Pure acceleration [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

marty

27th February 2005, 16:18

read this amazing thing today.

One top fuel dragster makes more HP than the first 4 rows at the Indy 500

At full throttle, a Top Fuel dragster is burning 1 gallon of nitro methane a second - a fully loaded 747 consumes the same amount of jet fuel at full power, and produces 25% less energy

A stock 426 hemi V8 cannot produce enough HP to drive a top fuel supercharger

the flame front for a nitro methane engine is 7500 degrees F

The magnetos supply spark at 44 amps, similar to a home arc welding kit in each cylinder

Once rolling, to accelerate to 300mph, the dragster pulls 4g. The launch acceleration though is nearer to 8g

A top fuel dragster reaches 300mph before you finish reading this sentence

Assuming nothing blows up, a top fuel run costs around $1000 a second!

to put this into perspective - consider your Honda RC211V Moto GP bike. top speed of 320kmh-ish. You are riding this bike. Hard. A mile up the road, waiting, is a top fuel dragster. You have a flying start for the 1/4 mile race. You accelerate, hitting the traps where the dragster is waiting, at 320km/h. At the moment that you hit the staging line, the dragster starts its run. You keep cranking hard, but very shortly a whine from behind becomes a roar from beside, and within 3 seconds, the dragster has caught and passed you in a wave of heat and noise, beating you to the finish line by a full second, and doing 200km/h faster than you are.

You sulk home and buy a scooter... :)

avgas

27th February 2005, 16:42

while the top fuel dragster stalls 600m later, and is pushed home.
Things in perspective people - even the y2k isnt too bad fuel economy.

bugjuice

27th February 2005, 18:06

interesting facts there..
I've also heard that each engine gets rebuilt ever (few?) run(s)..

dangerous

27th February 2005, 18:14

scumdog

27th February 2005, 19:34

Start to finish the dragsters engine only does about 980 revolutions....

900hp jet-sprint boat engine block machined from a block of solid alloy? $1,000,000+!!!

TwoSeven

27th February 2005, 20:13

onearmedbandit

27th February 2005, 20:59

You cant compare a top fuel dragster to a normal motorcycle - so the whole argument is pointless. Its like comparing an F111 to a cessna.

1) Motorcycles have a lower max accel because there is a point at which the front wheel will try and climb its way round the rear sprocket. Cars (top fuels) have a higher point. So you have to at least compare a bike to a top fuel bike

2) Top fuel bikes only hit about 230 miles per hour - not 300mph. Not that much higher than a tuned up 1000cc road bike.

3) which means that there isnt really a whole lot in it. Still, 0-60mph in 0.7 seconds sure does beat 3.2 seconds for the road bike :)

Dude, we're in the same town, want to hook me up with whatever you're smoking?? I don't know what 1000cc road bikes you've been riding (albeit 'tuned up' ones) but I think that statement in itself is a little off track. Take this for example, latest PB mag tests a TTS Supercharged GSXR1000 putting out 200bhp, and with extended gearing hits a genuine 192.635 mph, a lot and I mean a farkin lot short of 230mph. Now Ghostriders 499bhp ayabusa is supposed to top 400kmh (248mph) but I wouldn't call 499bhp a 'tuned up' example.

speedpro

27th February 2005, 22:11

interesting facts there..
I've also heard that each engine gets rebuilt ever (few?) run(s)..

Actually if everything goes right they put new big end bearings in for every run. The reason being that the old ones will have started getting squished out like plasticene. This is one way of seeing if all cylinders are doing their thing, equal squishedness. Mains will at least get looked at. Rods are good for probably 5 runs and are marked and noted every run. Valve springs are replaced every run, they're probably titanium, valve lift would be round the 1" mark and the cam profiles are stupendous, and the motor will turn about 9000rpm. Heads come off, pistons come out and if neccessary a new liner and/or piston may be installed. The "smoke" you see out the back of the car later in the run is the slipper clutch dust. It may have one or two gears. Think about that - 0-330mph in one gear, it's real hard on the clutch.

On this topic - The NZ Nationals are on at Meremere this coming weekend the 5th and 6th March. A jet car will be doing runs plus there are 5 Aussie bikes here. Were hoping to try a few starts on Friday arvo to see how suspension adjustments have affected the car's starts if anyone runs out of stuff to do or is riding past. We'll be parked next to the jet car on race day under the Hauraki banner with the Hauraki girlies :yeah: Dave Green's corvette, I'm Mike.

speedpro

27th February 2005, 22:22

Take this for example, latest PB mag tests a TTS Supercharged GSXR1000 putting out 200bhp, and with extended gearing hits a genuine 192.635 mph, a lot and I mean a farkin lot short of 230mph.

To be honest that sounds a bit slow for 200hp. My bike makes 175hp with bent valves and a (big)bit more when all is good, and the cops got me at 312kmh (196mph) down the back straight. I don't have a fairing and it's only the back straight, no runup. That was 9000rpm, Jim Steadman, recently in Kiwi rider, reckons he's seen 9300rpm down the back straight on it. His street Z1R-turbo would pull the same gearing to red line as well, 20 years ago!

onearmedbandit

27th February 2005, 22:30

Yeah, I too thought it was a bit slow, but you can't argue with the numbers. Regardless of this, my original point remains re 'tuned-up' thou approaching 230mph.

TwoSeven

27th February 2005, 22:32

gav

27th February 2005, 22:55

Hard to believe a CB900 no matter how modded could do 215mph, it would need at least 250 bhp to acheive that, from an engine that would have had what 70-80 hp standard? It takes an awful lot of power to get close to 200mph and then huge amounts of power are need ed to get the speed up ,in small amounts. Didnt PB have an article from a Lucky Strike mech who had a ZZR1100 he had modded that hit a genuine 200mph? They also had the V&M Blackbird that topped that speed. That TTS GSXR1000 doesnt sound right to me if they were going for top speed. Arent MotoGP bikes topping 200mph with what 240-250 hp?
Aerodynamics plays a huge part in getting top speeds, thats why the huyabusa is so impressive.

Blakamin

27th February 2005, 23:35

stick a V8 in ya pipe and smoke it.... :shake:

that was just for the 4cyl turdo boys of course :wari: ... anything that can go from zero to 300MPH in under 4.5 seconds has my respect!!!!!

(sky showed the rails shutting down before the 60 foot mark and still getting under 10 secs...)

onearmedbandit

27th February 2005, 23:38

Sounds like you are still living in the 80s if you believe production bikes cant be made to go fast or have to be specially tuned 'dragsters' that people use to make videos. You'll find in other countries, there are quit a few enthusiasts that build specials in their spare time so its not uncommon to see a bunch of nutters down the local d-strip on a saturday afternoon

And just where did you jump to that conclusion from?? Just how much horsepower do you think it requires to push 220+mph. And I do recall PB mags from 5 yrs ago testing 'busa's etc at Bruntingthorpe where most ran under 200mph, with only a couple (incl MR Turbos I think) running over 200mph. In fact if I look through my collection I've probably still got one or two with those tests in them.

I also remember SR (US mag) running the UFO class. ZZR1100's etc running turbos and NOs putting out 440bhp running 220+mph, magazines from the early 90's. Time doesn't change anything relating to maximum speed, the basic formula boils down to gearing, drag co-efficient and hp (and hand-in-hand torque), with weight also playing a small part although effecting acceleration dramatically (and therefore over a given distance max speed.)

So, if aerodynamics haven't changed greatly (and they haven't, bikes still have terrible COD numbers), gearing remains similar (no advances really in that field - for this particular instance) and hp levels haven't vastly increased (remember 440hp from a ZZR11) than overall top speed won't change dramatically.

Like gav said, your mates CB must have been putting out over 250hp (I'd say over 350hp going by its aerodynamics) to have hit 215mph.

marty

28th February 2005, 07:34

Marty, have you got the link there I did have it but was lost when I went to the new puter.
Now you forgot to say the the spark puugs have burnt out half way down the strip and the engine then deisels its way to the finish line.

i plagarised it out of one of our work magazines. left a couple of the boring stats out, but they've been picked up by others......

ManDownUnder

28th February 2005, 07:47

on one hand it's not fair to compare bike to dragsters... but then I don't think that was your intent... using a bike as a yardstick is not a bad way to show what these things can do...

on the other hand ... FARK! It'd be like sitting in a cannon shell beign fired at the far end of the strip.

Not for me good for anyone who can afford it... I have a wife, kids and 2 mortgages... no money left!
MDU

TwoSeven

28th February 2005, 15:50

cibby is slang for CBR not CB :)

Biff

28th February 2005, 15:54

Impressive, but I bet it couldn't get to Akaroa as quick as R1Aaron could.

28th February 2005, 15:56

What about that 250 the otherday that did 257kms???

dangerous

28th February 2005, 18:25

the cops got me at 312kmh (196mph) down the back straight. I don't have a fairing and it's only the back straight, no runup.
Fuk me........ (that wasent a offer, beit the best you have had this week either) thats some MB100 Mr Speedy pro, so spill whats the turb in ya profile??? :spudwhat:

onearmedbandit

28th February 2005, 18:41

Did a quick search on the 'net, came acroos a few links (http://www.mrturbo.com/bikes_zx-11.htm) for one, also another but the link didn't work but included in the brief
This 420 rear-wheel horsepower bike topped out at 213.766 mph ... coatings have resulted in one of the fastest and most rideable street legal bikes out there. ... . So this bike (cibby 900 back in the early 90s - took it to 1080cc and fitted various bits to it. Was clocked at 215mph on bruntingthorpe ) must have had more than a few various bits fitted to it and a big bore kit to reach 215mph, unless you include a turbo in those various bits.

gav

28th February 2005, 22:18

speedpro

28th February 2005, 22:46

Fuk me........ (that wasent a offer, beit the best you have had this week either) thats some MB100 Mr Speedy pro, so spill whats the turb in ya profile??? :spudwhat:

'73 Z1 with 72mm (1075cc)pistons. Z1R-tc intake, carb & turbo. 75% methanol / 25% 100 octane (plus a few other bits and pieces). McIntosh frame, custom triple-clamps and tank. Typically 12-15lbs boost but have run 19lbs at Taupo where it'd pick the front up in top at 6000rpm. Gearing for Puke is 15-27, stock is 15-35, and it'll lift the front at 8000rpm in top with 15lbs boost.

dangerous

1st March 2005, 05:05

'73 Z1 with 72mm..........
ohhhhh arrrrrrrr........ very very nice, ya dont have any pics do ya would love to see it. Theres a guy down here with 3 Z1TC's dont know who tho
I cant help myself and have moded every turb I'v had from the bike to the 4x4 trucks god I love the wistle they emit on wind up even better the sound at Idel through a big bore pipe..... gezzz I'm sad :niceone:

speedpro

1st March 2005, 08:15

I cant help myself and have moded every turb I'v had from the bike to the 4x4 trucks god I love the wistle they emit on wind up even better the sound at Idel through a big bore pipe..... gezzz I'm sad :niceone:

I've grown out of that. :innocent:

TwoSeven

1st March 2005, 10:11

Exactly, sounds like BS to me, the first CBR900RR were actually only 892cc and were anywhere from 105-120hp.
Its pretty hard to get alot of power from these bikes
Lookee here, stage 2 motor tune by BigCC Racing is around 135 hp
http://www.bigccracing.com/welcome.asp?page=47
Holeshot Racing in the UK offer this, note stage 4 is only 973cc
http://www.holeshotracing.co.uk/tuning/honda_fireblade.asp
Dynobike again, offer up to 970cc big bore, no mention of a 1080cc kit anywhere
http://www.dynobike.com/news6.htm
Again Cycle World took a CBR900RR and threw heaps at it, but this is 2000, not the early 1990's
http://sportrider.com/features/146_0004_blow/
No mention of top speed, but safe to say, it wouldnt be 215 mph!
Got anymore info on this "1080cc" "215mph" monster?

The problem is with using google when you dont know much about tuning a specific bike is that you'll still not know anything about it afterwards. And I get the feeling you dont really know about the state of tune that a cbr engine can be taken to. I'm not meaning this as an insult (since I only know the basics myself), but google isnt as great as some people believe. :)

First of all - a little history on the F2 and CBR900 engine. The 900 engine is the same as the 600 engine (in 91) in design. Up until then the standard engine that tuners used was the old suzi engines (1100 I think) and because of its capability to be re-worked, the 900 also became popular - the 600 didnt receive as much attention because they were all being brought for super-sport racing that took off big time in 92.

The standard tune for the 900 engine for people that overbore is to take it to 997cc since Wiseco do a kit for it - in the same way they do a kit for the F2 to take it out to 637cc.

A little unknown thing is that both engines will go bigger again with the exception that you have to use a kit from a different machine and as you do with a 997 kit, you still need to resleave it. The new sizes for both the F2 and 900 are 698cc and 1080cc (I think 1079 or something silly like that). I think the latters piston kit comes off the cibby 1000F - if not it may have been a kwaka.

The other thing is that the cibby engine is capable of running a 13:1 compression which few bikes of the time were, although i'm cant remember if any extra head work was done other than the porting work that was usual.

It was for this reason that the cibby engine became popular with bike tuners and both Harris (the magnum 5) and Spondon produced frames for it - the most popular being the spondon single sided swingarm version (one sexah frame indeed). People still use them as well on the later model bikes.

[Img]http://www.spondonownersclub.co.uk/images/matt%27sblade/ego.jpg
A 145bhp 900 in a double sided swingarm spondon frame :)

It used to be nitrous kits were the popular addon, but later on when the F3 came out, the turbo kit had become popular (mrTurbo is a name I remember) - I think they did a bolt on kit that just required some engine work.

The biggest drawback of it all was that if the engine tuning wasnt done just right - they tended to go bang, which is one of the reasons why the 997 and 637 are the most popular mods - since they were very reliable.

Its also the reason why I am restoring my old F2 as a race bike, because there is much more leeway in modifying it and you end up with somethng with about the same capability of a new stock 600RR in performance for not far off the same amount of money and far more enjoyment in doing so. I suspect any streetfighter enthusiast (or car modder for that matter) will tell you the same thing. :)

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 10:22

Yes yes, engines can be modified, no problem there. But we're still interested in what 'various bits' were added to your friends CBR900 to get it to top out at around 215mph (345.935km/h), because at the moment that story smells a bit fishy to me and others. What hp was it generating, because to overcome drag at that speed would require some serious power.

TwoSeven

1st March 2005, 12:46

I give up.

I think your problem is that you seem to have gotten into your head that big numbers are required to top 200 when they are not. Its just simply a matter of reducing resistance. Most modern bikes will do that without much effort, and 15 years ago it was just a matter of adding an nitrous bottle to punt it up there.

To get faster than 200 you need to increase the baseline of the engine before you apply the punt to it, the result - more than 200. And if you knew about street fighters, you'd know that 215 is the easy speed to reach - 230 is the hard one :)

So if you are looking for thousands and thousands of dollars of mods in a list, then you are in dream land because they are not needed. And if you read my previous post a little more carefully, you'll see I have listed the mods.

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 13:31

Okay, so a ZZR11 required around 420hp to do 213mph, but your mates CBR900 required some minor mods to do the same speed. Now I've got it, the air is much thinner in England therefore less resistance hence why a lightly (in relation) modd'ed CBR can do 215. Fark me, should be able to get 200+ out of my gixxer in England.

Come on twoseven, you seriously think that big numbers are not required to do 215mph (remember guys thats 345km/h) on a road bike. If so, maybe you can enlighten us all as to how this is done. After all, as you said it comes down to resistance. Now maybe if his bike had some super-duper slippery fully enclosed fairing along with modifications to the engine and gearing, and a suitably long enough stretch of road I might be more inclined to believe it. But seeing as this bike is the only one I've heard about that can top that sort of speed without major engine work (read turbo and or nos, etc)to produce serious power I'm calling your bluff.

BTW, where exactly are the spec's relating to your mates CBR? Maybe my computer isn't working properly as I can't see to find them.

TwoSeven

1st March 2005, 16:17

I dont know why you think 420hp is only good for 213. Have you actually ridden a motorcycle - because some of your statements are really wierd at the best of times - scary.

Coyote

1st March 2005, 16:39

What about that 250 the otherday that did 257kms???
That would've been an RS250?

I want one of them :yeah:

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 17:01

I dont know why you think 420hp is only good for 213. Have you actually ridden a motorcycle - because some of your statements are really wierd at the best of times - scary.

No where did I say that '420 is only good for 213mph', what I did say is that in that particular example 420 was only good for 213. That particular example. Got it? Although one does not make a pattern, if I wanted I could have pulled up many examples of 215mph'ish bikes, none of which would produce under 250hp+ (and I'm being conservative with that figure).Now pray tell, what hp did your friends CBR make, surely if he big-bored it and had other various parts on it that helped it acheive 215mph then he put it on a dyno as well. I would just like to know how he acheived this monumental speed. Think about it, because there are no production bikes capable of this speed, even with the right gearing, currently available. And we have litre class and above bikes puting out 175bhp that are only reaching speeds between 175-185mph. The power required to take these machines to 215mph, a 30-40mph increase would take at least another 100hp. Tonight I'll do a search on this subject, and show you how power required to gain further speed is not linear.

And I don't feel its important whether I've ridden a bike before or not, as it has no relevance in this debate. And you say some of my statements are scary? Remember the one someone here said about 230mph being not much more than a 'tuned-up' 1000cc bike? Thats right, I see 350kmh+ bikes on the road all the time. Shheessh!

So, what power did this CBR900 produce, because that will answer this debate. I have noticed that you've avoided this subject.

speedpro

1st March 2005, 17:15

Okay, so a ZZR11 required around 420hp to do 213mph, but your mates CBR900 required some minor mods to do the same speed.

Actually the problem with this sort of horsepower is getting it to the ground.
"Fast Bikes" ran a turbo GSXR1100 years ago that went faster the year before with less horsepower. Every time they tried to nail it over 180mph it would wheelspin. I think it went from 350hp to 400hp. Mr Turbo have acknowledged years ago that they can build a bike with more power than can be used. My bike isn't in the same league but at Taupo you cannot use full throttle anywhere at anytime if there is more than 6000rpm on the clock. At Puke there is only a bit of back straight where full throttle can be used and even that is spooky - lifting the front, drifting the rear round the kink, all at over 280k.
So the ZZR might make more horsepower but most of it is only useful in the bar after the dyno runs. Anything round 200hp should see you doing round 200mph I reckon.

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 17:30

Problems experienced with wheel-spin around 190-200mph have been acknowledged many times before, even by Nick whatever from Sport Rider magazine who conduct UFO tests every year. However, after 200+mph most will regain traction and use their full capability. Apparently it is to do with bikes poor aerodynamics creating momentary lift at certain speeds, not to do so much with the tyre losing traction through excesive power. If this was the case, you would not be able to cleanly rev out with full traction in the lower gears (ie 4th and 5th) as the 'thrust' is higher.

Anyway, lets turn this around. Tell me why a 420hp bike that has full traction at top end is only managing 213mph. Maybe this will shed some light on our discussion.

Blakamin

1st March 2005, 17:35

shit aye... a rail will only do 334mph... with about 2500hp... now i dunno if you guys have been near one wif the engine out, but 2 people can pick it up....

anyone got a time for the drag bikes... you know the ones, with a farqin big slick on the back??? never mind... found some

Kool Roel and his awesome 6.04 second 235mph bike have been the class act in European Top Fuel Bike over the past two seasons (and only headed in world terms by McBride and Webb).
now this bike isn't your everyday hack.... http://www.dragbike.com/dbnews/articlefiles/euro_koedam.jpg

**R1**

1st March 2005, 17:39

**R1**

1st March 2005, 17:41

Impressive, but I bet it couldn't get to Akaroa as quick as R1Aaron could.

NO1 CAN:devil2: :whistle:

**R1**

1st March 2005, 17:44

Did a quick search on the 'net, came acroos a few links (http://www.mrturbo.com/bikes_zx-11.htm) for one, also another but the link didn't work but included in the brief . So this bike (cibby 900 back in the early 90s - took it to 1080cc and fitted various bits to it. Was clocked at 215mph on bruntingthorpe ) must have had more than a few various bits fitted to it and a big bore kit to reach 215mph, unless you include a turbo in those various bits.

FFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRKKKKKKK i wana turbo my R1.....seriously i do....wunda what it costs?? how much is a nos kit? i'll crack 200 no probs.......any1 want to sponsor me?:brick: :brick:

Storm

1st March 2005, 17:53

Yeah, wouldnt fancy a long ride on that bugger. Bet its noisy as all hell. Fun for the midlife crisis wanker in his SS/HSV who thinks he's King Dick of the road

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 18:10

FFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRKKKKKKK i wana turbo my R1.....seriously i do....wunda what it costs?? how much is a nos kit? i'll crack 200 no probs.......any1 want to sponsor me?:brick: :brick:

Aaron, don't you know that guy who turb'ed his GSX1400 in chch? Hes at Don's quite a bit. Pop over and I'll show you this supercharged Gixxer, can't even tell from looking at it, almost looks standard.

I've found a site giving detailed info on working out top speed and the power required, interesting reading. I'll try to convert the info to bikes.

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 18:14

Heres the link for anyone interested: http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm

Hopefully something of major importance should be clear from the above. We already know that it is air resistance that is the major element in this equation and we can see that we need to incorporate mph cubed in the power equation for air drag. As a simplification therefore we can say that power required is closely related to mph cubed - i.e. to double the speed of a vehicle we need 8 times the engine power. Alternatively we can express this as top speed is a function of the cube root of engine power. This means that engine modifications will have a much greater impact on acceleration (which is directly related to power) than top speed. Also that is why an old engine which is down on power might accelerate slowly but still have close to its original top speed. So next time your mate tells you in the pub that he put a K&N air filter in his car and the top speed went up by 10 mph you can explain exactly why that isn't going to be very likely

Bear in mind this relates to the rolling resistance and air resistance of cars. Now I would guess the rolling resistance of a bike is less than that of a car, but the air resistance would be much higher.

Blakamin

1st March 2005, 18:17

Motu

1st March 2005, 18:19

SHIT!! so,to get my Honda C50 to do 100kph it needs 40 HP!? On a big enough hill it can do that in neutral - so that's a negative increase to double the speed? Oh dear,this can get confusing eh?

dangerous

1st March 2005, 18:21

Aaron, don't you know that guy who turb'ed his GSX1400 in chch? Hes at Don's quite a bit
You mean this one of Kyle's? he Used to get around on a XN85 that he replaced the turb with a super charger back when I was terrising the other road users on my turbo.

Bloody tidy job on the 1400 too, you cant even find the bloody thing its tucked away that well..... but I do wounder how he gets on with the heat build up.

**R1**

1st March 2005, 18:35

Aaron, don't you know that guy who turb'ed his GSX1400 in chch? Hes at Don's quite a bit. Pop over and I'll show you this supercharged Gixxer, can't even tell from looking at it, almost looks standard.

I've found a site giving detailed info on working out top speed and the power required, interesting reading. I'll try to convert the info to bikes.

Yeah Kyle Mc, at Dons lots??? thats an understatment, oooppps how do i know that:devil2: .

evey time i see him i mean to ask about turboing the R1 but then get talking about the 1400 and b4 i know it im off down the road nun the wiser, well perhaps a lil wiser(cleaver bastard he is yes the force be strong in that one)

not too bothered about the bike looking "standard" when its done, i just want it to go like fuck:devil2: :devil2:

gav

1st March 2005, 18:37

I had a collegue that hotted up a cibby 900 back in the early 90s - took it to 1080cc and fitted various bits to it. Was clocked at 215mph on bruntingthorpe (a place in the uk where people do speed runs). I'm sure in the nearly fourteen years since they have managed to make bikes go faster with not much more effort.

Shame he didnt do a back to back run as he would have had a record! As at 2001 the record stood at 213mph
Jack Frost from Holeshot Racing (one of the links I provided) broke this record in July 2001 on a highly modded 440 hp turbo 'busa
source Performance Bikes Sept 2001

If you read back maybe 5 years or so worth PB issues you'll see an article where they did a run on fast bikes at bruntingthorpe - from memory quite a few of them did +200 - I believe the record for a tuned up shop bike might be in the nature of the 230 mark, and I know quite a few did 220 odd.
OK then Perf Bikes Jan 2001 "The 200mph Club" proclaims the cover, must be the one then! 9 bikes tested, only 2 broke 200mph and only just. A turboed nitros 300hp Bandit 1200 did 201.3 mph and a similar spec 245hp GSXR1100 did the same speed 201.3 mph.

Recently I'm told that the best production bike for tuning is the old suzi buss, and not much needs to be done to get them over the 200 mark. I know turbo kits are easy to install on them and they have plentry of room for extra tuning.
Well no, seeing they are not far off 200mph standard, certainly the early ones were, some later models are restricted to 186mph

Sounds like you are still living in the 80s if you believe production bikes cant be made to go fast or have to be specially tuned 'dragsters' that people use to make videos. You'll find in other countries, there are quit a few enthusiasts that build specials in their spare time so its not uncommon to see a bunch of nutters down the local d-strip on a saturday afternoon.

So do I keep looking? :confused:
Interestingly no one was racing a blade, maybe they should have been.
You said early 90's right? So we're talking before 95, the CBR900RR was originally designed as a 750 as a possible World Superbike contender, it was pretty highly tuned when it was released and I seem to recall that most consensus was there wasnt much left to squeeze more power out of it, all the heads were pretty well flowed and ported and it didnt usually respond to all the general blueprinting tricks that most tuners turned to.
Are you from the UK? certainly cibby isnt slang over here for the CBR range. What have you got planned for your F2? You looking at suspension mods as well as engine?

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 19:19

Oh dear...

speedpro

1st March 2005, 20:43

shit aye... a rail will only do 334mph... with about 2500hp... now i dunno if you guys have been near one wif the engine out, but 2 people can pick it up....
Even a Rodec block engine would need more than 2 normal size people to pick it up, the cranks are huge. Blown methanol motors make 2500hp. The newest nitro motors are doing well over 5000hp, more like 7000hp.

speedpro

1st March 2005, 20:47

"aiming" for 200+

http://www.bigccracing.com/welcome.asp?page=67

348bhp with gas 238bhp without. 9.2 second quarter @159mph
http://www.bigccracing.com/welcome.asp?page=73

makes a 215mph road bike look a little harder

You're confusing speeds attained in the quarter with speeds able to be attained on a good long straight. My mates car has done 203mph in the quarter, the datalogger said he was still accelerating real hard. Absolute top end with higher gearing would be lots higher.

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 21:07

Holy shit, just what is your mates car?? I love the sound of a blown alcohol/nitro V8, sounds like the earth is being ripped apart!

speedpro

1st March 2005, 21:12

If this was the case, you would not be able to cleanly rev out with full traction in the lower gears (ie 4th and 5th) as the 'thrust' is higher.
It's all to do with force vectors and stuff. In lower gears most of the power goes into accelerating the bike. The force to accelerate is generated at the contact patch of the rear tyre and is applied through the centre-of-gravity. This gives the force a reasonable vertical component which is what lifts the front. At higher speeds the acceleration is not so great and most of the power is used to overcome air resistance which results in different force vectors, ones which at 200mph or so are less likely to lift the front. At higher speeds the height of the centre of pressure results in vertical forces eventually high enough to lift the front again. As a consequence more weight is transferred to the rear wheel which would assist traction. Whether that would increase fast enough to keep up with rising demands . . . .
This theory ignores aerodynamics, like on the Hayabusa.

Sounds like it could be true, maybe.

speedpro

1st March 2005, 21:33

Dave's car is a tubular framed Corvette replica with a 530ci alloy big block, EPD heads, 14/71 blower, lenco transmission, slipper clutch, etc etc. I agree on the sound, when we fire it up in the pits to check it over, , oh boy - westie heaven. Sitting in the tow car by the finish line with them screaming towards you is pretty impressive as well. The scream from the blower belt and then the explosion of sound as they go past 15' away at 200mph followed by silence as they shut down and pop the chutes(hopefully).

The nitro motors sound different again, probably due to the burn characteristics, real hard with more of a popping sort of sound. Anyone going to the drags this weekend has to check out the nitro Harley, that is one HARD sounding machine. Ross Buchanan has got balls, he has to wear a bullet-proof vest in case it turns to shit and one boot gets destroyed every run by the exhaust.

I remember a V6 rail at Thunderpark which they used to start on Methanol and then switch to nitro. You could definitely hear the exhaust change. Way cooool

gav

1st March 2005, 21:41

sounds pretty good....for a car.... :whistle:

TwoSeven

1st March 2005, 21:56

No where did I say that '420 is only good for 213mph', what I did say is that in that particular example 420 was only good for 213. That particular example. Got it? Although one does not make a pattern, if I wanted I could have pulled up many examples of 215mph'ish bikes, none of which would produce under 250hp+ (and I'm being conservative with that figure).Now pray tell, what hp did your friends CBR make, surely if he big-bored it and had other various parts on it that helped it acheive 215mph then he put it on a dyno as well. I would just like to know how he acheived this monumental speed. Think about it, because there are no production bikes capable of this speed, even with the right gearing, currently available. And we have litre class and above bikes puting out 175bhp that are only reaching speeds between 175-185mph. The power required to take these machines to 215mph, a 30-40mph increase would take at least another 100hp. Tonight I'll do a search on this subject, and show you how power required to gain further speed is not linear.

Sorry but I still dont agree with you. First of all you did say that 420 is good for 213 (thats how I read your first post). Now you say that only that particular bike needed 420 for it.

The busa puts out about 160hp (approx) and is speed limited to 189mph by convention. The gixer 1k is also speed limited to 184 by convention and produces similar power. The busa was suzi's first bike to do over 200mph - ok a technicality it only did it by .5 mph (the test I saw) but it proved that it could be done.

So now you are telling me you require 250hp to do 200mph even tho its been done on bikes with nearly 100hp less. And you are thereby implying that it requires somewhere between 270 and 400 hp more to do just 15mph depending which of your posts I read.

Now I am aware that resistance increases more the faster you go, but bike have a pretty low drag factor as it is. And I am aware that driving force drops off quite considerably because of the gear ratios.

But if I want to gear my cibby 600 to do 215mph I'd just need to change the sprockets to a 17/42 and viola, it would be capable of that speed (ok, it would require a very still day and about a 10mile long track because its acceleration would be almost nil). But the fact is, it has the capability to do it.

Now to actually make it do that speed, all I do is increase the power, its just a matter of doing so until the driving force is greater than the resistance - so if I up the power from 100bhp to 160bhp (similar to the busa) I get 1.22kN of driving force, which I know is 30% higher than stock but equal to the busa which is also 1.23kN (my rough calculations - using the 1999 busa stats).

The sad fact is, my particular machine is only capable of 120bhp and would require a turbo, which they currently only custom make for a bloomin large price tag which only crazy people would shell out for.

If it were possible to fit a turbo to a cibby 600 i'd be a very happy chap indeed and would have a busa beating machine :).. But out of interest there is a 205mph cibby 900 on the mr turbo site running a stock engine with just the turbo (if you are looking for an example).

Having just shown you that a 600 is capable of doing it in theory (although not physically capable), you should be able to see how easy it would be to make a 900 do it (and I've even given you the basline machine on the mr turbo site as an example).

So take a cibby 900, take it out to 1080cc (which you claimed couldnt be done until I told you how), and add a turbo, and viola, you have a machine that can do 215mph fairly easily.

gav

1st March 2005, 22:25

Mate, what colour is the sky in your world?
Reread my post #46, where I replied to some of your points.
Jack Frost from Holeshot Racing is one of the UK's premier motor builders, his 440 hp 'busa averaged 220 mph.
Having just shown you that a 600 is capable of doing it in theory (although not physically capable), you should be able to see how easy it would be to make a 900 do it (and I've even given you the basline machine on the mr turbo site as an example).
And what the hell does this mean? (although not physically capable) exactly. You could gear your CBR for whatever but it aint gonna pull that gearing.
In fact it would probably burn out the clutch to get mobile. Its gonna need hp to do it :brick: and lots of it :brick:
As for the Mr Turbo CBR I saw that too, however why don't they list a mr turbo kit for a CBR900? And the motor isnt stock it has a piston kit and different rods (as it would need I guess to lower the comp ratio)
But heres the link http://www.mrturbo.com/kit2.html
Wheres the Honda kit???????
So again, what spec was your mates CBR? You still havent answered.....

Blakamin

1st March 2005, 22:42

So take a cibby 900, take it out to 1080cc (which you claimed couldnt be done until I told you how), and add a turbo, and viola, you have a machine that can do 215mph fairly easily.
farqin bullshit!!!!!!
there is an outfit that runs a 175 CUBIC INCH bike in the states that cant get over 220....
farqin 215 "easily"... no fuckin such thing... if there was, why is the current record for a drag bike 235mph??????
you take 200 miles to wind it up to speed????

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 23:01

I just can't stop laughing, I'm trying so very hard not too, but it's damn hard.

BTW, it wasn't moi who implied that you can't get 1080cc kits for the 'cibby', maybe you should check who is posting what you think you are reading!!

But if I want to gear my cibby 600 to do 215mph I'd just need to change the sprockets to a 17/42 and viola, it would be capable of that speed (ok, it would require a very still day and about a 10mile long track because its acceleration would be almost nil). But the fact is, it has the capability to do it.

Now to actually make it do that speed, all I do is increase the power, its just a matter of

Clear something up for me here please. Are you saying that your cbr600 could do 215mph with the right gearing, as you say it would require a very still day and a 10 mile long track, as it is now? Because you then talk about upping the hp to get it to do that speed, which if you did wouldn't require 'a very still day and a 10 mile long track. I have to assume you made a mistake there, please tell me thats a typo.

onearmedbandit

1st March 2005, 23:02

Oh yeah, got those spec's yet, it would help sort out this debacle.

[Edit] Point to ponder.

Initially you claimed your mates CBR900 with a big-bore kit and various bits clocked 215mph at Bruntingthorpe. Now you're making a point of mentioning a CBR900 Turbo that does 205mph. So your mates bike, obviously non-turbo and non-nos as you haven't specifically mentioned these additions (which one would if that was the case) will convincingly beat this turbo example. But it seems the emphasise has gone off your earlier claim to defending the ability of a turbo'ed blade to top 200mph.

What we all want to know is, what spec was your mates bike?

Oh yeah, and you have forgotten to address the issues that gav posted, you know the points that cast doubt on your claims, I'm sure Jack Frost would love to know some guy had already established his record in the early nineties.

dangerous

2nd March 2005, 05:21

The busa puts out about 160hp (approx) and is speed limited to 189mph by convention. The gixer 1k is also speed limited to 184 by convention and produces similar power. The busa was suzi's first bike to do over 200mph - ok a technicality it only did it by .5 mph (the test I saw) but it proved that it could be done.

Have you ever riden a Busa? its aerodynamics that gets the Busa doing over 300k (dont understand you lot talking in Miles) at about 200kph the bike kinda squates down as the fairings do as they were designed as regardless of HP at at certian speed a bike will hit a wall and regardles on HP it will not pull any harder.... so using the Busa is not a fair comperason, ever wounder why GR has no fairing on his turb Busa.... it wouldent pull whellies at 300k if it did and as he dosent have a fairing he needs 400+hp to get 300kph.

scumdog

2nd March 2005, 07:03

As has already been mentioned, I'm sure you guys are tangled up with terminal speed at the drags vs total top speed, ya need to sort it out.

speedpro

2nd March 2005, 07:11

As for the Mr Turbo CBR I saw that too, however why don't they list a mr turbo kit for a CBR900? And the motor isnt stock it has a piston kit and different rods (as it would need I guess to lower the comp ratio)

Wheres the Honda kit???????
So again, what spec was your mates CBR? You still havent answered.....
I read that web page as the CBR900 having pistons, rods and EFI. No turbo, which would be why it isn't listed.

speedpro

2nd March 2005, 07:16

As has already been mentioned, I'm sure you guys are tangled up with terminal speed at the drags vs total top speed, ya need to sort it out.
EXACTLY! (need to add a bit to it - too short)

speedpro

2nd March 2005, 07:20

Have you ever riden a Busa? its aerodynamics that gets the Busa doing over 300k (dont understand you lot talking in Miles) at about 200kph the bike kinda squates down as the fairings do as they were designed as regardless of HP at at certian speed a bike will hit a wall and regardles on HP it will not pull any harder.... so using the Busa is not a fair comperason, ever wounder why GR has no fairing on his turb Busa.... it wouldent pull whellies at 300k if it did and as he dosent have a fairing he needs 400+hp to get 300kph.

Aerodynamics is what it's all about at speed. Bikes are low drag because they are small, BUT they have terrible coefficient-of-drag. This means that at say 161kmh they "may" actually have more air resistance than a Commodore. Something like that anyway.

Somewhere probably knows how it all works.

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 08:57

I read that web page as the CBR900 having pistons, rods and EFI. No turbo, which would be why it isn't listed.

TURBO CBR 900RR:
205 MPH, that's how quick Pat O'Riely's CBR 900 went with an off the shelf Mr. Turbo EFI system. Other then stronger pistons and connecting rods... his bike is basically stock inside the engine... how fast do you want to go on a 900cc bike?

Ummm, quite clearly states it is a turbo bike. For fucks sake.

Also the only person here even mentioning terminal speed in relation to 1/4 mile times is speedpro referring to blakamins post. The rest of us know what we are talking about, not once have either I or gav or twoseven for that matter been talking about 1/4 speeds.

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 09:01

Bikes are low drag because they are small, BUT they have terrible coefficient-of-drag.

If the vehicle had low drag, wouldn't a low coefficient-of-drag be a by-product? (And yes, bikes aerodynamics and therefore CD factors are terrible, even worse when you go and stick a rider on one.)

scumdog

2nd March 2005, 09:13

Ummm, quite clearly states it is a turbo bike. For fucks sake.

Also the only person here even mentioning terminal speed in relation to 1/4 mile times is speedpro referring to blakamins post. The rest of us know what we are talking about, not once have either I or gav or twoseven for that matter been talking about 1/4 speeds.

Sorrr-eee! Just trying to be helpful, members of this site have been lnown to be arguing at different tangents you know.

speedpro

2nd March 2005, 09:15

2) Top fuel bikes only hit about 230 miles per hour - not 300mph. Not that much higher than a tuned up 1000cc road bike.

Example of mixing performance referances for drags and road. If you geared that top fuel bike up it would go heaps faster but wouldn't do the quarter so quickly. Or have I got it wrong and the top fuel bike referred to is actually a road bike??

Fair comment about the 900, I miss the obvious sometimes.

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 09:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoSeven
2) Top fuel bikes only hit about 230 miles per hour - not 300mph. Not that much higher than a tuned up 1000cc road bike.

Example of mixing performance referances for drags and road. If you geared that top fuel bike up it would go heaps faster but wouldn't do the quarter so quickly. Or have I got it wrong and the top fuel bike referred to is actually a road bike??

Fair comment about the 900, I miss the obvious sometimes.

But its the claim that 230mph is not much higher than a tuned-up 1000cc road bike that got this started, not that a top-fuel bike only acheives a terminal speed of 230mph.

No problems about the 900, but you were trying to use that as evidence so I had to point out your mistake.

speedpro

2nd March 2005, 09:48

230mph isn't all that much faster than 190mph. We've all done 40mph it's easy, it isn't all that fast. (PT)

It all depends on which 40mph you mean. The 40mph between 50 & 90 isn't a problem nowadays. The 40mph mentioned on the first line is another matter. From experiance it doesn't take much to knock huge numbers off a top speed when you're talking of 180+mph. I've seen vids of speed runs from the UK. Some were in atrocious conditions with gusty sidewinds etc (summer in England).

I wonder if the runs with the big horsepower bikes weren't influenced by other factors, or even problems on the day. One article I recall ended up with a lowish top speed for a Mr Turbo ZZR1100 on the day due to fuel pressure problems. A look at the basic results wouldn't tell you that though. All you'd see was that a 350hp Mr Turbo ZZR did 198mph or whatever

I'd almost consider that it might be possible to go faster on an earlier CB like an 1100R as they can be taken right out and potentially make lots of horsepower whereas the CBR was built to an exact specification and had limits in what could be done because of that. Maybe not?

Blakamin

2nd March 2005, 10:23

Even a Rodec block engine would need more than 2 normal size people to pick it up, the cranks are huge. Blown methanol motors make 2500hp. The newest nitro motors are doing well over 5000hp, more like 7000hp.
yup they make huge hrsepower... 2500 was me being nice....
if you re-read the bit you quoted, i said "engine out"

Blakamin

2nd March 2005, 10:33

ok... aerodynamics....
http://sportrider.com/bikes/146_9704_bonn/
not really a motobike tho is it?

TwoSeven

2nd March 2005, 12:16

But when Sam Wheeler first took his "EZ Hook" streamliner out to the salt flats for its first real top-speed shakedown run, he managed to blow through the traps at 270 mph--using a stock ZX-11 motor!

He returned the following year, the streamliner fitted with a modified motor out of his pal Doug Meyer's Bonneville record-setting ZX-11 (conservatively estimated to be cranking out around 160 horsepower), and upped his speed to the tune of 301 mph! To put things in perspective, the outright motorcycle speed record of 323 mph was set by a dual-engined, nitro-burning Harley that was claimed to be pumping out around 450 horsepower

This pretty much sums up what I have been saying. Some people here cant read, because when I read the earlier responses it appeared they couldnt determine the difference between the capability of something and the actuality of something doing something.

Its funny, that the Busa is capable of 200mph, yet people are still posting that its impossible. I've shown how its possible, there are even documented speed tests showing it was possible, yet they still disbelieve it.

I've posted links to physical bikes that do it, yet they still say its impossible.

We have other people posting links to bikes that do it - yet I suspect they will still say its impossible.

Then they suddenly changed to say it was impossible for bikes to do 215mph (only 8ish % more than the original amount )

I've also noticed that people dont understand that here is a difference between a drag bike that may be only able to do 230, and a road bike that can do 230. The reason why the former has so much power is to do with acceleration not top speed. It needs to produce a top speed as FAST as possible, that requires higher DRIVING FORCE which requires MORE POWER.

The road bike is not constrained by the short TIME FACTOR, so it requires LESS driving forece to get to the SAME top speed over a LONGER time. Therefore LESS driving force means LESS power to get to the SAME top speed.

Hence a 160bhp busa is the same top speed as a drag bike with 400bhp - it just requires 10 times more distance to achieve the same top speed. Its also why most tops speed runs are done out in a blooming great desert rather than a short drag strip.

This very very basic bit of information which people here seem to find hard to grasp is shown by an even basic formula. (Driving force - resistance)/mass. If the result ends in a positive number then the machine will EVENTUALLY hit the spead you want (that speed is part of the calculation for driving force). To do it faster you INCREASE the driving force.
(note: resistance also includes engine resistance as well as air resistance)

What I have deliberately not said is what distance each bike will take to do the speed. The 400bhp+ bike is designed to do it in 1/4 mile - since its for drags, the busa and cibby 900 take about 1-2 miles (depending on rider ability).

On comparing the bikes again, the Busa has the lowest drag of any Suzi bike (thats their own marketing), but it still weighs 70kg more than a cibby 900 and has 1/6 more frontal area for the same power - which means that it [the tuned 900] has the same driving force as the busa for less resistance and mass. So its even more capable of doing that speed than the Busa is - so if the Busa has been proven to do it, the cibby 900 will also have done it. Which is what I originally said, simply because I've stood there and watched them do it.

(and yes, I have already posted the mods made to the cibby - quite clearly).

My original point was that a top fuel bike doesnt go that much faster than a road bike and I still hold to it - what it does do is get to that speed a heck of a lot quicker - which of course is the impressive bit. I used to 900 as an example because its something I've seen, and been invovled in (I'm a cibby enthusiast) and is a good comparison of my claim. This is different than the other argument that seems to have been presented as I read it, that you need massive amounts of power (more than twice any roadbike produces) in order to go over 200mph, let alone reach the speeds of a top fuel bike - which is an incorrect argument, that I have shown is wrong. :)

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 13:47

For farks sake. Where are the specific mods done to your mates CBR to help it get to 215mph? Not mods that you can do, but the ones actually done to his bike? What hp is it? (you're brilliant at avoiding that question.)

Where are your responses to gav's post re records held at Bruntingthorpe in 2001?

What horsepower does your mates CBR900 make?? (Still)

Oh yeah, who gives a flying fuck what a 'streamliner' harley davidson does at bonneville. Got nothing to do with your mates CBR900 doing 215mph!! Try remembering, this is relating to road bikes and similar, not some streamlined top-speed hunter. A CBR doesn't share anything similar with the bike you mentioned. Try to keep on track here.

Answer some specific questions relating to your earlier claim, and try actually reading some of the posts that have cast doubt on your claims regarding said CBR.

Another question, how much hp do [b]you/b] think it would take to get a 'busa to 230mph, heck even 215mph. Just curious is all.

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 14:09

Oh is this what you mean by 'listing the mods':

The other thing is that the cibby engine is capable of running a 13:1 compression which few bikes of the time were, although i'm cant remember if any extra head work was done other than the porting work that was usual.

Because I can not find a list of any other mods (other than upping the cc) relating to your friends CBR900 in this whole thread.

So let me see, take one stock early 90's CBR900, enlarge engine to 1080cc, do a little headwork (can't remember if needed or not though) and you've got a 215mph bike. Am I wrong in my understanding here, other than not mentioning gearing changes, or is what I'm posting basically what your mates bike had done to it? If so, than all the bike producers should hang their heads in shame. Imagine that. So we could apply the same formula to a late model litre class bike, std power around 160hp. Enlarge the motor to maybe 1200cc (not possible with std cylinders), maybe do a bit of headwork and we should have a bike capable of exceeding 215mph given enough space. Fark me, Jack Frost must be sooo stupid, imagine spending mega $$ on turboing a 'busa etc etc to get over 400hp only to do the same speed your mate did 5-6yrs ago. Farkin idiot he is isn't he, but what would he know, only owns one of the most recognised max-power speed shops in England. Should've spoken to you and your mate, would've saved him big $$.

Oh yeah, please don't bring up the arguements relating to streamliner bikes to support your original claim, absolutely nothing to do with a CBR900 pulling 215mph in the early 90's.

gav

2nd March 2005, 16:59

So 27, lets see now, your mates bike was turboed, running nitrous, had a 1080 kit (that no recognized speed shop offers) had a streamliner fairing and was geared to reach top speed in 10 miles? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Bruntingthorpe only has a 2 mile straight for speed testing doesnt it?
Hardly the same as the Bonneville Salt Flats
Now you suggest that a CBR900 can do similiar speeds to a GSXR1300? :brick:
uh, huh....
Quote ex Two Seven
My original point was that a top fuel bike doesnt go that much faster than a road bike and I still hold to it - what it does do is get to that speed a heck of a lot quicker - which of course is the impressive bit. I used to 900 as an example because its something I've seen, and been invovled in (I'm a cibby enthusiast) and is a good comparison of my claim. This is different than the other argument that seems to have been presented as I read it, that you need massive amounts of power (more than twice any roadbike produces) in order to go over 200mph, let alone reach the speeds of a top fuel bike - which is an incorrect argument, that I have shown is wrong.

No, it was mainly directed at your claim of a 215mph (345km/h) CBR900RR, a bike that standard, at best produces 120hp.

Your first post contained this snippet of genius
2) Top fuel bikes only hit about 230 miles per hour - not 300mph. Not that much higher than a tuned up 1000cc road bike.
So if we're talking 230mph in a standing 1/4 please list the number of tuned 1000cc road bikes capable of this???

TwoSeven

2nd March 2005, 17:32

Blakamin

2nd March 2005, 17:35

i think this is the bit I was making the main reference to...

It's often noted that motorcycles are about as aerodynamically slippery as bricks-with the wide end facing forward. There are many hulking passenger cars available now with Cds that are a far lower than the best stock-bodied motorcycle numbers.

or

Consider this: A stock Kawasaki ZX-11 (the previous horsepower and top-speed king, 'til Honda's CBR1100XX came and spoiled the party) cranks out roughly 130 rear-wheel horsepower and will top out around 176 mph. Terry Kizer's Mr. Turbo ZX-11 that set the Sport Rider UFO top-speed record of 230 mph (albeit with gearing and space limitations) was probably cranking out upwards of 350 horsepower to get there..

and this http://sportrider.com/bikes/146-9704-BONN-1.jpg hardly looks like a real bike.... and thats the thing that had a stock engine in it... I reckon it would suck around corners, personally.

gav

2nd March 2005, 17:36

This pretty much sums up what I have been saying. Some people here cant read, because when I read the earlier responses it appeared they couldnt determine the difference between the capability of something and the actuality of something doing something.
If it can't actually do it, then surely that is because its not capable of doing it?? maybe???

Its funny, that the Busa is capable of 200mph, yet people are still posting that its impossible. I've shown how its possible, there are even documented speed tests showing it was possible, yet they still disbelieve it.
Who posted that a 'busa couldnt do 200mph????

I've posted links to physical bikes that do it, yet they still say its impossible.
WTF??? Check your posts, mate, you have posted NO links

We have other people posting links to bikes that do it - yet I suspect they will still say its impossible.
THis is to compare to the mysterious CBR900 capable (no, actually recorded) of 215mph.

Then they suddenly changed to say it was impossible for bikes to do 215mph (only 8ish % more than the original amount )

I've also noticed that people dont understand that here is a difference between a drag bike that may be only able to do 230, and a road bike that can do 230. The reason why the former has so much power is to do with acceleration not top speed. It needs to produce a top speed as FAST as possible, that requires higher DRIVING FORCE which requires MORE POWER.

The road bike is not constrained by the short TIME FACTOR, so it requires LESS driving forece to get to the SAME top speed over a LONGER time. Therefore LESS driving force means LESS power to get to the SAME top speed.

Hence a 160bhp busa is the same top speed as a drag bike with 400bhp - it just requires 10 times more distance to achieve the same top speed. Its also why most tops speed runs are done out in a blooming great desert rather than a short drag strip.
But what about the 2 mile straight at Bruntingthorpe???

This very very basic bit of information which people here seem to find hard to grasp is shown by an even basic formula. (Driving force - resistance)/mass. If the result ends in a positive number then the machine will EVENTUALLY hit the spead you want (that speed is part of the calculation for driving force). To do it faster you INCREASE the driving force.
(note: resistance also includes engine resistance as well as air resistance)

What I have deliberately not said is what distance each bike will take to do the speed. The 400bhp+ bike is designed to do it in 1/4 mile - since its for drags, the busa and cibby 900 take about 1-2 miles (depending on rider ability).
So Jack Frosts 440hp busa on a 2 mile straight did what? Bear in mind he was chasing a National speed record?

