Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C-14, aka Kawasaki Concours-14, the new one :) => The Bike - C14/GTR 1400 => Topic started by: joelc1400 on June 27, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
-
I got a chance to finally top out my 09 C14, this was done with bags, windshield raise 1", and the only mods is the bike is lower and a two brother slip on.... 6th gear bike reads 151mph / Gps reads 141mph bike was very stable!
5th gear bike reads 160mph / Gps reads 151mph, i let go at this point the bike started to wonder a bit, and was not pulling any more...
Tires are shinko ravens..! my weight is 160
seems like the computer stop it not because it ran out of power!
-
I wonder how bags off would affect things. Probably increase speed, and take care of the high speed stability issue.
-
I had a chance to play with a Pontiac G8 this past weekend and noted wobble at high speed. Then I realized I had my windshield up all the way :o
-
Suspension settings and performance tires are key to top speed squid runs enjoyed by some of us, they're not only for twisties and track riding (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/bigthumb.gif)
-
I think the owners manual says not to exceed 80 mph with bags on. Plus have some extra securement such as zip ties or pins.
I've only taken mine up to 115 with bags off. She felt rock solid though.
-
I once had mine stock, bags loaded, and full rucksack strapped to the back frame at an indicated 164 mph in 6th gear down near the Gulf coast in Louisiana. It was solid the entire time! Stopping quickly was def not an option though. I also remember the GPS showing 150 something as well.
-
I think the owners manual says not to exceed 80 mph with bags on...
I believe it actually says, "Do not exceed second gear with the bags on." ;)
-
lol.
'09 AreaP Full exhaust, flies removed, PC-V, BMC Air filter, VStream Screen, Givi V46, bags on, fully loaded for a week trip.
I did a couple high speed runs on I-10 in Florida. Long, flat, straight, not a car in sight for miles. She topped out at 149 GPS in 6th gear twice. Did not hit a speed limiter. Also, I did not think to try 5th gear.
-
I think the owners manual says not to exceed 80 mph with bags on.
I must have missed that line, oops.
-
I believe it actually says, "Do not exceed second gear with the bags on." ;)
:rotflmao:
Anyone know what page it says this on, or the line about 80mph?
-
couldn't find the second gear one but the 80 mph is on page 111
-
So 130 with a passenger and bags was a bad thing?
-
Mine stalls out at an indicated 150. The bags stayed put and the bike felt pretty solid.
-
I think the owners manual says not to exceed 80 mph with bags on. Plus have some extra securement such as zip ties or pins.
I though that was a joke, but i looked it up on the Op manual and is true, and also says when carrying a passanger! do not exceed 80mph.
-
Had mine up to 145 over the weekend with the bags on...they didn't go no where. Of course they're also pinned to disable the highly desirable auto-eject feature.
-
120 to 155 indicated for around an hour in Germany with bags on and my tail-trunk.
Stable as a rock, and I still had the old bag-clips (pre-recall).
The ZX12R I was playing with was impressed. He thought he'd lose me but both bikes were pretty well matched on the Autobahn.
In the twisties I imagine he'd pull ahead.
I also never saw that 80Mph with the bags on bullcrap.
That's just so the lawyers can disclaim responsibility.
-
120 to 155 indicated for around an hour in Germany with bags on and my tail-trunk.
Stable as a rock, and I still had the old bag-clips (pre-recall).
The ZX12R I was playing with was impressed. He thought he'd lose me but both bikes were pretty well matched on the Autobahn.
In the twisties I imagine he'd pull ahead.
I also never saw that 80Mph with the bags on bullcrap.
That's just so the lawyers can disclaim responsibility.
I never noticed that 80 mph crap either.
-
Ok lets be honest... Nobody noticed the 80 mph bag thingy because lets face it, everyone ignores the warnings ;)
-
What is this Operator's manual thingy?
-
What is this Operator's manual thingy?
That is the book that your salesman told you to read as you reved your bike up right after you signed all those papers the day you picked up the greatest bike in the world.
-
Hey I read that!
You must be an anomaly, aberration, er exception to the rule. Only Neutron Silver bike owners can read.
-
When I read the warning it says passenger or cargo. I didn't see anything about the saddle bags. Am I wrong?
-
When I read the warning it says passenger or cargo. I didn't see anything about the saddle bags. Am I wrong?
That's what I saw too.
-
I remember reading somewhere that the side bags (can't speak to the Kawi top case) were designed to be used at any speed and in fact were a stabilizing mechanism. I find it difficult to believe that with a bike of this calibre that the side cases would have to be removed to travel over 80mph. In fact, that is totally ridiculous. I went through my 08 manual last night and only found that you shouldn't be carrying passengers or heavy loads above 80mph. If I were crazy enough to exceed 80mph with my wife on board, the self governor (slap to the helmet), would kick in immediately. On my trip last week out to Ohio last week I was regularly exceeding that speed on the interstates and it felt solid as a rock.
-
I've only hit 110 or so on the bike with the bags off and it didn't seem any different than with the bags on at that speed. The bike felt just as stable as with them on. Maybe another 40 mph would make a difference. I'll have to try it out sometime.
-
I had posted previously regarding this very topic but realize it was on the site that mysteriously crashed, so here goes. I have an 08 in the fastest color. Mods are, full 2008 ZX14 exhaust with collector cats removed, K&N filter, PCIII USB with Dynojet tune, flies removed. I have the Kawasaki larger windshield and I'm running PR2's. Fully clothed I weigh in at an impressive 262lbs ;).
Prior to mods best I got top speed was 156 with bags on, verified by Garmin zumo 550, which itself has been compared to radar readings from the po po. I had the bags on and forget about 6th gear had to run through 5th, she actually slowed down in 6th. She had a little more to go, maybe a mile per hour or two but started to run out of room.
Since the mods she's seen 164, again verified by the Garmin and with the bags on. She still had another mile per hour or two but I was satisfied. She was very stable each time. I will do a bagless run to see the difference.
-
I'm going to wait until it snows to read my owners manual. Its fun to discover the features and benefits of the bike firsthand. My 08 felt really good with loaded bags and a passenger at above quite a bit above 80. Maybe thats due to the silver color?
-
Now you have done it dw4402! Since you have proof of going 164mph, someone here is going top that... >:(
-
Dont' worry Irule, I'm gonna top it myself! ;)
-
Black connie owners are about a 1/2 step above Harley owners.....
Neutron is classy...black is to Neutron like cigars are to a pipe.
:stirpot:
;D
-
I think the saying for us is, Once you go Black, no one will take you back. Have to throw my 2 pennies in. I had my Silver '08 between 165-170 with a little more to go. I had the bags full heading to Fl on south 75 in Ga. I have the Area-P slip-on, flies removed, PC III and in sixth gear. I am looking to get a little more now that I removed the cats. I have a JC Whitless trunk but only had it a little over 100 with that on but, it does feel stable with everything on at that speed.
-
I remember reading somewhere that the side bags (can't speak to the Kawi top case) were designed to be used at any speed and in fact were a stabilizing mechanism. I find it difficult to believe that with a bike of this calibre that the side cases would have to be removed to travel over 80mph. In fact, that is totally ridiculous. I went through my 08 manual last night and only found that you shouldn't be carrying passengers or heavy loads above 80mph. If I were crazy enough to exceed 80mph with my wife on board, the self governor (slap to the helmet), would kick in immediately. On my trip last week out to Ohio last week I was regularly exceeding that speed on the interstates and it felt solid as a rock.
You are right, bike was designed with the bags for high speed, I have done several runs with no bags at high speed and bike is less stable, guaranteed...
Also to confirm an earlier poster, I did a 140mph run with my wife behind with my new Michelin PR3 and it does not move, the stability is incredible with these tires. I have pushed the bike to 150mph GPS, but it was not full throttle I had a bit left... I ll head to Germany soon to push it all the way then report about it.
-
So 130 with a passenger and bags was a bad thing?
It's nice to know I am not alone. :P
-
Today, 140, 4th gear........ and I liked it ;D ;D ;D
I will be 57 on the 29th of this month, sometimes I think there's something wrong with me 8)
-
Per my GPS, 133, but it was still pulling pretty hard when I saw a white car coming in the distance. Better safe than sorry!
What is the top speed on the C14? I seem to remember reading that it was around 155 mph.
-
This summer, on my 'Guhl flashed' 2012, shifted out of 4th gear at 155, continued accelerating, but stopped watching the speedo. Ill be 62 in 4 months. Nothing wrong with you, Rocket.
-
166 mph according to my gps. Bone stock except for the windshield, a Givi which is slightly larger than the OEM. There was a bit more left, but the progress becomes embarrasingly slow above 160...
-
When I first changed to PR2's with a 50 series rear tire and put on the CS-One, I finally had the confidence to let 'er rip to 170 indicated on GPS in 5th gear outside of Hemet, Ca.. A little disconcerting was the Gen II windshield when it was furiously flapping around. After a return run in the opposite direction, I couldn't muster over 165, so there must have been a wind factor also. This year with a 55 series rear tire outside of Searchlight, Nevada, the bike wouldn't pull past 165 in 5th, so I imagine this is pretty much the limits. It gets to 140 in 4th very quickly though, and this engine sings a beautiful opera at 10 grand.
-
Racer Boy.
Smart move, on coming traffic is no fun
Old n Rusty
thumbs up to you, do think I figured out what is wrong with me , thay is too many Isle of Man tubes on my 60 inch screen with surround sound...where's the popcorn. lol
Martin_14
mine is bone stock also but I had the rear trunk off. i tell the guys the same thing I used to tell them when I would blow them off with my Triumph Rocket 3, not bad for an old bagger huh?
Connie 14boy
I think you have the same bike as I do 2012 candy red I also been running the PR 2's, my is still bone stocks ready for some duels with a zx14 header and you are right still pulling strong at 140 and oh my what a song song she sings
-
bone stock per the speedo 160ish, not sure how far off the factory speedo is. Honestly I think for me that's fast enough as there really isn't anywhere around that is closed course ....im only 46 but still start having all those thoughts about having an accident at those speeds.
-
Today, 140, 4th gear........ and I liked it ;D ;D ;D
I will be 57 on the 29th of this month, sometimes I think there's something wrong with me 8)
Nothing wrong with you that isn't wrong with the rest of us. Why else would we have a bike with 150+ HP? And why grow up anyway? I'm almost 60 and don't intend to start growing up now.
-
Mine was on a closed course, so I was perfectly legal. Oddly enough, here in Utah, they have been kind enough to put in pavement right through the Bonneville Salt Flats. Two lanes eastbound, two west.
Well, we all were, right?
Anyway, 6th was good for near 140, or 7000rpm. 5th was right about the 150 area. Its higher altitude, here, so not as much power. The bike felt so good it was never a scary or out of control situation. I picked up a bit of weave at 130 plus, so I took out a few turns of rear preload. No problem after.
-
Racer Boy.
Smart move, on coming traffic is no fun
Old n Rusty
thumbs up to you, do think I figured out what is wrong with me , thay is too many Isle of Man tubes on my 60 inch screen with surround sound...where's the popcorn. lol
Martin_14
mine is bone stock also but I had the rear trunk off. i tell the guys the same thing I used to tell them when I would blow them off with my Triumph Rocket 3, not bad for an old bagger huh?
Connie 14boy
I think you have the same bike as I do 2012 candy red I also been running the PR 2's, my is still bone stocks ready for some duels with a zx14 header and you are right still pulling strong at 140 and oh my what a song song she sings
I should have added that I have an '09 in the fastest color(black), and travel mostly w/o bags- with bags on it will still do over 150 in 5th gear. I also understand the newer C-14's are speed limited.
-
...I also understand the newer C-14's are speed limited.
Yup...154mph I think...I can't remember now, but it's in that ball park. I have the limiter in my 2010 disabled (well, in my spare non-stock ECU).
Rem
-
I've had her up to 90 a couple of times...had a pretty scary get off back in 2011, and I don't have the nerve I once had. I'm 63 now, and darn lucky to still be here. Here's hoping we all make it safely to whatever age we aspire to. Y'all be careful now!
:chugbeer:
-
Hi
Indicated 138 in 5th, the stock speedo is calibrated, not bad for a trike :D
Reflashed ECU, custom exhaust, 3.62 : 1 diff at the moment.
Richard
-
130 mph, two up, bags at 20# each,shad 50 top box, guhl reflash, angel GT 55 rear in fifth gear. Also I am 72 and wife is 68, been a passenger for over 40 years, 50th anniversary next year.
-
135 in 6th going around a BMW rider, once. Plenty left for a much higher speed, but didn't trust possible traffic, to continue. These bikes are deceptively fast, even with side and top luggage installed and a tall windshield, too. I'm 64.
-
I think the 08/09 models top out at 170 mph indicated...not sure what that is in actual speed;).
-
I've read/heard the same thing, around 170. Too fast for me, but not for many, I imagine. Been over 160 in a late 60's Vette, but it had over 500HP. Was a real thrill, way back then.
-
120 mph for right now and that was going up a mountain road.what was scary it was so stable at that speed.
-
With side bags and 42litre trunk stuffed, I took my '08 up to 164 indicated, w/ 158 indicated on the gps, and ran out of safe road before topping out (leo patrolled road in Va) was still pulling nicely around 8k in 5th, I'm sure it could have hit 10k, shifting int 6th it wouldn't pull hard, but still had legs left.
Same setup with bags on, and with momma, on an uphill at the Canaan Valley rally, we pulled 148 uphill pasing a truck / horse trailer combo, and it had plenty of steam left before the kidney punches from momma took effect....ouch. 8)
Stone stock bike except I trimmed the muffler down 6" .
About a month and a half ago, hit 170 on a rural Ohio road, I could see for about 3 miles, and there was no traffic... I saw headlights in the rearview about a mile behind me, mehhhh. I backed it down, and about a mile or so later pulled off to take a picture for an ADV Tag o Rama shot, and while fiddling with my camera for the shot, a car slowed up coming in from behind.... yep, it was a State Trooper.... he rolled by about 25mph giving me the "stink eye", and then he began laughing and shaking his index finger at me in a "don't ever do that again on my road" manner...
-
bone stock per the speedo 160ish, not sure how far off the factory speedo is. Honestly I think for me that's fast enough as there really isn't anywhere around that is closed course ....im only 46 but still start having all those thoughts about having an accident at those speeds.
I am the same age as you, and I have those thoughts at EVERY speed and have for many years. I am not sure if my Guhl ECU reflash removed the speed limiter or not... since I have no intention of ever going that fast I don't really care. I think I went 110 once on it. One thing is for sure, I can just fly at 80MPH and hardly even notice it on this bike it is so smooth. Constantly creeping up there in speed and having to force it down (ticket city around here).
-
130 mph, two up, bags at 20# each,shad 50 top box, guhl reflash, angel GT 55 rear in fifth gear. Also I am 72 and wife is 68, been a passenger for over 40 years, 50th anniversary next year.
Nice. You might have to get the uber-kewl award :)
-
155 indicated with windscreen full up with Laminar lip, bags overstuffed, tailbag and the Wife on the back in 5th gear. Thought I saw a black dog in the road and slowed down. Turns out it was a cow. ???
That's Nebraska for ya'. Windy as all get out too.
-
Today, 140, 4th gear........ and I liked it ;D ;D ;D
I will be 57 on the 29th of this month, sometimes I think there's something wrong with me 8)
I'm 4 yrs younger, but still banging on the door of the grey power club. Had mine up to 250kph or 155mph and stayed there for a while, absorbing the whole experience. As a die-hard cruiser guy, it was tough choice to buy my first "non-traditional" motorcycle, an 08 concours. There's nothing quite as much fun as passing a younger 40ish guy on his batwing fairing geezer glide, and regardless of how decked out he is in his rebel attire, or how bad-ass he thinks he is, there's not much the kid can do.
Yup, I think there's something wrong with you, me and the lot of us. mat
-
I'm 4 yrs younger, but still banging on the door of the grey power club. Had mine up to 250kph or 155mph and stayed there for a while, absorbing the whole experience. As a die-hard cruiser guy, it was tough choice to buy my first "non-traditional" motorcycle, an 08 concours. There's nothing quite as much fun as passing a younger 40ish guy on his batwing fairing geezer glide, and regardless of how decked out he is in his rebel attire, or how bad-ass he thinks he is, there's not much the kid can do.
Yup, I think there's something wrong with you, me and the lot of us. mat
Indeed. I am always amused at how many people on those ultra-low-tech cruisers just think they are "all that".... they just have NO IDEA what it is like to ride a modern sport-ish bike. It is a lot like these kids in riced-out Civics revving at *ANY* motorcycle, thinking they have any chance, whatsoever, if the bike cared to go. Buying and driving a large displacement sport-ish bike will often totally ruin all notions about where "fast cars" fit in the hierarchy of speed (unless you are talking high 6+ figure exotic stuff, of course... and even then....)
-
Indeed. I am always amused at how many people on those ultra-low-tech cruisers just think they are "all that".... they just have NO IDEA what it is like to ride a modern sport-ish bike. It is a lot like these kids in riced-out Civics revving at *ANY* motorcycle, thinking they have any chance, whatsoever, if the bike cared to go. Buying and driving a large displacement sport-ish bike will often totally ruin all notions about where "fast cars" fit in the hierarchy of speed (unless you are talking high 6+ figure exotic stuff, of course... and even then....)
+1 In my younger days I used to lust after fast cars but now I know I will never even get close to a car that could compete with my C14. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind a new Z-06 C7 Corvette but it no longer holds the magic for me like it might have 20 years ago.
-
This past summer I was rolling home on the 14, in my Stich of course, in the express lanes, when I watched headilight approaching from behind at highspeed.. squid bike, with rider in tanktop, shorts, and sandles.... he shut off the throttle alongside me and pegged it bouncing off the rev limiter trying to get the front wheel up to show me what he had..... I kicked it down 3 gears and took it to 150 for about 2 miles, and he had a hard time even catching up untill I dropped to 80 mph, then he pulled up again, looked over and decided he could outrun me.... I let him go, tanktop flapping in the wind, half nekid as he was...... it was tooo late... he'd already been "bagged" by the old man on a bag bike. 8)
When I got off the freeway, about 5 miles down the road, he was receiving a "performance award".... I knew he was gonna get one, old age caries wisdom.
-
It's one of the things I like about the C14, it's a bit of a sleeper.
-
90 for 5 hours with only stops to fuel. Never got off the bike.
-
90 for 5 hours with only stops to fuel. Never got off the bike.
90 on a 14 is like 60 on my Dyna, and still gets decent MPG, too. The 14 is so smooth at any speed from 40 to three times that.
-
When I got off the freeway, about 5 miles down the road, he was receiving a "performance award".... I knew he was gonna get one, old age caries wisdom.
:)
It's one of the things I like about the C14, it's a bit of a sleeper.
Yep. Although it still looks quite impressive, which is nice.
90 on a 14 is like 60 on my Dyna, and still gets decent MPG, too. The 14 is so smooth at any speed from 40 to three times that.
Yep yep!
-
130 mph, two up, bags at 20# each,shad 50 top box, guhl reflash, angel GT 55 rear in fifth gear. Also I am 72 and wife is 68, been a passenger for over 40 years, 50th anniversary next year.
Congrats on those numbers! And I'm not talking about the 130mph either. :)
-
Congrats on those numbers! And I'm not talking about the 130mph either. :)
Yes! Having read thru this thread THOSE are the numbers that impress me.
-
90 on a 14 is like 60 on my Dyna, and still gets decent MPG, too. The 14 is so smooth at any speed from 40 to three times that.
I agree. Could not do that for 5 hours on any of my other bikes. I ride many miles for work. Can not risk losing my license, and have not made it to a track.
-
Fffffff mehhhhh,,, I regularly do 2x the road limits.... just to make sure my balls are working.
I don't go for many miles, as that is just beggin for an award.. but I do make it hapen periodically..good for the soul.
-
Fffffff mehhhhh,,, I regularly do 2x the road limits.... just to make sure my balls are working.
I don't go for many miles, as that is just beggin for an award.. but I do make it happen periodically..good for the soul.
I agree with what it does for the soul. Riding is one of the few things I do where I don't feel my age. Feel 40-45 years younger.
-
Well, if you blow a bit into the throttle bodies, there is more speed left in the C-14 than I would have thought. Not my bike or ride but an excellent video of a <mostly> stock C-14 (the bike was turbocharged certainly, I am speaking about suspension, bodywork, etc.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5APyfGd0Kk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5APyfGd0Kk)
Brian
-
Doesn't look like it's going that fast, but I guess it is. The white stripes are almost a solid line.
-
The best part is when the roadsides turn into a blurred tunnel... and time begins to slow dramitcally...its like a slomo movie....
-
top speed around 270km/h...(i would push her to the limit soon!!! :o)...
everyday speed around 160-200 km/h........ ;)
-
I've only gone 130 on mine. Would push it further but I'm more afraid of LEO's then I am of death and dismemberment.
-
Hey folks, 2 questions:
These bikes do NOT seem to have a speed limiter at all, no? If they were, it'd be less than its acutal top speed of over 160mph. And I bet not having the side cases makes a big difference, no? I'll buy the cooperdawg sport screen, AreaP slip-on, and ride without bags most of the time, so that should give me maximum top-sped... although I live at 4K of altitude, so maybe 165 indicated if I'm lucky ;).
Out of curiosity, I'm in the process of buying a new leftover '13, and was wondering how you all upshift at WOT on these bikes: use the clutch normally? No clutch and momentarily close the throttle? Just feather the clutch? I've heard a couple on youtube, and I could swear they had a quickshifter (maybe aftermarket). Or clutchless upshifts. Thanks.
-
Hey folks, 2 questions:
These bikes do NOT seem to have a speed limiter at all, no? If they were, it'd be less than its acutal top speed of over 160mph. And I bet not having the side cases makes a big difference, no? I'll buy the cooperdawg sport screen, AreaP slip-on, and ride without bags most of the time, so that should give me maximum top-sped... although I live at 4K of altitude, so maybe 165 indicated if I'm lucky ;).
Out of curiosity, I'm in the process of buying a new leftover '13, and was wondering how you all upshift at WOT on these bikes: use the clutch normally? No clutch and momentarily close the throttle? Just feather the clutch? I've heard a couple on youtube, and I could swear they had a quickshifter (maybe aftermarket). Or clutchless upshifts. Thanks.
Gen 2 C14s (2010 and on) are electronically speed limited to 154. The limiter can be removed though.
Yep, clutchless upshifts. :)
-
Gen 2 C14s (2010 and on) are electronically speed limited to 154. The limiter can be removed though.
Yep, clutchless upshifts. :)
www.guhlmotors.com (http://www.guhlmotors.com)
-
Gen 2 C14s (2010 and on) are electronically speed limited to 154. The limiter can be removed though. Yep, clutchless upshifts. :)
Thanks Conrad. So all people here reported higher than 154 have 'delimited' their bikes? And is it 154 real or indicated? Real would be like 165 or so indicated.
And thank you for the info on clutchless upshifts. So you just close the throttle a little while upshifting, right? Or does this bike like a more deliberate throttle chopping, to avoid crunching the gears? Thx.
-
Thanks Conrad. So all people here reported higher than 154 have 'delimited' their bikes? And is it 154 real or indicated? Real would be like 165 or so indicated.
And thank you for the info on clutchless upshifts. So you just close the throttle a little while upshifting, right? Or does this bike like a more deliberate throttle chopping, to avoid crunching the gears? Thx.
If those folks have a Gen 2 bikes and are reporting speeds above 154, then yes, they've been delimited. Us lucky people with Gen 1 bikes don't have to bother with such nonsense. :)
I believe it's 154 indicated. I can't say for sure since I have a superior Gen 1 C14.
As for the clutchless shifts. Preload the shifter a tad, close the throttle a bit, and shift.
