|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> 100 mph possible? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1354631126 Message started by wombat on 12/04/12 at 06:25:26 |
|
Title: 100 mph possible? Post by wombat on 12/04/12 at 06:25:26 What is available to make a Savage reach 100 mph? Has anyone done it on a Savage or Ryca? Big Bore kit? cams? new carb? Chain with small rear sprocket? Rather not use NOS or supercharging. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by WD on 12/04/12 at 07:10:38 It's possible. Doesn't cost much, proper carb tuning and overall bike weight reduction. Tuck in as tight as you can to reduce the amount of drag. Don't do it often, the engine internals aren't designed for prolonged high speed running. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Rogue_Cheddar on 12/04/12 at 08:32:15 I had mine up to 85 once. I suppose it could have gone a little faster but I was afraid I was going to void my bowels from all the vibration! :D |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/04/12 at 08:36:52 All you need is about 10 miles of straight road, downhill... :P... I've managed 94/95mph on a mile of flat, tucked in like paint... (only did it once)... It's no fun goin' that fast... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/04/12 at 08:48:59 My typical "Dyno Run" up a hill at speed is 85 ± a few. This is a steep hill that anyone following a loaded truck will want to shoot themselves. K&N drop in, desnorkled, door tossed, supertrapp. If I do any more I'll need a steeper hill. 8-) I really don't see the need to go past 90, but you should be able to get there, even when going uphill. ;D |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Paraquat on 12/04/12 at 09:11:46 I got to 95 a few times. Zipped up and sucked in on a flat or slight decline with the wind behind me. Free flowing airbox, drilled out baffles. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Cavi Mike on 12/04/12 at 11:57:01 If this bike can't do 100 with everything mentioned in the first post - something is seriously wrong. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Coaxial on 12/04/12 at 12:51:48 Oh my.. My stock 07 seems to have handled consistent speeds of 130kph(80mph)-140kph(86mph). Ive gone up to at most 154kph(95mph) (estimate). |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/04/12 at 13:27:31 577B756C7D7578140 wrote:
Kinda hard to watch the needle at that speed ain't it. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by PiaFea on 12/04/12 at 13:53:14 I have never intended to cruise at above 80. Too much concentration. Being a lightweight, I do not think thumper was designed to go that fast ... But it does not mean that it could not. I have reached 95 on a straight smooth road, no mod, but everything is shaking :) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by BuckRYCA on 12/04/12 at 17:03:13 Got my stock 1996 to 88 mph without really trying. Measured with bicycle computer on front wheel which checks out against GPS. Computer records max speed -- no need to look at display. Now that 50 lbs are gone due to Ryca conversion and the handlebars allow a tighter tuck I should try again. I believe it's possible. But just so. Would require long, straight, empty stretch of road with no cops. Hard to come by in Connecticut. Way back in 1967 my Kawasaki 250 A1SS Samurai would just do the ton. Yes that was a 250! |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by hexnut on 12/04/12 at 17:05:32 gone fishing |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/04/12 at 18:03:31 2A223D3A2B392F3C3A7E7F4E0 wrote:
Yuppers,... my Honda cl360 would do the ton,... and it was just as scary as it is on the Savage... ;D... Those were great bikes... I loves that twin sound... ;)... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/04/12 at 18:11:49 As I mentioned in the Double RYCA build, I had a yamaha YM-1 and a Honda CB350 that would just barely do the ton on a relatively flat road. That was using the bikes' speedometers, though, which were probably a little optimistic. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/05/12 at 04:25:11 615850775450310 wrote:
You may feel some insecurity with it because of the light weight/handling aspect, but the bike is capable of it. The 500-650 singles have been doing this for a long time and with a lot less engine and suension technology. The BSA Goldstar got it's name back in the late 1930's by AVERAGING over 100 mph in the Isle of Mann TT race. The course is about a 30 mile lap around part of the island on regular roads. Think hard tail frames, very little front suspension, single leading shoe manual brakes, 1930's country roads and WOT most of the time while slamming gears. If you made that course you KNEW you were a REAL MOTORCYCLE MAN !!! |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by DavidOfMA on 12/05/12 at 18:36:28 Got my Yamaha 200 two-stroke up above 100mph several times many years ago, but it was much lighter than the S40 (and I was much lighter, too!). |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/05/12 at 18:40:57 How much heavier than an S40 are you now?... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by DavidOfMA on 12/05/12 at 19:13:22 Still lighter...but by a slimmer margin. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Charon on 12/05/12 at 20:36:45 Given level ground, neither your weight nor the weight of the bike are very significant factors. The significant factor is aerodynamic drag. That is assuming you don't run into engine rev limits, such as Honda's Fury electronically limited to 99 mph for tire ratings. I personally do not believe the LS650 in stock form has any chance at all of making 100 mph. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by ralfyguy on 12/05/12 at 21:12:34 I had mine up to about 95 countless times and I never felt really unsafe on it. Coming from Germany, speed isn't really all that of a big deal. We grew up driving anything at the limit all the time. It isn't the most well planted feeling bike at that speed, but to me it certainly isn't scary either. I once had a modified Ford Escort Cosworth RS Turbo, and that thing was by far the most challenging vehicle I ever drove. Front wheel drive, 25% viscosity differential that was doing not really what it was supposed to and you stepped on it and on uneven surfaces you were working on the wheel just to keep it on the road. But it was fun because of that. I like difficult to tame vehicles. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/05/12 at 21:50:59 79525B4855543A0 wrote:
There's no limiter on a Savage,.. but, you're right... Stock,.. you hit redline at 97mph, and you won't likely do that with the stock HP... ... but,.. on a good day,.. with a slightly modded bike, I have seen a real 95mph (140-90-15 tire)... ... and with a tailwind,.. and a slight downgrade,... it's possible... And just knowing that it is possible, is perfect... If you really want to go 100mph,.. just buy a bike that does a hundred... There's a ton of bikes that will do that with one piston tied behind their back... I don't want the ton to be easy... I want the dream of maybe being able to achieve it, just barely, under the right conditions... That's perfect for me... I've done over a ton and a quarter on a bike that you would expect to do it... Mehhh... It's the goal,.. or the dream,.. that gives the thrill... Not just turning the throttle... It takes a perfect size bike to tease you with the ton... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by BuckRYCA on 12/06/12 at 20:06:26 Well said, Serowbot, the Savage is just the right bike to make doing the ton a worthy quest. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 05:08:50 What would an aerodynamicist compute to the be HP needed for a Savage to do the ton, with an average-sized rider sitting upright? (talk about draggy!!!) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 05:14:09 112F2439343934560 wrote:
Maybe a couple of hp, aerodynamic drag does not be come a significant factor until you get into the 150+ range. It's almost like a geometric progression, building slowly at first and then jumping way up. It's been a lot of years but I seem to remember something like that from flight school. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 05:23:12 7578777A7C6B2B2E190 wrote:
Maybe a couple of hp, aerodynamic drag does not be come a significant factor until you get into the 150+ range. It's almost like a geometric progression, building slowly at first and then jumping way up. It's been a lot of years but I seem to remember something like that from flight school.[/quote] a couple of horsepower? is this a typo? Drag increases with the square of speed,.. so with something as draggy as a Savage with an upright rider (assuming a drag coefficient of approx 1), it takes twice the horsepower to go 85mph compared to 60mph, and four times the horsepower to go 120. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Dave on 12/07/12 at 05:47:20 I poked around on the internet a bit, and the only motorcycle power vs. speed example I found was this: http://i46.tinypic.com/lunm1.png It appears that it takes about 40 HP for a streamlined crotch rocket to go 100mph. Not sure how that relates to a cruiser style motorcycle which is less streamlined. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 05:52:56 No, not a typo, but an educated guess based on faint memories from flight school years ago. The formula you mention seems familiar to my aged memory, it's just that at low speeds "aerodynamic drag" is of little effect. It's at the higher speeds when it is farther up the curve that the effect becomes a significant factor. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 05:59:00 Yep, that kind of curve looks very similar to an aerodynamic drag chart. Keep in mind that this hp vs speed curve chart for the bike is affected by mechanical friction from the engine/trans/drive train and road friction as well as aerodynamic forces. For a bike/rider on the road, aerodynamic drag is only part of the equation. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 06:01:33 29242B2620377772450 wrote:
For a body with a drag coefficient of about 1.0, low speeds means 20-25 mph. By the time you hit 60, drag is quite a factor. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 06:22:44 Here's about what it looks like for a Savage. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Gyrobob_theOriginal/Motorcycle/dragvsHP01asmaller.jpg |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 06:37:27 I found a chart in one of my son-in-laws flight training manuals, "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" with a DRAG vs VELOCITY chart. The curve is similar to the one posted by Dave but the slope of the curve is longer. Keep in mind this is aerodynamic only. Drag is the vertical component and velocity is the horizontal component. Aerodynamic drag does not noticeably rise until about a quarter of the way across the velocity axis. Drag doubles at the 40% point on the axis. At 60% on the velocity axis the drag doubles again. The last 40% of the velocity axis takes the aerodynamic drag coefficient vertical. This is just aerodynamic drag. Mechanical and frictional drag from a bike and the road add other significant components of drag. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by hexnut on 12/07/12 at 06:37:33 gone fishing |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 07:02:11 727F707D7B6C2C291E0 wrote:
Mechanical and frictional "drag" increase directly with velocity. A body traveling through air (a gaseous fluid) has the drag increase with the square of velocity. The charts in flight manuals take into account that aircraft have coefficients of drag well less than that of a Savage, and then they add in things like form drag, parasite drag, interference drag, drag caused by lift, etc. Our situation is simpler. The main component is just form drag, and the drag coefficient is about 1.0. Yes, we have rolling resistance and mechanical horsepower losses, but most of what happens is due to the drag from moving a 1.0 body through a gaseous liquid. This is why it takes double the horsepower to go 85 as opposed to 60. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 07:03:39 060E111607150310165253620 wrote:
Where does it say this? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/07/12 at 07:17:22 5769627F727F72100 wrote:
Where does it say this?[/quote] often quoted analysis by some propeller head envious of the bee's actual ability to fly. "but my propeller is as big as the bee's relatively" |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/07/12 at 07:27:11 comparing a savage to a hayabusa would be like comparing a sopwith camel to an F-22. From Wikipedia: The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by: Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power. Also: it takes 3/4 Hp for a cyclist to go 55mph. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 07:42:11 3F2C3B3A25282E2C2778490 wrote:
Comparing a penguin to a marshmallow is like feeling your sister. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/07/12 at 07:51:23 Maths,... yuk... I know this,... if I'm going 65mph, and I tuck in everywhere (body, head, knees, elbows),... I can gain 4 to 6 mph... at the same throttle... If you have a cruiser type windscreen,.. fugetaboutit... ;D... 5F616A777A777A180 wrote:
That's deep... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 08:40:27 Yes, there are differences in the rate of increase of drag from mechanical, frictional and aerodynamic forces. All I have tried to say is that aerodynamic drag is just one of several components of drag that affect the power required to reach higher speeds for a given man/machine. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/07/12 at 08:51:35 506E6578757875170 wrote:
personal experience... err no, NO don't tell me TMI. :o |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 09:01:59 4F594E534B5E53483C0 wrote:
Zackly. You just changed the drag coefficient from,... say,.. 1.05 to .995. You get more speed for less drag with the same power, or with more power for the same drag. Just plain ol' fizzix. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 09:05:46 424F404D4B5C1C192E0 wrote:
Very true. Once we get into the speeds where aerodynamic drag starts to matter, it matters more and more compared to other drains on horsepower. A Savage at 100 mph has HUGE aerodynamic drag; the primary absorber of horsepower at that point. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 09:09:07 It would be interesting to put a good cafe fairing (the older full coverage type) with clip ons and a smaller rear drive pulley on a RYCA conversion with a stock motor. I'll bet the reduction in drag would allow it to do the ton easily. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Cavi Mike on 12/07/12 at 09:21:11 The belt would have to go completely. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by BuckRYCA on 12/07/12 at 09:22:07 Gyrobob's graph of horsepower versus speed shows that my Savage was making just over 40hp at the rear wheel when it registered a true 88mph. Bike was stock except for a richer main jet. Stock hp is advertised as ball park 30. This suggests that the CD for the stock bike may be less than 1.0. Nonetheless, if the graph is more or less correct, then it suggests that reaching 100mph, if possible at all, would take a long stretch of road. At 88mph the front end is feeling light and vague and acceleration is modest, so running a long time with likely increasing instability is not all that enticing. The place to try it would be a track day on a closed track with a long straightaway. But it would be disconcerting to have everyone else screaming past. :-X |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by verslagen1 on 12/07/12 at 09:40:17 0624332C082C2E20450 wrote:
How do you justify your opinion? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 09:43:25 The % of influence that aerodynamic drag has certainly increases with speed, but what % is from aerodynamic or mechanical or friction will continually vary as speed increases. The only way to isolate the aerodynamic drag and get accurate numbers for it is to mount the bike, with rider, in a wind tunnel and crank up the big fan. For mechanical and frictional drag I would think a dyno would be able to calculate that. If that can be calculated then perhaps we could take all of that and determine the total % of each at specific speeds, assuming the road is flat, ambient air is static and the throttle is held absolutely steady. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/07/12 at 10:18:42 2B26292422357570470 wrote:
Mechanical and frictional drag vary with speed and rpm. In top gear you can just consider rpm varying with speed which will cause horsepower drains to vary consistently with speed/rpm. Aero drag varies with the square of speed, which is why it is such a small factor at 20 mph, but a show-stopper as you approach the ton. I would think aero drag near the ton would use 90% of the power available, assuming that much power was actually available. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 12:59:11 Why do you assume that the aerodynamic drag would require 90% of the power needed to maintain 100mph ? Why not 75% ? Or 50% ? What is your point of reference ? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Charon on 12/07/12 at 13:00:03 If anyone wants to play with numbers... A Savage at 60 mph usually gets about 60 mpg, or put another way burns one gallon per hour of fuel. Good-running gasoline engines working at full throttle (as tested on load dynamometers) can deliver about 11 horsepower-hours per gallon of fuel, so we might assume the engine to be making 11 horsepower. Actually, because it is operating at no more than half-throttle its efficiency is less, so it delivers less. Let's call it ten horsepower. This, by definition, is 33,000 ft-lbs per minute per horsepower, or 330,000 ft-lbs per minute for ten horsepower. During that minute it travels 5280 feet (one mile). Simple division (330,000/5280) gives a thrust of just over 61 pounds. Since drag and thrust are equal, total drag is that same 61 lbs. If we estimate rolling resistance at 1% of total weight, and assume a 400 lb bike and a 200 lb rider, we have a rolling resistance of 6 lbs. 61 lbs - 6 lbs yields 55 lbs, substantially all of which must be aerodynamic drag. Right here we have shown that aerodynamic drag is about 90% of the total at 60 mph. Rolling resistance is sometimes treated as constant varying slightly or not at all with speed. Even if we say it increases linearly with speed, at 100 mph it would be 10 lbs instead of six. But aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. The change from 60 mph to 100 mph is an increase of 67% to 1.67 times original. Squaring 1.67 gives about 2.8, and multiplying that time the 55 lbs gives 153 lbs of aero drag plus the 10 lbs of rolling drag for a total of 163 lbs. At 100 mph we travel 8800 feet in one minute. Multiplication gives 8800 * 163, 1,434,400 ft-lbs of work. Dividing that by the 33,000 ft-lbs/min of a horsepower shows we need a little over 43 hp to go 100 mph. Ain't math fun? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 13:56:35 60 mph=60mpg I think it's more like 50-53mpg but for simplicity I will go with 60mpg Which gives 1gal/hr Good running engine @ WOT=11hp/gal/hr ??? Is it the same for our 650 single as for a 650 sport bike ??? Hmmm. Maintaining 60mph on our bike only requires about 1/3 throttle yet you only decrease the 11hp by 1hp. If the throttle setting is decreased by 2/3 why is the power not decreased by 2/3 ? Or even just 1/2 ? Seems to me you are dealing with apples and oranges. If instead of the assumed 10hp it is only 5-6 hp then your numbers change considerably which reduces the % of effective aerodynamic drag a corresponding amount. Does it not ? ? |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by LANCER on 12/07/12 at 14:11:05 Forgot something. You mentioned aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance but did not address the effect of mechanical resistance. That is a factor and as yet is not known how much of a factor it is, just like the rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. We have no definitive information that defines at what speed and throttle setting the relative effect is, percentage wise, of each of these 3 factors. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Charon on 12/07/12 at 21:54:25 3C313E3335226267500 wrote:
The figure of 11 hp-hr/gal comes from the Nebraska Tractor Test Lab, among other places. They tested gasoline tractors at maximum power for hours on end. That is an approximate median of some several hundred tests. Some tractors did better, but few exceeded 12 hp-hr/gal while many did considerably worse. This figure, by the way, means 11 hp for one hour while burning one gallon of fuel. A tractor producing more horsepower burns correspondingly more fuel. Typically, low-revving engines with few big cylinders (two cylinder John Deere) are more efficient than many cylinders turning very fast (sport-bike type engines, optimized not for efficiency but for maximum power). Gasoline engines are typically most efficient at WOT, because they do not have to inhale fuel and air past a partially-closed throttle plate. I reduced the 11 hp-hr/gal to only 10, to allow for at least part of the loss of efficiency caused by running the engine at half or less throttle. It might actually be worse, but I don't have any way to know. Remember that the LS650 is usually given credit for anywhere from 25 to 35 hp, depending on the source, so the 10 hp I use is much less than its maximum. I based my thrust calculation on the horsepower actually being developed based on fuel useage, not the max. If the true horsepower is different, then the thrust is different and so is the relative percentage of rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. My estimate of rolling resistance includes not only the rolling resistance of the tires, but also the frictional resistance of bearings, belt, and any other moving parts. In fact, we can measure this resistance directly by the relatively simple expedient of tying a rope to the bike, tying a spring scale to the rope, and having someone pull you along while reading the scale. At the low speed of a person pulling a small vehicle, it is safe to ignore aerodynamic drag. I'd welcome such real-world measurements as a check on my estimate. Since we are dealing with a land vehicle, we do not need to consider form drag, which is involved with production of lift in aircraft. Even if we did, form drag is part of aerodynamic drag. If we allow for non-level ground, we do have to consider the power required to literally lift the vehicle up a hill. Please do not misunderstand me - I welcome your questions. I admit to a brief post with relatively few explanations, and I am often guilty of incomplete explanations. Incidentally, I probably should have said something more along the lines of "well-designed engine" instead of "good running engine." A poorly designed engine can run well, and a well designed one can run poorly. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/08/12 at 09:18:08 Other-than-aerodynamic drains on horsepower (friction(mechanical), rolling resistance, etc.) vary with rpm, and therefore speed, if you consider only 5th gear operation for the sake of discussion. Aero drag varies with the square of speed because of fluid dynamics. Sitting upright on a Savage is pretty draggy. My guess is the the Cd is approx 1.0. I would be very surprised if it were less than .8 or more than 1.1. We only have somewhere between 30 and 35 hp available to put on the ground. -- I don't have precise numbers, but with all that drag, and the limited horsepower, I can understand why these bikes are pretty much tuckered out above 80mph. -- I think we'll have a tough time getting to the ton without some hot-rodding and some streamlining, and probably some regearing. We need a few more horsepower, a fairing, and a sixth gear. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/08/12 at 09:20:50 .. or a nice 20mph tailwind... ;)... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/08/12 at 09:23:02 6771667B63767B60140 wrote:
That would do it, most likely, since at these speeds the aerodynamic drag is the 800lb gorilla. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by arteacher on 12/08/12 at 09:25:42 ( In Russian accent)- "100 miles per hour possible, but not recommended ." ;) |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/08/12 at 09:36:07 68656A6761763633040 wrote:
Note I said "I would think." I feel 90% is a valid ballpark number because of the way drag builds with the square of speed. Let's say the drag is 20 pounds at 25 mph. That means it will be 80 pounds at 50, and 320 pounds at 100. For vehicles like these, horsepower required once you get near the ton just gets oppressive. All this conversation, and riding round on my RYCA at 70 to 80, feeling how it doesn't have much acceleration left, really makes the performance of the FJR-1300 at around-the-ton speeds so astonishing. Without even downshifting, the thing just leaps at those speeds when you feel like accelerating. That doesn't make the RYCA bike any less enjoyable, though,.. it is quite entertaining in its speed regime when out boppin' around on back country roads. There is just something more alive, more visceral about a thumper. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Dave on 12/08/12 at 10:43:30 4056415C44515C47330 wrote:
If I'm going 65 mph and my wife falls off.......Well I better turn around and go back to get her! |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Gyrobob on 12/08/12 at 13:22:48 1D262B3C2D213A3C272F223D4E0 wrote:
if she has been eating a lot of wheat lately, you'll sure be able to go a lot faster on your trip back to her. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by J C Stokes on 12/08/12 at 15:47:53 A woman I met once claimed she had seen 150 kmph or 93.2 mph on a stock S40, but it was running a stock rear tyre. When the tyre was changed to a 140/90 she saw 140kmph or 87 mph indicated. The owners handbook claims 100 mph at 6500 rpm. I don't know if there is any truth to that. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by ralfyguy on 12/08/12 at 17:13:30 7B564C4D5657504D5C390 wrote:
The 140/90 is a bigger tire and makes the rear wheel spin slower which in return makes the tranny go slower and so does the speedo. That means in both cases the bike did all it could do. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/08/12 at 17:32:59 Redline in 5th would be about a 100mph, (6500 = 97mph),... ...but estimated top speed is 88mph... She pretty much hit it ,.. dead on... :)... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by J C Stokes on 12/08/12 at 22:12:23 The lady saw 148 or 9 Kmph today or about 92 mph, she was too busy to look at the rev counter. |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Serowbot on 12/08/12 at 22:19:57 She' a a habitual throttle wicker... I like that... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: 100 mph possible? Post by Charon on 12/10/12 at 20:09:35 There is an article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance) which might be of interest. While it does not directly address rolling resistance of motorcycles, it does seem to indicate my guess of 1% isn't out of range. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |