More power is always better ?

acotrel

acotrel

Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
13,817
Country flag
Many people seem to believe more power is always better. I suggest the only time that is really true, is if you are competing in drag racing (sprints ).
I think it was during the Trans Atlantic races that Peter Williams won a race on a big circuit ( Silverstone ? ) in which some of the other bikes were Yamaha TZ 750 s. Also Peter Williams made an embarassing mistake when he specified race steering geometry for the first Commandos which a few kids crashed. I found a couple of videos which you guys might find interesting about the way we think about road racing.

This one about the TZ750



And this one about John Britten - The Britten motorcycle has adjustable trail.

 
Last edited:
acotrel said:
Also Peter Williams made an embarassing mistake when he specified race steering geometry for the first Commandos which a few kids crashed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, He specified steeper angled forks, so the trail was reduced which made the bikes....... Wait for it,..... LESS STABLE, and inexperience riders were occasionally crashing their bikes... Norton changed the offset and fork angle to increase the trail number and made the bike MORE STABLE...
Right????

LESS Trail = Less STABLE
MORE trail = More STABLE
 
Your ‘less power is better’ argument is nonsense Al.

What you are doing with this diatribe is highlighting YOUR limits… not something profound about motorcycle racing theory.

Please show us ANY successful racer who has ever said to his team “can I have a slower bike please? It will make me faster”

Of course, more power won’t make an average rider beat a better rider. A lot of lap time performance is indeed down to the rider and most of the time, more power alone will not be enough to close that gap. This is especially so at amateur club level. The higher up you go, the more important even small machine benefits become.

At the lower levels, more power will not allow a rider to exceed THEIR limits. When I rode my (since sold) MV Agusta F3 800 RC on the track I doubt very much that I lapped that much faster than I can on my Seeley or Commando or Egli, but that is NOT because those old bangers are better, it is quite simply because the MV exceeded my own comfortable limits, so on it, I became the bottleneck.

But I’m just an old guy having fun on the track whilst staying within my limits. I’m not a high level racer.

In their world, if ALL ELSE is genuinely equal, ie power delivery characteristics, handling, braking, rider ability, etc. Then the faster bike will beat the slower bike.
 
Last edited:
About trail. Maybe not all of you heard the story of Steve McQueen for a short period had a Vincent. Complaining of bad handling. Guy who bought it turned the fork eccentrics from sidecar to solo position.
Once was on a speedway track against a world champion. Not much power difference. Then understood how much skill needed to be fast.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Your ‘less power is better’ argument nonsense Al.

What you are doing with this diatribe is highlighting YOUR limits… not something profound about motorcycle racing theory.

Please show us ANY successful racer who has ever said to his team “can I have a slower bike please? It will make me faster”

Of course, more power won’t make an average rider beat a better rider. A lot of lap time performance is indeed down to the rider and most of the time, more power alone will not be enough to close that gap. This is especially so at amateur club level. The higher up you go, the more important even small machine benefits become.

At the lower levels, more power will not allow a rider to exceed THEIR limits. When I rode my (since sold) MV Agusta F3 800 RC on the track I doubt very much that I lapped much, if any, faster than I can on my Seeley or Commando or Egli, but that is NOT because those old bangers are better, it is quite simply because the MV exceeded my own comfortable limits, so on it, I became the bottleneck.

But I’m just an old guy having fun on the track whilst staying within my limits. I’m not a high level racer.

In their world, if ALL ELSE is genuinely equal, ie power delivery characteristics, handling, braking, rider ability, etc. Then the faster bike will beat the slower bike.

Every time.

Period.
Click to expand...
I think you are wasting your time here Eddie tbh !
 
Peter Williams wasn't involved in the design of the Commando, nor did he even work at Norton Villiers when it was being designed.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Your ‘less power is better’ argument nonsense Al.

What you are doing with this diatribe is highlighting YOUR limits… not something profound about motorcycle racing theory.

Please show us ANY successful racer who has ever said to his team “can I have a slower bike please? It will make me faster”

Of course, more power won’t make an average rider beat a better rider. A lot of lap time performance is indeed down to the rider and most of the time, more power alone will not be enough to close that gap. This is especially so at amateur club level. The higher up you go, the more important even small machine benefits become.

