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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hot Damn!

hobot said:
I said what I mean and mean what I wrote, I quit public forums that risks pissing contests with Rohand and his several supporting groupies apparently too timid to chime in on this thread. hobot moved on, lurks to stay current. Peel Peeks in Pub w/o Rohand distractions.

it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
Click to expand...
 
While all you guys are arguing - I'll go out and do 100mph again at 1/2 throttle - NEENER NEENER!!!!
 
what'll she do when you really open her up? I'm sure that drag increases by some amount with increased speed :twisted:
Lance
 
it's about square vs cubed stuff :D & depends on this, that or the other thing

went like this, in knots

Rohan said:
jseng1 said:
Top speed is around 130 because the wind resistance rises exponentially.
Click to expand...

Lets not beat around the bush, air resistance rises with the cube of the speed.
THE huge factor in top speed.

A minor point, but good to quote accurately...

Thats a goodly rate of knots out of that beastie.
Click to expand...
 
84ok said:
it's about square vs cubed stuff :D & depends on this, that or the other thing

started like this, in knots

Rohan said:
jseng1 said:
Top speed is around 130 because the wind resistance rises exponentially.
Click to expand...

Lets not beat around the bush, air resistance rises with the cube of the speed.
THE huge factor in top speed.

A minor point, but good to quote accurately...

Thats a goodly rate of knots out of that beastie.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly, and this is where Rohan was so smugly trying to correct Jim Schmidt (on something that he was perfectly correct in stating - yes, because air resistance does, in fact, rise exponentially) with a completely incorrect statement. :lol: Jim Schmidt has been around the block a bit and is no armchair computer jockey sitting in his underwear (or worse) trying to impress the world with delusions of adequacy. It is all well-documented history in the threads all leading up to the Rohan Chernobyl meltdown yesterday where he manipulated quotes to try and save face. Tip of the hat to hobot for helping the poor old sod to reach criticality.

When all the dust settles, I will provide a nice technical synopsis of the technical aspects (open to qualified persons critique) in a separate thread for general reference. Qualified persons meaning you cannot be a total unequivocal wanker.

In the meantime, I am contemplating a crowdfunding for stocking Rohan with Depends (American brand of adult diapers) so we do not have to sit and watch his sh*t dribble down his legs. :lol:

I can't help but think there's a perfect analog on this Rohan meltdown called Corium. Look up Corium as it is a waste product of a meltdown with no use and is highly toxic - fitting, eh?
 
In case you folks didn't notice, we moved on and covered a fair bit of ground there.

So, shrapnel john, is 30 bhp for 100 mph correct, or not - yes or no ?
 
This is getting a weebit ridiculous. Too bad, because it was a very interesting topic. So, because this thread (as well as the other one) is already sort of polluted, I will add to the discussion, and will have a strong probability of more corium byproducts.

I ride a slimline featherbed with a tilted 850 engine, lightened and prepared in period most likely by Dunstall.
This bike was clocked at 130mph/213kmh on the straight of the Dijon circuit in France. It does, very happily, 100mph on half throttle WHEN FITTED WITH ITS FULL DUNSTALL FAIRING .

Without it will get to about 120mph at full throttle, but just.

Horsepower? I don't know. It is a good bike and I ride it. It is no armchair...
:mrgreen:
 
Rohan said:
In case you folks didn't notice, we moved on and covered a fair bit of ground there.

So, shrapnel john, is 30 bhp for 100 mph correct, or not - yes or no ?
Click to expand...

Classic Rohanism. :roll: Create an innuendo of a disagreement on something. Question asked and answered. Go see the Phil Irving reference I steered you to.

The question has always been; where can we find the technical basis of your "commonly quoted" 10 hp at 60 mph and 32 hp at 100 mph.

The new question is why did you find it necessary to manipulate quotations of what I had stated to make it look like I was saying this 30 hp number is "wrong"

Two simple questions. As usual, I'll leave you wriggling like a worm on a hook to answer my first question and for the second on manipulating quotes, it is one of your lame attempts to create another of your subterfuges. A fraudster of a trick. In my opinion, your credibility has been low and has now sunk to a new low.
 
Jagbruno said:
This bike was clocked at 130mph/213kmh on the straight of the Dijon circuit in France. It does, very happily, 100mph on half throttle WHEN FITTED WITH ITS FULL DUNSTALL FAIRING .

Without it will get to about 120mph at full throttle, but just.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a well sorted Commando for 130 mph (faired). Just curious as to what countershaft sprocket size you are using? There's an interesting discussion on Commando gearing at the following link.

http://www.accessnorton.com/sprocket-size-question-t25259.html

A nice graph is included for quick reference of speed versus rpm for various countershaft sprockets.
 
i still don't get the main point or argument here? toooooooons of back forth stuff tho,

whoever may provide that will surely have some traction on this one,

what stood out to me was a (very) big fish said a few things about throttle position at a given speed along with ~ "should do ~ 130",

that was then hotly challenged, if not ridiculed

my first thoughts were, given who said it, 130mph didn't seem like a big deal

then the square cubed thing played out where from what i've seen 3 highly credible folks were on the same page right away,

meanwhile, jim s was enjoying the show chiming in with "NEENER NEENER!!!!"
 
84ok said:
i still don't get the main point or argument here? toooooooons of back forth stuff tho,

whoever may provide that will surely have some traction on this one
Click to expand...

Well at this point in the game, in my opinion, it is really a matter of thoroughly outing a fraudster. All questions on the technical matters have been asked and answered multiple times as we are now in a Doctor Eliza (crude AI) fashion dialog. Really the only thing remaining is for Rohan to show us all where I said that the 30 hp number was wrong. as he manipulated quotes to fabricate something that never was. Typical Rohanism.

The Phil Irving Tuning for Speed reference I introduced early on in the other thread has the essence of the technical matters; this is now Rohan's latest Eureka! after having to be schooled on the matters. I've also provided a few more references that further embellish on (and properly distinguish between) the subjects of aero drag, rolling resistance, mechanical losses etc. When the dust has adequately settled on this matter and as time permits, I'll start a new thread to summarize the technical aspects as they are worth having without confused, uninformed and beligerant interjections.
 
hobot said:
RohandoB arrogant ignorance feeds on your attention so hobot quit it
it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
Click to expand...
Really good to see you back on here mate brilliant stuff
 
Dances with Shrapnel said:
Jagbruno said:
This bike was clocked at 130mph/213kmh on the straight of the Dijon circuit in France. It does, very happily, 100mph on half throttle WHEN FITTED WITH ITS FULL DUNSTALL FAIRING .

Without it will get to about 120mph at full throttle, but just.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a well sorted Commando for 130 mph (faired). Just curious as to what countershaft sprocket size you are using? There's an interesting discussion on Commando gearing at the following link.

http://www.accessnorton.com/sprocket-size-question-t25259.html

A nice graph is included for quick reference of speed versus rpm for various countershaft sprockets.
Click to expand...

Hello there,

My sprocket is 22 teeth...and the tacho was showing close to 8000rpm. :shock:
The crank has been -much- lightened in period and balanced for the Slimline frame, although I don't know the exact ratio. The camshaft is a PW3 and the rockers lightened Dunstall. That thing pulls like a train. :mrgreen:
 
i'd say this became the main point of argument, could be that has become moot at this point with some misunderstanding at least, sorted, my thoughts at the time up to now are above

84ok said:
what stood out to me was a (very) big fish said a few things about throttle position at a given speed along with ~ "should do ~ 130
Click to expand...
 
84ok said:
i'd say this became the main point of argument, could be that has become moot at this point with some misunderstanding at least, sorted, my thoughts at the time up to now are above

84ok said:
what stood out to me was a (very) big fish said a few things about throttle position at a given speed along with ~ "should do ~ 130
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fair assessment and I appreciate you taking the time to partition the threads. I never took an exception to Jim Schmidt's statements regarding throttle position, speed or potential/actual top speed. Interesting stuff.
 
best for everyone to stay on topic as much as possible and heh, wanna drift off on something else? argue something important related? something new?

easy enuff to link to (if appropriate) or just start a new fresh thread, that then also imposes nothing further to others in the original thread, as well as keeping it intact

no point in mixing major differences in an on topic thread with otherwise easy to read good info

admins might consider this for a sticky (easy enuff to link to eitherway), a reason & example why not go down a road, when there are easy alternatives,

that steer to accord vs discord
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
1/2 throttle limited RPM takeoff
Replies
5
Views
1,382
worntorn
W
Back
Top