Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

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.

What price progress ?

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by incitatus, Sep 23, 2005.

  1. I have just been comparing the specs of SWMBOS 'new' 1983 Benelli Quattro 250 against a couple of more modern 250 4 strokes and came up with an interesting picture. It seem 250's have got;

    More Complex
    Higher Revving
    More powerfull

    And almost no damn quicker! An interesting example of how bike horsepower figures can be more about marketing, and less to do with performance.

    1983 Benelli QUATTRO 122.0 kg 19.70 kW 10,500 155kph
    1989 VT250 SPADA 143.0 kg 25.35kW 12,000 150kph
    2001 Honda CB250RR 158.0 kg 33.00kW 16,500 160kph

  2. Spadas can only go 50 km/h?
  3. Yeah, but there's more to performance than outright speed & you can't deny that the newer bikes are producing more power.
  4. Doh!..........typo, fixed, 150kph
  5. Should be noted that Japanese 250s are actually limited in power to no more than 40ps which has probably hindered their development somewhat. Interesting stats on the CB250RR - makes it only 2 kgs lighter than my steel-framed 91 Katana with the same power output so maybe you've got a point. Of course to be truly fair you'd need to look at torque figures too.
  6. hehehehe, them stats arent quite right. :wink:

    not so sure about the spada, i do think its a little quicker than that, but it is also a twin and not that much newer than the benelli. but the CBR revs out to 18,500 (RR is like 21,000 for a memory) and is DEFINATELY quicker than 160kph :LOL: i was sitting behind one with my bandit maxed out at 175 (down a hill :LOL: ) and it was still pulling away very gradually. oh, and the CBR was first made in 89 i think and was unchanged till they stopped making them in 99, dunno where you'd get an 01 model from :wink:

    but yeah, look at the GSXR750 from 1985, its dry weight was 170kg and power was 100hp. fast forward a few years and the ZX7R from 1996 weighs 210 dry and has an extra 20hp. not that theres any real decision to be made as to which one i'd prefer to ride, the ZX7 is a MUCH better bike in every way, just not as small and light.

    but then, i guess i dont have to tell you that its not all about power to weight and top speed eh :wink:
  7. For the similarly metrically challenged (like me):
    19.7kW = 26.4HP
    25.35kW = 34HP
    33kW = 44.3HP

    Looks like a reasonable increase to me...
  8. But what do you mean by more power? That's just a word in a brochure without some context. The bikes are now heavier, so more HP is needed just to maintain equality in useable power. The motors are more complex, and higher revving, and those with performance close to the Quattro are all liquid cooled.

    The bottom line has to be useable performance, and in that respect an extra 5kph in 25 years seems a pretty small return for increasing cost and complexity.
  9. Would gearing have much to do with the top speeds?

    My '92 ZZR250 used to do 175kph (on the track) before the radiator cap let go!!!! I pull up and its "Look out you're on FIRE!!"
  10. Interesting, the official specs for my bike are
    Weight = 160kg (dry)
    Power = 40ps@13,500
    Torque = 2.7 kg-m @ 10,000

    But the official Honda stats for the CBR250 sold here in '99 are:
    Weight = 158kg (dry)
    Power = 40ps@14,500
    Torque = 2.4 kg-m @ 11,500

    No real improvement there, maybe it's just proof that Hondas suck
  11. its more like 6 years (cbr was released in 89 and went completely unchanged till the end) and its ALOT more than 5kph :wink: my slightly lighter (than the CBR) 95 bandit was able to hit 175 and i know the CBR-R (not RR with the extra 2,000 rpm) was quicker than that so it makes it at least 20kph quicker :wink: plus most likely a reduced time in getting to those speeds....
  12. CBR figures are from CBR250RR owners group. Ditto 2001 specs. Must have been a late registration :?
  13. ahhhh yeah, thats peak power @ ## rpm, they rev MUCH higher than that. possibly the max speed reading was based on that too?

    hahahahaha :LOL: ...... DERRRRRRRR :p

  14. Actually I had to go back that far to get figures even close to the Quattro. All the current 2005 250 4 strokes are even SLOWER.
  15. all i guess this really proves is that a bunch of specs thrown around the net means around abouts stuff all in the real world :wink: :p

    and they mean even less if you cant ride to save your life, but thats another story all together :LOL:
  16. Sounds like Honda were deliberately "fiddling" the figures so as not to exceed the Japanese 40ps limit. Of course my own bike will wind out well past the stated 13,500 rpm "peak power" output so I reckon Honda aren't the only ones doing this.
  17. I think the only real improvements have been in Tyres and Brakes....HUGE improvement...and suspension (less so). Also in the ability to meet ever stricter environmental legislation. When you paid for 1HP back a while, you got 1HP, now you get 1/2 for you, and 1/2 for the tree huggers.
  18. Why is everybody so obsessed with speed?

    Look at race bikes, top speeds have changed very little over the similar period, does that mean there has been little progress there too?
  19. zachery what i was saying :wink:

    besides, you cant go past 110 anyways can you? i know i havn't ever :shock: :oops: :p

  20. That is getting dangerously close to a philosophical question. What do we mean by progress? Racing is now mainly about selling, when it was once about entertainment. I offer no opinion, but to ask if this is progress is surely open to debate.