34 replies to this topic

[Ricci]

OK , so no one started a topic for the 2012 Pulsars ?

Loved the look of this - agreed a copy of the CB1000R , but that's Bajaj giving Honda a ****job
Anyway, overall it looks like a winner, in terms of looks and specs. Only the smaller (oh why BAL ) 12 litre fuel tank and 35W headlamp are downers. And it's still on carbs. Doesn't Bajaj understand the importance of a low-carb diet ?

I think the P200 NS will end up eating the KTM 200 sales rather than the KTM eat up the CBR250R's sales. With 23hp, it is close to the KTM's power and so the CBR's as well. For 100k , it's a good 60k less than a CBR with 50cc more but matching the kit except for fairing and ABS option. The KTM sits right in the middle of the CBR250R and P200 NS. I think it's not that nice a place to be, while purists and fanboys will buy the KTM, the bulk of the potential/targeted customers will diverge , to the CBR250 or the Pulsar (or the bigger Pulsar , 250/300 if/when it comes).

I wonder what the drum braked spied Pulsars were , 125s ? What of the 150/180 ?
Hero and Yamaha must be praying those 150s/180s in the new 200-esque avatar don't show up soon.

Edited by razorBlades, 31 January 2012 - 05:06 PM.
removed unwanted slangs

[razorBlades]

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..

[rahul_rn]

i couldn't stop laughing since i heard the word Triple spark plug technology..

[satyenpoojary]

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

[NikhilB]

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?

[Ricci]

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.

[arn]

Only Bajaj can answer the reason for the 3 spark thingy.. It's not even the highest revving engine where one might think that the different flame fronts would be able to get more precise timing

[rahul_rn]

ricci, 650 or faster..?? you probably need the s1000rr or the panigale..
and 3rd pulg ok for now.. but i dont want to see a dozen of em till the end of my life..

[NikhilB]

Ricci, on 31 January 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

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.

Exactly my thoughts too...

I read somewhere (probably zig****) that the R&D chief (Abraham?) claimed that the twin spark set-up meant the air-fuel mix at the center of the cylinder (which incidentally would be more voluminous than the sides) would not combust efficiently (explosion has to travel, maybe).

That just didn't make sense to me. I'm sure there are cylinders with bigger bores that are running just fine with one or two plugs.

Or is it that engineers at Bajaj Auto prioritized lower emissions (to reduce costs of a bigger cat con) over the additional couple of points bhp?

[Ricci]

arn, on 31 January 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Only Bajaj can answer the reason for the 3 spark thingy.. It's not even the highest revving engine where one might think that the different flame fronts would be able to get more precise timing

Yep, but I doubt they will. They claim they have a patent (or pending patent) over the 3-spark technology so cannot reveal the details. I for one would like to see technical data, graphs , etc

rahul_rn, on 31 January 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

ricci, 650 or faster..?? you probably need the s1000rr or the panigale..
and 3rd pulg ok for now.. but i dont want to see a dozen of em till the end of my life..

Hehehe, me neither. The joke's been going around since the first DTSI, now the prediction came true !
Sure I need a faster bike ....be a nice chap and gift me one

NikhilB, on 31 January 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I read somewhere (probably zig****) that the R&D chief (Abraham?) claimed that the twin spark set-up meant the air-fuel mix at the center of the cylinder (which incidentally would be more voluminous than the sides) would not combust efficiently (explosion has to travel, maybe).

That just didn't make sense to me. I'm sure there are cylinders with bigger bores that are running just fine with one or two plugs.

Or is it that engineers at Bajaj Auto prioritized lower emissions (to reduce costs of a bigger cat con) over the additional couple of points bhp?

I reckon it is the cost issue. Without FI and cat con, they have to make a clean burn, so to catch any unburnt fuel, they added more spark plugs hoping to ignite unburnt mixture. Maybe the Europeans/Japanese don't feel this need as their emission standards are supposedly less green, but more likely, I think they use better quality ignition coil and plugs, with better control of spark timing and strength. To achieve the same from cheaper parts, they have to do jugaad of putting more plugs to catch and ignite mixture that didn't burn.

[rahul_rn]

[nav75]

Of late, I haven't had a few good experiences by commenting on the value of a vehicle by looking at the pictures, so I won't comment on how good/bad the bike is.

Regarding it eating into KTM sales, does Bajaj even want the KTM to sell in big numbers? With some cutoff on the number of bookings they are going to take, doesn't look like. It's not like the KTM will start getting manufactured the day booking opened, that they might not be able to keep pace.

Triple plug. When Twin plug came, I used to jokingly say why only 2 and not 3? I'm a bit worried about jokingly asking, why only 3 and not 4? With BAL, I'll say, you never know.

Rash, at some other place mentioned, probably BAL couldn't have afforded to go back to single plug, defying all the logic they gave for twin plug. And with twin plug being a old thing, needed something more innovative - there comes triple plugs.
I just worry the day BAL decides to come out with multiple cylinder engines. Twin cylinder using 6 plugs, 4 cylinder using a dozen? (That's if the 4 plug per cylinder hasn't found to be more efficient ;-))

I'll say, if in MotoGP - where a fraction of more efficiency (FE - lower fuel consumption = smaller tank = lesser fuel = lower weight, Torque = additional fractional of sec's) is more than welcome. If none is using it there, it could be that none has even thought of this idea or have found its not worth the effort. Oh and 800cc 4 cylinder = 200cc per cylinder, so that's not too big.

[razorBlades]

reviews all over the internet.. waiting for the in-house review!

[satyenpoojary]

The bike was ridden yesterday! I was waiting for the report too! Sigh!

[satyenpoojary]

What in Gods name are those mounts for?