GS vs F3 question

[wyliec]

I asked this in someone else's thread, and no one responded. So, I'll start a thread, and ask again.

When the Spyder GS came out, it was advertised 0-60 mph in 4.5 seconds. Since there have been many here who post on how quick the F3 is as compared to the GS/RS/RSS, what is the 0-60 mph time?

[Chupaca]

quick scan on the web produced a claimed F3 0-60 speed achived in 4.8 seconds...but thats the web depends on who weaved it...

[wyliec]

quick scan on the web produced a claimed F3 0-60 speed achived in 4.8 seconds...but thats the web depends on who weaved it...

The 0-60 mph for the GS was from BRP. I would think they would have the 0-60 for the F3 listed somewhere.

[wyliec]

The 0-60 mph for the GS was from BRP. I would think they would have the 0-60 for the F3 listed somewhere.

I guess it's so fast that no one has been able to time it at BRP.

[Sempyder]

I've been looking for the f-3 stats for months surprised that they are not highlighting the performance.


Sempert out,

[ARtraveler]

Never did time trials on my 2008 GS to see how it compared with the factory "specs."

Yes, I am also surprised that the F3's speed specs are not being talked about. We do here a lot about smoked tires...?

[Bob Denman]

Let's face it; buying an F-3 (Or ANY Spyder!), based upon the performance numbers; is like buying a car JUST because you like the color!

They are so much more than that...

[Lamonster]

[wyliec]

Let's face it; buying an F-3 (Or ANY Spyder!), based upon the performance numbers; is like buying a car JUST because you like the color!

They are so much more than that...

Yes, I know that. But, we keep hearing how fast they are. If you pick up any car magazine (motorcycles may be the same), they list the 0-60 mph times as a reference point. And, now I see Lamont's post of 4.8 seconds. The GS was supposedly 4.5 seconds. I'm not trying to debate how it handles, or how it feels in tight or sweeping turns, or if you like its looks. I was just trying to see how slow the GS/RS is compared to the F3, based on all the smoking tire comments, and how fast it is. So, it looks like an F3 at 4.8 seconds is faster than a GS/RS at 4.5 seconds. There will probably be comments that once past 60 mph, the F3 smokes the GS/RS.

And, by the way, Bob- Based on comments I read here, I believe some buy based on color.

[otter28169]

I was under the impression that the strength of this motor was at the low end, and not when you are headed for triple digits. But i could be wrong. One thing I noticed in the short ride I took is that it seems to be happiest in the lower end of the RPM range. My RS does not really come alive until after 5000 rpm. I think the delivery is different, but am willing to bet performance is similar. One is a spinner motor and the other is a torque monster. I am interested ti see how the F3s fair in the drags @Spyderfest.

Just sayin'............

[pauly1]

"Smoked tires" do not equate to acceleration. The back end of the F3 is relatively light: take the weight off the tire and even low HP will light it up nicely. Drag times are going to be dependent on the hook up.

We've owned '08 and '10 GS/RS, and currently own a '14 ST and the '15 F3. The F3 is definitely faster by a bit over the ST. The F3 does have a broader usable power band but it does make some nice HP above 4500 RPM. I don't remember the precise formulae, but it takes exponentially higher power to cut 0.1 seconds off of ETs.

HP is for show but torque moves the load.

Wayne

[jwood4242]

Maybe someone on this site has lined them up head to head. Probably close 0-60 but I'm sure the torque and extra 15 hp or so of the F3 kick in at some point. Anyway, anyone that purchased these bikes as a racing machine may be somewhat disappointed. They are plenty fast enough to get yourself in trouble real quick but more than that they sure are fun to ride. Love my!!

[arntufun]

Just based on the looks alone..................................


F3 Wins !!!!!!
It's one bad azz looking machine !!!!!!

[jwood4242]

Just based on the looks alone..................................


F3 Wins !!!!!!
It's one bad azz looking machine !!!!!!

Yes, it sure is

[Bob Denman]

Wylie,
Having that 1330 under my right wrist; I can tell you that it is VERY quick off of the line.
The question might just be:
"Can the RS's top-end, make up for whatever jump thatthe F-3 gets on it off the line?"
This question WILL get answered!

[Mo Lee]

I don't want to bust anyone out but a couple of months ago I offered to race someone on an F3 that everyone knows with my GS during Spyderfest. I even suggested we play it up on Spyderlovers to help bring attention to Spyderfest. I'm sorry to say to this date my challenge has not been accepted.

[isthatahemi]

HP is for show but torque moves the load.

Wayne

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of power. Horsepower is a measure of power or work, torque is a measure of force.
Horsepower, irrespective of RPM is what matters, that's why all industrial equipment is rated in horsepower. You van use gear reduction to create torque, but not horsepower.

FWIW - There is little to suggest the F3 is faster than the early RS / GS - The Extra weight of the F3 is not compensated for by an extra 9 horsepower IMO.

[Bob Denman]

I respectfully disagree...
You will always do better, if you've got a nice, meaty torque curve to back up a big horsepower number.

[bmccaffrey]

Neither are drag bikes that was not there purpose. If i was looking for that would definately go back to 2 wheels. Would be intereting on a heads up . I would give the edge to the gs or rs.

[Rockwall]

My 2012 RS is listed at 699 lbs dry and had 106 stock hp. My Two Brothers pipe is supposed to add about 4 hp so that brings it up to 110 hp. The TB pipe also sheds a little weight. (I more than make up for that at 235lbs)

I have gotten pretty good at taking off fast from a stop and getting up to 60 mph. It seems to be near the 4.5-5 second range. I would always like a little more power, but I bet all around the RS and F3 are pretty similar in the "fast" department and the biggest difference will be handling and rider skills in overall performance.

[pauly1]

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of power. Horsepower is a measure of power or work, torque is a measure of force.
Horsepower, irrespective of RPM is what matters, that's why all industrial equipment is rated in horsepower. You van use gear reduction to create torque, but not horsepower.

FWIW - There is little to suggest the F3 is faster than the early RS / GS - The Extra weight of the F3 is not compensated for by an extra 9 horsepower IMO.

Who is misunderstanding what? Without torque, horsepower is not possible. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...sepower-guide/ A 16K RPM Indy or F1 motor which will product horsepower but wouldn't out accelerate a big displacement but equal horsepower motor.

Wayne

[isthatahemi]

Who is misunderstanding what? Without torque, horsepower is not possible. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...sepower-guide/ A 16K RPM Indy or F1 motor which will product horsepower but wouldn't out accelerate a big displacement but equal horsepower motor.

Wayne

So that's why torqueless Indy cars are some of the fastest road vehicles in the world.

Your comment was "torque wins races". You could have 400 ft/lbs of torque in an engine, and have 50 horsepower. An engine with 80 hp with 80ft/lbs would clobber it, at any speed other than seen in first gear.
But yes, an engine with the same horsepower, and more torque will be quicker, generally speaking.

Back to the topic at hand - On the traction impaired Spyder, I can't see more torque helping very much, especially in a heavier chassis, and more to the point, BRP does not claim it's faster. They are appealing to the more "overtly expressive" rider.

[pauly1]

I stated, "HP is for show but torque moves the load." You extrapolated from there.

Also, I stated "A 16K RPM Indy or F1 motor which will product horsepower but wouldn't out accelerate a big displacement but equal horsepower motor." which apparently you didn't read as you restated that same principle. So, we're saying the same thing only different.

An Indy or F1 car are fast, too, because they are aerodynamic and LIGHT! But given the same tires and body setup, I'll take a NASCAR-motored vehicle to get through a quarter mile before a smaller displacement/lower torqued Indy engine. Hp to weight ratios are much different for the two types of cars.

Indy motors are 234 cu in, w/horsepower of 550 - 700 @ 12K rpm, dependent on turbo boost pressure. The cars weigh 1575 lb. NASCAR is 725 hp, naturally aspirated, 358 cu in. The cars weighs about 3300 lb, minimum.

"quick" and "fast" are different but related, as is torque and horsepower. I can be fast but not quick, just as quick but not fast (is that half fast?). To a similar extent, and as you stated, I can have torque (such as an old "B" John Deere diesel tractor) but not horsepower.

Horsepower is a measure of work, 33K lb*ft of work per minute. Therefore, 0 torque produces no work and no horsepower. I've got to have potential before I can have horsepower.

As far as industrial motors, I assume electric motors, and further assumed to be AC current motors. They are rated in hp but also have to have an inherent torque at the rated RPM and hp. One does not create torque by gearing, rather it is amplified through mechanical advantage of the gear ratio.

Wayne

[Bob Denman]

Thanks for a solid explanation...
This is also one of the reasons that BRP tuned the original 991 series engines for 6 less horsepower, but 3 lb/ft of more torque: they moved the powerband almost 1,000 rpm lower for more useable real-world power.

[isthatahemi]

Here is the math for those who don't care for the about some of the gobbledegook that has been posted to confuse.

500ft/lbs@ 2000 rpm (~190hp), is half the (horse)power of 500ft/lbs at 4000 rpm (~381hp), and through gear reduction, you can multiply the latter amount of torque into 1000ft/lbs at 2000rpms. Torque is a nothing number, it is force, not work or motion. I can generate 500 ft/lbs torque with a large breaker bar. It won't move anything quickly.
As it relates to the above example, all else being equal, except the gear ratio (torque multiplication), an engine with 200ft/lbs torque at 6000 rpms will be faster. Quit often "torque" as cited will reflect on how effortless the work will be perceived in an automobile.

Horsepower states what the ability to do work is, whether that work is pump water, accelerate mass, or whatever you use it for. How much can my 500ft/lbs of torque do when I crank with a wrench? And all industrial engines are rated in hp because the torque rating is meaningless for doing work.

Anyhow, lets move on.