bazza_g Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 that is a serious power to weight ratio, I can't imagine how fast this machine must be taken from here [ QUOTE ] The reduced dry weight of 379lb combined with an 8bhp power increase to 184bhp raises the nominal power-to-weight ratio beyond 1,000bhp per ton, although the GSX-R's real strength remains its blend of usability, high performance and a wide spread of power. It has an electronically controlled steering damper and adjustable footrests, but the main talking point is its adjustable engine management, which allows the rider to choose between full power, or maximum of 148bhp or 118bhp according to road conditions. [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_ Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 The magical figure has been breached, i've ridden with the current model and that was wheelspinning at 120mph so the new engine management modes should be welcomed. Nice rundown of next years suzukis on that site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeDesmo Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 The 1000hp/ton is presumably without a rider so it will be somewhat less when being ridden. That said it is still one fast muthaphuker....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 [ QUOTE ] that is a serious power to weight ratio, I can't imagine how fast this machine must be [ QUOTE ] The reduced dry weight of 379lb combined with an 8bhp power increase to 184bhp raises the nominal power-to-weight ratio beyond 1,000bhp per ton, although the GSX-R's real strength remains its blend of usability, high performance and a wide spread of power. It has an electronically controlled steering damper and adjustable footrests, but the main talking point is its adjustable engine management, which allows the rider to choose between full power, or maximum of 148bhp or 118bhp according to road conditions. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Mmmmm, that's interesting I understood the K7 will be 7 odd kg HEAVIER due to new cat’s and the fact it has twin exhausts! Any road up, I can confirm the K6 is no slouch but would add if the K7 makes 184bhp I WILL EAT MY LEATHERS. A good K6 will make 150+ bhp on a dyno. I remember when Yamaha were claiming the R6 to be the first 120bhp 600....... It was more like 99bhp Bazza fast is only one way to describe the Gixer! BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 [ QUOTE ] but would add if the K7 makes 184bhp I WILL EAT MY LEATHERS. A good K6 will make 150+ bhp on a dyno. I remember when Yamaha were claiming the R6 to be the first 120bhp 600....... It was more like 99bhp [/ QUOTE ] The manuacturers sometimes make calculations of BHP at the crown of the pistons. Any more than 70hp is a waste IMHO. I'd settle for more of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 The R1 was the first I to break the 1000BHP/tonne mark a couple of years ago. I have one... Yes..... it is fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] but would add if the K7 makes 184bhp I WILL EAT MY LEATHERS. A good K6 will make 150+ bhp on a dyno. I remember when Yamaha were claiming the R6 to be the first 120bhp 600....... It was more like 99bhp [/ QUOTE ] The manuacturers sometimes make calculations of BHP at the crown of the pistons. Any more than 70hp is a waste IMHO. I'd settle for more of course! [/ QUOTE ] Exactly - how many cars do you think have the quoted power at the wheels? It's a pity that none of the magazines actually measure power curves for cars from the wheels. I suspect that certain claims would be seen as a touch optimistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Agreed but it is accepted/assumed that the quoted power is at the crank, not the piston!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Fair enough - but how do you measure crank output short of stripping the engine out and sticking on a bench? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 I’m not saying that this is the way to go. Only that this is an accepted means of quoting outputs. To answer your question. I believe it is done on a regular dyno? After accelerating the rollers to measure the power. The transmission losses are calculated from the deceleration (not sure if in gear or in neutral) time taken for the rollers to slow (the reverse of how the power is calculated). Sorry if this dont make sense, I have just been woken from a siesta Edit:Add the measured loss to the measured power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 I always thought that they applied a correction factor. Can't say that I've heard of using the rollers "in reverse". Anyway surely that would either give you losses to the gearbox (i.e. in neutral) or you have additional losses from engine breaking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Sorry, the calculation is reversed by measuring the rate of slowing the rollers, not the rollers reversed! Are you teasing me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_ Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Isn't the correction factor is to account for variables such as altitude and temperature? Here is a dyno printout from my first Aprilia RS125. Are they the formulas used at the top left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 I would hazard a guess that there are many? When I dyno'd my Blade they measured the rate at which the gearbox slowed the rollers after final run.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Interesting debate chaps but like I said if the K7 Gixer or '04 R1 make over 180bhp (even on the bench) I'll eat my leathers. A good K6 or R1 will put out 150odd BHP on the dyno, I really can't see the drivetrain loss to be over 30 BHP..... Someone correct me. One thing that can't lie are the scales. Claiming dry weights of sub 170kg don't mean a thing when you're looking at more like 205-210+ kg wet and then you have to add the 15 Stone lump to ride the thing........ Mort if you think you're R1 is fast, ride a K6 GSX-R 1000......... That's fast, believe me!! BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 My memory is sh1t, but I think that my Blade made about 102BHP But with the tranny loss it was 112bhp. 112BHP was the ave for the early Blades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Isn't the correction factor is to account for variables such as altitude and temperature? Here is a dyno printout from my first Aprilia RS125. Are they the formulas used at the top left? [/ QUOTE ] Good form Lee - you power checked your RS125!! Looked very healthy too! For the record here's a (poor) printout of my SP1 after a custom tweak a Dynojet 250.............. Not bad for half an engine, eh? BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_ Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Cheers Avus_Bub, the little Aprilia didn't do too bad on the rollers. Nice printout from the sp1, the torque curve looks relentless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Ta Yes it rides how it looks really, hit 5500rpm and the fun starts. You can forget roll-ons with a big twin but once it's spinning up.......... I'm running some more ignition advance now from 5000rpm to redline. You can really feel it on the road, a nice 'crisp' midrange before the surgre at 6500. In a straight line it will keep with all but the very latest 'Big Fours'.... Oh that Gixer......... BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Mort if you think you're R1 is fast, ride a K6 GSX-R 1000......... That's fast, believe me!! BUB [/ QUOTE ] I suspect there's not much in it but the GSXR1000 will be marginally faster. In the end its up to the rider as we all know.... When my R1 sells (soon I hope) I shall be down the Suzuki shop to try a K6. They are pretty special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Posted October 3, 2006 Report Share Posted October 3, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Interesting debate chaps but like I said if the K7 Gixer or '04 R1 make over 180bhp (even on the bench) I'll eat my leathers. A good K6 or R1 will put out 150odd BHP on the dyno, I really can't see the drivetrain loss to be over 30 BHP..... Someone correct me. One thing that can't lie are the scales. Claiming dry weights of sub 170kg don't mean a thing when you're looking at more like 205-210+ kg wet and then you have to add the 15 Stone lump to ride the thing........ Mort if you think you're R1 is fast, ride a K6 GSX-R 1000......... That's fast, believe me!! BUB [/ QUOTE ] Oh I'm sure you're right that there are lies, damn lies, and bhp figures. My point was why not actually test cars to see what they really have. It's very easy for the marketing department to add a couple of extra BHP if they want to... As to weights PB did a test of the 600s weights recently and found some interesting things. I forget the exact figures. They weighed each bike and then subtracked the "wet" items weight to try to get to the dry weight. As memory serves Honda were way out (15 kg???) and wouldn't respond as to why (as was another). The Triumph was 2kg odd off which Triumph explained as the weight of the battery. Yet still are of the bikes are listed within a couple of kilos dry. Marketing in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mort if you think you're R1 is fast, ride a K6 GSX-R 1000......... That's fast, believe me!! BUB [/ QUOTE ] I suspect there's not much in it but the GSXR1000 will be marginally faster. In the end its up to the rider as we all know.... When my R1 sells (soon I hope) I shall be down the Suzuki shop to try a K6. They are pretty special. [/ QUOTE ] Well I rode the '06 'Blade today and have to say it's very good indeed. Not as brutal, as the GSXR maybe but sooooooooooo easy to use the performance. Even a mate who came along and had riden a '04 one (hated it!) said it was a leauge apart from the '04/05 model. I'm impressed and was made a very tempting offer by my dealer today. Only problem - I'm in love with my SP I'm going to ride a mates 05' R1 just to complete the set!! (I'd NEVER buy green ) BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Well I rode the '06 'Blade // but sooooooooooo easy to use the performance. Even a mate who came along and had riden a '04 one (hated it!) said it was a leauge apart from the '04/05 model. [/ QUOTE ] Mmm, I borrowed a blade some years back to take a car driving m8 for a blast, as he thought his m8's original MX5 was very, very fast On riding the Blade back to my house to collect my man, I was riding at about 125...(kph! O'course ) and thinking how fecking borng Bikes need to be that bit rough to float mt boat. This Blade handled like a dream and went like stink. But I felt that I really didn't need to be there.... Oh, my friends now know what very fast is!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avus_Bub Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well I rode the '06 'Blade // but sooooooooooo easy to use the performance. Even a mate who came along and had riden a '04 one (hated it!) said it was a leauge apart from the '04/05 model. [/ QUOTE ] On riding the Blade back to my house to collect my man, I was riding at about 125...(kph! O'course ) and thinking how fecking borng Bikes need to be that bit rough to float mt boat. This Blade handled like a dream and went like stink. But I felt that I really didn't need to be there.... [/ QUOTE ] I know exactly where you're coming from Sneaky. I've told myself for the last 5 years that I'd never buy a boring four pot 1000. I love my SP1 , a Jap' bike with true character. But the current crop of 1000's are stunning and after trying the 'Blade and Gixer I know the SP' is a generation behind.............. I think my mind's made up on the 'Blade. My dealer is 2miles away and I just don't like the Gixer image. Plus I like being the underdog Roll on March BUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SneakyMcC Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Will the stealer want that scabby ol'SP of yours? (take that as a que to post a picture. Have we had one this week? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now