V Twins VS Buz Boxe's

[countryhare]

I have always been interested in why people choose multi cylinder bikes over the V twins.
My experience with multis and I have had a few ranging from my old Z1 to a 1200 bandit and all the rest to many to mention.

I have always prefered the twins, low down grunt, not so hard on the brakes, and above all, that sound, never to be mistaken.

Just a question, not having a go just interested.

Mind you a R6 doing 18000 rpm does sound good.

[instigator]

Currently milling over what I get next.

Love them both really, and both have their flaws. (big vtwins drink bloody fuel and iL4's lack any form of character)

[Bendy]

Top end rush.

[countryhare]

[G]

An r6 at 18k rpm is probably blowing up .

V twins rarely seem to have more much more low down grunt, ulness the engine's designed for a different purpose (ie cruiser). Especially so if you compare it as a percentage of the rev range.
Compare the same capacity twin and four and they usually have similar low and midrange power, but where the twin starts to trail off, the four gets into it's stride and starts being fun.


If you're trying to ride fast, you should be just as hard on the brakes, however many cylinders.

As for the sound, to me it's horribly dull and makes it hard to work out what the engine's doing. While an inline 4 you can tell what revs you're doing at and it sounds like it's actually doing something when it goes.

Instigator; you ridden any sports 4s? I found the hornet power delivery horribly dull (as I'd say the SV is) but a decent sports 600 has a lot more zing.

[instigator]

[G]

While it can feel a bit sanitised if you ride it lacking in vigour, thrash an r6 or similar and it shows a feck load more character than any twin .

To be fair, the in line 4s you've ridden have been detuned to be bland and easy to ride.

[instigator]

[Klause]

[funmonkee]

[musclebiker]

its down to PERSONAL preference, G being the perfect example

[instigator]

OT:

[G]

I worry much more about the sound a twin makes - at least you know the 4 is actually doing something .

[musclebiker]

[Klause]

[funmonkee]

my 2p worth:

I've owned a V-Twin and ridden a few iL4s. the Twins are fantastic around town, low grunt and power where you need it. They're generally also happy to cruise about the motorway as well. The iL4s I've had experience with have had reliability problems and generally (oddly) have been pretty high maintenance. iL4s are smooth and powerful - but hardly any 'character' - both have there good and bad points. I own a bit of a V4 now and thats just the dogs power/fun all in the same heavy package. I'd advise you dudes _not_ to limit yourself to Twins or iL4s for any dumb ass reason. Life is too short, have a bit of fun and try everything while your still lucky... better still get a couple of each

Safe ride
____________________
**** Don't ride faster than your angel can fly Get this Free Space
The democratically elected Mod of the Scottish Section - The Peoples Choice[b]

[Claud 14.7 to 1]

Hmmm I've not ridden a V-2, but I can imagine an inline 4 being more fun. You have to keep it in the power, insead of having equal "go" anywhere. Hence I think I see G's "character" point.

Depends how you like to ride - grunty and lazy, or blaze-of-revs banshee. I like no. 2 thank you very please.

[wristjob]

i am a novice rider with no preconceptions about what a good bike is.
today i had the pleasure of a back to back ride about on a 1999 r1 streetfighter and a 1998 vtr firestorm(standard other than really loud pipes).
so the vtr first .It sounded great and i mean GREAT!,it didnt have a mental head down riding position and was good fun on the bypass and on a bit of twisty(nothing hard though)and i got off it thinking "if this was my bike i would be ok with it"
then the r1, it was as comfy at low speed as the vtr thanks to the straight bars but it also had more power everywhere than the vtr.
it pulled from no revs up to 11 and a bit where i changed gear.
they felt very similar in the corners(a lot sharper than my bandit 6)the vtr pulled better if i was in the wrong gear,but with the r 1 at least close to its massive power band the vtr was left in its wake.
so i make a judgement.
if i had to choose today i would have the vtr,not as fast not as powerful and not as bite you in the ass get it wrong.
had i got a couple of years more behind me then the r1 streetfighter would be the bike of choice.


the vtr is a friends bike that he wants to sell and the r1 is a bike i am helping my brother build for his wife.

