frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 01, 2006 02:53 PM
ZX-14 vs hayabusa graph
(thread split off of http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=27&TID=21931)
   
|
Farmer Rog
Novice Class
Posts: 92
|
posted February 28, 2006 04:30 PM
Looks like the "scale" was intentionally ambiguous. But....you know redline and where the lines cross (5250), so you can sorta get the scale.
____________
ZX-12R, stock motor, Muzzy/PC3 63in, 60-shot dry, 750#, 9.001
ZX-14, stock motor, Brock smeg/PC3, 63.5in, ~750#, 9.31 NA, 8.95 40-shot dry.
NorthwestDragbike.com
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:04 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 23:07
Good point on the line crossing giving a reference point.
That is very strange though.
The crossing point is 210 pixels along the x axis.
The 100 unit mark is 137 pixels.
So, 137/210 of 5252 makes about 3426 rpm for the "100" mark, and about 6852 for the 200 mark.
The pull starts at 67 pixels, and so 67/210 times 5252 makes 1676 rpm, indeed a low point to start a pull, but that's good. Since Kawasaki was touting the 2000 rpm figure there's nothing unreasonable about starting down there. (That ought to be the case for a lot more dynographs.)
The end of the run is at 360 pixels, and so 360/210 times 5252 makes a mere 9000 rpm for the end of the run!
Could it be the case that while the indicated redline is 10,500, the engine is diving into the toilet past 9000, and so they ended the graph there rather than show the nosedive?
Or worse, rather than show the Busa continues to pull past 9000 rpm -- even though for the rpm's displayed you would think the Busa is dropping as fast as the 14.
This does not seem good. This does not seem good at all. Seems bogus to not use a real scale even for the rpm.
(NOTE: if the zero point of the graph doesn't correspond to zero rpm, that would throw these calculations totally off.)
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:20 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 17:33
I'm sorry Kawasaki but I am officially calling bullshit.
This graph shows the ZX-14 as having 11.4% more peak torque than the Hayabusa.
Horsepower is subject to improvements of that magnitute but peak torque per liter, being remotely comparable engines, is not.
The ZX-14 has a displacement of 1352 cc, the Hayabusa 1299 cc.
So it has a 4% displacement advantage and therefore, with equal volumetric, thermodynamic, and mechanical efficiency, should have a 4% torque advantage. Four percent would be totally believable, representing being equally good but bigger.
Six or seven percent would be a very nice achievement.
Eight or nine percent, WOW.
Over eleven percent? Getting more than seven percent more torque per liter than the Hayabusa?
I'm sorry but I do not consider that credible. Peak torque per liter is something that edges up, not leaps up like that.
Yeah, it's starting to become clear why that graph doesn't give actual numbers on its scales.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:33 PM
I believe...
There is a bulge at the peak torque area
If you look the wider picture the torque is not that much bigger
AND
yeas - I believe that KHI makes more torque compared to Zuk
even from the SAME cc
|
Drowland
Zone Head
Posts: 733
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:43 PM
Oh hell Trenace, aren't you usually tossing their salad?
I'm sick of all this bullshit as well. Why all this secretly shit?
Can't someone tell the facts?
I haven't heard the official rwhp on stock production unit?
Can't they tell us the hard facts and where and what to do to get the most hp?
Like to hear the facts from Kawasaki and not others. Like what type of rider or demographics where they trying to target? What was the reason it wasn't a R model and why did the European market was a ZZR model etc.. Whats so hard about the hard facts.......... WTFH
|
ZREXER
Expert Class
Posts: 492
|
posted February 28, 2006 05:54 PM
quote:
I believe...
There is a bulge at the peak torque area
If you look the wider picture the torque is not that much bigger
AND
yeas - I believe that KHI makes more torque compared to Zuk
even from the SAME cc
[/quote
Don't forget that the compression ratio at 12 to 1 is a full point higher than the 'Busa. Higher compression = more torque.
|
CrotchRocket
Moderator
Bracket Racing with Betsy
Posts: 8038
|
posted February 28, 2006 06:14 PM
Who cares about some graph!!!  
Listen to the guys talk about the ride 
Read the ETs and MPH 
____________
Jason Miller StreetBike Seminars
*****DragRacers do it better, because they dont cut Corners*****
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 06:55 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 18:58
quote:
Oh hell Trenace, aren't you usually tossing their salad?
I don't know what your problem is, Drowland, but at the least you're accomplishing a demonstration that you're an asshole.
But it's always better to know that when it's the case than not to know it, I suppose, so you have accomplished something. Not much but something.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:03 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 19:11
quote:
yeas - I believe that KHI makes more torque compared to Zuk
even from the SAME cc
Well, find me any two bikes competitive with each other, including where one is a generation ahead of the other, where one beats the other by 7.4% in peak torque per liter, while having overall a more highly tuned curve (more top end while similar bottom end.) If it's never happened before, why believe it now?
I don't think it has... I'm open to anyone pointing out an exception.
Hp varies a lot, being a function of both rpm and volumetric and overall efficiency. Peak torque does not vary so greatly.
I am convinced this is a funny-business graph put together by marketing people, and the reason it has no standard values on the scales is because it's bullshit. It is most likely a photoediting effort and is a completely arbitrary overlay, except for making sure the crossing points of both bikes occurred at the same rpm and the hp difference appeared remotely plausible. But is it legit, I say no.
It will be simple enough, real dynographs will come out and they can be compared against real Hayabusa dynographs.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:14 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 19:17
OK. I am going to do a test -- haven't done it yet so I don't know the answer.
Hp and torque on any TRUE graph have an absolutely direct relationship: hp = torque x rpm / 5252.
Now, it would be possible for this to be a fake graph by accurately scaling down the Busa's power and torque, or accurately scaling up the ZX-14, so it's impossible to prove that that couldn't have been done -- in other words unfortunately this test can't prove it legit; however later outside testing can show it legit if it is -- but if this mathematical relationship does NOT hold for both the Busa and ZX-14 curves then it is a fraud no doubt.
I'll post results shortly.
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:22 PM
Trenace... you're looking for a conspiracy and there isn't one...
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:40 PM
OK, at the crossing point, 5252 rpm, the ZX-14's torque, by pixel count, is 164 units. (It's OK we don't know how large the units are: what matter is consistency.)
It's hp at 5252 rpm is likewise 164 units.
The 5252 rpm point is 210 pixels along the axis.
If this graph is legit, then at all rpm, the hp should be the torque value times the distance along the axis divided by 210.
Let's try it:
At the point of the graph marked 100, the torque is 149 pixels. The distance along the x axis is 135 pixels. So the hp should be at 106 pixels.
It is at 93 pixels.
FRAUD. A few pixels off would be believable from photographic distortion, error in counting, etc. but a 14% difference from what would be correct is way too much to be believable.
This is a "photochop" chart, I am convinced. The curves may well have come from real dynographs but they were not accurately laid onto this chart -- in other words zero rpm does not correspond to the zero point and/or zero hp and zero torque do not correspond to the true zeros, and different "rules" may have been used for both the Busa and ZX-14 curves, giving a visually-compelling-advertising comparision but not an accurate true one.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:46 PM
quote:
Trenace... you're looking for a conspiracy and there isn't one...
Fish, you're the same guy that said "this is not the bike..."
You have NO way of knowing that the chart is true and accurate except for stripping off the rpm, torque, and hp scales and accurately replacing them with 0-300, 0-125, and 0-1500 scales. You do NOT know that... or if you claim you do, how do you?
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:46 PM
quote:
FRAUD. A few pixels off would be believable from photographic distortion, error in counting, etc. but a 14% difference from what would be correct is way too much to be believable.
don't u think u should at least wait until you have an explaination of what the chart is before u start using such strong words? seriously dude, chill. damn.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:49 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 19:54
No, the chart is a manifest fraud. It already attempts to explain itself by having scales on it. The curves do not have the necessary mathematical relationship to those scales, or to any linear scale, therefore it cannot be a true chart.
Sorry ,some untruths give themself away. This is one of them.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:50 PM
Edited By: frEEk on 28 Feb 2006 19:51
who said it was?!? yeah it is suspcious, but don't hang the suspect without so much as a trial.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 07:55 PM
I did give it a trial.
It came out fake.
Give me any real dynograph starting from zero on all scales and it will come out valid. It's mathematics, an inevitable relationship when the data is true.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:03 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 20:08
What this most likely is, is similar to -- but worse -- than some exhaust pipe companies do.
What they often like to do is start the torque scale at, oh, say, 50 ft lb, not zero.
So this way, if the stocker has 70 ft lb of torque at a given rpm, and theirs has 74, rather than being a thin little difference that hardly jumps out at you -- a visual proportion of 74/70, or less than 6% -- it looks huge.
It becomes a visual proportion of 24 units above baseline vs 20 units above baseline, or an apparent TWENTY percent improvement to the eye.
Only if you bother to read the scales and understand this phenomenon do you realize that the visually-apparently-huge difference is not this huge difference. Good but not this gigantic thing it appears.
But, these manufacturers at least include the true scales. So if you actually pay attention to the scales you can see it's only a difference of 74 vs 70.
What Kawasaki has most likely done here (in my estimation, and this is consistent with the analysis) is that they did this same thing but then stuck, at values that actually represent positive and significant values of hp and torque, values of zero on the scales.
This would have the effect of magnifying apparent differences between the ZX-14 and Hayabusa, but in fact be deceptive.
In any case the chart is not true and therefore one cannot determine the true percent difference between the ZX-14 and Hayabusa from it. There are apparent very large differences but they cannot be accepted as accurately represented.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:11 PM
and i repeat: who said it is "true" and is to be used to glean % differences from it? it looks to me like a slide shown at the intro on a projector, which was probably accompanied by a presenter, who may well have explained the graph correctly. you have had NO response from fish or anyone else as to what the graph is or is not or does or does nto claim to be. as to your trial, remind me what court has the same prosecutor argue both sides of the trial and never gives the defendant a chance to respond?
i give u this: without a proper explanation of what it is, posting the chart probably wasnt a good idea because people may read it incorrectly and run around spouting off some (potential) crap about 11% increase in torque. but don't go screaming fraud (which is a pretty serious accusation) without making sure what u'r saying is true. i really thought u were a bit smarter or at least reasonable/civilized than that.
|
MrHi
Parking Attendant
Posts: 14
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:11 PM
|
dubious
Needs a life
Needs more time to ride!
Posts: 8442
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:14 PM
Edited By: dubious on 28 Feb 2006 20:21
quote:
I snapped this pic today...
what an absolutely amazing ride...
You lucky SOB.
its -21C and we got 4" snow last night.
Arghhh, I need e new career where it is warm.
Trenace....
you got way too much time on your hands dude, and take everything too personal.
Drowland was just stating that usually you side with kawi.
Hell you argued with me and yourself for days about the HP figures I wanted VS. they delivered.
Relax don't do it!
Definatley some colorful people around here!
____________
natural selection.....
destiny will overcome intervention.
Some are not worthy of the effort.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 08:29 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 20:43
quote:
and i repeat: who said it is "true" and is to be used to glean % differences from it? it looks to me like a slide shown at the intro on a projector, which was probably accompanied by a presenter, who may well have explained the graph correctly. you have had NO response from fish or anyone else as to what the graph is or is not or does or does nto claim to be. as to your trial, remind me what court has the same prosecutor argue both sides of the trial and never gives the defendant a chance to respond?
i give u this: without a proper explanation of what it is, posting the chart probably wasnt a good idea because people may read it incorrectly and run around spouting off some (potential) crap about 11% increase in torque. but don't go screaming fraud (which is a pretty serious accusation) without making sure what u'r saying is true. i really thought u were a bit smarter or at least reasonable/civilized than that.
frEEk, maybe the difference is I am a scientist, with a number of published papers, I make my living from it, I have a graduate education in science, and therefore I know what graphs purport to represent. I appreciate someone without such a background might not have the confidence or assurance in what things mean.
When scales appear on a graph this means that the values are in proportion to the scales. If they are not, then the graph is deceptive and false.
They are NOT in that graph. Its values are not in proportion to the scales, so it is deceptive and false. There is no explanation, short of "Btw these scales on the side are totally bogus and deceptive, and the apparent relative difference between these curves is deceptive" that can go along with that graph to make it right.
A graph comparing things falsely and deceptively -- and to one's advantage -- is fraudulent. I understand your not thinking that a nice word but that's what is.
What this thing is, is jimmied up to make the relative differences between the ZX-14 and Busa appear bigger than they are. And not only are the scales of the axes arbitrary, as was already obvious, but they're untrue -- the zero is not zero, or there is some other manipulation causing the necessary relationship between the values to not exist.
And yes I am sure of that. I did not fail to make sure of it.
Is it possibly the work of a lone idiot? Sure, could be. This isn't on the same level as Yamaha's widespread presentation of fake info for the R6, which had to be the complicit act of many people who knew it was untrue. But even if only the work of a single person that doesn't make the graph less fraudulent in its misrepresentation, to the ZX-14's advantage, of the ZX-14 vs Hayabusa.
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:16 PM
quote:
frEEk, maybe the difference is I am a scientist, with a number of published papers, I make my living from it, I have a graduate education in science, and therefore I know what graphs purport to represent. I appreciate someone without such a background might not have the confidence or assurance in what things mean.
i see, how we're getting to belittling eh? but u'r right, i never saw or authored a single graph in getting a bachelor' sin engineering.
quote:
When scales appear on a graph this means that the values are in proportion to the scales. If they are not, then the graph is deceptive and false.
They are NOT in that graph. Its values are not in proportion to the scales, so it is deceptive and false. There is no explanation, short of "Btw these scales on the side are totally bogus and deceptive, and the apparent relative difference between these curves is deceptive" that can go along with that graph to make it right.
you do not know exactly what the scales represent, so how the can you claim that? obviously they are not standard measurements we are all familiar with, which leads me to believe it was generated by the R&D department using some odd scale only they use. chances are this was explained when it was presented. i repeat: the problem here is it has NOT been explained YET. this gives you every right to say it doesnt look right and question what it means, but no facts to back up your claim of intentional misleading.
quote:
A graph comparing things falsely and deceptively -- and to one's advantage -- is fraudulent. I understand your not thinking that a nice word but that's what is.
denotatively yes, it would be that simple. but connotatively that statement is as fraudulent as the subject.
quote:
What this thing is, is jimmied up to make the relative differences between the ZX-14 and Busa appear bigger than they are. And not only are the scales of the axes arbitrary, as was already obvious, but they're untrue -- the zero is not zero, or there is some other manipulation causing the necessary relationship between the values to not exist.
quite possible if not definite, but taken in context (which fish has unfortunately left out) it may very well not be fraudulent or even misleading.
look, i'm glad that you look out for things like this cause we are inundated with marketing BS including deceptive claims (bordering on downright lies a la the R6 tach), and i believe most people just swallow it whole, so it's good to have someone vocal seek out and poitn out such problems, but you're crying wolf where you should be crying "there may be wolves here". IF this turns out to be a intentionally deceptive graph (even if it was only displayed to the press and not public) i would be a miffed as anyone as i have a particular hate for such marketing techniques (hell, i hate virtually ALL marketing techniques), but we do not KNOW that there is anything there to be pissed about.
|
ZREXER
Expert Class
Posts: 492
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:24 PM
Edited By: ZREXER on 28 Feb 2006 21:25
Not naming names......................but someone that has been posting allot tonight needs to get laid or at least go for a nice long ride and relax.
It's only a motorcycle, but it looks to be a good one as well.
In a few more days we will all have lots of new information to debate. I own and ride motorcycles to relax, the moment it starts to get me up tight as a hobby, I'll move on to something else.
If you don't like Kawasaki's graph, stop looking at it so much!
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC