Aprilia Shiver 750
- Thread starter Jerry Doe
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,256
Jerry Doe said:
So .... is an AccessAprilia.com in the works?
If Aprilia is telling the truth claiming 95 horses it should be no contest. The Triumph Thruxton r is similar at 97 HP but 112 NM torque and I can't imagine even the most modified 920 Commando standing a chance.
Commandos do surprise tho!
Glen
Commandos do surprise tho!
Glen
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
Well, it's on Wiki, it must be true. :roll:
But I had a GS1100E Suzuki with 95 bhp and it would blow a Shiver into the weeds even though it weighed quite a bit more. Jerry's assessment that his 750 Commando is faster might just be a seat-of-the-pants feeling. The Thruxton R is 1200cc. Do the math.
But I had a GS1100E Suzuki with 95 bhp and it would blow a Shiver into the weeds even though it weighed quite a bit more. Jerry's assessment that his 750 Commando is faster might just be a seat-of-the-pants feeling. The Thruxton R is 1200cc. Do the math.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
This Motorcyclist Magazine comparo with a Ducati Monster 696 lists the Shiver's bhp at 74.7 pulling 487 lbs with a full tank and running the 1/4 mile in 11.88 seconds @ 111.8 mph.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ducat ... ked-middle
Didn't Dunstall-modified Nortons turn 11.2s at around 115 mph?
The Spizook was nearly a half-second quicker in the 1/4;
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/ ... e%2082.htm
And weighed 70 lbs more.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ducat ... ked-middle
Didn't Dunstall-modified Nortons turn 11.2s at around 115 mph?
The Spizook was nearly a half-second quicker in the 1/4;
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/ ... e%2082.htm
And weighed 70 lbs more.
Danno said:
I'm not sure what you want.
The number I listed from Aprilia would of course be crank bhp as with all Manufacturers.
They are rated at 95 bhp in every article and by Aprilia. I grabbed the first two that showed up, there are about ten more sources that all give the same figure.
I don't think Jerry said his 750 Commando is faster, he actually said the opposite, have a look.
Glen
Jerry Doe
Admin
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 2,343
I dont think my 71 is faster. I do think that if someone was on a shiver and i was in my 71 on a windy mountain road, they might be surprised by my 71, it would not be too far behind. I know once i get more used to my Aprilia the commando wont stand a chance. So far i only have 170 miles on it and have only ridden it in touring map. I will try sport next week when i take it out.
I can compare my 750 to my mk3 and it is much faster and revvy of course.
Jim C head, 1.5 over valves, lightened rockers etc,
Webcam 12 cam, radiused followers
Kibblewhite light weight pushrods and black valves
32 mm premier, trispark, twin coil
Belt drive, rgm
I can compare my 750 to my mk3 and it is much faster and revvy of course.
Jim C head, 1.5 over valves, lightened rockers etc,
Webcam 12 cam, radiused followers
Kibblewhite light weight pushrods and black valves
32 mm premier, trispark, twin coil
Belt drive, rgm
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
worntorn,
I still stand by no way 95 bhp, even at the crank. It might lose 5-7 on the way to the rear wheel, but 20? Get real. All the articles you quote parrot the factory advertising. The article I quoted included an actual dyno test. If Jerry's 750 Commando, at 60 or so bhp is nearly as fast as the Ape at 75, it's because the Ape is 80 pounds heavier. If you do a little homework, you'll realize factory advertising can be a little "optimistic" when it comes to bhp figures given and a little "pessimistic" when it comes to listing weight.
I still stand by no way 95 bhp, even at the crank. It might lose 5-7 on the way to the rear wheel, but 20? Get real. All the articles you quote parrot the factory advertising. The article I quoted included an actual dyno test. If Jerry's 750 Commando, at 60 or so bhp is nearly as fast as the Ape at 75, it's because the Ape is 80 pounds heavier. If you do a little homework, you'll realize factory advertising can be a little "optimistic" when it comes to bhp figures given and a little "pessimistic" when it comes to listing weight.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
Actually I did. You said "if" Aprilia's claims were true..... I said they were not, based on my seat-of-the-pants experience. You quoted advertising claims. Then I posted a link I found later that backs me up. You brought up the Thruxton R, which has 66% more displacement than the Shiver or 750 Commando, and which has a similar, if unverified bhp claim. BHP at the crank was later mentioned, which is always a bullshit, calculated number (like dry weight) since no manufacturer really dynos crank horsepower. The best they can claim is countershaft bhp, since modern engines (unlike old Britbikes) are of unit construction, with no practical way to measure crank horsepower.
Even a 75 bhp Aprilia would blow an unmodified Commando 750 away. A modded Commando (like Jerry's) would make it closer. A really hot street Norton could even be faster, considering the weight differential. Is there anything here you disagree with?
Even a 75 bhp Aprilia would blow an unmodified Commando 750 away. A modded Commando (like Jerry's) would make it closer. A really hot street Norton could even be faster, considering the weight differential. Is there anything here you disagree with?
I don't agree that stock BHP claims are less accurate than after market dyno numbers, I would say it's the other way around.
That topic has been gone over quite a lot and I think it was Jim Comstock who said that those aftermarket dyno numbers are useful for tuning but meaningless for comparison purposes. The dyno can be set up to give you about any rear wheel number you would like.
On the other hand, Manufacturers have been sued for making false BHP claims,( Yamaha) so they are generally pretty careful. But it's still not chiseled in stone.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure we are in what's known as violent agreement, now that you have the Norton going slower than the Aprilia, not faster.
Also , don't you mean optimistic on weights, not pessimistic? Since a lighter number is good for sales, a pessimistic number would be one that is heavier than reality, and optimistic number would be one that is lighter than reality?
Glen
That topic has been gone over quite a lot and I think it was Jim Comstock who said that those aftermarket dyno numbers are useful for tuning but meaningless for comparison purposes. The dyno can be set up to give you about any rear wheel number you would like.
On the other hand, Manufacturers have been sued for making false BHP claims,( Yamaha) so they are generally pretty careful. But it's still not chiseled in stone.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure we are in what's known as violent agreement, now that you have the Norton going slower than the Aprilia, not faster.
Also , don't you mean optimistic on weights, not pessimistic? Since a lighter number is good for sales, a pessimistic number would be one that is heavier than reality, and optimistic number would be one that is lighter than reality?
Glen
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4,195
Whatever.
The reason they give crankshaft horsepower is there's no practical way to refute it. Like saying you have elephant repellant spread around your house. And, although aftermarket dyno figures are relative, and each dyno may give a different figure, so may EACH manufacturer's individual dyno as well as those of other manufacturers. So how are they more accurate? And for the last time, there's no way in hell an Aprilia Shiver produces 95 horspower either at the crank, countershaft sprocket or rear wheel. It's merely an advertising claim. All you have to do is compare it to similar engines of equal displacement, compression and redline and you'll see how ludicrous the claim is. I'm not convinced the Thruxton R can make that much power, much less a 750 twin. You probably believe air-cooled Buell 1200s produce 104 bhp, too. Sorry, but I don't. Like those who are convinced the earth is only 6,000 years old, belief is a matter of belief.
The reason they give crankshaft horsepower is there's no practical way to refute it. Like saying you have elephant repellant spread around your house. And, although aftermarket dyno figures are relative, and each dyno may give a different figure, so may EACH manufacturer's individual dyno as well as those of other manufacturers. So how are they more accurate? And for the last time, there's no way in hell an Aprilia Shiver produces 95 horspower either at the crank, countershaft sprocket or rear wheel. It's merely an advertising claim. All you have to do is compare it to similar engines of equal displacement, compression and redline and you'll see how ludicrous the claim is. I'm not convinced the Thruxton R can make that much power, much less a 750 twin. You probably believe air-cooled Buell 1200s produce 104 bhp, too. Sorry, but I don't. Like those who are convinced the earth is only 6,000 years old, belief is a matter of belief.
Similar threads
