Author Topic: Dry weight and power kw:s  (Read 3174 times)

Online RichardL

  • Outside Chicago, IL
  • Wise & Enlightened
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2007
  • Posts: 5333
  • Karma: 50
Re: Dry weight and power kw:s
« Reply #15 on: 24.09. 2008 21:12 »
Motorcycles are all about emotion (our's and our wives').

So, for me, give me horsepower over Watts. Refer to photos for one horsepower versus one Watt.
Plan on signing up for the world-wide 2020 DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN'S RIDEon September 27, 2020. This year it's a solo or pillion ride in dapper attire. Watch website at for details.

Offline a10gf

  • Wise & Enlightened
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 2869
  • Karma: 44
  • West Coast, Norway & Alpes Maritimes, France
    • A10 GF
Re: Dry weight and power kw:s
« Reply #16 on: 24.09. 2008 22:01 »
^^ *smile*

A10 GF '53 My A10 website
"Success only gets you a ticket to a much more difficult task"

Offline A10Boy

  • Wise & Enlightened
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 1075
  • Karma: 11
  • Solihull, Near Birmingham England.
Re: Dry weight and power kw:s
« Reply #17 on: 25.09. 2008 14:00 »
If I remember correctly, that old ancient Horse Power description of the old cars was 100cc = 1 Horse, so a Standard 10 was about 1000cc.
30 years ago I knew an old wartime mechanic and he used to use that way to describe any engine. An Austin 1100 to him was an "Austin 11 Horse". - maybe it was just slang.


1958 Super Rocket
1974 Kawasaki Z1a
Yam XJR 1300

Online trevinoz

  • Newcastle, N.S.W. Australia.
  • Wise & Enlightened
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 2953
  • Karma: 67
Re: Dry weight and power kw:s
« Reply #18 on: 25.09. 2008 22:48 »
Here in Oz the taxable horse power on bikes, if I remember correctly, was - 250cc = 2 1/2, 350cc = 2 3/4, 500cc = 3 1/4,
650cc = 4 1/2.

Online groily

  • Wise & Enlightened
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 1163
  • Karma: 19
Re: Dry weight and power kw:s
« Reply #19 on: 26.09. 2008 23:41 »
The UK's old RAC horsepower formula was this (I went and looked!): Diameter of cylinder (in inches) squared, times number of cylinders, all divided by 2.5. Hence, long strokes were 'favoured' in taxation terms versus short stroke engines, by the hp rating being lower for the same capacity. The logic of the formula was good, however. The consequence was that legislators and administrators inadvertently promoted less efficient engines. But then we didn't have a global fuel crisis and all the rest of it in those days, nor did we have roads where we could cruise along at any speed you like.
If anyone wants to pursue, just google 'RAC Horsepower Formula', and read away! In those days, it led to engines of certain capacity loosely being described as Trevinoz says. Or 15/50, 16/60 etc, where the first number is the RAC hp, the second the bhp. Wolseley cars were some of the last to maintain this dual description, until the end of the '50s. Not all countries did it the same way, but for many years tax discs/registration fees were priced according to (arbitrary) power output in many places, and even today in France at least, the 'Fiscal Horsepower' dictates the registration fee payable when getting a log book. An A 10 is rated at 7, a B31 at 4 (if I understand the papers correctly). Which ties in not too badly with 100cc to the horsepower. Amazing how these legacies from the earliest days linger on.