-
Conrad is absolutely correct here: we Gen. 1 owners are not saddled by the constant and nagging reality that must face all Gen. 2 owners: 'I simply cannot go faster than 154 MPH today because of the damned speed limiter!'. It must weigh on them constantly. Every single day they must wonder.... what will happen to me or my loved ones if there is some kind of emergency and I have to get somewhere really, really fast? I may not make it in time and all because of some no- goodnik back at the Kawasaki mother ship who felt it necessary to limit me with artificial means.
So yes, the next time anyone sees a C-14 going down a road, perhaps out in front of your house, at, say, 180 MPH, you can be sure that it is either a Gen. 1 or a Gen. 2 that has successfully undergone the vehicle speed limiter removal.
Brian
If those folks have a Gen 2 bikes and are reporting speeds above 154, then yes, they've been delimited. Us lucky people with Gen 1 bikes don't have to bother with such nonsense. :)
I believe it's 154 indicated. I can't say for sure since I have a superior Gen 1 C14.
As for the clutchless shifts. Preload the shifter a tad, close the throttle a bit, and shift.
-
As for the clutchless shifts. Preload the shifter a tad, close the throttle a bit, and shift.
Yep- smooth as butta!
-
As for the clutchless shifts. Preload the shifter a tad, close the throttle a bit, and shift.
Great tip; much appreciated 8). So can you delimit the Gen-2 Connies without tampering with the ECU? I wouldn't do that at least under warranty. it'd be nice to see what she can do, but it's not going to be much more than 154 anyway, especially at my 4K' of altitude. Although without side cases, my light weight, and the less restrictive sport screen, she could reach 165 indicated. Oh, and the black color must help too ;D.
-
Great tip; much appreciated 8). So can you delimit the Gen-2 Connies without tampering with the ECU? I wouldn't do that at least under warranty. it'd be nice to see what she can do, but it's not going to be much more than 154 anyway, especially at my 4K' of altitude. Although without side cases, my light weight, and the less restrictive sport screen, she could reach 165 indicated. Oh, and the black color must help too ;D.
You have to reflash the ecu to remove the limiter. The main reason for 'tampering' is to open the secondary throttle plates sooner which will increase low end power. Warranty won't be endangered unless it can be proven that modifications caused a problem. I have never heard of this happening. And if it's black and a Gen 2 you'll need all the help you can get.
-
You have to reflash the ecu to remove the limiter. The main reason for 'tampering' is to open the secondary throttle plates sooner which will increase low end power. Warranty won't be endangered unless it can be proven that modifications caused a problem. I have never heard of this happening. And if it's black and a Gen 2 you'll need all the help you can get.
Yep, what Gary said. No way to remove the speed limiter without a ECU reflash. I guess you had better look into this since you have the slower generation and a black bike to boot! Silverdammit superiority has already been established. :thumbs:
-
Anyone know what the top speed would be with a Guhls flash with top speed limiter removed and a CS1 slip on?
-
My stock 1400 will go faster than i will ever take it, but I don't do track days. What track are you going to run at?
-
Anyone know what the top speed would be with a Guhls flash with top speed limiter removed and a CS1 slip on?
Welcome!
Just a muffler change isn't likely to make much difference (if any). As you can see from [now] previous postings, there are a wide variety of answers, probably depending on many factors such as altitude (above sea level), temperature, windscreen selected, windscreen position, body position, bags on/off, wind direction, helmet type, etc. At very high speeds, aerodynamics will play a huge role.
There might be some small aerodynamic differences between gen1 and gen2 body designs too (fairings are different & mirrors moved)... likely to be minor, though. I haven't seen drag numbers on either so who knows.
-
I have more than a muffler change. I had the ECU flashed and speed limiter removed by Guhls. Any ideas on the the top speed? I'm sure it's more than 154? Not that I would go that fast on the street, just looking to see if anyone has done it on a track.
-
not sure if the track is the place to max out a vehicle, unless it has a loooon straight, like 2 miles. It takes a while to make progress from 160 on, but she'll get to 166 on the gps (172 on the speedo), bags on, Givi windshield. No wobble or complains of any sort, just 11 mpg :o
It was in a new bit of Autobahn with 3 lanes and many miles straight (and empty that morning). Afterwards, when I went back to 70 (which felt like standing) to let my adrenaline fade, she threw out a ton of heat for a few minutes.
I only did it a couple of times, it really doesn't feel necessary to move at those speeds where you're just going ballistic with no chance whatsoever should something come your path.
-
I have more than a muffler change. I had the ECU flashed and speed limiter removed by Guhls.
Like the muffler, the reflash is also not likely to make any difference in top speed ability except that it removes the top speed limiter. Generally, the speeds you see posted in the thread should apply.
-
Took my Gen I to 135 indicated once, just to mess with an RT rider. I realize what Martin said about no chance at such speeds is true, so the only time, well almost, that I take it to 100 plus now, is when passing on the highway. Damn thing does accelerate from 60 to 100+ MPH really fast in 6th, and even quicker, dropped down a gear. Makes passing much quicker and safer than on my RT and especially the Dyna.
Top speed numbers are normally used for two purposes, bragging rights among other riders, and impressing non riders; "Hey, my touring bike will go over 160.", all the while patting oneself on the back. We've all done it, and it is fun to see the expressions of info recipients. ;D
-
Just for the information, (with all the numbers) aren't the limiters (pre reflash) set as follows?
Gen I C14 300 kph = 186.4114 mph
Gen II C14 250 kph = 155.3428 mph
I had the reflash done by Guhl but I requested that the limit be unchanged. If I ever went that fast there was
obviously a problem (mental) and I'd need all the help I could get, and if someone stole my bike I wouldn't want them
going over 70 let alone over 155.3428 mph.
-
More a less bragging rights. I personally think that the Guhls flash really woke the bike up. I bet 170 isn't out the question with a 165 lbs rider no bags, windscreen down.
-
More a less bragging rights. I personally think that the Guhls flash really woke the bike up. I bet 170 isn't out the question with a 165 lbs rider no bags, windscreen down.
You may test that hypothesis for us :) Just make sure to use GPS to get your speed!
-
You may test that hypothesis for us :) Just make sure to use GPS to get your speed!
We'll want cellphone pics of the speedo too. 8)
-
We'll want cellphone pics of the speedo too. 8)
You expect a rider doing 170 to take out his cell phone and focus on the speedo? OOOOOOKAAAAAAYYYYY. . . ;D
-
I'd accept a GoPro video in lieu of a cell phone pic. With commentary, of course. :)
-
You expect a rider doing 170 to take out his cell phone and focus on the speedo? OOOOOOKAAAAAAYYYYY. . . ;D
LOL.... that's exactly what I'd expect of someone who would do 170 on a public highway.
-
LOL.... that's exactly what I'd expect of someone who would do 170 on a public highway.
How about a gopro video of the gps or speedo? Lots of those on youtube.
This rider gets to around 270 KPH in 5th which is 168 MPH indicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qgfaU8UT2M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qgfaU8UT2M)
-
He needs to learn to shift before the rev limiter lol...
-
He needs to learn to shift before the rev limiter lol...
Saw him pass red line, but never heard a rev limiter kick in and kill the engine, just smooth up shifts.. Unless I'm missing something. tp
-
I swear it sounds like it kicking in right before he shifts, can't tell too great with the video. Rev limiter does kick in right about 10.5k which is what he hits too.
-
He may be preloading the shifter and using the rev limiter as a shift point.
-
I swear it sounds like it kicking in right before he shifts, can't tell too great with the video. Rev limiter does kick in right about 10.5k which is what he hits too.
Think it's possible that he is using the rev limiter as a quick shifter? Is he that good, at that level of split second shifting, exactly when the limiter kicks the ignition current? That would be Rossiesque, or possibly Matt Hines level of expertise.
Deziner, we posted the same thing at the same time....tp
-
Think it's possible that he is using the rev limiter as a quick shifter? Is he that good, at that level of split second shifting, exactly when the limiter kicks the ignition current? That would be Rossiesque, or possibly Matt Hines level of expertise.
Deziner, we posted the same thing at the same time....tp
Great minds....
Say what you want, I will NOT be doing that on my bike any time soon.... There are far too many variables that can go wrong on a public road at those speeds. Something as small as an errant bird or a piece of debris falling off of a passing vehicle would be ugly.
-
Agreed. I normally shift between 3 and 3.5K. Still ahead of traffic from a light, but LEO's pay me no attention, as the engine is making no high RPM wail, like ya normally hear from 600cc riders....tp
-
Very well could be I guess. Otherwise just losing power each time it kicks on. Either way, I'm with you guys, I bought a touring bike for a reason, and that wasn't to get pulled over or die. If I wanted an adrenaline fix, I'd start drag racing the other bike again.
-
I swear it sounds like it kicking in right before he shifts, can't tell too great with the video. Rev limiter does kick in right about 10.5k which is what he hits too.
I agree, I can hear it kick in each time before the shift, and he shifts immediately each time. Also hitting top speed in 5th gear, which is not surprising at all (since 6th is so low on the Concours.... the way it SHOULD be).
-
If I wanted an adrenaline fix, I'd start drag racing the other bike again.
I don't know about you, but I can get plenty of adrenaline fix on the Concours. Of course, that is not my main objective.
-
Oh, I agree, it's a fun bike. I got mine because It's a great touring bike, but still has some nads to it, arguably more than any other 'sport-touring' bike will have.
-
I don't know about you, but I can get plenty of adrenaline fix on the Concours. Of course, that is not my main objective.
I wasn't ready to give up sport bikes just yet but I'm just getting too old to ride one. The C14 is a nice blend of comfort and zoom :)
-
We'll all end up on Goldwing Trikes one day, just trying to put it off :o
-
:yikes:
-
We'll all end up on Goldwing Trikes one day, just trying to put it off :o
I hope I never get old enough to end up on a double-butt Gold Wing trike..
-
We'll all end up on Goldwing Trikes one day, just trying to put it off :o
Bite your tongue! If I go THAT route, it will be a V8 trike.
-
We saw a Can Am Spyder yesterday and I said I'd like to test ride those. Wifie says, "You said those were for old people" I said "no that's a Gold Wing Trike."
What is it about the two wheels being on the front that says cool, but the two wheels on the back being uncool?
-
Depending on your current age, these may answer that question...
(http://www.ironthread.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/03bigwheel1-300x168.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y3PRNR75L.jpg)
Compare to the new F3. . .
(http://gearmoose.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2015-can-am-spyder-f3.jpg)
FWIW, I had the red and white trike, well my baby sister did. I flipped it over and inverted the seat and forks and wheel and had a Big Wheel at least a decade or two before the plastic models were first made. Yes it did **** off my sister and folks, but what's a kid in the 50's suppose to do for a cool ride. . .
-
Mr Pepsi, it's either the F3 or one of these. . .
(http://www.tricycle-for-adults.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/triamo1.jpg)
or one of these for you both. ;D 8)
(http://i1.wp.com/www.designbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dual-seat-adult-tricycle_btttf_58.jpg?w=660)
-
Or this
-
Or this
COOL. And if one wants to stay with the motorcycle motif, here's a 24"er...
(http://images.motorcycle-usa.com/PhotoGallerys/ss-trike-1.jpg)
And to get back on track, I agree that my 14 will travel faster than I will ever need or want to take it. It's just knowing that it is there , is what makes it nice to know... tp
Oh, just saw this and to me it is the epitome of ridiculous...
(http://www.kewlmetalstore.com/images/600-8.jpg)
-
What is it about the two wheels being on the front that says cool, but the two wheels on the back being uncool?
The Can Ams can corner hard, but I would be very leary of trying to corner a trike.
-
The Can Ams can corner hard, but I would be very leary of trying to corner a trike.
You can steer a trike with your right wrist, if you have enough engine. ;D
-
BTW, pictures of GPS top speed doesn't always mean truth. Behold, my GPS screen showing my top speed:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/SVonhof/moto/Speedo_zpsdgc3bops.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SVonhof/media/moto/Speedo_zpsdgc3bops.jpg.html)
I have NEVER gone that fast and don't plan to. I don't know how that got like that as I don't dare do speeds like that.
