Gobs and Gobs of Torque

Hey guys! Came across the Dyno chart for the 2018 Wing. 108 ft lbs of torque at JUST 1200 RPM and carries 100ft lbs of tourque or above until about 5200 rpms. Talk aboyt a monster!

https://www.cycleworld.com/2018-honda-gold-wing-dyno#page-2

Ain't nothing wrong with a little torque....... Makes a feller think he is on a 1st Gen!!!!

They also did a run with the Eluder.

https://www.cycleworld.com/2018-yamaha-star-eluder-dyno-run#page-2

112 lb ft of torque is not a bad number either.

Indeed Cha,, that torque figure is worthy but,, as usual with the new breeds coming out,, I am still confused and have been that way since the unveiling of the new Venture last year... Stuff just dont make no sense to me no more..

Talking the new Wing,, I have been following it (even joined a couple Wing sites) with enthusiasm since reading about the changes Mom Honda made and their open announcement of leaning toward a smaller, lighter, performance orientated machine with this new one.. Matter of fact,, I just got my new "Rider" magazine that has the "Titans of Touring" comparison in it - featuring the HD Road Glide, Polaris Roadmaster and the Venture TC - where the editor states that Honda is no longer pushing the Wing into touring (now sport touring) and is off chasing BMW in the sport touring market so the Wing was not included in their test - WOWZY was I shocked!! Having read that comparison now (it did give hard evidence to why my seat of the pants dyno told me the new Venture was way down on power compared to the earlier 113 inch found in the Strats/Raiders - more on all that in a different thread sometime) and following along with some of the stuff coming out of reading new owners reports on the new Wing, I am even more confused about what this new Honda is actually all about..

Initial reports were wayyy more torque, more HP to compliment its sportier weight and stance.. Coupled with an amazing new suspension package that was clearly aimed at the younger generation with a performance base..

Problem is, the real numbers seem to actually be short in the HP realm when compared to the earlier 1800 even though the new one has 4 valve heads.. The confusing part is that building for high torque (like Honda obviously did) is usually a process used when talking long distance touring bikes like the "Titan's of Touring" article was talking about and no so much the world of performance sport touring like Honda has been advertising the new Wing under..

There is a LOT more to the confusion too Cha (like the suspension = you should go read the pages and pages and pages of stuff about that - almost like Honda suspended this thing with it still being a "touring lounge chair" in mind.. Just really confusing for this old varmint..

I know,, I have brain fog (probably from drugs I am taking for some medical issues) real bad and am probably really confusing you too now.. Here are some things have assisted in the Dr.'s in twisting my brain at all levels... See if you can make sense of any of this:

1. Honda produces a new Wing to compete with the 160 Hp Beemer, using adrenalin pumping technology as seen in their CRF Mx scoots, they come out with 4 valve heads and a completely revamped smaller in physical size motor that is actually 1cc larger than the old one and they move the engine forward in the frame for better handling (GOOD MOVE IMHO) and all that BUT - in the end,, they chop the HP, shrink the intake so it cant breathe and speed limit the amazing new sport tourer (that reminds me of my 1st Gens with its little clam shell bags) to 112 MPH so even their 600cc Silver Wing scooter will whip it - what dah heck?

2. As far as current modern day NEW actual touring bikes (as compared in the magazine I now have in my possesion) - of the three modern day bikes now being produced for long distance, 2 up touring,, only the HARLEY DAVIDSON is water cooled - what dah heck?

3. If a person wants the added protection and stamina that shaft drive offers, you now have to go sport touring like a Connie or an FJR.. It used to be that sport bike guys (and sport touring guys in my recall) were the ones that REALLY liked the chain drive idea because of the gearing possibility it offers.. Being able to drop a tooth on a front sprocket when trail riding or raising one tooth for some long distance MPG gains has long since been forgotten I guess - what dah heck?

