Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by kiss_the_future, May 24, 2005.
What sets either apart?...besides the sound of course.
V-Twins are all about torque down low. They also burn a hell of a lot of fuel.
Inlines rev higher and make their power up top. They generally make more peak power then a similar size V-twin.
I would like to dispute the fact that twins use more fuel, I regularly get 19 - 21 km per litre out of my Ducati at a good rate of travel. I would not call that burning a hell of lot of fuel
V-twins are a bit of a mith.
Capacity for capacity an in-line 4 will match a v-twin down low but then kick it's arse up high.
When a open class jap bike weighed 210 kg and a duck weighed 195 kg they used to be able to claim a weight advantage, but these day the in-line 4 have got that well and trully covered.
I've alway maintained that the Ducati's had an unfair capacity advantage in WSB, because the weight the 4 were required to carry for their capacity didn't match production reality. The sad result was that Honda and Suzuki were forced to drop the caracter defining engines and go after the championship with v-twins.
Proof of the pudding is in the fact that Ducati don't race a v-twin in the open class these days
Add to this Ducati's cost a fortune to maintain and the in-line jap bike is the clearly better bike.
AND if I read one more time the a 90 deg v-twin is perfectly ballanced I'm going to dong someone. THEY ARE NOT!. They have zero PRIMARY imbalance, as does an in-line 4
The only good point about a v-twin is that it has lower power, thus allowing the rider to ride the bike at it's limit.
Haveing ranted about this, I would bye a VTR1000 at the right price and the Aprilla 60 deg v-twin is a really neat design from an engineering point of view
Why do people keep saying Ducatis are expensive to maintain. Why is it that they have a 10000km service interval and 20000 for major service when from what I have been told the other makes tend to be lower eg 6000. So when I have had 3 services the lower interval has had 5. brings the costing even in my eyes.
Twins. Brilliant note. Great torque in the legal speed range. The Storm, not brilliant on the fuel at around 6.5litres per 100k (2x48mm carbies take a lot of feeding). For me, top end speed is not a priority.
This is a guess, but do you prefer in-line fours by any chance?
Not one mention of opposing twins in this thread. That makes me sad
What's wrong with them? Why does nobody like them?
Is it me?
V-Twins are more 'primitive' than 4's from a pure bang-per-buck point of view. The general rule is the more cylinders the better (that's why F1 cars use V10+).
That said you have to consider space on a bike and a V2 affords you a very narrow bike although the latest Jap 4's are also getting pretty narrow by running the frame rails over the engine rather than around it.
My personal favorite engine design is an 'out-of-line' v-triple, unfortunately nobody makes one
The number of cylinders may go up in the next few years though with the CBR V5 road going prototype and also rumors of a Honda V6 or even a V8 being dreamed up in a lab....
Does this question have to revert to a Ducati Vs Jap debate?
Eeeeh, you might wanna check the thread title. V-twin. That would suggest opposed twins are out of the question.
They use V10's cause thats what the regulations say they must use. When it was free for all there were a range of motor configs being used. Heck, Ferrari uised both a V12 or a V6 depending on where.
Most things have been covered. One thing Ive heard a lot is that V-twins are an aquired taste. They certainly lack the top end, and after 3-4000rpm an inline 4 will eat a v-twin. I have a few mates with v-twins and they have a very difficult time sticking with me thru reefton. That said Id certainly have a couple in my dream garage. If you ever have to make the decision, go and ride everything you can. You'll soon find out if you like twins.
Nice comment there. Such a pity that reality has to intrude. A V-twin has much more low end power than a four. Trouble is, the twin has more displacement per cylinder and consequently is not as easily designed to make higher revs. The four only (and I mean only) has an advantage at higher revs. Simple mechanics really.
Not convinced - OK take a VTR250 and a CBR250RR. The VTR250 can pull away at 3000 revs, it wont like it but it can still manage. By ibasts argument a CBR250RR should be able to take off and keep up with the VTR250 at 3000 revs. Does it?
Compare an r1 and a 919 and you will see my point.
It's not that I don't like V-twins. Quiet the opposite. It's just that there has been a myth perpetuated by some very biased journalists about a certain brand. The price of this particular brand reflects the myth not the reality
No, good example. You offered an oversimplified black and white statement that I thought needed challenging. Done!
So the R1 is more powerful than the 919. Comes down to the individual bike design rather than a blanket statement that 'capacity for capacity an in-line four is more powerful than a V-twin at any rev range'
OK Monkey, you have a point.
If you wish to compare a commuter with a race bike!
But you are right about one thing. v-twins make good commuters
The 4 will stutter and fart it's way from 3-6000rpm (by which time the twin is gone), then the 4 kicks in, catches up and complies with the rest of your statement.
A direct comparison was the Bandit12 and the V-Strom I had at the same time (some time back). The Bandit is known as an "exceptional grunter" amongst the 4-pot range. Still couldn't hold it own against the twin up to 5500-6000rpm. Then stormed off once past that "line".
how is it that just about every thread turns into a shit fight :?
Just a disagreement on a technical matter - nothing to worry about.
We're all still friends here
Debate is healthy.