CC means

I do all sorts, thought occasionally seering stuff is fun. The rest would be telling.

Where's it gone?

Try these Motivational Posters - specifically designed for bikers. I like the comparison to golf.

Those are great!!! And I've lived every one of them!!!

The Ducati one is the most true! Ducati owners have a superstition about there bikes... As you walk by, never look at your bike - if you do, something else will fall off.

That doesn't quite fit in with 'petropower's V8 chainsaw. Really, it doesn't.

The 2-stroke is moe powerful than the 4-stroke only up to a particular size. After that, they begin to lose their efficiency and well designed 4-stroke engines take off.

If you were going shopping it would be much quicker & cheaper to leave the wife at home.

Esimated time from 'I'm ready' to getting into car....

Man 30 secs

Woman 30 mins.

Where did you find a woman that quick?

I once told an ex that I wanted to get into town quickly to make sure I got her that "Special something" I saw last time I was in the shop. Never seen her move so quick to the car. Was in trouble when she opened the new pack of dish cloths though.

I told my wife I'd buy her something that would go from "0 - 200" in a few seconds. She also was in the car in minutes ready to go. Much like your dish cloths, my wife didn't appreciate her new bathroom scale.

I was just thinking about this issue as I drove around in my 50cc car recently. It does 50 mph (on a perfectly level road) and can get me from here to there. The 50cc drive train is very temporary, to be replaced soon with a hybrid drive train of more HP, but nevertheless, it makes one think about what is really necessary.

In the mid 1950's the MG TD was a very desirable sports car in the US. In fact, it is the car that really started the interest in "sports cars" here. The term generally meant cars that were fun to drive and that placed a premium on handling nimbleness over raw power, but nevertheless had enough power to be fun. An MD TD would accelerate from 1 to 60 in 25 seconds! The lowest performance cars generally available in the US now go from 0 - 60 in about 11.8 seconds, and are considered econoboxes, not sports cars.

Lots of people think that not having enough power is a safety hazard... but truckers put up with dismal acceleration every day, and I don't think there is any evidence that faster acceleration would keep them out of accidents. I think I could safely drive an MG TD in today's traffic. (Of course I'd like to have modern crush zones, good brakes and tires, etc.)

that's because we build for torque not HP...........it's needed to get those hummers moving :)

I vote for comfort and not speed, for the open road I use a 3liter. it maintains my 110km/h comfortably up and down hill. I have done 350000km the engine is still brand new. I sometimes take the car to 240km/h and then i receive a written letter of appreciation (from my Grandson)

For the city I use a 1400cc.

The 1400 can also do the 110 but looses speed on the uphill. It cannot do 240 and I don't think it will last as long as the 3000cc. The engine is working harder at that speed.

The engine capacity is sometimes not the best evaluation method. One should rather look at the rpm/torque curves.

Over here in the UK we pay tax when buying a car, then we pay tax to put it on the road, then we pay enormous tax on the fuel to put in the car, then to get money to put fuel in the car we get income tax. The tax system for the car is based on the size of the engine, smaller engine less tax. Smaller engine usually means more miles per gallon of fuel. Cheap small car means less you pay in the VAT (value added tax 17.5%). Sometimes it may be that a bigger car lasts longer but you do end up paying for it one way or another.

Westminster should be renamed robbing bunch of b******s, they fleece joe public with the highest taxes in Europe so that His Lordship Tony Blair could have a jolly over to America to teach his best friend Bush how to walk like he had a beach ball under each arm. Now we have sneeky little Gordon Brown, never elected in by the public but got the job by being official arse wipe to Tony. He is one tight little son of a b*t*h and you just watch he'll be thieving even more from us.

Sorry, enough politics

MACA

I disagree. It's not politics: what you were discussing was economics.

When the Normans arrived on the first leg of their world tour (back in 1066) they were pretty severe as a form of government. "Droit du seigneur" was a pretty good way of keeping the natives in check. At that time, if the historical records are correct, the natives suffered from a total lack of civilisation: the roads and transport infrastructure were non-existent; the medical system was inefficient; education was only for those with money. Illiteracy standards were high. But, despite all these shortfalls the Normans were smart enough to know that EVERYONE has to get away with something: wood for the fire "by hook or by crook": protein for the table: a rabbit for the pot ? - no problem - help yourself, just leave the King's deer alone.

So, how does that tie back to the present era ? (of discontent ?) Oh, ... the roads and transport system are non-existent. The medical system is inefficient. Education is only for those with money. The DIFFERENCE is that this government is not smart enough to know that EVERYONE NEEDS to have something that they get away with. Which means that they are more draconian than even the Normans were... Food for thought ?

P.S. As a result of working in Texas for 8 years I bought a truck which I imported into the UK. 5.3 liter. V8. Enough room for all the kids and all the luggage and 18.5MPG. The combined purchase, import and transport price was such that by comparison with the 3.0 liter Toyota Landcruiser ( second hand incl. VAT) I get to drive 67000 miles before I would have spent the same sum of money ( if the Landcruiser used NO fuel ) and 135000 miles if the Landcruiser does 30MPG (unlikely). And yes, I think the global warming argument is vastly over-rated and politically motivated.

I prefer something with a bit more displacement.

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters)

Try to see if Jay Leno will sell you a Dodge Tomahawk. I heard he bought the rights to the concept bike. Theoretical top speed - a whopping 400 miles per hour. 0-60 in only 2.5 seconds. This bike puts out an incredible 500hp. Talk about displacement!

That should kill off a few middle aged guys trying to recapture their lost youth.

Jessy James tried to make a bike from a big rig diesel engine until he found out that the motor weighted three tons. You should have seen him trying to balance that between his legs. Can anyone say Vienna Boys Choir?!

So where do you drive this thing besides the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Not just "Concept" here ... it's the real deal, if you can afford it!

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/chrysler-tomahawk-v10-motorcycle

Given what I'd heard about the Y2K bike (of which Leno was one of the 1st purchasers) ... regarding the original tires melting-off at around 177mph (thus necessitating lots of re-rubber-engineering), I wonder what goes into the tires on THIS behemoth...?!

.

Might work fine in a straight line. But would it; could it; can it; ever go around a corner? and would you want to be the one to try?

Not with this 'midget' frame... sounds like a task for Arnold S to try...!

That's not a motorcycle. It's a tank!

As some of the others have tried to communicate it is a measure of the size or displacementof the engine, expressed in cubic centimeters of water. Bigger is better for power, etc. smaller might be better for economy, presuming adequate and sufficient out put for the task.

milo

The term "cc" is a cubic centimeter, usually used to describe the displacement for motorcycle engines and small car engines...The term "ci" is of course the abbreviation for cubic inches. As we all know however the displacement for many automobiles these days are also being referred to in litres...

I've read all the replies, and conclude your question may still be unanswered. Your question might be 98% answered, so let me fill in the 2% (just in case). What it means is a way to compare engine size from one machine to another, to gauge whether this engine might be bigger and produce more potential power. So a motorcycle with a 1000 cc engine would certainly be more fast, cost more, etc, than a motorcycle with a 100 cc engine. This 'cc' measure has been explained, but how it is used in engine sizing was partially explained (I feel). It comes from the volume of liquid that would be displaced in one stroke of the piston from bottom dead center to top dead center. So you put the piston at the bottom, theoretically fill the cylinder with fluid until it spills out, then, rotate the piston until top dead center and catch all the fluid 'displaced' by the "swept volume" of the piston. Then we say, this is the "Engine Displacement" in cc's.

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_cc2hp.htm might indicate that there is no easy correlation between engine size and power output?

CC means Cubic centimeters and is unit of volume. In engines it denotes the cyinder volume and is equal to Stroke length x Cylinder cross section area x number of cylinders. Mostly 986-987 cc said as 1000 CC enhgine.

More the volume more powerful the engine is and more pick up for the given weight of machine. For the same volume, if the number of cylinders are more must be cylinder size is less.

cc=power, not exactly true. In this case, we're talking cubic inches (an older American standard). The Chevy 396 V8 was one of the most inefficient engines ever created. even If you tried to hotrod the engine with all sorts of cam, crank, and fuel delivery systems, the engine's design was so inefficient that you never got the bang for your buck. Now the 409, that was something different! a little extra hotrod work would make any car do wheelies off the line!

I'm going to stick my oar in now and say the definitions above about cc are generally correct...

But just because an engine has a higher swept volume doesn't mean it more 'powerful' or 'faster'.

The larger swept volume engine may well run on a fuel with less energy, or you may try comparing a marine engine of enormous capacity and enormous torque but very low revs and huge inertia - so low acceleration, to a 1000cc motorbike engine...

Its horses for courses, the huge marine engine is ideal for its environmental requirements but absolutely useless as a motorbike engine, its power is in its huge torque and not its huge horsepower rating...

John... I will sit back now and wait for the onslaught

First round of onslaught: You make me laugh, and I don't think you will get BBQ'd too bad. I like your signature. There is a sign in the school here for 14-18 YO's : "Quit school now while you still know everything".

Yes, that reminds me of another saying which goes something like...

"Education is the road to learning how little we really know about our surroundings" - Unknown.

John.

My MR2 turbo had a 2000 cc engine and produced about 230 Hp. Later I found out that with very simple bolt-on tweaks, owners were getting 12 second quarter-miles out of them. There's still a lot of untapped potential in that engine.

And my choice for bikes? The last one I had was a 1999 Kawasaki Ninja 900. 145 Hp, and about 400 lbs wet. First 10 second factory bike in history! And the HP to weight ratio was so weird! It could snap your neck, and you could throw it around like a dirt bike! Thank God it had dual anti-lock disces in the front!!!

1000 CC means 1000 chit chat messages about what cc means

Your tag line reminds me of the story of the worried statistican...

A statistician was deathly worried about getting on a plane with a bomb in it. So, he went to see his professor and asked him to calculate the odds for getting on a plane with a bomb. The professor thought awhile, scribbled some equations on a blackboard, the replied "My best guesstimate is about a billion to one that you will get on a plane with a bomb on it."

The statistician thought for awhile, then asked "What about two bombs on the plane?"

The professor did a few more calculations and replied "Probably about a trillion to one."

Now, the nervous statistician is back flying the friendly skys, but only when he's carrying a bomb.

!

Keep repeating, I must remember that quote....

I must remember about the worried statastition...

I must remember about the stastition...

I must remember about the statation....

I must remember about the station... Huh???????

John

ilcelnteltulay cpnsttiaeod?

Read this:

http://www.czayz.com/waht.php

It's about time all you people in the Illuminati came clean and told this poor schmuck that the REAL meaning of CC is cubic cucumber. A measurement put down in Holy Roman Law in 1345 by Pope Innocent the 34th!!!

Hey Verm'

your snigature...

Don't real friends jiggle their bodies?

And that **** Pope Innocent the XII tried to ban the crossbow!

( Innocent?...don't make I larf )

No, best friends jiggle their bodies.

As far as the Pope's name... Unfortunately, they get to name themselves.

And yes, crossbowmen were the first up against the wall during a defeat. They were considered bastards. Wonder what they would think about todays modern riflemen?

Where the heck did 'Boniface' get the name from ??

And weren't Longbows better ? ( Note how the Welsh were supposedly involed in starting off 2 fingered insults )

The anger was about the fact that any idiot could be an accomplished archer with a cross bow, it took no skill. I guess they really prized skill back then.

Sounds like longbow-men would be killed as a priority because they were skilled and efficient killing machines. Back then nobody on a loosing side would get much quarter whatever their part in a battle. Crossbows were clunky mechanical things way past their sell-by date even at Agincourt. Maybe the first case of people getting carried too far with technology (?). A longbow was 'simpler' but much better.

Not if you consider the pull weight for a crossbow was probably in excess of two pounds, and could make just about anyone a dead shot... I kind of think that one thing that pissed them off was the fact that a crossbow was deadly to an armored knight. And if you consider during that time that no ordinary soldier was allowed to attack a knight in battle, only other knights had this privalege... I think the story tells itself.

....Regicide has always been seen as a heinous crime, and crossing the Taxman is still going to get you in more crap than most other things.

Wow that 2lb draw weight is reall scary !!!!

Do you bean 200 ?

I have a repro' 'light sporting crossbow' which I made 175lb draw weight!

I can still draw my 70lb longbow, but that would be kid's stuff in those days.

At Agincourt the archers would shoot at anything horse, knight whatever, and at close range could penetrate armour, which was primarilly designed to deflect blows.

Even a few inches of penetration would be enough to seriously impeded a knight and if a horse was hit it would be uncontrollable. A knigh on foot in a muddy ploughed field may be ok hand to hand but was a sitting duck to an archer.

Yes, I meant >> 200 lbs.

No!

I don't believe you I think you are just a feeble ball of girlie fluff and can only draw 2lb Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

Don't be sad Verm...just teasing...honest...oh I'm sorry..

Well, if it's a compound bow... Maybe!

Hi Verm...this may interest/enlighten!

Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey (in 1901) re-furbished a 400 year old Siege Crossbow made in Genoa.

It's draw weight was measured at 1,200lb (over half a ton) at 7" It was drawn with a windlass.

The bow itself was steel 3'2"long 2.5 " x 1 " at the centre.

At 60yards shot from the shoulder it would send a bolt weighing 3oz straight through a 3/4 inch plank.

He shot several bolts across the Menai Straits from Wales to Angelsea. The distance according to the Ordnance Survey was between 440 and 450 yards.

(From:- The Crossbow Mediaeval and Modern, Military and Sporting, it's Construction, History & Management)

Hey this has got to be about as far off thread as we can go...or is it?

Burma!

Oh Verm, you say the sweetest things...

mwah mwah

I hate to burst a bubble, but Madam vermin may be issuing an instruction rather than an invitation. Having escaped through a narrow window I can testify to the dangers. And I didn't get a %.

See?! Now this is what I'm talking about! A long bow was good for volleys and for fairly rapid quick shooting, but the guy with the cross bow, who never learned anything about archery, was walking around with the closest thing to a high power, single-shot rifle for those days.

300 lbs on a bolt could easily go straight through plate armor. And from what I understand of those days, they were real stickler for the "rules of the game."

"Not fair! Not fair! Illegal weapon! He doesn't have any skill!!!"

"Let me get this thing cocked again and I'll show ya skill, mate!"

Better for what? is the key question....

The crossbow was better as a sniper's or assassin's weapon. The Longbow was superior when used by a well trained body of men.

Next time you are in a castle and someone points out the supposed 'arrow slits' Just raise your arm holding an imaginary bow and notice how the upper limb would probably smash into the ceiling! If this is the case they could only be used by a crossbow ( which shoots a 'bolt' not an arrow [bolt from the blue] )

I'm a brilliant shot with an imaginary bow!

Well I was sorta thinking of standing in a muddy field etc (Glastonbury maybe). I could probably loose off more with a longbow. You'd be fine with a crossbow in a castle (though boiling oil sounds more fun to me !). Either weapon would be OK for a sniper, but I'd still go for a longbow because of speed/hit-and-run etc. Robin Hood would have looked a bit of a tart with a crossbow - that's more Swiss I think.

Being a spooneristically constipated owl, I shoot but can't hit. Del genuflecting with a bow ? Yer avin a larf ! Is the bear a ca....

Did you read the first chapter of my autobiography in Are you a Lefty or a righty ?

Can I suggest Cubic Cwaretmellon ?

I really have no idea why, but the Japanese have been making these for years! Maybe they make better fruit-bombs when thrown off Tokyo Tower.

I fink the Japanese do lots of Bonsai fruit, for people to grow in tiny apartment block houses. Those pod-hotels look funny too - for some perverted reason I want to try it. There's one opened in London recently I think. Wish I spoke the language cos I bet they have some great web-sites/forums. Maybe that's why we don't seem to have Japanese members here, because they have so many wacky sites at home.

Probably working to death.

You are getting slooooow vermin. Is it the workload ?