Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Suzuki News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-26-2002, 10:37 AM   #81
rsheidler
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Kawasaki's 800cc AMA Superbike

Given how close EBoz got to catching Nicky last year, my guess that an extra 50 cc should be enough to allow him to give his brother a good run in 2003. I understand that Suzuki have decided to go the 1000 cc route rather than boring out their 750, and Ducati are finally serious about AMA for 2003, so there should be some rally interesting racing next year.
rsheidler is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 11-26-2002, 12:50 PM   #82
dwr461
Founding Member
 
dwr461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Default Re: Defending the VFR, and how Honda will fix the electrical problems for free.

YES! Monty Pyhton. Finally something interesting to read in this thread.



"Put him (Kpaul) in the comfy chair!" (j/k)

Dave

dwr461 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2002, 12:55 PM   #83
dwr461
Founding Member
 
dwr461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Default Re: How about 5-60?

Yes, I would be interested in reading the 5-60 stats for bikes. I agree that this would more closely simulate my driving style.



Take care,

Dave
dwr461 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2002, 05:34 PM   #84
VAX
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17
Default Re: How about 5-60?

Most bikes have higher first gears than most cars. Because of their high power to weight ratio, the bikes can still be launched without excessive clutch slipping, but most bikes won't go slower than 7-10mph without slipping the clutch. A more reasonable test for bikes would be 10-60mph.
VAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2002, 02:11 PM   #85
Blake_1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 87
Default Re: Follow up to my query about the GSX1400

Crazybike,



You say...

"This bike puts down a solid 94 ft. lbs of funk to the blacktop."



Actually, that would be a VERY weak and wimpy bike. The torque reported in dyno testing is transformed to the crankshaft output. It is torque at the crankshaft, not the rear wheel. By the time it gets multiplied by the primary drive ratio and transmission ratio, torque at the rear wheel can be closer to 1,000 FT-LBs and when divided by the radius of the rear tire in FT will give you the actual thrust imparted to the blacktop.
__________________
\'97 Buell M2 Cyclone
Blake_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2002, 12:09 AM   #86
Reality_Check
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Default Re: Follow up to my query about the GSX1400

Blake, darned if you're not correct! I never did the math, it never struck me that when they relate "rear wheel hp" they weren't talking about rear wheel torque as well. To check, I mentally took a Hayabusa, and knowing that it uses all 155 HP to scream down the road at about 185 mph (270 ft/sec), I took (guessed!) the circumference of the rear wheel to be between 5.5 and 6 feet, and came up with 2700 - 2950 rear wheel rpm. I then took "HP = (ft.lbs*rpm)/5252", plugged in the rear wheel rpm and known HP, and came up with 275 to 300 ft. lbs of rear wheel torque. Of course, if you were accelerating at full throttle / redline in a lower gear, the torque would be much higher (your 1000 ft. lbs. example).



Thanks much for the education - just when you think you're done learning stuff for the day......
__________________
\"To know the mind of God, one must only look within\"
Reality_Check is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off