gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:25 PM
I went to the school of Hard Knocks & Skint Knees  It's the best education Zero Money can buy  That should count for something 
  
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:34 PM
This reminds me of what went on the R6 forums -- some have a real blindness when it comes to the truth that their favorite brand, well, hasn't told the truth (yes, worse in that case than this, but you should have seen the Yamaha-locksteppers.)
The only persons uptight are yourselves, the ones so bothered at my pointing out the graph is a fraudulent misrepresentation. Sorry that that gets you so bothered, but your being bothered doesn't change it.
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:40 PM
Actually I felt the whole Busa Vs ZX14 graph was a lame display. Hell did the Busa push Kawasaki to make the next step in their own line up? If so that's sad indeed because I guess had it NOT been for Suzuki the ZX14 might have never been born. EH?? Who gives a shit how it compares to a Busa? Kawasaki only needs to worry about building the baddest motorcycle they can build and NOT one that edges out the Busa. Screw the Busa. BUILD the bikes Kawasaki and don't worry about Suzuki Now there's a novel idea
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:50 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 21:57
Wow... although at the time of the post I did do a recheck to make sure my calculation was right, nonetheless I erred:
quote:
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.
In fact, re-rechecking, 135/210 is 0.6429. That times 149 is 96 pixels. NOT the 106 pixels I previously calculated and posted.
The read value from the graph is 93 pixels.
That is a small enough difference to likely be fully accountable from photographic distortion and errors in pixel count.
Accordingly, the graph is NOT shown to be falsified.
This is a good example of why an article written professionally gets preferably weeks of time for edits and corrections.
I believe I readily accepted the apparent (but based on erroneous calculation) 14% discrepancy as being actual because I already found the torque improvement shown by the graph to be implausible, and I still do -- plus the entire matter of the scales being switched to meaningless units which throws a red flag. So already doubting the thing for other and valid reasons, doing one calculation and finding a big discrepancy, but on an order entirely reasonable if the graph were jimmied, and then confirming it on a somehow-still-mistaken recheck, seemed sufficient to consider it verified that the graph was mathematically inconsistent.
It wasn't.
I apologize for the error.
I still don't know if the difference between the bikes is as big as it appears in the graphs and I still doubt it is: that increase in peak torque appears "too good to be true" and it just is not right for the units to be stripped off of the axes and meaningless numbers or numbers of unspecified meaning put in their place. But I certainly wish I had triple-checked rather than only double-checked my calculation, again apologies for that error.
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:53 PM
I loaded this chick up at a Bar one night that looked like about 95 pixels. The next morning she looked like 146 pixels. It happens Trenace to the best of us from time to time
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:55 PM
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted February 28, 2006 09:58 PM
You still might be right that also the zeros are not absolute
BUT
'ït is obvious that the scale figures are wrong
so one could conduct that the zeros are also
Is there any way to try to get the scales correct
since we do have a lot of Hayabusa dynos.
We have the 2000 rpm torque as well as at 7500 plus hp at 9500 rpm
We can calculate 2000 rpm & 7500 rpm hp plus torque at 9500 rpm
Do they fit the scale?
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted February 28, 2006 10:07 PM
quote:
Actually I felt the whole Busa Vs ZX14 graph was a lame display. Hell did the Busa push Kawasaki to make the next step in their own line up? If so that's sad indeed because I guess had it NOT been for Suzuki the ZX14 might have never been born. EH?? Who gives a shit how it compares to a Busa? Kawasaki only needs to worry about building the baddest motorcycle they can build and NOT one that edges out the Busa. Screw the Busa. BUILD the bikes Kawasaki and don't worry about Suzuki Now there's a novel idea
i tend to agree. of course that is the main competition to the ZX-14, and that's what all the journalists are gonna compare it to anyway, but i figure, let them make their own comparisons. take the high road.
quote:
I still don't know if the difference between the bikes is as big as it appears in the graphs and I still doubt it is: that increase in peak torque appears "too good to be true" and it just is not right for the units to be stripped off of the axes and meaningless numbers or numbers of unspecified meaning put in their place.
seems a little much to me too, but who knows. hoepfully we'll have a decent report of back to back dyno runs within a couple months (by "we" i dont' eman bikeland specifically). i wouldn't trust a dyno graph of the competition supplied by a manufacturer regardless. there are just too many people in the marketing department who would vote to find the lousiest busa and the best 14 they can find. maybe the graph would be accurate thanks to honest executives overruling them, but what's the chance of that? besides, any manufacturer that publishes graphs liek that is gonna be lambasted by the public that supports the "other" bike anyway, hense the reason (i believe) manufacturers DON'T publish such things. hell, they don't even publish rear wheel dyno graphs of their own models.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 10:31 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 22:56
Well, VPN, if you give me a number that you consider as a reference number for a Hayabusa rear wheel hp, then if the graph is accurate I can give you the hp and torque figures the ZX-14 would have given if the Hayabusa had produced that number on that dyno.
E.g., if you specify that the scale is such that the Busa they might have chosen would have yielded 150 rwhp (another dyno might say less, but in this example, this one is saying that) then I could give you the ZX-14 figure on that scale... or if you say 145 hp, then on that scale, etc.
The ZX-14 peak hp figure is on that graph 8.3% higher than the Busa's peak hp. So if we imagine a dyno such that the Busa they might have chosen would have read 145 hp, then the ZX-14 would have read 157 hp... if the dyno would have called that Busa 150 hp, then 162.5 for the ZX-14... if the dyno was so happy and/or that individual Busa was so strong as to call a stock Busa 155 hp, then 168 hp for the ZX-14.
On the assumption that the graph is accurate (proportional to its scales) and the zeros represent zero. Actually it does seem that they do represent zero, else the calculation I did (and I've since checked it at other rpm) would not have come out so closely. Whether there's any other way in which the ZX-14 has gotten relatively inflated compared to the Busa I can't say, but at least zero does appear to be zero.
Perhaps the "bump" explanation is indeed right for the astoundingly big percent increase in peak torque, as those hp figures are not at all unreasonable. Comparing "off bump" to "off bump" it's still about an 8.9% improvement, or 4.9% above and beyond the displacement increase. If accurate that's a really remarkable improvement and to be commended, especially seeing as how it's at higher rpm, yet the extreme low end is equally strong (well, I suppose per cc it's relatively 4% weaker on the bottom, but even so, the rider experiences the absolute not the relative amount.)
It still remains odd that apparently, if zero indeed is zero as it appears to be, that the graph ends at apparently about 9000 rpm. I can understand, to some extent, hiding the hp and torque numbers on account of the direct comparison with a competitor, but what can be the good reason for hiding the rpm scale? Well, wanting to hide a die-out on top could be a reason.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:19 PM
How about the other way around
The 14 gives max 169 bwhp
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:20 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 23:27
But in this graph the Suzuki is allowed to rev past 9000 rpm. For some reason, it seems in Kawasak's presentation the information past 9000 rpm was chopped off, and -- unless Fish reports differently -- the audience wasn't informed that that info was being kept from them, and probably would have tended to assume that the end of the graph was redline or at least near it.
My bet -- they were hiding a drop-off and wanting it to look more "sports like," as supersports engines hold their peak hp or near to it right up to the limiter. So they chopped the graph as soon as hp started dipping, to make it appear that the ZX-14 had that quality, when it does not.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:24 PM
what if they both rev to 10500 ???
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:28 PM
I fully expect the ZX-14 does rev to 10,500.
I'm just saying that graph doesn't show it. They chose not to show the curves past 9000 for some reason. Each is invited to guess their own reason.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:34 PM
Ah, let's calculate that again by a differing method. I am concerned about photographic distortion. The further one projects from the 5252 rpm point the more the inaccuracy will be.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:46 PM
Edited By: trenace on 28 Feb 2006 23:50
From the 100 mark of the x axis to the 200 mark, at the level where the ZX-14 torque and hp curves intersect, is 122 pixels.
The intersection point is 72 pixels from the 100 mark, or 59% of the way.
So it seems fair to say that the 5252 rpm point is at the 159 mark.
If so, then each 159 marks is 5252 rpm, or each mark is 33.03 rpm, or each 100 marks is 330.3 rpm. (If some "round number" was involved, the true value might more likely be each 100 marks is 333.33 rpm, or each 300 is 10,000.)
If so, then the 300 mark should correspond to 9909 rpm, or -- if rounding and my readings are wrong by 1% which is easily possible -- perhaps 10,000 rpm.
The ZX-14 curves end 13 pixels before the 300 mark, or 100 pixels past the 200 mark. The total distance between the 200 and 300 marks is 113 pixels (note discrepancy compared to between the 100 and 200 marks -- I attribute this to photographic distortion.)
So that would make the termination point at the 288 mark.
If each mark is 33.03 rpm, then that would be 9512 rpm.
If each mark is 33.33 rpm -- a rounder number -- then that would be 9600 rpm.
Much better than the 9000 but still definitely not 10,500. Still ended very early.
You can also just see that visually compared to a stock Busa curve from anywhere else. It foes on for much more rpm past peak than that. Kawasaki isn't showing the full curves.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:49 PM
my head spins now Yamaha R6 promised speeds
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 28, 2006 11:55 PM
Edited By: trenace on 1 Mar 2006 00:01
No, I really, really don't think it's that the motor can only turn as far as on that graph, which seems about 9600 rpm, or anything like that. That's absolutely unbelievable.
Instead, I am guessing some marketing guy thought the graph looked more impressive if he lopped off the perhaps-decreasing-from-peak tail end and eliminated the rpm references, thus creating the illusion that the Fourteen keeps building right to redline.
It's stupid IMO: they should have shown the full curve, provided the rpm values, and not played this game.
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted March 01, 2006 12:06 AM
Tre, before You do any calculations based on pixels You should really strecth the picture so it's not dissorted anymore. And about the graph. I also hate when there aren't explanations on the scales but when really thinking it could be that bottom is speed (in kph), that would also explain it revs only to 9000-9500RPM - then the top speed limiter kicks in. On left there could be power in KW's. I should really be on the back wheel. But it dosen't look too impressive. Even though the Busa is 110 kW (~150hp), wich sounds real. But that puts the ZX14 to about 120 kW (~164hp) wich seems too little, it's not more than a ZX12... About the torque and 0-1500 scale I couldnt think of anything to fit...
And I about the torque peak - it would be very realistic to get a peak like that if You tune the air box and exhaust to give You a peak at that particular RPM. Remember, even ZX12 has very similar shape of the HP and torque. But lets wait till Fish tells what it means.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted March 01, 2006 12:17 AM
Edited By: trenace on 1 Mar 2006 00:33
Any photographic manipulation is going to be no better than mathematical manipulation to deal with the photographic distortion.
There ain't no way that that curve is going to 10,500 or anywhere near it.
There is no way that that "300" mark is significantly if any more than 10,000 rpm -- based on the fact that the line-crossing point must be 5252 rpm -- and so there's no doubt that the graph runs to less than 10,000 rpm.
And just by eye -- no calculating required -- it's plain to see that the Suzuki curve doesn't extend nearly as far past peak on the Kawasaki chart as it does on, for example, the chart VPN posted. Kawasaki hasn't shown the full Hayabusa curves.
As for the possibility that the x axis represents speed, why should the limiter kick in BEFORE the 300 mark, if the marks represent km/h?
Note that the Busa's curve also ends at exactly the same point. Why would its limited kick in so much before 300 km/h, if that's what it is?
Also, ordinarily torque curves do not appear when the x axis is speed -- and if they did, the line crossing point would still be at 5252 rpm if equal units are used, and since machines usually don't have identical gearing, the line crossings would be at different points if the x axis were speed -- but they are at the same point.
No, I don't think the x axis is speed, I think it's obvious that the last 1000 rpm or so of the Suzuki curve is not shown, and presumably the Kawasaki has rpm that aren't shown as well, as the curve is definitely ending well before 10,000 rpm.
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted March 01, 2006 12:20 AM
Yeah thats true, but I just meant that if You don't take the dissortion in to count the calculating dosen't mean anything. Didin't someone on some thread calculte that 300kph (=186MPH) was 9500 RPM? So it is consistent with Your calculation from the picture (9000-9600RPM)? You have any idea of the torque???
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted March 01, 2006 12:26 AM
Edited By: trenace on 1 Mar 2006 00:47
I did take distortion into account to at least reasonable approximation. All measurements were taken along the lines of sight and normal to them according to the graph lines, not directly vertical or horizontal. There isn't very much distortion between 200-300 compared to 100-200 anyway -- only 9 pixels different, and the reference point (5252 rpm) is in middle of that 100-200 range. Further, in the later effort I figured the end point relative to the marked 300 point, which is an extrapolation over a very short distance, with it already shown that there is not much foreshortening in that range.
If one takes 98.4 ft lb as a representative peak torque value for the Busa, then if this dyno would have given that value for that Busa, it would have given 109-110 ft lb for the ZX-14.
On your theory that the hp scale may be in rear wheel kw, actually the ZX-14 peak is 9 pixels below the 125 mark, which works out as the 122 mark.
However if so it might not be reasonable to convert this to rear wheel hp, because unless it is kw on a Dynojet 250, it is fairly meaningless to make a conversion. The Dynojet figures that we are used to do not correspond to many other types of dynos, and being kw, that does have one wondering if it is a Dynojet (I am just not used to Dynojet charts being printed in that unit.)
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted March 01, 2006 12:56 AM
Well if it is 122 kW it translates to 166HP. This could be realistic. I just guessed the about 120 kW. What about the busa - what would it be if it was an kW. And reagardless on what dyno they were tested the PR could always use factors to change them. Though usually they use HP - because they are bigger 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted March 01, 2006 01:00 AM
Edited By: trenace on 1 Mar 2006 01:09
OK, here's another illustration of the situation, that the top end is lopped off of the chart.
On the Busa chart VPN posted, there's 140 pixels between the torque peak and the power peak. The graph continues 66 pixels past the power peak -- or an additional 47% as much distance as there was between the torque and power peaks.
That should, within reading errors and any photographic distortion, also be the case in the Kawasaki-supplied chart, if the Busa was run to the same rpm -- which I say it wasn't.
In the Kawasaki-supplied chart, the torque peak to the power peak is 93 pixels.
So, the cutoff should be 47% further than that, or another 44 pixels out.
It is in fact, however, only another 10 pixels out.
The last 33 pixels that should exist in the curve, does not. You would naturally assume that the end point of the curve really is about the end point of the Hayabusa's rev range, but isn't.
In other words, the last 1000 rpm is missing -- which matches the previous finding.
To visualize it, notice the 300 mark line, and then the big black line that's the very end of the chart... the 10,500 rpm mark should be halfway between those lines. THAT'S how far the curves should go out to, but for some reason the graphs were jimmied to not show those parts.
|
entropy
Moderator
Posts: 8671
|
posted March 01, 2006 01:07 AM
Woo-Hoo!!!
I travel for a couple days, come back to see that the 14 is in the hands of Oliver, Mike and others!! 
But when i open the thread it is chockablock full of conspiracy theory; WTF???
I wanna hear Mike & Oliver's comments, Q&A's, etc, and not have to wade thu Trenace's BS.
Trenace: SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!
Take your lame microscopic pixel-torque drivel to some other thread.
(ps: did you hear that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane on 911????)
____________
This moderator uses moderation in moderation
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted March 01, 2006 01:10 AM
Fuck you Entropy.
NOBODY makes you read what I post.
NOBODY.
Go fuck yourself. And I do mean that.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC