What's the attraction of Royal Enfield?

[AstronautNinja]

21 minutes ago, RideWithStyles said:

Agree and Nailed it there Throttled .

its the term is a shite bike/car a underrated/cool thing cos you can use it to its full capacity and not land yourself in the shite.

case in points:

fiat panda and 4x4, slow to get to speed to modern turbo beasts (engine will last sooo much longer than say ford EcoBoom engines) but eager to engage to rag the little box as fast as its merry little wheels go and through tight sections of back roads without lifting off is priceless to a yob is a golf or polo that can’t fit.

Soft suspension and tyres absorb all manner of uk roads come sun or snow, 40mpg,105mph.

 

audi rs6 std and tuned- mighty fast at low and high speeds and hugely capable, fun toy but ban and prison time in less than a few seconds so worryingly stressful if you value your license and bank account.

stiff suspension, bushes and linkages and tyres that is borderline ridiculous.

drinks loads of fuel, oil and kills gearboxes/transmissions. 26mpg if your coasting down hill all day but 16mpg is normal.

 

as much as the rs6 was fun for drag race at the lights and some motorway sections being less policed, its not something I’d go and get for myself…unless I won the lottery and used it as the third or fourth car.

the panda 4x4 on the other hand, had for 4 years and it was a proper laugh…-

and do it again.

I remember seeing a Panda 4x4 cruising through some sand dunes as a kid. Very few production cars would manage that these days if any at all.

 

What a strange yet spectacular beast that car was

[IndigoJo]

8 hours ago, angrybear said:

For the same reason that I Ride a Harley, Modern sports bikes are piss boring at legal speeds you need to be doing 3 figures before it gives the rider any real feedback.

but a bike like that on a twisty B road needs to be "ridden" & will put a huge smile on your face at 50-60 mph

I notice Harleys often have the same low bhp:cc ratio as RE (even lower in some cases). My car (a Kia) has the same ratio (1l engine, 67bhp). 10cc:2/3bhp as opposed to 10cc:1bhp as with most bikes.

 

Anyway, the Classic 350 is a 20bhp bike. Fine. Is there a reason to make a 350cc engine with that output as opposed to a 200cc one? Especially as a bigger engine size results in more road tax to pay, especially with the 650cc (47bhp) models.

[S-Westerly]

2 hours ago, IndigoJo said:

I notice Harleys often have the same low bhp:cc ratio as RE (even lower in some cases). My car (a Kia) has the same ratio (1l engine, 67bhp). 10cc:2/3bhp as opposed to 10cc:1bhp as with most bikes.

 

Anyway, the Classic 350 is a 20bhp bike. Fine. Is there a reason to make a 350cc engine with that output as opposed to a 200cc one? Especially as a bigger engine size results in more road tax to pay, especially with the 650cc (47bhp) models.

The engine is less stressed and theoretically will last longer.

[Simon Davey]

2 hours ago, IndigoJo said:

I notice Harleys often have the same low bhp:cc ratio as RE (even lower in some cases). My car (a Kia) has the same ratio (1l engine, 67bhp). 10cc:2/3bhp as opposed to 10cc:1bhp as with most bikes.

 

Anyway, the Classic 350 is a 20bhp bike. Fine. Is there a reason to make a 350cc engine with that output as opposed to a 200cc one? Especially as a bigger engine size results in more road tax to pay, especially with the 650cc (47bhp) models.

 

Sometimes (mostly), and especially with Harley's and other big twins, it's more about the low down torque than it is about HP.

High HP is really for giving your sport bike a good thrashing and actually being thrown off the back.

Personally, I have an old 1200 4cyl "sport tourer" which becomes an absolute looney after 5K, I really would like something less scary, but with decent bottom end torque.

[JRH]

22 hours ago, Simon Davey said:

 

Personally, I have an old 1200 4cyl "sport tourer" which becomes an absolute looney after 5K, I really would like something less scary, but with decent bottom end torque.

Go for the Bandit (GSF) 1250. Bags of low end torque, will pull from 20/25mph in 6th gear. Use the gears and it will still get a rapid shift on. Get to 70/ 75 then the sports bikes will sail into the distance.

 

Back to RE’s, guy by me has an Himalayan. This is his fun bike, goes out in all weathers, easy to clean, loads of fun.

this now gets more use than his Yamaha sports bike which apparently is not much fun along the single track roads.

[IndigoJo]

44 minutes ago, JRH said:

Go for the Bandit (GSF) 1250. Bags of low end torque, will pull from 20/25mph in 6th gear. Use the gears and it will still get a rapid shift on. Get to 70/ 75 then the sports bikes will sail into the distance.

