Reverse Rotating Brake Rotors

**WINJA** · 21st February 2006, 22:20

Originally Posted by Ixion

Mind you, some of the difference between the hypothetical 1000 and 600 may be due to engine width - more weight outboard in the bigger motor. The height of the CoM would come into it , too. And the bigger motor must have either bigger bore (wider) or longer stroke (higher) . I think.

WIDTH DONT MATTER THAT MUCH , ITS ABOUT 1". THEY TEND TO RUN OUT OF RUBBER B4 MUCH ELSE TOUCHES DOWN , UNLIKE THE ZX9C1/C2 , LHS PICKS UP ALTERNATOR AND SPITS YOU OFF , RIGHT PICKS UP MUFFLER AND LINK PIPE

**WINJA** · 21st February 2006, 22:21

Originally Posted by T.I.E

so is it more the weight of the bike due to it enertia or kenetic energy as it wants to go straight ahead as opposed to the crank, limiting it's turning ability?

NO MY K3 WAS LIGHTER THAN THE 600 IN QUESTION . BUT THE CRANK IS MUCH HEAVIER , ITS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS HEAVIER.

**Ixion** · 21st February 2006, 22:23

No, the rotating masses (various) resist being tilted - thats the gyroscope effect . When you do tilt them they help make the bike go in a circle , but it takes force to do it. Physics professors used to demonstrate with a bicycle wheel on a pole. Hold it over your head , set the wheel spinning, and then try to tilt it. It takes a hell of a force . The more the rotating masses (the heavier they are , or the faster the are rotating) the harder it is to tilt the mass across its axis (side to side). So the more force it needs to bring the bike (and its masses) back upright, and then over to the other side. It will still DO it OK, but it takes more effort (everything else being equal), and thus more time. So it's slower.

EDIT - That was answering Mr T.I.E not Mr WINJA

**T.I.E** · 21st February 2006, 22:26

Originally Posted by WINJA

NO MY K3 WAS LIGHTER THAN THE 600 IN QUESTION . BUT THE CRANK IS MUCH HEAVIER , ITS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS HEAVIER.

so the bigger/heavier the crank along with its revolutions, is a bigger hinderence than the weight of a bike, when cornering?

**WINJA** · 21st February 2006, 22:34

Originally Posted by T.I.E

so the bigger/heavier the crank along with its revolutions, is a bigger hinderence than the weight of a bike, when cornering?

DEPENDING ON THE CORNERS .
I STILL PREFER A 1000 , CAUSE EVEN IF YOU FUCK UP THE CORNERS YOU CAN MAKE IT UP ON THE STRAIGHT, YOU CAN ALSO CORNER DIFFERENT ON THE 1000 STAND IT UP QUICK AND OPEN IT UP , EXCEPT IF THE NEXT CORNER IS TO CLOSE.
PS IM NOT KEITH CODE AND DONT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS , IM JUST A HOON WHOS BEEN THRASHING PERFORMANCE BIKES FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

**T.I.E** · 21st February 2006, 22:36

Originally Posted by WINJA

the crank has more effect on turning in speed than the wheels or brake rotors ,

this statement just confused me. i would have thought at speed the size or weight of the bike would have been a bigger hinderence than it's crank, and at speed the energy or force from a bikes wheels would have been huge.

**T.I.E** · 21st February 2006, 22:38

i must admit i prefer a 1000 over a smaller machine or lighter bike. i find it flows more in corners. although if you screw it up, it's not as quick to get out of trouble. but it keeps a steadier and smoother line.

**WINJA** · 21st February 2006, 22:39

Originally Posted by T.I.E

this statement just confused me. i would have thought at speed the size or weight of the bike would have been a bigger hinderence than it's crank, and at speed the energy or force from a bikes wheels would have been huge.

GENERALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN WHEELS FOR TOP TIER BIKES ACROSS MANUFACTURERS IS 1/2 AN INCH ON THE BACK WHEEL 6" OR 5 1/2", 180 OR 190 . MOST FRONT TYRES ARE 120

**Ixion** · 21st February 2006, 22:41

Originally Posted by T.I.E

this statement just confused me. i would have thought at speed the size or weight of the bike would have been a bigger hinderence than it's crank, and at speed the energy or force from a bikes wheels would have been huge.

Well, it's all relative. A difference in crank weight may not make up for the difference between a bike weight of , say, 165kg and , say, 300kg !. But sprotsbikes tend to be much of a muchness for weight, you aren't going to get one at 300kg. And the wheels are significant, but once again (a) they're narrow - it's not just weight , it's weight and how much you tilt it (how far the weight is stuck outboard) - one reason why singles are more flickable than fours ; and (b) the wheels tend to be much the same from one sprotsbike to another. Mr WINJA is comparing two very similar beasts .

**WINJA** · 21st February 2006, 22:46

to make it simple .
buy 2 gsxr600s , pullthe motor out of one and put a 1000cc in its place , add ballast to the 600 to make it weigh the same as the 600 with the 1000 motor.
the one with the 600 motor in will turn faster in general

**T.I.E** · 21st February 2006, 22:52

Originally Posted by WINJA

to make it simple .
buy 2 gsxr600s , pullthe motor out of one and put a 1000cc in its place , add ballast to the 600 to make it weigh the same as the 600 with the 1000 motor.
the one with the 600 motor in will turn faster in general

absolutely agree, i just confused when you said a crank has more of a hinderence than a bikes cyyntryfiicialll (oh boy, use the force luke) force at the wheels whilst at speed when it corners.

but yeah everything else makes sense.

**T.I.E** · 21st February 2006, 22:54

[QUOTE=WINJA]the crank has more effect on turning in speed than the wheels or brake rotors ,QUOTE]

i would have thought if you could lose the force thingee from the wheels, that would be a much bigger advantage than anything the crank would produce.