0-60 & 0-100 times (beat this...)
04 September 2001, 10:55 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok - first off i think 0-whatevers are completely pointless and usually go to great lengths to avoid them
but
just noticed in performance bikes that a totally stock gsxr tho' was measured at 0-60 in 2.6 and 0-100 5.1, 1/4 in 10.1 :0
'kin hell, absolutely barking
Not bad for something straight out the showroom. Just add a turbo / noz to get into the 9's....
jon
but
just noticed in performance bikes that a totally stock gsxr tho' was measured at 0-60 in 2.6 and 0-100 5.1, 1/4 in 10.1 :0
'kin hell, absolutely barking
Not bad for something straight out the showroom. Just add a turbo / noz to get into the 9's....
jon
04 September 2001, 11:27 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was reading, and was gobsmacked by, exactly the same thing on the train this morning.
5.1s to 100! On a bike! And you do the 1/4 mile down a bit, it was 10.01s - presumably you could get into the 9s on the right day without mods.
£9,395 for a machine that's easy to ride, and can go that fast, fully warrantied, straight out of the showroom! Makes me wish I had a bike licence...
5.1s to 100! On a bike! And you do the 1/4 mile down a bit, it was 10.01s - presumably you could get into the 9s on the right day without mods.
£9,395 for a machine that's easy to ride, and can go that fast, fully warrantied, straight out of the showroom! Makes me wish I had a bike licence...
04 September 2001, 11:48 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats is very very fast. I must admit I didn't realise how fast some bikes can go. Some guys at my work just came back from watching a GP500 bike on a rolling road. The stats said that it did 0-180 in 7.2 secs
I've gone to see Moto GP a few times now and I really can't believe the speed they go at.
I've gone to see Moto GP a few times now and I really can't believe the speed they go at.
04 September 2001, 01:17 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly why I didn't take my bike test, Gastro!
What's the relevance of a bike doing 0-180 in 7.2s on a rolling road? Depends on the Moment of Inertia of the rollers more than anything!
What's the relevance of a bike doing 0-180 in 7.2s on a rolling road? Depends on the Moment of Inertia of the rollers more than anything!
04 September 2001, 01:36 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SJobson:
<B>Exactly why I didn't take my bike test, Gastro!
What's the relevance of a bike doing 0-180 in 7.2s on a rolling road? Depends on the Moment of Inertia of the rollers more than anything![/quote]
Don't ask me I'm not an expert. I think the computer just gives out as many possible stats as possible. I think they were more interested in the top end speed.
<B>Exactly why I didn't take my bike test, Gastro!
What's the relevance of a bike doing 0-180 in 7.2s on a rolling road? Depends on the Moment of Inertia of the rollers more than anything![/quote]
Don't ask me I'm not an expert. I think the computer just gives out as many possible stats as possible. I think they were more interested in the top end speed.
Trending Topics
04 September 2001, 02:08 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totally barking
the thing is my litre twin bike gives a "mere" 110bhp measured at the back wheel - and there is no way i can use its full potential. 143bhp ??? :0
its only really dawning on me how barkingly mad this is
jon
the thing is my litre twin bike gives a "mere" 110bhp measured at the back wheel - and there is no way i can use its full potential. 143bhp ??? :0
its only really dawning on me how barkingly mad this is
jon
04 September 2001, 02:22 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I believe this?
I believe the thing has the power / weight ratio
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.
A miserable scoob can have all four wheels slipping for few seconds off the mark and I thought that this effect would limit times like 0-60 in 2.6!!!
put me right someone
JD
[spelling]
[This message has been edited by JayDee (edited 04 September 2001).]
I believe the thing has the power / weight ratio
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.
A miserable scoob can have all four wheels slipping for few seconds off the mark and I thought that this effect would limit times like 0-60 in 2.6!!!
put me right someone
JD
[spelling]
[This message has been edited by JayDee (edited 04 September 2001).]
04 September 2001, 02:44 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Road bikes have long been able to do sub-3 seconds to 60. Speedway bikes, on slippery stuff, launch even faster IIRC. MCN did a mock-up once of what would happen if you launched a drag bike, a speedway bike, a GP500 bike, a 500cc motorcross bike, a 750 supersport bike and a few road bikes at the same time. I think the speedway bikes were pretty close to the dragster to 60. The supersport took a while to get there due to the close ratio box. But then I could be talking bo11ocks as usual.
04 September 2001, 02:48 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JayDee:
<B>
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.
[/quote]
i guess thats why they're happy to get a whole 2000 miles out of a tyre
<B>
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.
[/quote]
i guess thats why they're happy to get a whole 2000 miles out of a tyre
04 September 2001, 03:08 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JayDee:
<B>Do I believe this?
I believe the thing has the power / weight ratio
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.[/quote]
Believe it
Whereas a car will wheelspin, a bike will wheelie (assuming dry conditions). The biggest problem with a drag start on a bike is keeping the front end down.
Other things also come into it, like gearing. 60 is almost redline in 2nd in the scoob, the GSXR would still be in 1st gear.
Matey's RC45 is geared for 90 in 1st. And yes it still makes quick getaways.
At 60 on my VTR you're only just getting moving. Pull out onto a dual carriageway, shortshift to 2nd, give it a bit of a burst in 3rd and you're already well over a ton. And mine ain't even particularly quick as far as bikes are concerned.
<B>Do I believe this?
I believe the thing has the power / weight ratio
But I would have thought the traction from a single wheel would have a much more limiting effect.[/quote]
Believe it
Whereas a car will wheelspin, a bike will wheelie (assuming dry conditions). The biggest problem with a drag start on a bike is keeping the front end down.
Other things also come into it, like gearing. 60 is almost redline in 2nd in the scoob, the GSXR would still be in 1st gear.
Matey's RC45 is geared for 90 in 1st. And yes it still makes quick getaways. At 60 on my VTR you're only just getting moving. Pull out onto a dual carriageway, shortshift to 2nd, give it a bit of a burst in 3rd and you're already well over a ton.
And mine ain't even particularly quick as far as bikes are concerned.
04 September 2001, 03:13 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traction isn't a problem for bikes at all - wheelying is the biggest enemy of fast standing starts. Simple matter of physics.
What amazes me is not so much the sub-3s 0-60 but the 5.1s 0-100: that's 2.5s 60-100! Faster than an F1 car etc etc. PWR is where it's at, obviously (143bhp at the wheels vs approx 250kg inc rider).
And yes, the figures are apparently real - and why doubt them, 600cc motorbikes do 0-100 in around 6.5 secs and 12sec standing 1/4s, so a torquier, more powerful bike weighing the same does better.
How close is the spec of this GSXR1000 getting to a race/drag bike? Yet it's an entirely rideable road machine. Amazing.
What amazes me is not so much the sub-3s 0-60 but the 5.1s 0-100: that's 2.5s 60-100! Faster than an F1 car etc etc. PWR is where it's at, obviously (143bhp at the wheels vs approx 250kg inc rider).
And yes, the figures are apparently real - and why doubt them, 600cc motorbikes do 0-100 in around 6.5 secs and 12sec standing 1/4s, so a torquier, more powerful bike weighing the same does better.
How close is the spec of this GSXR1000 getting to a race/drag bike? Yet it's an entirely rideable road machine. Amazing.
04 September 2001, 03:15 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen a 500 MX bike with road tyres beat GSXR's etc, but only up to about 70 when he would be in 5th Gear, the GSXR would just be snicking 2nd! I used to race MX and I had a MY94 KX250 with a few mods, and I know that would out drag a fast car to about 50, even on dirt! [AMCA 250 expert]
04 September 2001, 05:42 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite as fast as a modern F1 car though as stated above. They'll do 0-100-0 in about 6 secs. I'm not sure about the splits for the a new car but some figures I've seen for an 'old' 93 car (slower than todays cars) involved 60 mph in 2.18 secs, 100 mph in 3.59 secs, 150 mph in 7.07 secs and 180 mph in 13.2 secs.
This car took 1.41 secs for 60-100 mph and 2.44 secs for 100-140 mph.
This car took 1.41 secs for 60-100 mph and 2.44 secs for 100-140 mph.
04 September 2001, 07:57 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be very surprised if a car could do 60-100 quicker than its 0-60. That just seems to defy the laws of physics.
Thinking about it. Clutch slippage. Tire slippage. Could add a bit of time to 0-60.
Still. Drag obviously increases at higher speeds and limits acceleration. Becomes particularly apparent after a ton.
Bikes have amazing drag coefficients especially with a light weight jap tucked behind the fairing. Therefore I guess that explains amazing power to weight measurements. Maybe drag should be included in these equations.
Than again I am sitting here with a large vodka and coke after a particularly tiring day. Excuse me!
Thinking about it. Clutch slippage. Tire slippage. Could add a bit of time to 0-60.
Still. Drag obviously increases at higher speeds and limits acceleration. Becomes particularly apparent after a ton.
Bikes have amazing drag coefficients especially with a light weight jap tucked behind the fairing. Therefore I guess that explains amazing power to weight measurements. Maybe drag should be included in these equations.
Than again I am sitting here with a large vodka and coke after a particularly tiring day. Excuse me!
05 September 2001, 10:19 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simonma,
Physics is sill holding fine.... phew.
0-60 requires a car with no down force to rely on the grip from its tyres to push against the ground. Even hot sticky f1 tyres cannot harness 800bhp with only 5000N of weight pushing down on them. but at 60 you have F1 wings pinning the car to the tarmac with much more force so you can unleash much more power and torque without spinning the wheels.
At 100-140, you have almost 3 tonnes of downforce, so they can floor the throttle with no loss of traction. That is why the figures are relentless until, the car runs out of power.
If in doubt, for a closer to home example, ask dingy.
His car was doing 60 in 5 secs or so but 100 in about 8/9.
Physics is sill holding fine.... phew.
0-60 requires a car with no down force to rely on the grip from its tyres to push against the ground. Even hot sticky f1 tyres cannot harness 800bhp with only 5000N of weight pushing down on them. but at 60 you have F1 wings pinning the car to the tarmac with much more force so you can unleash much more power and torque without spinning the wheels.
At 100-140, you have almost 3 tonnes of downforce, so they can floor the throttle with no loss of traction. That is why the figures are relentless until, the car runs out of power.
If in doubt, for a closer to home example, ask dingy.
His car was doing 60 in 5 secs or so but 100 in about 8/9.
05 September 2001, 10:51 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 0-60 on this run was 5.38
My 0-100 was 9.61...
60 - 100 therefore is less 4.23 seconds
Not telling yer the 0-150 as its bit scary in a MK II.
Bikes are very fast 0-100, but thats all book speed and usually never matched by the average rider, sometimes beaten tho...
Just makes yer think, if only they went round corners as fast...
05 September 2001, 10:59 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for another point.
Craig's Times
0-60 - 3.7
0-100 9.5
60-100 5.8.
His quarter 12.4 @ 115 all on the same run.
My quarter time was 13.07 @ 124.3.
makes yer wonder......
Only one thing wrong with my run is the fact i hit a small bit of standing water in third gear and the rear stepped out whilsy changing to forth hence the poor 1/4 mile time.
Craig's Times
0-60 - 3.7
0-100 9.5
60-100 5.8.
His quarter 12.4 @ 115 all on the same run.
My quarter time was 13.07 @ 124.3.
makes yer wonder......
Only one thing wrong with my run is the fact i hit a small bit of standing water in third gear and the rear stepped out whilsy changing to forth hence the poor 1/4 mile time.
05 September 2001, 01:13 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoobysnacks is pretty close with his F1 numbers - even on a modern day car. Looking at our traces for Jarno Trulli at Spa a couple of days ago we are slower 0-60 (grooved tyres these days), about the same 60-100 and considerably faster 100-140mph. Can't give exact times as I'd get beaten up
The main problem now is the grooves etc on the back wheels mean that we can't get the power down. And the Michelins are better at starts than the Bridgestones
As you can see from comparing the numbers above though, the torque and outright speed is hugely up (some half a second faster 100-140mph).
Beat <B>that</B> 
Richard
The main problem now is the grooves etc on the back wheels mean that we can't get the power down. And the Michelins are better at starts than the Bridgestones
As you can see from comparing the numbers above though, the torque and outright speed is hugely up (some half a second faster 100-140mph).Beat <B>that</B>
Richard
05 September 2001, 01:34 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old FZR1000 with 125 brake horse could do 2.8 to 60 and 5.6 (well it could according to Motorcycle Screws), Fireblade 2.5 and 5.3. Ferrari F1 from a few years back with 740 bhp 2.5 and 4.5 respectively. I remember though that some mags used to use this American midget (Pee Wee summat,Gleason??)to cane the bikes to get low quarter mile times.
05 September 2001, 01:38 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bitten Hero:
<B>
Beat that</B>
Richard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
not exactly circa 8K from your local suzy dealer though, are they ??
You should see the numbers for the space shuttle - 0-60 suprisingly slow, but 'kin hell does it start to shift after that...
<B>
Beat that</B>
Richard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
not exactly circa 8K from your local suzy dealer though, are they ??
You should see the numbers for the space shuttle - 0-60 suprisingly slow, but 'kin hell does it start to shift after that...
