[man_of_steel]

Originally Posted by ebonho

Its not the size of the piston, but what you do with it.

I will just stop by saying that your are badly spoiled by you-know-who!

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by man_of_steel

I will just stop by saying that your are badly spoiled by you-know-who!

Of course I am.

I never understood this Bulleteer fixation with torque.

If high torque figures framed on the bedroom wall or painted on your tool boxes helped you climb mountains better, then Bullets would have been the champions of hill climbs, unbeatable to the top of any hill.

Most of us who have ridden Bullets, or ridden with Bullets, know how amusing and fallacious that statement is.

I have seen sub 20 Nm bikes runs rings around 41 Nm Bullets up steep climbs.

Lets put things into perspective for the topic of discussion here.

UCE 350 28 Nm

Himalayan 32 Nm

UCE 500 41 Nm

Both the UCEs, indeed most RE motors, develop peak torque sub 4000 rpm (peak power about 1000 revs higher).

We don't know where the Himalayan develops peak torque. But safe to assume its not going to be lower than the bigger UCE 500.

On the straights leading up to the hills (60-70% of any "adventure" riding is done on straights) its still not going to top 130 kmph.

[Urban_Nomad]

The Zigwheels article is being given more weightage than it deserves IMO. It is at best a rumor

The FACT however is the video BBlost posted a few pages ago, showing a sprightly Himalayan zipping through traffic at respectable speeds and looking good while doing it

So lets stop counting chickens and wait for them to hatch

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by ebonho

I never understood this Bulleteer fixation with torque.

We group of riders rode our RE's on a 20kms + rough trail strewn with dust and rock(see a glimpse of that road on my Tbird500 thread) where the speeds were cut down to 30-40 KMPH and even lower. This is where bottom and mid end torque come into the picture to make the ride effortless coupled with beautiful suspension of the newer Tbird's which soaked in the bumps with aplomb. Another instance was 50+ kms of riding on an excuse of a road which would give tough competition to proper offroad trails with ups and downs strewn with stones and 4 streams during the monsoon. That time we also had a KTM Duke 390 in tow and all three of us made mince meat of that offroad trail and crossed those 1 to 1.5 feet deep water streams. The torque helped us raft over those streams with ease of a hot knife through butter. A Bulleteer's fixation with torque is the same as a Jeeper's fixation with a DI Diesel engine. You always have Gypsy 1.3 petrol to run around circles of a Jeep but still Jeepers opt for Jeep like Bulleteers opt for Bullet.

If high torque figures framed on the bedroom wall or painted on your tool boxes helped you climb mountains better, then Bullets would have been the champions of hill climbs, unbeatable to the top of any hill.

The fact is for a long time we only had the Bullet CI and erstwhile Jawa Yezdi which had good torquey motors compared to a slew of models on offer at present. We cannot compare the world class high revving OHC engine coupled with light weight body to a 1950's design Bullet CI. If one wants to climb the hills faster with break neck speeds then a 200-250cc enduro dirt bike will be the master of it. Also people have been taking them numerous RE motorcycles to Leh Ladakh which is highest motorable road in the world. There must be something that makes them choose the RE torque being considered one of the those factors.

Most of us who have ridden Bullets, or ridden with Bullets, know how amusing and fallacious that statement is.

I have seen sub 20 Nm bikes runs rings around 41 Nm Bullets up steep climbs.

I have seen people who were praising Bullets to no end until the competition arrived and the same people brought out brickbats against the Bullets as they had more choices with which they could run rings around the Bullet. Not fair to compare 50 year old Bullet with modern motorcycles. Given that you consider only the Bullet CI as Bullet.

On the straights leading up to the hills (60-70% of any "adventure" riding is done on straights) its still not going to top 130 kmph.

