FD vs 636 Ninja w/bolt ons***VIDEO***
03-01-12, 02:12 PM
#51
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, if your talking "900"s your talking about dinosaurs, unless your talking about cruisers, nobody has made a 900 since the 90's man. Secondly, it comes down to operator error, plain and simple.
According to Cycle World August 07
ZX6R Top speed = 153 mph
0-60 in 3.2 sec.
1/4 mile 10.84
fuel mileage 39 mpg
horsepower 100.3@12550 rpm
tourque 43.1 @ 11850 rpm
414 dry wight
Thats 07, they are faster and lighter today.
03-01-12, 02:30 PM
#52
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Waiting for Indykid to catch up
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I say show me the evidence, because the best FD 0-60 time I could find verified on google was
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
1995 Mazda RX-7 R2 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.9
Whereas a bone stock Kawasaki ZX10R will do 0-60 in 2.92 seconds.
I have done upwards of 160mph in an RX7 and its squirrelly, not as much as some other cars but squirrelly none the less. Now I've been verified (by transponder) at 202mph on the east banking at Daytona on a 2005 GSXR1000 in 2006 and it was rock solid. My point is that bikes are inherently faster, its usually operator error or bad choice of sprockets that results in videos like the one above. Look at the power to weight ratio of a 700hp FD , it weighs 2888lbs stock (and is only 296hp stock). You take a 2011 ZX10R for example is 210HP stock and weighs only 436lbs full of fluids. Do the math. No competition.
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
1995 Mazda RX-7 R2 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.9
Whereas a bone stock Kawasaki ZX10R will do 0-60 in 2.92 seconds.
I have done upwards of 160mph in an RX7 and its squirrelly, not as much as some other cars but squirrelly none the less. Now I've been verified (by transponder) at 202mph on the east banking at Daytona on a 2005 GSXR1000 in 2006 and it was rock solid. My point is that bikes are inherently faster, its usually operator error or bad choice of sprockets that results in videos like the one above. Look at the power to weight ratio of a 700hp FD , it weighs 2888lbs stock (and is only 296hp stock). You take a 2011 ZX10R for example is 210HP stock and weighs only 436lbs full of fluids. Do the math. No competition.
03-01-12, 02:31 PM
#53
Racing is not all about math. You said it yourself, there are bad riders, bad drivers, etc...Idk the mechanical condition of the RX7 you went 160 in, but mine is rock solid at (and higher than) those speeds.
Regarding the 0-60 times, are you serious? I'm not talking about a stock FD here...There are many members on this site with 500+RWHP FDs, myself included. You honestly don't think a 500+RWHP car weighing less than 2900 lbs will run a sub 4 second 0-60?
Hell, there are RX7s on this site that would run 0-60 at closer to 3 seconds than 4. 
With no traction whatsoever I trapped on par with a 638HP Corvette ZR1, which runs to 60 in less than 4 seconds. With my MT DRs, I'm looking at a 10.xx @ 130+mph quarter mile. You honestly don't think that would beat a lot of bikes out there? C'mon man...
Btw, stock FD weight is 2789...Idk where you're getting your figures from. And I thought it was clear in my post, but I wasn't talking about stock FDs running 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. But yeah, there are TONS of modded ones on this site (mine included) that'll run to 60 in less than 4 seconds with the right tires.
Regarding the 0-60 times, are you serious? I'm not talking about a stock FD here...There are many members on this site with 500+RWHP FDs, myself included. You honestly don't think a 500+RWHP car weighing less than 2900 lbs will run a sub 4 second 0-60?
Hell, there are RX7s on this site that would run 0-60 at closer to 3 seconds than 4. With no traction whatsoever I trapped on par with a 638HP Corvette ZR1, which runs to 60 in less than 4 seconds. With my MT DRs, I'm looking at a 10.xx @ 130+mph quarter mile. You honestly don't think that would beat a lot of bikes out there? C'mon man...Btw, stock FD weight is 2789...Idk where you're getting your figures from. And I thought it was clear in my post, but I wasn't talking about stock FDs running 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. But yeah, there are TONS of modded ones on this site (mine included) that'll run to 60 in less than 4 seconds with the right tires.
03-02-12, 10:40 AM
#56
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-02-12, 10:52 AM
#57
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Waiting for Indykid to catch up
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Are you trying to say that motorcycles have good aerodynamics? And are you trying to say that it would take a FD with the same power to weight ratio to keep up with a bike? Like 1400hp? I have had a 500+hp FD for about 8 years, raced many bikes, ridden many bikes, and know you are smoking crack.
03-02-12, 10:54 AM
#58
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racing is not all about math. You said it yourself, there are bad riders, bad drivers, etc...Idk the mechanical condition of the RX7 you went 160 in, but mine is rock solid at (and higher than) those speeds.
Regarding the 0-60 times, are you serious? I'm not talking about a stock FD here...There are many members on this site with 500+RWHP FDs, myself included. You honestly don't think a 500+RWHP car weighing less than 2900 lbs will run a sub 4 second 0-60? Hell, there are RX7s on this site that would run 0-60 at closer to 3 seconds than 4. With no traction whatsoever I trapped on par with a 638HP Corvette ZR1, which runs to 60 in less than 4 seconds. With my MT DRs, I'm looking at a 10.xx @ 130+mph quarter mile. You honestly don't think that would beat a lot of bikes out there? C'mon man...
Btw, stock FD weight is 2789...Idk where you're getting your figures from. And I thought it was clear in my post, but I wasn't talking about stock FDs running 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. But yeah, there are TONS of modded ones on this site (mine included) that'll run to 60 in less than 4 seconds with the right tires.
Regarding the 0-60 times, are you serious? I'm not talking about a stock FD here...There are many members on this site with 500+RWHP FDs, myself included. You honestly don't think a 500+RWHP car weighing less than 2900 lbs will run a sub 4 second 0-60?
Hell, there are RX7s on this site that would run 0-60 at closer to 3 seconds than 4. With no traction whatsoever I trapped on par with a 638HP Corvette ZR1, which runs to 60 in less than 4 seconds. With my MT DRs, I'm looking at a 10.xx @ 130+mph quarter mile. You honestly don't think that would beat a lot of bikes out there? C'mon man...Btw, stock FD weight is 2789...Idk where you're getting your figures from. And I thought it was clear in my post, but I wasn't talking about stock FDs running 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. But yeah, there are TONS of modded ones on this site (mine included) that'll run to 60 in less than 4 seconds with the right tires.
03-02-12, 10:55 AM
#59
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you trying to say that motorcycles have good aerodynamics? And are you trying to say that it would take a FD with the same power to weight ratio to keep up with a bike? Like 1400hp? I have had a 500+hp FD for about 8 years, raced many bikes, ridden many bikes, and know you are smoking crack.
03-02-12, 11:06 AM
#60
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total drag (Dt) and drag coefficient (Cd) are two completely different but related things. Cd is equal to the coefficient of parasitic drag (Cdp) plus the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi). Cdi is minimal on motorcycles though so it can be effectively disregarded.
Total drag (in lbs) can be found by multipyling the Cd, dynamic pressure* (q), and the surface area (S).
* dynamic pressure is made up from the density ratio (local air density accounting for local altitude, temperature, and barometric pressure measured against standard density) multiplied by the air velocity in knots squared. The resultant of that is then divided by 295.
The formula looks like this:
Dt=Cd(q)S
As you can see drag is determined by five factors. Cd, surface area, local pressure, local temperature, and air speed.
High end sports cars generally have Cd numbers in the mid 0.3s. Motorcycles however have Cd numbers close to 1.0 depending on the model bike, size of rider, and riding position. In looking at the formula you should be able to deduce one major point. Drag is increasing exponentially with speed.
Plugging in some generic numbers show this better.
Variables: Standard atmosphere (sea level, 15 degree C, and a barometer of 29.92), Car at .35 Cd. Bike at 1.0 Cd. Car surface area at 19 sq. ft. Bike surface area at 7 sq. ft. (surface areas and Cds are approximate numbers).
50 kts
Bike Dt = 59.32 lbs
Car Dt = 56.35 lbs
100 kts:
Bike Dt = 237.3 lbs
Car Dt = 225.44 lbs
150 kts:
Bike Dt = 533.90 lbs
Car Dt = 507.20 lbs
Conclusion:
In the case of cars vs. bikes the bikes generally have triple the Cd but 1/3 the surface area so Dt remains about the same regardless of speed. Cars kick the crap out of bikes at high speeds because at high speeds the predominant factor is aerodynamics. As speeds increase the rate of acceleration decreases and the superior HP/weight ratio that gave the bike superior acceleration at low drag speeds cease to be the deciding factor. At high speeds where rates of acceleration are minimal you need horsepower to overcome the drag factors. As we have seen, aerodynamic drag is approximately equal so whoever has the most horsepower wins, therefore, in these types of relatively low speed engagements (ie less than 160mph) the drag coefficient of the motorcycle is not great enough to detract from the power to weight ratio.
Total drag (in lbs) can be found by multipyling the Cd, dynamic pressure* (q), and the surface area (S).
* dynamic pressure is made up from the density ratio (local air density accounting for local altitude, temperature, and barometric pressure measured against standard density) multiplied by the air velocity in knots squared. The resultant of that is then divided by 295.
The formula looks like this:
Dt=Cd(q)S
As you can see drag is determined by five factors. Cd, surface area, local pressure, local temperature, and air speed.
High end sports cars generally have Cd numbers in the mid 0.3s. Motorcycles however have Cd numbers close to 1.0 depending on the model bike, size of rider, and riding position. In looking at the formula you should be able to deduce one major point. Drag is increasing exponentially with speed.
Plugging in some generic numbers show this better.
Variables: Standard atmosphere (sea level, 15 degree C, and a barometer of 29.92), Car at .35 Cd. Bike at 1.0 Cd. Car surface area at 19 sq. ft. Bike surface area at 7 sq. ft. (surface areas and Cds are approximate numbers).
50 kts
Bike Dt = 59.32 lbs
Car Dt = 56.35 lbs
100 kts:
Bike Dt = 237.3 lbs
Car Dt = 225.44 lbs
150 kts:
Bike Dt = 533.90 lbs
Car Dt = 507.20 lbs
Conclusion:
In the case of cars vs. bikes the bikes generally have triple the Cd but 1/3 the surface area so Dt remains about the same regardless of speed. Cars kick the crap out of bikes at high speeds because at high speeds the predominant factor is aerodynamics. As speeds increase the rate of acceleration decreases and the superior HP/weight ratio that gave the bike superior acceleration at low drag speeds cease to be the deciding factor. At high speeds where rates of acceleration are minimal you need horsepower to overcome the drag factors. As we have seen, aerodynamic drag is approximately equal so whoever has the most horsepower wins, therefore, in these types of relatively low speed engagements (ie less than 160mph) the drag coefficient of the motorcycle is not great enough to detract from the power to weight ratio.
03-02-12, 11:29 AM
#63
I'd just like some of the stuff that xaulzan is smoking. Will you share? 
By the way, why do you keep emphasizing 0-60 times of bikes?? Who races to 60 mph and calls it quits?! Simply put, numbers don't lie. Look at what bikes are trapping and running (ET) at the track, and then look at what high horsepower FDs are running...There are always exceptions, but GENERALLY speaking the high horsepower FD is going to win.
By the way, why do you keep emphasizing 0-60 times of bikes?? Who races to 60 mph and calls it quits?!
Simply put, numbers don't lie. Look at what bikes are trapping and running (ET) at the track, and then look at what high horsepower FDs are running...There are always exceptions, but GENERALLY speaking the high horsepower FD is going to win.
03-02-12, 12:12 PM
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'm just partial to motorcycles because that's what I raced for so long. I'm not into drag racing so I don't quote trap times, but with my experience road racing bikes, and my limited experience in cars, these are my conclusions. Before I started racing at the track, back in my street racing days, I always had cars trying to race me, and it was never a competition, but then again, I've never raced a professional car driver on a closed course on a motorcycle, only other motorcycles. I also seem to have alot of fools in civics try to race me when I'm cruisin in my FC TII...
03-02-12, 12:25 PM
#66
Understandable. I think we all kinda figured you were a bike guy. :P lol
However, keep in mind that some of these guys are bike AND car guys, and know their way around a bike/car or 2. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely bikes out there that will rape our FDs sideways, but the vast majority just won't (assuming you're running a modded FD making some big power, of course). Speaking from experience, I've been around long enough to beat up on bikes and also get my *** handed to me by a few. There are absolutely experienced and inexperienced riders as well. One of my friends had a GSXR 750 years ago, and I remember racing with him riding it vs another friend. At the time I was making less power, and we were dead even up to ~140. Then, with the less experienced rider, I raped him sideways.
So based on your last post, you have an FC? I'm sure you're aware, but we are of course talking about 500+RWHP FDs racing these bikes, and in 1BAD20B's case he's obviously got a 3 rotor making some pretty stupid power. I just used the drag strip example because those times and trap speeds don't lie. Generally speaking, the higher HP FDs (traction pending) will outrun/out-trap most bikes. And of course trap speed is what you use to determine the outcome of a roll/highway race...Whoever traps the highest is going to take the win on the interstate.
However, keep in mind that some of these guys are bike AND car guys, and know their way around a bike/car or 2.
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely bikes out there that will rape our FDs sideways, but the vast majority just won't (assuming you're running a modded FD making some big power, of course). Speaking from experience, I've been around long enough to beat up on bikes and also get my *** handed to me by a few. There are absolutely experienced and inexperienced riders as well. One of my friends had a GSXR 750 years ago, and I remember racing with him riding it vs another friend. At the time I was making less power, and we were dead even up to ~140. Then, with the less experienced rider, I raped him sideways.So based on your last post, you have an FC? I'm sure you're aware, but we are of course talking about 500+RWHP FDs racing these bikes, and in 1BAD20B's case he's obviously got a 3 rotor making some pretty stupid power. I just used the drag strip example because those times and trap speeds don't lie. Generally speaking, the higher HP FDs (traction pending) will outrun/out-trap most bikes. And of course trap speed is what you use to determine the outcome of a roll/highway race...Whoever traps the highest is going to take the win on the interstate.
03-02-12, 01:13 PM
#67
i just LMAO.. u guys are funny.. i want some of that stuff u all smoking! 
every time i raced a bike it was usually from a roll 60mph+ and they always got the jump until 100-120mph that's when i would start passing them.
the only way i think i could beat a bike from the line it's with the 2step and slicks.
every time i raced a bike it was usually from a roll 60mph+ and they always got the jump until 100-120mph that's when i would start passing them.
the only way i think i could beat a bike from the line it's with the 2step and slicks.
03-04-12, 04:35 PM
#69
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
It's great you're just able to beat a near-stock bike that costs $10,000 in your $40,000 car with $80,000 in modifications. lol
That said, a race car will always be faster around a track than a race bike. And the skill of the driver/rider has a much large affect on the bike. Plus the fear factor...
Now go and race a turbo bike.
That said, a race car will always be faster around a track than a race bike. And the skill of the driver/rider has a much large affect on the bike. Plus the fear factor...
Now go and race a turbo bike.
