Will a new DL1000 feel stronger than my ST1100 at over 10k feet?

[GeneDavis]

Tried the Colorado outback for the first time today, starting at Denver.

Spent a lot of time at elevations between 9,000 and 12,000 feet, the ST1100 feeling somewhat sluggish on the uphills. Beat out the Harleys though.

Seriously thinking of getting a new VSTrom 1000, and wonder if one would have been a stronger climber today than old-reliable.

 

[Don-STOC237]

My DL1000 feels stronger at higher altitudes than did my ST1100's. Fuel injected bikes generally do better at adapting to increased height, unless you have jetted the carb bike for the higher altitude.

One thing I've found is that it is pretty easy to strangle a ST1100 by restricting the airflow. So if you have a foam pre-filter on your air cleaner, take it off before you go up high - it'll make a difference.

 

[BakerBoy]

Yes, it will pull better than an 1100...and it will give you that feeling of working harder as well, being a twin. But the 1100 will still easily get you into trouble (too fast for conditions) at high altitudes.

 

[GeneDavis]

Well, yesterday running along the black canyon on the excellent CO hwy 92, I could not have been on a better bike than my ST1100. What a ride, Hotchkiss to Gunnison.

And Gunnison. Is this a great biker town or what?

 

[shiftfaced]

Owning both i can tell you that the V2 has a lot of torque. I love the way the ST idles down the road. The v2 has a 6 speed but not really an overdrive. The V2 is more comfortable for me. Bad back. Two different animals. Both good.

 

[T_C]

Strom is chain drive. ST is shaft. No changes in direction of rotation allows more efficiently uwe of produced power.

 

[BakerBoy]

Strom is chain drive. ST is shaft. No changes in direction of rotation allows more efficiently uwe of produced power.

Changes of axis of rotation doesn't produce inefficiency. Instead, sliding of surfaces causes inefficiency. Gear teeth slide against each other as each tooth engages and disengages--it is putting force through the sliding interface, some of the power being dissipated as friction (heat) into the gear teeth. As evidence, chains run cooler than gears.

 

[Al st1100]

Changes of axis of rotation doesn't produce inefficiency. Instead, sliding of surfaces causes inefficiency. Gear teeth slide against each other as each tooth engages and disengages--it is putting force through the sliding interface, some of the power being dissipated as friction (heat) into the gear teeth. As evidence, chains run cooler than gears.

in other words the chain is more efficient ??

 

[ST Gui]

I think the big factor is torque and FI. Rotation change as a factor is probably very debatable. A shaft drive does add weight and if the DL is lighter (I'm guessing it is) that will make a difference too.

Carbureted bikes run leaner at altitude and loose some oomph giving weaker throttle response. Properly jetted richer for altitude would give back the missing performance but that's some work and maybe a lot of experimentation. FI pretty much takes it all in stride.

 

[SMSW]

in other words the chain is more efficient ??

Good question. There is no doubt that a chain has lower losses for the final drive compared to shaft drive. Think about the complexity of the shaft - a U-joint, bevel gears, additional bearings, and as said, the sliding surfaces of the gears. But I wonder how much energy is lost if we compare a chain drive (say a cam chain) to a gear train driving the same overhead cam? Lets make it a closer match - eliminate the chain tensioner and use one gear on the end of the crank, an idler gear, and the gear on the end of the camshaft.

I'd go one farther and make it one gear on the crankshaft and one gear on the camshaft - no idler gear (assuming that a reverse direction cam can be made to run the engine). Now what is more efficient?