Element
Parking Attendant
Posts: 18
|
posted May 05, 2011 09:18 PM
 Edited By: Element on 6 May 2011 05:29
A few points re S1000RR to ZX- 10R comparison
A few (long-play) points re BMW and 10R comparos;
a) The standard ZX-10R has the second tallest 1st gear and easily the tallest 2nd and 3rd gears, of all current in-line-4 1000cc bikes, but its also has the SHORTEST 5th and 6th gears.
It's a peculiar combination choice , but there's method in their engineer's and designer's madness.
b) The standard S10000RR has the SHORTEST 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, of all current in-line-4 1000cc bikes, and its 1st 2nd and 3rd are substantially shorter. But the 5th and 6th are about average to the other in-line fours.
So the pattern of the BMW box is the opposite of the Kawasaki's box, and that has to be kept in mind in a comparison of stock performance, and street performance, and track behavior, and upgrade paths and costs.
BMW S1000RR [standard]
Rear Cog 44
Front Cog 17
1 149.9 (much shorter than all other in-line-4)
2 189.8 (much shorter than all other in-line-4)
3 229.7 (much shorter than all other in-line-4)
4 264.5 (a bit shorter than all other in-line-4)
5 291.8 (about average)
6 314.7 (about average)
This is why the BMW drives hard and STILL delivers a huge top-end hit. It seems to me that BMW's engineers expected the shorter-stroke and relative lack in low-down power and torque would require shorter gearing down low to counteract this. But it seems they over did it, a tad.
Kawasaki went the other way;
2011 KAWASAKI ZX-10R
Rear Cog 39
Front Cog 17
1 160.8 (only 2011 R1 has a taller 1st)
2 203.6 (much taller than all other in-line-4)
3 240.7 (much taller than all other in-line-4)
4 266.0 (about average)
5 289.4 (slightly shorter than all other in-line-4)
6 310.1 (shorter than all other in-line-4)
This is why the new Kawi is perceived to be a narrow-focus top-end machine - and neutered top-end hp (in the North American market any way) also does it no justice.
But if you drop one tooth from the front cog on the 10R you get this;
2011 KAWASAKI ZX-10R
Rear Cog 39
Front Cog 16
1 151.3 (average with other in-line-4s)
2 191.7 (average with other in-line-4s
3 226.5 (average with other in-line-4s)
4 250.4 (slightly shorter than all other in-line-4s)
5 272.4 (much shorter than all other in-line-4s)
6 291.9 (WAAAYYY!!! shorter than other in-line-4s)
Now the top-end totally rips, and the low-down power is also now comparable to the other 1000cc sport bikes.
This is a very cheap change, of one front sprocket, that gives you average 1000cc type acceleration everywhere in first to third, then brutal acceleration from 200 km/h (125mph) upwards ... and it still pulls out to 291 km/h, or 181.2 mph, at 13,500 RPM, it just does it a bit faster.
How many tracks in the USA can you go faster than 291 km/h? Not many I bet. In Australia I can think of two track's where you might get to ~290 km/h (momentarily), Eastern Creek and Phillip Island. So 1-tooth down at the front cog does not limit the bike anywhere, gives more low-rev 'shove', much better roll-ons, and serious top-end smash (without flashing the ECU and voiding a new warranty).
All for about $50 to add a smaller cog at your initial run-in service interval.
However, even with the 1-tooth smaller cog, a stock S1000RR STILL has the shorter 1st , 2nd and 3rd gear! The BMW simply has extremely short gearing, in the first three gears, so the Kawasaki is still going to struggle some to match it below about 230 km/h, from this one little change. However, the Kawi is a fast revver, and becomes even faster revving with a smaller front cog, so spins-up into the meat of the power, faster than the BMW does, so it still manages to recover comparably off the bottom.
And keep in mind, there's another factor at work here. On a 1000cc the power and torque are actively curtailed by ECUs, have been for years, until 4th gear and well over 200km/h, in order to maintain pitch stability, and chassis and steering composure.
But things have changed, as on these two new bikes, their anti-wheelie and TC programs are now doing this job (instead of some dumb electronic limiter) so the peak hp limit is now not as important as it once was in earlier models. Below about 230km/h or 125MPH the hard limit is now gone, so the power supplied is now determined by hardware and its optimal setup (gearing and suspension and tires), to get maximum controlled-power down yet maintaining stability.
