Well as I am an old man (almost 60) and most of the posters here are, I would say, under 35. Today, just 10 min ago, I decided to sell the E90 330i, Chevelle and the infamous '30 ford. As I am going to buy a M6 when available in the US. and here is why:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3820713808922603488


It will be great to see some kid on the ricer look over and see a gray haired man kicking the crap out of him. 340kph=207mph.

p.s. the wife will have to drive a new GM. she isn't going to be happy losing the 330i. :help Would you be????

I hate rice but love to eat it!!:buttrock

definitly get the m6!!!!

Good lord that is fast:eyecrazy

damn thats BAD!!!!...and dont worry get her a GM and juss tell her u love her hahahahahaha that should make it better

how much would you be able to get for the '30 ford?

-mike

how much would you be able to get for the '30 ford?

-mike


appraised at $65k for insurance Chevelle $30k for insurance the 330i is paid for.

sounds like a good plan to me. my pops is also getting the m6 when it comes out. i cant wait. goodluck with the sales. :)

Do you see how calm the guy who was driving the M6 was! I'd be freaking out going that fast on a public highway! :eek2

Three observations: It sounded like the guy had a couple friends with him!; you could hardly hear the road noise; it looked like it is as comfortable at 200 as it is at 80...

And crazy thing is that is the tip of the iceberg for the v-10s. AA has new software that will greatly improve performance...which is scary. I also noticed he had DSC off, a little ballsy at 200+mph.

wowwowowo great video...how int he hell did he get up 207!?!?! i thought only like supercars can get past 200 like a carrera gt or mclaren slr...!?

wowwowowo great video...how int he hell did he get up 207!?!?! i thought only like supercars can get past 200 like a carrera gt or mclaren slr...!?
He is not in the US. He probably doesn't have a MPH limiter like we do here.

Oh, and the car is well capable of 200mph...

At 507bhp and a $100k price tag, I'd consider the M5 and M6 to BE Supercars.

And crazy thing is that is the tip of the iceberg for the v-10s. AA has new software that will greatly improve performance...which is scary. I also noticed he had DSC off, a little ballsy at 200+mph.
Hell ya that's ballsy. On a public road there is a hell of a lot that can go wrong at 200+mph!

yea being in the car would be scary, but IMAGINE BEING ON THE BIKES!!!

yea being in the car would be scary, but IMAGINE BEING ON THE BIKES!!!
Yeah, that too!!

The only way you're going to get me to go that fast is with a full cage, 5pt harness, and fire proofed bulkheads!! :D

Do you see how calm the guy who was driving the M6 was! I'd be freaking out going that fast on a public highway! :eek2

Three observations: It sounded like the guy had a couple friends with him!; you could hardly hear the road noise; it looked like it is as comfortable at 200 as it is at 80...

Remember, there is a graduated liscensing system in Germany. You have to drive for 2 years then more school then 2 years more school. (wife is German) also when you are on the autobaun 150mph is everyday stuff so going 207 would be like us going 150.

yea being in the car would be scary, but IMAGINE BEING ON THE BIKES!!!


believe it or not....150mph in my M3 feels alot faster than 150mph on my bike.....plus in either event....if you crash your dead!!!!...


dont expect those results here in the USA on the parkways....you will get KILLED by a typical 50-60mph roll with a supersport bike....heres why!

...dont have illusions that the M6 can beat bikes.....ONLY past 186mph it can...if the race goes that far....because ALL production bikes are limited to 186mph from the factory from an agreement a few years ago.

The hayabusa and gsxr1000 and kawi-zx12r...etc etc...are ALL capable of well over 200mph....but they are limited to 186mph.



What did it look like before they reached 190mph???? I bet if they started from a 50mph roll the bike was already at 186mph when the car was at 110mph.....then it was just a catchup and pass game.

the only way the M6 is beating a bike is ALL the way up top and obviously you will have to find some secret roads here in the USA where you have miles of open road to reach 200+mph safely and another bike to go up there with you!

Im not knocking the car AT ALL!!!! the M5 and M6 esp is SIIICKKK!!!!

and I know they are capable of 200+mph when enough road is given.

But.....the M6 isnt beating 1000cc streetbikes fairly......the bike is limited to its top speed and the M6 had the governer removed.




Either way....1000cc streetbike = 9 second 1/4 mile at 146-150mph.
BMW M6 = 12.1-12.2 1/4 mile at 120mph.

you can see how fast the bike reaches speed......it only takes about a 1/2 of a mile to top out the bike at 186-190mph.


either way...COOL VIDEO!

And crazy thing is that is the tip of the iceberg for the v-10s. AA has new software that will greatly improve performance...which is scary. I also noticed he had DSC off, a little ballsy at 200+mph.

:werd: very ballsy!

021MolaM3
You are correct. But the first 2 years of the hyabusa were not governed to 186. but try to find one. Also with a sprocket change (gear ratio change) you will be able to reach the coveted 200mph on the bike. Both the car or the bike will get you leid!!! and that is what we are all after!!

Wow, I'm giving that guy mad props...wow...is all I can say...I have never seen bikes walked before...in my life!!! Amazing...I'm going to sell both homes and go and buy one!

One word of caution Pops,

From a low speed start, you will probably run outta tarmac long before your higher top speed allows you to past them.

The young ones, on their litre rockets, from a start (or sane speed) will be SO FAR AHEAD of you by..say...150MPH that you will have to travel A LOT of distance, at your higher top speed, to finally past them. A LOT of distance.

Better just to sneak up on them when they are already at their near limit.

-Eff

Also, I don't think videos of someone else's races are Kills worth...

-Eff

Well as I am an old man (almost 60) and most of the posters here are, I would say, under 35. Today, just 10 min ago, I decided to sell the E90 330i, Chevelle and the infamous '30 ford. As I am going to buy a M6 when available in the US. and here is why:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3820713808922603488


It will be great to see some kid on the ricer look over and see a gray haired man kicking the crap out of him. 340kph=207mph.

p.s. the wife will have to drive a new GM. she isn't going to be happy losing the 330i. :help Would you be????

I hate rice but love to eat it!!:buttrock don't expect the same results under 130 mph

Remember, there is a graduated liscensing system in Germany. You have to drive for 2 years then more school then 2 years more school. (wife is German) also when you are on the autobaun 150mph is everyday stuff so going 207 would be like us going 150.
How do you know that was in Germany? (not denying it, just curious... ) :D

Man that is a sick video!!! But i give more props to the guys on the bikes than the guy in the M6!!! I have gone 150mph in the car and the bike and its nuts!!! But try relaxing or picking your head up while on the bike and your done!!! And no car stands a chance against the GSXR-1000 (which I am hopping I will get this spring) at any speed under 140mph!!!

don't expect the same results under 130 mph


dont expect the results under 180mph!!!!!!!!!!!! esp against a 1000cc supersport.

I could beat the piss out of an M6 with my 05 gsxr 600....until 165 or so when i top out


same thing with the 1000....they will beat the piss out of the M6 EASILY until they reach their governer at 186 whereas the car can pass...


but just like we mentioned already a few times....you are going to need ALOT of road and no traffic to walk the bike if you can make it to 190+ in the car.


also like we mentioned....if that race is from a 50-60mph roll on the highway or worse yet...a dig.....the bike will be SOOOO far ahead of the car that it will take a WHILE for the car to reach speed and then play catchup on the bike....assuming that the bike still has its limiter...lol


remember based on 1/4 times alone!.........by the time that the M6 reaches 100mph....the bike will be at over 150mph!!!!!


a 600 supersport is more than enough to beat a 500hp 4000lb car easily. in order for a car to beat a 1000cc bike.....its gonna need to be less than 3500lbs and have more than 750hp....and even then the car will only win after about 100mph....the bike can take off the line WAAY too quick for most any cars.

My friends S/C Z06 can beat 600s from a 60mph roll and up but will be playing serious catchup from a dig. At 120mph it can "sort" of hang within a couple of carlengths of a 900cc bike...but not a 1000cc!!! and you gotta remember that his Z06 weighs only 3200 lbs and has over 630 crank hp!!! vs. the M6 at around 4000lbs and 500 crank hp.

I'm sorry 02ImolaM3, but you are wrong here. I'm also a biker but come on, let's not over exaggerate.

First off a GSX-R 1000 isn't limited to 186mph. The speedo is limited but infact the bike isn't even that fast. A stock GSX-R 1000 tops out at around 180mph. It's not even close to 200+mph.

Furthermore, your 600cc is probably not faster than the M6 above 125mph. 600cc tend to be rather slow (in acceleration) at high speeds, and many not so special cars are able to beat a 600cc at those speeds. The aerodynamics is poor on bikes and that's why a pretty mediocre car can out run them at higher speeds.

The 1000cc also run out of steam at higher speeds, although they can keep up the pace longer than a 600cc.

first off..YES at 2005 GSX-R1000 will do much more than 180mph...limiter removed and a simple rear sprocket change.

A CBR-929 does over 180mph! Ive seen CBR-1000s do 192mph stock with the limiter removed.

have you ridden one....what type of bike you ride again???


and you are missing the point.....WHO IS STARTING A RACE AT 120MPH????

even on a 600.....I will be SOOOO far ahead of the car if we start from a dig or a 50mph roll...that it will be nothing but a catchup and pass game for the car. and no....i dont think my bike accelerates "slowly" after 120mph.....it would take a 500+hp car to beat me at those speeds....never seen a "mediocre" car with around 300-400hp beating a supersport bike no matter what cc.

My bike isnt as quick as a 1000cc...no.....but my bike is still good for a 10 second 1/4 at 130mph!...thats enough to beat a 12 second BMW!

I dont know where in the USA someone will be able to hold at 190mph+ in a car or bike for more than a few seconds.....especially on long island where I live...so i will never have this problem!



yes the car is fast......but you are forgetting something.....this isnt the Z06 with 505hp which weighs less than 3200lbs.....this is a 4000lb cruiser!!!!!


take another look at the video...look how SLOWLY the car is creeping up on that bike......I bet that race started about 2-3minutes prior!!!!!..

who races from more than 10-15 seconds????? before calling it quits

Freddoo what are you talking about man? 02ImolaM3 is right there is no production car that can be a rocket in the quarter mile even with a novice rider wit. None flat out. With the new 600 coming out this year you still have to watch your back. I have a mostly stock 04 R1 and I have been over 194 on that with rooom to go. All that is done is a slip on, commander 3, air filter and v stacks. It is winter and am now doing the head and head gasket and now doing the front header and Y pipe.

I have personaly run vipers (which are also V10) and they cant keep up not even close. I fact I have to slow down for then to hit 150 and slow my roll on the throttle or I still leave them in the dust, plus I have a higher top end!

The only car I have ever been scarred of is a guy had a 9 second mustang with a blower and tubbed rear, and theat thing was on my ass till about 145 and then he ran out of engine and I was off. Plus he was running slicks on the street I spied when I was behind him pull onto the interstate.

I will say it once more NO PRODUCTION STREET CAR CAN BEAT A ROCKET IN THE QUARTER MILE.

THANK YOU BADR1!!!!!!

like i mentioned....THE ONLY car i have seen personally hold off 900cc bikes...not even 1000ccs....is my friends S/C Z06 with 580rwhp!!!!! and even then...he could only hold it off from a roll-on. from a dig or low end roll on race...forget it...he would get walked much easier.

i dont see the point of saying.....well over 130mph the car can start to walk on the bike?....WHO STARTS RACES AT THAT SPEED????? the race would be LONG over well before then.

unless the car is lightweight and has over 600hp......it aint walking away from a supersport bike!!!!!!

....unless you want 3 miles of clear roadway where you can bring a car to over 200mph and play catchup

and yea...not only will my 05 gixxer 600 walk all over most cars....the new 600s coming out are CRAZY!!!!! my bike has a 15,500 redline and makes about 105hp at the wheels.....the 06 gixxer 600 and yamaha r6 are raising redlines to over 17k rpm and making about 115-120hp at the wheels....weighing less than 400 lbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....try that on for size. unless you are in a supercharged viper....you arent touching it.

Good choice, but you'll have to change your name!

If you think going 200+ is scary you should try going from 50-200 in a matter of seconds. That's what's awesome.

thats insane

I deed the new bikes are trully awesome, I can't wait for the 07 R1 comes out for testing. I thought my 04 reved hight 13.7k the new one is even higher and well the 06's make 183 hp I can wait to see what they do with a new engine. Wow next year is going to be fun.

How does a supra get to 200 in seconds? Are we saying like 2,200 seconds? Becouse there is now way a street driven supra does sub 10 second quarter miles.

If you think going 200+ is scary you should try going from 50-200 in a matter of seconds. That's what's awesome.
Yeah,
but how can you GO this fast? Is so fast there are no roads around where I live that have this type of wide open flat spaces to get up over that speed.

200 MPH. Nope. Try 100 and get pulled over and get a HUGE ticket in the 55 MPH zone that is most of MA highway system.

first off..YES at 2005 GSX-R1000 will do much more than 180mph...limiter removed and a simple rear sprocket change.
There is no speed limiter on the GSX-R. The 2005 model is fast but it is nowhere near 200+mph. From what I've seen the 2005 GSX-R 1000 will (at its best) reach 185mph.

I've just posted a thread concerning this on a sportbike forum. I asked if the GSX-R 1000 is limited and what the top speed is. You can see the thread here: (It's in swedish but you can see sandstream mention "280-290" in his second post, which is 280-290km/h or 175-181mph)
http://www.sporthoj.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107835

A CBR-929 does over 180mph! Ive seen CBR-1000s do 192mph stock with the limiter removed.
There is no limiter on the CBR 1000 either. Are you talking about indicated speed or ACTUAL speed. The speedometer on a bike is very much off at those speeds. The CBR 1000 reach approx. 180mph.


have you ridden one....what type of bike you ride again???

I rode a 2001 Yamaha R6. Not anymore though.


and you are missing the point.....WHO IS STARTING A RACE AT 120MPH????

Okay my bad. I you start from a dig it will take some time for the M6 to pass even a 600cc. And yes, the car will be toast on the 1/4-mile.

I have a mostly stock 04 R1 and I have been over 194 on that with rooom to go.
That's indicated speed, right? Don't think for a second that an R1 with minor mods can reach 194mph for REAL. A stock R1 reach approx. 285km/h or 178mph and those mods you have are not going to affect the top speed THAT much.

You would need MUCH more power to raise the top speed 16mph at those speeds.

That is true I havn't seen a Stock or even lightly modded 1000RR make it past 180. They are heavy for some reason honda needs to work on that. But the gixxers always have the busa to slap you in the face, but they are only straight line bike never road race one or you will be nursing road rash for months.

Fred00 you should buy the new R6! ugly as a mule but fast as hell. I may go get one just to tool around on till next year and trade it in on my new R1. But if they make the R1 look like the R6 I may be turbo charging the 04. Now thats an easy 250rwhp! whats going to beat that?

First off top speed can be reached in may ways not only HP but wieght. I only way 155 pounds. and the bike makes 166 to the tire. I have the stock rims and tires on the the bike so how can the speedo be off? The speedo on my bike is can by a pick up on the trans so how can the pick up be off that much there mister engineer? Also a stock 04 sill do 184 with a 180 pound rider off the show room floor on a mild 84 degree day.. Food for thought
I guess u must not be up on your sport bikes. YOu may need to do some reading to educate your self on the new sport bikes. Things have change quit a bit since the dinosuar you had. The new R6 has throttle by wire for goodness sacks.

