[CarGuy37]

Here's a creative idea for those of you with deep pockets, some time on your hands, and a seething disdain for weight... consider the new BMW S 1000 RR. Or more specifically, its engine.

A quote from the official press release:

All engine components are particularly compact and light, limiting weight of the overall engine without ancillaries to 59.8 kg (131.8 lb) and keeping the entire power unit very slim and slender.

And what about 193hp @ 13,000RPM? Sounds like a good combination.

-Tom

 

[Dragon]

Here's a creative idea for those of you with deep pockets, some time on your hands, and a seething disdain for weight... consider the new BMW S 1000 RR. Or more specifically, its engine.

A quote from the official press release:


And what about 193hp @ 13,000RPM? Sounds like a good combination.

-Tom

The issue will be the 82.5 lb-ft of torque... Bad mojo for trying to move something heavier like a car... The clutch and transmission wouldn't be able to handle the strain as well...

 

[BUELL XB12R]

The issue will be the 82.5 lb-ft of torque... Bad mojo for trying to move something heavier like a car... The clutch and transmission wouldn't be able to handle the strain as well...

+1

Not enough torque for a car, but that is a very awesome bike. Glad to see BMW taking the sport bike thing seriously.

 

[CarGuy37]

I hope I'm not being contentious, but the torque argument doesn't seem valid.

Take the S 1000 RRs 14,300RPM redline and compare it to the 2ZZs 8,200RPM redline. The RRs redline is approximately 75% higher. This means that you can mate this to a 75% shorter final drive and net a 75% torque increase. This turns 82.5lb-ft into around 145lb-ft (besting the 2ZZs rating of 133lb-ft). This also places a 75% load reduction on the engine making it more than sufficient to propel a car, albeit slower than it would had it been mated to a 450lbs bike!

This obviously is at the expense of reliability, but there is a significant weight savings. I think I have too much time on my hands.