And I think this is why the Kawi designers decided to use the taller first three gear combo, as it would make almost no practical difference > IF < the gearing was no longer what was controlling the way the power was fed in. Thus if Kawasaki's engineers and designers optimized the tires, wheels, suspension and swing-arm flex and geometry, then the TC and anti wheelie programs could allow the maximum possible amount of power to be laid down by the highest-powered stock ECU map setting.
So then the design and the rider's setup will determine the acceleration available in the first three gears. Therefore, as PEAK POWER RPM more power is then available than before, in the first three gears.
But if you accelerate from well below PEAK POWER RPM, then the taller gearing is still going to hold the bike at a disadvantage, to a similarly electronically equipped bike but with shorter gearing - like the BMW.
So I think BMW went a bit too short, and Kawasaki went a bit too tall, and the North American market top-end neutering of the 10R just made the situation for that bike (a little) worse.
These new ECUs are getting better at allowing the power to be fed-in earlier and more smoothly than before with less pitching, more traction and better directional tracking (which kind of matters a LOT to me).
The only item the Kawasaki package now lacks is an active electronic steering damper, to manage and intervene in head-shakes. The only Kawasaki I ever owned that did NOT headshake, routinely, under power over ripples, was a 1979 z650! Kawasaki really should address this tendency, because I remember dropping and wrecking a brand new GPz from that same very annoying typical Kawasaki characteristic (as that behavior generally turned me off buying a Kawasaki over another brand that has a rock solid front end ... a real pity that).
Basically, peak power and gearing is now less important than it once was, as the ECU now has the discretion over how power is fed to the back wheel, so its now actually a combination of hardware quality, and careful setup, that has become more important in allowing the ECU to maximize its discretion to feed in more power than before.
In other words, a flashed ECU won't necessarily provide more power being fed in, if your setup sucks, or your tires, their pressure are rubbish. Or if your springs are not balanced, or if you don't have lighter rims, to allow the increased (flashed) discretion of the ECU to get the power down effectively.
And you'd at least notice and be able to access the positive effects of the hard ware and setup improvements, so do those, BEFORE considering money to flash an ECU (like after your warranty expires).
A couple more points;
Australian and British 2011 ZX-10Rs do seem to make more power (but not more torque) and have a better over-rev. The dyno graphs show that our bike versions are the same as the US/CAN models, except ours peak later and make a bit more power and hold on to it longer. For the US 10R about 159 to 163 hp seems to be typical, but about 173 to 177 hp seems to be a typical for our model (and this seems to be about what US model gains with the flashed ECU). The difference is purely electronic, or perhaps some extra pollution doodads.
In a test at Eastern Creek (Western Sydney) AMCN found the stock Beamer and stock Kawi accelerated at almost identical rate, even though the gearing and power indicated the BMW should be quicker. It wasn't, the Kawi matched the BMW everywhere and handled corners better and steered faster. The stock BMW also had the advantage of an integrated quickshifter, yet the Beamer did not out-accelerate the Kawi anywhere.
In fact the principle difference noticed was brakes. The BMW ABS uses STAINLESS BRAKELINES AS STOCK, but the Kawi ABS doesn't. Which I personally think is a BIG mistake, and something I will never understand about the Japanese mentality when it comes to ABS brake lines - they just don't get it. Stainless lines on ABS is actually SAFER as you stop in a substantially shorter distance. And this has been tested and confirmed via data-logging tests. Thus the Kawi's rubber brake lines were noticeably weaker and slower acting, and that harmed entry confidence, and undermined lap times. That was the Kawi's only notable weak point compared to the BMW.
So despite the power difference, and the major gearing differences, if they are well setup, their ECUs will allow them to deliver power to accelerate at about the same rates, on the track. And this was what surprised people, and made some (like me) realize that the electronics mean these new bikes don't behave like earlier bikes anymore, when doing such comparisons. The new electronics are what's causing them to about match their accelerations, or rather, they're both metering out very strong power but at about the same optimal rate determined by what the electronics sense and decide is viable.
The lack of stainless brake lines actually determined the performance the separate Kawi ABS ECU decided was viable, with its balloning rubber brake lines.
A case of cheap and nasty (but vital) low-performance hardware, that is easy and cheap to replace with much better kit (Triumph's very low price Daytona 675 has always had stainless lines stock so it isn't even about expense), not being capable of delivering the level of braking performance the new electronic system could provide.