That analogy may hold true to you but you can't generalize it else we would not see people buying litre class adventure motorcycles which have lesser power than their super sport siblings. Adventure Tourers are much more than just speed. Also that remaining 30-40% offroad riding according to your analogy is going to be much more difficult than riding for those 60-70% straights. The adventure tourer shines in that 30-40% of offroading. Case in point during one of our riding sojourns we covered straight roads approx. 130 kms in 1hr 30 mins but it took us 2.5+ hours to cover 50kms of offroad trails. On those offroad trails the speed is cut down by half and this is where bottom and mid range torque comes into the picture. RE seems to be concentrating on this aspect for the Himalayan.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by Urban_Nomad

The FACT however is the video BBlost posted a few pages ago, showing a sprightly Himalayan zipping through traffic at respectable speeds and looking good while doing it

I've seen the video. You saw something special in that which a well tuned Bullet with a good rider cannot do in as sprightly a manner?

I agree we should wait for the bike to be launched, but these 16 pages have been on a bike that is yet to be launched, and I am commenting on the first hard data that any of us has seen.

Of course that data may well be proven eventually to be wrong, but I don't see anything else out there in terms of numbers, and am basing my comments on the same.

You ride/rode a Bullet too right? Disappointed by the number (28)? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by navin_v8

A Bulleteer's fixation with torque is the same as a Jeeper's fixation with a DI Diesel engine. You always have Gypsy 1.3 petrol to run around circles of a Jeep but still Jeepers opt for Jeep like Bulleteers opt for Bullet.

I can get that. As long as "torque" is not going to be put forward as a superior differentiator. Because its a unicorn.

A Jeep will probably be better only at pulling a stuck Gypsy out. Then again, a Gypsy will almost never need to be pulled out.

Its the same sort of thing here.

There must be something that makes them choose the RE torque being considered one of the those factors.

Its not the torque. You are a Bulleteer. I don't need to tell you where a Bullet excels as a bike in that terrain. There's not a whole lot anymore in comparison to the improved competition, but that edge still remains.

I have seen people who were praising Bullets to no end until the competition arrived and the same people brought out brickbats against the Bullets as they had more choices with which they could run rings around the Bullet. Not fair to compare 50 year old Bullet with modern motorcycles. Given that you consider only the Bullet CI as Bullet.

I am including every Indian RE bike under the sun here. If that helps.

It does not. Because there is very little if anything in between a CI 500 and a UCE 535 on the road.

And I am still hoping (with decreasing conviction) that the story is not going to be repeated with the HI 410.

What is 28 bhp man? A 20 BHP UCE 350 bored out to a UCE 410 (or a completely new bore and casing and block studs, as the case may be) will put out 24 odd BHP untouched, untuned.

You don't need a new engine for that. A 50 cc TVS 50 moped used to produce 3.5 BHP in the 80s and early 90s. This is a 60 cc bump.

That analogy may hold true to you but you can't generalize it else we would not see people buying litre class adventure motorcycles which have lesser power than their super sport siblings. Adventure Tourers are much more than just speed. Also that remaining 30-40% offroad riding according to your analogy is going to be much more difficult than riding for those 60-70% straights. The adventure tourer shines in that 30-40% of offroading. Case in point during one of our riding sojourns we covered straight roads approx. 130 kms in 1hr 30 mins but it took us 2.5+ hours to cover 50kms of offroad trails. On those offroad trails the speed is cut down by half and this is where bottom and mid range torque comes into the picture. RE seems to be concentrating on this aspect for the Himalayan.

My disappointment (if one wants to use the mild turn of phrase to avoid negativism) stems not from the Himalayan as a bike (it looks the part, as I've commented on this very thread) but from the numbers put out for what is a completely new looking motor.

I'll be honest. I was expecting more.

But I forgot momentarily who I was expecting it from.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by ebonho

I can get that. As long as "torque" is not going to be put forward as a superior differentiator. Because its a unicorn.

A Jeep will probably be better only at pulling a stuck Gypsy out. Then again, a Gypsy will almost never need to be pulled out.

Its the same sort of thing here.

Precisely that is exactly the reason why I don't compare CI or UCE pushrod motors with OHC motors. Both are different and will behave differently.

Its not the torque. You are a Bulleteer. I don't need to tell you where a Bullet excels as a bike in that terrain. There's not a whole lot anymore in comparison to the improved competition, but that edge still remains.

So what's the point here. I believe the Himalayan will only improve what the Bullet has benchmarked. With a good team combination of Harris Engineering UK, Pierre Terblanche and our very own Siddharth Lal I am sure something good is going to come out that will complement and improve the pedigree set by Bullet. Considering the Himalayan comes with a OHC engine.

I am including every Indian RE bike under the sun here. If that helps.

It does not. Because there is very little if anything in between a CI 500 and a UCE 535 on the road.

And I am still hoping (with decreasing conviction) that the story is not going to be repeated with the HI 410.

Then again it is not just about similar engine displacement but many other factors like EFi powered UCE motor, steel braided disc brakes, better chassis, improved front and rear suspension which effect the overall riding dynamics. The fact is CI 350 and 500 are out of production and UCE is in and has been attracting buyers from all age groups even some former RE enthusiasts. From what can be seen they are happy with the UCE motor and its performance which can be seen gauged from RE's sales chart. Hat's off to RE to experiment with a new model and that too ADV tourer Himalayan. The spy pics of the model alongwith rumoured engine specs shows RE's seriousness in this particular model.

What is 28 bhp man? A 20 BHP UCE 350 bored out to a UCE 410 (or a completely new bore and casing and block studs, as the case may be) will put out 24 odd BHP untouched, untuned.

BHP is not the only contributing factor to a motorcycle vis a vis displacement else no one would be buying Harley Davidson, Indian, Moto Guzzi, etc. motorcycles. Get my drift...

My disappointment (if one wants to use the mild turn of phrase to avoid negativism) stems not from the Himalayan as a bike (it looks the part, as I've commented on this very thread) but from the numbers put out for what is a completely new looking motor.

There's a similar legendary motorcycle albeit from a Japanese manufacturer called the Kawasaki KLR 650. This motorcycle has an engine displacement of 650cc and puts out 37 BHP. Now every ADV rider worth his salt knows the pedigree of the KLR650 and its legendary status. Compare this with the Himalayan's 410cc engine belting out 28 BHP(although rumoured) is not all that bad.

I'll be honest. I was expecting more.

But I forgot momentarily who I was expecting it from.

Mate you've got more choices and there are other ADV motorcycles set for launching in India which might suit your taste. You can look at those as and when they get launched.

[Nick_Wanderlust]

After miles of riding, we (KTM D390 rider, Tbird 500 rider and I being on Tbird 350) having been swapping our bikes for observing the behaviour of these bikes on off-road nature as well as butter smooth tarmac during the journey.

All these beauties tackled the unfamiliar terrain with ease however the brute nature of KTM D390 felt much lighter than 189Kgs TBird, and its handling, braking, suspension and ABS mode of switching it off were just right for such terrain, whereas on the highway manners, the Tbirds shines out for its stability and the riding position. Out on the trail, I really wished that handlebar of KTM D390 should have been higher for stand-up riding especially to glide over the broken shredded roads.

Navin_V8 Mate! There was one incident which we had to ride our bikes in extremely steep incline that made our heart cling at our throat while riding to pawana lake!

We had observed that the riders of commuter bikes had a hard time which they ACTUALLY had to use their legs while riding to climb up as well as told their pillion to get off ONLY after when they saw us riding on that incline upward which was “off-path” away from the main road!

Riding down on that steep incline was just like walking on the edge of thrill but it requires some abilities to handle the bike appropriate with cautiousness. Whereas it was the “climb” which surprised me thanks to the massive torque delivery at near idling RPM. The rough steep incline with sharp turn was dismissed by the torquey motor like a termite mount. It is not just about speed but torque delivery from that punchy motor at low rpms.

These thoughts have crossed into my mind that it is not just about the torque that plays the entire journey but also the overall package of the motorcycle should handle the various terrain at one go!

There are many factors to be considered apart from the bottom or mid or high torque such as the handlebar, the foot peg position, the ergonomic, luggage rack mounting, etc. for being Adventure Touring motorcycle.
I am hoping that RE can retain this in Himalayan!

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

We group of riders rode our RE's on a 20kms + rough trail strewn with dust and rock(see a glimpse of that road on my Tbird500 thread) where the speeds were cut down to 30-40 KMPH and even lower. This is where bottom and mid end torque come into the picture to make the ride effortless

A little curious about this, say I have Royal Henfield which produces 28 Nm at 4000 RPM

and say I have Bajaj Gulsar that produces 28 Nm at 8000 RPM.

In order to tackle the rough uphill trail, perhaps Royal Henfield stays at 4000 RPM = mid end, however, the Bajaj Gulsar can also produce the same high torque numbers, albeit at high end.

[Urban_Nomad]

Hey Doc! Belated happy Navroz to you!

Originally Posted by ebonho

I've seen the video. You saw something special in that which a well tuned Bullet with a good rider cannot do in as sprightly a manner?

Donno Doc. Maybe havent come across too many of either yet (Well tuned bull + competent rider combo)

But - If you refer to BBlost's posts after the vid where he has a lil tete a tete with the rider; you will recall the latter being all praise for the bike. This ties in with whatever I have heard from one of my riding buddies who happens to be very closely related to the project; besides being a super gifted rider. So whatever speeds he was doing; he was doing with ease. A bull will probably do those speeds, but you may lose a tooth (or at least some filling) with all those vibes

Originally Posted by ebonho

I agree we should wait for the bike to be launched, but these 16 pages have been on a bike that is yet to be launched, and I am commenting on the first hard data that any of us has seen

But is it data? What have we seen really - Any dyno results? Some leaked spec sheet from the factory? Logs from the performance tracking gizmos on the test bikes etc? None / Nada / Zilch. This could very well be a "seat of the pants" guesstimate by the "source"

Originally Posted by ebonho

You ride/rode a Bullet too right? Disappointed by the number (28)? Yes or no?

I have a 2004 AVL T-bird doc that I still ride around fairly regularly. Off topic - But she just lost a good amount of weight and is a different bike altogether

I see your number (28), and I raise you another - 26

The latter are the number of horses at your disposal if one were to purchse a Honda CBR. With a weight of around 170 KG, she is not exactly a scorcher but not considered underpowered by a large majority of our junta. It is in fact considered to be THE best touring motorcycle in its class by the Hindustani biking fraternity

You yourself said something on the lines of the "size of the piston" not being a factor. Numbers need to translate to real world usability as well. For example - if she can hold 110-120 odd KPH, even with 2 up, be smooth and not rattly like my AVL 350 which is rattly @ anything beyond 80, then thats fine by me

In conclusion, this number does not disappoint neither excite. What does excite me though is the report shared by my friend who has ridden this motorcycle EXTENSIVELY and reports it to be unlike any RE ever; which has been further corroborated by 2 other people on this very thread

1) bblost
2) ringoism (post 144)

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by Urban_Nomad

Hey Doc! Belated happy Navroz to you!

Thanks Karan.

Donno Doc. Maybe havent come across too many of either yet (Well tuned bull + competent rider combo)

Then you should have seen Imran on his prototype AVL TB 500. The same lot Sid rode to RM 2004.

I saw the video again. Just in case I missed something. There was nothing fancy or sprightly or whatever bro. He was riding normally.

The one time you could be excused for getting a "little" excited was in the beginning of the video when he pulled away from the car (probably because he saw it filming). That could either be the bike's acceleration or the fact that the car did not respond in time. Or both.

Other than that, I do not see the excitement anywhere.

But - If you refer to BBlost's posts after the vid where he has a lil tete a tete with the rider; you will recall the latter being all praise for the bike. This ties in with whatever I have heard from one of my riding buddies who happens to be very closely related to the project; besides being a super gifted rider. So whatever speeds he was doing; he was doing with ease. A bull will probably do those speeds, but you may lose a tooth (or at least some filling) with all those vibes

Ok, let's wait for the bike then. My posts are purely on the 28 bhp I read earlier. Highly underwhelming, any which way you want to wordsmith it.

But is it data? What have we seen really - Any dyno results? Some leaked spec sheet from the factory? Logs from the performance tracking gizmos on the test bikes etc? None / Nada / Zilch. This could very well be a "seat of the pants" guesstimate by the "source"

Agreed. But its more than what we have been going on about for the previous 16 pages. Or did you see something more authoritative somewhere in there in terms of actual numbers?

Those are pretty specific numbers.

