it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"

Yeh! lets have more photos of famous people and their Commandos. More gals comments as well.
Dereck

I don't mind Rohan's arguments because he is usually theoretically correct. However in motorcycling what happens in practice often does not confirm the theory. A better way is to change the bike in the way you think you should, then adjust to it and then see if you can find a way theory explains the outcomes. A lot of my ideas about bike handling come from riding various bikes with different frame geometry and power characteristics. I use a few of them as benchmarks. The extremes are the 900SD Ducati and the 250cc production racer Parilla. Everyone who rode my friend's Parilla crashed it and never knew why. I don't know how anyone ever raced that Ducati on a tight circuit.

Jagbruno said:

Rohan, sorry to be blunt,

Click to expand...

If this thread is ALL ABOUT discussing the theory, what the heck are you on about ??
Your majority (of one ?) doesn't have to read threads if you are not actively going to contribute or participate.
This reeks of the political correctness that is paralysing the EU, and prompted Brexit.
And is firing up Mr Trump....

acotrel said:

I don't mind Rohan's arguments because he is usually theoretically correct.

Click to expand...

This forum is getting downright weird if we can't discuss theory on a thread about theory !!
Sheesh...

Rohan said:

Jagbruno said:

Rohan, sorry to be blunt,

Click to expand...

If this thread is ALL ABOUT discussing the theory, what the heck are you on about ??
Your majority (of one ?) doesn't have to read threads if you are not actively going to contribute or participate.
This reeks of the political correctness that is paralysing the EU, and prompted Brexit.
And is firing up Mr Trump....

Click to expand...

Rohan, please do NOT even begin to think about patronizing me. It won't work. Not only did I contribute and participate to both threads, but I ride a beefed-up Commando engined featherbed bike, both on the track and on the road, so feel I can add real experience, rather than your endless armchair rants. By the way, you must be the only person who ever accused me of political-correctness...you can't even imagine how far off the mark you are...so if all your affirmations are of a similar exactitude, you must be very much like the proverbial compass that indicates the South pôle. :roll:

Bruno, that is all fine and dandy on the thread about Commandos-in-featherbeds,
but this is the theoretical spinoff thread from that, about 100 mph and half throttle.
And if LAB hasn't locked it down, maybe it still has some miles to go.

And, 100mph at half throttle isn't the exclusive domain of any one type of bike.
As pointed out quite early, a stock Commando should be about capable of that too.
Maybe no-one has marked their twist grip to test this - yet.

Rohan said:

acotrel said:

I don't mind Rohan's arguments because he is usually theoretically correct.

Click to expand...

This forum is getting downright weird if we can't discuss theory on a thread about theory !!
Sheesh...

Click to expand...

For acotrel's sake, the initial subject matter is not a theory but a series of interdependent phenomena that are well known, relatively easy to measure and/or can be calculated. Interdependent phenomena include velocity, forces due to air resistance, chain/belt, and gear resistance to movement and rolling resistance of tires, axles and brake drag. No theory.

according to the first post this thread is done and has become a free for all whatever,

the issue was square vs cube, the result was 3 vs 1, with no further arguments from the 1,

what also has come up from this thread is, folks are fed up unanimously with the 1 (other than 1 dissenter),

#1 could care less, he will fill up this or any other thread he feels like, if someone doesn't like it, too bad,

just a matter of time then, for #1

1 person only, has shown only a very ltd support thus far for rohan (who is either in total denial at this point, or just could care less), it's a unanimous slam dunk against

i'd suggest zero further participation in this thread, easy enuff for anyone to start another and link to this one for any relevant/related info

if a poster can request their thread be locked here, i request it, i can also easily condense all the against comments, in one post

acotrel said:

Triumph Saint 650 had a light crank - and poor performance compared with a Tiger 110.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Not all Saints and not just the Saint.

For a couple of years in the late 1960s, all the road 650s had a lighter crankshaft. Apparently not a success and they went back to the heavier crank.

[quote="84ok"
1 person only, has shown only a very ltd support thus far for rohan (who is either in total denial at this point, or just could care less), [/quote]

What the heck are you talking about, the formula in Tuning for Speed quite clearly spells out what is what.
Shrapnel corrected that mistook very early on.
As has been mentioned more than a few times now.
Keep up laddy, keep up.

If you wish to turn this into an inquisition, continue on your merry way.
Most of us have moved on...
And if this forum can't cope with things not being quoted quite right here,
we would have drowned in wrongness decades ago.
Heck, I've corrected a few of em myself, as has nearly everyone here.
LAB is the master of this, and of the parts lists, par excellence.
Its Jerrys Forum too, where do you come into it ?
Cheers.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

No theory.

Click to expand...

LAB will probably tell me to leave this alone, but all moving objects have to conform to the laws of physics.
And you yourself mentioned that formula for speed and coefficient of drag, laws of fluid dynamics etc.
They'd constitute 'theory' ?