something reaching up to me.  I remember thinking man this bike is well made.  Seems like both my test rides were on hot days so that didn't help. 

[Kev m]

It was a great bike in many ways, but a complete miss at airflow related heat management.

[jas67]

It was a great bike in many ways, but a complete miss at airflow related heat management.

 :1:

I hardly ride it at all in the summertime, unless we get a freak, cool day.

Thankfully, I've got others to ride that don't bake.

Now, when the weather gets cold, then the B11 is the go to bike.

[leafman60]

I agree with Rocker in that it's funny that my water cooled bikes all tended to run a bit hotter than "most" of my air cooled ones.  Having said this, the 2011 Stelvio I owned IMHO was just too hot for my tastes, the big Breva I test drove a couple times, even hotter.  Reports are that the 1400 Cali turns out some heat too.  Just saying.

I have trouble believing the whole "water cooled bikes are more trouble" argument since there are at least a zillion out there with 100k or more on them that seem to run fine.  What I do believe is that there are some manufacturers who do it better than others and have less fails.  But yes, it is one more thing that could fail or be troublesome if not done properly.

And once again I guess I differ from a great many in this thread in thinking that Guzzi should move towards it, not because of standards, or cooling, or modernization for modernization's sake; rather, I think they should do it simply for the potential power gains.  Again, MHO here but I just think it would be in the interest of the company, despite what my heart might say.  The Norge seems like a great bike.  I know the Stelvio is a great bike.  I know the V7 is a wonderful machine.  I know they have enough power for me, but all three, especially the two former are quickly slipping behind in their relative classes with regard to power/weight as to almost be irrelevant from a market perspective - not that Guzzi is relevant in any market perspective, but they gotta make money just like everyone else.  The V7 has remained a big seller and likely will for a while, but the Scramblers and soon to be released bigger Bonnie will have some say about that.  Or not.  I'm not an economist.  And you know now that I think about it, screw water cooling.
 

Ditto, what BP said.

If Guzzi can build a water-cooled VTwin that basically looks like the air-cooled twin and with a radiator that is not much different from the current huge oil cooler, that's fine. More power will be the goal.  The question is not whether anyone NEEDS more power.  The question is being competitive in a market where way too much is just about right!

BP, if you had re-mapped you Stelvio, your heat problem would probably have been greatly fixed.

My '12 NTX makes some heat but not a repugnant amount.  I've re-mapped it and I even wimped out and installed heat scoops from a Norge.

[Murray]

More power will be the goal.  The question is not whether anyone NEEDS more power. 

Ever meet a HP you didn't like?

[Kev m]

Ever meet a HP you didn't like?

I have.

Seriously, I'm not kidding.

I've posted before about spending a week on press or loaner bikes. I've found myself on a 180+ hp bike in the twisties WISHING I was on a Thruxton or Smallblock.

I've sold bikes (most recently the Buell S3T which was pushing 100 hp at the rear wheel) because every time) I rode it I was pushing it more and more instead of just enjoying the ride like I do on it's 70 hp and heavier cousin (my Sportster).

I'm not saying everyone has to feel this way. I'm just saying there's a justification for companies to continue to make something simple and not chase the hp.

Hell, even JAPinc. and Ducati, and BMW have all just started to chase what is now considered the "mid-sized" segment of smaller 600-800cc bikes that they were more recently ignoring with hp and displacement wars. Hell even Harley has come out with a 500 and 750 (though the 750 does already make more power than their current air-cooled 883, but I bet that air-cooled 883 will continue to outsell it for some time, maybe indefinitely).

Again, not even saying MG shouldn't ALSO pursue water-cooling or a wet-head... I just hope that if they do so, they don't give up on the air-cooled bike(s) prematurely.

[sturgeon]

Regarding heat given off, I've got two water-cooled, one oil-cooled, and one air-cooled that I ride regularly right now. I've had the misfortune to be stuck in slow to stopped traffic in 30C plus temps on all of them. The air-cooled feels the hottest by far, to me. Not an exhaustive sample, just my experience with my own. I've actually had to shut off the oil-cooled and the air-cooled on occasion in long stoppages due to getting cooked. On the water-cooled bikes, I hear the fan cycle on and off, but never seem to get too baked.

[Dogwalker]

Are there any water-cooled bikes out there in which the manufacturer placed the radiator somewhere other than directly behind the front fork?

Honda VFR and Firestorm. Both had double side-placed radiators.

[jas67]

Ever meet a HP you didn't like?

I chose my 87 HP Monster 796 over the 107 HP Street Triple R, or 112 HP Monster 821, or 135 ish HP Monster 1200, because it has the "just right" (for me) amount of HP.  AND.... for the simplicity of it being an air+oil cooled 2 valve per cylinder bike.   In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I found a left over 2013 for the same price as a 2014 696, I'd have bought the 77 HP 696.

Any more would usually not get used, or would be a temptation to ride beyond my capabilities.   Heck, sometimes the 796 begs to be ridden harder than I should.

Different riders have different wants and desires.    Yes, HP sells, and I can't blame MG or any other maker from trying to compete for sales.

I'm very happy that there are bikes like the V7 and Bonneville around.    I hope they can keep making them.  Both sell well, so, Kev M. & I aren't the only ones who appreciate them.

[Kev m]

Regarding heat given off, I've got two water-cooled, one oil-cooled, and one air-cooled that I ride regularly right now. I've had the misfortune to be stuck in slow to stopped traffic in 30C plus temps on all of them. The air-cooled feels the hottest by far, to me. Not an exhaustive sample, just my experience with my own. I've actually had to shut off the oil-cooled and the air-cooled on occasion in long stoppages due to getting cooked. On the water-cooled bikes, I hear the fan cycle on and off, but never seem to get too baked.

I know it's anecdotal, but I've been stuck 2-3 times that I can think of off the top of my head in summertime (80-90F) stop-n-go traffic for anywhere from 1-2 HOURS and not HAD to shut down an air-cooled bike.

My buddy moved from PA to AZ nearly 2 decades ago and after a year or two of traffic sold most of his water-cooled bikes and replaced them with air-cooled bikes.

I suspect it depends on the bike and the design.

[jas67]

Honda VFR and Firestorm. Both had double side-placed radiators.

I've ridden my 2001 VFR800 on some pretty hot days, and do not find that I get baked by heat coming of the engine or radiator at all.

I have two air cooled bikes that do bake me, the Breva 1100 bakes me with heat off the jugs ( :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu ), and the Monster 796 bakes my right inner thigh & butt with heat from the exhaust.

All the rest of my air cooled bikes (V7R, Airheads, and some vintage Hondas + one vintage Ducati single) are all pretty good in this respect.

[Kev m]

I chose my 87 HP Monster 796 over the 107 HP Street Triple R, or 112 HP Monster 821, or 135 ish HP Monster 1200, because it has the "just right" (for me) amount of HP.  AND.... for the simplicity of it being an air+oil cooled 2 valve per cylinder bike.   In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I found a left over 2013 for the same price as a 2014 696, I'd have bought the 77 HP 696.

Point of order, it looks like you're talking @ the crank specs.

If so the 696 is rated at 80 hp.

http://www.ducatiusa.com/bikes/monster/696/2014/tech_spec.do

and you got the 796 correct:

http://www.ducati.com/bikes/monster/796_corse_stripe/tech_spec.do

And honestly, the 696 is fun, but even IT tempts me to go faster than I need to.