Japanese Motorcycles Keeping Up With Technology?

I was reading the editorial, by Neil Graham in the latest Cycle Canada, about trends in motorcycling. I think I am noticing a trend he is talking about, which is, motorcycle prices from European and America are coming down to more closely match Japanese brands. This may be an interesting development. Neil talks about how European bikes were absurdly expensive, and unreliable and same for Harley.

I think the real story is the Chinese bikes coming in with exceptionally low price tags. I noticed a new Piaggio (Italian brand in case you didn't know) scooter earlier this year, priced well below a new, but non-current, and smaller Piaggio in the same shop. When I asked why, it turned out that the newer scooter was "built" in China. Well maybe parts were built in Italy, but the box arrived from China. That's part of what's happening as makers struggle to cut costs, tapping into Chinese production.

Although this is probably going to scuttle my slim chance of ever getting a job writing for Cycle Canada, I have to disagree with some of Neil's closing comments about the Japanese bikes, where he basically gives them advice on how to meet the European challenge. First.

"Make motorcycles that are so technologically superior that we have to go to you to get them."

Easier said than done, Neil. And then assuming they do it, will people buy those bikes? Many motorcyclists do not care much about new technology. They are still fighting tooth and nail against water cooling, a fairly basic technology that has been in common use for 80+ years. I think the Model T Ford had water cooling. And now this is the very first bike show where I have seen a new bike for sale to the mass market with no rear suspension. That's right, a hard tail, a primitive design not seen since the forties. And so help me i would have bought it, if I wasn't already pissing blood over every pothole on my Vulcan. An old guy standing near the bike said he was 65, and could ride a hardtail hundreds of miles a day and think nothing of it.

Neil Graham also wrote: "why didn't Honda build a $80,000 MotoGP replica before Ducati? I couldn't afford one, but I'd come to your dealership to look at it."

Well the comment seems to disregard the fact that Ducati will lend this showroom decoration cum dream bike to Cycle Canada free of charge for a road test. So Neil gets to enjoy this bike whether or not he can afford it, and he really would not need to visit a dealership. But what about me? Not only has Ducati never, ever called me to ride their $80,000 bike, in return for a writeup in my blog, but I might not ride it even if they offered. I don't like uncomfortable sport bikes, and 5 minutes is all I can stand. I certainly would not travel to a Ducati dealer just to gaze at it. Friday I was at the motorcycle show, and although I assume the $80,000 wonderbike was there, I didn't even glance at it. Every Japanese bike dealer I've ever seen has the showroom already jammed to overflowing with bikes you actually will buy.

More advice from Neil to Honda, Kawasaki, etc.

"Trying to make cruisers that look like Harleys is not a long term plan for survival. Look far into the future and then show us what that future will be."

How many times to I have to repeat. The Kawasaki Vulcan does not look like a Harley, it looks like an Indian. Didn't you know that Indian put out a V-twin engine two years before Harley did? But seriously, Neil the Japanese have looked far into the future, and they know that you would not like what they have seen. Because they are building those bikes today, you don't like them.

Enough ranting. Now for the day's history lesson. In the beginning, neither Indian nor Harley would be the first motorcycle company to have a V-twin, but they definitely did not copy it from the Japanese.

The Indian V-Twin hit the showrooms in 1907, and Harley came out with their version in 1909. The secret to the Harley version was that the angle was at exactly 45 degrees, which produced a sound like a potato. This was actually a great improvement on the the 1907 Indian, in which the angle of the cylinders is unknown to this very day. Although we have a picture of one of the first Indians, it is possible that the camera has distorted it to maintain the secrecy of the angle.

With their new V-twin, Harley coined a name for their bike "The Silent Grey Fellow" after the sound of a typical potato, which is silent.

Indian researchers worked feverishly on coming up with a new model to beat the Harley 45 degree twin, and in 1916, Indian finally rolled out the Powerplus, using the surprising cylinder angle of 42 degrees.

Thus began the famous rivalry between Indian and Harley that lasted until Indian went under in the early fifties.

Today, Harley aficionados are still recovering from the humiliation that Indian caused with their V-twin two years before theirs, and a famous book has been written to prove that the Harley V-twin was actually first. It is called "At the Creation", by Herb Wagner, and I've been told it is a pretty good Harley book.

I have a "100th anniversary of Indian's V-Twin" edition Kawasaki Vulcan 900. It's cylinder angle is surprisingly not 42 degrees, it is a 55 degree angle. Somebody even asked me once if it was a BMW (a 180 degree V-Twin) because it sounded a lot like one, so I took that as a compliment.

Picture, 1907 Indian V-Twin, first V-twin from a company with the name rhyming with Indian or Harley-Davidson. Angle? Could be 55 degrees if you stretch the picture a bit.

Motorcycle Jackets can also be for Motorcycling

Motorcycle jackets were on sale at the show, some under $100, for a leather jacket that seemed to be quite thick. Most of the good, yet inexpensive, jackets I saw came from Pakistan. I was wondering why, then I thought about all the sacred cows right next door in India. What happens when a sacred cow gets hit by a car or truck? Probably the simplest thing is to drag it over to Pakistan, where they have no scruples about turning it in to a motorcycle jacket. My best motorcycle jacket ever, was a Dakar type jacket that came from Pakistan. It was made of real thick leather, I have passed it on to Michael, so it's still getting a lot of use after twenty years. And it has been down on the road a few times too, I think Michael was wearing it in both his crashes and the jacket is still usable, and provided all the protection you could ask for.

I bought my first motorcycle jacket in 1981, it was plain, but after over ten years of motorcycling in non specialized jackets and windbreakers, I really liked it just because it was the first time I ever had a real leather motorcycle jacket. I chose blue because in those days black was still a bit too "evil", even for a motorcyclist.

Today, I was just looking at a website for teenage girls, advising them on how to wear a motorcycle jacket for a fashion statement. It's not what you're thinking, I was Googling "motorcycle jacket" not "teenage girls". Anyway here is the link, and all the excellent advice for wearing a motorcycle jacket when motorcycling is the furthest thing from your mind.

A few years ago, the trend started to "distressed leather", which looks like it's been beaten up for 20 years right off the rack at jackets 'r us. Mary Ann was unaware of this new trend, as she almost always is of anything that may be happening in a shopping mall. We were on our way to B.C. by motorcycle, we had stopped at a restaurant, and a motorcyclist pulled in on a nice Moto Guzzi, probably also heading to Sturgis for the big rally. He was wearing one of these "distressed leather" jackets. After he left she commented that he must be a very experienced rider, from the look of his jacket (compared to mine I assume), and we had a discussion, "how do you know it's not just a really really old jacket". Well, when the jacket looks older than the guy, that's one way. Also, if the jacket looks a lot more distressed than the bike. It also happened to be the only distressed thing he was wearing, do you think he would have bought everything new except the jacket? That's not how most people buy stuff after they've been riding a few years. Some things wear out before other things. I often have to buy a new pair of gloves, they really go fast. Sometimes I just lose the things and need a new pair. All the other things wear out at their own rate, and I don't replace everything in one shopping trip just because the gloves wear out. One time I might get a helmet, next year new boots, some years I don't need anything new. Like this year at the show, I was just looking. But I noticed that distressed jackets were nowhere to be seen. I guess that fad died out quick. As far as I know, jackets were the only item you could buy that came pre-beaten. For example, the Shoei factory never did hire a guy to beat the crap out of the helmets for you.

Nowadays most jackets are cordura nylon with a goretex inner liner to protect you from rain (this protection is more promise than reality). They have padding (also dramatically called armour cladding) at the elbows and shoulders and usually the spine too. They sometimes have reflective strips for visibility, and bright colours. Vents and removable liners make them practical for a wide variety of conditions. I have several Joe Rocket jackets, which are widely available, and reasonably priced. In the bigger one, which I usually wear in winter with sweaters, I put an old plastic raincoat in between the liner and the jacket, for real waterproofing. I know it doesn't "breathe" like Goretex, but in the cold weather that doesn't bother me too much.

When it's really hot, what works best for me (on a faired bike, or with a windshield) is to open the cuffs at the wrists, and let the air blast up the sleeve. I'm sure the jacket puffs up a little, but the cooling breeze is almost like having air conditioning. I would say it's the only way to survive the midwest in the middle of the summer, about when Sturgis is held. Also by slightly moving my grip I can reduce the air flow at will. The most serious problem is getting flies up the sleeves. Many years ago, I was at a stop light and spotted a Praying Mantis creeping out of the sleeve. And, even worse is getting a bee up there that stings you. It's a situation where you have to get off the road fast and stop, but luckily it never happens in really busy traffic, usually just out on hot and lonely country roads with flowers everywhere.

Simplistic Christian Ideas May Cause More Harm Than Good

After Pat Robertson's comments that the Haitian earthquake was a result of Haiti's pact with the devil, I am going to go over again why I did not generally like the Christian missionary's approach to helping people in Africa.

You would think that as a CUSO volunteer, I would appreciate the efforts of Christians, building orphanages, schools, medical facilities. While those were appreciated, there were some problems with the Christian approach, which in my opinion is very simplistic all the way to willfully ignorant about the real causes of problems in Africa (and I guess Haiti too).

Take the example of Pat Robertson, who says that Haiti's poverty is proof of their pact with the devil. At first I thought the comment was racist, but after some discussion (with my sister, a Born Again Christian), I have come to the conclusion it is more ignorance than racism. A racist would say Haitians are poor because they are dishonest, lazy, stupid. Pat is not saying that, he is saying their misery is only because they had a pact with the Devil. Apparently this pact is well known in the history and folklore of Haiti, so I am not going to take the usual scientific approach and say the devil does not exist. And I was going nowhere with the opposite reasoning that the white slave countries also had an obvious pact with the devil. But the fact is that white countries have had a huge negative impact on Haiti's prosperity. A quick read of the history of Haiti will, for most people have an eye opening effect. Like "Wow, I never realized how inhumane and dishonourable the other counties like France, USA especially (even Germany) were to Haiti. It's even worse than Avatar 3D!" But why would anyone really be surprised, if they actually know a little bit about the history of the American Indians, about the history of slavery, about the history of Europe in general.

The only surprise for me in reading some Haitian history, and one that really merits further study, was a period of peace and stability and even the beginnings of prosperity that Haiti managed to achieve with little or no help from white countries, before the Americans invaded in 1912 and started a brutal occupation that lead to further brutal dictatorships, and pretty much constant interference right up to the present day.

My feelings about Christian missionary activities comes down to this. Some Christians have a childishly simplistic view of what causes poverty in Africa, and elsewhere. They have a one sided and mythical view of how the world works based on American greatness and other people's sinfulness, and of course their own God being the only right one. They do not care to understand the history, and in most cases do not understand enough about international finance to get a handle on the real problems of developing countries. If it was simple ignorance, I would have no problem, but not only does it focus the efforts in the wrong direction, it sometimes leads to catastrophes.

For example in Sierra Leone, where coincidentally, I lived for three years, and coincidentally Pat Robertson had some remote involvement. It started off simple enough. Pat had a charitable organization that was doing their usual thing in Africa, well-meaning people just trying to help. But Pat wanted to be wealthy and so he also set up a mining company with his own money. Then he found a way to transfer money from the charity to the mining company.

Here again I have an issue with the simplistic approach of Christians. Pat was found guilty of fraudulently taking money from his charities, but his supporters say he did nothing wrong, because he never took money from the charity. It seems like they do not understand that there are ways of committing fraud without actually taking cash.

True, the charities received all the money sent to them. That's because the charity is audited, as any charity must be in order to prevent theft. Neither Pat's charity, nor any other charity in the USA or Canada operate on trust and faith alone just because they are "nice Christians". If good hearted Christians don't know that, maybe there are a lot more things they may be unaware of when it comes to money matters in developing countries or elsewhere.

Just to explain it on the level of someone who knows nothing of fraud and finance. (let alone international development), independent accountants must regularly go over the financial books of a charity. But a clever person can always find new ways to cheat and get money out of the charity, so that the auditors can't find it. The method Pat used was to run a private, personal mining company (gold diamonds etc) in parallel with the charity, but not having any connection financially between them. Both organizations needed airplanes to operate. In fact, the charity didn't really "need" the planes, it was a nice thing to have sometimes. Airplanes are always are nice to have, hey, even I could use one right now. Airplanes are just too expensive for most charities that have more pressing needs for that million dollars. But aircraft were vital to the mining operations. So the decision(?) was made that the charity would buy the aircraft instead of the mining company, then Pat secretly made use of the aircraft, paid for by the charity, to conduct the mining operations. He still thinks it was no big deal, just put a few mining supplies on a plane, that's all. And people who know nothing of fraud of course agree with him, after all he is a Christian, how could he be bad? That's how simplistic thinking starts bad things happening.

I am objecting to the oversimplification of the problem of poverty in the developing world, promoted by Christian missionaries. And furthermore the lack of understanding of what is going on by admittedly well meaning people which allows greedy individuals to get away with stuff that drains money from the charitable causes.

But far worse was a "mistake" Pat made that caused tremendous human suffering in Sierra Leone. And why did he make that mistake? Because he either let himself be guided by over-simplistic Christian ideas, or there was conflict of interest. The simplistic idea was that because warlord Charles Taylor was "A Born Again Christian" and that his enemies were Muslims, Pat could place his trust in Charles Taylor, and enter into an agreement with him that was worth millions of dollars, enabling Taylor (from neighbouring Liberia) to wage a horrific clandestine war against Sierra Leone, to steal their diamonds. Pat expected to make money out of this deal, so not only was Christian oversimplification involved, but "conflict of interest" as well. He didn't make money, of course Taylor kept it all.

At the very least, Pat closed his eyes to what was going on, and continued to support Charles Taylor. Either through greed, or Christian blindness (because it was only Muslims who were being butchered), or just stupidity, I don't know. But as the atrocities mounted, Pat stayed a firm friend of Taylor. Finally the atrocities reached a point where even the US government under George Bush could not stand it any more, and called on Charles Taylor to step down as President of Liberia. Pat then publicly rebuked President Bush, saying it was no business of his to interfere in African politics.

If Pat is not outright evil, I do not accept that it is just an innocent mistake, but a stubborn refusal to recognize that mistake. And of course, conflict of interest (greed) was involved as Pat still hoped Taylor could repay the 7 million dollars and more. I actually don't think Pat is as stupid as he pretends to be, but that's just my opinion.

The amount of suffering caused in Sierra Leone is probably way more than all the good done by all the well meaning people in Pat's charitable organization. If I did believe in Hell, I might take great comfort in thinking Pat Robertson may end up in it. If not, well there's always Pat Robertson Voodoo dolls for sale on eBay. Don't forget to read the Q&A before bidding.

Picture: No, that's not Haiti! A Learjet, one of Pat Robertson's planes crashed, killing both pilots. And he says Haitian misfortune is all because of their pact with the devil. Well I won't be flying Air Pat Robertson anytime soon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13105641/

Motorcycle Helmets

The simple motorcycle helmet has now crossed the line in my opinion. I was looking for a helmet at the motorcycle show. I wanted a helmet with one of those new inside "sun visors" that slide down in front of your eyes or retract with a lever on the outside of the helmet. Otherwise I just wanted a new helmet that fit and was much like my old one. I found a series of problems.

First, it is hard to figure out which helmets actually have the flip down sun visor, as they tend to be displayed with the visor retracted, so you do have to look long and hard, and it really does not seem to speed things up all that much to ask for help.

Secondly, the graphics on the helmets are outrageous. Yes, you can get a plain helmet, say black or silver or flat grey. But very hard to get a visible plain colour like yellow or white. I think the helmets at the show were possibly selected to just be as fancy as possible, or maybe it was all the designs that they simply could not sell in the shop, and the vendors hoped that they would sell better in a show atmosphere. I don't have the time or space to show all the helmets here, but you could google images of motorcycle helmets, and get an idea of the variety. Funny thing is that the ones at the show are often worse than what I could find on Google. You have first of all the pink ladies helmets, apparently they are selling a lot for women, and it shows. But sometimes the colours are OK but the pattern is very feminine - delicate and lacy, kind of like lingerie. OK to look at from a distance, but I don't want it on my head. Now you have helmets that Mary Ann would object to, which includes patterns with such names as "wicked women", "pin up", Devil Girl" and any pictures of not fully clothed women, or any women at all, other than Mother Teresa.  

There are also many zombie like helmet designs with graphics of death heads, and hanging out eyeballs, which I reject. Next up we have the patriotic helmets. Not just the classic Easyrider stars and stripes, but eagles, twin towers falling, and other macho murals of mayhem. But all are American, not Canadian so I cross them off the list.

Some manufacturers are starting to put sayings on the helmets like "I never ride faster then my guardian angel can fly". If I want to put some obnoxious saying on my helmet, there is a guy in the next aisle selling stickers at $2 a pop with any kind of message I want, and I don't want yours. (Oh yes I forgot, putting as sticker on the helmet means it won't protect you in case of a crash.)

The variety of helmets is truly bewildering now. Everything from half shell skid lids that never passed a DOT test (but you can buy the DOT stickers in the next aisle in case you are hassled by the fuzz). To full face helmets that have removable or lifting chin bars.

Before I declare this rant over, I forgot the prices. There is a huge variation, from $80 to over $1000 just for full face helmets for example. Check out the price before plunking a lid on your head, because at $1000 you don't want to drop it. Did I forget to mention one drop of a helmet, and you are supposed to replace it? Also if it is more than a couple of years old, you are also supposed to replace it.  

With all the expense, and constantly replacing helmets with new ones, you would think a helmet would always protect your head in case of a crash. But no, according to statistics, a helmet will only prevent about 1 out of three fatal head injuries.  So the rule is still "Don't crash". But the helmets will help you look good look great not doing it.

The Motorcycle Show, BMW Display

I went to the Toronto International Motorcycle Show today, alone, as Mary Ann gets bored watching me search for motorcycle stuff such as handlebars. Just about how bored I get on nature walks watching her watching red hatched nut bobbers. At least I don't ask her to "Look look it's right over there. Can't you see it???? It on the fourth branch from the top of the seventh tree from the left!. Here just follow my finger where it's pointing.". "It's OK dear, I saw a bird before. Now can we just do some walking?"

Getting back to the show, I happened to stop by the BMW booth to get any information they may have on the inline six engine. In what I might call typical BMW dealer fashion, he was skeptical that BMW was actually going to produce the bike or "I'll believe it when I see it." According to him, it was a mock-up. I said, it looks like the engine has been designed and is finished. He seemed dubious. He pointed to the K1300GT and said "Have you ever ridden one of these four cylinder bikes? It already has 170 hp.". I admitted that no, I had not ridden one, but I had ridden my K1100LT a lot. He said there was no comparison, the GT was so much smoother and more powerful.

Well, I don't know if this was busting my bubble or not. But I had already decided against buying the four cylinder K1300GT, because it was too expensive, and the dealer was too far away, and the BMW's are not as reliable as Japanese bikes. That is why I have a Vulcan 900. It would take something special to convince me to drop a big load of cash on a bike that has no dealer within 100 km.  After my K1100LT broke down, I couldn't get it fixed, and I couldn't even trade it for a new one. So if it's another four cylinder, no thanks. But if it's a six, and I am a big fan of the inline six, I may catch bike fever. I may be the only one, but actually I don't worry too much about what everybody else wants.

It kind of gives me a sense of deja vu. At the same show in 1992, I owned a Honda CBX but I was really interested in the new BMW K1100LT with the electrically adjustable windshield. So I naturally went to the BMW booth to inquire about it. "No," they said. "It's just a silly gimmick. You'll probably adjust it once in your life then leave it there. A waste of space, and a dead weight." What is it with these guys? I wouldn't slag a competitor's bike like that, let alone mine!

Anyway, I ended up buying one of those. I probably adjusted the windshield about 30,000 times. The electrics broke down twice in 15 years and I repaired it myself each time because I couldn't do without that windshield button. It became an essential piece of equipment, like air in the tires, or foam on the seat. And look at the competitor's sport touring bikes. Today, 18 years later, every single one as far as I know, has an electrically adjustable wind screen. They can't sell a sport touring without one any more.

Picture: This is actually me from the December show, on a red K1300GT. I forgot to take pictures today.

The BMW Concept 6 Virtual Test Drive

Since the BMW 6 cylinder sport-touring bike has not been built yet, it is impossible to take a real test ride. Also, the weather is not good, but by using the scientific method, we can take a virtual ride. I will be making assumptions based on numbers. All the same problems will apply to this exercise, as apply to measuring the temperature of the Earth for global warming. I am taking data from different places, measured in different ways, and trying to come to some conclusion.

BMW announced that its new 1600cc inline 6 motorcycle engine will produce 130 Nm or 96 ft-lb of torque at 2000 rpm. The engine redlines at 9,000 rpm (which is the maximum recommended speed in revolutions per minute.) and produces approximately 160 Hp, the same peak horsepower as the current 4 cylinder K1300GT.

Horsepower is useful in comparing acceleration and top speed. To imagine what 160 hp feels like, in terms of top speed and acceleration, would for me, be mostly based on once owning a bike rated at about 100 hp. One time I rode a 145 Hp sport bike, and took it very briefly up to 250 kph (I won't say where) and then I decided that was about as fast as I dared. Maybe if I had been at the Bonneville salt flats, I might have gone faster, because the 145 Hp bike was still pulling hard and felt stable when I shut off the throttle. Other than that brief fling, the fastest I have ever gone on two wheels was 180 kph, and I did that with both the CBX and the BMW K1100LT. I'm sure the BMW could have gone faster, but the CBX had nothing left.

Torque is an often misunderstood number, so I don't often bother with it. But if we take note of engine speed (in this case 2000 rpm), it can give us a further clue about engine flexibility, and willingness to pull at various engine speeds.

Most motorcycle engines have a power curve, where the torque (or turning force) is weak at a low rpm, and builds as the engine turns faster. It peaks before the horsepower curve and begins dropping while the horsepower continues to rise for a while. Then you reach the engine's maximum rpm, and if you don't quit, things start to break. This maximum rpm is called the red line, which is a line marked on the tachometer for your reference. Actually there is a red "zone" on most tachometers. You may not cruise constantly in the red zone, but you may go into it briefly without danger of breakdown. Most people just go by the factory's recommendation, but today fuel injection engines usually have rev limiters that cut the engine for you at the red line. That feature is pretty useful for me, because I do tend to push the engines at times.  The CBX had a neat trick where you could bounce the tach needle off the stop pin (it was around 11,000 rpm, I think red line was about 10,000.

Depending on the torque curve, you might have an engine that is very powerful at say 8000 rpm, but has almost no power at 2000 rpm. In fact some engines are not designed to pull at all at 2000 rpm. They can idle down to 1500, but before engaging the clutch you have to rev the engine to 3000 and keep it there to prevent stalling and bucking. In motorcycles, 2000 rpm tends to be the lowest speed an engine will normally tolerate. But my Toyota Matrix is quite happy driving along at 1800 rpm, although if I want to accelerate, I need to shift down. But then, the Matrix also has "variable valve timing", which helps it run smoothly at lower rpm and still produce power at quite high rpm. As far as I know, most motorcycles have fixed valve timing, meaning their engines have to stick closer to their designed optimum speed, and except for Harley Davidsons, that optimum speed is usually higher than a typical car engine.

From what I can tell without seeing the graph, the BMW 6 has about the same torque from about 2000 to 9000 rpm. This is quite unusual, and it means that the engine can be loafing along in top gear at only 2000 rpm, yet accelerate hard without even downshifting. And having 6 cylinders, you would feel very little bucking or roughness even at 2000 rpm. All you would hear is a growl build up to a scream as the engine winds up to it's maximum speed of 9000 rpm, and the engine would appear to pull really hard all the way from say 80 kph to 360 kph without shifting gears. (assuming that it has enough power to go 360, which is unlikely as BMW probably would put a speed limiter on it, and you also have to consider wind resistance on an unstreamlined bike.)

I have some other numbers to give a better feel for this broad power band.

A 1977 Honda CBX, although also a 6 cylinder engine, would barely run at 2000 rpm. At 2000 rpm it made only 31 ft-lb, compared to the 96 ft-lb of the BMW 6. Then it went up to 61 at 7500 rpm. The first CBXs had 85 horsepower measured on a dyno; the later ones (like mine) were measured on the same dynamometer at 71 horsepower, down almost 14 horsepower. The peak horsepower came at 9000 rpm.

My 1993 BMW K1100LT 4 Cyl was not measured at 2000 rpm. The lowest speed it could pull cleanly was 3000 rpm, and at that speed it only made 49 ft-lb. It was likely producing 90 Hp @ 7750 rpm.

Harley Davidsons are an unusual case. Of course there are a lot of different models, so I'm going to just take one I found on the internet, claimed to be stock, but I don't know which model it is. The Harley Davidson is designed to produce a high torque number for advertising purposes. The engine is tuned to run best at 2000 rpm. At that speed it produces an amazing 65 ft-lb. of torque. Unfortunately it is downhill from there as you pick up speed, and the maximum horsepower is only 42 Hp at 5000 rpm. The Harley Davidson's two cylinder design is a little rough at 2000 rpm, but it feels right, but any lower and it starts to feel wrong. To me it feels wrong even at 2000, but then I'm just used to revving motorcycle engines higher. The first time I drove a Harley on a highway, I was quite happily riding along in third gear thinking the engine sounded good, but I had two more gears to go. And, just remember, the BMW 6 produces a lot more torque, 96 ft-lb compared to the Harley's 65 at the same 2000 rpm, but instead of dropping off, the BMW 6 continues to produce the same torque more or less until 9000 rpm.

A couple of other bikes, from the Harley chart, just for reference.
Honda ST1100 V-4 engine, Sport touring. 65 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm (92 hp @ 8000 rpm)
BMW R1100RS Twin cylinder 45 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm

So that's what the bike will feel like. At only 2000 rpm it still has 50% more torque than a Harley, but will be at least three times smoother because of the 6 cylinders compared to two. Most other bikes can't even run at that low a speed. But then as you to accelerate, it just keeps pulling, the power building smoothly and linearly as the speed rises until you are up to 160 horsepower, at which point you will be in the high 200 kph's. Shifting down, of course will result in even faster acceleration. It is almost certain that BMW will have traction control and wheelie control to prevent skidding the tire or doing burnouts. And, according to BMW, the six will get better gas mileage than the current 4 cylinder K1300GT.

Motorcycling: Extremism

What is it the appeal of extremism? I'm not going into religious extremism here, just motorcycling extremism. I suppose you could call it the desire to be the best, but some extremism is obviously to be the worst, for example the bikers who want to have the dirtiest bikes ever. They will smear disgusting stuff on them, then encase the goo in plastic varnish then clear coat it so that it can never be washed away. That's how extreme it gets, and in this case it is not the desire to be the best.

Years ago, the extremists wanted the longest forks or the highest handlebars. Now the most popular item is the widest rear tire possible.

A few blogs ago, I introduced my concept of the BMW 6 cylinder sport-touring bike. Some might think six cylinders is too many, and that four, or even two, would be enough. But it is not really extreme, as there is the 8 cylinder Boss Hoss, the 10 Cylinder Dodge Tomahawk, (which is the motorcycle that God was riding in a previous blog). Andreas Georgeades in San Diego has built a Honda CBX V-12 bike. Because the previous sentence does not do justice, here is more information in the CBX Owners Club Magazine CBXpress .

And a video on Youtube when the V-12 CBX was finally completed.

Can you get any more cylinders than 12 on a bike? Twenty-four has been done, and how about this 48 cylinder home made bike.

A summary of some of the multi-cylinder bikes

I know what you're thinking, because there are basically only two reactions to extremism, and according to the statistics, you are most likely thinking "he (she, they) is (are) nuts." The other possibility, though rare, is "I have got to build one with 50 cylinders."

But among those who think some guys are nuts, there is still some interest. Even a grudging admiration, although you know that for yourself, the voice of reason would have kicked in years ago and said "Whoa! That's enough already." That may be an inner voice, or a female voice from the next room.

So what is the appeal of the extreme? I think one element is the simplicity. Instead of wondering, for example, what is the ideal compromise for the correct number of cylinders, you think simply "I am going to have more than anybody else." And what is the Achilles heel of extremism? It's not being called nuts, if anything that is part of the appeal of extremism. The down side of extremism is that somebody is always going to be more extreme, and you will end up in the middle of the pack of also-rans.

Extremism will always appeal to the few. Although the majority, obviously cannot be extreme, they will still have some interest.

You may be able to guess that in general, I am not really an extremist. But strangely enough, many of my motorcycle choices kind of ended up like that anyway. My first bike, the Honda CD175, which was humble by Canadian standards, was not only one of the biggest bikes in Sierra Leone, but until the first CB750 arrived, the CD175 also had the most cylinders, two. Some people wondered why two, when one cylinder would do? It certainly was not to reduce vibration, because both the cylinders went up and down together, and vibrated just as badly as a single cylinder 175. Maybe it was to increase the RPM limit, because that bike could rev to 10,000 rpm, which was pretty fast for those days. One could even say extremely fast.

My next couple of bikes were both steply ugsisters. I had a Yamaha 250, the sister bike to the popular Yamaha 350 that everybody wanted because it did wheelies. Sure the 250 cost a hundred dollars less, but that was soon forgotten, while the 350's wheelies remained forever in the memory. Then I had a Honda Silver Wing touring bike. Honda also had a "Gold Wing Aspencade" touring bike for sale, and you can guess which one was half the size, with half the number of cylinders. My Silver Wing was nicknamed the "Half-Asspencade".

The Honda CBX with the six cylinder engine, was not what you would call humble. And it was the only bike I've ever had with a louder-than-stock racing type exhaust. It was a little strange for me at first, but I quickly got used to people not being condescending for a change.

I followed it up with the BMW K1100LT, which in addition to being a BMW, I think it was about the most expensive motorcycle you could buy. When I filled in the purchase price on my application for vehicle insurance, the agent said he had to call headquarters because his price chart didn't go that high. Later, when I was talking to some other BMW owners who were looking at my bike, one commented, "Well it's a good thing some people can afford to buy them new so the rest of us can get them used later." "Sure. buddy, if you live that long". I had noticed that he had his arm in a sling and had recently crashed his bike. Actually, I figure you don't have to be a millionare to buy an expensive bike if you keep it long enough. I had the BMW for 15 years. I had my 250 Yamaha for ten years, which worked out to $50 a year. ($800 new - $300 sold) = $500 divided by ten.

Picture: Andreas Georgeades' V-12 CBX (a normal CBX is an inline six.)