-
Nice run, I have yet to take the Connie for a hyper run
I had my share of hyper runs with my ZX12 and ZX14R. I bought
the Connie to slow down. . .oh well
Do you have PC or Guhl with your 2 brothers?
-
Few comments. First, no way in hell a C14 can do 186 mph, like somebody suggested of a 1st gen. That's superbike territory, meaning 200 HP on a 400-lb package. And that leads me to the fact the 'limited' C14 top speed of 160+ indicated mph, is about as high as it gets. For a handful of more mph at best (depending on altitude), it's not worth giving up warranty, plus the expense of tune, etc IMO. But to each his own.
As far as the video of the 167 mph top speed, that guy had to have a quick shifter installed. He upshifter at slightly different rpm, and the upshifts were immediate, and you could hear without closing the throttle. But I'm more intrigued about the DOWNSHIFT. They were automatic-quick, and as far as I know, only BMW added clutchless downshifts in 2014... and you can only make them with the throttle CLOSED. Really curious if that guy has an aftermarket quick-shifter. When I upshift my bike without the clutch, the delay when closing the throttle is obvious. If there wasn't any quick-shifter, then my hats off to that guy ;D.
-
Weight has nothing to do with top speed.
Some people like to think different, but they're wrong. 8)
-
Weight has nothing to do with top speed.
Some people like to think different, but they're wrong. 8)
Jimmy, rider weight, bike weight, power to weight ratio, or a combo?
-
Weight will have no effect on top speed, only how quickly one gets there. Sort of. A heavier vehicle may actually have a higher terminal speed if the weight is used to counteract lift. On land based vehicles, lift at terminal speed is generally bad. ;)
-
On land based vehicles, lift at terminal speed is generally bad. ;)
But aircraft love it. What I've always wondered is how road racing bikes of 5-6 decades ago could go 135 MPH, weighing 350 lbs and have 50HP? Sure wasn't aerodynamics, nor excessive HP.
I have read that if getting a specific bike to a top end of150 MPH required 150 HP, to gain an additional 10 MPH, required an additional 70-80 HP to get there, not just another 10... Power to weight ratio, or magic? ;D ;D
-
It's all about wind resistance. Nothing about weight.
-
It's all about wind resistance. Nothing about weight.
Yep. Like I said earlier, at high speeds it is all about raw power vs. aerodynamics. Weight really doesn't matter all that much for top speed, it matters for acceleration (although high-speed weight certainly matters when you try to slow down :) )
-
I made the weight reference since a lighter vehicle typically is going to have less mass and less frontal area (therefore, less aerodynamic drag). With everything else equal, a heavier vehicle will take longer to reach top speed (less acceleration), but top speed would be the same indeed.
Having said that, production motorcycles are aerodynamic bricks (with riders in place), and need a lot higher weight/power ratio to reach the same top speed as a car.
-
It's claimed that to double the speed one needs to cube the hp. I'll let the mathematicians figure the actual numbers. Sport Rider has an interesting article about the wind tunnel testing they performed on a Hyabusa and a ZX12
-
It's the Inverse Square Law and it's everywhere ::)
-
If it's an inverse Square Law, why is the hp cubed? ???
I'm only asking because I honestly don't know.
-
please show example, using a terminal velocity of 100MPH with 50HP required. At 200MPH what would the required HP? Cubed is HP/3 right?
-
I believe it was a error in the article. I think is should be to square the speed the power needs to be cubed. Also, would the coefficient of drag be a factor? We have a lot of folks on this forum that are WAY more educated than I will EVER be. I'm easily confused...
-
If I knew how to post a link to that page from my mobile device, I would.
-
I believe it was a error in the article. I think is should be to square the speed the power needs to be cubed. Also, would the coefficient of drag be a factor? We have a lot of folks on this forum that are WAY more educated than I will EVER be. I'm easily confused...
That would mean that 100MPH squared is 10,000MPH. the HP cubed would be 50X50X50=125,000HP We went from a 61 Triumph 650 to a Saturn Rocket. Any thing in between like 100 to 200 MPH? I'm exhausted after this day, but still curious as to this discussion. Is my math totally off kilter on this? Been 50 years since school. Someone help, before I fall asleep.... tp
found this formula below... for volume, if another formula is needed, please post. . .
Volume Formulas
Note: "ab" means "a" multiplied by "b". "a2" means "a squared", which is the same as "a" times "a". "b3" means "b cubed", which is the same as "b" times "b" times "b".
Be careful!! Units count. Use the same units for all measurements.
-
It would be 200 hp. To go 1/2 as fast would require 12.5 HP.
-
It would be 200 hp. To go 1/2 as fast would require 12.5 HP.
Formula please. Don't doubt you, just trying to understand, like others.
-
We need a mechanical engineer - which I'm not. I was, however, raised by one and he taught me this at a very young age. I'm having trouble finding a formula for it that doesn't relate to light, gravitational or electrical forces. It's not so much The inverse square law as an inverse square relationship
-
We need a mechanical engineer - which I'm not. I was, however, raised by one and he taught me this at a very young age. I'm having trouble finding a formula for it that doesn't relate to light, gravitational or electrical forces. It's not so much The inverse square law as an inverse square relationship
I understand. Perhaps another here will chime in with a answer. I just remember reading that beyond a certain point, an increase in speed required much more power than one expected. tp
-
For over an hour I have been trying to figure this crap out. All I've managed to do is confuse myself even further. I obviously am incapable of sorting this out A. In a short amount of time. B. While doing other things. and C. Without seriously brushing up on my math skills. :-\
-
For over an hour I have been trying to figure this crap out. All I've managed to do is confuse myself even further. I obviously am incapable of sorting this out A. In a short amount of time. B. While doing other things. and C. Without seriously brushing up on my math skills. :-\
Yep. I turned HGTV on and watched a couple buy a house in Mexico for $200,000. Used to be able to live like a king there with that kind of money, but guess not anymore. My house is nicer, but not on the pacific, though. ;D
-
Yep. I turned HGTV on and watched a couple buy a house in Mexico for $200,000. ;D
Then there's always that nagging question of ownership.
-
Then there's always that nagging question of ownership.
Citizenship, you mean?
-
Used to be you could only lease land in Mexico. That may have changed over the years
-
For over an hour I have been trying to figure this crap out. All I've managed to do is confuse myself even further. I obviously am incapable of sorting this out A. In a short amount of time. B. While doing other things. and C. Without seriously brushing up on my math skills. :-\
and I'm sitting here in Ohio as a non employed Sr. Mechanical Project engineer....
go figure... ::)
I'll sell y'all all the answers ya want.... make the checks payable to........ 8)
-
Check's in the mail ;D. What's the magic answer?
-
What's the magic answer?
To do it precisely, it's a lot more complicated than it sounds, but let's try to simplify things by excluding rolling resistance. What you're trying to overcome with more power is mainly air resistance. Now, air resistance is a factor of both frontal area and coefficient of drag, PLUS speed squared. And finally, power to overcome air drag is a factor of both frontal area and coefficient of drag (again), PLUS speed cubed. What does this translate to? Simple. To double your speed (x2), you'd need eight times the power (2x2x2). Similarly, for a 50% increase in speed (x1.5), you'd need 3.375 times the power (1.5x1.5x1.5). Hope this helps folks. And if you want formulas, look them up :P. And yes, I'm an engineer ;D... but with chemo and crap, am not very bright right now, so believe me at your own peril. Ha ha.
-
To do it precisely, it's a lot more complicated than it sounds, but let's try to simplify things by excluding rolling resistance. What you're trying to overcome with more power is mainly air resistance. Now, air resistance (force) is a factor of both frontal area and coefficient of drag, PLUS TIMES speed squared. And finally, power to overcome air drag is a factor of both frontal area and coefficient of drag (again), PLUS speed cubed.
That's because Power is Force times Speed.
What does this translate to? Simple. To double your speed (x2), you'd need eight times the power (2x2x2). Similarly, for a 50% increase in speed (x1.5), you'd need 3.375 times the power (1.5x1.5x1.5). Hope this helps folks. And if you want formulas, look them up :P. And yes, I'm an engineer ;D... but with chemo and crap, am not very bright right now, so believe me at your own peril. Ha ha.
I edited it a little.
But as elp correctly explained, he is simplifying by excluding relling resistance (weight). However, weight does have an influence. In cars, which weigh around 3000 lbs, a 100 lbs increase in weight can increase your fuel consumption by about 2%. More in city driving, less on the highway, but some nevertheless. Therefore, increasing rolling resistance decreases top speed. A bit.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. Interesting stuff
-
I edited it a little.
But as elp correctly explained, he is simplifying by excluding rolling resistance (weight). However, weight does have an influence. In cars, which weigh around 3000 lbs, a 100 lbs increase in weight can increase your fuel consumption by about 2%. More in city driving, less on the highway, but some nevertheless. Therefore, increasing rolling resistance decreases top speed. A bit.
Thanks for the info. Like mentioned earlier, I had read that basic formula explained elsewhere before. Just couldn't remember it exactly.
On a personal note, I pray that the chemo works as intended, and you are back to great health for decades to come. tomp
-
I edited it a little.
Everything is 'times' in the formulas, but might not be obvious to some, so thanks for pointing that out (the 'plus' was just to add a third element... although there's a 4th element in the formula in the form of a constant). Just wanted to explain the basic relationship between power and speed in the simplest way. Rolling resistance on a motorcycle is relatively small compared to air resistance at high speeds, so it's okay to omit it. But on a much heavier and more aerodynamic car, with much larger contact patches, is not. Have a great day folks.
-
I see. I was using area/volumetric formulas, not applicable in the discussion of speed increases. I knew it didn't seem like apples and apples, and y'all confirmed it. Thanks, tomp
-
Everything is 'times' in the formulas, but might not be obvious to some, so thanks for pointing that out (the 'plus' was just to add a third element... although there's a 4th element in the formula in the form of a constant). Just wanted to explain the basic relationship between power and speed in the simplest way. Rolling resistance on a motorcycle is relatively small compared to air resistance at high speeds, so it's okay to omit it. But on a much heavier and more aerodynamic car, with much larger contact patches, is not. Have a great day folks.
actually, it was my English. After I read it I realised that you said that they were factors, and you didn't mean plus in a mathematical way, but like listing them out. But I thought it would help others anyway.
A question that for me remains open is how much the weight affects things like fuel consumption and top speed on a light vehicle like a motorcycle. I was discussing this with my gf, trying to make her understand that when she rides with me, she's increasing fuel consumption and she should pay for the extra fuel ;D
But seriously, that 2% increase every 100 lbs is good for a vehicle weighing 3000 lbs. What about a 700 lbs machine? I honestly don't know and haven't been able to find the answer, and I'm afraid the usual formulas, even the really accurate ones, don't take in account that putting a 145 lbs gf (she's thing, but 5 foot 9 inches tall) is 25% of the mass of a bike.
PS: when I read your chemo comment I froze. +1 on Tomp's wishes.
-
trying to make her understand that when she rides with me, she's increasing fuel consumption and she should pay for the extra fuel ;D
You're absolutely right. And that is explained much easier by Newton's 2nd law of physics: F = mass x acceleration. The greater the weight, it's going to take a proportional greater amount of force (engine power in this case) to move your bike with the same acceleration (and once you reach WOT -Force the same-, it'd accelerate slower by that same proportion: A=Force/Mass)... with the obvious increase in fuel consumption. As for top speed, besides taking a lot longer due to the extra weight (slower acceleration), it'd be lower due to higher rolling resistance and extra aerodynamic drag. But most importantly, you might not have the balls to top out your bike with a passenger, since it greatly affects handling, with a lot less weight in the front (lift). Lots of factors at play, but those are the obvious ones. Hope that helps.
-
:o
-
Force is not the same thing as power (post above). "plus" means add..."Factor" means multiply.
P = F v is correct. F = M a is correct. Power is proportional to velocity cubed is correct.
When you are comparing the same bike and just changing the mass, all of the other things can be ignored. More in a minute.
Science 101: Words mean very specific things. Sloppy work is rewarded with sloppy results.
Aerodynamically, GF won't make a measurable difference. Rolling resistance at a steady speed, also no real difference. Seriously. Unless your wheel bearings are shot, an extra 145# will not matter enough to measure.
GF will make a proportional difference when accelerating. I put on a lot of miles, and quite a few with the GF. She is bigger than yours. And let's hope she doesn't read this. 5-10% reduction, or 2-4 MPG less has been my experience.
Me + Kawasaki + luggage + full tank = 900 pounds more or less. YOUR GF would add 1/6 of that.
So maybe I would expect 1/6 less fuel economy (6 or 7 MPG less), **but only during the time spent accelerating**.
You get about the same lower fuel economy when accelerating solo, it just doesn't take as long to get up to speed.
datsaxman
(a scientist at work)
-
Wow, I just happened to see a new post in this thread. Good stuff!
F = M a is not correct as it assumes mass is a constant, which it is not. That is Newtonian physics, which has been trumped by Relativity. But it is close enough for most purposes.... depending on your definition of sloppy, of course. (a student of physics trapped in reality)
(relax, I am just tweaking your nose a bit- in good humor) :-)
In practical terms of course you are correct regarding rolling resistance vs. air resistance, especially at higher speeds such as on the highway. And I find the C-14 is a pretty dirty bike, aerodynamically, and has a lot of drag at even modest speeds.
And my compliments for letting the world know what your GF weighs. :rotflmao:
Brian
Force is not the same thing as power (post above). "plus" means add..."Factor" means multiply.
P = F v is correct. F = M a is correct. Power is proportional to velocity cubed is correct.
When you are comparing the same bike and just changing the mass, all of the other things can be ignored. More in a minute.
Science 101: Words mean very specific things. Sloppy work is rewarded with sloppy results.
Aerodynamically, GF won't make a measurable difference. Rolling resistance at a steady speed, also no real difference. Seriously. Unless your wheel bearings are shot, an extra 145# will not matter enough to measure.
GF will make a proportional difference when accelerating. I put on a lot of miles, and quite a few with the GF. She is bigger than yours. And let's hope she doesn't read this. 5-10% reduction, or 2-4 MPG less has been my experience.
Me + Kawasaki + luggage + full tank = 900 pounds more or less. YOUR GF would add 1/6 of that.
So maybe I would expect 1/6 less fuel economy (6 or 7 MPG less), **but only during the time spent accelerating**.
You get about the same lower fuel economy when accelerating solo, it just doesn't take as long to get up to speed.
datsaxman
(a scientist at work)
-
Let's hope that Martin's GF doesn't read this, or he won't be able to get her to pay for some of the gas. Actually getting a GF to help pay for anything is difficult at best, and sounds like Martin has a great plan/idea. Go for it, sir, physics be damned. . . Since nothing as been completely defined to all involved, it won't be lying to her, which is so important. tp
-
Brian, I NEVER tell what my GF weighs...that was whatsisname's GF.
But yeah, GF reads this and I suffer the consequences either way.
Relativity has nothing to do with mass changing, but with what happens at really high velocities.
7,000 times C14-nominal (or so).
Newtonian Mechanics is **extremely accurate** at C14-nominal velocity, and handles mass changing easily. F = dP / dt to you.
The bold characters are vectors, and that hot mess is what Newton actually said, not the more popular F = Ma. Which, as you point out, assumes M = constant. Newton was ready to handle mass not being constant. Oh, and the d/dt thing means "rate of change", and the P is for momentum, so dP/dt means how fast the momentum changes. Whether that means the speed changes or the mass changes, OR BOTH. Just sayin. Newton was a badazz.
Besides, how fast is the mass changing anyway? Adding GF, we have 1050 lbs or so. One gallon of petrol is 6.8 pounds, so the fully laden C14 is about 150 times that. How fast can you burn through a gallon? Rich seemed a little worked up about going 150mph, so maybe he has a figure. I don't. What say you all? Fuel consumption @ full chat? Inquiring minds and all that...
So we will do what scientists ALWAYS do when they don't know. We guess. I am going to guess we get a steady 15 MPG. GuuuuullllllllPPPPPPP!!!!!
Say we are going 150mph, which is conveniently 2.5 miles per minute, or one mile every 24 seconds. So in 360 seconds we go 15 miles, burning through one gallon. In 540 seconds, we burn through 1.5 gallons, which is 1% of the weight of the fully laden C14. That is NINE MINUTES.
An eternity as far as Relativity is concerned, or even Newtonian Mechanics. A change of (here it comes at last...) .002% per second. Almost.
The machine losing weight makes the acceleration increase even though the power stays the same. .002% per second?? Nine minutes to get a one percent increase? This is what a physicist calls "essentially constant". But is was fun crunching the numbers...
saxman
-
Relativity has nothing to do with mass changing? Excellent! Are you saying mass is a constant?
A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.8 lbs? Avoirdupois pounds? At Earth surface gravity? I realize that the planet is not spherical but an oblate spheroid but still, when does a US gallon of gasoline hit 6.8 lbs on the surface of this planet?
Hey, it was you who brought up sloppy work.... :-)
Not that big a fan of Newton, more of a Leibniz follower myself.
Brian
Brian, I NEVER tell what my GF weighs...that was whatsisname's GF.
But yeah, GF reads this and I suffer the consequences either way.
Relativity has nothing to do with mass changing, but with what happens at really high velocities.
7,000 times C14-nominal (or so).
Newtonian Mechanics is **extremely accurate** at C14-nominal velocity, and handles mass changing easily. F = dP / dt to you.
The bold characters are vectors, and that hot mess is what Newton actually said, not the more popular F = Ma. Which, as you point out, assumes M = constant. Newton was ready to handle mass not being constant. Oh, and the d/dt thing means "rate of change", and the P is for momentum, so dP/dt means how fast the momentum changes. Whether that means the speed changes or the mass changes, OR BOTH. Just sayin. Newton was a badazz.
Besides, how fast is the mass changing anyway? Adding GF, we have 1050 lbs or so. One gallon of petrol is 6.8 pounds, so the fully laden C14 is about 150 times that. How fast can you burn through a gallon? Rich seemed a little worked up about going 150mph, so maybe he has a figure. I don't. What say you all? Fuel consumption @ full chat? Inquiring minds and all that...
So we will do what scientists ALWAYS do when they don't know. We guess. I am going to guess we get a steady 15 MPG. GuuuuullllllllPPPPPPP!!!!!
Say we are going 150mph, which is conveniently 2.5 miles per minute, or one mile every 24 seconds. So in 360 seconds we go 15 miles, burning through one gallon. In 540 seconds, we burn through 1.5 gallons, which is 1% of the weight of the fully laden C14. That is NINE MINUTES.
An eternity as far as Relativity is concerned, or even Newtonian Mechanics. A change of (here it comes at last...) .002% per second. Almost.
The machine losing weight makes the acceleration increase even though the power stays the same. .002% per second?? Nine minutes to get a one percent increase? This is what a physicist calls "essentially constant". But is was fun crunching the numbers...
saxman
-
As we're talking about things going fast...I've got one for you. How come if I ride faster my butt hurts less on the seat? When I slow down it hurts more. Of course the logical answer to this is to stay fast. But that isn't practical. So, the faster I get the less I weigh? One of you mad scientists should be able to figure that one out. I'm going to bed now and hope to find an answer to that when I get up at 5. Toodles.
-
As we're talking about things going fast...I've got one for you. How come if I ride faster my butt hurts less on the seat? When I slow down it hurts more. Of course the logical answer to this is to stay fast. But that isn't practical. So, the faster I get the less I weigh? One of you mad scientists should be able to figure that one out. I'm going to bed now and hope to find an answer to that when I get up at 5. Toodles.
It's all about blood flow, Jim. :banana
-
It's all about blood flow, Jim. :banana
:rotflmao:
-
They make pills for that.
-
They make pills for that.
Too be taken 30 minutes before a riding activity or on a daily basis, so as to be ready any time the opportunity arises? At least that's what I've heard...
-
Sloppy worker here... Jet A is the one I was remembering. Yes, gasoline is less. 6.16 lbs/gallon at 15C or something like that.
Oblate spheroid is so...1890s. A more WGS84 term is "Ellipsoid of Revolution". With the inverse flattening defined these days as exactly 298.257223563. Nothing sloppy about that!
Newton works whether mass is constant or changing. Always has.
Leibniz' Laws of Motion?? Do tell... Leibniz' Law of Universal Gravitation?
Leibniz gets props for math...but not so much for physics.
saxman
-
...and YES, I was arguing that the mass is changing very slowly, even at C14-nominal speeds.
So you can treat it as constant and get very good results.
-
...and YES, I was arguing that the mass is changing very slowly, even at C14-nominal speeds.
So you can treat it as constant and get very good results.
datsaxman, didn't you know that playing a reed instrument for any length of time will mess with your head? Who am I to question? Just a crazy drummer myself, and God knows what 58 years of being one of those does to you..... I'm still trying to figure out E=MC2. May get it done some day soon, as being a drummer, life is all about time, and keeping it.... tp
-
"Newton works whether mass is constant or changing. Always has."
Seriously?
"Suppose you had a 10kg particle that you wanted to accelerate at roughly earth normal gravitational acceleration. You might apply a force of 100 N. The acceleration is: 10 m/s^2. So, after
Time Final Speed
1s 10 m/s
2s 20 m/s
10s 100 m/s
100s 1,000 m/s
10^7s\simeq 4 months 10^8 m/s=0.33 c
10^8s\simeq 3 years 10^9 m/s=3.33c
In other words, if you take it too literally, this whole F=ma business leads you inexorably to faster-than-light speeds. In a quirky coincidence, accelerating at 1g for almost exactly a year would get you to the speed of light.
Of course, Newton was wrong, but that’s why we needed Einstein.
But Newton wasn’t as wrong as he could be. F=ma is wrong, but F=\Delta p/\Delta t is actually correct. Newton’s problem is that he didn’t know what momentum really is. So what is it?
p=\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
where the extra correction is known the “gamma-factor.”
or, if you want to invert the equation, you get:
v=\frac{p/m}{\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2}{m^2c^2}}}
The point is, the momentum gets higher and higher as a particle gets closer and closer to the speed of light, but to actually get to the speed of light requires a literally infinite amount of momentum.
When you take all of that into account, the “constant acceleration” produces a considerably different result:
Time Final Speed
1s 10 m/s
2s 20 m/s
10s 100 m/s
100s 1,000 m/s
10^7s\simeq 4 months 31.6\% c
10^8s\simeq 3 years 95.8\% c
10^9s\simeq 30 years 99.96\% c
Protons in the LHC are zipping around at 99.99994% the speed of light. It doesn’t make sense to simply round up to c. The difference between 99.99994% and 99% is a huge difference. The former is about 130 times as energetic as the latter.
And that’s the sort of discrepancy that comes into play if you make the same sort of errors as Will Shortz."
There really are rules for this. And you have to play by them whether you like it or not. ;D ;)
As far as the gasoline weight per unit volume, the mistake was neither here nor there but what made it funny was you slapping someone for sloppy work in the same quote. You could have saved the whole thing by using the density of gasoline as an example of sloppy work.... :rotflmao:
Brian
Sloppy worker here... Jet A is the one I was remembering. Yes, gasoline is less. 6.16 lbs/gallon at 15C or something like that.
Oblate spheroid is so...1890s. A more WGS84 term is "Ellipsoid of Revolution". With the inverse flattening defined these days as exactly 298.257223563. Nothing sloppy about that!
Newton works whether mass is constant or changing. Always has.
Leibniz' Laws of Motion?? Do tell... Leibniz' Law of Universal Gravitation?
Leibniz gets props for math...but not so much for physics.
saxman
-
Brian, what happens to the density and weight of gasoline when ethanol is introduced, say 10 to 15%, as we are seeing today. I grew up being told that gasoline weighed 6.8 lbs per gallon, and that is what we used to calculate the weight of our race bikes, 45+ years ago. Did formulation change the weight or the ethanol content? I know you have the answer... tp
-
I couldnt come up with those words that Brian just spoke of if I copied them from google. I have absolutely no idea what you said, or what it all means, but I will say that it was an impressive display!
-
I couldn't come up with those words that Brian just spoke of if I copied them from google. I have absolutely no idea what you said, or what it all means, but I will say that it was an impressive display!
Me neither. That's why I hit him with the gasoline weight problem.... You doing OK, Nicole? tomp
-
Well, I did not know the answer but a quick search shows Ethanol weighs ~ 6.59 lb. / gallon. Gasoline weighs 6.08 lb. / gallon (this varies but common usage is 6.08 or a flat 6 lb. / gallon). So a 90% / 10% mix of gasoline and ethanol will weight ~ 6.13 lb. / gallon.
That was not my writing but something I copied from a physics lecture printed on the 'Net.
Most anyone can understand these principles if they are explained in reasonable terms, either without math or very simple math. Hey, calculus can be explained in 10 minutes using nothing beyond addition! The concept is very straightforward.
As far as what we are talking about, it goes like this: classic or Newtonian physics explains how the world works as we see it. It is not correct but it is very close at relative low speeds. Big Al (as I like to call him, Albert Einstein) came along and discovered that the only constant in the universe is the speed of light. That means that everything else, including a lot of thing we thought were constants, are really not constants. Newton said Force = Mass X Acceleration. As an example, look at a hammer- the hammer head contains all the energy from both the mass of the hammer plus the acceleration it has from us swinging it toward the nail. Pretty simple stuff, right? Well, Big Al showed us that the M in F = MA is NOT a constant but increases with velocity.... which means the hammer gets heavier as it is swung. Now, in practical terms and at low speeds (less than 10% the speed of light, which is 186,200 miles per second- fast stuff) the difference can be ignored. And we do ignore it and it works well for everything we can see or make move, including what we think of as 'fast' such as our spacecraft. But still it is incorrect no matter how small the error; you and your C-14 weigh more going 70 MPH than they do when not moving, it is just a very small difference.
Brian (who is sitting still, thereby keeping my weight down which is how my wife likes it; if I move, I become a fat ba$tich! apparently)
Brian, what happens to the density and weight of gasoline when ethanol is introduced, say 10 to 15%, as we are seeing today. I grew up being told that gasoline weighed 6.8 lbs per gallon, and that is what we used to calculate the weight of our race bikes, 45+ years ago. Did formulation change the weight or the ethanol content? I know you have the answer... tp
-
Actually, I just copied that- not my words at all.
Nicole, you should not be bamboozled by the assembly of complex words, the underlying concept is not that hard to understand. I am confident I could explain it to you, as well as the great majority of people, in less than 30 minutes and you would fully get the concepts. The words get in the way, and the finer points tend to cloud the underlying concepts and "rules".
I have always though most people could easily understand most concepts if the goal were to teach them. Unfortunately, it all gets mixed up with higher mathematics, which is full of symbols and words unfamiliar to many people. You are in the identical boat; being a seaman (sea person? sailor I guess?), you know enough obscure terminology to confuse any landlubber. But you dumb it down so others can follow; unfortunately there is a certain amount of arrogance in the sciences that generally prevents that from happening in physics, mathematics, etc.
All of this is not to say that these subjects are easy to use properly. Fortunately for the rest of us, there have been and are some truly brilliant people who have shown the rest of us how things work. My own personal hero, Enrico Fermi, made 'the neutrons dance' (created the first nuclear chain reaction); a brilliant man and not the least bit arrogant or unpleasant toward anyone. In fact, he was famous for getting along and being liked by everyone, from Robert Oppenheimer (head of The Manhattan Project) to the custodians at the university where he worked. So the great Dr. Fermi proves that great intelligence does not have to lead to being a schmuck, something we should all aspire to (not being a schmuck, intelligence is an accident of birth).
Brian
I couldnt come up with those words that Brian just spoke of if I copied them from google. I have absolutely no idea what you said, or what it all means, but I will say that it was an impressive display!
-
I thought it was the Pointer Sisters that did that.... :banana :banana :banana
http://youtu.be/i-jdhorGtQI (http://youtu.be/i-jdhorGtQI)
-
Not to get off subject, but since Brian was comparing old to new in thoughts of physics, this just an old to new comparison too. Personally I prefer the old here. '74...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yl7iWSc6hE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yl7iWSc6hE)
-
Brian,
This is a thread about top speed of a C14...The Special Theory of Relativity? Well, NOT RELEVANT.
Unless the C14 suddenly goes a whole lot faster.
And you seem to have gone out of your way to copy n paste an obtuse treatment of SR besides.
It isn't exactly intuitive...but it is pretty simple stuff.
For the purpose of the C14, pretending we are still talking about THAT, Newton's simple work gives very, very good results. The ability to measure time, distance, velocity, mass, etc. Is the limiting factor, not the limitations of Newton.
Since we are on the subject of SR...mass is invariant. MASS does not increase, but INERTIA does, according to an observer who sees the object in motion.
The differences in observed reality between two observers in different inertial reference frames is ALL contained in the gamma factor. This is not an illusion, reality itself is different for an observer who sees an object at motion compared to an observer who sees the same object at rest. It is also useful to mention that "inertial reference frame" means that neither the observers nor objects are accelerating. That is what makes this SPECIAL Relativity. The General Theory deals with accelerations, and is much, much, much more involved.
There is more, but it all follows from the fact that the GAMMA factor changes, not things like MASS.
One way to think about this is to remember that an observer traveling along with the object, always sees (**measures**) the object to be...Newtonian.
datsaxman
-
When do I get my college credit certificate? Isn't this one of these learn at home college courses? Feels like it. Relevant to all of the before mentioned info, will my C14 top end at a higher speed if the big windshield, bags and rear box are removed, or does that have more to do with my cojones?
-
Are you asking if one needs cajones mas grande to remove the bags, box, and windshield? ???
-
Are you asking if one needs cajones mas grande to remove the bags, box, and windshield? ???
No, just to see if the bike would go any faster, as cojones often top sensibility and brains when considering top speed runs. The others just need a key and/or an allen wrench. ;D
-
...Buying and driving a large displacement sport-ish bike will often totally ruin all notions about where "fast cars" fit in the hierarchy of speed...
One of my current joys in life is blasting past my brother in his 550hp bi-turbo BMW.
That's when the talk changes from how fast it goes to how comfortable it is... ;D ;D
Jamie
-
No, just to see if the bike would go any faster
Yes, it COULD Tomp ;D. The less aerodynamic drag you have with everything else equal, the higher your theoretical top-speed. I said 'could' because if your top-speed is electronically or redline limited, and you already reach it, you'd only get there quicker without bags, smaller windscreen, etc., but not higher. It'd only get higher if your top-speed is drag-limited. And yes, that means you're still tucked out of the windblast with the windscreen change. Once windscreen size is not enough for that, you start increasing drag. Makes sense? 8) You'd need a wind tunnel and specialized equipment to scientifically measure drag differences, but you don't need that to know bags and a barn-door windscreen add to it ;). The better question is how much. And we'll never know that. But you can have fun trying the unscientific way 8). My guess is maybe 5 mph. But what I know for a fact with other bikes is that makes a very noticeable handling difference at high speeds, especially high-speed curves. I always travel without the bags if possible (just a small tail bag), which means overnight trips. And that's what I do most of the time. Any longer and bags go in, but I take it easier.
That other guy forgot we're trying to explain in SIMPLE ways the questions raised. It's simple common sense a vehicle accelerates slower as weight is added, and I was simply showing where the 'common sense' comes from. And also that added weight means slower top-end speed (for many reasons). If somebody can't see that, go to the extremes to help visualize it: add 2K lbs to the bike and try to reach the same 168 mph ;D. Or put our C14 engine in a truck and try to reach 168 mph. Or even 60. Yeah, adding 130 lbs at a time eventually adds up to that, so it has a negative effect, period. Also push a Goldwing (or a truck) and a dirt bike and see which is harder to push while walking, so rolling resistance is a real factor as well as weight is added. Finally, adding 130 lbs to a C14 (never exceed GVWR ;)) would obviously affect fuel mileage, but only marginally. It'd be impossible to calculate the difference mathematically because nobody could get the exact data (plus it changes constantly anyway). And it was never my intention to get to that level of discussion. And yes, I was joking to charge the G/F the extra fuel. My point simply was fuel consumption would be higher... which is exactly the truth, because even 10 lbs makes a difference if you add enough decimals ::). Little by little is how you get to a heavy truck that makes single-digit MPG. Have a great weekend ahead folks.
-
One of my current joys in life is blasting past my brother in his 550hp bi-turbo BMW.
Oh yes, I always think it is funny when people think their cars are "fast"....
-
As soon as you pass the course(s) of course. ;)
And yes, this is a 'learn at home' experience, just like all the rest of life if you are paying attention. You are done learning when you have reached your limit or you are dead. ;) ;)
A C-14 will go faster with a smaller windshield, as compared with a large one such as a 6+ CalSci for example. With the stock Gen. 1 windshield, in its lowest position, the bike is about as clean as it is going to get I think. Removing the windshield and tucking in may yield higher top speeds. ??
I would think a top box would also be fairly high in drag and so removing it would be useful in reaching higher speeds but that is my opinion, not a fact. Same goes for the saddlebags but I believe there IS some data out there from Kawasaki although it is convoluted as I remember- something similar to: 'the saddle bags were designed using a wind tunnel to be aerodynamic' or similar.... which does not mean they do not add some drag to the bike.
Brian
When do I get my college credit certificate? Isn't this one of these learn at home college courses? Feels like it. Relevant to all of the before mentioned info, will my C14 top end at a higher speed if the big windshield, bags and rear box are removed, or does that have more to do with my cojones?
-
Hey Chief, it was YOU who tweaked someones' nose for sloppy work. You opened the can of worms about accuracy. Relevant or sloppy is up to each reader as far as I am concerned.
"For tis the sport to haue the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar."
W. Shakespear
Usually said as 'Hoist on his own petard.' in current English.
;) :rotflmao:
Brian
Brian,
This is a thread about top speed of a C14...The Special Theory of Relativity? Well, NOT RELEVANT.
Unless the C14 suddenly goes a whole lot faster.
<snip>
datsaxman
-
Well, I does feel a bunch more smartier after spendin me good qualitier (qualityer?) time here readin and learnin. I thanks the gubment every day fer my state controlled book learning and edukasion. Now where's my graduatin paper? I did show up occasional times. tp
Oh, i used to Hoist my owne petar, but I now perfer vodka and Dr Pepper over some cold ice. That petar beer was makin me a unwanted belly.
-
Mom tole' me that my petar could make an unwanted baby but we are probably drifting OFF TOPIC....
Brian
Well, I does feel a bunch more smartier after spendin me good qualitier (qualityer?) time here readin and learnin. I thanks the gubment every day fer my state controlled book learning and edukasion. Now where's my graduatin paper? I did show up occasional times. tp
Oh, i used to Hoist my owne petar, but I now perfer vodka and Dr Pepper over some cold ice. That petar beer was makin me a unwanted belly.
-
Yes, it COULD Tomp ;D. The less aerodynamic drag you have with everything else equal, the higher your theoretical top-speed. I said 'could' because if your top-speed is electronically or redline limited, and you already reach it, you'd only get there quicker without bags, smaller windscreen, etc., but not higher. It'd only get higher if your top-speed is drag-limited. And yes, that means you're still tucked out of the windblast with the windscreen change. Once windscreen size is not enough for that, you start increasing drag. Makes sense? 8) You'd need a wind tunnel and specialized equipment to scientifically measure drag differences, but you don't need that to know bags and a barn-door windscreen add to it ;). The better question is how much. And we'll never know that. But you can have fun trying the unscientific way 8). My guess is maybe 5 mph. But what I know for a fact with other bikes is that makes a very noticeable handling difference at high speeds, especially high-speed curves. I always travel without the bags if possible (just a small tail bag), which means overnight trips. And that's what I do most of the time. Any longer and bags go in, but I take it easier.
