Forum

[MadMike]

When the internal combustion engine was invented it was about 20 to 25% efficient. Now in the 21st century the modern super high tech internal combustion engines are about 25 to 27% efficient! The new Enfield Continental, I have read and seen on video, will do about 85mph with its new modern EFI engine of "almost 600cc". In 1952 the Ariel Red Hunter with a cast iron head and barrel, complete with compression ratio of about 6.5:1 achieved 88mph. Oh yes and it was heavier than the new Enfield. Have we really made progress? IMHO we have not but with clever marketing we probably all believe that we have. Incidentally I only spotted the Ariel road test figure today whilst doing some reading prior to restoring my Red Hunter again. Before anybody gets upset I am not criticising but merely making an observation. Whilst I have long been aware of the IC engine efficiency figures I had not realised that somethings haven't really progressed as much as the Marketeers would have us believe.

[Leon Novello]

I agree Mad, I once saw 90MPH on the speedo of my 1949 Ariel Red Hunter, with a pillion passenger on board, I think that speedo was more accurate than today`s devices.

[Frank]

Performance wise you are comparing an old bike with one made in the old style hence not much difference. A modern designed Jap 500 would be far more developed and superior in performance. Fuel efficiency wise I dont think things have developed much. Cost to buy and run compared with the average wage makes it far more favourable today than 50 years ago. So yes things have developed over all.

[Bertie the Bullet]

Not sure I entirely agree, RE might not have progressed much, my Honda NC700 will do in excess of 100 mph, it will get there very very quickly and still achieve a realistic 90mpg, however if we are measuring in grin factors, RE are still right up there at the top.

[MadMike]

Frank, my comparison was really about the failure of designers and engineers to make real progress with the efficiency of the ICE. The Conti is hardly a bike made in the old way. It is an aluminium engine with EFI, 5 or 6 gears, much shorter stroke 9probably) made to modern exacting tolerances on modern machinery, and will have been designed to have efficient fuel burning. In addition it has a 13% larger swept volume and much higher compression ratio and larger valves. Yet on paper at least the 61 year older bike is faster!!!!!!! Yes the RE has discs etc etc etc and also has more brake horsepower and is a far superior bike overall but it is not so fast which leaves me, at least, somewhat underwhaelmed with progress over 60 years of motorcycle engine development. I have in my garage a 2001 Honda CB500 (still for sale if anybody wants a good commuter bike incidentally) and yes it is much faster than either the Ariel or the Conti, but it has 2 cylinders, water cooling, more gears than I can remember, twin carbs, OHC and that really proves my point to some degree, as it takes all of that to improve on an engine made 61 years ago and designed about 80 years or more ago! Such is progress. The Conti does look good though, and I for one hope that it sells well.

[Bullet Whisperer]

Mike the new RE machines still have the old 90mm stroke, apart from that I agree with what you are saying and I remember MCN running a comparison circa 1980 between a Triumph Sports Cub and a Kawasaki Z200. According to them [and I can believe it], the Cub outperformed the Kawa in top speed, acceleration BRAKING !!! and fuel economy by a small margin in all cases, 78 mph for the Cub and 76 mph for the Zed, if I remember right and despite the Cub's 14.5 bhp against the Zed's 18 bhp. The Cub was also a bit lighter, but only had drum brakes, four gears, kickstarting and pushrod OHV, compared to the front disc / rear drum, five gears, kick and electric start and OHC etc found on the Kawasaki. Progress indeed? Cheers, Paul.

[STU]

Does anyone know how to find that 1980 MCN article? Would make fascinating reading today!
It seems to me that modern cars and bikes engines have much increased claimed bhp, as a result of technological developments, than older engines but often at increased RPM whilst the torque figures haven't increased by the same percentage. I believe that this may partly indicate why fuel efficiency (actual, not claimed) has not improved by much.
Also modern cars, and probably bikes too, are bigger and heavier than previously probably due to all the equipment that they are required to be fitted with...

[Cafeman]

If the question is whether progress has been made regarding "performance" in regards to the Royal Enfield I'd say miniscule. But there is more potential with todays engine vs. those of old and when it comes to design tolerances, what can be done, materials, better research and development and the like. If you ad to the equation fuel efficiency, reduced maintenance, etc then progress has been made clearly. I think with the Enfields there is no need for extracting more power from the design as what is there now is all that is needed in their home market. Maybe now with the effort to really go global there will be more emphasis on power development? It's obvious they have deliberately stuck with where the "bar" has been set all these decades.