This is quite a different situation than previous, and made me realize that we now have to optimize the HARDWARE, so the new electronic systems can achieve the performance levels they were designed to deliver. But Kawasaki put rubber lines on it and undermined the reduction in braking distance that it could potentially deliver (plus reduced two-finger power and feel).
So these electronics dominated bikes are not like bikes pre-2009. They can not be compared in the traditional way because looking at the raw numbers, such as their gearing and outright power and torque, no longer gives you a clear answer as to which will most likely be the quicker bike, in a practical real-world sense, in each gear, and at each RPM. Setup has now become much more important to getting the ECU to maximize performance, but the quality of the hardware used also has the same effect of levering the electronic system's ultimate capabilities.
This is not new to racers, but to road riders and buyers, it more-or-less is a new set of considerations, especially regarding upgrades, and where money is best spent, to maximize real-world performance.
The baseline specs and stock components are telling you less about how it can perform as a package. As in racing, electronics are going to become a dominant factor in leveraging potential performance, and the electronic potential of any new bike can't be clearly predicted or measured, and it can also evolve, completely invisibly.
This implies the review criteria for 'stock' bikes has to evolve because now traditional reviews really only provide relative insights into what is wrong with a particular bike in stock trim, not what is potentially very right about it with only a few very minor and usually rather cheap (non-warranty voiding) modifications, that can take it to a level that is significantly above its stock performance.
A very simple and fairly cheap thing like upgrading the brake lines on an ABS bike can now dramatically shorten braking distance of that bike, even though both were 'ABS' brakes. ABS simply works much better than non-ABS for stopping you, but it also works waaayy better again with upgraded braking HARDWARE.
The new electronic systems actually provide an avenue to dramatically enhance and optimize a new bike's baseline performance via improving the HARDWARE the electronic systems modulate.
a) Better suspension will allow the TC to work even better
b) Lighter wheels and disks can do the same
We are used to gaining performance from the hardware upgrades alone, but now the new stock electronics systems can take extra advantage of these same hardware improvements. A positive feedback effect is occurring. Humans riders can benefit from better hardware, but the electronics can benefit even more from better hardware, which in turn improves the rider's total benefit.
So the total performance gain from a given hardware improvement is made larger via the electronics being able to utilize their advantages even more efficiently, than human sensory and motor controls alone can. Making the entire bike potentially perform significantly better and safer for a given performance level, than the upgrade alone could have provided the rider.
This is clearly the way forwards, for both OEMs, and for upgrade designers and sellers. This means well-designed practical and economically viable systems are going to have huge potential to improve bikes, and these systems will continue to evolve into better packages on the street - soon.
All those that said that bike performance 'peaked' in about 2005 - WRONG!
It all reminds me of many years ago hearing a pilot say that digital fly-by wire, used in an intrinsically aerodynamically unstable jet fighter makes ordinary pilots look good, but it also made exceptional pilots look merely good also, and limited their maneuver options and moderated or eliminated the use of some advanced flight skills. The electronics had thus become a moderating factor that no matter how good you were, it would not allow the exceptional pilot to fly the jet past its predictable electronic flight performance envelope, rather than to its actual physical capability. And it was done for the same reasons as for motorbikes, the F-16A and FA/18A (now rather old-hat) were too unstable to fly without continuous electronic oversight and interventions, because the roll rates and pitching rates and power levels were too rapid and uncontrollable to allow the pilot "full authority" to fly it directly. Some of the control authority had to be limited to maintain stability and optimize performance, plus structural and mechanical reliability. That trend continues to evolve since, to the point now where outrageous baseline agility, speed and climb-performance are a given and almost a non-issue, compared to the electronic and avionics capabilities, and especially enhanced endurance, reliability and much lower crash rates, with much increased survivability ... blah blah blah.
So those same factors are becoming standard issues on stock 1000cc bikes, as "full authority" turning and pitching and power need to be indirectly controlled to achieve the same end, as the rider is no longer able to maintain stability, as well, or a as quickly, or as accurately, as the electronic helper can. Whether we like it or not it's arrived, and performance and safety margins will improve with it, in the same way stainless brake lines work waayy better and much safer than rubber lines on a stock sport bike's ABS.
The only solution to the problem of hard electronic limits is to provide a broad range and scaling of digital adjustments for personal preference. Both manufacturers have provided that to a basic level, and also provide the means to remove the electronic limitations, for 'expert' riders (which I'm not).
So now if;
1) you go down 2-teeth on the front cog, this does not necessarily mean an otherwise stock 2011 10R is going to be any quicker down a quarter mile, or pitch more, or break traction more easily, than if it was only 1-tooth down, because the ECU may try to put down only as much power as the tire and its pressure and suspension action and track surface conditions permit.
2) if you flash your ECU this likewise may not necessarily mean you can access the higher performance level under about 240 km/h for the same reasons. It may make for increased instability in the suspension setup, requiring better components and setup before the electronics 'sense' or else 'learn' from a 3-axis sensor within the ECU itself, that the power can now be safely applied with greater force, without inducing negative or 'unsafe' dynamics.
So if you want a faster 'stock' bike in the first three gears you need to concentrate on specific items that will HELP THE ELECTRONICS do their thing to feed in power AND maintain stability and traction;
(a) better tires are necessary
(b) optimize tire pressures.
(c) reduce weight.
(d) PCV or Bazzas + quickshifter and hi-flow airfilter, and a full re-map.
(e) reduced unsprung weight (wheels, disks, tires, cogs, chain, guards).
(f) stainless brakelines plus road-trackday pads.
(g) the most important bit is to balance front and rear springs for rider weight, and sort dampers (get professional advice and setup help).
(h) Rider training, which is a process of getting a professional to politely teach you how and why you made your bike lap the track much slower than it was ever intended to, and how to get you to stop doing it.
--
Anything more than this is probably a waste of time and money. Serious engine modifications are almost pointless and there's no greater demonstration of this fact than the 2010 Isle of Mann SUPERSTOCK 1000cc (170hp) lap record when compared to the 1000cc SUPERBIKE (220 hp) lap record.
For any unfamiliar with the Isle of Mann TT, one lap of the road-race circuit is 37.73 miles, or 60.72 km. If I remember correctly two people died in separate accidents during last year's races. Believe it or not, these fatalities are not actually unusual, this race has killed scores of people over the years, some sections of the track historically have a 100% fatality rate if you crash. It's super-fast road racing, Utube it if you've not seen one of these races before - search for "1000 SuperStock TT 2010".
Here are the current lap records for 1000cc Superstock, and also the Superbike class;
1000 SUPERSTOCK TT 2010 (Ian Hutchinson - 2010 Honda CBR1000RR - Engine is internally 100% stock, airbox mod with air filter and velocity stacks, full-pipe, fuel and ignition remaps, race fuel, non-slick tires(!), race plastic, stock fork tubes with upgraded internals, upgraded shocks and linkages, alternative cogs and chain, stock callipers, stock disks, but with race pads, stainless lines, alternative master cylinder, bigger gas tank, the starter motor and battery is retained)
Average Speed: 130.741 MPH or 210.407 km/h
Lap Record: 17:18.91 Min:Sec
Compare that record to this one;
1000 SENIOR SUPERBIKE TT (John McGuinness on a 2009 Honda CBR1000RR + numerous internal mods and chassis upgrades for about 200 hp - it's basically BSB Superbike spec)
Average speed: 131.578 MPH or 211.754 km/h
Lap Record: 17:12.30 Min:Sec
1.3 km/h and only 6.6 sec of improvements, over a distance of 60.72 km! ... not to mention the cost difference of about $80k.
u-TUBE Onboard video of Isle of Mann TT Lap With Guy Martin (in two parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXc29ZgutI&playnext=1&list=PL9496C3350750016A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFUYIH2Ttzk&playnext=1&list=PL9496C3350750016A
This time and speed improvement is incredibly small and that's a race where throttles are 100% open for several minutes, cumulatively, each lap. Also, the Superstock 2010 ZX-10Rs got 2nd and 3rd place in the 2010 race, and broke the lap record, but the Honda broke it back again! And yes, the much more powerful ~190 hp Superstock BMW S1000RRs were in this race but they were slower, overall. If anything the BMWs were a disappointment, not slow, but not competitive either.
This all shows very clearly that outright power isn't the 'extra' performance factor, for either the Kawasaki, or the Honda. The rider, and their setup, is where the performance gain came from. The engines almost don't matter any more, and if you don't get the electronics to work with your components, via careful setup, to get the power down, you can't go faster for longer.
These guys only go fast only when they're feeling supremely confident about the bike's behavior, so more power generally does not translate to more confidence and control. At some point there's a law of diminishing returns, where the more power you put in, the slower the lap time you get out for a given level of hardware spec. As the above Superstock IOMTT lap record shows, showroom-stock bikes are absolutely amazing performers for incredibly small mass-manufactured cost. And making them go faster is not about increasing their power, it's about making the most out of what they can already do, and when you do that properly, they can come to within a fraction of 1% of what a Superbike can do.
If you're slow you're not down on power you're just down on setup - and on training.
The bottom line is; A bike's top-end power makes almost no practical improvement or advantage to NET performance until you're at 100% throttle and going over about 240km/h, at which point the rotating mass of wheels, tires, disks, cogs and chain, and the aerodynamics and suspension and steering damping become the new dominant limitations, that hold back how the available engine power can be effectively laid down. In fact, about the only time any extra slab of peak power matters is when you're wringing it out in 6th, which is almost never, in practice.
So why all this focus on peak power here, and everywhere else?
People get caught up in this manufacturer game of emphasizing a very narrow aspect of bike performance to play off against other makers, but it's not meaningful. If you ride 99.9% of the time below about 250 km/h, and you already have 160 hp, then don't bother to mod the engine, just setup the bike properly, and lose the more crappy stock components that seriously detract from getting the most out of the already available power.
There's one more big issue to consider though;
All 4 of the 2011 Japanese in-line-4 1000s that are sold into the US market, seem to be more-or-less neutered in the top-end, when comparing their top-end dyno shape to that of the same 4 bikes in Australian and British markets. All American 2011 1000cc sport bikes seem to be down by about 10 to 15hp, because their top-ends sign-off earlier. The Kawasaki is just the most obvious case of this, as all the others are also signing-off earlier, at a lower power, and lower RPM level. What explains this?
The really curious thing is it seems all BMW S10000RRs, in North America, Europe and Australia, seem to make the same power curve shape and peak power levels. Why the difference then?
This tendency (of the BMW to actually work properly) gives Americans the impression the BMW is so much more powerful than Japanese bikes (read the online 2011 Motorcycle USA S1000RR Track Shootout and also watch their video on the S1000RR to see what I mean), but to Aussies and Brits the stock power difference between these bikes is certainly not so stark. Basically, the Motorcycle USA test says that a, "10% better power across the rev range", would have made the 2011 Ninja their shootout winner, but they don't mention the obvious gearing differences, and didn't directly mention the electronic neutering difference in North America either. Motorcycle USA also said in their previous year's 2010 Superbike Smackdown test that the Honda could have easily won that test against test BMW if the Honda's soft top-end had not let it down!
The Australian CBR has been making about 168 to 169hp consistently for the past three years, with an excellent over-rev. This is exceptional because in the previous ten years the Honda was always noticeably weaker up top than the GSX-R and ZX-10R. Now the 2011 ZX-10R has strongly overtaken the Honda, once more (but in the USA it still hasn't).
So what's going on with these stock USA bike's top-end power then?
If you download PCV fuel maps for all 2010 US and Euro 1000cc sport bike models and graph up (in Excel) both the STOCK EU optimization re-map, and the STOCK US optimization re-map, you quickly notice that all of these maps are completely different for supposedly same bikes, in different locations.
"Yeah, we already knew that already dude" ... right?
But the differences are systematic, for all 4 Japanese manufacturers;
a) All stock US fuel maps are VERY leaned-out almost everywhere, at most throttle openings.
b) Stock US bikes require almost DOUBLE the fuel re-adjustments (increase) compared to the (still very) leaned-out stock Euro model fuel map (the R1 is not so bad but Zx-10R and GSX-R are all over the place and the Honda is dry in the topend).
c) The US top-ends in particular on all US bikes are VERY leaned-out, and horsepower will undoubtedly be lower for that reason alone, and the engine is being starved of fuel in the upper reaches of their rev ranges.
Fuel + air + ignition = Combustion
Not enough fuel in the air mix = Proportionately less combustion, and less power conversion into hp
It's not complex.