4. Yamaha, Polaris, Honda and HD are all pretty much neck to neck in pricing on their new scoots even though Honda is wayyyyyyyyyyy ahead of Yamaha, HD and Polaris in both RnD costs and manufacturing costs in comparison (Honda offers the DCT, is water cooled, shaft drive = wayyyy more expensive to produce).. Yamaha and Polaris actually went wayyyy up in MSRP when compared with their earlier price points for prior touring model when considering techology improvements and Polaris is SKY HIGH when compared to any of them (including HD) when pricing accessories/repair parts = its almost like they (Polaris) has come to the conclusion that the American consumer will gladly pay 4 or 5 times the cost per part of its closest competitor as this outlay of money gives the modern day biker some form of "better than the other guy" status.. What dah heck??

5. As they have tried unsuccessfully (sales wise) many many times over in many different models, Honda spent big RnD dollars to produce this new Dual Clutch Tranny (automatic). Honda was predicting that this new, no hand clutch, automatic would sell at about a 30/70 ratio compared to its new, 6 speed manual shift counterpart.. In fact, that number is actually turning out to be the other way around with the new automatic wayyyyyyy outselling the traditional manual shift.. Talk about adding to confusion? I always thought "riding" a motorcycle was all about learning to slow ride via precision use of clutch,brake,throttle control so you didnt fall down,,,,, or learning to speed shift at just the right moment to beat the other guy in a nose to nose drag race or having perfect control in cornering via throttle and brake input.... What dah heck.... I am so confused

I think I am getting to old for this stuff or something Cha..

Me wonders if Rider didn't want to post the differences between the much faster Honda and the very much faster BMW. Remember those dyno numbers were at the rear wheel. The new Wing is supposed to have a little more hp than the older 1800 and is supposed to more fuel efficient. I really like what I've seen and read about the new Wing.

Me wonders if Rider didn't want to post the differences between the much faster Honda and the very much faster BMW. Remember those dyno numbers were at the rear wheel. The new Wing is supposed to have a little more hp than the older 1800 and is supposed to more fuel efficient. I really like what I've seen and read about the new Wing.

It appears that the dyno numbers on the new one are coming up short from what was predicted.. Latest figures seem to be hovering right around 95 to 98 rear wheel on the new one - actually lower than the earlier model.. Given, the '33 is still significantly lighter than the '32 is making the HP/Weight ratio's favor the new one BUT we are no longer talking apples to apples because now we are talking sport touring (the 1833cc) to full touring bike (the 1832cc) and Mom Honda is still advertising the new one on its added performance compared to its competitor - the Beemer 1600 (137 to the rear wheel). I have only been reading about the new one and gotta admit,, because of it's likeness to the 1st Gen Yam with its clam shells, 4 valves, smaller size and tighter flooring space (I actually like the snugness of the 1st Gen cockpit and have always said the 1st Gen Mk1's were Sport Touring scoots) I REALLY like the bike but I am still confused as to why Honda built it to obviously compete with the Beemer and having left the "touring bikes" as shown in the article I mentioned behind and then trimmed its "Wings" after the fact... Just makes no sense..

On another note,, and maybe something that will restore some much needed stability to my pea brain,, I did just read where a new owner of a BMW Grand America is debunking all the talk about the Beemer also being speed limited (another source of confusion - rumor was that BMW was limiting that AWESOME 1600cc road ripper to - get this = 101 mph,, what dah heck,, made no sense = moped speed!!). Apparently his new bike is NOT speed limited and he knows from experience!! After finding this out, he went back to his dealership and asked about it and was told that "101 mph is the SUGGESTED top speed when the top box is attached!!".. TOTALLY different that an actual speed limiter like the Honda has set a 112 mph.. The return of the RIDER CONTROLLED MOTORCYCLE = FINALLY SOME SANITY!!

Speed limiters are no big deal really. I'm sure someone will be selling a programmer to allow you to raise the limit. The lawyers are responsible for all this stuff. My 05 Dodge Magnum Hemi and my 02 F150 had limiters but the Superchips programmers I used on both raised the limit to beyond their capabilities and also made them perform better in hp, torque, and fuel economy. It seems to be a trend with Honda to not try to outdo others in the hp department.

Honda has had issues with the ST1300 becoming unstable at speed. Some riders were killed when they started wobbling. Police depts in Europe quit using the ST because of that issue.

One thing that's never made any sense to me is the whole Torque Vs Horsepower thing. I've always been told that torque is the actual moving force of the motor, and that its what you need for power. That being said, The new Star Venture, Goldwing, and I'm sure many of these newer V-Twins are pushing out 100+ ft lbs of torque!.... But where's the power?? My dad has a 2002 1800 Wing, and that thing actually is pretty damn fast, I'd say quicker than my first gen, but then he's got his 103 Harley (which I guess "only" puts out 96Ft lbs of torque and its a dog!!! To me, the whole point of spending BIG BIG money, I'm talking the twenty to thirty thousand dollar range, is to have it all; Speed, Handling, Luggage Capacity, a couch for a seat, tons of room for customization, and ease of maintenance where it counts (a lot of people worry about the valve adjustments on these. They're easy to do and I figure every 50,000 miles how often are you gonna worry about it?). I think it's foolish for anyone to spend 15000 or more on anything Harley, Star, Vulcan, Indian any of those. Is the cool factor really worth that much when you're bored riding it? They're snappy in first gear too, but if I was a guy who just walked out with a brand new bike and my 88 First Gen can beat it I would feel ashamed!

That being said, they're making these bikes more purpose driven. All of these bikes listed above will certainly out perform my first gen at 80mph on the interstate. My mileage drops, and I obviously need a 6th gear. I never feel like I'm laboring the motor, but with the poor mileage, you cant gobble up much more than 150 miles on the interstate without fear of running low on fuel. I mean, if that's what you call "Touring" that's fine, but I'm truly not too interested in interstate driving. This is where Star gets it wrong for me personally, and I think I'm honestly the Demographic Honda is trying to hit with this new Wing. It had all of the necessities I listed above (minus the speed governor... WTF) and I've looked into Sport Tourers and they lose me because they lack the emenities that I've grown accustomed too on the Venture (the ones I looked at don't have a radio, and I really really love the seating on Goldwings and Ventures and Voyagers from the 80s and obviously the 1500 and 1800s are great seats too). I WANT this new Goldwing! I feel like Honda has literally set this bike on a gold platform and is sending it down from the heavens JUST FOR ME! I really do, but I'll never afford one. Besides, I'm more getting into Adventure Bike Touring, but more on that in a later post! I'll post a video now though of a guy reviewing the new wing. Skip to the 16:40 minute mark and give me an opinion. I think it looks like a hell of a good bike!

With the TC off , he didn't have any trouble spinning the rear wheel did he? I really like the new GW too. It seems to me to be a new Gen 1 Venture.

With the TC off , he didn't have any trouble spinning the rear wheel did he? I really like the new GW too. It seems to me to be a new Gen 1 Venture.

My thoughts exactly

I'll post a video now though of a guy reviewing the new wing. Skip to the 16:40 minute mark and give me an opinion. I think it looks like a hell of a good bike!

 

,, on the other hand though,, IMHO,,, the ability to spin up a 2 inch wide patch of rubber (about what you get for contact on a bike tires radius to the road) on wet pavement is not really a good/fair indicator of that much really... FUN? OHHH HECK YEA:biker:!!!! but still not much if your trying to prove anything concerning the performance of the scoot = just my opinion... Now if that guy would have throttle her up on the back wheel on dry pavement in 2nd Gear and then spun the back tire up when he nailed third like I saw a guy on a new Valk do not long ago = ...

That being said though,, if you watch the tach on the bike and notice how quickly it revs and where in that rev range things start to get interesting = you can get a small taste of the torque vs Hp thing and also what having 4 valve heads and being massaged with a little CRF valve train techology can do.. I sure wish Mom Honda would have REALLY gone after that 160 Hp Beemer...

Torque vs HP.. Being no engineer of any sort,, but I am old back yard grease monkey with a lifetime of messing with this stuff so I do have some thoughts on the torque/Hp battle (plus we are talking about how they apply to bikes:happy34:)... IMHO,,, torque and hp are inseparable.. Torque is a measurement of how much work an engine is capable of doing and Hp is a measurement of how fast it can do that that work..

