razorBlades, on 31 January 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:
There are quite a lot of differences between KTM and the NS 200. To start with, the FI engine, different chassis, and the list could go on..
Yes, plus the forks, brakes. But for what it offers for around 30k more, the P200 upstages its richer cousin by doing a neat KTM-rival coup. I wasn't too keen on the KTM anyway, the P200 just dulls the KTM's case more, even lacking the exotic goodies.
rahul_rn, on 31 January 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:
i couldn't stop laughing since i heard the word Triple spark plug technology..
Yes, BAL does in terminology what HHML did in stickers.
satyenpoojary, on 31 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:
The P200NS is a step in the right direction for Bajaj... has nifty things, pretty neat looks and thankfully has adopted (and demonstrated) their ability of using a twin spar. That in my books is a BIG plus! The cost cutting on it is pretty evident as well, no FI, no Projectors, Heck! Eurogrip tyres, economies of scale due to sharing of platform and heck one more spark plug instead of one extra cylinder! (ok I am being an arse here)
I was hoping for a borexstroke swap, but that didnt happen. So may be we would see the P125NS or P125FS too
Indeed, this is a big styling and technical upgrade to the Pulsar with a twin spar frame, new swingarm, liquid cooling and monoshock - just what we have been hoping for a few years ago. I do wish they has a 220 successor replete with half ( or full ) fairing and better lights, for a replacement for my 220 ( a real upgrade would Ninja 650 or faster
NikhilB, on 31 January 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:
Was asking someone this... Probably somebody here can clear my doubt...
There are bigger single cylinder out there. If Bajaj decided on the triple spark for better combustion, why hasn't it been tried earlier? Is it so innovative a concept? (Idea doesn't look that innovative to me, implementation probably is...)
Could packaging 3 plugs, liquid-cooling jackets, and an SOHC into one cylinder head affect it's reliability over longer-term?
Reliability, perhaps not, but combustion efficiency , likely. The 3 plugs mean less place for valves, which will be smaller than they could be with 1 or 2 plugs. The oversquare bore x stroke figure does mitigate that somewhat, but 3 plugs is something I consider overdone. I don't know what Bajaj engineers know about multiple plug combustion, but the rest of the world got along fine with just plug per cylinder, barring a few exceptions like Mercedes Benz and the IDSI Gen 2 Honda City. I read online that Bajaj claims the 3 plugs make more efficient combustion, allowing smaller cat con. Efficient combustion is not just about emissions, it's also about power, and the 200 Duke makes 1.5PS more, and all the SBKs make much more specific power from 1 plug per cylinder. The Japanese, the Germans, the Italians have tried multi-plugs and not standardized/adopted it , that must mean the benefits weren't worth the complexity/cost , if at all there were any benefits , and we're talking of bigger cylinders which theoretically should benefit more from multiple plugs than a small 200cc cylinder.