On comparing the bikes again, the Busa has the lowest drag of any Suzi bike (thats their own marketing), but it still weighs 70kg more than a cibby 900 and has 1/6 more frontal area for the same power - which means that it [the tuned 900] has the same driving force as the busa for less resistance and mass. So its even more capable of doing that speed than the Busa is - so if the Busa has been proven to do it, the cibby 900 will also have done it. Which is what I originally said, simply because I've stood there and watched them do it.

(and yes, I have already posted the mods made to the cibby - quite clearly).
So you won't mind listing them again, for some of the slow learners here?

My original point was that a top fuel bike doesnt go that much faster than a road bike and I still hold to it - what it does do is get to that speed a heck of a lot quicker - which of course is the impressive bit. I used to 900 as an example because its something I've seen, and been invovled in (I'm a cibby enthusiast) and is a good comparison of my claim. This is different than the other argument that seems to have been presented as I read it, that you need massive amounts of power (more than twice any roadbike produces) in order to go over 200mph, let alone reach the speeds of a top fuel bike - which is an incorrect argument, that I have shown is wrong. :)
Just found the Jan 1995 Fast Bikes magazine, on the cover is a V&M tuned CBR900 Fireblade 190mph!! the cover shouts at ya. But why the fuss? According to you it seems 215mph was easily attained the year before maybe on a similiar bike? Why would the mag go to this trouble to suggest that 190mph is anything special? Fuck sakes, man its 25mph slower than your mates bike, bloody amateurs....

Blakamin

2nd March 2005, 17:46

if they did it, why didn't they go for a record??? it seems a bit silly to spend all the time and money to do 215mph and not go for a speed record.... :spudwhat:

gav

2nd March 2005, 17:48

The information is there, if you know about cbr900s and engine tuning you'd spot it a mile off. In fact i'd expect anyone who has modded a cibby 900 to be able to tell me almost exactly what the ideal kit is (and a few variants).

I'm not going to pander to self tought idiots, who have been spouting shite off the net. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd have seen the info by now.

I've given you all the technical information you need, and you guys havnt managed more than a bit of proverbial bullshit at best. I especially like the claims about the power required to go fast. Still chuckling over that - someone better tell suzuki that their bike cant possibly exist. Even more I like the way all the posts start changing as soon as each one is found to be crap. ha ha,, All bikes require 400odd hp, followed by, that particular bike.. what shite. :)

Youve even been posting your own evidence to support what I'm saying, then saying thats shite as well. Oh well, as they say, people start stupid and work backwards and you guys are providing a fine example. Keep it up, its now a form of amusement for me :)

Lets see, another one of your typical posts with no shred of evidence what so ever. The bikes with 400hp were posted to suggest what was needed to reach 215mph, are you suggesting somehow this information is misleading? How? How about answering some of the questions posed to you? After all as a cibby enthusiast, you obviously have a fountain of knowledge that we'd all like to share. No need to resort to the petty name calling on here is there? Seeing your in Chch as myself and OAB are, how about we meet up for a :apint: sometime? Is your F2 road legal at the mo?

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 18:22

Just found the Jan 1995 Fast Bikes magazine, on the cover is a V&M tuned CBR900 Fireblade 190mph!! the cover shouts at ya. But why the fuss? According to you it seems 215mph was easily attained the year before maybe on a similiar bike? Why would the mag go to this trouble to suggest that 190mph is anything special? Fuck sakes, man its 25mph slower than your mates bike, bloody amateurs....

I think this sums it up the best, well done gav. Come on twoseven, are you saying Performance Bike magazine don't know what they're talking about now. Time to 'fess up and admit you're spouting shit, coz gav's called your bluff twice now with backed-up evidence. You're making yourself look stupid by not acknowlegding these points.

dangerous

2nd March 2005, 18:25

hehehehehe....... ohhhh dear 2/7 it might be time to change your user name again :niceone:

marty

2nd March 2005, 19:14

i just figured it out! 2/7 is actually Alan!

TwoSeven

2nd March 2005, 19:35

Who the heck is alan ?

It was pointed out to me that if you folks knew what you were talking about you'd have been pretty precise in your information from a mechanical point of view.

I stick to my point that your all grasping at straws, trawling the net and talking shit.

dangerous

2nd March 2005, 19:36

i just figured it out! 2/7 is actually Alan!
Ahhhh... no Mr A.W aka ti???rz, yeah who is Allan?

Blakamin

2nd March 2005, 19:46

trawling the net ....
probably the easiest way to produce facts... in case you hadn't realised, all of the net is not shit...
you could take my word for it or come around for a beer and see some photos... but it is a hell of a lot easier to produce some facts and let them speak for themselves....

onearmedbandit

2nd March 2005, 20:09

And yet still no answer regarding any of the questions myself or gav have asked about this CBR900. Your card has been pulled twoseven, but you don't seem to be able to see it.

And you say this is humour to you. Well the laugh is on you.

Tell me though, what hp is it? :lol:

gav

2nd March 2005, 20:59

gav

2nd March 2005, 21:00

Ahhhh... no Mr A.W aka ti???rz, yeah who is Allan?
Alan from Fast and Safe??

marty

2nd March 2005, 21:03

yeah...................

dangerous

3rd March 2005, 05:00

Alan from Fast and Safe??
never been into that thread, but I'd think not.

TwoSeven

3rd March 2005, 15:03

Well 27, it appears the only bit of info you've posted that we all agree on is your signature!

Tell me, in all seriousness, do you know if a 92-95 CBR900RR fits into a CBR600F2/F3 frame? I know anything can be made to fit, but I seem to recall mention that the engine sloted straight in, the rear mounts lined up an only the front frame hangers had to be spread and new front mounts made up. Do you know if this is correct? Do you know of anyone wwho has attempted this mod?

I think there was a pic of one in an early PB mag but.

The engine will go in but it wont slot straight in (to an F2 frame) as such, the 900 was an inch or two wider than the 600 frame, but otherwise all the other dimensions i'm told are the same. You can put them in, but you need to mod a couple of the mounting brackets and put a kink in the top of the frame to make room for the rocker cover otherwise you cant remove it from the engine when its in the frame (the frame goes over the top of the rocker cover - there is a little arch each side to put your hand in to get at the plugs. The top front of the rocker cover almost touches the rad, and the rear of the rocker cover, isnt too far away from the spar that the coils are mounted on.

I'd also check out the rear tension bolt (the top rear mounting bolt), that would be the other bit i'd query. From memory both engines are the same dimensions other than the height and width of the cylinder head - although i've never actually measured them both up.

Dont know about the F3 frame, I only have an F2 and looking at the parts manual it seems some of the engine cases are different - so without being able to measure it up, couldnt tell you what needs to be done. With the F3 they started buggering with the width of the bike, so it may just be too narrow.

Dont really think its a good idea either. The F2 chassis has a lot of twist in it and putting in an engine thats about 40bhp more would probably make it not a very good ride in the corners (although I've always preferred the F2s flex).

Just quickly putting a tape measure on (so not very accurate) the F2 frame has a 40cm gap between the front mounting brackets (and the engine has a spacer either side). The middle upper brackets are about 32cm apart (there is a small triangular bracket that bolts to the frame and the engine is attached to the bottom of that bracket), the rear upper is 23cm (goes straight thru the frame) and the rear lower is 25 cm (also goes thru frame). I just stuck my tape measure in and had a look, so dont quote as accurate.