Pure acceleration

[speedpro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[TwoSeven]

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]

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]

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]

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?
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???