Many years ago I was taught that this can be expressed mathematically and when shown the math formula back then - it was easy to see where no torque = no hp,, simple - one cant exist without the other.. Speaking of the math here,,, ever look at a dyno sheet Cha? Next time ya do try to take notice of something = there is a "given" on every dyno chart for every motor = that given is that at 5200ish R's the Hp line will cross over the Torque line.. No joke brother,, sounds crazy probably but this is a fact!! Years ago, playing with dyno's and doing some tuning I came to realize that after 5200 R's - torque is irrelevant when talking performance = it's all about Hp up there above 5200 R's if you remember that the torque number is incorporated in the hp number.. Below 5200 R's and torque is where its at and HP is irrelevant because it can not be above the torque curve and above 5200 = torque will always be below the hp curve..

Another interesting thing about tuning for torque in motors that are not designed to handle R's over 5200 is that because your dealing with a given rpm range to build that torque (5200 r's) - the absolute best that builders/tuners can hope for when it comes to the torque curve is a flat/high curve and that is not always easy to accomplish.. Most engines "peak" in a fairly close range (lets say 1500 r's) which requires a fair amount of shifting to accomplish decent accelleration (take a peek at how quickly the new Venture has to be shifted compared to Tweeks in the videos below - both revved out to rev limit in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear) and held within that range to have effective acceleration.. On the other hand,, HP seen on the curve of a dyno plot starts way below the torque curve (ALWAYS - it HAS to - it cant go above the torque curve until 5200 R's) and builds steadly until it crosses 5200 r's and then - depending on the engines tune and design - keeps building as the R's increase = higher she revs,, higher the hp faster she be funner the fun .. The range of the R's that the engine can safely and reliably produce is a huge factor when you think about all this because a well balanced usable torque - high hp motor has amazing usable operating range when combined with a probably ratioed tranny (you gotta come ride my R1 Cha = little 1000cc motor = 105 mph in FIRST GEAR = breaks the back tire loose in 4th at 140 and you can still feel it "sliding" loose at 160 in 5th:cool10:) ..

Here is something to think about when thinking Torque vs Hp.. If torque represents the amount of work the engine is capable of performing and Hp is the time factor in which that work is going to be accomplished than,, in my pea brain,, the first thing a person should do is determine how much work they actually want the engine to do = in the case of a motorcycle,, this can be determined by a simple weight/load measurement.. It all comes down to a balancing act IMHO... Think of this,, we bikers arent trying to move 40 ton down the highway like the Truckers are, we really do have a limited amount of work for the engine to accomplish.. If we over build for work (friends in my area have heard me say "that thing is muscle bound" in reference to some of the high torque V-Twins I have helped build - in using that term I was trying to denote the imbalance I am talking about here - at some point,, having a lot of torque becomes pointless IF having it prohibits an increase how fast that work is going to be performed) to be performed so its wasted muscle and we do pay for that over build by limiting the speed (how fast) at which the work can be accomplished than something isnt right - its all about balance.

So how does this limit on the speed of the work being done manifest itself?? Ponder this = years ago because of my playing with lawn mower engined powered minibikes and reaching down and over riding the governer and developing a nasty habit of destroying rods in those engines by doing so, a seemingly talented mechanic explained to me that the reason I kept blowing rods was because I was pushing my little Tecumseh motors "piston speed" beyond reason.. I gotta to be kind of careful here cause there are some real engineers around here that don't agree with this but I ended up getting exposed to protecting my future engines by setting rev limits according to "piston speeds" on those future builds as explained by the mechanic years ago .. Without going into to much detail here and potentially causing another clubhouse ,, I will simply state that the more cylinders you have to spread the wanted Cubic Inches around to - the less rod length needed to amass the required volume to accumulate those desired Cubes and the higher you can safely spin up the R's without crossing into dangerous piston speeds because the piston(s) dont have to travel as far for each revolution of the crank ( = lower piston speeds)..

IMHO developed thru a fair amount of non scientific messing around with this stuff - a good balance of power without going muscle bound for a touring bike weighing under 1000 pounds and hauling 500 pounds of payload (1500 pounds = this represents the work to be accomplished) is 75 Foot Pounds of torque in the 3 grand range and capabilities of spinning up to/ safely tuning to at least 7 grand/100 hpish = this balance produces plenty of torque for effortless mountain work with out downshifting alot (depending on top gear gear ratios of course) and, with no confounded speed limiter set by some bone head who thinks he/she should decide how fast I need to go instead of letting my right wrist decide = LOTS of spirited fun!! Then,, if 75 ft pds really is sufficient (and IMHO - it is plenty for me as I am not one of these varmints who plans on pulling a rail road car around with me) - any tuning/building beyond that figure can/should be applied to speeding up the process of getting the work done (HP) and, IMHO, that increases the "FUN" factor!!

