Needs a life
2012 14r In Blue and no Mods!
Posts: 5428
posted November 26, 2010 02:15 PM
I think so, same problem my buddy has. we know with his weight and mods he should run 158 in good air and he does and sometimes the 1/8th is 127 to 128 which is right as well but then he gets the fluke run in there where it shows a 38 mph back half which we know is not going to happen. even when he sprays he runs 134 or 135 and 165 for a 30 mph back half. he's not shifting any different then he did last year. gearing is the same.
quote:i don't care what the other guys did .. they ain't posting 39 mph back halfs
Whatever, Mr. "I lose to stock motor bikes on my turbo".
yeah .at least i'm real instead of a liar like you are fucktard ..and what you gonna do about it nothing .. yeah thats right i call you a liar and a fucktard in the same sentance .. ____________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI
quote:yeah .at least i'm real instead of a liar like you are fucktard ..and what you gonna do about it nothing .. yeah thats right i call you a liar and a fucktard in the same sentance ..
That is pretty rich, and ironic. Hint: Don't try out for the Spelling Bee contest.
posted November 26, 2010 02:51 PM
Edited By: 1badzx12r on 26 Nov 2010 22:54
quote:Racheal's slips, footshifting on pump. Other bikes out there were running in their normal mph, for great air, range.
Notice the 37-39 mph back halfs. We were running the same gear as Icarus. Probably puts the shift point right around the 1/8th timers...which can give strange mph numbers. Don't hate....congratulate
posted November 26, 2010 07:57 PM
I must really suck. DA of -510 and 1.40-1.43 60fts, 3.81 330's, 9.07 et @149. 235 suited. My bike is a turd..
____________
Get on the shortbus boys 'cause its time to get schooled.
2007 ZX-14
1.38 60ft
9.03 @ 149mph
8.95 @153 small shot n2o
8.68 @160mph 5lbs boost
posted November 26, 2010 09:55 PM
posted November 26, 2010 12:02 PM Edited By: 1badzx12r on 26 Nov 2010 19:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the mph record in the eighth for pro stock bike is 157 and quarter mile is 197.40 mph back half.Do any of you believe you can back half with a pro stock bike?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
correct me if i'm wrong BUT
isn't that with a 115lb rider on 500rwhp
Icarus , Racheal and friends found the Golden Mine Shaft conditions, 51*, 33 hum, 30.28 bp, DA -700ft. Congats,
You make or break your ET in the first 330ft, to run 8.82,8.85 with mid 5.70 1/8s ,3.13. 3.14, 3.15 backhalf et's .you have to run big backhalf mph .IMHO
Brock's BMW , May, 14, 2010, > bike and rider wt. aprox 560lbs, 203 hp
1.349 @ 60
3.622
5.490 @ 129.46
7.100
8.497 @ 158.46 > 3.007 backhalf @ 29mph
posted November 27, 2010 07:52 AM
a161 MPH that sounds good but let's do the math? You're saying you're bike and rider weighs 710 pounds. According to my race air Pro you would need to make 230 hp to run 161 I don't think even Brocks Tunup is that good LOL. But here's a more reasonable explanation. I was complaining about my bike not having enough MPH In some cases. It was worked out in another thread that at the end of the quarter-mile at the first photocell picks up it picks up The front of the wheel and then 66 feet later does not picked up the front wheel but picks up the bodywork that leaves you 2 feet short which was 4.5 mph less than what it should be. If that was turned around and the first photocell did not pick up your front wheel but picked up the bodywork and the last cell picks up the front of the wheel it would make you 2 foot quicker making you look like you run 4.5 miles an hour faster. That's why NHRA requires you now to run a filler plate in your front wheel in Pro Stock motorcycle. I talked to the Heinz boys at the last NHRA event and they said they were getting up to 9 mph difference and then after the filler plate it was okay. I'm not trying to throw a stick in your front wheel. Just trying to explain what my have happened. Ken
____________
Red 06 ZX14 RR
Needs a life
2012 14r In Blue and no Mods!
