[ D a i l y B i k e T h r e a d ] - /dbt/

someone BUY MY GROM

I wouldn't want to pay more than $3500 for an SV but the chances of that guy going that low are very slim

Don't know if anyone cares but I figured out who Joey Mac 420 is.
youtu.be/qMp55hJx1KQ

He's a professional Endurocross rider name Ryan Sandoval.

He's also a stunt/test rider for Honda Powersports North America and Benelli Motorcycles.

Now you know.

You want to ride a 195 hp, 127 kg 2 stroke track beast on road?

why? total waste.

That's what I was thinking as well. I'll give it a shot all the same. Can't hurt to ask.

Road racing is the purest form of racing though.

yeah road RACING, which doesn't need a bike to be road legal.

If it's not illegal racing it's not proper racing though.

Because you can bench race all you want but a strung out 2 stroke with that kind of power will be absolute garbage to ride.

Power delivery is ass and even the pros had trouble on those things. There's a reason MotoGP went to 990cc bikes and everyone abandoned 500cc 2 jokes. They were near unrideable.

They are still near unrideable, especially for some average Joe riding one on the street.

I bet he's cucked Brian already and smeared his jizz all over AGHB's ratchet face.

no I wouldn't. that's why they aren't mass produced

I'm not interested in owning a 2 stroke 500 at all, i just love when Veeky Forums complains about things not existing, then whey they do they're never right (see: toyobaru), in this case not road legal, as if you'd ever want to ride one of these on your fucking commute or something.

p.s, not all 500s had peaky powerbands, by the 90s that shit was all sorted with trick carbs, power valves, big bang layouts etc.

motorcyclenews.com/sport/motogp/2013/july/jul0813-redding-rides-schwantz-500/

>There was a lot of power, but it was pretty controllable, nothing like the razor sharp powerband I was expecting. It turns like a 125 and was still pulling in sixth. They should bring these back.

>not roadracing

The engine characteristics would still be somewhat shit even with rider aids. But the main point is still that two strokes suck ass for emissions and fuel economy so they don't perform well in road applications, and there was no point in racing 2 strokes when nobody sells them or rides them.

Way back in the 60s Honda used to shit on less developed 2-strokes with stuff like a 4-stroke 5 cylinder 125 with an 8 speed gearbox but those were made illegal because they had fuck all to do with any non-GP motorcycle too.

They gave up a ton of power to do that.

Yeeee. Sup fellow Indian enthusiasts

>i just love when Veeky Forums complains about things not existing
If someone's complaining they cant buy a strung out 500cc 2 joke sportbike for the street they are an idiot and should be ignored.

>they're never right (see: toyobaru)
Toyota/subaru shit the bed on the 86. If they would have put even a base WRX motor in it they could have succeeded. But they didnt. They put a tapped out base Impreza economy motor in it with shit power stock and little to no headroom for the aftermarket without big dollar power adders and internal work.

>Way back in the 60s Honda used to shit on less developed 2-strokes

no they always got their arses handed to them by 2 strokes.

They were just stubborn because sochiro honda hated 2 strokes.

The warbonnet is AESTHETIC.

They handle FI amazingly completely stock. The Toyota fueling system means they have more potential than the fa20 in the wrx. In Na form, there's not much left the squeeze out of it.

>WRX
Decent power stock. Simple tune to up the boost and adjust fueling/timing up until the limitations of the fuel system. From there simple fuel pump/injector mods to increase power potential.

>86
Several thousand dollars upfront cost just to put on a power adder and make any additional power over the anemic 200hp it came with.

I think I know what the vast majority of enthusiasts would prefer.

You mean the sweet front fender with the light up face. Hell yea nigga

On just about any kit, it'll make 300whp, 450whp on E85 with fueling upgrades. A WRX would require a turbo upgrade to get to that level, which would make the costs similar. Enthusiasts would prefer the 600lbs lighter, limited slip diff, rwd car.

Or you could just buy a Miata or Fiata which is better in literally every conceivable way

>50cc
Suzuki please. It's certainly the case that by the end of the 60s 2-strokes stopped being so shit but you could still compete with a 4-stroke until they tightened the rules. Shit the NR500 almost worked even.

>They were just stubborn because sochiro honda hated 2 strokes.
Oh right I left out that 2 strokes are loud and smoke so you look like a cunt to normies.

>Miata or Fiata which is better in literally every conceivable way

>faster 0-60 time
>same 1/4 time
>same price
>lighter
>smaller
>more agile
>faster around a track
Every
conceivable
way

hurr durr honda maed more advanced bieks muh 4 strokes 8 speeds.

>125cc square four 2 stroke with a 12 speed transmission
>won the championship handily

>On just about any kit, it'll make 300whp
That's several thousand dollars buy-in to just get past the turbo fa20.

Either you throw an ass load of money at the car up front or you're stuck with an anemic pile of shit motor. That's the problem.

The market and the kids these cars are marketed two are iteritive car builders/modders. They mod their cars as the cash flow permits. If they had huge discretionary budgets and aspirations for power most people wouldn't be looking at this 200hp car.

So the fact that an 86 could make around 300whp after a huge ~$5000 investment is immaterial. That's $5000 to get the car to around where it should have been from the factory.

And you're talking about the WRX fuel system like it's intrensic to the fa20 motor. They could very easily keep the fuel system in the 86 no, only fitted the turbo fa20 and had a better car all around. Then it would be making around 240-250whp and be a tune away from almost 300whp and a turbo swap/tune away from 300-350+whp.

That's the car enthusiasts want.

Any love for naked bikes or cruisers here? Everybody on /dbt/ for the past while has been obsessed with sports and dual sports.

>power band so narrow you need a 12 speed transmission to keep the bike in the power band
I'm glad modern bikes aren't like this

If it cannot be accomplished with a sport bike or a dual sport. It's not worth doing.

dbt loves cruisers
vid related

What's the deal with double clutch transmissions in bikes? Sounds like an objectively smart move for motorcycles in the long run. Not sure how much of a downside losing a clutch lever would be. DCTs shift faster than any manual or automatic and still maintain fully manual shifting, just without a clutch lever.

Any of you guys read DiCE magazine? i dont see very many old chops on here. Any of you guys build your own bikes?

But Yamaha won the 125cc championship that year.

most bikes cant do dank wheelies outside of first gear without popping the clutch

Carfag please learn what a dogbox is before posting stupid shit like this

Cruiser rider checking in

This pasta still needs more time to simmer

>fully sequential gearbox
>somehow this doesn't allow fast enough shifting
>Lets fit a scooter transmission and widen the motor by 50% that will surely make motorcycles better.

No. Just no.

they shift slower than sequential manual gearboxes in bikes, keep in mind bikes with quickshifters (just a spark cut when you hit the lever) shift faster than a ferrari 458

scooter transmisisons will only ever be fitted to lazy old man bikes and babby's first beginner bikes.

There's nothing a scooter transmission accomplishes that a sequential dog box doesn't already do better.

>scooter transmission
Don't scooters have CVTs, not DCTs? I've never ridden either so idk.

Choppers are shit

>implying there is any practical difference in operation

>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE

Have you ever even ridden a motorcycle before?

What about motorcycle transmissions makes you think you need to be able to shift faster.

Then consider things like quick shifters exist.

Stop liking shit shit, shithead.

The weight difference is much more significant in a small vehicle like a motorcycle and bike transmissions are more like race car transmissions to start with. (any GT3 car dumps the DCT for a conventional gearbox with a pneumatic or hydraulic shifter)

A lot, actually.

>whaaaaaaaaa
Ftfy

>A lot, actually.

>CVT
squeeze throttle and you are automatically sped through a variety of ratios based on wheel speed

>DCT
squeeze throttle and you are automatically sped through a variety of ratios based on wheel speed

Not a lot of practical difference there bro.

>manual shifting on DCT
CVT's can be made to manually shift through preset ratios as well.

eh, i think theyre pretty neat. but i do like working on my old cars.

by old choppers i dont mean that west coast chopper shit with the arguing family and billet everything

Both bikes i own are cruisers, I want a dual sport now for that offroad goodness.

That seat does not look comfy enough

Its always sportscucks there

But thats a bobber user.

A crashbox

Cool, thanks for answering my questions /dbt/. I've ridden bikes before but nothing crazy. Certainly nothing with a quick shifter or set up for racing. I thought a DCT would be faster to shift than having to pull clutch/roll off throttle, shift up or down, and release clutch/roll on throttle. With a DCT you just flick a paddle or button and that's the end of it, I don't think you even have to roll off throttle. I've never ridden a DCT though so maybe I'm just retarded.

summoning

you two always post your bikes together so i can never tell which one is posting

What cruisers you got my man

for a lot of those bike the terms are interchangeable. at least from what ive heard. i could be wrong.

I'd be willing to bet that frame has been chopped. probably started out as a soft tail.

Real bike owners don't give a shit what bike you own,it's the nobike shit posters who hate cruisers.

Except CVTs have massively different throttle response characteristics to anything with gears.

ay yo who dis

On pretty much any dog box sequential shifting motorcycle (read:99.9% of motorcycles) you can shift by just applying pressure on the shifter and letting of the gas.

Alternately you can stay on the gas full throttle, apply pressure to the shifter and quickly grab/release just a bit of clutch to slightly unload the gearbox and shift very fast.

Then with quick shifters they have a sensor on the shift linkage connected to the ignition. When pressure is applied the ignition is momentarily cut for a fraction to quickly unload the gearbox and allow a clutchless shift.
With this you just keep the throttle pinned and shit up.

All three of these methods are very fast. Hell, clutch shifting is very fast. There is really nothing to be gained from computer controlled gearboxes on motorcycles.

which one

Chopping and raking the head makes them choppers.

Alot of choppers are bobbers too, that ironhead has a stock rake.

Because they a are butt buddies

dog

The seamless shift in a DCT is a little bit faster than a conventional gearbox but in a bike's case it's probably not 25lbs worth of faster.

urbananon pls

Scout Sixty and a Hurley sportster

Motorcycles don't have conventional gearboxes.

They have constant mesh dogboxes with sequential drum shifters.

I doubt a CVT can shift faster than a well shifted sequential dog box, possibly more consistently.
I know they cant shift faster or more consistent than a sequential dog box with a quickshifter.

>CVT
meant DCT

>He's a professional Endurocross rider
That explains a lot.

what sticker dude sells the DBT stickers
I checked all the links in /osg/ and couldn't find them

i get what you mean. all the dudes i know who ride all these old bikes like the ironheads, knuckleheads, pan heads and the like; i never hear them use the word "bobber"

i dont know why

BackyardTuners

This begs the question...
Why don't cars have constant mesh dogboxes with sequential shifters?

They obviously aren't that hard to make if every motorcycle prettymuch ever has one. They're actually simpler to manufacture than a conventional manual gearbox.

I like your style, friend

must be out I guess

They don't like soft slow shifting. Basically they benefit from you banging up through gears and are a lot less quiet and smooth than regular setups.

Autotragics don't even use gears like manuals though, that's just planetary gearsets with clutches to hold the outer ring.

Also curious about this. I fucking hate H pattern shifters but I love manually choosing my gear. I want more DCTs or sequential shifters for cars! I hate CVTs though, my girlfriend's old Nissan had a CVT and it was AWFUL to drive.

how much

fireblade

you coming down this weekend?

Dogboxes are conventional homo. DCT already has the next gear engaged before the shift is even initiated so there's no necessary throttle cut or power interruption.

F1 and MotoGP have their own non-DCT seamless shift gearboxes that use crazy electronics to engage two gears at once and disengage the previous gear before the entire thing explodes into tiny pieces but they cost a gorillion dollars.

Because they're a bitch to drive slow. Semis use dog rings.

Maybe they can't handle the higher torques and power of a car? I have no idea just a wild guess.

i have pic related, i consider it naked even though it's really to old for that

great commuter bike. water cooled, shaft drive, no complaints. not the prettiest but definitely the most reliable bike in my stable

i also have a harley. it's fine

Actually they're typically stronger than most conventional gear setups in cars.