Triumph Rocket III

Literbikes with 80 ft/lb's of torque are overkill...

You cant even use this bike anywhere, let alone turn with it on twisties....

I guess its bragging rights.

 

Ditto on the looks.

But seriously, literbikes with 80 ft/lb's can pop wheelies at 100 mph.... Unless this thing weighs about 1000 pounds..... whats the point?

I say overkill because... could you ACTUALLY use it? ever?

 

Yep you could indeed actually use it. It pulls hard from a near standstill. Tons of torque at 2k RPM's. The engine can lope along and still pull you out of a corner. You dont have to keep it wound up to get the torque like you do a litre bike (granted 1000cc's will get you better torque response than a 600, but for max effect you still need to get them wound up a little).

It handles fairly well for its size and weight. Decent brakes too.

Go to your local Trumpet dealer and ask for a test ride. Every dealer is supposed to have a demo bike.

 

Everything that I have heard about this bike is that it is amazing, comfortable, smooth, handles well (not just for a large bike), has GUTS and puts it on the road very well.

Bill

 

Im still not convinced it would have better acceleration than a literbike. Weighing in at 704 pounds... DRY... with more than 20 hp less than a ZX-10r.

Torque numbers are extremely impressive, but with a bike that weighs ALMOST twice as much as a literbike, that torque is needed.

Lets remember, thats 140 BHP... on a shaft drive... which would further reduce the hp. The latest crop of literbikes all possess on average around 155 hp, 75 ft/lb torque.

If the ZX-10r was scaled up to 704 pounds... it would have in comparison (from 403 lb, 161 hp, 78ft/lb):

281 hp
136 ft/lb torque

Yes, the wheelbase is longer, and youd probably have better initial acceleration, but I bet the literbike would win in the quarter mile.

 

Jason,
Where do you come up with this "scaled up" stuff ?

The fact that the Triumph has 2 X the torque of the ZX-10R, and that it comes on at a relatively low RPM means that it has a very wide power band, this is where it's speed comes from.

If you don't think that torque matters, why was the Dodge Ram Cummins the fastest 0 to 60 vehicle, built in the states for a number of years? (Hint: It wasn't the horsepower)

Bill

 

Well i was assumming everyone on this board was involved in pre-algebra at some time in their life... In any case, it was a hypothetical: If a ZX-10r weighed the same amount w/ rider and gas as the Rocket 3. If that was so, its hp and torque numbers would also be 150%. Something everybody knows... I must not have been clear before.

Who ever said torque didn't matter? Torque is central, and I have never said otherwise.

But with the tradeoff of 30 ft/lb of torque, and a gain of OVER 105 hp... The ZX-10r is much better equipped in the engine category. Lets not forget about the Rocket being shaft driven to rob it of even more power.

If the rider weighs about 250 lb, THEN the rocket would probably be a better choice.

Edit- You're right, My previous scaling was insanely flawed because I was too dense to factor the rider and gas in, which i just did now. Still looks better for a ZX-10r.

 

Jason,

My question in regards to your "scaled up" stuff, was what does that have anything to do with real world now? Not HOW DO YOU CALCULATE IT! I guess that must have been a wee bit subtle for you.

Remember we are talking about a cruiser/tourer not a crotch rocket, and that the Rocket motor is in a mild state of tune.

The ZX-10R and the Rocket both have sub 3 second 0 to 60 times and they both have sub 6 second 0 to 100 times, the two are quite similar in acceleration to that point.

Does this 105 HP figure come from your hypothesis? Actually the difference is approx 15-20 HP in favor of the ZX-10R, but these figures are the peaks. How wide is the HP band on the ZX-10R versus the rockets, I have not seen the graphs, have you?

I have built a number of high-perf motors, the more HP you extract from a piston motor the narrower the power band is, it's a fact of life.