Which color is really faster???
07-01-2010, 11:30 AM
#31
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
07-01-2010, 11:50 AM
#32
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
Where does it say that they used the same rider? Does it specify temperature differences? Do they have the same fuel level? How many miles are on each of the bikes? If it is the same rider, did he have his cup of coffee the morning of the second test? The 60-80 is a large gap but that quarter mile time could have been due to so many factors that it is hard to say the cam is the cause. Same goes for the Dyno results. There might be more high horsepower dyno charts for the 97 because it was a new bike. From my searches it is difficult to find a dyno chart for later models because magazines didn't feel the need to dyno the bike every year. Like I said before car magazines are always getting different acceleration times for the model of car. And I think we can all agree that it is easier to be consistant in a car than on a bike.
07-01-2010, 11:52 AM
#33
Remember stock is BAD!
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 760
Just to add a little gas to the fire:
There are a couple of different dynos they measure power slightly differently. This may account for the difference.
Also the dyno operator may have some factor.
I saw 2 dyno runs done back to back. 2-4 PSI was added on the second run. On the second run there was a 1 hp increase, no other changes were made.
There are a couple of different dynos they measure power slightly differently. This may account for the difference.
Also the dyno operator may have some factor.
I saw 2 dyno runs done back to back. 2-4 PSI was added on the second run. On the second run there was a 1 hp increase, no other changes were made.
07-01-2010, 12:12 PM
#34
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
I hate to say it but you do sound more than a bit angry about this.
It doesn't say anywhere that the same rider was used, it was just my response to way different sources had different 1\4 mile ETs for the same bike.
The real meat to my post is the point on the restrictors. Why were the euro spec bikes fitted with them in 98' & '99 to limit the output to 100hp?
The fact is the bike lost approx. 5hp in '00 and I am just looking for why that happened.
The fact that the dyno shows not only less total hp but that the peak is also at a lower rpm sounds like something changed with the cams. Do you have a different component that would cause this change?
It doesn't say anywhere that the same rider was used, it was just my response to way different sources had different 1\4 mile ETs for the same bike.
The real meat to my post is the point on the restrictors. Why were the euro spec bikes fitted with them in 98' & '99 to limit the output to 100hp?
The fact is the bike lost approx. 5hp in '00 and I am just looking for why that happened.
The fact that the dyno shows not only less total hp but that the peak is also at a lower rpm sounds like something changed with the cams. Do you have a different component that would cause this change?
Where does it say that they used the same rider? Does it specify temperature differences? Do they have the same fuel level? How many miles are on each of the bikes? If it is the same rider, did he have his cup of coffee the morning of the second test? The 60-80 is a large gap but that quarter mile time could have been due to so many factors that it is hard to say the cam is the cause. Same goes for the Dyno results. There might be more high horsepower dyno charts for the 97 because it was a new bike. From my searches it is difficult to find a dyno chart for later models because magazines didn't feel the need to dyno the bike every year. Like I said before car magazines are always getting different acceleration times for the model of car. And I think we can all agree that it is easier to be consistant in a car than on a bike.
07-01-2010, 12:14 PM
#35
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Just to add a little gas to the fire:
There are a couple of different dynos they measure power slightly differently. This may account for the difference.
Also the dyno operator may have some factor.
I saw 2 dyno runs done back to back. 2-4 PSI was added on the second run. On the second run there was a 1 hp increase, no other changes were made.
There are a couple of different dynos they measure power slightly differently. This may account for the difference.
Also the dyno operator may have some factor.
I saw 2 dyno runs done back to back. 2-4 PSI was added on the second run. On the second run there was a 1 hp increase, no other changes were made.
07-01-2010, 12:15 PM
#36
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
Do you guys with Red or Black VTRs also drive full size 4x4 pick-ups with 12" lift kits and 36" tires?
And humidity also has an effect (along with temp and altitude) on dyno runs and 1/4 mile times, especially on carbureted vehicles.
And humidity also has an effect (along with temp and altitude) on dyno runs and 1/4 mile times, especially on carbureted vehicles.
07-01-2010, 12:23 PM
#37
Remember stock is BAD!
SuperSport
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 760
There is a correction factor for these variables that will be used when dyno testing. Otherwise you would have no apples to apples comparison for vehicles tested at different locations.
07-01-2010, 12:36 PM
#38
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
I hate to say it but you do sound more than a bit angry about this.
It doesn't say anywhere that the same rider was used, it was just my response to way different sources had different 1\4 mile ETs for the same bike.
The real meat to my post is the point on the restrictors. Why were the euro spec bikes fitted with them in 98' & '99 to limit the output to 100hp?
The fact is the bike lost approx. 5hp in '00 and I am just looking for why that happened.
The fact that the dyno shows not only less total hp but that the peak is also at a lower rpm sounds like something changed with the cams. Do you have a different component that would cause this change?
It doesn't say anywhere that the same rider was used, it was just my response to way different sources had different 1\4 mile ETs for the same bike.
The real meat to my post is the point on the restrictors. Why were the euro spec bikes fitted with them in 98' & '99 to limit the output to 100hp?
The fact is the bike lost approx. 5hp in '00 and I am just looking for why that happened.
The fact that the dyno shows not only less total hp but that the peak is also at a lower rpm sounds like something changed with the cams. Do you have a different component that would cause this change?
The fact is that a lot of bikes in different countries all over Europe are and have been restricted at various levels in various years... Mostly because the 100 hp seems to be a magical limit for most countries to register a bike as a "Sport Touring" bike... So a 100 hp VTR cost a third to register and insure than a 100-105 hp VTR in a lot of countries over Europe... Some have removed the rule, some have added it, and some have changed the limits...
07-01-2010, 12:43 PM
#39
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
In Sweden the magical limit was 70kW or around 95 Hp for a long while, now removed...
My bike was originally classed at 45kW or 61 Hp... But it did roughly 58kW with the restrictors in and 76-77kW or 103-104 Hp as soon as the restrictors... eh... fell out...
My bike was originally classed at 45kW or 61 Hp... But it did roughly 58kW with the restrictors in and 76-77kW or 103-104 Hp as soon as the restrictors... eh... fell out...
07-01-2010, 12:49 PM
#41
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
I got to visit the AAA EPA and CARB certified testing facility in Diamond Bar, CA a few years ago with some other automotives instructors. They do most of the testing for SEMA, which is located right next door. A vehicle that is going to be tested for EPA and CARB certification is locked up in the dyno room for 24 hours prior to testing for temperature and humidity stabilization. The test is then run during which exhaust gas is collected, not just sniffed, and analyzed by a huge bank of equipment and computers in the adjacent room. They do this every time a new header system, or any other performance part is developed, before it goes on the market as street legal.
Of course this is not a performance dyno. The vehicle is started cold, then run through a test loop at idle and various speeds for a specified time. Kind of like a very expensive smog test.
07-01-2010, 12:52 PM
#42
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
07-01-2010, 01:43 PM
#44
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Well, since I'm living here in Euroland wouldn't it be logical to ask me about the restrictors...
The fact is that a lot of bikes in different countries all over Europe are and have been restricted at various levels in various years... Mostly because the 100 hp seems to be a magical limit for most countries to register a bike as a "Sport Touring" bike... So a 100 hp VTR cost a third to register and insure than a 100-105 hp VTR in a lot of countries over Europe... Some have removed the rule, some have added it, and some have changed the limits...
The fact is that a lot of bikes in different countries all over Europe are and have been restricted at various levels in various years... Mostly because the 100 hp seems to be a magical limit for most countries to register a bike as a "Sport Touring" bike... So a 100 hp VTR cost a third to register and insure than a 100-105 hp VTR in a lot of countries over Europe... Some have removed the rule, some have added it, and some have changed the limits...
As for the whole point of this thread, the last time a got a 4-5 hp increase involved removing the heads. If I was in the position to get the same type of power bump by just sourcing an earlier set of cams, I would be all over it.
Not that any of this really matters to me. It's just that I have been curious as to what happened and\or what changes were made to see the approx. 5 hp loss in the later models. Up until this time I haven't spent any real time trying to figure it out, as like I said, it doesn't affect my bike in any way. I just happened to look at the info and with the numbers listed have to say that it really looks like a change in cam specs. Even though it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.....
I guess the only real way to know is to check both a early and late model set of cams to see if there is any difference in lift and duration. But as, like I stated earlier, it doesn't affect me I will leave that to someone else.
07-01-2010, 05:44 PM
#46
Boosted
SuperSport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 642
I gotta agree with RK1, I can't see how a cam spec change would almost double the roll-on time from 60-80. I think it would be more plausible that along with a cam change, they had a fat guy riding. I am curious though if Honda changed cams.
07-01-2010, 07:09 PM
#47
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
I have a hard enough time figuring out the rules in Sweden and the EU ones that applies to us all...I Sweden they discontinued the 70kW limit in 00-02 sometime I believe, but I could be wrong... It still lives on in some part through insurance companies...
And as I said it's different in all places... In Germany they still have that limit, so buying a bike from there (popular because of prices) means the first thing you do before registering in Sweden is to rip out the restrictors, but leaving the rubbers that are marked 70kW, then legally it's registered as 70kW but can legally have more since the modification was done before inspection. And since they didn't put in the title insurance is cheaper...
Some countries never had them, or at least they wheren't required, might have been shipped with them anyway to simplify things, I don't know...
Atleast around here it was the "theoretical" figure on the crankshaft... So my 97 bike has a 108Hp/80kW theoretical figure... And that was theoreticly restricted to 45kW at the crank... But they might not be very strict on that part at Honda, since mine did above that at the wheel...
I think it did 99Hp/73kW when I had just swapped out the restrictors for 70kW ones and tried my hand at setting up these carbs the first time on my own... I have those dynosheets (atleast some of them) in my papers somewhere, but those are most likely in my binder out in the garage where I do work on the bike (30 miles from here) so I'll see if I can find them this weekend...
My bike made 103Hp/7kW at the wheel once all the unnessecary crap had been thrown out and it had been tuned the way it was supposed to instead of Honda's emissions friendly tune, and re-tune for the restrictions... I dunno what iteration I was on, but I got some help learning from an old pro... My own first attempts was less than stellar...
Last edited by Tweety; 07-01-2010 at 07:15 PM.
07-01-2010, 07:21 PM
#48
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
BTW, you should by now have figured out that the limits was more theoretic than real to say the least...
Actually when I did my inspection after getting it reclassified as 70kW the technician more or less used a flashligth and looked at the stamp on the carb boots, and signed the form before asking me if I actually had the restrictors in there or if they where already out...
At the time I had been a good boy, following the rules... They where out a few hours later though...
Actually when I did my inspection after getting it reclassified as 70kW the technician more or less used a flashligth and looked at the stamp on the carb boots, and signed the form before asking me if I actually had the restrictors in there or if they where already out...
At the time I had been a good boy, following the rules... They where out a few hours later though...
07-02-2010, 01:40 PM
#49
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
Regardless of color or year model, the VTR offers huge bang for the buck.
In todays OC Register, one of the writers wrote an article about driving a new Lamborghini LP 570-4 Superleggera, the new Gallardo for 2011, at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana. It's 0 to 62 mph time is 3.4 seconds, right in there with the SuperHawk. I would guess that the 1/4 mile ET would be about equal with the Lambo pushing a higher top speed at the end of the 1/4 (ultimate top speed is listed at 202 mph). And the Lambo's 570 hp pushes 2954 pounds, which gives it a horsepower to weight ratio very close to the VTR at approximately 100 hp and 482 pounds.
The big difference is price, with the new 2011 Gallardo going for a mere $237,600...+tax.
Sales tax (not counting registration) here in California comes to $20,790....You could buy a few really nice Superhawks for that, or an Aprilia RSV4 Factory.
In todays OC Register, one of the writers wrote an article about driving a new Lamborghini LP 570-4 Superleggera, the new Gallardo for 2011, at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana. It's 0 to 62 mph time is 3.4 seconds, right in there with the SuperHawk. I would guess that the 1/4 mile ET would be about equal with the Lambo pushing a higher top speed at the end of the 1/4 (ultimate top speed is listed at 202 mph). And the Lambo's 570 hp pushes 2954 pounds, which gives it a horsepower to weight ratio very close to the VTR at approximately 100 hp and 482 pounds.
The big difference is price, with the new 2011 Gallardo going for a mere $237,600...+tax.
Sales tax (not counting registration) here in California comes to $20,790....You could buy a few really nice Superhawks for that, or an Aprilia RSV4 Factory.
Last edited by VTRsurfer; 07-02-2010 at 01:50 PM. Reason: add sales tax
07-02-2010, 02:32 PM
#50
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
You got it RK..."Screaming Yellow Zonkers" Yellow. I kind of like the ones that look like an Orange Creamsicle though.
Last edited by VTRsurfer; 07-02-2010 at 07:11 PM. Reason: it's orange creamsicle, not orangesicle
07-02-2010, 03:20 PM
#51
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
I will be modest and use the slowest 1/4mile tested for the hawk here. So the hawk does the 1/4 in 11.45 seconds. According to my car and driver-
Ferrari f430-11.7 seconds
Lambo Murcialago-11.6 seconds
Corvette Z06-11.7 seconds
Dodge Viper SRT-10-12.1 seconds
Porsche 911s-12.7 seconds
Aston Martin DBS-12.5 seconds
Audi R8 V-10-11.8 seconds
And those are all exotics. Lets see some cars you will actually pull up next to at a light-
WRX STI-13.5 seconds
Lancer Evo-13.7 seconds
Corvette C5-13.1 seconds
Lexus IS-F-12.8 seconds
Mazda Speed 3-14.0 seconds
Porsche Boxter-13.3 seconds
Yeah I'd say we have a pretty good Bang for the Buck. Considering the Aston Martin DBS costs almost exactly 100 times what I paid for my bike!
Ferrari f430-11.7 seconds
Lambo Murcialago-11.6 seconds
Corvette Z06-11.7 seconds
Dodge Viper SRT-10-12.1 seconds
Porsche 911s-12.7 seconds
Aston Martin DBS-12.5 seconds
Audi R8 V-10-11.8 seconds
And those are all exotics. Lets see some cars you will actually pull up next to at a light-
WRX STI-13.5 seconds
Lancer Evo-13.7 seconds
Corvette C5-13.1 seconds
Lexus IS-F-12.8 seconds
Mazda Speed 3-14.0 seconds
Porsche Boxter-13.3 seconds
Yeah I'd say we have a pretty good Bang for the Buck. Considering the Aston Martin DBS costs almost exactly 100 times what I paid for my bike!
07-02-2010, 04:35 PM
#52
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
On the topic of Harleys, that xr might not be able to beat the hawk but if your not on your game those V-Rods can surprise you. I think that is a step in the right direction for Harley. Higher reving, less cc's(1130) and power north of 100hp. I think that is the only Harley hawk riders really need to watch out for.
07-02-2010, 05:05 PM
#53
Boosted
SuperSport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 642
On the topic of Harleys, that xr might not be able to beat the hawk but if your not on your game those V-Rods can surprise you. I think that is a step in the right direction for Harley. Higher reving, less cc's(1130) and power north of 100hp. I think that is the only Harley hawk riders really need to watch out for.
07-02-2010, 09:24 PM
#56
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
Back to topic...I don't believe emission controls got any more strict from 1998 to 2001. And it seems a stretch that Honda would develop new cams. More likely they would just retard valve timing, which would improve NOX and HC emissions.
07-02-2010, 09:59 PM
#57
Banned
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lake View Terrace, CA
Posts: 5,942
Not so much off topic as evolved. My point is that all VTRs are very quick...and quick is relative.
Back to topic...I don't believe emission controls got any more strict from 1998 to 2001. And it seems a stretch that Honda would develop new cams. More likely they would just retard valve timing, which would improve NOX and HC emissions.
Back to topic...I don't believe emission controls got any more strict from 1998 to 2001. And it seems a stretch that Honda would develop new cams. More likely they would just retard valve timing, which would improve NOX and HC emissions.
You could add a bit of retard to the cam just as easy though which would give the motor a bit more power down low, so who knows.....
07-03-2010, 03:14 AM
#58
Who are you?
SuperSport
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 731
Are we really comparing supercars to motorcycles now?
The fact that a car has the same power-wt ratio as a motorcycle is damn impressive.
And a Hennessy TT viper does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, and it costs less than the Lambo.
The fact that a car has the same power-wt ratio as a motorcycle is damn impressive.
And a Hennessy TT viper does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, and it costs less than the Lambo.
07-03-2010, 04:56 PM
#60
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
But matched up against production cars, I don't think there's anything under $300,000 that could beat the SuperHawk. I know that when I nail it from a green light (on undisclosed roads), by the time I hit 2nd gear the cars are specks in my mirrors.
