This Forum is now CLOSED use the link to get more details viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13924#p102587
By pd110961
#55302
my last bike, a 2006 4 speed carbed model, would cruise all day at 60, but I pushed it to 70 on the motorway and it nipped up after 5 miles on a hot summer day. cluthed in, coasted along hard shoulder and I fired up again after a few hundred yards.
By Thack
#55314
Presto writes: "It seems that most of these answers are along the line that it's the rider’s subjective response that determines cruising speed – an engine might seem stressed to the rider when objectively it may not be stressed."



Absolutely spot on. Anyone who thinks they can tell whether the engine is "stressed" is living in a dream world. The engine is just steel and aluminium which obeys the laws of physics, and the stress and strain levels can all be calculated mathematically; some can be measured empirically; and none can be determined by a rider which his bum on the seat and his hands on the bars.



The only data we can work with is the engine rpm. We know the stress increases as the engine speed increases; what a rider cannot tell is whether the stress exceeds the manufacturer's calculated maximum for each component in the engine.



The only other guideline we could use is statistical data on engine failures. Unfortunately, whilst we have plenty of stories, nobody has gathered enough statistically valid data in controlled circumstances to state categorically the maximum safe speed a Bullet engine will sustain indefinitely.



In the absence of data we (being humans) form opinions instead, and (being human) we defend those opinions like we would defend our own person. That is why everyone has their own opinion about the optimum cruising speed and it usually differs from everyone else's. :-)



Of course, I'm going to join in, as I'm human, too! So my uninformed opinion is this: 55 - 60 mph for a sustained cruising speed. I should reveal that I'm cheating: my '02 iron barrel Bullet came with a slip of paper stating exactly that, and emphasising its unsuitability for modern high speed roads.
User avatar
By Presto
#55316
A bit of fun!




I’m with Thack here - engine stress rises with rpm. And how!!!




Stress loading rises as the square of the engine speed; the ‘fatigue life’ rises by that figure to the 5th power. An engine revving at 11,000 rpm is turning 1.1 times more quickly than at 10,000 rpm. This 1.1 times increase in engine speed generates 1.21 times greater stress compared to running at 10,000 rpm. At this figure fatigue damage is 2.6 times than at 10,000 rpm.




In other words, an engine running at 11,000 rpm it is subjected to around 3 times as much fatigue damage as when run at 10,000 rpm – that 3 fold increase in fatigue damage is the consequence of only 1/10th increase in rpm at that engine speed.




If a wider variation in engine speed is taken into consideration, the comparative increase in stress and fatigue damage, as engine speed rises, is staggering.




3,000 rpm could be regarded as a ‘sensible’ engine speed for a Royal Enfield Bullet. 3,000 rpm will give a road speed of around 50 mph in fourth gear.
A gentle tweak on the throttle will take the engine speed to 4,000 rpm, not high by any standard. However, that small (1.35 times) increase in engine speed subjects the engine to a 13 times greater level of fatigue damage compared with 3,000!
Rising to 5,000 rpm means 201 times increase in fatigue damage!!
Fatigue damage increases 1,024 times when engine speed rises from 3,000 rpm to 6,000 rpm; from 3,000 rpm to 7,000 rpm stress fatigue increases 4,000 times; from 3,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm fatigue damage is 20,000 times greater, and with an increase from 3,000 rpm to 9,000 rpm there is a 60,000 times increase in stress damage!!!
User avatar
By Exile
#55318
I 'cruise' at a speed I'm comfortable with. About 50 mph... Gets me where I'm going, no stress, no rush, no worries. The bike will do it all day.
By Thack
#55319
Wait, wait, wait!



"3,000 rpm could be regarded as a ‘sensible’ engine speed for a Royal Enfield Bullet."



Notice how we have a figure plucked out of the air, softened with a "could" and then rendered meaningless by the "sensible"? ("Sensible", as we all know, is a well-established engineering term in the world of engine design").



There are some other very questionable assertions here. This term "fatigue damage" should not be bandied about like this. Fatigue occurs when components suffer strain which exceeds their elastic limit. Some components also show fatigue at a vastly reduced rate when operated within their elastic limit, but this is not true of all components. In most cases the fatigue life of an engine component massively exceeds the service life of the engine. That is why most engines wear out, rather than blowing up.



We then get this term "stress damage", which I think Presto should explain to us, in particular how it differs from fatigue damage.



But basically, all this bandying about of big multiplication factors is completely meaningless without knowing what numbers we are starting from. Every engine designer takes into account the non-linear nature of stresses and strains on the components with increasing rpm. To say that an engine suffers three times as much "fatigue damage" at 11,000 rpm as it does at 10,000 rpm means absolutely nothing if the engine is designed for a 14,000 rpm redline, like a number of sports bikes are these days.



All of these scary-sounding factors are taken into account completely routinely by engine designers the world over.

I repeat: we need DATA, not conjecture, in order to provide a scientifically valid answer to the original question.
User avatar
By Presto
#55320
Thack did you notice my first line?! Of course these figures are open to question from many angles but some aspects I would be prepared to stand by.




I don’t think there would be much reason behind doubting that the rpm figure I quote as a ‘sensible’ – i.e. ‘safe’ – engine speed for the ‘average’ Bullet is fair.




I fully accept most of Thack’s observations – but really the only point I wanted to make was the dramatic increase in engine stress with increased rpm. Sure these factors are taken into account by designers – at least I hope so! If we drop the word ‘damage’ and simply speak of fatigue then the point may stand – there is an exponential increase in stress with rising revs. At its simplest – there are stresses and strains and ‘happenings’ in engines most of us never give a thought to.




Like these:



At 5000 rpm the flywheels complete 83 full revolutions a second; the piston makes 166 full strokes a second; each second the piston comes to a dead stop 322 times; the piston accelerates from zero to 50 ft/sec in less than 1/300th sec; in less than 1/150th sec the piston accelerates from a dead stop to over 35 mph and decelerates from 35 mph to a dead stop again within a distance of only 90 mm (3½ inches); the valves will be fully open for no longer than about 1/1000th of a second.



But I may be wrong! ;-)
By Cafeman
#55321
Crank truing, engine balance, primary/drive chain alignment and tension, wheel balance/alignment, rim truing etc all have an impact on each bikes feel and vibration. As a simple test using feel and sound, but no visual, forget looking at the speedometer, cover it even. Hit a desolate road, one with as little traffic that may influence your pace, and shift through the gears purely by feel and sound. Maintain a pace the same way. No visual input from the speedometer or arbitrary speed limit signs. Depending on the road and terrain, you'll find your cruising speed for an iron barrel 500. Who needs a speedometer or a stupid sign to tell me how fast or slow to go. I'll let what the bike does determine that for me.
User avatar
By PeteF
#55323
A bit more fun:

Get a 350, then you won't have to bother about it. They are much more difficult to blow up!

Shop for accessories at Hitchcocks Motorcycles