My fingers are tired,, gonna end here but before I do I just wanna say,,, I LOVE that new Wing too ,, but,, yea,,, 25 grand and up for an engine and two wheels (I personally could care less about radios, tape decks, blue teeth, Go Park Somewheres (is that what GPS stands for?) - 25 grand is Corvette country IMHO

Speed limiters are no big deal really. I'm sure someone will be selling a programmer to allow you to raise the limit. The lawyers are responsible for all this stuff. My 05 Dodge Magnum Hemi and my 02 F150 had limiters but the Superchips programmers I used on both raised the limit to beyond their capabilities and also made them perform better in hp, torque, and fuel economy. It seems to be a trend with Honda to not try to outdo others in the hp department.

 

Honda has had issues with the ST1300 becoming unstable at speed. Some riders were killed when they started wobbling. Police depts in Europe quit using the ST because of that issue.

I hear that brother,, only thing is,, the smarter these bikes become the harder it seems like it is to fool em.. Some of these new brains that operate thru CANbus systems are really not that friendly,,, matter of fact,, some of them are designed to protect against hacking and will rat you out quicker than a 16 year olds little sister.. This can be a serious matter if it ever comes down to a warranty question comes some of these things are so smart they can tell how fast you have gone, if the oil ever got below a pint low and even if you ever tipped over (that is HUGE cause tipping over on a running bike can cause air into an oil system = good excuse for failed crank bearings?).. Lots of the old Screaming Eagle hacking days and fumbling with ECM parameters are gone IMHO.. Multiple computers speaking to each other can complicate things I reckon...

Indeed Cha,, that torque figure is worthy but,, as usual with the new breeds coming out,, I am still confused and have been that way since the unveiling of the new Venture last year... Stuff just dont make no sense to me no more..

Talking the new Wing,, I have been following it (even joined a couple Wing sites) with enthusiasm since reading about the changes Mom Honda made and their open announcement of leaning toward a smaller, lighter, performance orientated machine with this new one.. Matter of fact,, I just got my new "Rider" magazine that has the "Titans of Touring" comparison in it - featuring the HD Road Glide, Polaris Roadmaster and the Venture TC - where the editor states that Honda is no longer pushing the Wing into touring (now sport touring) and is off chasing BMW in the sport touring market so the Wing was not included in their test - WOWZY was I shocked!! Having read that comparison now (it did give hard evidence to why my seat of the pants dyno told me the new Venture was way down on power compared to the earlier 113 inch found in the Strats/Raiders - more on all that in a different thread sometime) and following along with some of the stuff coming out of reading new owners reports on the new Wing, I am even more confused about what this new Honda is actually all about..

Initial reports were wayyy more torque, more HP to compliment its sportier weight and stance.. Coupled with an amazing new suspension package that was clearly aimed at the younger generation with a performance base..

Problem is, the real numbers seem to actually be short in the HP realm when compared to the earlier 1800 even though the new one has 4 valve heads.. The confusing part is that building for high torque (like Honda obviously did) is usually a process used when talking long distance touring bikes like the "Titan's of Touring" article was talking about and no so much the world of performance sport touring like Honda has been advertising the new Wing under..

There is a LOT more to the confusion too Cha (like the suspension = you should go read the pages and pages and pages of stuff about that - almost like Honda suspended this thing with it still being a "touring lounge chair" in mind.. Just really confusing for this old varmint..

I know,, I have brain fog (probably from drugs I am taking for some medical issues) real bad and am probably really confusing you too now.. Here are some things have assisted in the Dr.'s in twisting my brain at all levels... See if you can make sense of any of this:

1. Honda produces a new Wing to compete with the 160 Hp Beemer, using adrenalin pumping technology as seen in their CRF Mx scoots, they come out with 4 valve heads and a completely revamped smaller in physical size motor that is actually 1cc larger than the old one and they move the engine forward in the frame for better handling (GOOD MOVE IMHO) and all that BUT - in the end,, they chop the HP, shrink the intake so it cant breathe and speed limit the amazing new sport tourer (that reminds me of my 1st Gens with its little clam shell bags) to 112 MPH so even their 600cc Silver Wing scooter will whip it - what dah heck?

