|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> Cubic Centimeter War Thread! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1370641834 Message started by Dave on 06/07/13 at 14:50:34 |
|
Title: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/07/13 at 14:50:34 The intent of this post is not to make any enemies or stimulate a hateful conversation......but I have been pondering the question of why a 650 cc single is not a good interstate cruiser and not likely to become one. Also why we don't see larger single cylinder bikes in production. I have seen the posts for the 2,000 cc single on YouTube, and I also have been caught up in the need for a little more power and speed from my 650 cc single and have done a bit of work to tweak the available power. I have also read where people want to get 50 HP from the Savage....and I just don't know how realistic that goal is. I believe that at some point the piston speed, length of stoke and bore size becomes counter productive to making horsepower. As the parts get bigger they can produce nice torque numbers at low rpm - but the parts become too heavy and cumbersome to proivide quick acceleration or spin fast enough to make big HP (torquexrev/time). I will even go so far to say that our 650 single is too big to make impressive Horsepower numbers even if modified. Without quoting calculations or bothersome and inconvenient facts.....there has to be a reason that most succesful racing singles have been limited to 450-500cc, that most succesful racing twins have been limited to 750cc. If bigger were better and faster why wouldn't the racing singles of 800 cc been used? I am slowly forming the opinion that our Savage is a torque demon that is destined to tease us with quick punch in the backside when you crack the throttle open.....but then falls a bit short of having long legs. That is OK with me......you don't see Clydesdales running in the derby, you don't see Semi's in Nascar, you don't see Sumo wrestlers running hurdles. I love my Savage for running around town, hitting the back roads, and I don't have a need for speed. I know that drag racing motorcycles can have monstrous bore and stokes and make horsepower for a limited amount of time....but I am focused more on production street and road racing bikes, dirt track bikes....bikes that need to have an extended service life measured beyond a few seconds down a quarter mile track. Just rambling.......Ya'll have a good weekend! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by verslagen1 on 06/07/13 at 15:11:01 For our torque demon to be an interstate champ... Top gear has to be reworked so that cruising speed is at max torque. Which it may be, but I hover around the max hp mark. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Borracho on 06/07/13 at 16:19:50 I have thought about doing the cam/piston/ bigger carb mods this winter. But I wonder if it will actually increase top speed. Or just add more torque? Or just use more gas? Or maybe I should just accept that it is what it is... |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by arteacher on 06/07/13 at 17:00:47 757C7F6D6029292E190 wrote:
You would probably be better off with a chain conversion and different ratios. You would loose bottom end torque and gain top speed. Me, I'me perfectly happy the way it is. I consider the highway performance acceptable. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Serowbot on 06/07/13 at 17:03:05 If you think about the fastest bikes for any displacement... they seem to have cylinder sizes of 250 to 350cc... 1000 to 1300cc 4cyl... 800 to 1000 triples... 500 to 700 twins,... I guess that's where the maximum rpm/size/power lines up... No way, are you going to get a big piston spinning 12,000 rpm's... without something flying off... I think it's a planet Earth thing... probably different on Mars... :-?... Life happens too fast nowadays... I more and more liking thumping along,... harkens back to a simpler time... clears the mind... Not that my mind has much in it anyway... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by arteacher on 06/07/13 at 17:11:40 I agree- I have had 4 bikes in my life. A '37 Enfield 500 (great bike but would shake your fillings loose), a 50cc bike that was great around town but totally useless past the city limits, a Honda CB750 four, great on the highway but cumbersome in the city,(and a real pregnant dog to tune), and the S40, which straddles the overall performance of the 50 and the 750. I had the opportunity to drive a friends CBX once and it scarred the poop out of me. :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by clearush on 06/07/13 at 21:14:48 well as far as singles go, buell blasts produce 34 hp with 500 cc and enfileds are around 27 with 500cc and fuel injection which is about the same as a stock s40. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/13 at 03:16:28 IMO a twin makes the most sense. A big single needs some kinda swinging balancer, thats mass that has to spin up, so its gonna rev slower, singles rev slower anyway, a twin can be built to balance out a lot better, no swinging weight, smaller dia/pistons = less weight = less rod stress = lighter rod, all that stuff adds up to quicker revs. Its easier on the motor to rev up than it is that big single. Now, that whole bore/stroke thing,, hmm,, I guess everyone knows the square bore/stroke thing, oversquare revs fast as heck,,undersquare , long strokes & smaller bores, big torque,, & we are pretty close to square I think,.,.bore almost = stroke on our 650, right? IDK Why they made it a big single or designed it to operate in that rpm range, but they did.. For my purposes its been a fine bike. Itll scat across town w/o makin the howling "Come get me coppers, Im FLYING!" sounds. If a guy was patient with it & rode it in its comfort zone he could go as far as he wanted to. Its not meant for high speed cruising. It will do 75, but I wouldnt recommend a real steady diet,like tryin to make a 3,000 mile run 5 days. Why does that hurt a motor to run it right near its max? Dang if I know,, just seems to gut them out way too often, I try to not run anything but the lawnmower at more than 80% of its max., |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/08/13 at 04:27:06 40494A58551C1C1B2C0 wrote:
I did the 95mmWiseco, Stage 1 Cam, Mikuni carb mods...and the bike runs really well and doesn't seem to use more gas. It does however require the use of premium now. The ability to cruise at a higher top speed has not changed, and it may not have a higher top speed if the vlave and port size is the weak link in the system. The bike now has more acceleration than it used to, and it may have a higher top speed......I will probably never know. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/08/13 at 05:56:44 DR 650 R 1993 Overall Length: 2 385 mm (93.9 in) Overall Width: 870 mm (34.3 in) Overall Height: 1 330 mm (52.4 in) Seat Height: 890 mm (34.8 in) Wheelbase: 1 505 mm (59.3 in) Ground Clearance: 245 mm (9.6 in) Dry weight: 166 kg (365 lbs) Engine type: Air-cooled 640 cc single cylinder 4-stroke. OHC, SACS. 46 hp (33,6 kW)/ 6.800 rpm, 56,6 Nm (5,77 kg-m)/ 5.000 rpm. The info above is from Suzukicycles.org The engine layout of the '90-95 DR650 is pretty much like our LS650 bore/stroke/rpm wise. The difference lies in the exhaust ports, which are more properly designed, and the camshaft which has a much higher lift & duration than even the Stage 3 camshaft. The better exhaust ports and the cam profile allow the engine to breath much more efficiently than the LS650, and the result is more torque & hp production. This is all stock factory stuff. I personally don't think a few mild/moderate mod's in this direction over-stress the engine at all. It still operates within the standard rpm range so piston speed is not an issue, and that IS a critical issue. Engine components seem more than adequate to handle a power increase; the stock DR does so and I've not seen any of it's engine parts being heavier than the LS. Anyway, the engine responds very well to the mild/moderate mod's of carb, cam, porting, cc & CR, exhaust, etc. Still in the stock rpm range and the engine is just down right perkier. It FEELS GOOD and wants to run. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/08/13 at 05:59:46 424F404D4B5C1C192E0 wrote:
So......when we gonna transplant the DR650 into the Savage frame? |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by WD on 06/08/13 at 06:53:28 It's also called the Suzuki "Sausage" for a reason... For what it is, a conglomeration of substandard bits and pieces mixed together in a seemingly random fashion... it's a pretty good mix. Mine is just about ready for the scrap pile, electrical gremlins and the timing tensioner is about ready to let go. But that's 15 years of being beat on unmercifully. I usually try to have a real bike as my primary, keeping the Savage for what it does best, play b!tch to a better machine. And better is very subjective... Fast? I've got a high revving warmed up 250 racing twin I'm overhauling for street duty, and it will handle the roads around here better than the Savage does. Ceriani front and rear suspension, tls drums on both ends (no sudden failure of a crap single piston caliper pushing against an improperly heat treated rotor). Touring? I had a GS750T with a Windjammer fairing equipped with a cigarette lighter... General purpose? Had a 1999 VN800A with full rear fender conversion that looked better, was a LOT faster, better seat, better brakes, bigger gas tank, 50+ hp at the rear wheel (heavily modified)... Had a stock 2005 VN800B (Classic) that was such a p.o.s. it makes a stock Savage seem like a Cadillac (or better yet, a real LaSalle or a high end Packard)... Offroad? Yamaha XT500 and the racing spec Honda CL72 250 Scrambler turned TT bike. I'll take the Savage offroad, but it doesn't much care for it... The Savage is a great commuter bike. Set of small saddlebags, better seat and the proper handlebars turns it into a perfect utility bike. But, for all intents and purposes, it's an antique with a later ignition swapped in. Suzuki would have been doing all of us a great service by running a 1960s Honda style cam in real bearings... more aggressive profile and no chance of tearing up the head section castings due to the inferior oiling system and weak sister oil pump. I've corrected most of the obvious compromises on mine so it fits me and does what I need it to do. Tall bars, better rear shocks, heavier fork oil, full rear fender, higher flow exhaust, manual petcock with a real inline fuel filter, bigger headlight with infinite adjustability... cam chain tensioner will be swapped out in September, failure prone switches and safeties deleted, wiring harness being shortened and armored... Hop it up all you want, the engine design (not to mention the miniscule fuel tank) relegates it to commuter or toy status. I still like my Savage, but I don't trust it as far as I could throw it. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by oldNslow on 06/08/13 at 07:25:25 Another example along the lines of Lancer's is the motor in the BMW 650 GS: 652cc BorexStroke 100mmx83mm 50hp at 6,500rpm max torque 44 ft/lbs. at 5,000 Water cooled,DOHC, four valves.fuel injected. regular gas BMW claims a top speed of 106mph. The bike is 423lbs wet so its a little bit heavier than a savage. I suspect that this is pushing the limit as far as what can be gotten out of a single this size while still expecting the engine to last for many thousands of miles and deliver reasonable fuel economy. If you want more HP you need more cylinders and more valves - like a Triumph Daytona - 675cc, three cylinders 12 valves, 126 HP at 12,500. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/08/13 at 10:34:05 I was going to reply to Dave, but read on... Then I was going to reply to Serowbot, but read on... Then I was going to reply to JOG, but read on... ...and I'm glad I did, because wise old Lancer nailed it on the head ! Like the say in merrie olde Englande, it's "horses for courses". The only things the Savage and the DR650 have in common is the brand badge on the tank. Else, the Savage is a wet sump, low revving, low specific hp air cooled engine. ENTIRELY BY MISTAKE it has a 4-valve headm had they equipped the Savage with a simple LARGE valve "2V" head, and quite possibly a better location for the spark plug, they would have done a better job. My Savage's sweet spot for highway criusing is around 4000-4500rpm, but I prefer to stay around 3800-4000 which equates to 55-60ish. Beyond that speed... the engine is quite capable, but the bike is not designed to cruise at anything Beyond 60-65mph. Not with those pull back bars and forward controls. As for "the best racing bikes yakk yakk yakk", I am sorrym, that is nonsense. The best racing twin to be a 750? PL-E-E-E-ZE !!! Hasn't anyone ever heard of DUCATI ? 848, 899, 998, 999, 1098, 1099, all the way up to the latest 1198cc screamer (if you can call the Ducati's growl a scream, it's more like the bellowing of an enraged bull !!! ) http://media.motorbox.com/data/contenuti/0000040431/img/640/ducati-848-evo-7611a4056c06de7437ebb87f52d3b426.jpg http://blog.motorcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/030112-2012-ducati-1199-panigale-s-500x310.jpg The same applies for APRILIA... http://media.motorbox.com/data/contenuti/0000009699/img/640/aprilia-tuono-factory-vs-ktm-super-duke-r-d61f3a760c9bcbc9bb75228deddd9379.jpg (Aprilia Tuono pictured with KTM SuperDuke) The same applies for BMW's "HP2"... quite possibly the only factory bike other than the Ducati 1199 Panigale with a chronometer for lap times built into the instrumentation http://www.motorcycleparts-accessories-andmore.com/image-files/bmwhp2-sport-motorcycle.jpg Even the new, revived, resuscitated Norton Commandos are quite impressive scorchers... http://www.nortonmotorcycles.com/bikes/images/caferacer.jpg Enjoy some Thunder ! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTv4CGIfyPg[/media] Privateer on road legal Ducati 999 lapping Monza... see tach clocking 9500rpm! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFPmDeqrK88[/media] This is a Superstock Panigale 1199 lapping Imola :D (see how his handlebars snake all over the place in accelleration... :o) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMIg4mh0ljE[/media] Ducati Monster S4RS at a track day AND NOW... . . . . . FOR SOME RIVETING ACTION ( !!! ) . . . . . [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN2AcD43-mc[/media] :-* |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/13 at 10:56:40 Looks like good practice for when the battery is low. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by paulmarshall on 06/08/13 at 12:23:55 6771667B63767B60140 wrote:
Someone forgot to tell the Burt Munro's of this world and other high speed record breakers who have over bored the max out of there machines. Just saying. :) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/08/13 at 18:58:01 5E4F5B42434F5C5D464F42422E0 wrote:
Someone forgot to tell the Burt Munro's of this world and other high speed record breakers who have over bored the max out of there machines. Just saying. :)[/quote] Burt Monroe set the under 1000cc record with a 950cc twin.....or 425cc a cylinder. And it was not an engine that was very reliable from what I have heard/read. In the movie the actual clips of him riding it he broke a rod....and in the YouTube video the people that restored it broke a rod. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by paulmarshall on 06/08/13 at 19:39:17 4F74796E7F73686E757D706F1C0 wrote:
Someone forgot to tell the Burt Munro's of this world and other high speed record breakers who have over bored the max out of there machines. Just saying. :)[/quote] Burt Monroe set the under 1000cc record with a 950cc twin.....or 425cc a cylinder. And it was not an engine that was very reliable from what I have heard/read. In the movie the actual clips of him riding it he broke a rod....and in the YouTube video the people that restored it broke a rod.[/quote] It was a Indian Scout 600cc. "In its final stages, the Indian's displacement was 950 cc (as built it was 600 cc) and was driven by a triple chain drive system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Munro |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/09/13 at 03:52:41 So at this point I have learned that our bike is not blessed with high horsepower mostly because it is an affordable bike with old tachnology and does not have cutting edge design. Ducati can make a 500-600cc cylnder (pair of them) make high horsepower at very high rpm's with cutting edge technology. I need to do a calculation of purchase price dollars per horsepower and see if that might be a factor. I really like the sound and feel of my engine at 55-60 mph....above that and it just starts to feel like I have it revving higher than the sweet spot. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by raydawg on 06/09/13 at 04:42:23 I agree, it seems my bike in the blink of an eye goes to that zone (60MPH) and then hits a wall......Sure I can nurse it higher, like putting the whip to her on the homestretch, but ain't that where a lot of career ending injuries happen to ponies running faster that their normal sustainable pace? |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/09/13 at 05:10:52 In an effort to get rid of the assorted electrical demons from the past few years and carb vibration issue of last year I am in process of putting the REX engine into a stock '87 frame with the carb in the original position behind the engine and using a fresh wiring harness from an '05 donor parts bike. I ran the engine for 10 years with the original Stage 1 cam and found 4500-5500 rpm to be very smooth, and up to 6000 a nice extension. Yes, it is old tech for sure, but I like old tech. In fact, I would have preferred that it had a 2 valve head like the "oldies". I think Suzuki made the exhaust ports squirrelly on purpose, so it would not be confused with or in competition with the DR series. Both have very nice intake ports but the DR also has nice exhaust ports. It is interesting that they had many common parts in the pre-'96 years, including basic cylinder structure, piston/pin, valves, springs, and camshaft core. The cam is built to a different profile but it is the same core. I have taken old cam cores from DR's and sent them to Webcam to be made into Stage 1/2/3's. So, with so many common parts (and there may be others as well in the bottom end) why did Suzuki make the exhaust ports different ? Why did they make 2 engines that were very much alike in many ways, different in other ways ? It would have been much more cost effective to build one good engine and use it in both machines. It is done quite often. Perk one up for dirt racing and detune it for the cruiser version. I would like to have had a chat with the people who made these decisions. I just want to know ! |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Serowbot on 06/09/13 at 05:11:24 The easiest, and probably cheapest way to make a Savage perform like a Ducati... is to buy a Ducati and paint "Savage" on the tank... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/09/13 at 07:33:38 6670677A62777A61150 wrote:
Ah Ha ! Direct to the point ! ;) ;D 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/13 at 08:02:24 63585542535F444259515C43300 wrote:
Yepp,, you can feel it. What this thing does is hustle. Its handy & a quick ride across town. It will do highway & live, but thzats just not where its happy., |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by ZAR on 06/09/13 at 08:18:22 0F020D0006115154630 wrote:
Lancer...with all this in mind.......is it possible to adapt a DR head and rocker box to a LS cylinder? And if so,wonder what improvement it would make? Also on the subject of poor exhaust ports,I figure when it's time to pull my engine down I will do some exhaust port work for better evacuation. Earlier I was thinking to polish the intake ports but now I wonder if the rough surface may not be better for mixing the air and fuel. Any thoughts? |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/13 at 09:07:16 Shiny intakes dont work as well as textured. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by ZAR on 06/09/13 at 09:34:25 7C6365627F7849794971636F24160 wrote:
Thanks JOG! At least part of my brain is thinkin right! |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/09/13 at 09:39:37 716A792B0 wrote:
Thanks JOG! At least part of my brain is thinkin right![/quote] Agreeing with what I say may not be as grand of an indicator as youd like., |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/09/13 at 18:43:59 617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:
Thanks JOG! At least part of my brain is thinkin right![/quote] Agreeing with what I say may not be as grand of an indicator as youd like., [/quote] ;D ;D Perhaps at times, but I do agree with the rough surface on the intake being best for help in keeping the fuel/air mixture mixed as it heads toward the intake valves. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/09/13 at 18:47:39 Quote:
They will not bolt up, the shape of the mating surfaces are different. I checked into that a couple of years ago. Too bad though, the much better exhaust ports and the dual plug head wound be nice. It is actually possible to drill/tap the LS head for a 2nd plug. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by paulmarshall on 06/09/13 at 18:54:15 7E737C7177602025120 wrote:
What would be the benefit of this? |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/09/13 at 20:50:27 5647534A4B4754554E474A4A260 wrote:
What would be the benefit of this? [/quote] The air flow in the DR head is much better than the LS650, giving more air + more fuel = more power. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/10/13 at 04:33:29 mpescatori: Well I did some checking.....and found out something interesting. The Suzuki Savage is a very primitive design whose engine has more in common with my lawn tractor than my car. The bore is 94mm and the stroke is 94mm....which is square and pretty common for mult-purpose engines that need to be adaptable. The current price of the Suzuki Savage is $ 5,699 and it is 30 HP.....so it is about $ 190 for each horsepower the engine makes. The Ducati Panigale is a very high tech design with the current state of the art goodies. The engine is a twin with a pair of 112 mm pistons having a stroke of just 60.8 mm. This engine is very "oversquare" and has a lot in common with high revving Formula 1 engines. The engine size is almost twice the size of the Savage....and the 12,000 rpm's the Ducati nearly doubles what the Savage can do. The price for the 195 HP S model is $ 22,995 and the R model is $ 29,995. The S model has a cost per HP of only $ 118....which is cheaper than the Savage! Obviousuly we can't all spend $ 22,995 for our 2 wheel transportation....but the Ducati makes a lot of HP per dollar spent. I am not sure how much the cost per HP-mile is if you were to compare the 2 bikes for 1000,000 miles of transportation.......but there is no doubt that the owner of either bike will enjoy the ride! |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/10/13 at 04:55:30 ;) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by LANCER on 06/10/13 at 04:58:33 I cannot imagine strapping on a 195 hp 2 wheel machine and going for a ride. I would certainly like to, the experience would just HAVE to be a memorable one. But what do you do with all that power ? It is way over what is really usable on the street. I think I would feel a bit guilty spending that much money for such a wonderfully designed & built machine when I could only use a fraction of its capability in daily riding. That said, it is a beautiful machine to look at and I really admire the skill it takes to make it. I saw a documentary on Ducati a couple of years ago, with a focus on the people working there; many had been there for most of their working life and some were even multi-generational craftsmen. It is quite a statement about the company and their whole mindset toward their work and vision. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/10/13 at 05:47:26 I currently have two bikes, the Savage (650cc and ~30hp) and the BMW (1200cc and ~110hp). They are two completely different riding experiences, and not becaise of the raw difference in hp. On the big BMW, the rider has a smooth, cool, riding experience. A flick of the wrist and it's "vrrr-whooosh", a barely audible flurry of rpm up until the redline @8000. Hp delivery is smooth and easy until 4000-4500, then "something" changes (the variable phase timing 8-)) and it's "Trans-Europe Express" from 5000 to 8000 rpm. Like a Cadillac with a big bad V8 and a blower to boot... Enter the Savage. Rough, stiff, hard, will simply refuse to be mastered. You have to sweet talk her into doing things. She will not rev if cold. She will not slow down if hot. She will ride like a banshee if in the mood. She will corner until I scrape my boots (never mind the pegs!) but never, ever ask her for a "stoppie"... :-? ::) Am I talking about my bike... or a girl ? :D Dasss my girl, my Savage ;) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dane Allen on 06/12/13 at 14:04:39 I have to admit that I find this discussion odd, probably because I haven't ridden in decades and am essentially new again to motorcycles. I am 6' 2" and a dozen or so over 250. Just three weeks ago I took the Wife on a 2.5 hour ride via L.A. freeways out to West L.A. for a night out away from the kids and the S40 did great. I do get the cramped leg feel every now and then but I don't get the lack of performance issues that everyone else talks about. Maybe it's that I don't have a recent comparison of what I could be rocketing off down the road on. Officially, I was right at the maximum weight but the unofficial estimate with fuel and overnight bag was easily more. There were a couple of times I had to go from 5th to 4th or 4th to 3rd and crank it to slip past a traffic condition and it worked great. I love that I could rebuild most of this bike myself and the milimalist electronics intrusion means that I could fix most of that too. I was just reading about the new Yamaha Star series 1300 where the water pump and oil pump are the same unit. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone else? I am very happy with the bike and am over 2,500 miles since bought new at the end of March. I've even cut back on the 85 mph freeway speeds, not because the bike couldn't handle it or give even a little more but based on the advice on this forum - to stay under 80% of max. I'm really wondering what everyone is looking for out of their bikes.... |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by WD on 06/12/13 at 14:32:36 "I'm really wondering what everyone is looking for out of their bikes.... Dane" Simple. A power to weight ratio appropriate for the engine displacement and design. A bike with a reliable electrical system that is easy (and cheap) to repair when components fail. An ignition system that doesn't require an expensive "brain" when it fails, and it will, ALL parts eventually fail. Real brakes (I'll take a twin leading shoe drum over a single puck disc any day). Tolerable saddle, I don't even demand it be good, just better than the too soft drek pawned off on us since most "weekend warrior bikers" go no further than a couple hundred miles a year and don't know the difference. I'd love for it to have a REAL coil, not the plastic piece of crap with integral wire it ships with, but a real oil filled or epoxy potted steel housing scaled down VW Beetle type coil (like my 1963 Honda has a pair of). Or the best bet of all, give the thing a kicker and a magneto off an outboard and get rid of 90% of the bike's common ills. Oh, and a real motorcycle carburetor with a cable operated slide or proper throttle butterfly instead of the vacuum slide paperweight with undersized jets that it has now... I'm dreading pulling the left outer case on mine, I have a feeling it ate the stator... pulled the right side cover and smelled burnt wiring (bad sign, the only right side wires serve no real purpose, neutral light switch). ;) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dane Allen on 06/12/13 at 15:10:43 190A4E0 wrote:
Ok, fair enough. I guess these are things I will run into down the road. Quote:
I thought the Petcock and Cam Chain Tensioner were 90% of the bike's common ills.... Quote:
Huh, in that case, that brings up the question of what bike would be more reliable, easier to fix, more performance or whatever Dave is asking about for the price? I, myself, chose the Savage for the air-cooled simplicity and the word-of-mouth claims of reliability and "relative to other bikes" simple repair. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by oldNslow on 06/13/13 at 11:04:36 Dane Allen wrote: Quote:
Dane, See if you can somehow finagle yourself a test ride on one of the modern sportbikes - Triumph Daytona, Speed Triple or a 600cc or bigger Kawasaki, Yamaha or Honda. The performance these things are capable of is truly astonishing. I'm not saying they make a lot of sense as daily drivers, but ride on one of them can be a real eye opener :o |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dane Allen on 06/13/13 at 11:26:00 043A3B37253938560 wrote:
Yeah, I actually stayed away from those on purpose ;D I see the kids on those things and I think "No way"!! Seems like the bulk of the wrecks and deaths are the under 30 and on a sportbike crowd. When a cruiser goes down it is usually not because of dangerous riding. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by B.J. or Jo on 06/14/13 at 09:46:44 DR 800 S Big 1996 Overall Length: 2,265 mm (89.2 in) Overall Width: 865 mm (34.1 in) Overall Height: 1,325 mm (52.2 in) Seat Height: 876 mm (34.5 in) Wheelbase: 1,520 mm (59.8 in) Ground Clearance: 230 mm (9.1 in) Dry weight: 194 kg (427 lbs) Engine type: Water-cooled 779 cc single cylinder 4-stroke. OHC, SACS, 4 valves. Dual carb. 54 hp (40 kW)/ 6,600 rpm, 62 Nm (6.32 kg-m)/ 5,400 rpm. 5-speed. Too bad they wouldn't update the S40 with the motor from the DR BIG 800 Single Dual Purpose :o |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Serowbot on 06/14/13 at 10:30:06 dr800...slightly modified... ;D... http://www.advrider.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=272571&stc=1&d=1308771084 http://www.advrider.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=272570&stc=1&d=1308770545 |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dane Allen on 06/14/13 at 11:42:51 WOW!!! Very Nice!! |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by paulmarshall on 06/14/13 at 11:53:44 I agree very nice. What is that fuel tank off? |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Paladin. on 06/15/13 at 11:07:11 1F24293E2F23383E252D203F4C0 wrote:
You first post starts with a false statement. The Savage *is* a good Interstate Cruiser: http://www.savageriders.com/paladin/LA-OKC/1000_Smiles.jpg Bedroll, tent, suitcase, etc. in the saddlebags, down I-40 doing over 500 miles a day -- very comfortable, for me. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/15/13 at 11:57:33 292C21292C2D272C430 wrote:
I beg to differ, but all DRs, regardless of engine size, have ALWAYS been AIR cooled. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by paulmarshall on 06/15/13 at 13:16:46 40717C7174797E100 wrote:
You first post starts with a false statement. The Savage *is* a good Interstate Cruiser: http://www.savageriders.com/paladin/LA-OKC/1000_Smiles.jpg Bedroll, tent, suitcase, etc. in the saddlebags, down I-40 doing over 500 miles a day -- very comfortable, for me. [/quote] I have no issues riding my Savage at freeway speeds.Even when it was stock. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by engineer on 06/15/13 at 17:24:51 When I started riding motorcycles only a few saw it as a sport. Most of us rode them for transportation and they were great for a kid. They were cheap and simple to maintain. They didn't take up a lot of space like a car so you could squeeze one into whatever shelter you had available. The interstate highway system was mostly on drawing boards and Japanese bikes had not yet arrived in rural America. We had lots of great bikes to ride from Europe, Jawa, Puch, NSU, BMW, and lots of Italian bikes and there was the Harley Hummer which did pretty good for 160 cc. We didn't need a lot of cubic inches and considered a 250 a midsized bike and a 500 BMW or Triumph a really big bike. They had all the power and fun we wanted. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/17/13 at 01:46:19 I agree. To this day, 45-50hp is the most the average motorcycle rider is able to keep under control. More than a war on "cubic centimeters", we are witnessing a war on raw hp, which, incidentally, is good for nothing. Here in Rome, Italy, I get my kicks seeing kids on 400cc supermotards (you may call them supermoto or motards...) smoke the 1200cc supersports... 180 hp are good for nothing if your 1st gear will achieve 60mph+, whereas a supermotartd will be in 3rd gear and preparing to slide around that oncoming bend... So, yes, I love my Savage. She's got all the power I need for putputting around and then some. 8-) ( :-/ ...maybe... if she had 40-ish hp... I wouldn't mind... sometimes those superscooters really get on my nerves... :-[ ) |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/17/13 at 04:00:54 I''mmmmm Baaaack! I just got back from the Dragon Weekend spend with other forum members riding in Tennessee and North Caroliina. My measely 30+ horsepower and 650 cc made me smile all weekend. I didn't feel the need for any more HP all weekend. On the 11 miles nad 318 curves of the Dragon the sportbikes could fly past me in the curves or on the straignts.....but when I saw the width of those gummy rubber slicks they were running it does not surprise me that the tires stick like glue. I also noticed that the riders had leather with big road rash gouges.......and that is not where I want to be at this point in my life! I talked to one fellow about his fall and he said he is not sure what happened.....it just scooted out from under him for no apparent reason.....he suspected maybe his tires were cold or the pavement was damp in that corner. I would like to be able to cruise at 65-70 mph with the rpms down around 3,500 rpm.......that would make the interstate stuff a bit more peacefull - but I don't believe a 650 has enough power/torque at that low rpm to make that work well. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Borracho on 06/17/13 at 21:11:21 I usually ride 65-70mph on my daily commute. The road is not a freeway, but a long stretch without any stops or exits. I could go faster, but there are a couple rough spots and the Savage suspension tosses me around at that speed. |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by mpescatori on 06/18/13 at 02:55:48 "I would like to be able to cruise at 65-70 mph with the rpms down around 3,500 rpm.......that would make the interstate stuff a bit more peacefull - but I don't believe a 650 has enough power/torque at that low rpm to make that work well. " I don't remember the formulas right now, but you would have to figure out: - how much hp the Savage delivers at 3500 rpm, - how much hp is required to push and maintain the Savage at 70mph. If the delivered hp is greater than the required hp,. then all you need to do is to do a chain conversion and find the correct final ratio to ensure you are cruising at 70mph at the desired 3500 rpm. However, please be informed... - I did the chain conversion, and modified the final drive ratio from 2.96:1 to 2.88:1 (17/49) => 3% longer - I replaced the old 140/80x15 with a 140/90x15 (it was a mistake, really, but the final drive ratio was nonetheless modified by another 4%. Thus, the overall final drive is now 7% longer and I cruise at 60mph with an indicated speed of 55mph... ...the downside is that below 3000 rpm 4th gear is useless, have to shift down into 3rd... |
|
Title: Re: Cubic Centimeter War Thread! Post by Dave on 06/18/13 at 04:25:26 7B66736575776279647F160 wrote:
I am not doing a chain conversion. I love my clean rear wheel, lack of chain maintenance, and long belt life. I will be switching to a Kawasaki EN454 front pulley that will change the tooth count from 23 to 25, and there is a rear pulley from another bike that is a bit smaller......that one will drop the tooth count from 68 teeth stock to 65 teeth. The combined front/rear changes will drop the gearing from 2.95 to 2.60. Serowbot's 5 speed chart shows the 5 speed to be turning 4,700 rpm at 70....so this change will drop the rpm down to 4,133 at 70.....which will be a noticeable change and the best I can do with a belt drive. I also have an 18" rear wheel which has a larger diameter than stock - so that has bumped the gearing up a bit. I imagine this to take a couple of months to complete.....I will post an update when it is finished and in operation. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |