MCN graph
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
until the right domb ass got on the bike and had the best launch or balls go all the way, oh hell I see it the same way, 1gk should scramble all there balls. But maybe that dyno is wrong, because there has been so many diff dyno's already, and what about the 158hp that was just posted????:fact
Joined
·
773 Posts
At least these are done at the same time and these seem pretty reasonable considering all the others. The differences are what count, not the absolute number, that that does look like what most like to focus on
As far as all of them walkin the R1...
That would be true if it was a single gear race (pick any gear, doesnt matter) where shifting is not allowed and the pull begins from 3000.
Remember that you have to factor gear ratio and spacing. So when these bikes dispatch 1st gear and are mixing their cogs, they do not drop down to 3000 again. The close ratio bikes are going to keep in their sweet spot and you need to think of that. Think of it as total time spent at given power output levels, and taht will tell you which bike is faster.
So all of a sudden you see they all are about the same, with the wider ratio bikes at a potential loss.
Good to know the scans are out there. I'd like to see the whole 12 pages to see what they say about the chassis.
As far as all of them walkin the R1...
That would be true if it was a single gear race (pick any gear, doesnt matter) where shifting is not allowed and the pull begins from 3000.
Remember that you have to factor gear ratio and spacing. So when these bikes dispatch 1st gear and are mixing their cogs, they do not drop down to 3000 again. The close ratio bikes are going to keep in their sweet spot and you need to think of that. Think of it as total time spent at given power output levels, and taht will tell you which bike is faster.
So all of a sudden you see they all are about the same, with the wider ratio bikes at a potential loss.
Good to know the scans are out there. I'd like to see the whole 12 pages to see what they say about the chassis.
erixR1
Theres no denying the R1's graph is horrific and weak in comparison AND its very similar to one of the graphs you posted a couple of days ago where it showed the R1 having a big dip through the 5-7k range isn't it?? I would guess its due to the exup valve.
BD
Theres no denying the R1's graph is horrific and weak in comparison AND its very similar to one of the graphs you posted a couple of days ago where it showed the R1 having a big dip through the 5-7k range isn't it?? I would guess its due to the exup valve.
BD
Joined
·
773 Posts
Absolutely. I'd even go as far as saying that horrific is putting it mildly. Its pretty week and no one can ever dispute that.
I dont know where these bikes fall when they shift. But lets say hypothetically when you are at redline and you shift, it falls to 10000 on the close ration bike, that is the mark you want to compare from for a contest of accerlation as that is the effective part of the powerband you run in at that point forward. For a wider ration box it may fall to 8000. So that is its point for to begin comparison.
I think the Qtr miles bare out that these bikes are equally quick, and its due to the above since that poor midrange is not a big factor in accerlation when using the full gearbox.
Big downside is its just harder to use. And no leaving it in one or two gears on canyon blasts. Which kind of blows.
I saw MCN claims its EXUP, we'll have to see if that does prove to be right. Cat replacing slip-ons seem to fill in the biggest part of that, so its contributes to it for sure even if its not the majority of the problem. Consider everyones gone to those valves now, they sure seem to have missed on this one. Ironic as they are the originators of that system.
So what did you think of what they said about the ZX throttle fluff? I cant seem to understand looking at these dynos why they where saying the ZX was not as torquey (initial reviews) as the others when its right there unless its this other deal. But at the same time, you'd expect them to be blasting the R1 since it seems to really not deliver thru the middle.
Sounds like their road feel doesn't graph so well.
Still would love to get the full article to see how they talked around the soggy midrange of the R1. I cant see that being nice on the street unless it has exceptional tip in at part throttle to make it seem punchier....or something.
The Honda fastest in the quarter.....I'm still trying to come to grips with that one.
I dont know where these bikes fall when they shift. But lets say hypothetically when you are at redline and you shift, it falls to 10000 on the close ration bike, that is the mark you want to compare from for a contest of accerlation as that is the effective part of the powerband you run in at that point forward. For a wider ration box it may fall to 8000. So that is its point for to begin comparison.
I think the Qtr miles bare out that these bikes are equally quick, and its due to the above since that poor midrange is not a big factor in accerlation when using the full gearbox.
Big downside is its just harder to use. And no leaving it in one or two gears on canyon blasts. Which kind of blows.
I saw MCN claims its EXUP, we'll have to see if that does prove to be right. Cat replacing slip-ons seem to fill in the biggest part of that, so its contributes to it for sure even if its not the majority of the problem. Consider everyones gone to those valves now, they sure seem to have missed on this one. Ironic as they are the originators of that system.
So what did you think of what they said about the ZX throttle fluff? I cant seem to understand looking at these dynos why they where saying the ZX was not as torquey (initial reviews) as the others when its right there unless its this other deal. But at the same time, you'd expect them to be blasting the R1 since it seems to really not deliver thru the middle.
Sounds like their road feel doesn't graph so well.
Still would love to get the full article to see how they talked around the soggy midrange of the R1. I cant see that being nice on the street unless it has exceptional tip in at part throttle to make it seem punchier....or something.
The Honda fastest in the quarter.....I'm still trying to come to grips with that one.
Damm there is no denying how strong the zuki engine is, but i think the kawi looks best (stock, anyways)to me....nice smooth power all the way thru, with good peak hp and torque....regarding the and the yami hopefully some after market exhaust companies can work out that dip in the mid range
Joined
·
474 Posts
i think i would rather have more power throughout the mid range than just on top. more power in the mid range means you get to your peak power quicker. just cause a bike has more hp on top doesn't necessarily mean its faster. and why the exup is causing a big dip like that is beyond me. its not suppose to dip that much. i think that bike needs to be remapped. i've seen better curves than that with and without the exup. elk
Consider the top gear roll ons, 40-120 mph (just outside the of scanned picture on the right):
R1: 9.85 sec
CBR: 10.00 sec
GSXR: 9.85 sec
ZX10: 9.38sec
I don't see R1 suffering that much, top gear ratio seems to be chosen correctly. Thats how it should be as the whole power curve lies in higher rpms. Also explains why midrange was not pointed as a weakness in the text either.
R1: 9.85 sec
CBR: 10.00 sec
GSXR: 9.85 sec
ZX10: 9.38sec
I don't see R1 suffering that much, top gear ratio seems to be chosen correctly. Thats how it should be as the whole power curve lies in higher rpms. Also explains why midrange was not pointed as a weakness in the text either.
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