2. As far as current modern day NEW actual touring bikes (as compared in the magazine I now have in my possesion) - of the three modern day bikes now being produced for long distance, 2 up touring,, only the HARLEY DAVIDSON is water cooled - what dah heck?

3. If a person wants the added protection and stamina that shaft drive offers, you now have to go sport touring like a Connie or an FJR.. It used to be that sport bike guys (and sport touring guys in my recall) were the ones that REALLY liked the chain drive idea because of the gearing possibility it offers.. Being able to drop a tooth on a front sprocket when trail riding or raising one tooth for some long distance MPG gains has long since been forgotten I guess - what dah heck?

4. Yamaha, Polaris, Honda and HD are all pretty much neck to neck in pricing on their new scoots even though Honda is wayyyyyyyyyyy ahead of Yamaha, HD and Polaris in both RnD costs and manufacturing costs in comparison (Honda offers the DCT, is water cooled, shaft drive = wayyyy more expensive to produce).. Yamaha and Polaris actually went wayyyy up in MSRP when compared with their earlier price points for prior touring model when considering techology improvements and Polaris is SKY HIGH when compared to any of them (including HD) when pricing accessories/repair parts = its almost like they (Polaris) has come to the conclusion that the American consumer will gladly pay 4 or 5 times the cost per part of its closest competitor as this outlay of money gives the modern day biker some form of "better than the other guy" status.. What dah heck??

5. As they have tried unsuccessfully (sales wise) many many times over in many different models, Honda spent big RnD dollars to produce this new Dual Clutch Tranny (automatic). Honda was predicting that this new, no hand clutch, automatic would sell at about a 30/70 ratio compared to its new, 6 speed manual shift counterpart.. In fact, that number is actually turning out to be the other way around with the new automatic wayyyyyyy outselling the traditional manual shift.. Talk about adding to confusion? I always thought "riding" a motorcycle was all about learning to slow ride via precision use of clutch,brake,throttle control so you didnt fall down,,,,, or learning to speed shift at just the right moment to beat the other guy in a nose to nose drag race or having perfect control in cornering via throttle and brake input.... What dah heck.... I am so confused

I think I am getting to old for this stuff or something Cha..

Ya know its kind of funny that we got talking about torque vs horsepower and weight when related to speed. Just yesterday, for the first time I got to ride a Triumph Rocket 3. Its that 2300CC beast you may or may not have heard about. I guess it does 0 to 60 in 3.3 seconds, and let me tell you... FUN BIKE!!! Its a blast around town. You sit with forward controls like a cruiser, and theres a mile high lumbar support on the stock seat. It turns out its there to keep you from sliding of the back of that power house! That being said, however, from what I'm reading, my 919 will beat it by .3 seconds in a quarter mile. Don't get me wrong, that bike is lots of fun, but that's where the conversation of having high horsepower comes into play. Though the rocket 3 does have like 130 ponies I think. One of the neat things about that bike is that its got a dry sump oil system because they put the crank as low to the ground as possible and they made the motor part of the frame. Its got so much low end torque that when you snap the throttle in neutral it lurches the whole bike to the right! Kinda cool!

I actually got to see a the new Goldwing in person today at the local dealership too. Fired it up and listened to her run and sat on it. Checked out the bags and though they definitely don't have the room of the previous model, they've got plenty. The trunk shape did remind me of the MK1 trunks and it was quite a bit narrower than the previous model sitting right beside it. Cranked up the tunes and was pretty impressed with the stereo as well. This one had the auto trans but they wouldn't let me test ride it!

They sold the star venture they just got already.

I don't think Honda has a name for the category its heading into on this new Wing. As far as having less power to the engine looking at the dynos charts the engine delivery is pretty similar, so they must just be making that claim on the diet the GW recently went on? They must be trying to choke the engine off to squeeze out as much fuel economy as possible to make up for the smaller tank?