Exactly my point. The cruiser has an extra 100cc on that ‘naked’, so why would it have less power? Tuning and delivery.
Not fast enough
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
V twins of any make are not really known for speed. They're loved for their low end torque and ability to pile on miles carrying all your gear and more. If you're itching for speed, you want to look at an in-line four or a triple.
Good luck, keep the shiny side up.
Good luck, keep the shiny side up.
There have been plenty of fast V-twins, Ducati is probably the one that comes to most people's minds, but Honda has had a few as has Harley-Davidson, Suzuki, MotoGuzzi, Indian and the list goes on and on.
The Honda Shadows are just tuned to be cruisers and with each iteration the tuning optimized for low engine speeds has become more ingrained and harder to the point of almost impossible to undo in the case of the original posters bike, a 2009 Aero.
The basic fact is most cruiser buyers want a docile engined bike with a low saddle height and cool look and Honda has made money in the past from selling them and bigger and slightly more powerful cruisers to returning customers and detuned or dropped offerings to maintain that linear progression. Slow and easy sells or at least it sold bikes.
Your 750 ACE for example could make considerably more power, but it would lose some of that low end torque and have to rev more to make that new found power and might last <100,000 miles, but most of all it wouldn't feel like a cruiser, except when it was sitting still.
Joined
·
20 Posts
Not exactly true, I own a Indian scout, current production, and it’s rated at 100hp at the crank, and 85-87 rear wheel, only weighs 550lbs. Thing is a monster it does 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, and if you dare take it to it’s full 8,300 rpm rev limit, you’ll pass 80 mph in 2nd gear.
Granted I’m talking a bike that’s more than double what a shadow sells for, so you kinda get what you pay for. I do have to admit though I actually really prefer my Honda 750 RS, because I’m not afraid of it as much. I occasionally do stuff on that Honda I wouldn’t dare do on the Indian, cause I’d likely end up on the ground.
If you ride it off a cliff, ~120MPH will be your terminal velocity on the way down... that'll buy you 15MPH.
Seriously - Add a turbo and more speed is very possible. The low compression on these engines is a good basis, but these bikes are built for low speed, low-end oomph boulevard cruising in comfort. Kinda like trying to go that fast in a Cadillac or Lincoln... silly. Stick to a crotch rocket bike or in the case of a car, a 'Vette, Ferrari or Lambo.
That would be because you are not losing 15HP with a belt drive. Probably more like 5… would be a little more with a shaft drive, a little less with a chain.
Wasn’t that long ago that compact cars made less power than that… 😄
In over a century of producing v-twins, Harley has made maybe a handful that could be considered fast, most within the nonvintage era. Ducati has always been a flyer as far as engines go for a variety of reasons. Always impressive, though. For every v-twin that makes 100 hp, there's ten 4 cylinders that make 150. Then we can talk about comparing displacement. Historically a 750 Honda CB would easily outrun a 1200 cc Harley of similar vintage. Probably still would, if Honda made a 750 4 cyl. The CBR600RR makes 121 hp. The Indian Scout is almost twice the displacement at 1130cc, and "only" makes 100. Our Shadows that we all love so well aren't even in the same league. If you're looking for fast, they've got a long way to go.
If you re-read my comment you may note that I didn't say the configuration was incapable of making fast power, but that it's not really what they are known for. I still maintain, if you "feel the need...the need for speed," a v-twin is probably not the best choice. But it might be, depends on how fast you want to go and what your other criteria are. Big soft engines are great for covering lots of miles, where you'd be worn out on a more tightly-wound engine.
I apologize if this comes off as argumentative, I don't really mean it to be so. Ride the bike you like.
You won't get any argument from me, them's the facts as you presented them.
However fast is all relative to the time line a 1960's Harley 74 would be lucky to make 40 hp, Norton Commando 750 50 something hp and along came the CB750 at 58 hp and the Kawasaki Mach 1 at 60hp out of the box. By the 70's 750 two stroke race bikes were making 100 hp and peeling tires and barely rideable. Times change, materials change, technology advances, computer controls allow careful idiots to survive with 150 or 200 hp street rideable bikes. How many can actually ride them to 50% of their potential? It is really just a bragging numbers game for most I feel.
This 126 cc Royal Enfield could do over 150 mph, and that was over 70 years ago.
This small motorbike helped win WW2 | Top Gear
Then the parachute would open.
This small motorbike helped win WW2 | Top Gear
Then the parachute would open.
Fake news:
it had enough poke and range from the one-and-a-half gallon fuel tank for around 150 miles at about 35-40mph. That’s efficiency.
It's not as much fun when you have to explain the joke, but....
- You pushed it out of the airplane.
- It reached a very impressive speed.
- Then the chute opened.
But there is another way to get a Shadow to go faster:
I'm a bit slow. That's a good one. I like your pic.
I'll pass but for those opting for human extinction, let them go first. We can even give them a Darwin award.You want speed & acceleration? Any bike you wish, Grand Canyon National Drags, 1/4 mi. straight down, shortest shut off in the hobby.
Why, exactly, is it that the Nihilists always want to do away with the rest of us first?
Joined
·
20 Posts
Nah, I know the differences in efficiency of different final drives. 85-87hp is what scouts average on a dyno stock, and 100hp is what’s claimed by the manufacturer for the scout at the crank.
There is one thing I have a bit of trouble wrapping my mind around though. Why is a chain supposedly slightly more efficient than a belt? I mean the chain is arguably heavier, and has more mass to get into motion. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the belt has a slight bit of stretch when the power gets hammered on, whereas a chain has no give? I definitely understand the power loss with a shaft drive, but I’d really think a belt and chain are so close efficiency wise it’s a moot point.
Bingo. Though you‘re right on the differences being small. Today’s high-tech belts can handle the power, which is why a few of the bigger cruiser makers choose them. They still shouldn’t lose THAT much power, though, and dyno testing tends to vary depending on the brand of tester used…
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
