Reno AMA National

Taffy said:

bigger isn't always better with wheels and tyres. the shape of the tyre changes and also the heat they achieve.

ignition
it's the stroke length that PROBABLY dictates your rev ceiling. so if it has the same stroke as the 400 - it should have the same rev limiter.

Taffy

Click to expand...

Inderectly anyway.
Piston speed but also the mass travelling at that speed of cource.

Rpm is power and 1000 more rpms means more power if you just can get the engine to actually rev 1000 more (and stay together). That you can.

The 650 is limited to 9500, the 400 to 10500. (If my memory serve me correctly)

And we are not stupid. If we use 5.5s it's because it' better, not because it looks cooler. With the Husaberg we would use it if the problems didn't over shadow the benefits. Change wheels, wich we do often 3 times in a raceday, is a real ***** and you need to cut away a bit of the extra width you can get with the 5.5 because of space issues.
Still, on a track with a couple of highspeed corners it would be worth it.

Daniel

ypvs said:

[ Rpm is power and 1000 more rpms means more power if you just can get the engine to actually rev 1000 more (and stay together). That you can.
Daniel

Click to expand...

Hi Daniel,
To insure the uninitiated are not misled I would like to point out that an increase in RPM does not automatically equate to an increase in power.

Power is ~ to Torque X RPM / 5252
If the Torque value proportionally decreases more than that of the RPM increase a power loss will result.

Such a generic statement as increasing RPM will net more power has led to the early demise of more than a few Husaberg engines.

Kind Regards,
Dale

since i was at the race,and wearing my husaberg shirt i might add,i feel that i owe all you fine husaberg enthusiasts my personal bench racing veiws.first and foremost,it was only one race!mr.chenney rode pretty well on a pretty stock motorcycle.the husaberg ran well and never misbehaved.i think graham had fun and he never spoke badly of the bike or his sponsors.the bike seemed to me to be reasonably fast.no one was passing him on the straights where horsepower is demonstrated.i did not notice him to be heavier than most riders.he definately is taller than most ,but he is thin.at least 5 of the 7 ktm mounted riders that beat him are in big buck operations.there were{ 2} husky 630 riders that were behind him and those bikes are nothing like a bike you can purchase for about $8000.US.i definately think mr chenney would have had better lap times if he would not have ended up racing almost the whole race by himself.this was a shortened race as it was getting dark so some of the usual drama seemed to be missing from such a sprint.it started with the 7 faster ktm riders pulling away in the first lap,there was a gap then graham,then another gap ,and then a husky rider {leonardo bagnis}that emerged and on the last 2 laps got close enough to our husaberg boy to get him to pick up the pace.his last 2 laps were his best lap times as a result of some competition from behind.for most of the race he was by himself.i think more time on the bike would be a help.he had a real bad crash a few weeks ago in colorado as he was knocked goofy.i am sure he was trying to avoid a similar situation,this track thru the city streets was sketchy and the shortened race was sort of a sprint so dont read too much into it.he and the husaberg looked great!dan.

Pics

Pictures from Reno

LINEAWEAVER said:

ypvs said:

[ Rpm is power and 1000 more rpms means more power if you just can get the engine to actually rev 1000 more (and stay together). That you can.
Daniel

Click to expand...

Hi Daniel,
To insure the uninitiated are not misled I would like to point out that an increase in RPM does not automatically equate to an increase in power.

Power is ~ to Torque X RPM / 5252
If the Torque value proportionally decreases more than that of the RPM increase a power loss will result.

Such a generic statement as increasing RPM will net more power has led to the early demise of more than a few Husaberg engines.

Kind Regards,
Dale

Click to expand...

True. Even I know the formulas.
I don't believe that power EQUALS rpm but nothing else changed than the rpm in that equation, as we were discussing, rpms do equal (lead to) horsies.
Natrually if the engine doesn't want to rev more or looses torque over a specific rpm power is also lost but that's quite obvious I have to hope at least.
So, you guys don't go overrevving now, eh... :wink:

Daniel

Rpm is power and "1000 more rpms means more power "if you just can get the engine to actually rev 1000 more (and stay together). That you can.

The "650 is limited to 9500", the 400 to 10500. (If my memory serve me correctly)
Daniel

Click to expand...

Hi Daniel,
It has been stated that a picture is worth a 1,000 words :



Please note that power decreases past 8,500 rpm, therefore"all else remaining equal" increasing the engine rpm to that of 9500 shall prove futile unless simple over-rev stability is ones primary objective.

Kind Regards,
Dale

Oh my God... :roll:

If the bike wants to rev more, it does´nt want to rev more when you start loosing torque. It might be possible to rev it more but it makes no sense for anyone actually riding a bike to continiue to do that and therefor you change gear.
When the bike accelerates faster if you change gear you change gear.

So to make it perfectly clear:

IF YOU CAN GET IT TO REV MORE WHILE KEEPING or INCREASING THE TORQUE it will give you power.
Jesus, is this kindergarden or something.

Besides there can sometimes be another reason for overrevving as shifting up and then almost directly down again may cost you a few tenths while keeping on for the extra 20 meters on the same gear will loose you less, but that´s another thing.

So, Dale, actually I don´t think that there is anyone that thinks that revving a Berg to 35000 rpms will give them 102rwhp even if you think that there actually are people like that here.
You´re the best guy out there on these engines or at least one of them but, bah.... Gonna watch a movie...

Daniel

We Americans do enjoy a good debate

LINEAWEAVER said:

We Americans do enjoy a good debate

Click to expand...

I love´m...