In other words, thorough and careful re-mapping with a PCV or Bazzaz will make a MASSIVE differences to the performance of any current standard US 1000cc sport bike. You don't have to change anything else to get a seriously more responsive motor, that's making more power, and has way better over-rev performance.
The question is; why are the manufacturers doing it, and why Kawasaki made such a high-profile lipstick-on-Pig botch of it? No good just saying you're making a much more powerful machine, when it then comes to market with a case of soft-cock-itis.
May as well go back to 750 SBK again.
I'd like to see magazine tests that first dyno graph the bike, then fit a PCV and full A:F re-map (with no other change), then dyno graph it again, then publish the difference. Then do a data-logged 'stock' roll-on and a full speed test, with and then without the new map. Publish the difference of this as well. And then do a track test, with and without the new map, and provide qualitative rider impressions and data-log the differences.
I think this would generate some 'feedback' pretty quickly about why Japanese bikes are being neutered and leaned-out so much, and why the stock A:F mapping is so bad. Then ask each factory for written comments on the results, and what they plan to do about it.
The truth is, that almost every complex item I buy requires some sort of setup, or personal optimization to get it working the way I like. This annoys me a bit, but it's also where I generally discover whether I like something or not, and this initial period really determines if I'll keep it, or else forever recommend to my friends that they buy some-other-brand.
And that's something Japan now needs to be very careful about, because crappy fuelling and the electronic neutering of motors, and using needlessly shitty rubber brake lines, that cumulatively requires thousands more to be spent with potential warranty voiding issues, is just not going to cut it in future.
All that will occur is their products will become less desirable also-rans, so they better that this seriously, because buyers will.
--
Finally, what bugs me is people in the US get a BMW for only $100 USD extra than a ZX-10R? ... eh?! ... I presume this means this US S1000RR at $13,990 does not come with ABS or quickshifter?
Get this; in Australia the BMW costs $4,491 more than the ZX-10R - that is not a typo.
That's a BMW with DTC, ABS and quickshifter at $24,490, with 2-years unlimited km warranty. The 2011 ZX-10R is $19,999 (sans quickshifter), but all 10Rs here come with DTC and ABS standard, with 2-years unlimited km warranty.
To give you a clearer picture of what this means, in today's exchange rate terms this is comparable to a person in the US, today, paying $4,850 US dollars more for their S1000RR, than for a 2011 ZX-10R. This is why the 175 hp ZX-10R is much better value here as the cost of an air filter and PCV and quickshifter and a 1-tooth smaller front cog plus stainless lines, adds about $1,400 dollars. But that gets you equal or better than stock BMW performance and you're still about $3,100 in front of a BMW buyer.
We pay more for everything, mostly due to taxes, current average gas price in California today is about $4.23 USD per US gallon, which equates to $5.72 in Aust dollars, @ $1.51 per litre, and 3.875 litres in a US Gallon, which is equal to $5.33 in US dollars. Which means we currently pay 126% more than even the people in California pay at the pump.
Nothing surer than death and taxes eh? At least in the US you have the dubious systemic advantage of Washington running up the national credit-card in order to avoid realistic levels of taxation to pay your way as you go along which gives the citizen the added opportunity to snuff it long before the bill comes due. Always look on the bright side of life, eh?
Happy redline
Edit: added u-tube links to IOMTT
____________
Natural selection always gets it right over time, and you are the byproduct of about 4 billion years of it, so do try not to prove it wrong ... mmmkay?
  
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21894
|
posted May 05, 2011 09:30 PM
thx!
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
Famous1
Expert Class
Posts: 402
|
posted May 06, 2011 02:14 PM
I say the bmw is nuetered also....... just in a different place.....
Find a graph of a bmw s1000rr and look at the dip in tourque and hp between 5k and 8k.
ECU pulling timing no doubt so the bike can pass noise regs.
|
bigdtd
Needs a job
Interceptors
Posts: 4209
|
posted September 07, 2011 07:44 AM
WOW well written and beautifully conceived. This should be required reading for anyone buying a new bike!
____________
2006 Black ZX-14,6 inches over,16/42, flies out,BMC Street Filter,Brock's Street Meg,Brock's Radial Mount Strap,PClll with Race map,Dynojet LCD w/Techmount, ZX-14 fender eliminator,Pilot Power2CTs,Speedohealer,Pazzo Levers,Cox Radiator Guard, Garmin Nuvi 265WT
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC