+1 on the stroke....On 2007-01-23 13:14, HarriS wrote:
Not with the same engine. The current 1050 engine has too long stroke and would not rev enough to make the 180hp at the crank to be competitive with the japs. 1000cc shorter stroke triple would make something like 160hp+ at the crank and please enthusiasts but not win tests which would hurt the sales big time.
I own a daytona 675 AND an S3. The 675 with a standard pipe is faster than my S3 which has TOR cans + tune on it. It also has great torque although not quite as much as the S3. It`ll also pull second gear wheelies once you get the hang of it. If they make a 675 speed triple it`s going to be very hard justifying continuing to make the 1050. The speed four didn`t catch on because it was ugly and had fuelling issues. It was a stripped down TT600, a bike which also didn`t catch on.On 2007-01-23 15:57, kwajazz wrote:
Would you rather have a 675 speed triple than your 1050?? If so, I'm curious why.
I personally find that combination to be backwards from my tastes. Why would you want half the torque of the 1050 and be required to keep revs real high to get even that much? To me, most of the fun of the 1050 S3 is the bucket-'o-on-demand-torque.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Yes, torque:weight ratios are actually more accurate for comparing acceleration rates than power:weight. But you also nee to compare gearing (a torque multiple).On 2007-01-24 16:48, kwajazz wrote:
Is there any relevance to comparing Torque to weight, like is often done with power (HP) to weight??