Commando motor in solid frame

Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy cripps, why use 50 words when you can use 1000. !

Dances with Shrapnel said:
I have never had an issue with the qualified number of 30 hp (@ 100 mph) from the Phil Irving graph and I continue to challenge you in front of this forum to prove otherwise!
Click to expand...


SIR, YOU MISREPRESENT ME, TERRIBLY.

I certainly don't have any issues with 30hp & 100 mph, and never have.
THEY ARE ROCK SOLID in Tuning for Speed, and always have been.
They are near the 1st words I wrotheth in this thread here even.
Heck, then I quoted Goldstars and Norton Inters and even veteran Triumphs that all neatly fit that graph.
It seemed to be YOU that was arguing they were wrong... ?? !! ?? (see your quote below)

it is just me, or have we been saying about the same thing all along. ?? ?? ?? ??
Or, has Danno supplied you with a get-out-of-jail-card for free here ?


Post by Dances with Shrapnel
<snip>
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.
Click to expand...
 
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Oh, and I forgot to ask you, dear Rohan, why you did you jump threads back to this one (to crap it up) during your meltdown? Things too hot in the kitchen in the other thread for you? Trying to be polite here. Was it due to hobot?
Click to expand...

Meltdown ?
I just tried out your suggested game of whack-a-mole.
I could get to enjoy it.

Big sorry to hobot though, who appeared at just the wrong time.
He was (unusually) in a no content and all criticism mode....
Contributions welcome....

And threads with a start and no finish, or left hanging,
are rather pointless when someone trawls over them later.

It also seemed that you had taken a dive off the deep end,
what with seeming to totally refute "those common motorcycle numbers".
The place to query that is where it was said....
 
Rohan said:
The place to query that is where it was said....
Click to expand...

not if it distracts from a thread subject from the original poster, takes off in another direction & then even has its own linked thread,

i'd say not a good move, the intent of another thread is to keep focus there & here, not expand the same tenuous issues over 2 threads,

under general forum decorum to keep order, this easily falls under a major thread drift & hijacking here to start with, then in addition not keeping it in another thread

i'm mentioning it here because it has come up in the past with clear messages that folks here were fed up with it, particularity if a repeat pattern of behavior

i check in here once in awhile but looks like this has come to a head, if it was me at this point, i'd keep anything not related to 'Commando motor in solid frame' elsewhere

another thread allows anyone interested in a contentious issue to go there where it should stay & is 1 thing, vs folks having to read the same stuff in another thread whether interested or not

usually a thread is about the original poster & subject, then there is nothing stopping others starting their own thread(s) of interest, for whatever reasons for whoever is interested

i see a 'Commando motor in solid frame' thread. that's what i mostly wanna see or read about

fwiw
 
Rohan said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Oh, and I forgot to ask you, dear Rohan, why you did you jump threads back to this one (to crap it up) during your meltdown? Things too hot in the kitchen in the other thread for you? Trying to be polite here. Was it due to hobot?
Click to expand...

Meltdown ?
Click to expand...
Yes, of biblical proportion. :lol:
Rohan said:
I just tried out your suggested game of whack-a-mole.
I could get to enjoy it.
Click to expand...
It was not my suggested game but more of a description of one of your traits.
Rohan said:
Big sorry to hobot though, who appeared at just the wrong time.
He was (unusually) in a no content and all criticism mode....
Contributions welcome....
Click to expand...
Hobot spoke the truth and you gagged on it. Glad to see some humility coming from you; it has been slow, it has been arduous but progress....progress.
Rohan said:
It also seemed that you had taken a dive off the deep end,
what with seeming to totally refute "those common motorcycle numbers".
The place to query that is where it was said....
Click to expand...
No, just you getting confused within your own subtrefuge. Take this back to the thread where it belongs and answer and ..............

From above: I challenge you to show us all where I said that the 30 hp number was wrong. . I was having fun with this all the while and now realize I have been debating with a fraudster. So you invent things to support your arguments. This puts anything you have contributed on this forum into question, and same for going forward. You fabricate.
 
acotrel said:
Wasn't this 100 MPH stuff originally about some guy on a Commando sitting up in the breeze ? - It takes a bloody good old British four-stroke road bike to do more than 100 MPH.
Click to expand...


The Commando was fast, for a British road bike.
 
Rohan said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:
You cut and paste quotes in a lame attempt to dig yourself out of a deep hole. I challenge you to show us all where I said that the 30 hp number was wrong.
Click to expand...

What on earth were you "stating they are wrong" about then, if not that 30 hp for 100 mph quote ??
There was NOTHING else there could be disputed.
Unless we are talking at seriously crossed purposes here, and you didn't actually post what you think you did.

