supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 07, 2006 02:46 PM
ZX12R restriction from Keith Parnell
To Board: Here is a copy of the letter I received from Keith Parnell
he is a Kawasaki Drag Racer and Dealer. This is a follow up from the ZX12R speed restriction...
4th January, 2006
Dear Brian,
I collected your letter today from my old business which I sold the year before last and retired aged 68. You are quite near the truth with your statements about my inside information but it was in fact from the technical head of KMUK not directly from the factory. Such information is kept very close to the chest of the boys in japan.
I was told that the pre-production test bike did exceed 200mph fairly easily but they were running into problems with the stability in the region of 210mph due to the aerodynamics of the bike. A decision was made to detune the bike a bit before launch and it seems that this was done with modifications to the cam/valve timing and the e.c.u. on the throttle advance curves. Obviously when the butterflies are fully open, apart from a change in size of the throttle bodies, not much could be done there.
From my own perspective I have run 200mph with the stock 1199 cc motor with some port work, an extra 5 degrees of advance and an extra 5% fuel from 9k upwards. A Muzzy 1270 piston kit brought the speed up to 205.5mph. These speeds are all with the stock cams and are electronically timed speeds on a 1.5 mile runway.
So I don't think you can use the term "restricted" in the reduced performance as if you could remove the restriction like with a Muzzy Yellow Box, more it's a matter of the motor being detuned from a higher tuning spec.
I have tried reprofiled cams in my bike but apart from moving the power up the scale a bit which is then cut off by the limiter it hasn't helped. Mind you if I fitted a DTA and could raise the rev ceiling there is more power to be had with those cams because it is still building power when the limiter cuts in. I reckon another 1k could produce an extra 15-20 rwhp. Whereas with the stock cams Maximum power is made before you get to the rev limit. So probably that's where the "restriction" lies in the cams and rev limiter.
Thank you so much for your letter and with the apologies for the delay in replying. Try searching my name and my son Lorcan Parnell on the net. His GPZ 750 turbo makes 196 rwhp.
Keith
re typed word for word by supra....
   
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted January 07, 2006 09:45 PM
This is the kind of stuff I like reading about. Thanks supra. Best post of the year (IMO). It opened my eyes to two things.
"I was told that the pre-production test bike did exceed 200mph fairly easily but they were running into problems with the stability in the region of 210mph due to the aerodynamics of the bike."
It was there all along 7 years ago. But I just now tied it together with this quote, and what the factories have been going through behind the scenes. I no longer see HP as king. The engines have exceeded what the bike can do... punching through the air. The thing people will look for in the future, will be reading the drag coefficient (CD) numbers on a new model's brochure.
Tomorrow's war for the "King of Top End"... will be won in the tunnels.
____________
E-tard
|
12r1
Expert Class
Posts: 390
|
posted January 08, 2006 03:13 PM
This would be quite a revelation, if other than 12R owners believed it.
It's common knowledge to us, what happened to the soon-to-be-King 12R, back in2000. Kawasaki did succeed in kicking the Busas ass, but weren't allowed to sell it. PERIOD.
Once in a while, the subject will come up among friends. Thier attention lasts about two seconds, could'nt care less. Magazine said this or that, and it's law. Just sounds like I'm making excuses for the last 5mph or so the 12 came up short on top, so I don't push it. I won't even bother mentioning this post, waste of time. The Busa will always be the King among the masses.
Damn shame.
jeff
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted January 08, 2006 04:10 PM
 Edited By: speedgene on 8 Jan 2006 16:22
12r1, I can imagine the speeds attained in Japan that we don't hear about. You're so off the mark saying Busa is king. I'll bet you pot holes to road reflector buttons, Honda is King Of Speed. Only, they don't have to prove shit. Never think Honda is not keeping up (if not exceeding) with the rest. I have no "brand favorite" so, I am speaking objectively. With that said, I still respect your opinion.
____________
E-tard
|
12r1
Expert Class
Posts: 390
|
posted January 08, 2006 04:58 PM
LOL!
Read that post again......:wink:
|
12r1
Expert Class
Posts: 390
|
posted January 08, 2006 05:01 PM
Edited By: 12r1 on 8 Jan 2006 17:01
"the masses"= all but 12 owners.
jeff
|
12r1
Expert Class
Posts: 390
|
posted January 08, 2006 05:05 PM
I'm sure there are machines that are many years ahead of what we can get our grubby little paws on.
