Triumphrat

gladgd

It seems as though it's as tight as can be on outright power figures between the new R6 and the 675, with alot of reports putting it at less than 1BHP either way whoever's top. The most interesting number I've seen comes from this week's MCN. The guys at BSD, a well respected tuners, say that at 10K rpm the 675 makes 22BHP more than the R6.

That says all that needs to be said, really.

Greg

__________________
You take the high-side and I\'ll take the low-side, and I\'ll be out of hospital before \'ye...

Will

It is all about gearing. If the 675 is making the same power at a given ground speed as the R6, then it is even. Never mind engine speed. The 675 starts to run out of steam around 13K to 13.5K, and the R6 continues to spin for a few more K. Never mind the bogus 17K redline, it still spins higher.

Now, the big question is how many of us go ripping around town at 10K, no matter what bike we are on! The real world power comparison comes at about 6K rpm. My guess is that a 675 walks all over any 600 you care to name at that engine speed.

__________________
Will
It's a squid thing. You wouldn't understand.
SponsorHouse profile

sprintrsdawg

Okay, so the 675 makes its power at 10k and the R6 makes it at 14k. One's a triple and the other's a four. The power is delivered differently. I like my TT for its high rev spinning. I like my RS for its low rev torque. I like them both.

The 675 is not going to be "better" than the R6 or any other supersport. It is going to be different, and maybe that difference will be a good one.

I know that Triumph has been dismissed for a very long time by "real" racers, but do we really want to get into a pissing match at this point?

I may be eating my words after the racing season, but I don't look for the 675 to be king of the supersports--and I AM a Triumph fan.

Can you tell I had a rough day? :evil:

Kurt

__________________
"I have kicked myself mentally a hundred times for that stupidity.... I didn't understand then how foolish quick assumptions like that are. Now we are on a twenty-eight-horse machine and I take the maintenance of it very seriously." R. Pirsig, Z&AMM

gladgd

Yeah, but everyone's allowed that once in a while. I'm very aware that the two engines make their power differently, but that's why Triumph's in general appeal. The reason I mention that power difference is that, to me, it's vastly preferable to have those delivery characteristics. They're neck and neck on peak power, but I wouldn't have the R6 for all the tea in China (or Japan, whatever).

I wish the D675 well for racing, and actually think it will do well, but I'm concerned about the road rather than the track first and foremost.

Greg

__________________
You take the high-side and I\'ll take the low-side, and I\'ll be out of hospital before \'ye...

Uncorrugated

All of the British publications judge a sportsbike on how good it is on track.

Most of them readily admit that Triumphs tend to be better than their couynterparts on the road - and then dismiss them out of hand because they are 1/2 a second slower around a 2 mile circuit. Realistically, the average road rider won't get within 15 seconds of those times regardless of the bike they ride.

Yes I do track days on my TT, but most of my riding is on the road, often 2 up, and found the TT almost ideal for all of these things. I rode the opposition, weighed up the situation and then ignored all the sensible stuff and bought with my heart and not my head!!!!
:-D

PragB

Well, if the 675 can go on a track against the R6 and get beat by 0.007 seconds, when the rider riding both had more practice laps on the R6, I think that mean it should be more than able to hold it's own on the track...

__________________
Ride, Eat, Sleep - Repeat

Kilibreaux

A triple displacing 675cc is going to be "torquier" than a 600cc "four"--especially a Yamaha due to their ultra-short stroke configuration. However, horsepower is a function of rpmxtorque, and an engine that spins faster will rule in the horsepower arena...though what that means in the real world is pretty irrelevant.
On the track, the "right answer" has already been proven...rpm rules...horsepower rules. Look at WHO dominates racing...and who is competitive only in "brand" racing--Ducati. Ducati is married to the notion of 90 degree twins--torque motors to be sure, but well behind the likes of Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki in terms of horsepower, and it shows when they race together. Ducati's "compensation" is a superior chassis with excellent handling, which, on twisty courses with short straights allows it to be competitive, relying on torque down low to pull hard off the turns while the rpm bikes can't maximize their ultimate acceleration advantage.
The best example of this was a comparison--one which should have embaressed Ducati (but probably didn't), where they ran a $30K 999 against an $11K Suzuki GSX1000R on the track. While the reviewers blathered about how refined and nifty the Duck was, and how it "seemed" faster out of the corners than the gixxer, the FULL story was revealed by the entire TRACK TIMES with the 1/3 priced gixxer literally eating the Duck's LUNCH to the tune of several seconds--several entire SECONDS is a LONG way apart in real life.

The GSX is cranking out a lot more horsepower than the 999...and horsepower is best thought of as "the ability to go fast--FASTER".

So Triumph has upped the ante for STREET bikes--because there is no racing class for the 675, and the extra 75 or so cc's, distributed across one less lung, WILL make a "better" street-fighter, and since Triumph spins the triple "fast enough" to make competitive horsepower--with the smaller 600s, it will also be equal at the top-end, and thus a pretty good all-arounder. However, let's think about this a minute...where does this ultimately end. Kawasaki has THEIR version of a "street" 600...two actually, the ZX-6R "636", and the new K650 twin...not even intended to be horsepower competitive, but "torquey". So next year out comes what? A "new" 700? Then a "new" 750...and so on until the 600s have disappeared completely--morphing into....LITERBIKES! Wow! What a concept...with a full liter displacement, the former 600 class bikes would be REALLY powerful...wait, hasn't that already been done?

The fact is, RACING is the true test of metal (and man)...by going above 600cc displacement, Triumph has chosen to vie for the street market, while avoiding the cost of fielding, or factory supporting a racing program such as the other manufacturers do, but this comes with a price...loss of a certain credibility gained by competing and WINNING in a class deliberately DESIGNED to create competition. While Triumph devotees will "pooh pooh" this as being irrelevant, even an "unfair" suggestion because they LIKE what Triumph has done--as do I, the fact remains, Yamaha, and the rest RACE, and for many people, the old addage "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" represents a certain street legitimacy. These guys will by an R6, or a GSX600R, or even pony up more for a ZX-6RR over the 636 because THEY are "real racing bikes", embued with the special "magic" gained from being seen blasting out of corners, accelerating hard down the straights...even thought the 675 may well be the BEST STREET "six-hundred something" bike in the world, nobody will see that name jockeying for position at Laguna Seca. Nobody will ever see Valentino Rossi proudly sitting atop a Triumph fresh off his latest win, and ultimately, nobody will ever see as much PRINT from the motorcycle press cooing over the capabilities of the D675...instead we'll continue to see the usual comparisons of "real" (or imagined) "racing bikes".
For those who will say Triumph can't compete in the racing arena because it's not as big as the others I must point out, THEY weren't always giants...they got where they are by investing in racing...transplanting what they learned and developed into the street, and thus have achieved something that cannot simply be purchased by advertising dollars.
So with all that said...regardless of how great the 675 is, comparisons will always come across feeling a bit "empty"...so what if the 675 shades the R6 a bit...it's still not a REAL racing bike, only an over-hyped STREET pretender...not how I personally feel mind you, but how the general performance motorcycling world thinks. Personally, I MIGHT buy one if it weren't priced just under some totally fabulous, race-proven LITER bikes, which will handle just as well or better, and can eat it alive ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

plagued

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The Triumph was built specifically to enter into the supersport racing along side the other supersport pure race bikes such as the R6, GSXR and 749 The rules stipulate that you can have up to a 600cc 4 cylinder or 750 twin, so Triumph specifically chose 675 as the size of it's engine to fit in between these two. 675 triples have been added on Triumphs request to the supersport class. So you will see the 675 racing side by side with the other 600 and 750 "real racing bikes" The proof will be in how well these bikes can be tuned within the tight restrictions of supersport racing.
And finally on your last point, the new R6 has been beating the R1 round tracks if you have a read up, which means the D675 will more than likely beat the R1 round some tracks. It's not always down to the size of the engine, have you seen the speed of the 125 and 250cc races!

sprintrsdawg

Now THAT was a worthwhile meeting of minds, plagued and Kilibeaux! Yes, I'm serious. Good perspectives and good points.

The 675 does fit, and fairly I think, in the supersport class when the cylinder allowance is factored in. And on tight, technical courses it should be competitive. But once top speed becomes important, I just don't see the 675 being able to hold its own. Then again, as pointed out, how much can the motor be tuned?

The point about corner speed is a good one, but there's no reason the 600s won't be as fast as the 675s. They are, in essence, running the same weights and chassis. I thnk the liter bike discussion sort of muddied the waters a bit.

You know, the most interesting thing to come out of the 675 may be a new riding style. The reviews have commented on the riders' need to let the motor work down low. So, what will we have between the "arc" approach of the lightweights and the "point and shoot" of the heavyweights"? Probably something like the modified approach of the supersports. Surprise
:-D

Imagine: the 600 riders draft the 675 riders, who will have torque, out of the turns and then pass them in the straight, only to have the 675 riders draft them into the next corner. What becomes important? Yep, braking. And how does one gain an advantage in braking once everyone has good brakes? Yep, you grow a bigger set.
It really could make for some exciting dicing. I hope we get to see this at a level like BSB.

There are a few teams who will be racing the 675 with serious intentions this year. Even at the club level (WERA, CCS, etc) we should learn something about the bike. If things work out at this level, look for pressure to have the bike legalized at the national and international levels. Maybe we'll see a triumph back at IofM!

__________________
"I have kicked myself mentally a hundred times for that stupidity.... I didn't understand then how foolish quick assumptions like that are. Now we are on a twenty-eight-horse machine and I take the maintenance of it very seriously." R. Pirsig, Z&AMM