That other guy forgot we're trying to explain in SIMPLE ways the questions raised. It's simple common sense a vehicle accelerates slower as weight is added, and I was simply showing where the 'common sense' comes from. And also that added weight means slower top-end speed (for many reasons). If somebody can't see that, go to the extremes to help visualize it: add 2K lbs to the bike and try to reach the same 168 mph ;D. Or put our C14 engine in a truck and try to reach 168 mph. Or even 60. Yeah, adding 130 lbs at a time eventually adds up to that, so it has a negative effect, period. Also push a Goldwing (or a truck) and a dirt bike and see which is harder to push while walking, so rolling resistance is a real factor as well as weight is added. Finally, adding 130 lbs to a C14 (never exceed GVWR ;)) would obviously affect fuel mileage, but only marginally. It'd be impossible to calculate the difference mathematically because nobody could get the exact data (plus it changes constantly anyway). And it was never my intention to get to that level of discussion. And yes, I was joking to charge the G/F the extra fuel. My point simply was fuel consumption would be higher... which is exactly the truth, because even 10 lbs makes a difference if you add enough decimals ::). Little by little is how you get to a heavy truck that makes single-digit MPG. Have a great weekend ahead folks.
you can't grasp it can you. Dude, weight has nothing to do with top speed. Get over it.
-
You just can't grasp it can you. Dude, weight has nothing to do with top speed. Get over it.
-
You can say that again....
;D
Brian
you can't grasp it can you. Dude, weight has nothing to do with top speed. Get over it.
-
+1
-
OK, are we all talking about the same thing? Jimmy are you saying that a vehicle that weighs say, 700lbs and has an engine that produces 150HP and 100lb tq can reach a top speed of 160 MPH, and a vehicle that weighs 3000lbs and has an engine that produces 165 HP and 162 lbs tq, should actually have a higher top speed since the engine produces more power and weight isn't a factor in top speed?
My only question is why doesn't my Scion XB top end at a higher speed than my C14? More power, more torque, should equal a higher top speed, but my 14 I believe, will top out around 50 MPH faster. I won't tell my Scion if you don't. ;D
Ain't life great when we just relax and enjoy it? All someone wanted was to get some money out of is GF, which I thought was great. A great week to all, and lets not worry about speed...
-
Top that car to the roof with concrete. The top speed won't change.
-
Top that car to the roof with concrete. The top speed won't change.
Would MPG change with the addition of concrete on the roof, under similar driving conditions? It would take longer to get to the same top speed, right?
-
Yes and yes, but top speed is not MPG, or an acceleration test.
-
really, guys, don't just let out "facts" about things you don't grasp. It doesn't add to the discussion.
-
Martin, what confuses me is that if vehicle X can reach a top speed of XXX MPH, at it's given weight, adding weight, say two X it's weight, the vehicle will still reach the same top speed. If that is true, why are racers and manufacturers always concerned with Power to Weight ratio? To me. XX HP can move a vehicle to a top speed of YY MPH, but the addition of weight will not let the same HP move the vehicle to the same top speed as the lighter version. My C14 Vs Scion XB example is relevant here.
I know, from Physics, that both a one pound and a five pound ball, dropped from the same height, given distance, will reach the same terminal speed, considering our gravitational forces, but I just don't see xx HP moving two items with very different weights, to the same top speed, on a horizontal plain, against wind/drag forces. We're not dropping the different weight bikes off a clif, but traveling up/down a road,with only an equal amount of HP and torque. My Scion, should go a damn sight faster than it can, according to what has been said, but it doesn't, I'VE TRIED. TP
-
Weight has little to do with top speed...but A LOT to do with acceleration. This includes stopping and turning as well as how long parts last.
Weight is the enemy of performance. Except not top speed (much).
-
Weight has little to do with top speed...but A LOT to do with acceleration. This includes stopping and turning as well as how long parts last.
Weight is the enemy of performance. Except not top speed (much).
I keep hearing that, but why doesn't my XB have a higher top speed, since it has more HP and Tq than my C14, even though it weighs 4X more than my C14. It may get to 120 MPH top speed, but my C14, with less HP and much less TQ gets close to 170. My XB doesn't care about Physics, it just wonders why it can't go as fast as the C14 it shares space with, at my house. Personally, I don't care, but my car is giving me fits over this....tp
-
I keep hearing that, but why doesn't my XB have a higher top speed, since it has more HP and Tq than my C14, even though it weighs 4X more than my C14. It may get to 120 MPH top speed, but my C14, with less HP and much less TQ gets close to 170. My XB doesn't care about Physics, it just wonders why it can't go as fast as the C14 it shares space with, at my house.
I believe the primary reason for that is because the car has a whole lot more rolling resistance due to the much, much larger contact area of 4 car tires instead of 2 motorcycle tires. A quick guesstimate would be perhaps at least 8 times as much?
Weight will also increase rolling resistance. Although weight doesn't factor much into top speed when comparing similar types of vehicles and can typically be ignored. For example, a C14 compared to a C14 with an extra 100 pounds- won't affect top speed in any measurable way. But when you are talking about a car that weighs 2000-3000 pounds more, it can start to matter. But the two things that mostly determine top speed performance are still power (to the road) and/vs. aerodynamics. The two things that mostly determine acceleration (at lower/mid speeds) performance are power (to the road) and/vs. weight.
-
I tend to agree with you, but reading all that has been written before you, rolling resistance, etc are never mentioned, simply that weight has no effect on top speed. With the addition of weight, rolling resistance is increased by the additional friction of the greater level of weight, but that has been basically ignored by others. Over and over, it has been stated that weight has no affect on top speed equivalency, but weight has effect over many aspects of an object that may affect it's forward motion. (Notice the usage of affect and effect....) After being awake for 22+ hours, the mind does funny things to the thought process. Thanks, Max. Going to bed now... tp.
-
hi tomp,
sorry it took a while to get back to this, but I'm going on holidays and was wrapping things up.
The main reason for your Sion and your C14 having the same power but different top speed is simply aerodynamic drag. Rolling drag is much, much smaller, but not negligible (well, that depends on the level of OCD ;D). As a rule of thumb, for B-road speeds, rolling resistance is about 10% of the aerodynamic drag, going down to 5% at highway speeds. For a really good overview of this, please check this link (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=400&WeightUnits=kg&CRR=.02&Cd=.55&FrontalArea=.9&FrontalAreaUnits=m^2&FuelWh=33557&IceEfficiency=.25&DrivetrainEfficiency=.95&ParasiticOverhead=0&rho=1.225&FromToStep=5-200-5).
The fuel consumptions reflect what I've seen in my bike, meaning 60 mpg km at 60mph and around 20 mpg at twice that speed. And 12 mpg at 155 mph.
Keep in mind that motorcycles have a really bad Cd compared to cars. In fact, until some years ago the queen of Cd was the Busa, with a Cd of 0,47, whereas the "normal" bike has 0.6 or worse, which is that of a delivery truck :o Same with rolling resistance. Also, the rolling resistance changes with speed. For example, you can see here (http://books.google.com/books?id=rJTQxITnkbgC&pg=PA41&dq=radial+motorcycle+tire+rolling+resistance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5T_xUrCNAviysATR6IHoBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=radial%20motorcycle%20tire%20rolling%20resistance&f=false) (page 42, the graph with the tire at 42 psi/2.9 bar) that the rolling resistance at 30 mph/50 kph is just 0.015 and it increases to 0.025 at 3 times that speed. I guesstimate 0.03 at 125 mph/200 kph.
Just to hammer the concept a bit further, at low speed (under 60 mph) the mass will resist acceleration more than aero drag, but at 150 mph the aero drag takes most of the effort to overcome. Kinetic energy seems tempting to use here, but the rate at which it changes is not that high, so really, aero drag is the key. Still, as datsaxman said, weight has little to do with top speed. And I mean it literally: little, but not nothing.
EDIT: In fact, at the bottom of the page 42 on the book from the link above, there's an example in which a motorcycle uses as much as 12 kW (that's a whooping 16 HP) to overcome rolling resistance at 250 kph/155 mph. That's 12% of the C14's max output at the rear wheel (assuming 135 RWHP). Power requirement increases with the cube of the speed, so if we could somehow eliminate the rolling resistance and get back those 16 HP and use them to overcome aero drag, we would get a top speed increase of just 4.3%. Now, I put my bike to 167 mph, so that 4.3% would add a miserable 7 mph, taking the top speed to 174 mph. I'll live.
-
I keep hearing that, but why doesn't my XB have a higher top speed, since it has more HP and Tq than my C14, even though it weighs 4X more than my C14. It may get to 120 MPH top speed, but my C14, with less HP and much less TQ gets close to 170. My XB doesn't care about Physics, it just wonders why it can't go as fast as the C14 it shares space with, at my house. Personally, I don't care, but my car is giving me fits over this....tp
Drive train gear ratios ? I'm sure this has to come into play when comparing apples to oranges!
-
Drive train gear ratios ? I'm sure this has to come into play when comparing apples to oranges!
NO!!! please refer to my previous post.
-
I like Martin's explanation. For a simplified example, although cars have a much better coefficient of drag than a motorcycle, they still much MUCH bigger (larger frontal area). As such, they have to displace a ton of more air. The faster you go, the more air needs displacing. Displacing that air takes a lot of power.
-
I have to agree with frontal area/resistance. The XB, while a great car to drive, looks like a giant box, and can't be easy to push through our atmosphere.
(http://img2.netcarshow.com/Scion-xB_2008_800x600_wallpaper_03.jpg)
-
yeap, that's the one I saw in google. Unlike what Brian suggested, aerodynamics are not as intuitive as we would like. Actually Brian didn't suggest this, but to me it was implied in his comment regarding the top-case.
I worked in a F1 team for 3 years and sometimes the least likely solution (visually) managed to put the air where we wanted, giving as that 0.01 that we so desperately needed. Sometimes a 1° change on the spoiler in the back of the car affected the effect of the spoiler on the front, changing things like yaw angle sensitivity, brake cooling and whatnot. Weird stuff, but all the more fascinating. I like CFD, but I have a deep respect for that handful of guys in this world who can look at a change in shape and predict the change in Cd.
Why this comment? Because the station-wagon version of a car are usually faster than its sedan version, for the same engine. I had a book somewhere with several examples (I remember the Fiat Uno and Fiat Duna, probably unknown in USA), but I have neither the time nor the mood right now to dig it up.
-
I have to agree with frontal area/resistance. The XB, while a great car to drive, looks like a giant box, and can't be easy to push through our atmosphere.
(http://img2.netcarshow.com/Scion-xB_2008_800x600_wallpaper_03.jpg)
The XB comes in at .32, while the Chevy Astro Van comes in at .40
-
Like Martin said, the rear of an aerodynamic shape is nearly as important as the front. Shooters know this very well. For those of you not familiar, check out boat tail bullets....
-
I bicycle to work most days and it is truly amazing just how difficult it is to push through air. On days with no wind (which seems rare around here), I can easily go over 15 MPH. But on days like today where it is really windy, it can drop my top speed down to 5 MPH for the same amount of effort. If I can bear to lean over, making my frontal area smaller and become more aerodynamic, it helps a lot.... but my back doesn't appreciate it at all.
And for rolling resistance, I can always tell when my tires are under-inflated, because my pedaling effort goes up. Seems like the pressure drops from 80psi down to about 60psi over a two to three week period.
-
I bicycle to work most days and it is truly amazing just how difficult it is to push through air. On days with no wind (which seems rare around here), I can easily go over 15 MPH. But on days like today where it is really windy, it can drop my top speed down to 5 MPH for the same amount of effort. If I can bear to lean over, making my frontal area smaller and become more aerodynamic, it helps a lot.... but my back doesn't appreciate it at all.
And for rolling resistance, I can always tell when my tires are under-inflated, because my pedaling effort goes up. Seems like the pressure drops from 80psi down to about 60psi over a two to three week period.
