Triumph Rocket 3 340bhp

[Gimlet]

Hey, I got them from BST, and I think that by the time they had tires and were mounted, they were close to 6k. Also… I ordered during post Covid supply chain days and it took forever to deliver, 8 months minimum, but I think longer, then the tires took forever and it took a awhile to schedule the install then they refused after saying carbon would be no problem….. it was an ordeal. I think Brock Performance? The wheels work well. I want carbon wheels for everything now.

It wasn't so long ago that BST carbons were about £3000 for the average European naked or sports bike. In fact, I can remember when they were 2K for your average 160 bhp supernaked or sports bike and it was generallt reckoned that pound for pound carbon wheels were the best perfromance enhancement you could get for your money. Prices have gone through the roof, but clearly the benefit is still there.
I nearly put some on my Ducati. I still might. At the time, tyre fitting was a major concern. Luckily I had a fitter near me back then who was well used to fitting tyres to carbon wheels because he did a lot of work for race and track bikes and he was kitted up for it and prepared to take the care required. Anyone comtemplating carbons needs to be sure they have a tyre fitter they can trust or be prepared to do it themselves.

It sounds like the Rocket is the perfect candidate for carbons. I understand what you mean about wanting them on every bike. I develped a habit years ago of uncorking bikes with straight-through decat exhausts, open airboxes and custom remaps. I struggle to ride any standard production bike without wanting to do the same, even when it rides fine. I'm itching to give the Rocket that treatment asap. I guess carbon wheels are the same.

 

[zenbiker]

Apologies if already posted - worth a watch if not

 

[zenbiker]

Apologies if already posted - worth a watch if not

Just fantastic but I just have to wonder about how the doubling of horsepower affect the longevity of the engine.

 

[vsteel]

Just fantastic but I just have to wonder about how the doubling of horsepower affect the longevity of the engine.

It is really going to depend on how hard you hammer on it. If you ride normal all of the time with just a few exceptions it won't make much of a difference. Hammer on it non stop it will greatly effect the bike.

 

[Gimlet]

I still think if I was was going with forced induction for a Rocket I'd pick a turbo over a supercharger. The Rocket engine has quite a short rev range, on the standard bike it's barely more than an M8 Harley, and superchargers are governed by engine speed. On a stock bike you can achieve immense thrust just by digger deeper into the throttle and riding the torque and the sheer displacement without the revs rising very much. Turbos are actuated by throttle opening, not revs, so the boost is more "on command".
At high revs on a light throttle it's effectively still naturally aspirited until you open the throttle and make the gases flow, whereas supercharger boost will climb with engine speed regardless of throttle opening, whether you want it or not.

I guess when the supercharger kicks in depends on how it is set up and geared. I'd like to ride one and if money was no object I might have one fitted just for the hell of it. But I'd like to ride one back to back with a turboed bike running say 6-7 PSI which should produce 250+ bhp just to see how they compare for real life rad riding. Oh to have the money for such experimenting...

 

[Tripps]

It is really going to depend on how hard you hammer on it. If you ride normal all of the time with just a few exceptions it won't make much of a difference. Hammer on it non stop it will greatly effect the bike.

I bury the speedometer at full throttle every time I take mine out. 2010 Touring with Carpenter 240 hp package, 15 or 20,000 miles since I installed the Carpenter package, no issues yet.

 

[vsteel]

I bury the speedometer at full throttle every time I take mine out. 2010 Touring with Carpenter 240 hp package, 15 or 20,000 miles since I installed the Carpenter package, no issues yet.

Keep in mind we are talking about the 2.5 motor which from what I have heard isn't quite as strong since they lightened the engine (Still really strong but not to the level of the 2.3 motor). We are also talking about 100 more horsepower than you currently have. Just some food for thought.

 

[DesertRat]

Was just thinking...... how do you balance an engine that has a counter balance shaft ???????

Its a matter of counteracting Physics. Engineers have been trying to change the constants in Physics for 100's of years..lol

I assume you understand the basics/purpose of balancing of the reciprocating parts of an Internal Combustion Engine(I-C-E), keeping each independent assembly equal in weight as possible.

Its more complicated but I'll try and provide a Cliff Notes version of the purpose of a Counter Balance Shaft.

In certain engine designs, (especially In-Line designs) these engines produce a vibration caused from the motion of connecting rod assembles, (because all the piston/Rod Assemblies are not always symmetrical during crankshaft rotation), which causing a secondary vibration, (sometimes referred to as Second-Order Rolling Couple).

But you cannot change Physics. This is also why most V-8 engine designs have a "Harmonic" Balancer on the front of their Crankshaft.

Bottom Line; Vibration = Loss of Performance/Efficiency in an I-C-E

The Counter Balance Shaft design dates back to the 1900's.

Btw, this was one of the reasons that Mazda focused on developing their Rotary I-C-E instead of their In-Line 4 cylinder Automotive Engines.

The only engine design that defeats this secondary vibration issues are the Flat Four and Flat Six designs, (Porsche/VW and Continental General Aviation Engines etc).
Why no Secondary Vibrations in the Flat 4/6 Design? Because when one Cylinder is at Top-Dead-Center the other balances it out at being at Bottom-Dead-Center.

I hope this helps.

DR

 

[Gimlet]

Its a matter of counteracting Physics. Engineers have been trying to change the constants in Physics for 100's of years..lol

I assume you understand the basics/purpose of balancing of the reciprocating parts of an Internal Combustion Engine(I-C-E), keeping each independent assembly equal in weight as possible.

Its more complicated but I'll try and provide a Cliff Notes version of the purpose of a Counter Balance Shaft.

In certain engine designs, (especially In-Line designs) these engines produce a vibration caused from the motion of connecting rod assembles, (because all the piston/Rod Assemblies are not always symmetrical during crankshaft rotation), which causing a secondary vibration, (sometimes referred to as Second-Order Rolling Couple).

But you cannot change Physics. This is also why most V-8 engine designs have a "Harmonic" Balancer on the front of their Crankshaft.

Bottom Line; Vibration = Loss of Performance/Efficiency in an I-C-E

The Counter Balance Shaft design dates back to the 1900's.

Btw, this was one of the reasons that Mazda focused on developing their Rotary I-C-E instead of their In-Line 4 cylinder Automotive Engines.

The only engine design that defeats this secondary vibration issues are the Flat Four and Flat Six designs, (Porsche/VW and Continental General Aviation Engines etc).
Why no Secondary Vibrations in the Flat 4/6 Design? Because when one Cylinder is at Top-Dead-Center the other balances it out at being at Bottom-Dead-Center.

I hope this helps.

DR

I had a Ducati engine blue-printed and dynamically balanced. The scope for improvement on a stock engine is substantial. There was a considerable amount of machining involved which produced a radically smoother engine which revs higher and harder with much tighter tolerances, and in the Desmo Ducati's case, more valve overlap which couldn't have been achieved with factory tolerances. Many people would be surprised by just how far from optimum many engines are when they leave the factory.