"Exercise restraint and discipline, only responding to posts from legit customers and those with constructive positive intent, you will find that the handgrenades explode harmlessly. You have many satisfied customers who are happy to have the parts you've made. My suggestion to you is keep making good parts, keep getting more customers, take care of them and let them speak for you."
I don't care in terms of it keeping me up at night. It just annoys me to no end when someone distorts facts and denies reality. The RC45 was, and is, a dud, and THAT was and is, a fact and all the spinning and out of context quotes from Larry will not change that....
I don't care in terms of it keeping me up at night. It just annoys me to no end when someone distorts facts and denies reality. The RC45 was, and is, a dud, and THAT was and is, a fact and all the spinning and out of context quotes from Larry will not change that....
In mikstr's mind the RC45 was a dud... it annoys him to no end that anyone
would dare rank it number 1 as "Race Cool" in the company of other
milestones such as the Britten, Norton Rotary, MotoGuzzi V8, Ducati 888,
Suzuki RG500, Honda NSR250R... here are facts that mikstr can't change...
but all in all I think we are getting alone fine... I know some where in his
cavernous crania is an open mind...
Don't be an idiot......no one in their right mind would pick that ugly ass RC45 over a Britten. If this magazine did, the writer of that article just lost ALL credibility......Seriously, for every one article that said the RC45 was good, I'm sure there are 10 that label it as crap and a failure.....No one cares to go look for those articles though because this rehashed over and over discussion is so 1995.......It's been over a decade, it doesn't matter anymore!!!!! Why don't you post the article where the magazine chose the 916 over the RC45.....at least that decade old article has some truth to it's content
The 45 was a good bike, just not a great bike (great bikes being those that manage to win more than one world title in a span of six years if ridden by top-level talent). I see you're now counting endurance titles too, too funny. Man, times are tough when you start scraping up endurance titles. What's the matter, didn't find any drag racing or hillclimb titles to throw in too? Wonder if the RC engine ever powered an ultralight airplane, hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... or maybe a desert buggy, or......
I have nothing against the RC45 per se, what I have issues with is the unending spewing of how great it was (when clearly it failed to meet expectations, just like the NR500 some years earlier, a fact obvious to virtually all sane humans) and how the V4 engine is the be-all and end-all, blah, blah, blah.... when clearly it is not (and recent race results bear that point out). Perhaps its greatest legacy is the fact that it helped to lay the groundwork for the creation of the RC211, a rather notable achievement. Of its own accord, however, it never really delivered the goods, hence Honda drawing up the RC51. And by the way, some journalist deciding to place it at the top of a list means nothing. What are this chap's credentials? Just because something is in print does not make it true (mind you, Larry is still quoting the "virtual V4" line for the R1 engine, lol). Also, contrary to what Herr Goebbels said, repeating a lie often enough does not make it become true. So, keep quoting, and keep denying all you want, while your RC45 is a neat bike, it was not a game changer, and never will be.
No they are not. The V4 360 crank does not fire it's cylinder together or have any special crank offset arrangement like the early Desmocedici big-banger/twin-pulse bikes to fire its cylinder either simultaneously, or very close together.
Just look at the difference in firing sequence and count, between the V4 360 RC45 and the V-twin Duc....they are not REMOTELY similar.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
The 45 was a good bike, just not a great bike (great bikes being those that manage to win more than one world title in a span of six years if ridden by top-level talent).
Wow... the RC45 is a good bike... OK but in the span of six years it also
won 4 world titles...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikstr
I have nothing against the RC45 per se, what I have issues with is the unending spewing of how great it was (when clearly it failed to meet expectations,
Funny the RC45... not the bike... peoples reaction to it... because
Mr.Honda's expectations for the RC45 were clearly stated in 94.. winning
WSBK... World Endurance and IOM TT F1... and win it did...
1 World Superbike Championship...
3 World Endurance Championships...
4 Isle of Man TT F1 titles...
Seriously, for every one article that said the RC45 was good, I'm sure there are 10 that label it as crap and a failure.....
Seriously... I've collected over 107 articles on the RC45... and the majority
rate it over the top with only 2 or 3 that stated it was a waste of money...
but then again I only paid 8K for mine...
No they are not. The V4 360 crank does not fire it's cylinder together or have any special crank offset arrangement like the early Desmocedici big-banger/twin-pulse bikes to fire its cylinder either simultaneously, or very close together.
Just look at the difference in firing sequence and count, between the V4 360 RC45 and the V-twin Duc....they are not REMOTELY similar.
The reason Crash.net refers to Ducati V4 360º crank as a big banger is
because it pairs all the rods on the same crank journal and thus it is the 4
stroke of equivalent of V4 2 stroke that fires it's cylinders together on the
same journal... we now have 4 strokes that fires every other stroke
whereas the old 2 stroke fired every stroke...
The reason Crash.net refers to Ducati V4 360º crank as a big banger is
because it pairs all the rods on the same crank journal and thus it is the 4
stroke of equivalent of V4 2 stroke that fires it's cylinders together on the
same journal... we now have 4 strokes that fires every other stroke
whereas the old 2 stroke fired every stroke...
Negative. The term Big Bang refers to the simultaneous firing of multiple cylinders either at exactly the same time, or very close together. The V4 RC45 is NOT a Big Bang motor in stock form...no matter what you or Crash implies.
I s'pose you could say the RC45 is an wannabe or "virtual" Big Bang motor, if you so insist...but it's not so in the usual definition of the term.
By the same token as your definition, any standard I4 motor is also Big Bang - as you have 2 pistons rising and falling at the same time, reaching TDC and BDC at the same time.
__________________ Old Baldy / WWBO #451
Ducati 996
Kawasaki KLR 650 '02
Kawasaki KLR650 '06 OB's Blog
The 45 was a good bike, just not a great bike (great bikes being those that manage to win more than one world title in a span of six years if ridden by top-level talent). I see you're now counting endurance titles too, too funny. Man, times are tough when you start scraping up endurance titles. What's the matter, didn't find any drag racing or hillclimb titles to throw in too? Wonder if the RC engine ever powered an ultralight airplane, hmmmmmmmmmmmm....... or maybe a desert buggy, or......
I have nothing against the RC45 per se, what I have issues with is the unending spewing of how great it was (when clearly it failed to meet expectations, just like the NR500 some years earlier, a fact obvious to virtually all sane humans) and how the V4 engine is the be-all and end-all, blah, blah, blah.... when clearly it is not (and recent race results bear that point out). Perhaps its greatest legacy is the fact that it helped to lay the groundwork for the creation of the RC211, a rather notable achievement. Of its own accord, however, it never really delivered the goods, hence Honda drawing up the RC51. And by the way, some journalist deciding to place it at the top of a list means nothing. What are this chap's credentials? Just because something is in print does not make it true (mind you, Larry is still quoting the "virtual V4" line for the R1 engine, lol). Also, contrary to what Herr Goebbels said, repeating a lie often enough does not make it become true. So, keep quoting, and keep denying all you want, while your RC45 is a neat bike, it was not a game changer, and never will be.
just a random thought.
the 45 was not canned for the better twin. the twin was adopted as it was allowed more CC's the the twin thou had a clear advantage none of the 750's could overcome, not the 45's fault. the pulses of the twin rode the tires longer while the 750's had to rev higher/harder to get drive the twins already had and with less tire left it was a losing battle for the 750's. the rules were made for the twins and after Honda made thiers the down fall off 4 pistons came pretty quick in WSBK and has never gotten back to the factory levels of b4, sad really
"Exercise restraint and discipline, only responding to posts from legit customers and those with constructive positive intent, you will find that the handgrenades explode harmlessly. You have many satisfied customers who are happy to have the parts you've made. My suggestion to you is keep making good parts, keep getting more customers, take care of them and let them speak for you."
the 45 was not canned for the better twin. the twin was adopted as it was allowed more CC's the the twin thou had a clear advantage none of the 750's could overcome, not the 45's fault. the pulses of the twin rode the tires longer while the 750's had to rev higher/harder to get drive the twins already had and with less tire left it was a losing battle for the 750's. the rules were made for the twins and after Honda made thiers the down fall off 4 pistons came pretty quick in WSBK and has never gotten back to the factory levels of b4, sad really
OK, now back the normal rants
agree. However, if one were to listen to Larry, the 250 cc advantage enjoyed by twins paled in comparison to the much-vaunted superiority of the mighty V4. After all, Mr RC45 was designed by God himself it would seem. I guess even He makes mistakes.....
Linear Mode