28 PS

32 Nm

410cc

And from I read elsewhere here

27 kmpl

This is Royal Enfield's comfort zone. Their play area.

I have a 2004 AVL T-bird doc that I still ride around fairly regularly. Off topic - But she just lost a good amount of weight and is a different bike altogether

Nice. She'll probably not let the HI 410 out of her sight. Most Bullet rides, anyways its the fast riders and the slow riders and the average riders stratifying, regardless of the Bullets you ride, or their vintage. That should tell you guys something.

I see your number (28), and I raise you another - 26

The latter are the number of horses at your disposal if one were to purchse a Honda CBR. With a weight of around 170 KG, she is not exactly a scorcher but not considered underpowered by a large majority of our junta. It is in fact considered to be THE best touring motorcycle in its class by the Hindustani biking fraternity

Its a 250 cc bike bro. We are talking about a bike that has an Apache RTR 160 added on to that. I know I made the wisecrack about the size of the piston, but seriously, bacche ki jaan lega?!!!! LOL

That 250 cc single pot bike incidentally does a very respectable 150+.

You yourself said something on the lines of the "size of the piston" not being a factor. Numbers need to translate to real world usability as well. For example - if she can hold 110-120 odd KPH, even with 2 up, be smooth and not rattly like my AVL 350 which is rattly @ anything beyond 80, then thats fine by me

Maybe you are easily satisfied. Or feel guilty expecting more from the legend. Or maybe you have another toy that let's you sow your wild oats, and keep things in check when you swing astride the Enfield.

I believe the legend is dead, long live the legend. Everything beyond and forward now I look at as a bike and hold it to a similar yardstick.

In conclusion, this number does not disappoint neither excite. What does excite me though is the report shared by my friend who has ridden this motorcycle EXTENSIVELY and reports it to be unlike any RE ever; which has been further corroborated by 2 other people on this very thread

1) bblost
2) Jeroen(? ..... The Bhpian who lives in Manali. Apologies if I got this wrong)

That can actually be a two edged sword. Where you lose the Bullet feel. And the bike is a bike length ahead of a real Bullet on the road.

Would be justifiably guarded till I ride the bike for myself.

I set myself up in a similar manner for the oo la la Con GT, and boy did I crash land the first time I rode it.

[nitro.1000bhp]

Ebonho would you like to tell us what sort of power figures you were expecting from an aircooled 410cc motor? A 2015 sr400 makes 23hp! and thats by yamaha with all their racing pedigree. Again a honda xr600 makes about 35hp albiet a 10 year old design.

Ohc or pushrods that is pretty much what can be expected from a long stroke air cooled thumper. Ofcourse more power can be tapped if you add some highlift cams, bigger valves, carb and bump up the compression but at the cost of economy and reliability ( which you cannot compromise on in an "adventure" bike.)

As you may know power is a product of torque multiplied by rpms. Long strokers cannot rev too high because of their design limitation. Rev too high and expect to blow a connect rod or bearing.( happend to our zma 230 with a 250 overbore).. and short strokers dont produce enough torque low down.

An offroad bike does not need more than say 40 hp. Anything more you better be a pro or wear lots of diapers.



Lastly I dont see RE say anywhere they were going to make a power crazy fire breathing monster of a 400 cc bike.. I think for this segment with the level of tech , intended application and price considered 30~ hp is more than ample.though I hope they bring the weight domn to 150~ thereabouts and offer a 6 speed box but I am liking whta I am seeing.

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by alpha1

A little curious about this, say I have Royal Henfield which produces 28 Nm at 4000 RPM

and say I have Bajaj Gulsar that produces 28 Nm at 8000 RPM.

In order to tackle the rough uphill trail, perhaps Royal Henfield stays at 4000 RPM = mid end, however, the Bajaj Gulsar can also produce the same high torque numbers, albeit at high end.

