A bit of banter between flatties [Archive]

Skinon

8th March 2011, 18:59

Taz

8th March 2011, 19:04

What the F@%K does it matter :blink:

onearmedbandit

8th March 2011, 19:07

PB mag or similar did a test like this a while ago, think there was a Buell, GSXR600, Z1000 and maybe a VFR400 or CBR400. Between them all there was very little difference, but the 400 did not come out on top.

bogan

8th March 2011, 19:08

how long is a piece of string? what radius corner is it? what length is it? where do you define the end of the corner? how wide is the track? What is the track surface like?

onearmedbandit

8th March 2011, 19:09

What the F@%K does it matter :blink:

Never partaken in inane banter before? I know I have with many flatties, it's great fun. Back then we didn't have the 'net to settle the argument though.

The Everlasting

8th March 2011, 19:09

Surely the more powerful bike will always be faster going anywhere?

Usarka

8th March 2011, 19:11

More weight = more momentum and higher corereolologleoteis effect. Flash new bike = better suspenders, sexier legs and more rubber where it matters. Toss a coin?

steve_t

8th March 2011, 19:12

What tyres? What size tyres? Who's riding? Do they have to wave as they go around the corner? :innocent::shutup::corn:

bogan

8th March 2011, 19:22

I just realised something, the CBR runs gear driven cams! daytona has no chance :bleh:

Crasherfromwayback

8th March 2011, 19:23

When I lived in Brisbane with a bogan HD fan...we'd argue the merits of HD's vs Japanese sports bikes. We ended up with quite a few split lips, some black eyes, a broken nose and lots of broken furniture. Ahhhh...being 20 something and drunk. Those were the days.

Skinon

8th March 2011, 19:27

Never partaken in inane banter before? I know I have with many flatties, it's great fun. Back then we didn't have the 'net to settle the argument though.

Haha yea i was sitting here with the laptop in my err lap. Said 'fuck that ill google it!' Won heaps, but been humbled heaps too :innocent:

Maha

8th March 2011, 19:58

Never partaken in inane banter before? I know I have with many flatties, it's great fun. Back then we didn't have the 'net to settle the argument though.

When paper/sissors/rock used to be suffice.:corn:

Skinon

8th March 2011, 20:27

When paper/sissors/rock used to be suffice.:corn:

Used too? Thats the fairest way in the universe i reckon!

Usarka

8th March 2011, 20:29

The bike with upside down forks will always win.

ellipsis

8th March 2011, 22:28

...watched a lad, Tom Bos from down here, on a fairly stock cbr250 lap fairly experienced riders on big multis and big ducs at a b track Ruapuna meeting...pre 89...as they all got faster during the day his handicapping went back to close to 1/2 a track length...ended up as a lapped finish all day...fuck all to do with the motorcycle itself...apart from it doing just what a fucking exceptional rider wants it to do...

ac3_snow

9th March 2011, 06:53

The upside down bike will always win.

:blink:
I have been at a hampton downs track day and through the twisty bits at the back of the track was pretty even with a new R1 he couldn't get past me (good chance he just didn't want to push past on a corner) and following him I could get him under brakes, but didn't try to push past ( I was on my mc22 average tyres)
Of course didn't last long cause as soon as we exit the last corner before a short straight he goes past laughing away with his front wheel sky high.:oi-grr:

Fatt Max

9th March 2011, 07:03

More weight = more momentum and higher corereolologleoteis effect. Flash new bike = better suspenders, sexier legs and more rubber where it matters. Toss a coin?

you had me at 'weight'.....oohhh....

davebullet

9th March 2011, 07:04

My money would be on the Daytona. I believe there would be more contact patch with the Daytona's tyres which would more than make up for any weight difference. That combined with better suspension should give the Daytona more grip and with more power more drive through and after the apex.

Marmoot

9th March 2011, 08:42

A few years ago, I witnessed a cbr250 overtook an R1 out the very twisty bits around whangamata. Both were ridden by skilled mental nutters with deathwish.

