The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
Anyone recognise this?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Albervin" data-source="post: 19105" data-attributes="member: 586"><p>Phil, think about it.. 11 bhp from 50 cc is 2,200,000 ( well, 220) per litre!!! In 1971 Yamaha, Suzuki & Kawasaki were in an arms race for max. bhp. My RD 350 was producing (somewhere) between 30 & 40 bhp & the Kawasaki Mach III was getting (maybe) 60 bhp. Both equate to somewhere between 100 & 120 bhp/litre. My 1969 Bridgestone 90 DeLuxe boasts 8.5 bhp & the 100 Sport (supposedly) has 10.5 bhp. Back in 1971 nothing under 175 could match me ( I was a bit lighter then). With a "race kit" the Bridgestone 100 was putting a genuine 15 bhp at the rear wheel. All of these were either rotary disc valve or reed valve induction. Surely Sachs was not twice as efficient as the Japs regarding production machines? The factory specs quote 5.3 ps which is comparable to the Jap stuff. Back in the late 1970s I had a Puch M125 that would trounce anything up to 250 ( or even a bit more) because it handled brilliantly and had awesome brakes. I doubt that it had much more than 12-13 bhp but they were all useable. Top speed was a smidgen over 65 mph, about the same as the Bridgestone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Albervin, post: 19105, member: 586"] Phil, think about it.. 11 bhp from 50 cc is 2,200,000 ( well, 220) per litre!!! In 1971 Yamaha, Suzuki & Kawasaki were in an arms race for max. bhp. My RD 350 was producing (somewhere) between 30 & 40 bhp & the Kawasaki Mach III was getting (maybe) 60 bhp. Both equate to somewhere between 100 & 120 bhp/litre. My 1969 Bridgestone 90 DeLuxe boasts 8.5 bhp & the 100 Sport (supposedly) has 10.5 bhp. Back in 1971 nothing under 175 could match me ( I was a bit lighter then). With a "race kit" the Bridgestone 100 was putting a genuine 15 bhp at the rear wheel. All of these were either rotary disc valve or reed valve induction. Surely Sachs was not twice as efficient as the Japs regarding production machines? The factory specs quote 5.3 ps which is comparable to the Jap stuff. Back in the late 1970s I had a Puch M125 that would trounce anything up to 250 ( or even a bit more) because it handled brilliantly and had awesome brakes. I doubt that it had much more than 12-13 bhp but they were all useable. Top speed was a smidgen over 65 mph, about the same as the Bridgestone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The Series 'A' Rapide was known as the '********' Nightmare?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
Anyone recognise this?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top