 

Back to RE’s, guy by me has an Himalayan. This is his fun bike, goes out in all weathers, easy to clean, loads of fun.

this now gets more use than his Yamaha sports bike which apparently is not much fun along the single track roads.

So Bandits are made for pull rather than speed, for all that luggage? A bit like an HGV engine, which typically has even lower bhp:cc ratios (say, 500bhp from a 13-litre engine, typical for artics) and are restricted to 56mph. The better ones can get up Stokenchurch hill at 56mph. Usually it's 40mph or less.

 

How good a packhorse is the Classic 350? Not looking to go across Asia, but if I'm going to the Lake District or similar?

[veracocha]

I was at my RE dealer today and I must admit the RE bikes on show were just beautiful in the flesh, hard to pick a favourite but the red/white Supermeteor pipped it for me. Followed by the Interceptor with chrome tank etc. Whilst there I did take a look at the CF Moto MT450 and had a sit on it. It really was well put together and sat next to the new Himalayan it looked the more impressively engineered bike. 

[Capt Sisko]

On 09/08/2024 at 10:06, AstronautNinja said:

I remember seeing a Panda 4x4 cruising through some sand dunes as a kid. Very few production cars would manage that these days if any at all.

 

What a strange yet spectacular beast that car was

We used to use them around the farm before quad bikes became readily available. Usually MOT failures due to rust, but we'd cut the roof off & pillars off, rip out most of the interior behind the front seats and they were perfect for carrying a couple of bails / bags of feed / dogs. Ground clearance and width of the track was an occasional problem on rutted ground, but they were so light they'd go almost anywhere.

[AstronautNinja]

6 minutes ago, Capt Sisko said:

We used to use them around the farm before quad bikes became readily available. Usually MOT failures due to rust, but we'd cut the roof off & pillars off, rip out most of the interior behind the front seats and they were perfect for carrying a couple of bails / bags of feed / dogs. Ground clearance and width of the track was an occasional problem on rutted ground, but they were so light they'd go almost anywhere.

Can't believe I'd forgotten but one of my earliest memories in life is my mum crashing her red panda on the way to school with me in as a kid not a 4x4 but that really is a blast from the past 

[RideWithStyles]

On 09/08/2024 at 10:26, IndigoJo said:

I notice Harleys often have the same low bhp:cc ratio as RE (even lower in some cases). My car (a Kia) has the same ratio (1l engine, 67bhp). 10cc:2/3bhp as opposed to 10cc:1bhp as with most bikes.

 

Anyway, the Classic 350 is a 20bhp bike. Fine. Is there a reason to make a 350cc engine with that output as opposed to a 200cc one? Especially as a bigger engine size results in more road tax to pay, especially with the 650cc (47bhp) models.

The older odd size bikes were still very heavily based on the old bikes in the 60s and before, not muched updated over the years until very recently when even they were pushed to do it. 
 

Licence system/reasons dictate the bike design if you want to go into other markets and regions.

 

long stroke and wide bore engines of an cc like HD (especially push rods) and less so EF case dictates the power and torque along with curve due to the bore and stroke. In the case of HD their thought was you cant beat cc’s especially way back in the days.

Rev=power, Not good to have a long stroke try to speed too fast= stressed rings, bores /liners, pistons, cranks and oil etc. then you have valves and overlaps to contend with.

the point of these engines are near instant get up and go lower the rev range rather than to spool up for rocket speeds that inline fours reach.

HD/EF engines are like heavy weight boxers punching hard put less often, while inline fours are more like light weights that will spar or strike a lot more often but not forcing through (more pitter patter).

 

I will use two cases: benelli 500 twin 46hp 9k true usuable revs and the bandit 650s inline four 77hp 11k true usable revs.

the twin was actually faster at lower revs and speeds, only when the bandit gets to 6k in first, second and third does it start to wake up, to wanting to make progress at 9-10k. then even if you stop the throttle and put back on is a very slight pause as it gets going again as its abit like a light sparring match. Now when it’s going and on the fizz it certainly get the attention and makes a song and dance about itself but it’s more flashy.

the benelli was moving at 2.5k and flat curve to 10000rpm of its hard cut out, pause at anytime was certainly a lot less if not at all as it punches out of corners even with a lower cap, cylinder count,cc and roughly similar weight.

so unless your gonna be visiting 90+ speeds very regularly, a long stoke, fewer cylinders and to a point lower cc will serve well without it being wasted.

 

now before someone says that’s the difference between a carb and an injection, no because it’s the same behaviour on a firestorm,Zxr, zzr, Daytona etc .

 

 

Edited August 10, 2024 by RideWithStyles