So, yes it is possible. But very rarely.

onearmedbandit

9th March 2011, 09:53

My money would be on the Daytona. I believe there would be more contact patch with the Daytona's tyres which would more than make up for any weight difference.

Ever seen how far a 125GP bike can lean over, and the corner speed they can carry? Now have a look at the width of the tyres. More contact patch is only important when putting down more power, something the CBR250 doesn't really have to worry about. In saying that, my money is on the bike with the better chassis and suspenders.

James Deuce

9th March 2011, 09:58

mister.koz

9th March 2011, 10:10

There are way too many variables to guess but i would say that this would come down to the corner, rider experience on the machines and the size of the kahuna's involved.

Overall i'd still take the bigger bike, generally with way better suspension, bigger breaks (and more rubber for them) and because you can use the power through the corner rather than wrap it on and wait for the engine to catch up with your ambition.

onearmedbandit

9th March 2011, 10:31

Nah the Buell won.

Like I said there was little in it, but yes I think the Buell came out on top. In some areas others were above or below it, but ultimately the Buell did take honours. I've got the mag here, it's just somewhere amongst my stacks of bike mags.

James Deuce

9th March 2011, 10:36

Like I said there was little in it, but yes I think the Buell came out on top. In some areas others were above or below it, but ultimately the Buell did take honours. I've got the mag here, it's just somewhere amongst my stacks of bike mags.

It was an XB9R that they were hillclimbing at the time. They didn't rate them until they actually used them in anger.

Ocean1

9th March 2011, 11:34

They didn't rate them until they actually used them in anger.

So that's the secret...

James Deuce

9th March 2011, 11:41

Raaaaaaaar!

Whynot

9th March 2011, 11:42

Raaaaaaaar!

My thoughts exactly!

tigertim20

9th March 2011, 13:30

Problem with all the 'this time I saw these guys', or 'when i was at xxx on myxxx" is that you are comparing many things at once.

Same bike, same corner, same day, same rider, same road temp/weather etc etc Id give it to the daytona MOST of the time. Of course, if youre talking about a gymkhana corner, well the little bike wins.
But Id say, on the road, real world scenario, bigger bike. Especially in the example you gave, a 675, vs a 20 year old bike? Theres alot newer tech on the daytona, more tyre width etc etc etc.

Does your mate also tell you that you dont need 1000cc on NZ roads? :innocent:

Waikato Yamaha

9th March 2011, 13:42

800cc Moto Gp Bikes carry more corner speed than the old 1000cc Moto Gp Bikes did.

mister.koz

9th March 2011, 13:49

Does your mate also tell you that you dont need 1000cc on NZ roads? :innocent:

HAHA need? i think any reasonable and sane person would say there's no need for litrebikes but they are a hell of a lot of fun :yes:

Whynot

9th March 2011, 14:05

Does your mate also tell you that you dont need 1000cc on NZ roads? :innocent:

you don't ?????

pritch

9th March 2011, 14:21

800cc Moto Gp Bikes carry more corner speed than the old 1000cc Moto Gp Bikes did.

That's the impression I had too. And it's doubtful if it's because they have bigger better tyres or better suspension. There have been recent improvements in suspension but the 800s were cornering quicker virtually from day one.

BIKE did one of those winter time space filling discussions about the best cornering bike ever and a Buell won that too. Such articles are rather more intended to start arguments than end them though.

tigertim20

9th March 2011, 14:48

HAHA need? i think any reasonable and sane person would say there's no need for litrebikes but they are a hell of a lot of fun :yes:
lies!! LIES!! it is ABSOLUTELY required. a must for commuting too . . .
If you have it, Youll use it. . .

That's the impression I had too. And it's doubtful if it's because they have bigger better tyres or better suspension. There have been recent improvements in suspension but the 800s were cornering quicker virtually from day one.

BIKE did one of those winter time space filling discussions about the best cornering bike ever and a Buell won that too. Such articles are rather more intended to start arguments than end them though.

I was reading an article a few months back, about the evolution of moto gp. they pointed out how fast the 500cc strokers were, compared to the 990cc 4 strokes. It went on to explain that there was a period of about ten years starting somewhere in the 90's where MOST of the development was performed on suspension, tyres and frames, because thed got to the point the engines were out performing the peripheral components...
The 675 would have benefitted from these years of dedicated advancement, the mc22 would have been nefore tha time.

But I digress, If I remember correctly, after the 2007 engine capacity restrictions on the moto GP bikes, even the teams couldnt really explain the anomoly of the 800s being quicker than the 990's, I also beleive that they found the 800's outperformed the thous in the straights too. I may be wrong, but pretty sure I read that somewhere.

Its really more about taking a bike through a road that is suited to it better. Some roads are just fucki boring on a 250, and some roads are awkaward on a thou

onearmedbandit

9th March 2011, 14:56

800cc Moto Gp Bikes carry more corner speed than the old 1000cc Moto Gp Bikes did.

Ha, no one is debating that lighter bikes of a similar spec will hold higher corner speeds, we've all watched MotoGP too. However a 1990 CBR250 vs a 2011 Daytona is hardly like comparing a 990 MotoGP bike vs a 800..........

Skinon

9th March 2011, 17:29

Yea the whole reason i chose these bikes too, is i have a mc22 and my dad has a 675 daytona. Went for a ride to cardrona today for my first long ride, was fucking excellent! Took his daytona for a hoon aswell. HOLY fuck it is fast :) i couldn't imagine a busa or litre bike.... Actually understand now when people say a cbr250rr is slow....

But really the consensus is that 90% of the time the daytona would have it... right? i gotta mc chicken combo on the line guys i need a definitive answer!

davebullet

9th March 2011, 19:18

800cc Moto Gp Bikes carry more corner speed than the old 1000cc Moto Gp Bikes did.

Yeah - bring back the 500cc 2 smokers!

davebullet

9th March 2011, 19:21

I think onearmedbandit summed it up.

Did you specify any criteria for your corner? Sounds like a really tight corner / hairpin. The cbr250rr gets the nod. Larger corner / favourable camber - the Daytona.

So it depends on the theoretical corner.....

HenryDorsetCase

9th March 2011, 19:58

I was just having a bit of banter with the ol' flat mate... He's been riding for years and owned a few sweet bikes, i am realitively new to actually riding bikes, but have always loved them for there sheer power, and thrill 'givingness' (you know what i mean...). So have kept up with the newest bikes, and technology as i looove gadgets :yes:

Anyway he reckon'd you could get a stock standard but with awesome tires, mc22 cbr250rr round a corner faster then a same spec 08 daytona 675. Assuming the corner is the same radius. He reckons you would go round faster because the bike is smaller/lighter and the 250 still has a decent little wack of power, you'd be able to go round the corner quicker....

I think, because the 675 is far more powerful and able to get it's power down more
efficiently using newer suspension and geometery, it would still be able to smoke a mc22 around the same corner...

Anyway what do you think?

are you talking about time spent "in the corner" i.e. from some point arbitrarily defined as "Corner entry" and some point arbitrarily defined as "corner exit" the least time spent between those two points wins?

I remember a Kevin Cameron article about this recently. He was focussed on lap times, and why lap times between (say) a 600 superstock and a 1000 Superbike were so close, but they had quite different cornering styles. Basically the superbike went in straight, did all its braking in a straight line, dumped it in, stood it up as soon as possible, and used its 200hp+ to drive out the corner. Basically "squaring it off". the lighter, less powerful bike took a very different line, more classic, with sweeping entry, high corner speed, and swooping exit. At their slowest point, the big bike was actually travelling more slowly than the smaller bike, but the acceleration out was what made the big bike faster.

I am pretty sure the comparison was either between 250s and 990 Motogp, but it may have been between 800 and 990cc MotoGp..

And I could be talking out my arse: Ive had a couple of glasses of wine ....

I do remember something, and I'm sure it was fascinating.

Skinon

9th March 2011, 20:14

are you talking about time spent "in the corner" i.e. from some point arbitrarily defined as "Corner entry" and some point arbitrarily defined as "corner exit" the least time spent between those two points wins?

I remember a Kevin Cameron article about this recently. He was focussed on lap times, and why lap times between (say) a 600 superstock and a 1000 Superbike were so close, but they had quite different cornering styles. Basically the superbike went in straight, did all its braking in a straight line, dumped it in, stood it up as soon as possible, and used its 200hp+ to drive out the corner. Basically "squaring it off". the lighter, less powerful bike took a very different line, more classic, with sweeping entry, high corner speed, and swooping exit. At their slowest point, the big bike was actually travelling more slowly than the smaller bike, but the acceleration out was what made the big bike faster.

I am pretty sure the comparison was either between 250s and 990 Motogp, but it may have been between 800 and 990cc MotoGp..

And I could be talking out my arse: Ive had a couple of glasses of wine ....

I do remember something, and I'm sure it was fascinating.

Hmmm yea its surprising that the 675 wouldn't walk away in all situations, i sorta thought the weight disadvantage wouldnt be that much to make a difference between 20 years of suspension/chassis development and 80 more horse...

Ha 'I do remember something, and I'm sure it was fascinating.' fuck i do that all the time excellent quote!!

Mully

9th March 2011, 21:47

you don't ?????

You need at least 1400, IMHO.

Smifffy

9th March 2011, 23:27

You need at least 1400, IMHO.

:doh: given your sig I would have expected you to say that 1000 was too much, and 900 was ideal....

:)

Metastable

10th March 2011, 05:34

Good banter topic.... the truth is that the biggest difference is going to be the fellow riding the bike. However, in terms of science if you have two identical bikes except one weighs more than the other, the lighter bike will go around the corner quicker because there is less Centripetal force. That is why a 125gp bike carries more mid corner speed than anything out there.

However, comparing a CBR250RR and a 675 Daytona.... that's tough, there are so many factors such as suspension, ground clearance, weight (is there really much difference?), etc... At the end of the day, the fastest bike assuming they are both all sorted out on a real world conditions is the bike that has the rider that takes the corner at the higher speed, either due to being a bit more of a risk taker or more skilled or both. I mean, how many people are on the edge of traction when they are riding on the street? I know I'm pretty far from it. So the answer really depends who is riding.

Banditbandit

10th March 2011, 08:57

you don't ?????

Any sane person will tell you that probably 650cc is ample on New Zealand roads. Mine goes past 200 klicks ... handles well, carries loads, etc etc ... so what do you need more for ? and logically, you'd have to agree

On the other hand - my biker soul NEEDS my 1250 as well ...

R-Soul

10th March 2011, 16:18

800cc Moto Gp Bikes carry more corner speed than the old 1000cc Moto Gp Bikes did.

thats because force= massx acceleration.

for teh same sideways acceleration (caused by a certain speed on a certain radius), tehheavier bike will have more force acting on it in a corner, to push it out. It will reach the traction limits (the countering force) quicker.

bogan

10th March 2011, 16:23

should have remembered this sooner, but this thread, blatantly copied from hawkgtforum.com explains the fuck out of it :bleh: (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/134079-Another-tyre-size-thread-this-time-with-physics)

Mully

10th March 2011, 17:15

:doh: given your sig I would have expected you to say that 1000 was too much, and 900 was ideal....

:)

Oh bollocks.

1000 is far too much. 937 is the perfect amount.

Incidentally, RF900s are 937cc

Better?

bogan

10th March 2011, 17:22

Oh bollocks.

1000 is far too much. 937 is the perfect amount.

Incidentally, RF900s are 937cc

Better?

still too many, ideal number is 647, and no more than two cylinders, ever :D

Voltaire

11th March 2011, 06:10

Ever seen how far a 125GP bike can lean over, and the corner speed they can carry? Now have a look at the width of the tyres. More contact patch is only important when putting down more power, something the CBR250 doesn't really have to worry about. In saying that, my money is on the bike with the better chassis and suspenders.

I've been wondering about the cornering benefit of wide tyres....I have a 900ss ie and I find that requires more effort to corner on than my old bevel drive 900...the older bike steers thru a corner far easier.
I thought I was imagining it....until I bought a 72 Commando and its the same, far easier in corners.
So is that why you see guys having to shift weight and hang off ?? to compensate for such a large tyre?
I'll do a mythbusters test later with a football and a tennis ball and measure the angle...:rolleyes:

koba

11th March 2011, 06:25

I've been wondering about the cornering benefit of wide tyres....I have a 900ss ie and I find that requires more effort to corner on than my old bevel drive 900...the older bike steers thru a corner far easier.
I thought I was imagining it....until I bought a 72 Commando and its the same, far easier in corners.
So is that why you see guys having to shift weight and hang off ?? to compensate for such a large tyre?
I'll do a mythbusters test later with a football and a tennis ball and measure the angle...:rolleyes:

You are correct and I think skinnier is OK on a road bike, they certainly steer better and faster.

BUT the problem comes when you are trying to put maximum permissible power down as early in the corner as possible.
Having a good grippy rear and the ability to use it can see a less powerful bike beat something quite a lot more powerful, even on the straights.
It's probably one of the biggest limitations to track performance, it is certainly very important in a class where most bikes have similar power.

Metastable

11th March 2011, 06:42

So is that why you see guys having to shift weight and hang off ?? to compensate for such a large tyre?

You don't need to hang off, you just need to counter steer more. However hanging off for me is a comfort thing, not a steering thing ... it's what you have to do a the track. My knee is a gauge for how much lean I have left and can and has saved my butt from crashing.... but I almost $#!T my pants. :D Mind you hanging off on the street is more for comfort... I rarely get the knee down while street riding.

However, I rented an F650GS and that did not feel right hanging off, so my butt stayed planted on the seat ... it took some getting use to though (not hanging off).

Voltaire

11th March 2011, 06:43

You are correct and I think skinnier is OK on a road bike, they certainly steer better and faster.

BUT the problem comes when you are trying to put maximum permissible power down as early in the corner as possible.
Having a good grippy rear and the ability to use it can see a less powerful bike beat something quite a lot more powerful, even on the straights.
It's probably one of the biggest limitations to track performance, it is certainly very important in a class where most bikes have similar power.

Shouldn't be problem with the Ducati Darmah and Commando as they only have about 55 HP.... great midrange and lots of torque though. Good to know I was not imagining the difference, for road riding I'm more than happy with 55 hp, skinny tyres, no fairing and flat bars. I'm sort of over the SS....its on TM but the arse seems to have dropped out of bike prices at the moment. Should probably keep it and take it to track days :drool:

avgas

11th March 2011, 07:02

I just realised something, the CBR runs gear driven cams! daytona has no chance :bleh:
Depends who tuned the carb on the CBR........vs EFI

R-Soul

11th March 2011, 12:01

You are correct and I think skinnier is OK on a road bike, they certainly steer better and faster.

BUT the problem comes when you are trying to put maximum permissible power down as early in the corner as possible.
Having a good grippy rear and the ability to use it can see a less powerful bike beat something quite a lot more powerful, even on the straights.
It's probably one of the biggest limitations to track performance, it is certainly very important in a class where most bikes have similar power.

Bigger tyres have more weight. More weight spinning means more gyroscopic effect, and more difficult to tip in. Hence carbon fiber rims. But its not just the wheel and tyre weight that affects tip in- its also the steering geometry, if you are under braking.

Its also a trade off- you want a bigger tyre for bigger contact patch for increased traction for bikes with more power - else it will just rip the top layer of rubber off without actually moving the bike as much as it could. So you want big contact patch, but less weight... trade off.