Comes up for me as you posted it -
Post by Dances with Shrapnel » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:45 pm

Dances with Shrapnel said:
For the benefit of the readers, I am not suggesting, I am stating they are wrong. Do the math. But this is not about understanding and enlightenment for you, right?
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



In order to set the record straight, the record you have manipulated or totally confused:

On Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:54 pm
Dances with Shrapnel said:
What is notably lacking regarding motorcycle applications is not in that wiki discussion (eh, know what I mean, know what I mean, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, say no more......). Unless someone is going to dispute the laws of physics or fluid dynamics, the analysis is consistent with common knowledge and practice. As an example, the material presented in the wiki link is consistent with the material presented in Tuning for Speed by Phil Irving, Sixth Edition, pg. 245.

I suggest that one or more of the numbers you claim as being commonly quoted are off..................
Click to expand...
On Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:12 pm Note different from the Rohan time stamp cited on the same quote above; could be different time stamping or a Rohanism subterfuge.
Dances with Shrapnel said:
For the benefit of the readers, I am not suggesting, I am stating they are wrong. Do the math. But this is not about understanding and enlightenment for you, right?
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
Click to expand...

On Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:18 pm
Rohan said:
And if you didn't know that 10 hp for 60 mph and 32 hp for a 100mph motorcycle, then your practical knowledge of this aero is about zip.
So you probably figured things out after reading
Click to expand...

Yep, up until this point we were talking about the numbers I originally "suggested as being off"; my original words, not Rohans and yep, Rohan is still confusing "Aero" numbers with probably composit numbers (my guess is as good as anyones as we still don't know the nature and source). The main point being is Rohan confusing aero drag with these apparent (alleged) composite numbers Rohan has been blatting about. I had suggested numerous times for him to try and plug and reconcile those numbers in the aero drag formulas and maybe he did and then realized (had an oh shit moment) and changed his tune a bit (Rohanism) as you will see below.

But then............

Oh oh!

On Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:17 am after Rohan was sent to school on the Phil Irving reference, spending sleepless nights pouring over the material I suggested he go read (but apparently only looked at the pictures :roll: ) Rohan has a Eureka moment with a new number! :lol:
Rohan said:
Not surprisingly, this subject of bhp vs mph vs machine weight has been extensively discussed over the years,
inc on other forums.
"Phil Irving in his book Tuning for Speed has a graph that gives a correlation between horse power,
approximate weight of bike and top speed."

Where do we think yer average 300 lb road race bike sits with respect to bhp @ 100 mph.
Yep, bang on 30 bhp.
"Very light stripped bikes" a bit less.
Heavyweight machines a bit more.
Click to expand...

And NOW, Rohan has an anchor point, tied firmly to a graph from a well known and well-respected reference text. And then to show his true colors, Rohan manipulates quotes (Fraudster?) in a lame attempt to save face. (Rohanism) making it look like I am saying this 30 hp for 100 mph is wrong. As stated earlier and as shown in the record, I never stated that.

Furthermore, people err and the difference is in how they handle it.

So again, deliberately manipulating quotes to misrepresent things in order to save face undermines one's credibility on the past and future posts by that individual.

Rohan, you are out of ammo and you don't know it and I fully expect to continue hearing the hammer striking spent shells.
 
Dances, If you are not saying 30 BHP to do 100 MPH is wrong, what ARE you saying ? Perhaps it is time both you and Rohan clearly restated your cases without all the quotes and jibes ?
 
acotrel said:
Dances, If you are not saying 30 BHP to do 100 MPH is wrong, what ARE you saying ? Perhaps it is time both you and Rohan clearly restated your cases without all the quotes and jibes ?
Click to expand...

Alan, thanks for saying this.
With all the quotes and requotes, its almost impossible to wade through shrapnels stuff.
Clear its not...
And then it seems to contradict itself.

My initial comment here was that 30 hp was widely touted as good for 100 mph, or words along those lines.
I've said little else all the way along.
shrapnel just seemed to vary the angle of attack.

And, note that I never defended that wind resistance cubed/squared thing..
shrapnel seems to have got hung up on that - and after correcting me.
( at least someone was paying attention.)

P.S. I'm in a different timezone. I can only show what time Access shows me..
 
acotrel said:
Dances, If you are not saying 30 BHP to do 100 MPH is wrong, what ARE you saying ? Perhaps it is time both you and Rohan clearly restated your cases without all the quotes and jibes ?
Click to expand...

