Which color is really faster???
06-30-2010, 07:23 PM
#1
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Which color is really faster???
Well I posted this in another thread but as it might not get noticed, I though it might be a good discussion.....
I found this real interesting.....
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/pe...lts/index.html
the top gear roll on from 60-80.....
'97 2.78 sec with 104 hp @ 8500 rpm with 68.5 ft\lbs @6750
'00 5.00 sec with 100 hp @ 8250 rpm with 67 ft\lbs @ 6250
Which sounds like a change in cam specs.
Guess that settles which is the fastest color as the bikes built in '97 &'98 were all red but not to dis the '99 guys you also have to add Black
I found this real interesting.....
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/pe...lts/index.html
the top gear roll on from 60-80.....
'97 2.78 sec with 104 hp @ 8500 rpm with 68.5 ft\lbs @6750
'00 5.00 sec with 100 hp @ 8250 rpm with 67 ft\lbs @ 6250
Which sounds like a change in cam specs.
Guess that settles which is the fastest color as the bikes built in '97 &'98 were all red but not to dis the '99 guys you also have to add Black
06-30-2010, 08:21 PM
#3
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in those Motorcyclist stats. Both the roll on and 1/4 mile ET on the second bike are the worst I've ever seen for a VTR. Maybe that particular bike was a lemon or maybe a new fat guy was piloting. Motorcyclist doesn't tell you who rode for the test, what they weigh, etc.
Let me guess..... you own a later model......
06-30-2010, 09:07 PM
#5
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Yeah you guessed right, an '03. But if it takes 5 seconds to go 60-80 I owe you a case of 5.56x45 Lake City Match!
For comparison;
The '98 VTR tested by Motorcycleonline.com dynoed at 104 and ran 10.83
The '98 tested by Motorcycle Consumer News dynoed 100.7 and ran 10.99
The '98 tested by Cycleworld dynoed 103 and ran 11.03
I can't find it right now but I believe the '00 tested by Motorcycleonline.com dynoed 100-101 and I know it ran an 11.0 quarter.
I'm not saying the first year bikes didn't have a few more ponies. I'm saying Motorcyclist numbers for the '00 bike don't make sense.
The '98 H-D Sportster 1200 (524 lbs. and 57 HP) went 60-80 in 4.99
Any VTR which can't beat a Sportster in a roll on is a sick little birdie.
Besides, most of those old red ones are so clapped out by now they're probably putting out 90 or 92 HP
!
For comparison;
The '98 VTR tested by Motorcycleonline.com dynoed at 104 and ran 10.83
The '98 tested by Motorcycle Consumer News dynoed 100.7 and ran 10.99
The '98 tested by Cycleworld dynoed 103 and ran 11.03
I can't find it right now but I believe the '00 tested by Motorcycleonline.com dynoed 100-101 and I know it ran an 11.0 quarter.
I'm not saying the first year bikes didn't have a few more ponies. I'm saying Motorcyclist numbers for the '00 bike don't make sense.
The '98 H-D Sportster 1200 (524 lbs. and 57 HP) went 60-80 in 4.99
Any VTR which can't beat a Sportster in a roll on is a sick little birdie.
Besides, most of those old red ones are so clapped out by now they're probably putting out 90 or 92 HP
!Hey got to give you guys a little tweek now and again.....lol
Oh and my poor old '98 with 80k mikes pumped out 112hp the last time it was on a dyno around 3 months ago
06-30-2010, 09:11 PM
#6
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 677
I was wondering how long before this came back up! Mike, leave it to you to put it back out there.....hehe
On a side note, did any of you see the reports on that new BMW. They claimed I think 180hp which most critics shot down faster than a mig. It wasn't until one of those "critics" put the bike on their own dyno and it was absolutely what it claimed to be. Check it out in cycle world, it's a pretty radical machine.
On a side note, did any of you see the reports on that new BMW. They claimed I think 180hp which most critics shot down faster than a mig. It wasn't until one of those "critics" put the bike on their own dyno and it was absolutely what it claimed to be. Check it out in cycle world, it's a pretty radical machine.
06-30-2010, 09:21 PM
#8
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
The July, 2010 issue of "Motorcyclist" lists the BMW S1000RR at 174.2 "measured horsepower" @ 12,250 rpm. I never ran a bike, but I've run at least 2000 4 wheeled vehicles on a dynamometer, and fast is fast. It's a pissing contest.
All I know is that I twist the throttle on my '05 "Stealth Gray" SuperHawk, and it puts a smile on my face.
All I know is that I twist the throttle on my '05 "Stealth Gray" SuperHawk, and it puts a smile on my face.
06-30-2010, 10:58 PM
#9
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
If you translate the 100+ hp of the SuperHawk @ 482 pounds to a 3000+ pound Honda Civic, you'd have about a 674 hp Honda Civic.
That's how I used to explain to my auto students what it feels like to ride my motorcycle. They could relate to that.
That's how I used to explain to my auto students what it feels like to ride my motorcycle. They could relate to that.
06-30-2010, 11:11 PM
#10
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
06-30-2010, 11:29 PM
#11
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 110
My 97 vtr was dynoed 114 hp 2 years ago, without any jetting, so i´m not surprised Mikes 98 has 112 hp.
Everybody knows it´s usual engines to gain a few horses after the first miles.
The surprise is that 00 vtr has only 100 hp.
Can Mike be right about it?
Doesn´t make much sense honda engineers changing internal specs on an engine wich model was already doomed to be descontinuos though.
Everybody knows it´s usual engines to gain a few horses after the first miles.
The surprise is that 00 vtr has only 100 hp.
Can Mike be right about it?
Doesn´t make much sense honda engineers changing internal specs on an engine wich model was already doomed to be descontinuos though.
Last edited by luis saleiro; 06-30-2010 at 11:41 PM.
07-01-2010, 12:47 AM
#12
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Well the funny part is no one has really gotten the point or seen what I am trying to point out......
First let chat a bit about dyno's. It's funny as hell that just about everyone demands a dyno chart to believe a change can make more power, yet if you show a dyno chart or run that clearly shows a loss of power, well the dyno or the source must be wrong.
Second, quoting dyno runs from different dyno is pointless as we all know that every dyno reads a bit different.
So what I see in the numbers I quoted (which are from the same dyno and yes runs on different days will, in most cases give slightly different peak numbers) is what looks like a change in either the cams or the cam timing.
As to why this would happen, it could be that in '00 the RC51 was released so racing a VTR was kind of pointless at that time.
Anyways back to the main point. By looking at the numbers, what stands out the most to me is the earlier bike hit peak HP @ 8500 rpm where as the later one the peak is at 8250 rpm. Also the torque peak is an even greater difference with the earlier bike coming in at 6750 rpm and the later models @ 6250, like I said those numbers scream cam changes to me.
It also explains the difference in roll on numbers. On the earlier bikes the roll on from 60-80 had the motor pulling right to the torque peak where as the later bikes had to go past the torque peak to get there.
So instead of taking everything as an insult, look at the numbers. Think about how hard it is to get any extra power out of these motors. If someone was willing to try and kept an open mind on the subject, there just might be an fairly easy and inexpensive was to pick up around 5hp & 2-3 ft\lbs of torque just by finding a set of '98-'99 cams and installing them in your later model motor.
So you can go back to justifying how wrong they must be by pointing out the one obvious misprint or you can try to be a bit more objective and discuss what the numbers are saying.
What would be your reasoning, not for the difference in peak numbers, but the big difference in where the peak numbers are in the power band?
First let chat a bit about dyno's. It's funny as hell that just about everyone demands a dyno chart to believe a change can make more power, yet if you show a dyno chart or run that clearly shows a loss of power, well the dyno or the source must be wrong.
Second, quoting dyno runs from different dyno is pointless as we all know that every dyno reads a bit different.
So what I see in the numbers I quoted (which are from the same dyno and yes runs on different days will, in most cases give slightly different peak numbers) is what looks like a change in either the cams or the cam timing.
As to why this would happen, it could be that in '00 the RC51 was released so racing a VTR was kind of pointless at that time.
Anyways back to the main point. By looking at the numbers, what stands out the most to me is the earlier bike hit peak HP @ 8500 rpm where as the later one the peak is at 8250 rpm. Also the torque peak is an even greater difference with the earlier bike coming in at 6750 rpm and the later models @ 6250, like I said those numbers scream cam changes to me.
It also explains the difference in roll on numbers. On the earlier bikes the roll on from 60-80 had the motor pulling right to the torque peak where as the later bikes had to go past the torque peak to get there.
So instead of taking everything as an insult, look at the numbers. Think about how hard it is to get any extra power out of these motors. If someone was willing to try and kept an open mind on the subject, there just might be an fairly easy and inexpensive was to pick up around 5hp & 2-3 ft\lbs of torque just by finding a set of '98-'99 cams and installing them in your later model motor.
So you can go back to justifying how wrong they must be by pointing out the one obvious misprint or you can try to be a bit more objective and discuss what the numbers are saying.
What would be your reasoning, not for the difference in peak numbers, but the big difference in where the peak numbers are in the power band?
07-01-2010, 04:38 AM
#14
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
You know 8541 I really did believe that Harley changed their ways and decided to prove it in 2004 by building the most powerful production motorcycle EVER. It was a joke.
Last edited by pwshadow; 07-01-2010 at 05:08 AM.
07-01-2010, 05:45 AM
#16
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
I have the original cams from my 97 lying around... I also have a 03 donor engine to rebuild... I guess I should take the time to go over those cams with a timing wheel/clock and see if I can measue any difference...
07-01-2010, 06:45 AM
#19
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
07-01-2010, 08:01 AM
#20
pragmatic anarchist
Superstock
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 380
(I actually like the part number check idea)
07-01-2010, 08:14 AM
#21
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
Now maybe I'm just trying to be optimistic but I was sifting though all of my old car and driver and Motor Trend mags and I noticed that they will test the same model of car, some times more than once in the same year, and get acceleration times that are off by as much as .5 seconds in the quarter. I constantly see different 1/4mile times for the corvette ZR-1 from the same magazine. Being carbuereted the bike won't adjust to air changes such as altitude and temperature as well as an EFI engine would. So in an attempt at optimism(I own an '03) I want to believe these are some reasons the newer model didn't perform as well as the older hawk.
07-01-2010, 09:44 AM
#23
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,216
Crashrat,
I can confirm that the part numbers for 98, 00 and 04 are all the same.
That does NOT however mean that they all came with the same camshafts. The 98s could have been built with different camshafts. Then at some point, Honda removed that part number and only made the current part number available for ALL VTR1000Fs.
Would be interesting to see what happens if stock 98s were put in 00 or later bike and dyno runs made.
I can confirm that the part numbers for 98, 00 and 04 are all the same.
That does NOT however mean that they all came with the same camshafts. The 98s could have been built with different camshafts. Then at some point, Honda removed that part number and only made the current part number available for ALL VTR1000Fs.
Would be interesting to see what happens if stock 98s were put in 00 or later bike and dyno runs made.
07-01-2010, 10:56 AM
#24
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Crashrat,
I can confirm that the part numbers for 98, 00 and 04 are all the same.
That does NOT however mean that they all came with the same camshafts. The 98s could have been built with different camshafts. Then at some point, Honda removed that part number and only made the current part number available for ALL VTR1000Fs.
Would be interesting to see what happens if stock 98s were put in 00 or later bike and dyno runs made.
I can confirm that the part numbers for 98, 00 and 04 are all the same.
That does NOT however mean that they all came with the same camshafts. The 98s could have been built with different camshafts. Then at some point, Honda removed that part number and only made the current part number available for ALL VTR1000Fs.
Would be interesting to see what happens if stock 98s were put in 00 or later bike and dyno runs made.
07-01-2010, 11:17 AM
#27
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,216
The not-so-serious is; these are only numbers for 60-80, all of us YELLOW SH riders KNOW that Yellow is the fastest after 80.
07-01-2010, 11:23 AM
#28
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
07-01-2010, 11:27 AM
#29
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,216
07-01-2010, 11:28 AM
#30
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
EDIT I goofed up the post but here's what should be at the bottom-
I'm not insulted by any of this, just think you're drawing bigger conclusions from the difference in #s than the numbers justify- and you're basing those conclusions on one test of one bike that just happens to be the slowest VTR any of the magazines have ever tested.
I'm not insulted by any of this, just think you're drawing bigger conclusions from the difference in #s than the numbers justify- and you're basing those conclusions on one test of one bike that just happens to be the slowest VTR any of the magazines have ever tested.
Camshaft part numbers are same for all year VTRs.
The 2000 VTR tested by Motorcycleonline.com ran .47 quicker quarter than the 2000 VTR tested by Motorcyclist- and .17 quicker than the '98 tested by Motorcyclist
.
I think the most logical conclusion is that the second bike tested by Motorcyclist was sub standard.
The 2000 VTR tested by Motorcycleonline.com ran .47 quicker quarter than the 2000 VTR tested by Motorcyclist- and .17 quicker than the '98 tested by Motorcyclist
.I think the most logical conclusion is that the second bike tested by Motorcyclist was sub standard.
So no matter how you look at it, something changed in '00. Now the easiest thing to change would be to grind the cams a touch smaller. Most people wouldn't notice the difference and Honda could save some $$ by only needing to inventory one model of carb isolator.
Sorry if some feathers got ruffled but like I said earlier, this is a good lead to track down if someone is looking to get a 4-5 hp gain for a small out lay of $$
