CDI: a new timing curve has been developed to optimize power delivery and provide an immediate feeling with the bike. This allows the rider to be comfortable in any situation and condition of land.

I previously took the mickey out of Gasgas's claim the Radonne had "power to overcome any obstacle" and in fairness need to point out they are not the only ones making questionable claims. The above quote is taken from a Beta advert / technical description. I can think of plenty of uncomfortable situations where the timing curve will make sod all difference.

Why do manufacturers no longer publish output data, BHP and torque graphs for example?

Edited April 8, 201412 yr by dadof2

Que?

Back in the early days of importing cars into the US, Japanese manufacturers’ advertisements extoled the performance and quality of their cars with specifications and real data. They sold poorly. Being the clever fellows they are they took a step back and looked at the American advertisements and realized that only engineers like themselves actually looked at the numbers. The buying public was more into image, The Heartbeat of America! Chevy, Mopar and Ford weren’t engineering companies they were style merchants and tribal affiliations that just happened to build cars. You think the majority of Harley owners can tell you the torque peak of their engine or the iPhone user tell you his phone is a quad band GSM handset? Honda got the message early with their bikes. “You meet the nicest people on a Honda!” Toyota hit it exactly with the Prius. The jury is still out whether it is actually good or bad for the environment and it would probably go faster if it had pedals but people who buy one don’t care. They are part of the eco tribe with their neatly packaged image intensifier.

Now I can read specifications and believe they are relevant to real world performance since writing data sheets is one of the ways I make my living but on a bike I can tell more in a minute of riding than an hour of geeking out on specs. I’m sure you can too. Most riders will never spend the time it takes to properly set up their bikes to get the stated performance anyway. For the manufacturers what’s the point. If BHP isn’t a major selling point why bother with the expense and time of measuring? I’ve ridden factory trials bikes. On paper they look awesome. For me, in a section they were suboptimal (read terrifying) and maybe that’s the real variable that makes bike data irrelevant, the variability of the rider.

Kawasaki got it right

'Let the good times roll'

You wouldn't buy a Harley Davidson based on its performance or handling, image is all.

Found this by accident - but nicely sums up this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjFeC7g6_40

In the early 1970s I had the pleasure of watching Cal Rayborn on the under powered harley keeping up with and in may cases beating bikes with supposedly much more power.

Back to the post topic of power / torque graphs. I reckon about 14 to 20 HP is about right for a trials bike. Graphs would probably not influence my choice of bike but it would be interesting to see comparisons.

Power is only an advantage to those skilled enough to use it properly

I have been in the Japanese bike world all my life and have enjoyed soooo much Jenglish that translations always make me chuckle

If you get late 70's owners manuals or service manuals they are absolutely full of gems like that

Edited April 10, 201412 yr by 0007