Motus Motorcycles is making progress. There’s a write up in the latest Motorcyclist magazine that adds some numbers to the general information we already have. The 525 pound MST-01 sport tourer is aiming for 140 horsepower at 7800 rpm and 120 foot pounds of torque at 4500 rpm. The 90 degree V4 will be mounted longitudinally, as shown above, with a single cam in the valley of the V pushing 2 valves per cylinder. Engine should be running early this year with motorcycle production for 2011 if the EPA is satisfied. Prices will be in the mid $20k range.
Interestingly, the MST-01 will utilize chain drive with a bevel drive redirecting power from the longitudinal V4 arrangement.
Sales will be direct from the Alabama factory until a dealer network can be set up. A higher spec MST-R is planned as a follow up.
Link: Motus
Related: Motus – a New American Motorcycle
Related: Motus Partners with Pratt and Miller
hoyt says
Attractive frame and torque. Hopefully the styling will reveal glimpses of the trellis section. Lookin’ good
Simon says
120 lb ft? So that’ll be from around 1600cc? So a 1.6 liter sports-tourer, why would you want chain drive then? I also think the hp-figure is quite low at 140 bhp.
The competition to this would be Honda VFR 1200 F, BMW K1300 S, Kawasaki GTR 1400. All of those have shaft drive and 170 hp plus, maybe not as much torque, but I haven’t heard anyone say they’re lacking.
John McDowell says
I do not know the details behind this company, but an alternative would be to get a used Honda model ST-1100, or ST-1300, and try to wrap a tube frame around either of those.
Good luck, and I hope the trellis frame is exposed as a final product.
todd says
I’ve grown used to shaft drive (not that there’s much to get used to) for my long distance machines. It’s quiet, clean, never needs adjustment or replacement… I understand using a chain for cost reasons and easy final ratio swaps but with that much power you can use whatever gear you want and still have more power than can be usable even with a shaft. Plenty enough power to stretch chains on a regular basis.
Funny with bike that have this much power (and there are plenty with more as noted above) people buy it because of the specs but will never be able to use all of it. How would they know that it makes 140HP unless stuck on a dyno?
I wish Motus all the best though. Here’s to hoping they will eventually design something with a more usable power range.
-todd
Tin Man 2 says
Well here we go again, Torque moves the Bike, Horse Power is for racing. There is a large segment of Riders who value torque above HP, Most bikes are overpowered already, A high Reving high HP bike is a different ride than a torque biased bike, Frankly even 140 HP is more than can be used on the street, Im surprised any manufacturer is developing large bikes at this time. The market is shifting back to the lighter all rounder standards again, a reawakening of what riding is all about. Who here doubts that a modern 350 Scrambler would be a success?
Simon says
HP also sells, this bike doens’t have a USP like this. I don’t think “American Made” is one at least. I do agree that 140 HP/120 lb ft is enough, more than enough. I also kind of like the simplicity of one cam/2 valves.
I just really don’t understand chain drive. If the engine is made to be easy/cheap to maintain than it really makes a lot of sense to have a maintenance free final drive. I ride my bike daily, do about 10,000 commuter miles per year and strongly dislike the dirty chain and the need to lubricate it every 200 miles or so. (too bad there aren’t any sport twins with shaft or belt drive)
Willie says
Good luck to ’em. GM has proven good performance can be had from two valve engines. Hopefully, the engine will live up to expected horsepower and torque numbers. Simple is always better maybe that’s their approach to chain drive.
kim says
A Scottoiler mounted by the factory would make chain life less of a problem (can’t recall if the record is 110K miles or kilometres for one chain). Still I fail to to see the point of a small-scale production of a very pricey longitudally mounted V4, unless it has something the other V4’s don’t – aside from a chain and nice frame.
Walt says
I too wish them the best of luck. I think they’ll need both luck and a ton of cash, given what happened to Buell and the iffy state of the whole big toy industry in this crappo economy.
I think most street motorcyclists ride on torque, but many buy based on horsepower figures. There a pushrod, two-valve motor comes up short. Shouldn’t matter, but it may.
I’ve long been amused by the breathless reporting the major bike rags devote to tiny alterations in each new crotch rocket: wheelbase shorter by 5 mm, lighter by 2 KG, power up by 3 (on a base of 150-plus or so), frame with added flexibility for handling when on its ear. I’d bet one reader in 1000 could tell the difference in the saddle. I know I could not.
Mark B says
A lightweight, comfortable, high torque, mid-rev, sportbike/tourer with the DNA of a Corvette ZR1? Just make it look and sound wicked, then sign me up! Go Motus!
John says
The chain thing may or may not end up an issue,but that can be changed if it is.I like the idea of simple,light and with plenty of usable power and torque.The only ones not happy with those power and torque numbers would be the people sitting in thier dark little rooms reading and rereading the stats in magazines.
kneeslider says
I agree with Mark B and John, 120 lb ft at 4500 rpm will give you a very satisfying boot in the pants, combined with the sound of a V4 designed with a, most likely, lumpy idle and guaranteed to please the senses in a good looking and somewhat exclusive package, yes, indeed, that’s gonna make me smile.
American made is something to sweeten the deal for some of us, like I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the home team once in a while.
Paulinator says
When I read about this v4, I think about Confederate’s Corvette based V-twin. In either case significant development resources are/were wagered on very low (relatively speaking) production quantities. ROI and even project completion become less certain. What could be developed around the under-appreciated little Dodge 3.8 Liter v6? That engine is 13 inches across the valve covers and maybe 20 inches long, yet it snorts out around 245 ft-lbs of torque at 4200 rpm!
hoyt says
todd – “Here’s to hoping they will eventually design something with a more usable power range”
what is not usable about a power range with 120 foot pounds of torque at 4500 rpm ?
stacius says
I know from riding my AWESOME Buell that all that what really matters is a butt-in-the-seat riding experience. Until the the bike comes out, all talk is merely speculation. Mid-20K is more than I’d EVER want to spend on a bike, but I hope Motus makes me wish I could.
PeteP says
Yep, that’s what the market is crying for, another big sport-tourer.
How about a good mid-sized adventure bike?
Jim says
My bet is that the sport tourer market will want shaft drive or at least a belt, that buyer doesn’t want to mess with a chain. The wheelbase seems sport bike like rather than sport tourer, which have decent pillion accommodations.
Good luck to them.
WillyP says
From Motus:
“The MST-01 is a comfortable sportbike designed for long distance canyon carving and face-melting performance.”
There are lots of people who own “sport tourers” that would find this appealing. Sounds to me like they are aiming for the segment of the sport touring market who lean towards the sport side. Solo riding, just enough luggage for and overnighter. I’m still not convinced as to the wisdom of going with a chain drive, though. And I think heat from the pipes on the legs might be an issue, too.
Mark X says
Here we go again. Another high dollar mega-toy. Too bad. A good concept. Too good just to add to the junk pile of failed endevears. Aside from the unique factor, there is nothing to warant the high price of the buy-in. The fornula is simple. Good concept/product/value=A lot of sales=Stay in business=make money. I wonder why so many people don’t get it. Honda does. Ride Safe. Mark.
Walt says
Like the relatively low weight of the bike and hope they can stick with it. I imagine shaft drive would add . . . what, 100 pounds? How about a belt? That should help keep it light and free of chain lube mess.
todd says
I never quite understood the mantra “Torque moves the Bike, Horse Power is for racing”. At every RPM a motor is making horsepower. Horsepower is what moves the bike. Torque is a twisting force that creates horsepower depending on how rapidly it can twist. The faster it twists (higher RPM) the more power / ability it has. How fast the bike accelerates is based on how much horsepower is available at the rear wheel at that given speed. If you like how your bike accelerates at 40 mph then you like how much horsepower it is putting out at 40 mph.
I think the fascination (or is it fear?) is with RPM. People boast about their quantity of torque and how low that torque occurs in the rev range. Well I hate to break it to you but large torque figures at low RPM = low power, low acceleration. Now couple that with the extra high gearing that is required to bring you up to a reasonable road speed and the bike is handicapped even more. Let the motor spin higher RPMs and drop a gear or two and the amount of (horse)power available to move the bike along is MUCH greater.
What’s not usable about 120 lb/ft of torque at 4500 RPM? How often is anyone able to use 120 lb/ft of torque at 4500 RPM (102 HP to be exact) on anything other than a race track? That’s pretty much the equivalent of riding around on a CBR600 at full throttle. Sure “you control your throttle” but how much heavier does the motor / frame / swing arm / wheel have to be made to handle that much power? How much larger does the rear wheel and tire have to become, adversely affecting handling? How much larger does the radiator have to become? How much more often are you going to have to replace the chain – sprocket – rear tire? How much more does all this add to the cost?
How much larger, heavier, or expensive is this bike than that 350 scrambler that was suggested?
-todd
Tin Man 2 says
Hi Todd, Happy new Year! I once bought a new 1991? Dodge Spirit R/T, 2.2 litre, 4 valve, intercooled turbo twin OHC 5 speed. 2.2 lire 223HP with no low end torque,.The car was a Rocket, and I HATED it!! I traded it in less than a year later on a Chevy Sport PU with a throttle body 350 V8 and a 5 speed, this 350 had maybe 180 HP but gobs of Torque, It was not as fast as the Spirit R/T but much better to drive, instant torque is a pleasure to live with, Having to Rev the Snot out of an engine to make power gets old real fast!! IMHO Torque is much more valuable for street driving than HP, That is also Harleys true appeal, torque is addictive, HP is tiresome.
todd says
Wow, shaft drive adding 100 pounds? That means my BMW would weigh little more than 300 pounds if it had a chain. What were they thinking?
-todd
Walt says
Todd,
Note the question mark after my 100 lb comment. If not 100 lbs, how much weight DOES shaft drive add? Maybe there are other reasons many shaft drive touring bikes are so hefty. Perhaps the designers define touring performance in terms that emphasize wind protection, comfort, physical size, luggage and fuel capacity and other factors that add weight. Or maybe, like cruiser designers, weight just isn’t a concern in the touring category.
What BMW do you ride that weighs 400 lbs — an R75/5?
Al says
I am with PeteP. What the riding times coming ahead are going to demand is a better mid-size adventure bike:
Evinrude E-Tec 2-stroke technology tuned for over the road use. Super efficient. Clean. Light weight. Leaves more capacity for payload. Will use less oil than some 4-strokes. Is a modern CARB approved motor for Lake Tahoe, for example.
85/95 HP MAX. A 2-stroke with this HP will have plenty of snap.
Tune for milage/range. Gas is not gonna get any cheaper in 5 years.
Chassis similar to KTM 950A & WeeStrom, meaning plush longer travel suspension that is tuneable for wide range of loads/speeds/users. 19″ front/17″ rear.
Sounds like a WeeStrom with another 15/20 HP & less weight, which is what it would be.
todd says
Walt; yep, R75/5.
I don’t think a drive shaft adds much weight at all. This Motus requires a set of hefty bevel gears, a stronger swing arm and frame to resist the offset pull of the chain, the chain itself, a chain guard, and the sprocket (steel?). A shaft drive has a hollow tube shaft and a CV (or U) joint and also a bevel gear with housing. Maybe it’s a possible higher un-sprung weight on the rear wheel that’s the real trade-off besides the greater difficulty of changing ratios.
I also just recently acquired a (free) 650 Seca with a shaft drive. I don’t see any down sides, only pluses.
-todd
-todd
MARK says
Looks like a SCAT V-4.
John says
Al, I always thought that an outboard motor would make an interesting motorcycle motor.A Merc V4 or an Evinrude stripped of all the covers and unnessasary stuff could be light and very powerful.
coho says
It doesn’t have as much horsepower as the bike I own/aspire to own/dream about, so it sucks and it’s stupid to build it.
It has a different driveline than the bike I own/aspire to own/dream about, so it sucks and it’s stupid to build it.
It is heavier than the bike I own/aspire to own/dream about, so it sucks and it’s stupid to build it.
It’s not the same kind of bike as the bike I own/aspire to own/dream about, so it sucks and it’s stupid to build it.
I cannot afford it or cannot justify the cost of it to my self/wife/husband/parents/etc. so it’s just a rich boy’s toy & not a ‘real bike’.
________
MOTUS, do not listen to the interweb nay-sayers. If it’s good, people will buy it.
Ducatis & BMWs used to be ‘too expensive’, too.
hoyt says
nice coho. Even with the latest model revisions in the sport tour segment, that market segment still could use a dose of hotrod soul while not forgetting the long range intent. The Motus has the potential to fill that void the best.
Todd – not everyone has an infatuation with small bikes. Small bikes are great and a nice addition to a collection, but no one wants to wait on a 350 Scrambler when covering an entire western state by noon.
Acceleration? Ah, that is not what this is about. How about rolling through endless corners or stomping past an RV that is in your way without having to use too many revs? Usable power.
Jim says
Todd-Walt: Shaft drive probably adds 20-25#s to the bikes weight. You’re adding a drive shaft, ring and pinion and a case. You’re subtracting the chain and sprockets. You have a swing arm and bearings in either case.
What shaft drive adds is manufacturing complexity, resulting in added cost and it also adds another engineering challenge to making the bike handle well. For a small manufacturer, whose product is borderline expensive for the market, it makes sense to avoid complications.
Simon says
Shaft-drive doesn’t have to add that much. BMW HP 2 sport weighs 178kg dry and has shaft-drive. A BMW R1200GS weighs 199 kg dry, also not much for a big enduro.
@Coho, I think you’re a bit too fast with disregarding remarks about price, performance and useability. Priceways, Ducati and BMW have a reputation, and Motus hasn’t yet. So you can’t really compare yet.
There are very few companies that are succesful out of the blue, and if they are they have a real Unique Selling Point. This hasn’t yet, it’s not affordable, it’s unknown, it doesn’t tick all my ST boxes, although there still are some unknowns.
I’ll give my ideal list, to show where I come from:
-enough power/torque, 150 bhp, 130 nm
-low-ish weight, max 275 kg
-shaft drive
-ABS
-Luggage possibilities
-Max €20.000
-reliable
So price, ABS, and final drive a wrong for me. And since the VFR 1200F ticks all those boxes.
coho says
@Simon,
‘Performance’, ‘light’, ‘fast’, and ‘affordable’ are all extremely subjective terms. And I’m not sure what you mean by ‘usability’ in this context.
It just seems to me like there’s a whole bunch of comparing apples to alligators every time somebody has a moto-related idea. Brian Case is not building a better GoldWing, he’s building something new. I vote we give MOTUS an opportunity to impress us with a motorcycle rather than condemning them based on a non-final spec sheet. And bearing in mind that ‘I wouldn’t buy it’ is not the same as ‘nobody will buy it’.
PS. Who, exactly, is going to cross-shop a big-displacement V4 sport-tourer and a 350 scrambler?
todd says
I’m just thinking of what would make sense to me if I were to (finally) try to start my own motorcycle venture.
Let’s say there are 10,000 people in the market for a 140 horse V4 sport touring bike. I don’t know that I would go after that piece of pie with a unknown, unproven, more expensive bike with fewer features and lower specs than the ten or so existing, proven, competitive examples. Maybe if I’m lucky and hit 1% of that market that’s 100 bikes. Good work for a custom shop, terrible for a manufacturer. Let’s hope I don’t have any warranty issues with those first bikes.
On the other hand, let’s say there are 1000 people in the market for a (for argument sake) 350 scrambler. Who am I up against? What choices are there out there? Would it be foreseeable to reach half of that market? How about if I reduce my development costs and use existing, proven parts – DRZ400 engines perhaps. Maybe I could convince 3/4 of that market to buy in with a Suzuki lump in it. Maybe not. Even if I only hit 10% (and the remaining 90% sits around waiting for Suzuki or Honda to do it themselves) I’m still doing OK considering that I have less stakes involved. I wouldn’t have to worry about that container of motors I had sitting in the backyard a couple years later…
Maybe after a couple years or generations of proving my product and brand I can release that 140 horse, sport tourer I’ve been developing.
I’m trying to think of ONE successful motorcycle manufacturer that didn’t start out at the bottom with small cap bikes.
I still wish Motus all the best luck.
-todd
Jim Flower says
As this is a site for positive people, I’ll continue the tradition. Some very good comments here. My observations:
The frame work is interesting. Looks well thought out and aesthetic.
I’ll agree with Tin Man, a scoot with broad torque is way easier to ride.
Much has been said about the chain issue. Several factors have been overlooked in this discussion. It almost seems that no one here has experienced the reliability of an o-ring chain. They are clean and do not require adjustment, ever. A chain tensioner on the lower run helps control whipping vibration, especially at high speeds. (Just like a tensioner on an OHC engine.)
My background is in motorcycle drag racing. Go to a race some time, and walk through the pits. You will not find a shaft drive anywhere, or a rear belt for that matter. Chains are used because they work well. They are narrow, allowing large tires, and take extreme power well.
For example, I run an EK SHB 630 chain on my Top Fuel bike. On nitromethane, my 195″ PRP engine pushes about 900hp. Pass after pass, no chain adjustment is required. It just works well
I wish Motus the best in their endeavors, I believe they have a great concept.
Oh, and Happy New Year everyone!
Jim Flower
jimflowerllc.com
todd says
TinMan2. Happy New Year back at ya.
I’m sorry for the confusion. I thought people were saying a bike with more torque accelerated faster than a bike with more hosepower. I don’t argue with the suggestion that a torquey motor is easier to drive.
BTW, my wife’s Saab 2.0 turbo feels like it has more torque than my dad’s Ford F250. Maybe it’s just the gearing or the lower weight.
Maybe I’m the sort that doesn’t get tired of keeping a motor in its power band.
-todd
Simon says
I’m sorry about my negativity, I do like a lot of this design. I like te integrated luggage idea, and the push-rod V-4, and the design art.
I also like to compare it based on the proposed specs, and all targets fall into a very competitive field, in which BMW, Kawasaki, Yamaha and Honda have quite succesful models.
I wish Motus all the luck in the world, and I suggest learning from the other big sports-tourers.
@Jim Flower,
I agree that chains can last long and are a proven technology, but a drag-strip is very different from the road. Especially in winter, with salt on the roads, an open chain wears down quite rapidly.
A closed chain-case, oil-bath chain, belt or shaft-drive can be just about maintenance free, which is better in my eyes.
Jim Flower says
@Simon,
Yes, the drag strip is a long way from most folk’s reality. It is however a way to test concepts. The street demands are scaled down, as are the strength requirements.
I reside in rainy Washington State, and have ridden in this d@*n rain way too much.
A freind convinced me to try an o-ring chain back in ’85, claiming no adjustment in two years. I was quite skeptical, but went ahead and tried a Tsubaki Sigma chain. I was amazed at the zeo maintenance required even after years in our rotten weather! I must have ran that chain for a decade.
What kills chains is the water blasting downward from the tire sidewall directly into the side plates. O-rings prevent this effectively.
Just my two cents…ride safe!
Jim Flower
B.Case says
We appreciate all the support, and no doubt, we have a lot to prove. We have been getting a ton of nice emails from all over.
The first Motus is being designed for o-ring chain final drive. That may alienate a few people, but that’s okay, many will like it just fine. As a start up, we had to focus on the most important engineering hurdles, such as the clean sheet V4 and transmission. That work is almost done and we expect it to be awesome.
We also collected data from polls, too, because it was important to us to not make a bike that only we liked. Only 56% of 500 people cared about shaft, and that’s not enough to add yet another design challenge on our first product. After we get a reliable bike on the road, we will continue to listen to riders and work hard to evolve the designs. But, if the biggest debate on here is over the final drive, I think we’re doing pretty good.
And the performance numbers we released are just targets for engineering. We had to establish a baseline and that’s what our engineers will hit.
Thanks for the support,
-Brian
coho says
@ todd:
If by “successful” you mean still extant and not choppers, the smallest engine on this quick & dirty list is the Fischer at 650cc. The rest are all much bigger.
Confederate
Roehr
Ecosse Moto
Fischer
It’s not my intention to be snarky, just to show precedent. Also, in the mid 20th century (when many of today’s larger manufacturers were starting out) 350-500cc *was* a big bike.
Thom says
I’m not trying to pick any fights, but I think that the choice to use chain drive on this bike is excellent- I am not a fan of shaft drive AT ALL. It adds unsprung weight which affects suspension response (driveshafts and their gears are much heavier than chains and sprockets,plus the lube and housing) and the effect of the gears trying to “climb” inside the rear end usually causes unwanted suspension lifting and squatting, barring Moto Guzzi and BMW’s systems to counteract it. I will NEVER buy ANY motorcycle with shaft drive, and I think this design is geared toward people who think like me. Not saying there’s anything wrong with it, I just don’t like it.
Nicolas says
@ Todd and others about the torque vs power : you’re comparing apples to oranges here, a torque is a measure of force (a moment) while the HP is a measure of power, as it’s name indicates it.
Power is the derivative of a force, it’s the capacity to apply a force per unit of time, while torque is not related to time. The power is the product of the torque by the rotation speed, torque creates the power, not the other way around.
The torque being created by the force of the piston travelling down and applied to the rod, in a not-too-bad approximation you can say that the longer the stroke and the larger the bore the more torque you get, but it also limits the speed of rotation of the engine, therefore limiting the power output, while a short stroke/square bore can rotate at higher speeds but with a smaller amount of available torque. HDs pull out a gob of torque at low rpm but have a limited HP output, while a CBR gets healthy at high rpms.
What rotates your rear wheel is a torque, not a power, but the power is how fast you can apply this torque on the road. Acceleration is another story, the acceleration is the derivative of the speed, but acceleration is also coming from the torque, not the power.
So once again, we buy bikes for the HP, but we ride on the torque.
todd says
Nicolas, close. I like to call the force available at the rear wheel “thrust” since it is not a direct application of the torque that the engine provides. The torque at the crank needs to be transmitted through the primary drive, the clutch, transmission, final drive, and the wheel in many differing ratios. The advertised “torque” (measured at the crank) is not the same torque that is measured at the rear wheel. Thrust, being measured in conjunction with your road speed, can still be directly translated as horsepower. Horsepower is the basket in which all those apples are being counted.
At a steady 40 mph the torque measured at the crank can be 5 different amounts depending on which gear you are in. Measured at the rear wheel, a 600 I-4 could potentially have greater torque than a 1500 twin. The horsepower will be the same regardless of which motorcycle or gear as it is dependent on speed (wheel RPM and circumference) and thrust, not engine RPM or engine torque. The ability to accelerate from any speed is based on the amount of thrust potential available in the gear you are in – between current throttle position and full throttle at that speed. Lower gears will provide greater thrust since the engine torque is multiplied to a greater extent. A higher RPM engine is, by nature, already in a lower gear.
But, who cares?
-todd
hoyt says
“Maybe I’m the sort that doesn’t get tired of keeping a motor in its power band.”
todd – the riders who prefer low revving motors don’t either, right? wtf
—————————-
chain vs. shaft?
The decision for chain is a good one. My biggest complaint about my Guzzi’s shaft is not due to any torque-reaction but the limited options for light-weight wheels. The best way to improve performance for a STREET bike, regardless of its style or engine size, is to reduce wheel weight. Motus and its customers now have a huge list of options to choose from in order to increase this bike’s performance by going with chain drive.
todd says
Hoyt, I don’t appreciate the “wtf” tone. If you followed the post string you would remember that the complaint about high RPM bikes is that you had to rev them to enjoy their power. To me, this is the joy of a high RPM motor, just as much as low-rev power is the joy of low RPM motors. I own both and keep both in their respective power band. I don’t expect my high-rev motors to pull hard at 2500 RPM, mainly because the gearing is such that it’s only at that RPM at 2 MPH.
-todd
hoyt says
if you enjoy both and own both then don’t imply others who favor low rev/high torque motors do “get tired of keeping a motor in its power band”
-wtf
Simon says
@Jim, sorry to everyone for going off-topic.
“I was amazed at the zero maintenance required even after years in our rotten weather! I must have ran that chain for a decade.”
My bike has an o-ring chain, I still have to lube it every 250 km in good weather, do you count this as maintenance? I do, I think I really need a pro-oiler or something…
Greg says
Check the latest Cycle World article on Motus at http://www.cycleworld.com/article.asp?section_id=41&article_id=2102
These guys are for real and I’d bet the MST-01 is gonna be a really special machine. Maybe not for everybody, but there is a level of sophistication and thought behind this that we haven’t seen much out of the US lately, in any industry. If Case and Co can make this thing look sexy, it is gonna be desirable to a lot of us.
todd says
Hoyt,
Tin Man 2 said, \Having to Rev the Snot out of an engine to make power gets old real fast!!\
You said, \stomping past an RV that is in your way without having to use too many revs\.
Why this fear of revs? What is too many revs? At what point does snot come out of your engine? 5,000 RPM? For some bikes that’s too high and for some bikes that’s just getting started. It’s all relative. All it takes is a twist of the wrist, no effort, and sometimes it gets a little old when a rev limiter (or valve float) kicks in just when it starts to make power. I’ve been on bikes where that happens at 5000 RPM and others where that happens at 12000 RPM. If a bike is already cruising along the highway at 5 or 6000 RPM (like this free Seca I recently got) and I accelerate up to 7 or 8000 RPM (a little over 100mph) is that too much? I haven’t even gotten very close to the red paint on the tach at that point. If I try that maneuver on my BMW (that has \more torque\) it’s starting out at 3500 – 4000 RPM on the highway and I have to drop it into 3rd to pass. Forget about passing with as much authority as the Seca and, certainly, forget about any hopes of seeing 100mph. Sometimes this gets a little old but it’s OK because the BMW is so much more beautiful than that Seca.
And now I’ve had to go and explain myself for you not following along.
\WTF\? TTF.
-todd
hoyt says
once again todd rambles off topic.
where have I not followed along and where did I indicate “fear” of revs? It’s a preference that, in my opinion, makes more sense for street riding. You are the one that can’t seem to follow along with quotes such as:
“Here’s to hoping they will eventually design something with a more usable power range.”
and…
“how much heavier does the motor / frame / swing arm / wheel have to be made to handle that much power? How much larger does the rear wheel and tire have to become, adversely affecting handling? How much larger does the radiator have to become?”
Ask a Ducati rider in the last 15 years if they think their bikes have been made too heavy in order to handle the power. The 1198 now has 97 ft lbs. of torque and 170 hp and weighs 372 lbs. (dry). Adverse handling due to a 180 or 190 wheel size? you probably haven’t even owned a bike with that wheel/tire size.
————
Motus – the more I read and see about your efforts, the more I like. Sub-58 inch wheelbase, chain-drive, trellis frame, engine layout & internals; torque….fantastic
Nicolas says
@ Todd, your “thrust” is not a convincing definition. At the point of contact of the thire and the road, it’s a force that applies, not a thrust, and this force is resulting from the torque applied to the rear wheel and the radius of the wheel.
You theoritically can get any torque at the rear wheel with the transmission ratio, theoritically a 1 hp engine can provide you whatever torque you want. In theory. But in the real life, all the gears or whatever transmission stuff used will consume the available torque in the form of friction and mechanical losses. Therefore, the best way to get some “umph” at the rear wheel is to have an healthy engine that produces decent torque at the crank, not a coffee grinder that spins like crazy. That’s why you don’t see any of your beloved 350 cc engines powering a sportsbike nowadays.
Back to Motus (which apparently means “movement” in latin, but also sthg like “shush” in french 😉 ), the new Vmax powerplant is a V4 too, but it pulls out sthg like 200 hp at the crank, 175 hp and 110+ ft-lbs at the rear wheel … ? Not saying that 140 hp and 120 ft-lbs at the crank of the motus isn’t enough, but isn’t there a bit of unexploited potential in this new motus boiler ?
carboncanyon says
This question is primarily for Brian Case, but if the other readers have thoughts on it I’d love to hear it. If this was already answered, but i missed it I apologize.
To me a touring bike needs to be comfortable first and foremost. You can add luggage, you don’t need excessive power, etc. So why mount the engine longitudinally? Seems like the rider’s knees will be right up on it (especially for taller riders), or they’ll have to splay their legs.
hoyt says
carboncanyon –
Honda has a Sport Tourer with a v4 in this configuration.
Guzzi has a Sport Tourer with a v2 in this configuration. I’ve seen riders with above average-height owning these bikes. Tall riders may find adjustments necessary, but that is typical for many bikes other than cruisers when it comes to tall riders
My Guzzi cafe bike does not interfere with my foot/knee/leg position.
Wayne says
Put those HP and TQ numbers along with that rpm range
is a cruiser chassis wet weight 550 – 600 lbs , the engine
sound is right !
That’s what the cruiser markets been waiting for decades