Pure acceleration

**TwoSeven** · 2nd March 2005, 17:32

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

**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

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

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

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

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

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

sometime? Is your F2 road legal at the mo?

**onearmedbandit** · 2nd March 2005, 18:22

Originally Posted by gav

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

**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

Originally Posted by marty

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

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

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?

**gav** · 2nd March 2005, 20:59

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?