More Power or Less Weight?

ScrapperX said:

I think for club racing HP would benefit you more you can never have enough power to pull ahead and start your defensive riding whether that power is down low or up high when over taking on the straights.

But for track days and canyon riding I'll take light weight all day long.

Click to expand...

I took first place in a club-level championship (both TT and W2W) going the lighter-is-better route in a humble S2000. It was supercharged, but none-the-less, I still had less horsepower than anyone else competing in unlimited. Even at a track that favors HP (like Thunderhill), you're still only WOT in a few places.

AntiHero said:

I took first place in a club-level championship (both TT and W2W) going the lighter-is-better route in a humble S2000. It was supercharged, but none-the-less, I still had less horsepower than anyone else competing in unlimited. Even at a track that favors HP (like Thunderhill), you're still only WOT in a few places.

Click to expand...

A little harder to pass in cars I would imagine I'm not sure because I never raced them but when I used to club race road bikes I always wanted 5 -10 more HP to pass. The bike was already light and so was everyone else's . For time like qualifying or track day a lighter bike has it's advantage but you can't always ride that way when racing . Being in the middle of the pack trying to work your way up and those guys are trying not to let you pass there's nothing like more HP to counter it and of course big balls.

Less weight would be my preference. Hopefully one day I'll have the pleasure of getting behind the bars of an SL.

AntiHero said:

I took first place in a club-level championship (both TT and W2W) going the lighter-is-better route in a humble S2000. It was supercharged, but none-the-less, I still had less horsepower than anyone else competing in unlimited. Even at a track that favors HP (like Thunderhill), you're still only WOT in a few places.

Click to expand...

I believe it, I can go around the track faster in my base model (non-Turbo) Cayman than my buddy can in his V8 M3. The Cayman is 800 lbs. lighter with 150 fewer HP.

jarelj said:

I believe it, I can go around the track faster in my base model (non-Turbo) Cayman than my buddy can in his V8 M3. The Cayman is 800 lbs. lighter with 150 fewer HP.

Click to expand...

As an added plus, tires last far, far longer. I'd get 2 track days out of a set of R compound tires on my ~3200lb Evo, but could easily get 4-5 out of my ~2600 lb S2000, while posting way faster lap times. I'd imagine I'd burn through a set in a half a day in an M4 or GT-R.

ScrapperX said:

A little harder to pass in cars I would imagine I'm not sure because I never raced them but when I used to club race road bikes I always wanted 5 -10 more HP to pass. The bike was already light and so was everyone else's . For time like qualifying or track day a lighter bike has it's advantage but you can't always ride that way when racing . Being in the middle of the pack trying to work your way up and those guys are trying not to let you pass there's nothing like more HP to counter it and of course big balls.

Click to expand...

Two words: Dive bomb!

less weight all day long.. this is another reason.. I keep my R6 for the track.. 1 its disposable and not nearly as much to fix but more so than anything.. at the club level I dont need 195 hp... my R6 puts out (120 at the rear wheel) that's insane for most tracks.. because of this I started skimming weight.. I have it down to 353lbs wet with 3 gallons of gas the bike is so nimble and easy to turn.. this IN turn makes the bike better why because its easier to more 353 lbs with 120hp than it is to more 400lbs with 120 hp and so on.. that makes the bike faster.. sooooo yeah

This is an intriguing discussion, although I believe selected preferences in regards to power vs. weight will predominately be derived in perspective of context. There is definitely a pattern forming in the responses thus far, but if we were to change the presented scenarios, we may see the response pattern shift in the other direction.

For example, suppose you won an all expenses paid track day to any track of your choice, and you could select only one of the two following bikes to ride: a) Moto3 bike weighing in at sub 200 lbs., or b) MotoGP bike weighing in at 353 lbs.

It's quite clear which is the substantially lighter motorcycle, and yet it seems flaggingly apparent that most would opt for the heavier, yet substantially more powerful motorcycle. The decision would likely not be based on track experience, projected lap times, riding ability, or any variable other than which motorcycle the rider believes will deliver the more thrilling experience. At the end of the day, the sport/hobby of motorcycling is less about logic and reasoning than it is about passion and emotion. Reducing weight, while sensible and effective, will likely never inspire the same degree of awe as having more power available at the twist of your wrist.

Light weight makes a vehicle faster everywhere, they accelerate quicker, change directions quicker, and stop better, you will see it on the stop watch, pumping up the power may equate to better lap times on tracks with long straits. But often as not depending on delivery it might hurt your lap times by making you wait on the throttle, and or killing your tyre sooner.

Duck41 said:

This is an intriguing discussion, although I believe selected preferences in regards to power vs. weight will predominately be derived in perspective of context. There is definitely a pattern forming in the responses thus far, but if we were to change the presented scenarios, we may see the response pattern shift in the other direction.

For example, suppose you won an all expenses paid track day to any track of your choice, and you could select only one of the two following bikes to ride: a) Moto3 bike weighing in at sub 200 lbs., or b) MotoGP bike weighing in at 353 lbs.

It's quite clear which is the substantially lighter motorcycle, and yet it seems flaggingly apparent that most would opt for the heavier, yet substantially more powerful motorcycle. The decision would likely not be based on track experience, projected lap times, riding ability, or any variable other than which motorcycle the rider believes will deliver the more thrilling experience. At the end of the day, the sport/hobby of motorcycling is less about logic and reasoning than it is about passion and emotion. Reducing weight, while sensible and effective, will likely never inspire the same degree of awe as having more power available at the twist of your wrist.

Click to expand...

More power= more fun/thrill, less weight= more focus on cleaner riding...

All i can say at my level of rding, i ran a conservative 1:43 on the 1199 at a track day at road atlanta and the same time in the race on the sv650.

Both were a blast, with a safety margin on the panigale, hitting 183 at the end of the back straight and all in at a win it or bin it speed on the sv...

centeroff said:

Light weight makes a vehicle faster everywhere, they accelerate quicker, change directions quicker, and stop better, you will see it on the stop watch, pumping up the power may equate to better lap times on tracks with long straits. But often as not depending on delivery it might hurt your lap times by making you wait on the throttle, and or killing your tyre sooner.

Click to expand...

Unless you weight 125 lbs like MotoGP riders do. If you are 170lbs or heavier the lighter bike with less hp won't do squat for you but more horses will.

I want more power than lightness. I will feel the 20hp difference than 20lbs lightness.

I must be the elephant in the room then.. I would take the moto3 bike... I know that I could never use a GP bike to the potential of using that increased power.. but I could pin it to win it on a moto3 bike.. and most likely have a better lap time than the GP bike.

Less weight"¦.duh"¦you know how much easier it is to back into parking spots !

NOLA.

I wonder what " types of riders are asking for more power v's weight.

I want less weight and ride predominantly on track.

I am fine with the power right now on the "R". I just have the Factory Termi and EVO UpMap with the MWR filter. I think the filter really cleaned up the rich spots in the EVO UpMap. I am getting perfect color from the exhaust and it is an animal on the road.

I do want to get the full street weight to less then 400 lbs. I think once the weight is below 400 lbs then I may be happy with just some factory performance mods like the DP SuperStock Headers and UpMap.

I wouldn't mine a little more power right now but would rather spend my money on dropping weight and keeping the factory warranty.

desmodromic system said:

I want more power than lightness. I will feel the 20hp difference than 20lbs lightness.

Click to expand...

That's not quite a fair comparison. It's better to consider it in terms of percentages. If a 20 rwhp over 170 rwhp stock equals 11.8% gain in performance, then the comparison would be against a 11.8% decrease in curb weight, which would equal 48.8 pounds (22.1 Kg) if the bike started out at 415 lbs (188.2 Kg) wet. I think you'd probably notice if your bike weighed 48.8 lbs/22.1 Kg less...

On that note, you guys are talking about weight in general. If you specifically focus on reducing unsprung weight, and more specifically unsprung rotating weight like in wheels, rotors, tires, etc., then the gains are far better than HP gains for same reasons many have mentioned previously. Most of you know I have Rotobox RBX2 carbon fiber wheels, which are the lightest wheels available for the Panigale at the moment. A friend of mine just bought a mostly-stock base Panigale and we switched off so he could see the difference my mods make (RapidBike Race Module, Bitubo Suspension, RBX2 Wheels, EBC HH Brake Pads). I couldn't believe how heavy to steer his bike was! Plus the steering feel with the top-end suspension set up for the light weight wheels (remember it's not just how much weight is reduced, but where) is simply incomparable.

If I had the money, the next mod I would make would be Sicom DMC or Braketech CMC rotors. Over 4 pounds of rotating mass eliminated on the front wheel. So in answer to the original question I would take the lighter weight, but specifically put all the money towards rotating mass reduction - CF wheels, 520 chain/sprocket conversion - then LiFEPO4 battery, CF bodywork, etc. etc.

Guys,

Might sound like a stupid question but..... Is there a point you reach when reducing weight, that the bike will become too light and potentially unstable both in a straight line and cornering??

Just a thought.....

Brenden said:

Guys,

Might sound like a stupid question but..... Is there a point you reach when reducing weight, that the bike will become too light and potentially unstable both in a straight line and cornering??

Just a thought.....

Click to expand...

Unstable in a straight line and cornering is more a function of steering geometry and dynamic weight transfer. So if your geometry is not too radical and your spring rates and damping are set correctly, there should be no instability.

Instability also comes from too much or too abrupt (or both) input on the controls of the motorcycle, primarily the steering. Combine that with poor suspension/geometry setup and that is a recipe for a handful of a motorcycle.

Going from standard base wheels to 10 pound lighter carbon fiber wheels with much less moment of inertia compared to stock, I noticed I had to be much more delicate with my control inputs and put less force on the handlebars to steer the bike. Initially, this could be perceived as instability but actually there is much less force to overcome with the lighter rotating mass and lower gyroscopic force. I now have made my geometry even steeper (raising the fork tubes in the triple clamps so 10mm of the fork shows above the top clamp and raising the rear ride height) and with refined steering technique my bike has no instability whatsoever, and I'm running my steering damper on only 4 of 18 clicks.

But man does she turn. I now know how those WWII P-51 Mustang pilots must have felt dogfighting against the Focke-Wulf Fw 190's. When following my friends on weekend rides I feel like I could pass them on the outside or inside at any time, in any corner, anywhere in the corner, the steering feel is that light and detailed-feeling.

^ What Jeff said! Besides, they didn't have much trouble keeping 285lb 500's on track at 200+mph back in the day (at least once they got off the corners...)

Less weight for me, as it is its own reward, to borrow a phrase from Colin Chapman. More power helps at some times, but less weight helps at any time other than steady state. A pertinent quote from a 2012 MCN comparo of a current gen GSX-R1000 to a '98 RGV500:

"Even by today's standards and despite all the new technology around now, money can't buy a machine that handles like this 500cc GP bike. Compared to this 14-year old RGV500 XR88, Panigales, S1000RRs, RSV4s and Suzuki's own GSX-R1000 still don't come close.

On the scales, fuelled and ready to go, the 180bhp RGV500 weighs just 130kg, which is over 11 stone lighter than the 169bhp GSX-R100. It's so light that at a standstill you can straddle the bike and lift the front wheel clean off the ground by pulling up on the bars, like a pushbike.

This is why 500s have a deservedly fearsome reputation: the Grand prix bike's power-to-weight ratio is 1.38bhp.kg, the road bike's is just 0.83bhp/litre.

Without the burden of weight the RGV500 can be guided into any of the turns here at Silverstone with unbelievable speed - and still hit the apex. Try doing the same speed on the heavier GSX-R1000 and it would completely miss the corner, fly to the edge of the track and off into the barriers. "

Now if KTM would only do an RC690...