Posts: 5428
posted November 27, 2010 08:59 AM
quote:a161 MPH that sounds good but let's do the math? You're saying you're bike and rider weighs 710 pounds. According to my race air Pro you would need to make 230 hp to run 161 I don't think even Brocks Tunup is that good LOL. But here's a more reasonable explanation. I was complaining about my bike not having enough MPH In some cases. It was worked out in another thread that at the end of the quarter-mile at the first photocell picks up it picks up The front of the wheel and then 66 feet later does not picked up the front wheel but picks up the bodywork that leaves you 2 feet short which was 4.5 mph less than what it should be. If that was turned around and the first photocell did not pick up your front wheel but picked up the bodywork and the last cell picks up the front of the wheel it would make you 2 foot quicker making you look like you run 4.5 miles an hour faster. That's why NHRA requires you now to run a filler plate in your front wheel in Pro Stock motorcycle. I talked to the Heinz boys at the last NHRA event and they said they were getting up to 9 mph difference and then after the filler plate it was okay. I'm not trying to throw a stick in your front wheel. Just trying to explain what my have happened. Ken
+1 but with Brocks tune up and wynns anything is possible. But really richcraft you are about dead on - or + alittle for air. I'm guessing on my buddys bike total weight is roughly 710 to 715 with me on it and it made 228 with spray and I ran159.9 in decent air of about 700 to 900 ft. so give me -700 ft and 161 could have been there.
posted November 27, 2010 09:10 AM
Edited By: Shane661 on 27 Nov 2010 17:15
I would guess that, with that air, fuel, and tune, you are looking at the bike making around 200 hp sae actual, to the wheel...probably a bit more at than that at speed. Just a guess, based on what I have seen on my bike on the dyno, with various conditions and the correction factors applied.
I think a good point was made earlier...to go 8.82 on a 1.47 short time requires some pretty damn good hp, at that combined weight.
quote:I would guess that, with that air, fuel, and tune, you are looking at the bike making around 200 hp sae actual, to the wheel...probably a bit more at than that at speed. Just a guess, based on what I have seen on my bike on the dyno, with various conditions and the correction factors applied.
I think a good point was made earlier...to go 8.82 on a 1.47 short time requires some pretty damn good hp, at that combined weight.
Shane
x1000 Espeacially for a 220 pounder
____________
09' ZX14
posted November 27, 2010 09:43 AM
Edited By: 1badzx12r on 27 Nov 2010 17:50
10.52 @ 171.60 finishing in 3rd gear was my best, 2.35- 60' because of the lsr gearing
__________________
TEXAS MILE 261.5 MPH
This is 1 of the locals that run LSR testing at HOUSTON RACEWAY RECENTLY .. .
This was back in like March when we had the -DA air...
Everything I tried to improve it went backwards..... Just gonna get back to the basics and put more seat time in it....not F with the tune up. BUT that's if it shifts...if the tranny acts up, I will have to pull it...
__________________
319hp@14lbs(pump gas), 435hp@29lbs(race gas)
Texas Mile Mar 09, 225.906mph, 8.87@166 w/1.64 60'-14lbs
posted November 27, 2010 10:27 AM
I made this pass at 1250 DA last year:
152.92 mph. My combined weight was about 25 lbs. lighter than Icarus. However, based on a couple of setup factors I am sure that he is making more hp than I was, if you were to compare the two on the dyno. Then you have to factor in the 2000' difference in DA, which is pretty significant.
Correcting for altitude alone, I come up with potentially 156 mph on my bike. Now, looking at his 330' times I can see that he is getting a better drive than me (by around .03 - .06 at the 330'). How that affects mph, I really don't know. Hp-wise, my guess is that our bikes were within perhaps 5-7 hp of each other, with his getting the nod due to fuel, mapping, and exhaust.
So, in a nutshell, I can see his bike running over 156 mph. Who knows, maybe there was some wind on the 161 pass, or as someone said, maybe the beams were tripped early. Either way, his bike seems to run damn good and he achieved his goal of running in the 8's, and he has the slips to prove it.
But, I think it's fair to say that the traditional wintertime bickering has begun.
152.92 mph. My combined weight was about 25 lbs. lighter than Icarus. However, based on a couple of setup factors I am sure that he is making more hp than I was, if you were to compare the two on the dyno. Then you have to factor in the 2000' difference in DA, which is pretty significant.
Correcting for altitude alone, I come up with potentially 156 mph on my bike. Now, looking at his 330' times I can see that he is getting a better drive than me (by around .03 - .06 at the 330'). How that affects mph, I really don't know. Hp-wise, my guess is that our bikes were within perhaps 5-7 hp of each other, with his getting the nod due to fuel, mapping, and exhaust.
So, in a nutshell, I can see his bike running over 156 mph. Who knows, maybe there was some wind on the 161 pass, or as someone said, maybe the beams were tripped early. Either way, his bike seems to run damn good and he achieved his goal of running in the 8's, and he has the slips to prove it.
But, I think it's fair to say that the traditional wintertime bickering has begun.
posted November 27, 2010 10:53 AM
Edited By: 1badzx12r on 27 Nov 2010 18:53
quote:
quote:I made this pass at 1250 DA last year:
152.92 mph. Correcting for altitude alone, I come up with potentially 156 mph on my bike. But, I think it's fair to say that the traditional wintertime bickering has begun.
Shane
lol
wee
ain't no bickering ..y'all just full of shit .. by your thinking corrected for altitude crap . my 158mph was corrected to 167mph .but it actually ran 158mph..but with a 146lb rider it hits 173mph correct that to 181 mph . so man my bike is fast ..
posted November 27, 2010 10:56 AM
Edited By: Shane661 on 27 Nov 2010 19:12
quote:
ain't no bickering ..y'all just full of shit .. by your thinking corrected for altitude crap . my 158mph was corrected to 167mph .but it actually ran 158mph..but with a 146lb rider it hits 173mph correct that to 181 mph . so man my bike is fast ..
and when i get my back order BST'S its gonna really be fast ..
If you are talking about your Turbo, I believe there is a different correction factor for boosted engines (as they are much more tolerant of altitude than an NA engine).
3 mph correction is a little different than 9 mph correction, I think? Plus, your mutant-sized body is a gigantic parachute....you are probably just hitting the wall and can't overcome your aero drag, lol.
posted November 27, 2010 11:13 AM
Edited By: RICH CRAFT 1 on 27 Nov 2010 19:18
Okay well maybe where I'm missing the boat is that I thought this was a "stock motor 14" if this is a built motor are a motor on nitrous that's very possible. Fact is that a stock 14 could run through the quarter-mile and only be doing 30 MPH at the eighth and then mail it for the rest of the way and do a 90 MPH back half. It's all about how fast you're going at the eighth mile. The faster you go the harder it is to go faster. My red bike at the PMRA race 1 year ago in superbike went 39.25 back half miles per hour with nitrous. Maybe somebody could tell me is this a stock motor or does it have power adders. Ken
____________
Red 06 ZX14 RR
If you are talking about your Turbo, I believe there is a different correction factor for boosted engines (as they are much more tolerant of altitude than an NA engine).
3 mph correction is a little different than 9 mph correction, I think? Plus, your mutant-sized body is a gigantic parachute....you are probably just hitting the wall and can't overcome your aero drag, lol.
Shane
no i'm sorry i don't use condoms or correcting factors .. but i did have a chopped beef bbq sandwich for lunch ..
____________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI
posted November 27, 2010 11:19 AM
Edited By: Shane661 on 27 Nov 2010 19:21
quote:Maybe somebody could tell me is this a stock motor or does it have power adders. Ken
Rich, I can only comment on Racheals bike in that it is a totally stock motor with large throttle bodies. But you can see that her back half varied from 31-39 mph...on basically the same big-end mph # (157-158 mph, with similar ET). I have seen this before with similar gearing, and I found that I was shifting right around the 1/8th mark....and attributed it to that since the big end #'s were always comparable. I'm not sure what else would cause such a variance in the 1/8th mph. I have also been able to run a bigger backhalf mph gain by rolling into the throttle more slowly, even though peak mph on the big end stayed the same.
posted November 27, 2010 11:29 AM
Edited By: Shane661 on 27 Nov 2010 19:36
My normal back half is around 26-27 mph on a 152 mph pass. But look what happened here, when I took off slow and sprayed it!:
34 mph back half!! But the funny part is that I didn't spray it.
I'm just trying to say, back half numbers can sometimes be a little misleading.
posted November 27, 2010 11:55 AM
"I'm just trying to say, back half numbers can sometimes be a little misleading."
Yes they can but you can never run faster than what your bike will run the same day the same everything. In this guy's case I thought we were talking about a stock motor 14 without power adders. I'm pretty sure a stock motor 14 at that weight 710 could not run 161 miles mph. Ken
____________
Red 06 ZX14 RR
All times are America/Va [ This thread is 7 pages long: 1234567Next» ]
HOME
NEW TOPIC
posted November 26, 2010 02:15 PM
Edited By: 
