Paladin. wrote on 02/14/08 at 15:10:24:

Well, you’re almost right.
Torque counts for nothing until gearing is factored in – it’s the tractive force at the tyre-tarmac interface that accelerates you.
Sure, in any two vehicles with the same overall gear ratio, the torquiest motor will accelerate you best, but that’s why we have choices of gear ratios.
A higher-revving motor may produce less torque at the flywheel but allows you to use more advantageous gear ratios to actually put more torque through the back wheel than a lower-revving unit with more flywheel torque.

That’s why race cars and bikes, whether circuit racers or dragsters, build for power and revs.

Interesting, Paladin.  I didn't realize there were so many singles out there.  It looks like they're mostly dual purpose/off road.  I used the GZ250 in the MSF class, and I had assumed it had inline twin 125 cylinders for some reason.  It's too bad an insider can't tell us the future of the S40 line.  You're right, there's no reason not to use DR650 engine, one would think.

Paladin. wrote on 02/14/08 at 15:10:24:

J Mac wrote on 02/15/08 at 10:48:50:

You'll also notice that the list of multi-cylinder dirt capable bikes is rather short.  Why?  Because horsepower is not the end all be all of performance.  City streets and dirt both favor lightweight and torque -- which is the forte of the Thumper.  The past 30-40 years have seen a shift toward high speed performance -- pushed by racers and manufacturers who rather sell a overpriced race replica than something useful.  A lot more money in it.  Thus, we have pitiful selection of small and mid-sized bikes, and a glut of large, extra large and gigantic bikes -- all capable of speeds well into the triple digits.

  When the ls650 first came out Suzuki called it a entry-level bike, because it was light weight and had a low seat.

Keith_T wrote on 02/15/08 at 06:37:02:




It was a 2003.  By the time I finally gave up on it, it had many variations from stock:  front disc brake, high output oil pump, alloy cylinder with higher compression piston, cylinder head temp gauge, right foot shift restored (eliminated a whole bunch of jack shafts under the bike), spring mounted solo saddle, rear luggage rack with removable sprung pillion saddle, upgraded valves, relocated battery, K & N air cleaner, and, oh yeah, I replaced the stainless steel screws holding the fenders in place with brass bolts and acorn nuts because it looked better with the gold pin striping!

Prior to it's throwing the primary chain through the cases, it really did perform well, or at least well enough for what it was.

I came to the conclusion that there were only two types of Enfield owners who are happy with the bikes:

1  Those who keep them mechanically stock and never go over 50 mph

2  Those who do performance mods, but consider a weekend spent rebuilding an engine on their own quality motorcycle time

Not falling into either group, I will not be getting another one!

I do understand that they now have a new, improved lean burn engine, but I'm not willing to invest my money to find out if it represents a real improvement at the practical level.

Sure was pretty, though:



And the bottom photo was taken before I relocated the battery!

Hmm.. I doubt my state would set our standards above Federal.  I'm all for cleaner emissions, but I'm tired of the law-abiding people being punished.  We're subject to older vehicles driven by landscapers here that appear to burn about 1/4 of the gasoline delivered through their carbs/injectors and release the rest directly through the tailpipe in the form of vapor.  Following them makes you feel like you have an open gas can in your cab (or helmet).  I guess changing plugs, cleaning the fuel system, or making sure their engine fires on all cylinders never occurred to them.  Why does the government pick on us regarding emissions, when we get 45 - 55 mpg and almost always drive far fewer miles per year than cars?

I looked at the Suzuki UK Site, and they are not offering the 250, If we want a "Suzuki type" 250 we need to go to a Hyosung Agent.

However Suzuki do promote two 125 cc Cruisers.
1. A Single Cylinder air cooled "Marauder"
2. A Twin Cylinder Liquid Cooled "Intruder"

The next Size up here is 800, and then if you have a limited License (halfway between a Learner License and a Full License)  a restrictor kit needs to be fitted to strangle it to 33BHP from its MASSIVE? 51 BHP

The 33BHP figure was a change to a previous "rule" where the Limit was 250cc but I think some 250 then were starting to produce more BHP, so the legislators came ans sat on the BHP Fence and allowed restriction kits to be fitted with an important and expensive
"Certification".

I believe that some people find that these restrictor kits mysteriously "fall off" or "disappear" shortly after the rider gets his certificate and Insurance.

It is illegal to Ride a Bike greater than 33BHP without a restrictor unless you have a Full license

Paladin. wrote on 02/16/08 at 13:21:35:
You bragged about not being insured when riding in the UK too.
I guess insurance doesn't matter if you don't care about the little kid you might run over.
For somebody who knocks sportbike riders for being adenaline junkie fools, you seem to have some pretty twisted standards of morality.