Although Mate I don't know which model of Bajaj Pulsar develops 28NM torque at any given RPM. But since it is just an assumption I will explain how it makes a difference. The engines both the motorcycles use are different the Pulsar(assuming the Pulsar 220) uses a OHC over square engine whereas the Thunderbird(assuming 350cc) uses pushrod under square engine. The RE Thunderbird is a typical long stroke engine which produces much of its usable not peak torque at low RPM's for a strong bottom and mid range and vice a versa for Pulsar. The difference is felt while riding at crawling speeds uphill on dirt trails where the Enfield engine remains relaxed and keeps chugging like a Diesel Locomotive whereas the Pulsar also does it with aplomb like you said at a higher RPM.

Assuming the RE Himalayan comes with a OHC over square engine it can revv higher and go faster and at the same time have good bottom and mid range torque delivery. It is just my personal assumption that RE might even consider a under square engine given their comfort level with it to complement the overall motorcycle personality.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

The difference is felt while riding at crawling speeds uphill on dirt trails where the Enfield engine remains relaxed and keeps chugging like a Diesel Locomotive whereas the Pulsar also does it with aplomb like you said at a higher RPM.

That's exactly it.

The fabled "torque" is actually some (not all) Bulleteers not wanting to get out of their comfort zones and ride a bike differently to what they have been used to.

I see it differently. Ride a bike like you want to ride it. Sit facing backwards for all it matters.

Bottom line is, which bike does it better. And for many of us out there, better is faster, better is ahead, better is first. Why shy away from basal testosterone?

The attraction for riding a tractor is strong in most red blooded urban males. We crave a bit of roughness and primal crudity in our lives. It makes us feel more adventurous. More manly.

I get the same feeling when my Storme shudders to a stopwhen I turn off the ignition. Like I am a sardar truck driver doing an all nighter across the vast country in my trusty rust bucket Tata truck.

So what if it just looks shiny and hauls ass once its moving.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by navin_v8

The difference is felt while riding at crawling speeds uphill on dirt trails where the Enfield engine remains relaxed and keeps chugging like a Diesel Locomotive whereas the Pulsar also does it with aplomb like you said at a higher RPM.

I deliberately chose wrong names because I wanted the bikes to remain fictional.

So,as I had guessed in my earlier post and corroborated by you, the Henfield chugs like a train, but Gulsar vrooms.

Why are we fixated with chugging at lower RPMs?

[navin_v8]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Why are we fixated with chugging at lower RPMs?

The same way how people are fixated with Gulsar vrooms. There are people who buy a Harley Davidson and then there are people who buy the Kawasaki Z1000. Similar to how some people buy a RE 500 and some people buy KTM Duke 390. To each his own.. Since this is the Himalayan thread I would like to mention and hope that RE gives it the best of both considering it is a ADV tourer and has a 410cc OHC engine.

Originally Posted by ebonho

That's exactly it.

The fabled "torque" is actually some (not all) Bulleteers not wanting to get out of their comfort zones and ride a bike differently to what they have been used to.

Like I mentioned before there's much more than torque to a motorcycle for some and for some it is all about the torque. Comfort Zone I am not aware of as far as my rides go. Since this is RE Himalayan thread I have mention that RE experimenting with an OHC engine is commendable and shows their seriousness towards the growing market.

I see it differently. Ride a bike like you want to ride it. Sit facing backwards for all it matters.

Then again it's your take how you want to ride your motorcycle and want it to behave.

Bottom line is, which bike does it better. And for many of us out there, better is faster, better is ahead, better is first. Why shy away from basal testosterone?

Bottom line is you have many options in the market to satiate your testosterone. RE Himalayan appeals to a different group of riders who may or may not be into Adventure Touring where better is not faster, better is not being ahead in a race, better is not coming first in the race.

The attraction for riding a tractor is strong in most red blooded urban males. We crave a bit of roughness and primal crudity in our lives. It makes us feel more adventurous. More manly.

I get the same feeling when my Storme shudders to a stopwhen I turn off the ignition. Like I am a sardar truck driver doing an all nighter across the vast country in my trusty rust bucket Tata truck.

So what if it just looks shiny and hauls ass once its moving.

Nice analogy I have a Mitsubishi Lancer Petrol in my garage and I don't need to mention its rallying pedigree or the high speed dynamics. It makes an average driver like me feel like race car driver. But that's not the point here. The point is one buys what one likes. It is either you like it or you don't there is no in between. Well I think we are digressing from the thread topic.