I'm talkin about the naive who won't hear the truth about the '00 Speed Wars.
jeff
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 08, 2006 05:35 PM
I think the truth is that in '00 the machines were essentially equal for speed, when for PR purposes Kawasaki needed definitely superior speed.
In other words, some slower examples of the ZX-12R might be a mph slower than some faster examples of the Hayabusa, and vice versa, some faster (or maybe even average) examples of the ZX-12R might be a mph faster than some slower (or maybe any) examples of the Hayabusa.
Unfortunately the motorcycle magazines have absolutely no comprehension of the concept of statistical significance, so they run one example of each bike and then declare a Speed King on the basis of a 0.5 mph observed difference. Idiotic.
However, the fact remains that what Kawasaki needed to do was to decisively defeat the Busa and for whatever reason -- apparently the threat of the Europeans imposing a speed ban which might be a far lower figure if it were up to them -- put out a bike that was at best little faster, and with examples released that not only weren't massaged (as Suzuki almost certainly did in '99) but were high on oil, thus costing a little power and speed. A PR disaster.
|
pmkin10r
Expert Class
Posts: 191
|
posted January 08, 2006 05:53 PM
It would'nt have been as disappointing if Kawi reps had'nt been shooting thier mouths off about how this bike was going to rip the busa a new hole. The idea that Kawi had this monster that bad old legislators forced them to kill at the last minute seems like some very Kawi biased conspiratorial drival. The only way Kawi could tame such ungodly power was by extensively redesigning the motor, not detuning it or limiting it, it was far too potent for that. The world was not ready for this power. Perhaps it was derived from technology gleaned from a crashed flying saucer. Someday the secret behind Kawi's amazing rocket ship will be rediscovered
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted January 08, 2006 06:29 PM
I understand what you are saying here. That's not what I'm talking about in my first post. This is a new kind of speed war. You see, we have made a leap in speed that all along, I was thinking it was HP that restricted the speed. We are way past magazine tests and a 5mph gaps between two comparable bikes. I'm talking more of being 10-25mph short punching the air. Get it yet?
The big 4 have been jockeying HP for years. One brand is faster one year, or more (Busa) the next... Then another brand rises to the top (Kaw?). It's not about 1/4 mile times, and dyno charts. This is no longer how you will judge fast powerful bikes anymore. We are talking about stability back above 210mph on a production bike. F1, Aerospace type testing. Tunnel R&D, not engine R&D. I'm taking decades ahead, not tomorrows magazine road test.
Basically (for production type purposes)... getting up to, or close to 210 now, (going by Parnell's letter) will have to be addressed through frame and fairing design. Be it wings, canards, who knows?
Any of this help to explain what I see as reaching a plateau at 210mph? 210, and beyond is not the problem. Specialty bikes are very stable well over 300mph (Vesco). I am talking about future factory stock production bikes being safe above 210mph.
Sorry if I lost you on this. I guess I'm seeing something totally different reading that quote.
____________
E-tard
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 08, 2006 06:31 PM
MotoGP bikes are already exceeding 210, and don't have stability problems (or at least I've never seen a report of them.)
Turbo and nitrous 12's and Busas don't seem to have stability problems at 210 (or even higher) either. So I don't know.
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted January 08, 2006 09:46 PM
Agreed. Specialty bikes (modified to withstand those speeds) none the less.
Then is 210 the next click up for a production bike? The gov's around the world have enough data to know a restricted 186 is not wrecking havoc among the bike community. We are not losing riders. Time to up the limit.....in a slow, safe manor then. Keep the gov out of the way of progress.
____________
E-tard
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 08, 2006 10:15 PM
I think it may come down to a little class-snobbery.
No government is going to object to a multi-millionaire's supercar being able to exceed 200 mph, I don't think. No problem.
However, a bike that Joe Blow can pick up for $11K turning those speeds, that some government types don't seem to like.
(Alternately, it might be a matter of numbers on the roads and financial responsibility -- there won't be that many Bugatti Veyrons, Ferrari Enzos etc on the road, and those that have them usually have the deep pockets, or their estates will, to pay for any "horrendous crashes." 
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted January 09, 2006 07:25 AM
Doug!!!!!
Will you PLEASE do the Bridges article we discused and help get this over with!?!
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
Y2KZX12R
Needs a job
CompetitionCNC.com
Posts: 3762
|
posted January 09, 2006 08:13 AM
Can any of you guys post any proof or anything solid at all that kawi changed ANY part on the bike to "restrict" it before production?
In 5 years all I've seen is speculation based on assumptions.
____________
Y2KZX12R
CompetitionCNC.com
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 09, 2006 08:19 AM
Sorry Y2K:
I just retyped the letter I received from Keith Parnell in the U.K.
|
TedG
Moderator
Posts: 8222
|
posted January 09, 2006 08:32 AM
Why would they go through all the trouble and expense of cams when a rev limiter is all that they needed?
____________
Ted
2000 Green ZX12 sold
The fast color!!
Green 2005 ZX10R
2009 Concours Black ABS
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 09, 2006 08:43 AM
I'll ask Keith to ask the Technical head of kmuk what exactly the specs were.. Since the bike is being discontinued maybe 6 years later the dude will give up more information..
supra
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted January 09, 2006 09:58 AM
OK,OK I'll get to it. (sometime).
In the mean time. -
OF COURSE it's about power. If you make the bike have a better Cd through less frontal area or hanging a decent tail on it you will need less of it, that's all.
I think Keith's letter is far from a revelation. Remember what I said- the configuration chosen to sell was one deemed by KHI to provide the requisite blend of performance, reliability, cost and safety.
The inference by the use of the word "restriction" is that such a combination was chosen to yield a bike with a greater level of top speed performance and then something was "added" to reduce that perviously designed-in level of performance.
The bike is the bike that was offered for sale. Period. It remains the fastest production motorcycle ever offered to the public. (which is why I'm keeping mine) If they had wanted to offer a faster bike, they could have done that, but it wasn't necessary. They had already created "The fastest". 
|
pmkin10r
Expert Class
Posts: 191
|
posted January 09, 2006 01:43 PM
Doug, would you give me a good deal on your 12; if you were to discover somebody had made a faster production bike?
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted January 09, 2006 03:25 PM
Ok, I'll bite. You are referring to......?
|
zx12richard
Pro
The Green Monster..
Posts: 1133
|
posted January 09, 2006 03:59 PM
Edited By: zx12richard on 9 Jan 2006 15:59
He surly doesn't mean the hayaugly...LOL Or is it highlyugly????
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 09, 2006 04:26 PM
Edited By: trenace on 9 Jan 2006 16:27
There's some talk from MV Agusta that they're going to produce a faster bike, with no limiter. Hasn't happened yet so far as I know though with their production bikes.
Triumph yipped about it for a while but did nothing.
BMW yelled and beat their chest that they had a "Busa beater" but it didn't even bust out of the 170s and certainly didn't beat the Busa let alone the 12.
|
pmkin10r
Expert Class
Posts: 191
|
posted January 09, 2006 05:05 PM
Did not the Hayabusa generally post the highest top speeds 99-00 prior to restrictions? Specifically the 99's 194mph top speed as published by a major U.S. cycle mag?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 09, 2006 05:11 PM
Edited By: trenace on 9 Jan 2006 22:54
A value never repeated, so far as can be determined, with Busas released to the public. They couldn't do it, not stock. With a little work, yes... ditto and better for 12's. But stock, no.
That is what I was referring to above: Suzuki apparently massaged the magazine bike -- and they're not the first to ever do so and Kawasaki may have provided massaged bikes too e.g. some very high hp ZX-10R's to the magazines -- but Kawasaki not only didn't provide a massaged example of the 2000 Twelve, they supplied it overfilled with oil (which hurts power by increased windage.) PR disaster.
Talking about that '99 magazine bike is pretty much like talking about Kawasaki pre-production bikes in Japan that did whatever wonderful speeds -- it's irrelevant in both cases because that is not what was supplied to buyers.
Me, I think the top speeds are getting so high that a more meaningful value to test would likely be speed in the standing mile. Which is close to top speed, but a little more real world in most instances, as rapidly accelerating to such speeds is more important than eventually, with several miles, eking something out. Just a personal opinion.
I would like to see the magazines report standing mile speed and, for 186 mph-limited bikes, distance to 186: the shorter the better. Or maybe to 180 just in case the limiter might cut in at 185.5 or something, making distance to 186 impossible to measure.
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC