Bikes

[EBSB52]

Maybe they cut the fule or ignition early so the inertia doesn't throw it over redline? Yes/no??? It would seem like you would be way out the torque range by then anyway, so I agree, it sells just like HP sells.

Inertia doesn't accelerate things.. it maintains the status quo. The only inertia that's going to increase the tach reading after the fuel is cut is the inertia of the tach needle.

Mass-production instrumentation has never been terribly reliable. I would expect this to be better on a sport bike than a car, but maybe the tach was off a little bit.

Inertia doesn't accelerate things.. it maintains the status quo. The only inertia that's going to increase the tach reading after the fuel is cut is the inertia of the tach needle.

Sounds fair.

Mass-production instrumentation has never been terribly reliable. I would expect this to be better on a sport bike than a car, but maybe the tach was off a little bit.

I dunno, in the early 90's, the ZX11 indicated 191 and radar gunned at 175 per various sport bike mags. I wonder if they are more accurate now that they are done electronically rather than thru conventional mechanical speedometers?

BTW, do rev limiters work shutting down fuel now rather than killing 2 coils? Back in the day they killed 2 of the 4 coils or in the case of old gixers they has 2 coils for 4 cylinders and they would kill 1 coil.

[Aaron]

This is all (as usual from Aaron) bullshit.

Here's a list of typical times for a busa along with references as to what magazine got what time on it.

http://www.qsl.net/n5mya/testdata.html

I'm not going to bother for the 1000. I just want to make sure our tech section stays accurate (assuming Will doesn't just delete it. hint...)

I looked through that entire site and did not see a single time faster than the one I quoted for the 1000. Hell, I didn't find a time faster than the one I quoted for the Busa. I quoted a hugely popular magazine, that does regular testing biannually corrected to standard conditions, on most performance aspects of the machine using world class professional riders.

How about some specs from Motorcyclist Magazine, another widely popular source. These actually show the 1000 making 6whp MORE, again noticably faster on the roll ons, and some 115lbs less.

GSX-R1000: 9.79 @ 148.4
GSX-R1300: 9.88 @ 143.9

You're the one spouting bullshit.

And yes, I have driven a Maybach on a number of occasions. I hated it.

This is absolutely retarded. You have a kid who has rode ONE bike ... ONCE spouting "facts" about bikes he has never sat on.

The GSXR1300 was built as a "sport touring" bike whos sole purpose in life was to be "faster than the ZX12R". Which is arguably did... or did not, depending on who you talked too.

The GSXR1000 was built to be the quickest open class 1L bike and dominate it racing class.

The two bikes serve two seperate markets.

PS: ZX10R > GSXR1000... I would buy either a GSXR750 or a 2004 ZX10.

First of all, I've riden a lot of bikes. The CBR1000 being the fastest by far.

Next, we aren't arguing their market, we're arguing their performance. And there isn't a single category besides top speed where the Busa is better. The 1000 accelerates faster, even on roll-ons, gets better mileage, handles better, brakes better, is 120 fucking lbs lighter!!!, and is much cheaper.

How is the Ninja 10 better than the other 1000s? Same price, same performance, same mileage, same handling, same braking, etc. It all comes down to aesthetics and ergonomics. If i coudl afford a bike right now, it'd be either a new blacked out RC51, or a black R1.

[EBSB52]

How is the Ninja 10 better than the other 1000s? Same price, same performance, same mileage, same handling, same braking, etc. It all comes down to aesthetics and ergonomics. If i coudl afford a bike right now, it'd be a new GSXR 1000.

:thumbleft: :thumbleft: :thumbleft:

[MNFatz]

I looked through that entire site and did not see a single time faster than the one I quoted for the 1000. Hell, I didn't find a time faster than the one I quoted for the Busa.

You're the one spouting bullshit.

The fastest time for a Busa? 9.997 @ 144.8. And that was the 1999 model!

Suzuki GSX1300R 9.86 sec @ 145.80 mph

For your homework assignment, do a google search on a gsx1000r; I'm not going to bother. The point was to make sure everyone knew you didn't know what you were talking about.

Confucious say, better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Stay in school, kid.

[Aaron]

I looked through that entire site and did not see a single time faster than the one I quoted for the 1000.

Of course you didn't. That site didn't qoute ANY times for the ZX-10. They were ALL for the ZX-12.