[NSR Mick]

i've got a v-twin, but its a 2 stroke. and thats the way to go if a top end rush is what your after

although having owned a few il4's and riden a few v-twins i like v-twins but had the problem of over revving them

[countryhare]

Interesting post on this subject.
My conclusion is you ether love em or hate them, mult's have there use's so have vt's just depends on what you want out of a bike

My firestorm I found great fun but the standard handling left a bit to be desired but the motor was bomb proof. Then I went to my current machine a sp2, a whole new ball game this bike was intended for the track, country lanes are a nightmare where as the open road, well a change of underwear (in my case anyway).

My sp2 is a replicar of Collin Edwards machine very pretty, I just like the way it puts the torque on the tarmac, perhaps I am out of date, still I am pleased with the beast.

[Zimbo]

[G]

Generally I find people describe 'character' as a bike's failings.
For instance an old british bike has 'charcter' because you arrive with less bolts than when you left.
A relatively recent Laverda was described as having character because it had worse brakes, less power not that great handling compared to similar jap bikes, oh and also broke down a lot.

I’ve never quite got why some people describe what to me is a flat featureless powerdelivery, abit lumpy low down to have ‘character’, but not consider a revvy powerbanded delivery to not have character.


When comparing twins and fours you have to be clear whether you’re talking same capacity or same maximum hp.
I’ve much used the following, it shows two similar capacity bikes designed with the same intent, an r1 and a Honda SP:
https://www.bikechatforums.com/download.php?id=1937
You can see that through out most of the rev range the four makes more power. It’s only the very bottom end where the twin makes more. If you take that as a percentage of the total revs, that’s even less.
Also, from my experience, twins tend to feel very ‘lumpy’ low down, meaning I’d prefer to be riding a four if I had to use the bottom end anyway.
If you’re talking a similar peak power rather than capacity, then while the twin will probably only be very slightly faster when pushed at best, it will be much easier to be going at 80% speed compared to the peaky bike.

For me it’s all about the feel of the bike.
Because a four makes more power at the top end, it means to make the most out of the bike you have rev it more. For me a decent sports 4 gives the impression it wants to be revved, you know if you turn the throttle more, you’ll be rewarded.
While on a twin, while you do need to rev it to get the most of it, there’s less of a difference between really pushing it and not pushing it, meaning that the bike doesn’t seem to reward as much when you do go for it.

For everyday riding or ‘lazy’ riding, a twin can make sense, where you don’t care about going all out. So there may not be much in it when comparing say a twin and four cylinder tourer. I find that twins don’t tend to feel as fast, even when they are actually going faster than a reviver bike.
However, for fun and fast riding, I would take a revvy bike anyday. I would prefer the bike to feel faster than I’m going, rather than feel slow and actually be going fast. Don

Why do I have twins?
Well, I got the TRX because I wanted a boring bike to get me around in a workhorse kind of way, didn’t want something that would tempt me to ride like a twat everywhere. Initially looking at a cb350, the TRX was just a bit more expensive.
Ok, I can be seen riding like a twat on it on occasion, but a) twin’s don’t ‘tempt’ you to rev so much and actually use their power, b) the trx is the exception, that does actually have a significant step in power for the second half of the rev range, though.
The SVs are a case of economics sadly. If I had the chance to race a revvy bike in a similar series, I would, but for the mix of modern bike and money at the club I want to race with, this is the best choice.
Incidentally, I am slowly getting used to the differences in sound on the SV, but it is a very subtle difference between 8k and the redline at 10.5k, have to really listen out for a slight change in tone in one part of the cacophony.

[Robchester]

in the real world, you dont need the power that an il4 supplies - at least with a v twin the power is nice and low down so that you can roll on and have an even spread of power to a speed before it gets ridiculous.

[instigator]

Yeah but Rob, name a biker that lives in the real world?

IL4's do have their appeal to me, but preferred my sv to my hornet.

Will try a ninja next most likely. If I get this one...

[riichy]