Pure acceleration

[Coyote]

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

That would've been an RS250?

I want one of them

[onearmedbandit]

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]

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]

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]

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....

[**R1**]

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...

havnt read whole thread,(couldnt be arsed) but i bet he cant turn around and do it again:spudbooge

[**R1**]

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

NO1 CAN

[**R1**]

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?

[Storm]

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]

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?

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]

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]

"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

[Motu]

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]

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**]

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 .

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