RGS on Dyno

First of all: this bike has I think Mikuni's installed => 36mm carbs vs. 32mm standard. Then it has open Jota pipes, which also contribute to max power. My RGS 1000 SFC originally claims to have 95 HP. With a different exhaust and the 39mm Keihin carbs, it produced right away 105 HP. So - freeing up the potential is sometimes possible with the right setup. keep in mind, Laverda did not design them to have maximum power on the road but to have a long live... ;)
 
I am not going to piss on your fireworks regarding your HP figures Lothar but I will regarding the long life, Massimo told me two things that are memorable, the first one is that "we have to sell spare parts so as to survive" and secondly, they expected enthusiasts to be buying the latest model after 2 or 3 years and passing on the old one (OLD 3 YEARS?)
 
1200ts said:
The 84HP at the rear wheel is surprising. My 3Cl on the dyno about 20 years ago only had 72HP at the rear wheel and this was with many hours of carb and ignition changes to get max power.

I always thought that a good running RGS had about 80HP at the crank so say 70 at the wheel?
Click to expand...

I've always heard RGS's had around 80 @ the rear wheel and a good bit more than 180s. Piet always sez 180s feel fast, 120s are fast 🙂.

I'm primarily surprised by the thing wanting 135 or 137.5 main jets.

Fun fact. The dyno owner is an ECU tuner. His Kawi H2 SX has Two Hundred and Fifty HP at the wheel, up 50 HP just from a full exhaust and ECU tuning 😆🤔. God in heaven.
 
Last edited:
CLEMTOG said:
I am not going to piss on your fireworks regarding your HP figures Lothar but I will regarding the long life, Massimo told me two things that are memorable, the first one is that "we have to sell spare parts so as to survive" and secondly, they expected enthusiasts to be buying the latest model after 2 or 3 years and passing on the old one (OLD 3 YEARS?)
Click to expand...
I don't think he meant the engine, I think he meant either optional parts or crash-parts, suspension (which really needed replacement on some bikes within 25.000km or less). Wonder why else he designed a 19 kilos crank into it and made everything more than rock-solid... Everything in this Motor screems for a long live... I quote Piero: "We designed the engines so that - with the right maintenance - they can cover 150.000km easily!" (2006 on the Willy Werndl meeting). But maybe that's part of why they went bankrupt... (not really, I know...).

Also keep in mind that at that time, the Ducs bevel engines had to be overhauled every 30 - 40.000km... rarely the breganzes have to be done before 80.000 - 100.000. Compared to what other manufacturers were delivering, this was really a long livety of an engine at that time I'd say... Jump even back to the 60's when the 750's were designed... what was an average engine live at that time? 2-Strokes saw new pistons every 15.000 - 20.000km, bike "long distance" tests were at 10.000km, later increased to 25.000km in the 70's... how long does a 750 SF engine hold up with good maintenance? Surely 100.000km or more, no? I'd say that speaks for a robust engine designe (though they had their failures, too).
 
Is all this relevant to ride to the supermarket?
And Lothar, some engines of the 60s or 70s were good for 100 of thousands of kilometres. Guzzi or BMW spring to mind along with Laverda.

If they rarely did that, it was because the bikes were owned by .......... who thrashed them to oblivion and if they couldn't destroy them in two or three years, they'd change because the new ones must have had arrived.
That's what Massimo was referring to, not parts wearing out. He'd well understood that motorcycles were a consumer product, not a necessity. It was he and Zen who were involved in the engine design.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top