At the lower levels, more power will not allow a rider to exceed THEIR limits. When I rode my (since sold) MV Agusta F3 800 RC on the track I doubt very much that I lapped much, if any, faster than I can on my Seeley or Commando or Egli, but that is NOT because those old bangers are better, it is quite simply because the MV exceeded my own comfortable limits, so on it, I became the bottleneck.

But I’m just an old guy having fun on the track whilst staying within my limits. I’m not a high level racer.

In their world, if ALL ELSE is genuinely equal, ie power delivery characteristics, handling, braking, rider ability, etc. Then the faster bike will beat the slower bike.

Every time.

Period.
Click to expand...


Chip Ganassi is an old personal friend who said to me "It's called MOTORSPORTS for a reason".........
 
Only time less is better is when your a fat ass that needs to lose weight. I'm sure all you guys are in tip top condition though. 🤣

Anyone ever ridden a TZ750?

I rode a TZ500 a bike dealer had in his stash, but it was in such a crappy state of tune I thought it was a turd. Looked kind of cool though.
 
Peter's involvement in production Commando's steering geometry was later, if I remember correctly in the 1972 "Combat" era. Bob Rowley told me about this unfortunate incident only recently. Problem was Peter was a more than competent motorcyclist, the customers were amateurs.
We found a similar thing with our "C652 International" Norton centennary anniversary model in 1998. Chassis designed by the late Dave Pearce of Tigcraft who normally designed SOS race chassis. Here again the steering head was on the steep side. No problem for experienced riders like my children, all with race track experience, who meanwhile have one of those bikes each, but a marked tendency to weave on the autobahn caused by sitting upright, not behind a fairing, and introducting sideways movements via the wider touring handlebars.
 
In Tuning For Speed, Phil Irving talks about "useable" power, the ability of the machine in the hands of a competent rider to do what it needs to do to get around the track at max speed. A machine that is not set up for a particular track or the needs of a particular racer will lose against a less powerful machine with accurately tuned suspension and power delivery at the right RPM. However, if both bikes are accurately geared and have the right suspension, the powerful bike will win.
 
Peter Williams' book "Designed to Win" describes his efforts to make the underpowered Nortons keep up with the higher powered competition. Weight saving, better aerodynamics, and better handling helped (not to mention his drive and talent), but it all just postponed the inevitable. He would do well in the corners and lose in the straights. If anybody asked him if he could have used more horsepower, we all know what the answer would be.
 
o0norton0o said:
Yeah, He specified steeper angled forks, so the trail was reduced which made the bikes....... Wait for it,..... LESS STABLE, and inexperience riders were occasionally crashing their bikes... Norton changed the offset and fork angle to increase the trail number and made the bike MORE STABLE...
Right????

LESS Trail = Less STABLE
MORE trail = More STABLE
Click to expand...
The early Norton Commandos which crashed usually did it after running over cat's eyes reflectors in the road. A lot of trail can produce instability at high speed - Commandos needed hydraulic steering dampers like H2 Kawasakis. But a steering damper might be an indication of bad handling. I have never experienced instability at high speed. If you need to counter-steer to tip into corners, it is understeer - stability. With more trail, that disappears and the bike can be just flicked into corners - less stable.
If you run wide in a corner when you accelerate inside it - that is understeer. - If you hold the front brake on, you will run wide faster. The trick is to use enough brake to slow the bike, but not depress the front forks - then wait. When you judge you are slow enough and won't lose the back - accelerate. As soon as the back goes down, the bike will steer in the correct direction. And that is even with a neutral-handling bike.
If I was racing a normal Commando, I would use the early yokes and fit the hydraulic steering damper. Peter Williams was not an idiot. The steering geometry he specified for Commando was probably that of 'wagon wheels', which was a Seeley.
 
I used to be in the camp of, "There is no such thing as too much power!" (for cars or bikes). But like others I discovered that it didn't translate to ME being noticeably faster around a track.

Nonetheless, even after trying my hand at racing for a couple of years and discovering I did not have the talent to be a competitive pro racer I continued on with buying more and more powerful sport bikes for street use. My AHA! moment came one day when riding a Ducati 999 back in '06. It sunk in that I couldn't use more than maybe 30% of that bike's capability on a public road. I bought my 1973 Commando later that year. Although I still own newer, much more powerful bikes, I enjoyed the Commando more with its (alleged) 50HP. Last year I graduated to even LESS power and now have a lot of fun when riding on twisty, narrow roads using all 36 of my 1976 Honda CB400F's horses!

