• A few people have been scammed on the site, Only use paypal to pay for items for sale by other members. If they will not use paypal, its likely a scam NEVER SEND E-TRANSFERS OF ANY KIND.

Bhp

Come on guys...not the BHP or MPG.

The ONLY REAL REASON to buy a new NC7XX, or NC8XX etc,...
is.....(drum roll)....
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it has a new big FRUNK that comes with a built-in light, a refrigeration option and it can sit 2 helmets and 1 six-pack together.

:p

Now....that is a REAL REASON to switch bike.

It will be known as "Adventure NC700X" special edition.

.....slogan....2-up Adventure bike with creature comforts packed.....
 
Please go back and read 670cc's post. Torque is twisting force, it is not work done. Work done (HP, KW, PS) is what moves you forward.

Lets say your engine makes 50 foot-pounds of torque and run that through 670cc's formula:

Engine A: Peaks at 50 F-P at 2,500 so 50*2500/5252 = 23 HP, no arms will be pulled from their sockets.

Engine B: Peaks at 50 F-P at 5,000 so 50*5000/ 5252 = 47.6 HP, arms are getting a little load.

Engine C: Peaks at 50 F-P at 7500 so 50*7500/ 5252 = 71.4 HP, arms are getting a work out now.

Engine D: Peaks at 50 F-P at 10,000 so 50*10,000/ 5252 = 95.2 HP, you may need to see a doctor.

Talking about torque without RPM is like trying to start a fire with heat and oxygen but no fuel, you only have two of the three parts of the equation.

Goose

Torque is how hard an engine punches.

HP is how fast those punches can be delivered.

People buy hp but ride torque.
 
Come on guys...not the BHP or MPG.

The ONLY REAL REASON to buy a new NC7XX, or NC8XX etc,...
is.....(drum roll)....
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it has a new big FRUNK that comes with a built-in light, a refrigeration option and it can sit 2 helmets and 1 six-pack together.

:p

Now....that is a REAL REASON to switch bike.

I can see the honda engineers right now, looking at a drawing of the NC scratching their heads at how to accomplish it...
"well if we move the gas tank so that it's integrated with the front fender, we can open up some space under the seat for the 6 pack..."
 
Please go back and read 670cc's post. Torque is twisting force, it is not work done. Work done (HP, KW, PS) is what moves you forward.

Lets say your engine makes 50 foot-pounds of torque and run that through 670cc's formula:

Engine A: Peaks at 50 F-P at 2,500 so 50*2500/5252 = 23 HP, no arms will be pulled from their sockets.

Engine B: Peaks at 50 F-P at 5,000 so 50*5000/ 5252 = 47.6 HP, arms are getting a little load.

Engine C: Peaks at 50 F-P at 7500 so 50*7500/ 5252 = 71.4 HP, arms are getting a work out now.

Engine D: Peaks at 50 F-P at 10,000 so 50*10,000/ 5252 = 95.2 HP, you may need to see a doctor.

Talking about torque without RPM is like trying to start a fire with heat and oxygen but no fuel, you only have two of the three parts of the equation.

Goose

Yep, good stuff.

And just one more little interesting tidbit. Per the horsepower formula, ALL engines have the same torque number (lb-ft) as power number (hp) at 5252 rpm. It doesn't matter if it's a thumper or a screamer, the torque and power lines on the graph always cross at 5252 RPM.

Greg
 
Please go back and read 670cc's post. Torque is twisting force, it is not work done. Work done (HP, KW, PS) is what moves you forward.

Lets say your engine makes 50 foot-pounds of torque and run that through 670cc's formula:

Engine A: Peaks at 50 F-P at 2,500 so 50*2500/5252 = 23 HP, no arms will be pulled from their sockets.

Engine B: Peaks at 50 F-P at 5,000 so 50*5000/ 5252 = 47.6 HP, arms are getting a little load.

Engine C: Peaks at 50 F-P at 7500 so 50*7500/ 5252 = 71.4 HP, arms are getting a work out now.

Engine D: Peaks at 50 F-P at 10,000 so 50*10,000/ 5252 = 95.2 HP, you may need to see a doctor.

Talking about torque without RPM is like trying to start a fire with heat and oxygen but no fuel, you only have two of the three parts of the equation.

Goose
For clarity.....

It is my observation that people buy hp but ride torque. By this I mean most riders in day to day riding don't usually rev their motorcycles to the top of their respective rev range where the engine is producing peak horsepower. On the track maybe, but not in the cut and thrust of daily riding. Instead, they shift in the meaty part of the midrange near where the engine is producing peak torque but far less than peak hp. They might choose a particular bike in a displacement class because it has more horsepower than others in class but in daily use they don't use that hp at the top of the tach.
 
I understand what you mean, but your phrasing exacerbates, or in many cases _causes_, the misunderstanding of the two terms. To say, "People ride low-end and midrange power, but buy peak power," would avoid the confusion introduced with your phrasing.
 
Dave,

What he said..

I understand what you mean, but your phrasing exacerbates, or in many cases _causes_, the misunderstanding of the two terms. To say, "People ride low-end and midrange power, but buy peak power," would avoid the confusion introduced with your phrasing.

Its just that power and torque are words that have well defined, specific meanings and anal retentive, pedantic types (me for example) get frustrated when they are used to mean something else.

FWIW, a big part of the NC's appeal for me is the smooth low and mid-range oriented power. I'm not very fast but I can give myself the illusion of speed by using a smooth power band to get on the power right at the apex. If they're around fast guys still pass me but I think I'm going fast. :rolleyes:

Goose
 
I understand what you mean, but your phrasing exacerbates, or in many cases _causes_, the misunderstanding of the two terms. To say, "People ride low-end and midrange power, but buy peak power," would avoid the confusion introduced with your phrasing.
All well and good and taken under advisement. Unfortunately the word torquey is in common use as an adjective to describe engines with healthy mid ranges or wide flat power bands that don't have to be wring out to access usable power.
 
And then of course the new bike with the bigger engine may well be heavier as well, so there's another number to throw at the speculative equations. Power to weight.

As others have said - the max figures don't tell you as much as some might think, the full comparative dyno sheets tell you a lot more, but the best test is done on the open road with your nuts on the seat...
 
Ok we have talked about a H.P. increase of only a few H.P.

But! the NC700 Engine is built around the engine production of TORQUE!!! at a low RPM

So How much More torque doe the new NC750 engine produce?

That is the most important question.

If the Torque numbers are up a much larger percentage than the H.P. is then i would be happy

another 15 Lbs/ft of torque at say 2K RPM would be a nice boost in power/acceleration
 
Ok we have talked about a H.P. increase of only a few H.P.

But! the NC700 Engine is built around the engine production of TORQUE!!! at a low RPM

So How much More torque doe the new NC750 engine produce?

That is the most important question.

If the Torque numbers are up a much larger percentage than the H.P. is then i would be happy

another 15 Lbs/ft of torque at say 2K RPM would be a nice boost in power/acceleration

Easy to determine:
If Torque * RPM/5252 = HP, then Torque= HP * 5252/RPM
On the old NC700, Peak HP is 51HP at 6500 rpm, so Torque = 51*5252/6500 = 41.2
And peak HP on the 750 is supposed to be 54 HP, so Torque = 54*5252/6500 (where the peak HP is at redline of 6500) so Torque would be 43.6 ft/lbs ,
so you get a max Torque increase of 2.4 ft/lbs from the max HP of 51 to 54 HP.

The formula works at any RPM.
No way you are going to get at increase of 15 ft/lbs of torque with only a 3 HP increase.
 
No way you are going to get at increase of 15 ft/lbs of torque with only a 3 HP increase.

Of course you can. It's extremely normal for this to occur, in fact. _Peak_ torque needs not be (almost never is, actually) at the same rpm as peak power. For example: If peak torque on the new bike was 57 lbs-ft, and it was achieved at 3,000 rpm, that would be 32 hp at that rpm. Torque can actually _decline_ as rpm increases, yet still have power increase until it peaks at 6500 (using your example rpm).

See?

This is one of the MANY reasons it's so confusing and foolish for people to talk about torque and power the way they do. If we would just talk about low-end power vs. high-end power, and only look at power curves, we wouldn't be confused at all. It would help, I believe, if we could all remember to think of torque as a figure that automotive engineers use in an extremely narrow context for their own convenience in making calculations. Power is the ONLY thing the end user cares about, no matter the rpm, engine type, or anything else.
 
Last edited:
So what about the 750's rev limit? I was out on my S & a mate said the 750 revs higher? Is this true? Would this mean bottom end torque is compromised?


Stuart
The red line on the 750 is still 6500rpm. They altered the gearing now so you're unlikely to hit the limiter unless that's what you're actually trying to do.
 
No, the rev limiter is not higher. With the little HP / Torque gain on the 750, combined with taller gearing you should notice a difference. The instant MPG / gear indicator is a bonus, as well as slight mpg increase. I would trade mine up, problem is they won't sell the NC750X in the states.
 
The rev limiter is not higher, but they listened to me, dammit! :mad: :rolleyes: ;)

"...Overall gearing is now 6% taller, giving an extra 12 km/h top speed and more relaxed highway cruising; another effect of the taller gearing is to broaden the usable rpm range relative to road speed and the rev-limiter features a softer cut point at 6,400 rpm..."


"...Updates for 2014 include a gear position indicator...plus coolant temperature and ambient air temperature..."


"...For 2014, an extra balancer shaft has been added...The effect of the twin balancers is to counteract vibration from higher rpm inertia, making the engine feel more refined..."



Arrrrrgh
 
Right. So they held off including the extras knowing what was coming. Makes sense. Sooo if some bright spark can figure how to put the new software onto the 'old' bike then we might be able to enliven some new features? ;)


Stuart
 
Back
Top