Alan, fair question but that is not the point other than Rohan has twisted things a bit here. Let me be clear - I never had an issue with his reference of 30 BHP @ 100 mph taken from the Phil Irving seminal work. Think about it, why would I?!?!; I steered Rohan to the Phil Irving reference so he would hopefully get it clear in his head in the first place.

Rohan had manipulated my quotes and then started arguing about a point that was never an issue - maybe he is just that confused.
 
Rohan said:
acotrel said:
Dances, If you are not saying 30 BHP to do 100 MPH is wrong, what ARE you saying ? Perhaps it is time both you and Rohan clearly restated your cases without all the quotes and jibes ?
Click to expand...

Alan, thanks for saying this.
With all the quotes and requotes, its almost impossible to wade through shrapnels stuff.


Clear its not...
And then it seems to contradict itself.

My initial comment here was that 30 hp was widely touted as good for 100 mph, or words along those lines.

I've said little else all the way along.
Click to expand...

No, Rohan, that was not your initial comment. See the chronology I have cleaned up for you above. You were still talking about the 10 hp/60 mph - 32 hp/100mph; its all there for you and Alan to read. Not little else, you jumped conveniently jumped a cog - subtrefuge


Rohan said:
shrapnel just seemed to vary the angle of attack.
Click to expand...

Not at all, you jumped a cog. No change of angle of attack but I challenged you to show where I stated something was wrong. You manipulated my quotes to save face.

Rohan said:
And, note that I never defended that wind resistance cubed/squared thing..
shrapnel seems to have got hung up on that - and after correcting me.
( at least someone was paying attention.)
Click to expand...

We are so behind that other than to illustrate your lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and were still confusing concepts well into this thread

Rohan said:
P.S. I'm in a different timezone. I can only show what time Access shows me..
Click to expand...

Can't dispute the different time zone so are you saying this forum posts different times in different time zones and shifts times by fractions of an hour - no cigar there Rohan

So show me where I stated the 30 hp thingy is wrong. I am still asking you to back up what you asserted . Manipulating quotes really undermines a persons credibility, assuming there was any there in the first place.
 
i'd say the long back & forths mixed all over with other stuff including 2 threads makes it mostly impossible for anyone else to sort out, or why even bother, it's a jigsaw puzzle the way it is right now, at best,

by now, any main points may as well be lost in space

should be easy to sort with a fresh thread starting with main points, for folks that tune in

all i'm getting right now is rohan & acotrel seem to be on the same page about some stuff they are mostly discussing with each other

gotta make it short & sweet otherwise it ends up what it is right now

what is the main point? what relevance do those repeated hp for speed #s have? what's the big deal?

im guessing someone felt those base hp for a given speed #s including rpms didn't jive with what jim s started out with including the throttle position for a given speed?

eitherway, if this is pursued, i suggest in the other or a fresh thread
 
If your main jets are too rich, the bike might go faster at 3/4 throttle. I think 30 BHP would give you 100 MPH with a fairly light bike, especially downhill with a tail-wind.
 
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Can't dispute the different time zone so are you saying this forum posts different times in different time zones and shifts times by fractions of an hour - no cigar there Rohan

So show me where I stated the 30 hp thingy is wrong. I am still asking you to back up what you asserted . Manipulating quotes really undermines a persons credibility, assuming there was any there in the first place.
Click to expand...

This forum shows me what time AND EVEN DAY it is HERE, and presumably it shows you what time it is where you are.
There is not much I can do about this, if you don't understand time zones. !! Sheesh.

If you are saying you didn't dispute my figures, why the heck have we spent dozens of posts thrashing this out !!!
Whatever you said back there, it sure wasn't terribly clear if you can't clarify it now !!!

Dances with Shrapnel said:
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.
Click to expand...
 
84ok said:
what is the main point? what relevance do those repeated hp for speed #s have? what's the big deal?

im guessing someone felt those base hp for a given speed #s including rpms didn't jive with what jim s started out with including the throttle position for a given speed?

eitherway, if this is pursued, i suggest in the other or a fresh thread
Click to expand...

ANOTHER thread ? !
We have enough trouble with these ones.
A few short pages in the "Tuning for Speed" book explains this in quite easy-to-read terms.
Those with even no idea of the basics will find this quite straightforward to understand.
It even has a graph showing bhp vs speed.

I think you need to sort this out with shrapnel, if you haven't figured out what is going on here.
He seems determined to argue, no matter what is presented here, regardless.
Now he is on about time zones !!!!!!!!!! Holy crapola, batman.

Apart from correcting that comment of mine from cubed to squared, much of his subsequent wordage is largely content free. (not abuse free though). What the english term "time wasters". ?

And, for future readers too, 100 mph on half throttle is perfectly feasible. (as said near the beginning of this thread)
For a Commando, with a claimed 60 hp under its belt, that neatly corresponds to half throttle.
For a hotrod Commando, probably quite a lot of fun...
 
Its a shame this happens so often 2 poeple disagree about facts and figures and its nomaly the same poeple, they seem to forget others on this subject have a intrest about what the OP has asked and that is about Commando motors in a solid frame, so now we are getting pages of B/S that is happening between these 2 and really I don't really give a shit about what they both are aguing and carring on about, all I know is I converted my Commando motor to solid mounts and what I done has worked very well for me and have a very smooth running Commando/ Featherbed that is very light, very fast and handles so well and it was converted when I was a young one, with not much money but had the time up my sleeves, not many tools but only the basic, not much brains in my head but willing to take advice from what others had done at the time and to do it better and after 35 years set up in the Featherbed frame I think I got it right from the beging with a few improvemnets over those 35 years and the best part of all this is you don't see any others while out and about, mine is no show bike but where ever I pull up on it I always get someone checking it out and asking question, or the old ex bike rider saying things like I use to own a old Dommie, or they hang around to watch me start it and because its loud I always give them a bit of a show while I take off, its such a great bike to ride and to the Norton owners who have never experanced in riding a hot Commando/Featherbed combo and you get the chance to ride or even build one then I say go for it it be one of the best things you will ever do with a motorcycle.

Now back to the other 2 spoilers, get off your high horses and take your B/S aguement else where before Jerry or someone else locks this subject, don't spoil it for others.

Ashley
 
Rohan said:
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Can't dispute the different time zone so are you saying this forum posts different times in different time zones and shifts times by fractions of an hour - no cigar there Rohan

So show me where I stated the 30 hp thingy is wrong. I am still asking you to back up what you asserted . Manipulating quotes really undermines a persons credibility, assuming there was any there in the first place.
Click to expand...

This forum shows me what time AND EVEN DAY it is HERE, and presumably it shows you what time it is where you are.
There is not much I can do about this, if you don't understand time zones. !! Sheesh.
Click to expand...
Yeah, riiiight, and fractions of an hour difference!?!?! What sort of time zone you live in? I suppose it's some sort of Rohan quantum entanglement - care to explain? Plain and simple, the devils in the details as you manipulated quotes to try and save face; the time and date stamp is a minor detail as I clearly had no disagreement with the 30 hp number from the Phil Irving book yet you misrepresented that.

Rohan said:
If you are saying you didn't dispute my figures, why the heck have we spent dozens of posts thrashing this out !!!
Whatever you said back there, it sure wasn't terribly clear if you can't clarify it now !!!

Dances with Shrapnel said:
Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Look in the mirror Rohan while asking yourself "why the dozens of posts" :lol: Perhaps it is the Rohan way to set out a subterfuge nested within subterfuge nested within a subterfuge with the hopes that nobody outs your errors. Now you have just done it again with the following block quote above! I will not waste the forum's bandwidth to play Doctor Eliza with you. Get your facts straight and get your head straight.

As for starting a new thread 840k, well, see how well that worked out where Rohan did the old Rohan Whack-O-Mole trick and jumped threads when things were becoming clear and to a point. I did like the idea of a new thread though.

You are out of ammo and you have no clue.
 
FWIW, this is the chart Rohan is referring to.

Commando motor in solid frame


Ken
 
Thankyou for your worthy negative contribution to this discussion Ashley.

LAB has already had a word.
As long as it stays technical, its obviously of interest to many.
And maybe its good for the circulation numbers !
Jim did start this with a provocative header and comment, after all.
Something meaty for the membership....

Maybe hobot will come back with something positive here
 
Shrapnel, tell us what is is you are saying that is different to what I said ????
I can no longer make head nor tail of your 'logic' here.

Timezones. - I can only report what Access is showing ME.
Go read the threads on timezone settings, there was one quite recently.

If you can't search this forum for your own posts, go read the threads on searching.
There is a search box up the top rhs for me.

You seem determined for an arguement when there is none.
I can only keep pointing this out, maybe it will eventually sink in....

Your commonly quoted motorcycle numbers continue to not add up as they defy the laws of fluid dynamics. Plug in the numbers and you will see or are you disputing the laws of fluid dynamics?. [/unquote]

Thanks Ken for the bhp vs mph graph from Tuning for Speed.
We wonder if all these ultra wide tyred cruisers and sportsbikes would need lines D and E above ABC shown.
I have a suzook with fairly wide rubber, and I'm sure it uses a fair fraction of power just rolling them along the road.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top