So...I've finally gone over to embrace that old car/bike saying and agree that "It's more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow!" My younger self would be appalled if he knew that in 2024 he would choose to buy/ride a 36HP motorcycle in preference to something like a 220HP Ducati Panigali! :)
 
nortonmargie said:
In Tuning For Speed, Phil Irving talks about "useable" power, the ability of the machine in the hands of a competent rider to do what it needs to do to get around the track at max speed. A machine that is not set up for a particular track or the needs of a particular racer will lose against a less powerful machine with accurately tuned suspension and power delivery at the right RPM. However, if both bikes are accurately geared and have the right suspension, the powerful bike will win.
Click to expand...
Psychology has defeated many riders. If you look at the bikes in which Commandos race in Australia, you would believe you would not get anywhere near them. I don't believe I am an excellent racer - I don't have the correct mindset, however I am competent. With my Seeley 850, that is all that is needed. I am almost a robot. There is a method in riding the Seeley - always brake before corners and accelerate flat out as soon as you are inside them. There is no superbike which can do that.
 
MexicoMike said:
I used to be in the camp of, "There is no such thing as too much power!" (for cars or bikes). But like others I discovered that it didn't translate to ME being noticeably faster around a track.

Nonetheless, even after trying my hand at racing for a couple of years and discovering I did not have the talent to be a competitive pro racer I continued on with buying more and more powerful sport bikes for street use. My AHA! moment came one day when riding a Ducati 999 back in '06. It sunk in that I couldn't use more than maybe 30% of that bike's capability on a public road. I bought my 1973 Commando later that year. Although I still own newer, much more powerful bikes, I enjoyed the Commando more with its (alleged) 50HP. Last year I graduated to even LESS power and now have a lot of fun when riding on twisty, narrow roads using all 36 of my 1976 Honda CB400F's horses!

So...I've finally gone over to embrace that old car/bike saying and agree that "It's more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow!" My younger self would be appalled if he knew that in 2024 he would choose to buy/ride a 36HP motorcycle in preference to something like a 220HP Ducati Panigali! :)
Click to expand...
If you watch the Barry Sheene Memorial Trophy race at Goodwood Revival on Youtube , most of the bikes have 50 BHP max. I have done a bit of racing and I would be very apprehensive about racing against those guys. My mate Bob Rosenthal use to race an Atlas in A grade, then was sponsored on Yamaha TZ700s. He raced a Manx at Goodwood, and really had his work cut out trying to stay with them. It does not take much brains to blast down a straight really fast, but if you come out of a corner 20 MPH faster, you don't need nearly as much power.
 
And To Much is Enough ! .

More power is always better ?

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.
www.pressreader.com www.pressreader.com

More power is always better ?


Those Ring dings are really only a cheap & tinny version of a squarial .

More power is always better ?


Yamyha copied the bolt on cylinder head warmers too , on the TX 750 .

More power is always better ?


But WHEREs the SUPERCHARGER .

More power is always better ?


EGAD & Gazooks .

More power is always better ?
 
nortonmargie said:
In Tuning For Speed, Phil Irving talks about "useable" power, the ability of the machine in the hands of a competent rider to do what it needs to do to get around the track at max speed. A machine that is not set up for a particular track or the needs of a particular racer will lose against a less powerful machine with accurately tuned suspension and power delivery at the right RPM. However, if both bikes are accurately geared and have the right suspension, the powerful bike will win.
Click to expand...
Theoretically that is correct if the steering geometries of the two bikes are identical. They both need to get the power on the ground at the same point in corners. The speed at which the bike comes out of corners is critical. More lean means you use less power and accelerate slower. With less trail, the bike leans more, so you need better tyres. Those guys usually only accelerate hard when they are a long way into the corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

acotrel
Brain teaser
Replies
9
Views
462
Fast Eddie
Fast Eddie
acotrel
Tuning For Speed
2
Replies
29
Views
1,369
74ok
74ok
acotrel
Norton tuning
Replies
0
Views
500
acotrel
acotrel
jseng1
FA head power curve?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3,728
acotrel
acotrel
acotrel
  • Locked
Tuning
Replies
0
Views
659
acotrel
acotrel
Back
Top