MRC Forum- brought to you by www.morini-riders-club.com

Does anyone know the top speed and horsepower numbers of the factory 350 racing bikes ?

I'm curious to see if my soon to be running supercharged bike will be in their league performance wise..

Robert in California

Further reading doesn't show that the Factory fielded 350s, but did have some kick-butt DOHC 250 singles that were champions....

140 mph were their reported top speeds,,, which has to be taken with a grain of salt,,, slight downhill straights, tail winds, and drafting other racers can make a bike a little faster than it is all by itself on a completely flat surface.... Still , that is very very good for for a small single...

Robert

Considering the Morini nearly beat the mighty Honda to the world championship (lost because of 'problems' in Japan?) then 140mph is not beyond the realms of probability. Don't forget that Morini had top riders, so the engineering would have to have been good. A certain Agostini started his GP career on the Morini.

The 175 was also a good motor, and if the 250 was putting out 35bhp that is 140 bhp per litre, more than the specific output of the modern 1200 and the early 350 Sports (42bhp).... Exceptional engineering in the 1960s....

Mike.

MickeyMoto wrote:..... and the early 350 Sports (42bhp)

The early sports were no more powerful, they were just rated under a the SAE (US Society of Automotive Engineers) system, whilst later bikes used the DIN standard.

The DIN rating is meant to represent the engine 'as installed' so all ancillaries (ie. the alternator) must be fitted along with a stock intake and exhaust as actually used on the bike. They used a different system for correcting to standard temperature, pressure and humidity too so the figures are quite hard to compare.

MickeyMoto wrote:Considering the Morini nearly beat the mighty Honda to the world championship (lost because of 'problems' in Japan?) then 140mph is not beyond the realms of probability. Don't forget that Morini had top riders, so the engineering would have to have been good. A certain Agostini started his GP career on the Morini.

The 175 was also a good motor, and if the 250 was putting out 35bhp that is 140 bhp per litre, more than the specific output of the modern 1200 and the early 350 Sports (42bhp).... Exceptional engineering in the 1960s....

Mike.

I can tell you that 35rwbhp is not enough to get to 140mph without a lot of external "help". I ran my Honda 250 with a CRF250R engine in a standing mile which is longer than the roadracing straights. I had 31 rwbhp by dyno and only got to 117mph. I added 17.5 hp with nitrous, 47.5 total, and got up to 131.8mph. My Coefficient of drag is better than back then too. So I am highly skeptical of the 140 mph claim. Now a 250cc 2-stroke is a different matter....
If I remember correctly the reason Morini almost won was due to reliability, handling, and smooth power delivery so could hit the throttle earlier on the exit from a corner, and less crashing.

[quote="dr jI can tell you that 35rwbhp is not enough to get to 140mph without a lot of external "help". I ran my Honda 250 with a CRF250R engine in a standing mile which is longer than the roadracing straights. I had 31 rwbhp by dyno and only got to 117mph. I added 17.5 hp with nitrous, 47.5 total, and got up to 131.8mph. My Coefficient of drag is better than back then too. So I am highly skeptical of the 140 mph claim. Now a 250cc 2-stroke is a different matter....
If I remember correctly the reason Morini almost won was due to reliability, handling, and smooth power delivery so could hit the throttle earlier on the exit from a corner, and less crashing.[/quote]

Don't forget the tracks weren't health and safety approved sanitised circuits then, but road circuits with loooooong straights, Spa, Nurburgring, IoM etc but I agree that the speed would not be possible on today's tracks.

I think it was at Hockenhiem in 1963 that Provini overtook Redman, Bryans and Taveri, down the back strait. Upto then Redman had complained he couldn't beat the Morini as it outhandled the 4 cyclinder Hondas on the 'tight circuits'. At Hockenhiem they measured the straits in miles not meters ! The Hondas had more than 20HP over the Morini (I don't think Honda were lying) and the Morini was faster. The 40HP quoted was a actually the 'final' figure for the 250, about 1968.

Pete
PS. Morini didn't "nearly win becuase or reliability". They lost by 2 points as they didn't even bother contesting three rounds (Honda contested them all) as they didn't sell any bikes in those markets.

I think your horsepower / speed numbers sound exactly right for what we can actually expect to get out of our bikes...

I'm not so sure about modern fairings being better than what the Italians were doing in the 50's and early 60's. Moto Guzzi built the first motorcycle dedicated wind-tunnel in 1950. Full scale 1:1 where the riders could tweak their tuck positions and the crews could try different fairing designs and get real world results. Scale models can only take you so far. It has to be full scale for maximum results

I think they were miles ahead of everyone else for quite a while....

Modern sport bikes (except for the suzuki hayabusa and kawasaki ZX-14) look too angled and sharp edged to me to be aerodynamically correct. They tend to look like the marketing department designed them rather than an aero engineer.

Eventually the big horsepower of the Japanese bikes just blew away all competition...

Robert in California

A standing mile may be longer than most circuit straights but
you don't come on to a circuit straight at 0 mph.
Having said that 140 mph does sound a lot for 42 bhp.

Yeah,,, I think the 125 to 130mph speed range is a lot more "real world" for 40'ish horsepower....4 times that much power will get you to 200 mph with a Hayabusa (which is exactly what the formulas say should happen with a fairing that is equal drag wise ).

Robert in California

Interesting you mention a Hyabusa. My 35 (when new) hp Kanguro left a Hyabusa behind around a nice set of fast twisties. Not just speed, power but handling too!

Yes, a 350 can give a Superbike trouble in the twisty places.... Twice the weight and five times the power...Can we say "Dragster on a Go-Kart track"

In a straight line though, the Hayabusa is king. It's drag coefficient is lower than on a Honda's 125 GP bike ... .561 vs .622 Amazing work by Suzuki.

Robert in California

smotorboy wrote:In a straight line though, the Hayabusa is king. It's drag coefficient is lower than on a Honda's 125 GP bike ... .561 vs .622 Amazing work by Suzuki.

Leaving aside the fact that it's very difficult to compare Cd figures because of the different methods of measuring frontal area, it's easier to achieve a low Cd on a big bike than a small one.

I think I understand you to mean that a small bike is of a certain scale, and as the human rider can't be scaled down to fit those proportions, then things are a bit more difficult to deal with in the packaging of the design.

A low Cd is a low Cd, and it takes a lot of effort to achieve one regardless of the vehicle size and type.

In my humble opinion, the Hayabusa has marked a new era in motorcycling, and that it is one of the most important motorcycles of the last 100 years. Before the Suzuki Hayabusa came along, more men had traveled to the Moon than had ever exceeded 200 mph on a motorcycle. Now, the short path to the 200 mph club at Bonneville, El Mirage, etc is to go get a Hayabusa and a "Power-Commander" and go for it.... Add a small shot of NOX or a turbo, and it is a sure thing...

PS: the total aero-drag of the Honda 125 GP bike is a little less than the the total aero-drag of the Hayabusa because of the smaller frontal area of the 125/rider (with it being such a small bike). GP engineers are looking for the lowest lap times rather than the lowest aero-drag. They have other considerations than all out top speed. Great engineering is the art of great compromises......

Robert in California

The biggest of which is not engineering related but in the mind - the rider with the biggest gonads!!!!!