Accept that there are things you have yet to learn in the world. Read to gain knowledge... Empty your cup and read to find out what's actually there... it may not be what you have predetermined is there.

WTF are you talking about? I looked through the site for times on the Busa, comparing them to the GSX-R1000...

[The Dark Side of Will]

After thinking about it for a while... I think what Aaron was saying was that he didn't see a single time from either bike on the site you cited that was faster than the one he quoted from that magazine.

Which begs a WHOLE lot of questions, most of which have to do with what year of which bike is being tested, considering how fast bike technology is advancing.

[Aaron]

After thinking about it for a while... I think what Aaron was saying was that he didn't see a single time from either bike on the site you cited that was faster than the one he quoted from that magazine.

Which begs a WHOLE lot of questions, most of which have to do with what year of which bike is being tested, considering how fast bike technology is advancing.

Exactly, there wasn't a single time from a 1300 that was faster than the leading sportbike magazine's times for the 1000 OR the 1300.

As I said earlier, the year does matter. As time has gone on, the 1000s have gotten faster, going down about .05-.1 second a year, while the Busa's have gotten slower (adding more weight).

SportRider also uses some of the best riders in the world, and corrects every time to standard conditions. Plain and simple, the 1000 is faster accelerating than the 1300. It has the same average amoutn of hp, and weighs 110-120lbs less, which is HUGE in bikes.

[donk_316]

You missed my point <shock and awe!>

Comparing the 1000 to 1300 isnt like comparing the R6 to the GSXR750 where the only difference is basically engine and chassis setup.

Your comparing a purebred racing machine (GSXR1000) to a sport touring bike!!!!!!! (GSXR1300)
OFCOURSE THE GSXR1000 IS LIGHTER AND QUICKER!






My personal choice would be the ZX10... thats all i was saying earlier regarding that.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Split from here: phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=0

[EBSB52]

Split from here: phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=0

Threw me for a loop, didn't recall starting this thread.

Anyway, enough of bikes, let's talk G6 6-speed trannies. :blah5:

[Kohburn]

Split from here: phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=0

Threw me for a loop, didn't recall starting this thread.

Anyway, enough of bikes, let's talk G6 6-speed trannies. :blah5:

here is the thread for the g6 tranny

phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=40

i still plan to look into this again in the future if the 4 speed fails my 400whp goal

[EBSB52]

Split from here: phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=0

Threw me for a loop, didn't recall starting this thread.

Anyway, enough of bikes, let's talk G6 6-speed trannies. :blah5:

here is the thread for the g6 tranny

phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4241&start=40

i still plan to look into this again in the future if the 4 speed fails my 400whp goal

I know, I was just Jk'n :blah5: As if I would merge the bike thread into the 6-speed thread as it just got diverged.

400RWHP, with what motor and will the 4sp take that for long?

[Kohburn]

400RWHP, with what motor and will the 4sp take that for long?

i think the motor will need forged pistons with lower compression - the tranny should be fine if i done drag race with slicks

[Aaron]

motor and will the 4sp take that for long?

he is running a turbocharged/intercooled 3.4 DOHC with a custom intake. :salute:

[EBSB52]

motor and will the 4sp take that for long?

he is running a turbocharged/intercooled 3.4 DOHC with a custom intake. :salute:

Did he lower the compression or is the boost lowered? Will that really push 400 Wheel HP? That is fuckin bad - how far along is it?

[Aaron]

No, the stock 3.4 is pretty low stock at 9.25. There are plenty of turbo DOHCs pushing 400hp. They just EAT up boost.

Rough numbers are about 400hp at 10psi, and 450 at 13 (Crank, not whp).

And the one that is pushing 400hp at 10psi, HAS 163,000 MILES!!! Bone stock otherwise, and through an automatic!!!

I'm not sure how far along his is, last I heard complete, but needs to be tuned.

[Kohburn]

yeah - pretty much i just need to have time to finish tuning it - and it has a slow oil leak i think from the front cam tower gasket. so i plan to pull the engine this winter and refresh all the gaskets and bearings.

unless i decide to go for max output possible with a 2 bar map sensor. .

in which case i'd just rebuild the engine with the forged slugs and a bigger turbo to bump the boost to 14 psi to redline and bigger injectors to compensate.

a 3.4dohc with the cam timing tweeked for a turbo application, an efficient intake and exhaust, an efficient turbo and intercooler running 14 psi. man that should be pretty impressive