But take heart in knowing that if you gained 100lbs, your top speed won't change from it's current number. At least that's what I think I learned? ;D
-
But take heart in knowing that if you gained 100lbs, your top speed won't change from it's current number. At least that's what I think I learned? ;D
:goodpost: :rotflmao:
-
But take heart in knowing that if you gained 100lbs, your top speed won't change from it's current number. At least that's what I think I learned? ;D
LOL!!! Well, I hope that doesn't happen. I have been trying to keep my weight below 145, and it hasn't been easy. I will think not about top speed but about acceleration and frontal area, and THOSE will help keep me motivated :)
-
Rolling resistance increases to a certain point, then stays constant (I can't remember at what speed, but it is a relatively slow, like 60 or 70 mph). Aerodynamic drag, on the other hand, doesn't double with a doubling of speed, it squares with the doubling of speed. I know this not because I'm a highly educated engineer, but I'm a guy who has been around racing for a long time, and has been fortunate to work with some highly educated engineers that race. Some of them are so smart they even make their living in the racing world!
If you want to increase your top speed, increasing power a few horsepower won't make much of a difference, reducing rolling resistance won't make a big difference, and weight won't make any difference (unless you have a limited space to get to your top speed, because only acceleration is affected by weight). Reducing aerodynamic drag will give you larger results than upping the power slightly. Power to weight ratio is irrelevant to top speed, assuming you have enough room to reach top speed.
Most MotoGP riders spend a bit of time in the wind tunnel, to figure out what body position gives them the best aerodynamics. You'll notice that they usually have their backs arched up into the windstream, this can increase their top speed by a couple of miles per hour.
As others have mentioned, cars have lower coefficients of drag than bikes, but they have a lot more frontal area than a motorcycle, so the total drag of a car is more.
-
. . . so the total drag of a car is more.
I agree there. For 30 years, I made my living driving my car, and on untold beautiful riding days over those years, the car was really a drag.
-
Rolling resistance increases to a certain point, then stays constant (I can't remember at what speed, but it is a relatively slow, like 60 or 70 mph). Aerodynamic drag, on the other hand, doesn't double with a doubling of speed, it squares with the doubling of speed. I know this not because I'm a highly educated engineer, but I'm a guy who has been around racing for a long time, and has been fortunate to work with some highly educated engineers that race. Some of them are so smart they even make their living in the racing world!
If you want to increase your top speed, increasing power a few horsepower won't make much of a difference, reducing rolling resistance won't make a big difference, and weight won't make any difference (unless you have a limited space to get to your top speed, because only acceleration is affected by weight). Reducing aerodynamic drag will give you larger results than upping the power slightly. Power to weight ratio is irrelevant to top speed, assuming you have enough room to reach top speed.
Most MotoGP riders spend a bit of time in the wind tunnel, to figure out what body position gives them the best aerodynamics. You'll notice that they usually have their backs arched up into the windstream, this can increase their top speed by a couple of miles per hour.
As others have mentioned, cars have lower coefficients of drag than bikes, but they have a lot more frontal area than a motorcycle, so the total drag of a car is more.
WERD. 8)
-
...why bother with math when you can just keep adding power.... ;)
-
...why bother with math when you can just keep adding power.... ;)
:rotflmao: Spaz, good to hear from you. Anything new?
-
Hey, long time, no see (so to speak). Good to see you are still around.... still supersaturating that C-14?
Brian
...why bother with math when you can just keep adding power.... ;)
-
Not too much ya'll.... life is crazy on my end at the moment, and I've picked up too many major projects at once for too many people (myself included) that I need to sort out before I can play with the C14 again. I did have to do another fuel pump in it, but other than that it's just shredding tires and suckin' up gas like it was designed to do it. Did a sweet little 2-up trip with the missus last year to the Rally in TN, then over to Myrtle Beach, then over to Panama City & New Orleans... and eventually back to southern AZ. That was good times.
The Zx-10R is getting some development as a land speed bike/missile/death trap.... I'm working on an air-to-water intercooler with a hand built (extended) swingarm to act as the reservoir/heat exchanger. Fun build thread over on ZX-10R.net on the progress, however slow it is.
Once I'm finished with that & the few car projects I have, I'm getting another Disco Potato and it's going back on the C14. I'm going to make minor fuel system changes (bigger injectors and ditch that high-rising FPR nonsense), add a water injection system, and get a beefed up clutch set-up.... but it will make boost again. :) This bike is just too much fun @ 9psi. :) I'll have to put the secondary flies back in though.... at least my in town mileage will go back up! HAHAH Turbos for better fuel mileage!! I'm getting that on a T-shirt.
FWIW on topic: 9psi will let the 1st gen crack 200mph, but only barely with the bags off. Real speeds above 170mph with the bags on usually result in some pretty scarey buffeting and weaving of the ass end.... no thanks. Depending on what dyno numbers you believe for a stock bike, that's in the low to mid 200's in HP. (~65% more power than a stock connie with a slip-on). You can do all the math you want, but that's about what it takes. :) It'll run 9's on the stock clutch with lazy launching and wheelie past anything but an H2 from down low.... but the thick air is a real bastard over 140mph. At my elevation the NA version was good for mph in the low160's.... not much more if any.
It will live again!! Mark my words!! ;D
-
Once I'm finished with that & the few car projects I have, I'm getting another Disco Potato and it's going back on the C14.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mr2sc/disco_potato.html (http://www3.sympatico.ca/mr2sc/disco_potato.html)
:)
-
HA! My B-I-L is on his way back to AZ right now (stopped at the corvette museum in KY today but will finish flying home tomorrow) after staying with us for 6 weeks, helping out on an excessive number of too large projects. And I am not done yet- this winter's snow caused a structural failure of my house roof and we are at the very beginning of that adventure, hoping it will be done or at least weathered- in by the time snow flies again in '15. I have to confess two things: I have not even ridden a motorcycle this year (for shame!) and my C-14 has about 1/2" of dust / crud / building residual on it from the new roof and other construction on the garage. But I think today is the day and we are going to Twisted Throttle's open house.... on A BIKE!
Good to see you are still in it Dustin. I had no idea you were in TN- I wish you looked me up as it was probably my last large COG event.
Brian
Not too much ya'll.... life is crazy on my end at the moment, and I've picked up too many major projects at once for too many people (myself included) that I need to sort out before I can play with the C14 again. I did have to do another fuel pump in it, but other than that it's just shredding tires and suckin' up gas like it was designed to do it. Did a sweet little 2-up trip with the missus last year to the Rally in TN, then over to Myrtle Beach, then over to Panama City & New Orleans... and eventually back to southern AZ. That was good times.
The Zx-10R is getting some development as a land speed bike/missile/death trap.... I'm working on an air-to-water intercooler with a hand built (extended) swingarm to act as the reservoir/heat exchanger. Fun build thread over on ZX-10R.net on the progress, however slow it is.
Once I'm finished with that & the few car projects I have, I'm getting another Disco Potato and it's going back on the C14. I'm going to make minor fuel system changes (bigger injectors and ditch that high-rising FPR nonsense), add a water injection system, and get a beefed up clutch set-up.... but it will make boost again. :) This bike is just too much fun @ 9psi. :) I'll have to put the secondary flies back in though.... at least my in town mileage will go back up! HAHAH Turbos for better fuel mileage!! I'm getting that on a T-shirt.
FWIW on topic: 9psi will let the 1st gen crack 200mph, but only barely with the bags off. Real speeds above 170mph with the bags on usually result in some pretty scarey buffeting and weaving of the ass end.... no thanks. Depending on what dyno numbers you believe for a stock bike, that's in the low to mid 200's in HP. (~65% more power than a stock connie with a slip-on). You can do all the math you want, but that's about what it takes. :) It'll run 9's on the stock clutch with lazy launching and wheelie past anything but an H2 from down low.... but the thick air is a real bastard over 140mph. At my elevation the NA version was good for mph in the low160's.... not much more if any.
It will live again!! Mark my words!! ;D
-
Did they fill the sink hole at the museum?
-
I do not know- I have not gotten a report about the museum as he is still there. I may find out tomorrow.
Brian
Did they fill the sink hole at the museum?
-
Got the bike on its first trip (finally), and it was awesome, especially in the twisties. But on the few uneven ones, it wasn't confidence inspiring; bike pogoed way too much for my liking. Bike feels pretty stiff on any non-smooth road with stock preloads and my 160# frame. And have the rebounds stock at the rear but only 3 clicks at the front. It shouldn't be feeling like a Buick when it's pretty stiff everywhere else. It wasn't scary, but didn't like it. Wonder if adding more preload to the rear would maybe help?
Now back to the subject. Was constantly accelerating and fully coasting (closed throttle) from 4 to 5K rpm, to help sit the rings. Thought I was about half throttle since there wasn't any hard acceleration felt. Well, decided to go WOT until 6K rpm quickly as of not to baby the engine too much, and to my surprise, I was like a millimeter from WOT all the previous times I was accelerating from 4 to 5K rpm. Yeah, I know 6th is much taller on this bike than most, but was expecting a bit more. Oh well. It's not bad at all, and definitely enough. But if I want acceleration in the future (once break-in is over), will downshift at least to 5th, where top-speed happens. At my altitude of 4K+ feet, don't think the bike would top out in 6th, but plan to find out ;D. It climbed slowly to 125 until 6 grand, where I coasted back to 4K rpm. Bike sits at exactly 400 miles now, and am in the middle of changing final drive and engine oils. I'll consider break-in done at 500 ;).
-
NOBODY's C14 tops out in 6th.
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2084 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=2084)
...even though the thread is drenched with BS and a silly argument about what a simple term means ("Overdrive"...correctly stated early on as a transmission ratio less than 1.00), it should be evident that top speed is achieved in 5th gear. Another 100 miles...
Dat
Sax
Man
-
Inquiring minds need to know... How did you come up with the conclusion that your engine is broke in at 500 miles, when a well educated group of engineers who designed the engine, arrived at the break-in mark to be 600 miles?
Even after the 600 miles, I believe there still is a rpm limit until 1000 miles.
-
How did you come up with the conclusion that your engine is broke in at 500 miles, when a well educated group of engineers who designed the engine, arrived at the break-in mark to be 600 miles?
First, I never said I know my engine will be broken in. Second, how the heck do you know that a 'well educated groups of engineers' came up with break-in restrictions??? It was most likely lawyers and/or government, not engineers. Many engines and/or vehicles are run to redline at the factory, yet they still call for a long break-in... and most of that is only in the US. Having said that, what I meant was I'll be done with break-in at 500 miles. Why? Because it's my bike ;D. And that doesn't mean I'll be WOT and redline all the time. Just that when I need to (definitely not often), won't be holding back anymore. What you said is the equivalent of saying a well-educated group of engineers came up with maximum speed limits, and you break them, right ::)? Also subject to interpretation ;). Have a great weekend ahead folks.
-
My mistake for confusing your quote " I'll consider my break-in done at 500 miles " with my terminology of "broken in".
What's that new phrase ... My bad!
-
First, I never said I know my engine will be broken in. Second, how the heck do you know that a 'well educated groups of engineers' came up with break-in restrictions??? It was most likely lawyers and/or government, not engineers. Many engines and/or vehicles are run to redline at the factory, yet they still call for a long break-in... and most of that is only in the US. Having said that, what I meant was I'll be done with break-in at 500 miles. Why? Because it's my bike ;D. And that doesn't mean I'll be WOT and redline all the time. Just that when I need to (definitely not often), won't be holding back anymore. What you said is the equivalent of saying a well-educated group of engineers came up with maximum speed limits, and you break them, right ::)? Also subject to interpretation ;). Have a great weekend ahead folks.
My mistake for confusing your quote " I'll consider my break-in done at 500 miles " with my terminology of "broken in".
What's that new phrase ... My bad!
I think the proper phrase is 'noreasontobeadicaboutit'.
-
I think the proper phrase is 'noreasontobeadicaboutit'.
yeah what he said!! :nuts:
-
this thread is so full of win, it deserves a *bumP*
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/bikepeace.gif)
-
this thread is so full of win, it deserves a *bumP*
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/bikepeace.gif)
:popcorn: :rotflmao:
3
2
...1
-
this thread is so full of win, it deserves a *bumP*
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/bikepeace.gif)
IS that Win, or Wind, as in a hot air breeze? ;D