Two Wheel Fix

Two Wheel Fix (http://www.twowheelfix.com/index.php)
-   Street (http://www.twowheelfix.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Over200's Busa Pics and Stats! (http://www.twowheelfix.com/showthread.php?t=1236)

dReWpY 05-04-2008 06:57 PM

i cant say the same...

OneSickPsycho 05-04-2008 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewpy (Post 39564)
i cant say the same...

Well, I've never seen you take a turn over 100...

dReWpY 05-04-2008 07:08 PM

only once that i noticed and paid attention to, it was on the road that had the camp ground, near tar hallow

google it mother fucker:"Park Rd 3/S Ridge Rd @39.387162, -82.766681"

OneSickPsycho 05-04-2008 07:09 PM

I don't care enough to Google it... I believe you are dumb enough to do it.

dReWpY 05-04-2008 07:12 PM

thank you, i think.... but i was meaning to look up what camp ground it was awhile ago, i want to list the cool places i have been and this was def one of them

Over200 05-04-2008 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho (Post 39555)
I don't take turns over 100mph on the street.

I can respect that...Sheeet we're in em over 100 practically touching bars!

Dnyce 05-05-2008 01:04 AM

that is fuckin sweet. i wish i had the money to do that, cuz i'd love to ride that thing at the strip.

good job on that

ceo012384 05-06-2008 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Over200 (Post 39104)
Hell I'll ride with anyone on this board unless you ride like an irresponsible jerk-off!!

Well I just AM an irresponsible jerk-off. Does that count?
Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho (Post 39463)
Motard for me = track slut / daily commuter... something I can just beat the living shit out of and it'll like it.

Motards require more maintenance, from what I've seen.

PhiSig1071 05-06-2008 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceo012384 (Post 40226)
Motards require more maintenance, from what I've seen.

Depends on the 'tard. Mine? Not much more than your average sportbike. And most of the additional is checking and torquing everything that vibrates loose! DR-Z400, DR650L, XR650L, XR400 (SICK one in Pitt for sale right now) WR250X, XT's, all less than my KTM, very little maintainence. Now, SMR's, the Husky SM450/610's, and pretty much any 'tard with Ti valves, yep, shit-ton of maintainence. BUT, it's very easy to do, most of it you can do yourself, even valve adjustments.

EDIT: OSP, the perfect 'tard for you would be an XR650, you'd love it.

Rider 05-06-2008 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40510)
Depends on the 'tard. Mine? Not much more than your average sportbike. And most of the additional is checking and torquing everything that vibrates loose! DR-Z400, DR650L, XR650L, XR400 (SICK one in Pitt for sale right now) WR250X, XT's, all less than my KTM, very little maintainence. Now, SMR's, the Husky SM450/610's, and pretty much any 'tard with Ti valves, yep, shit-ton of maintainence. BUT, it's very easy to do, most of it you can do yourself, even valve adjustments.

EDIT: OSP, the perfect 'tard for you would be an XR650, you'd love it.

The Aprilia V-Twin tard FTMFW. :drool: 750cc's of pure sex.

PhiSig1071 05-06-2008 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40520)
The Aprilia V-Twin tard FTMFW. :drool: 750cc's of pure sex.

That's not a 'tard, neither is the Hypermotard, or the HP2 Megamoto. 400lbs V-Twin with 80hp is not a 'tard, it's a dog. Wont keep up with my GSXR in the straights and wont keep up with my 'tard in the twsities. (Hell, probably wont keep up with my GSXR in the twisties). Don't get me wrong, they're fun bikes, but a 'tard is a light weight bike first and foremost (290lbs for mine, and it's heavy by tard standards). Those are just streetfighters with long-travel suspension. The SVX is a 'tard, but it requires so much fucking maintainence that you damn near have to adjust the valves between sessions.

Rider 05-06-2008 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40524)
That's not a 'tard, neither is the Hypermotard, or the HP2 Megamoto. 400lbs V-Twin with 80hp is not a 'tard, it's a dog. Wont keep up with my GSXR in the straights and wont keep up with my 'tard in the twsities. (Hell, probably wont keep up with my GSXR in the twisties). Don't get me wrong, they're fun bikes, but a 'tard is a light weight bike first and foremost (290lbs for mine, and it's heavy by tard standards). Those are just streetfighters with long-travel suspension. The SVX is a 'tard, but it requires so much fucking maintainence that you damn near have to adjust the valves between sessions.

No body makes a tard that appeals to me... the KTM 690 SM is ok, but it look to be down on power if you look at the specs. Lighter and more power is good, but lighter and even less power does not appeal to me. Give me something that weighs 300lbs and has 70-80ft-lb of torques that is less than 800cc's and I'm all over it.

PhiSig1071 05-06-2008 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40530)
No body makes a tard that appeals to me... the KTM 690 SM is ok, but it look to be down on power if you look at the specs. Lighter and more power is good, but lighter and even less power does not appeal to me. Give me something that weighs 300lbs and has 70-80ft-lb of torques that is less than 800cc's and I'm all over it.

Nobody makes that :idk:

The Hyper weighs 398lbs dry. Like I said, all those big displacement "motards" are just streetfighters with long travel suspension. Honestly, you'd be better off on a Triumph Street Triple if that's the kind of thing you're looking for. To get a Hyper or Deso down to 300lbs you'd be spending $15k in Ti and CF.

The difference 100lbs makes is amazing, I guarantee in the right conditions a 300lbs bike with 55hp (my KTM) is more fun than a 400lbs bike with 75 (Deso/Hyper).

You have to ride a real 'tard sometime. If our paths ever cross you can take mine for a spin.

Rider 05-06-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40557)
Nobody makes that :idk:

The Hyper weighs 398lbs dry. Like I said, all those big displacement "motards" are just streetfighters with long travel suspension. Honestly, you'd be better off on a Triumph Street Triple if that's the kind of thing you're looking for. To get a Hyper or Deso down to 300lbs you'd be spending $15k in Ti and CF.

The difference 100lbs makes is amazing, I guarantee in the right conditions a 300lbs bike with 55hp (my KTM) is more fun than a 400lbs bike with 75 (Deso/Hyper).

You have to ride a real 'tard sometime. If our paths ever cross you can take mine for a spin.

You mean torque? The Deso makes 92 HP and 60ft-lb of torque.

There is a sales guy at the local KTM dealer that has a 690 SM with dual titanium Leo Vince cans on it. I'm sure he's let me take it for a spin.

PhiSig1071 05-06-2008 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40559)
You mean torque? The Deso makes 92 HP and 60ft-lb of torque.

There is a sales guy at the local KTM dealer that has a 690 SM with dual titanium Leo Vince cans on it. I'm sure he's let me take it for a spin.

Sorry, I was thinking of the Shiver/Mana. The 1100 Hyper only makes about 80 (it's an air-cooled DS motor). The Deso makes a bit more but it is also heavier, significantly if I remember correctly, like 420lbs.

If that's what you want, awesome! I know they're a blast, and I would love to have one as a commuter, and they're a hell of a lot better for two-up than the KTM, but they're not light enough to qualify as a 'tard in my book.

There's a reason I have two bikes, one is faster, one is lighter. If I couldn't have two I'd probably think a little more about the Hyper or Deso. Although you could get a used sportbike and a used 'tard for less than what a new Hyper goes for.

Rider 05-06-2008 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40566)
Sorry, I was thinking of the Shiver/Mana. The 1100 Hyper only makes about 80 (it's an air-cooled DS motor). The Deso makes a bit more but it is also heavier, significantly if I remember correctly, like 420lbs.

If that's what you want, awesome! I know they're a blast, and I would love to have one as a commuter, and they're a hell of a lot better for two-up than the KTM, but they're not light enough to qualify as a 'tard in my book.

There's a reason I have two bikes, one is faster, one is lighter. If I couldn't have two I'd probably think a little more about the Hyper or Deso. Although you could get a used sportbike and a used 'tard for less than what a new Hyper goes for.

The Deso is only 15lbs heavier than the Hypermotard, making just over 400(186 kg). Oh and the Deso is a single only(no passenger pegs).

PhiSig1071 05-06-2008 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40569)
The Deso is only 15lbs heavier than the Hypermotard, making just over 400(186 kg). Oh and the Deso is a single only(no passenger pegs).

the Hyper is 398lbs, according to a dealer site I looked at. So the Deso is 413lbs dry. I'm not saying that the "big tards" aren't fun, I'm sure they're great fun, and great bikes. What I'm saying is that they don't really give you a true 'tard experience. I wouldn't mind having one, (it would be the KTM 990SM) in my garage, in addition to a 'tard. You should really go try out that SMC, although they're porkers (320lbs) it'll still give you an idea of what 'tarding is like.

The thing is a lot of people don't want (or can't use) the advantages of a lighter bike. They want the quick responsiveness and fun ride, which you get from the leverage of dirtbike bars, but they don't necessarily use the retarded corner speed and lean you can get with a 'tard. Plus they don't want to sacrifice top-speed or two-up (in the case of bikes other than the Deso).

It's not much of a sacrifice in terms of acceleration:

Hyper: 398lbs/85hp = 4.6lbs per 1hp

Deso: 413lbs/92hp = 4.5lbs per 1hp

My KTM: 290lbs/60hp = 4.8lbs per 1hp

My GSXR: 359lbs/105hp = 3.4lbs per 1hp

A race ready KTM, my buddy's street legal 560SMR: 230lbs/55hp = 4.1lbs per 1hp.

dReWpY 05-06-2008 06:29 PM

the rc 441lbs/122hp=3.6lbs per 1hp
sorry i was wondering where my pig was on the scale

PhiSig1071 05-07-2008 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewpy (Post 40647)
the rc 441lbs/122hp=3.6lbs per 1hp
sorry i was wondering where my pig was on the scale

:idk:

Try recalculating everything with the Torque numbers. :lol:

t-homo 05-07-2008 01:31 AM

The R1 I just bought got dynoed last year for shits and giggles at 164. Now I just need to check the actual weight once I get it. Yes, I realize that is a retarded amount of horsepower for me.

ceo012384 05-07-2008 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40510)
Depends on the 'tard. Mine? Not much more than your average sportbike. And most of the additional is checking and torquing everything that vibrates loose!

Most of the guys I know that run theirs at the track are always talking about rebuilding motors and stuff because they get wrung out on the straights and sit at high rpms for long periods of time, which I guess dirt bikes aren't meant to do.

Really though I don't know much about dirt bikes or tards.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40589)
It's not much of a sacrifice in terms of acceleration:

Hyper: 398lbs/85hp = 4.6lbs per 1hp

Deso: 413lbs/92hp = 4.5lbs per 1hp

My KTM: 290lbs/60hp = 4.8lbs per 1hp

My GSXR: 359lbs/105hp = 3.4lbs per 1hp

A race ready KTM, my buddy's street legal 560SMR: 230lbs/55hp = 4.1lbs per 1hp.

Mine: 366 pounds, 132 HP = 2.77 lbs per hp :D

Rider 05-07-2008 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceo012384 (Post 40758)
Most of the guys I know that run theirs at the track are always talking about rebuilding motors and stuff because they get wrung out on the straights and sit at high rpms for long periods of time, which I guess dirt bikes aren't meant to do.

Really though I don't know much about dirt bikes or tards.

Mine: 366 pounds, 132 HP = 2.77 lbs per hp :D

On your R6? :bs:

PiZdETS 05-07-2008 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40792)
On your R6? :bs:

At the sparkplug.

PhiSig1071 05-07-2008 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceo012384 (Post 40758)
Most of the guys I know that run theirs at the track are always talking about rebuilding motors and stuff because they get wrung out on the straights and sit at high rpms for long periods of time, which I guess dirt bikes aren't meant to do.

Really though I don't know much about dirt bikes or tards.

Mine: 366 pounds, 132 HP = 2.77 lbs per hp :D

And most of those guys are probably on converted MX bikes. YZF's, CRF's etc. On those bikes there is a lot more maintainence, but that's the way they're designed and built, also, a lot of those guys who race will rebuild their motor between seasons to keep it at peak power. If you get a purpose-built street tard like an SMC, DRZ-SM, or a WR250X, or a dual-sport big bore converted to a tard (XR650) then the maintainence wont be bad at all.

BTW, were talking rear wheel, not crank, try about 110hp, then it's 3.3lbs per hp.

Cutty72 05-07-2008 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceo012384 (Post 40758)

Mine: 366 pounds, 132 HP = 2.77 lbs per hp :D

At the crank... with no fluids or rider.

I'm a little over 5 lbs per hp fully fueled and me on it.

t-homo 05-07-2008 12:19 PM

Over200 probably has hp/pound.

Rider 05-07-2008 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t-rock (Post 40907)
Over200 probably has hp/pound.

Without question.

t-homo 05-07-2008 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40926)
Without question.

That shit is fuckin crazy.

PiZdETS 05-07-2008 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoJoYZF (Post 37926)
Its in his other thread. He said something about 525-550 on a conservative tune and the set up would probably be able to hit 600 if he wanted to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Over200 (Post 37615)
I would have No Problem extracting 600 from it but Im looking to come in with a conservative tune @ 525-550

Quote:

Originally Posted by t-rock (Post 40907)
Over200 probably has hp/pound.

Let's assume that with all the weight loss parts balanced against the additional turbo equipment he's somewhere around stock weight which for 2003 was 540 pounds (according to the internet).
He mentioned keeping in shape in the other thread, which for a hayabusa rider means at least 200 lbs. (No offense dude, I ride a 1000 and I'm 280 :) )

So- 550 hp/740 lbs = .74 hp per pound. Still retardedly, epically powerful. He destroys F1 cars and motogp bikes (obviously) on paper.
According to this 1/4 mile calculator, which fails to take into account traction, wheelies or gearing, his hypothetical 1/4 mile capability is 6.43.
:drool::panic: I bow to you, you crazy motherfucker.

Over200 05-07-2008 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiZdETS (Post 40945)
Let's assume that with all the weight loss parts balanced against the additional turbo equipment he's somewhere around stock weight which for 2003 was 540 pounds (according to the internet).
He mentioned keeping in shape in the other thread, which for a hayabusa rider means at least 200 lbs. (No offense dude, I ride a 1000 and I'm 280 :) )

So- 550 hp/740 lbs = .74 hp per pound. Still retardedly, epically powerful. He destroys F1 cars and motogp bikes (obviously) on paper.
According to this 1/4 mile calculator, which fails to take into account traction, wheelies or gearing, his hypothetical 1/4 mile capability is 6.43.
:drool::panic: I bow to you, you crazy motherfucker.

LOL!!...CMF'er....That's what I've always heard :rockout:...and FYI...Bike weighs 468...all fluids except fuel...& I weigh 185...I'll have to go weigh in suited up!:rockwoot:

PiZdETS 05-07-2008 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Over200 (Post 40947)
LOL!!...CMF'er....That's what I've always heard :rockout:...and FYI...Bike weighs 468...all fluids except fuel...& I weigh 185...I'll have to go weigh in suited up!:rockwoot:

Aight, so we'll say you put in 3 gallons of gas weighing around 18 pounds total which brings the total to 671 when you ride naked (I'm betting you're apeshit crazy enough to try this) and you've achieved .82 when running 550 hp.

Turn up the boost to 600 hp, burn the fuel down to 1 gallon (6.15 pounds) and you've got 600 hp over 659 pounds which is .91 hp/pound!!

Start vomiting after each meal, tearing everything unnecessary off the bike and you can get down to 600 pounds which would yield you the mythical 1 hp per pound.

God I'm a nerd. :(

Rider 05-07-2008 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiZdETS (Post 40955)
Aight, so we'll say you put in 3 gallons of gas weighing around 18 pounds total which brings the total to 671 when you ride naked (I'm betting you're apeshit crazy enough to try this) and you've achieved .82 when running 550 hp.

Turn up the boost to 600 hp, burn the fuel down to 1 gallon (6.15 pounds) and you've got 600 hp over 659 pounds which is .91 hp/pound!!

Start vomiting after each meal, tearing everything unnecessary off the bike and you can get down to 600 pounds which would yield you the mythical 1 hp per pound.

God I'm a nerd. :(

Nothing mythical about that. Top fuel and funny cars top that easily. Pro street bikes.... All that shit.

PiZdETS 05-07-2008 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40961)
Nothing mythical about that. Top fuel and funny cars top that easily. Pro street bikes.... All that shit.

Of course but a very select few of top level racers get to use those, regular joes such as us almost never get to experience such power.
On the street it's damn near unheard of.

Rider 05-07-2008 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiZdETS (Post 40962)
Of course, but a very select few of regular joes such as us get to experience it, on the street it's almost unheard of.

Agreed...

ceo012384 05-08-2008 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rider (Post 40792)
On your R6? :bs:

Why is that BS? It's not.

Stock claimed horsepower at the crank is 133 actually, I'm sorry. 133hp with ram-air and 127 without ram-air.

If you mean at the wheel, sportrider measured 112.1hp at the rear wheel of their test r6 when they tested it.

But most people discuss the crank hp when discussing power, so I stand by what I said.

I looked around a bit more and the weight was more like 357lb, not 366.

So, 357lb/133hp = 2.68 pounds per hp.

If you want to go with wheel horsepower, it's 357lb/112 = 3.1875 pounds per hp.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 40850)
And most of those guys are probably on converted MX bikes. YZF's, CRF's etc. On those bikes there is a lot more maintainence, but that's the way they're designed and built, also, a lot of those guys who race will rebuild their motor between seasons to keep it at peak power. If you get a purpose-built street tard like an SMC, DRZ-SM, or a WR250X, or a dual-sport big bore converted to a tard (XR650) then the maintainence wont be bad at all.

I see. That makes sense.

I still really want to ride one. I've heard if you don't have dirt experience they are a little tricky to learn the new technique. Is that true?

PhiSig1071 05-08-2008 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceo012384 (Post 41404)

But most people discuss the crank hp when discussing power, so I stand by what I said.

I looked around a bit more and the weight was more like 357lb, not 366.

So, 357lb/133hp = 2.68 pounds per hp.

If you want to go with wheel horsepower, it's 357lb/112 = 3.1875 pounds per hp.

I see. That makes sense.

I still really want to ride one. I've heard if you don't have dirt experience they are a little tricky to learn the new technique. Is that true?

FYI, all the weight/hp numbers I posted were dry weight and rear wheel hp.

Yes and no. If you want to ride it 'tard style, body up, bike down, leg out then yes it's hard to learn the new technique. Although not any more difficult than learning any other new technique.

You can road-race style a 'tard, and everywhere but a cart-track it's faster to do it that way. But it's a very unique, elbows up, technique, and you have to support your weight pretty much entirely on your inner thigh. It's weird, but you get used to it quickly. Again, it's no more difficult to learn then any other style of riding.

If you get down here and we ride together then you can take the KTM for a spin.

Over200 05-08-2008 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiZdETS (Post 40955)
Aight, so we'll say you put in 3 gallons of gas weighing around 18 pounds total which brings the total to 671 when you ride naked (I'm betting you're apeshit crazy enough to try this) and you've achieved .82 when running 550 hp.

Turn up the boost to 600 hp, burn the fuel down to 1 gallon (6.15 pounds) and you've got 600 hp over 659 pounds which is .91 hp/pound!!

Start vomiting after each meal, tearing everything unnecessary off the bike and you can get down to 600 pounds which would yield you the mythical 1 hp per pound.

God I'm a nerd. :(

Im gonna try it!!:dthumb:...I think it looks better naked anyways!!

ceo012384 05-08-2008 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071 (Post 41547)
FYI, all the weight/hp numbers I posted were dry weight and rear wheel hp.

Yes and no. If you want to ride it 'tard style, body up, bike down, leg out then yes it's hard to learn the new technique. Although not any more difficult than learning any other new technique.

You can road-race style a 'tard, and everywhere but a cart-track it's faster to do it that way. But it's a very unique, elbows up, technique, and you have to support your weight pretty much entirely on your inner thigh. It's weird, but you get used to it quickly. Again, it's no more difficult to learn then any other style of riding.

If you get down here and we ride together then you can take the KTM for a spin.

Yeah, the last one that I just posted is dry weight and rear wheel horsepower, giving the 3.1875 pounds per horsepower.

Interesting. Since it's faster to ride it road-race style that's what I'd learn... and I'd be better at that anyways since I've never ridden dirt except once or twice. Thanks for the offer... I hope to take you up on it sometime :cheers:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.