twin vs inline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R1

Twins only for the torque factor alone....

---

Fixed it for you...:beerbang:

Singles are the best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheppo

Fixed it for you...:beerbang:

---

torque = wheelies

:shredder:

Twins are to 4 strokes as inlines are to 2 strokes.

Although my RM250 does wheelie on command:teehee:

I have had both Twins in line fours and Turbo in line fours.
My last twin was a 05 999. It was an incredible bike a chassis that was telepathic. Insane tourque off the line From 0-60 faster than my turbo busa. In the 4 years I had it I put 4500 miles on it because the Ergos killed me. There is no quiestion to me that a twin "feels" more controlable. Inpart cause you are not having to fan the gear box.

Go for an opposed twin! Two singles having a fight in opposite directions :)

I've owned at least 1 single, 1 parallel twin, 1 V twin and 1 inline 4.


All I need is a triple and I'll have batted for the cycle :P

The only inline motor I like has 6 holes and gets dirty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OreoGaborio

I've owned at least 1 single, 1 parallel twin, 1 V twin and 1 inline 4.


All I need is a triple and I'll have batted for the cycle :P

---

most circles would already consider you well rouded

:rimshot:

vtwin vs inline...it's like a 450 4stroke vs a 250 2stroke in the dirt:jackie:

*edit* damn cssmutty beat me to that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pittenger5

Singles are the best

---

You should know best, since you can't get laid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 07BladeRider

You should know best, since you can't get laid.

---

http://www.o--rly.com/owl_orly.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seth399

vtwin vs inline...it's like a 450 4stroke vs a 250 2stroke in the dirt:jackie:

*edit* damn cssmutty beat me to that!

---

I read through the whole thread and was really surprised that nobody posted up that comparison. The only place it doesn't work is that inlines are used for the top racers, where 4 strokes are used for top racers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csmutty

I read through the whole thread and was really surprised that nobody posted up that comparison. The only place it doesn't work is that inlines are used for the top racers, where 4 strokes are used for top racers.

---

haha true

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Lube.... Er, Glyde: Mozilla/5.0 440x240 Samsung SCH-U940 NetFront/3.4)

One could say that may be because torque rules dirt, hp rules pavement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pittenger5

http://www.o--rly.com/owl_orly.png

---

http://www.w3bbo.com/forums/O_RLY-Ya-Rly.jpg

This really only applies to those who are mountain/road bikers on the site but...If you really want to get an idea of the difference between power delivery on a twin versus an inline four try riding a bicycle with different length cranks.

I used to run 175mm cranks on my mountainbike, til one day someone suggested I try a shorter crank arm. I went to 170mm and just that small 5mm difference was huge. I felt like a completely different rider. I used to work at a bike shop in highschool, and one of the factory reps told me that the cycling institute actually does Dyno sessions with cyclists to research power output etc. I guess longer cranks give more leverage but make it difficult to spin at higher pedal RPMs. The increase in leverage shows more torque on the "dyno" but slows the riders pedal RPM's. Shorter cranks are easier to spin quickly but the lack of leverage means less power per thrust of the pedals, in this case they see higher power but less torque on the cycling dyno.

He actually used motorcycles as an analogy. He said the easiest way to explain it, is that longer crank arms are like a twin, and shorter crank arms are like an I4. It makes sense since I4's give a smaller bang more frequently, where as a twin delivers a bigger thrust with each firing of the pistons due to larger displacement per cylinder, but less often seeing that they rev lower. Also, I believe the stroke is typically longer in a twin so the leverage issue increases the "more thrust less often" concept. There are advantages to this type of power, which is why the crossplane firing order of the new R1 is such a hot topic.

The cycling comparison is true, I have experienced it myself. A good cyclist will notice immediately that with shorter cranks you spin much faster in a natural more comfortable manner. With the longer cranks you spin slow and tend to want to turn bigger gears. For the record when I switched to the shorter cranks my average speed went up per ride so it seems to be the better way to go in terms of overall results. The longer cranks were better for climbing and mud pits...but the shorter ones were giving me more speed in the long run.

Its a good analogy cause your legs are like the displacement of the engine. You can see how the same pair of legs (same cc's in engine size) can deliver power differently, and actually feel the difference first hand being that you are the power source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSR6

This really only applies to those who are mountain/road bikers on the site but...If you really want to get an idea of the difference between power delivery on a twin versus an inline four try riding a bicycle with different length cranks.

I used to run 175mm cranks on my mountainbike, til one day someone suggested I try a shorter crank arm. I went to 170mm and just that small 5mm difference was huge. I felt like a completely different rider. I used to work at a bike shop in highschool, and one of the factory reps told me that the cycling institute actually does Dyno sessions with cyclists to research power output etc. I guess longer cranks give more leverage but make it difficult to spin at higher pedal RPMs. The increase in leverage shows more torque on the "dyno" but slows the riders pedal RPM's. Shorter cranks are easier to spin quickly but the lack of leverage means less power per thrust of the pedals, in this case they see higher power but less torque on the cycling dyno.

He actually used motorcycles as an analogy. He said the easiest way to explain it, is that longer crank arms are like a twin, and shorter crank arms are like an I4. It makes sense since I4's give a smaller bang more frequently, where as a twin delivers a bigger thrust with each firing of the pistons due to larger displacement per cylinder, but less often seeing that they rev lower. Also, I believe the stroke is typically longer in a twin so the leverage issue increases the "more thrust less often" concept. There are advantages to this type of power, which is why the crossplane firing order of the new R1 is such a hot topic.

The cycling comparison is true, I have experienced it myself. A good cyclist will notice immediately that with shorter cranks you spin much faster in a natural more comfortable manner. With the longer cranks you spin slow and tend to want to turn bigger gears. For the record when I switched to the shorter cranks my average speed went up per ride so it seems to be the better way to go in terms of overall results. The longer cranks were better for climbing and mud pits...but the shorter ones were giving me more speed in the long run.

Its a good analogy cause your legs are like the displacement of the engine. You can see how the same pair of legs (same cc's in engine size) can deliver power differently, and actually feel the difference first hand being that you are the power source.

---

interesting, I have 165mm arms on my hardtail jump bike mainly because its what I had when others bent and it also makes it closer for my feet to pinch the seat for nohanders and stuff. I can see what you describe though, its kidna tough to get going but once I am upto speed I can spin very quickly.

Wirelessly posted (Samsung Lube.... Er, Glyde: Mozilla/5.0 440x240 Samsung SCH-U940 NetFront/3.4)

Huh.... Interesing! Makes total sense, too.

Get the best of both worlds with a cross-plane crank I4 (new R1) or V-4 :D

Always love for the V-Twins though. Who can say no to two big jugs?

twins rule in any category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottieducati

Who can say no to two big jugs?

---

:sailor:

Seth, get on a bike with 175's after riding those 165's for a while and you will really know what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewmaster

Bump:devil::beer:
Figured this was a good winter subject to warm the keyboards.

---

shouldnt you be making beer or something?