Fred00 you should buy the new R6! ugly as a mule but fast as hell. I may go get one just to tool around on till next year and trade it in on my new R1. But if they make the R1 look like the R6 I may be turbo charging the 04. Now thats an easy 250rwhp! whats going to beat that?
Yeah, it may be a 2006 R6 as my next bike. I actually think it looks kinda cool. But I also like the CBR 600RR and the 2006 GSX-R 600 and 750.

First off top speed can be reached in may ways not only HP but wieght. I only way 155 pounds. and the bike makes 166 to the tire. I have the stock rims and tires on the the bike so how can the speedo be off? The speedo on my bike is can by a pick up on the trans so how can the pick up be off that much there mister engineer? Also a stock 04 sill do 184 with a 180 pound rider off the show room floor on a mild 84 degree day.. Food for thought
I'm really surprised that you didn't know that the speedo on ALL bikes (and cars for that matter) are very optimistic at high speeds. For example, the first gen R6 could be pushed over 170 on the speedo when infact the actual speed never went past 160mph. I thought everyone knew this. Even when you're going 60mph indicated you're not really doing 60mph but more likely 58mph.

184mph on an R1 might be possible but do you think that your mods would increase your top speed by 10mph or even more (according to your first post)? There are matematical formulas for these kind of things and an increase of 15hp (assuming) over a stock R1 will not give you 16km/h higher top speed. It's just not possible.

The weight of the vehicle/rider is not very important to the top speed. Sure we get a little less friction to the ground if the rider weights 155 pounds instead of 180 pounds but that's not going to change things much. What's important when trying to reach high speeds is power and aerodynamics.

The guys at the swedish sport bike forum estimate that an R1 with your mods should top out at around 181-182mph. But they are probably all stupid, right...

Edit: Sport rider got 184mph for the R1 but several other tests have shown ~178mph.

I guess u must not be up on your sport bikes. YOu may need to do some reading to educate your self on the new sport bikes.
From the guy who thinks that a mildly modded R1 is capable of speeds over 194mph (310km/h). Hilarious. :D

I'm sorry 02ImolaM3, but you are wrong here. I'm also a biker but come on, let's not over exaggerate.

First off a GSX-R 1000 isn't limited to 186mph. The speedo is limited but infact the bike isn't even that fast. A stock GSX-R 1000 tops out at around 180mph. It's not even close to 200+mph.

Furthermore, your 600cc is probably not faster than the M6 above 125mph. 600cc tend to be rather slow (in acceleration) at high speeds, and many not so special cars are able to beat a 600cc at those speeds. The aerodynamics is poor on bikes and that's why a pretty mediocre car can out run them at higher speeds.

The 1000cc also run out of steam at higher speeds, although they can keep up the pace longer than a 600cc. As a biker I agree, 600's, and all bikes in general loose steam in triple digit speeds (for a good example look at the "Thunder Road: The standing mile test" in R&T from october).

btw the fastest STOCK bike I am aware of is the hayabusa, which is limited at 189 mph (could be 186, can't remember)

edit: here is the article: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=2572&page_number=7
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=2572&page_number=16

why is everyone talking about quarter miles times? the original poster was talking about beating bikes at high speed, which he will because weight becomes less of an issue. I want to see what the M6 does 60-200 for sure he can those 600cc if not there then at 120 he will and Im sure he wont need that much road do it. Regardless I wondering if the guy on the bike who gets passed at 180 mph will be thinking did i just get passed by solara????

How does a supra get to 200 in seconds? Are we saying like 2,200 seconds? Becouse there is now way a street driven supra does sub 10 second quarter miles.

Er what? There's a few daily driven street Supra's (full interior) that run 8's easily..

Heck the most impressive one i've seen is Ryan Woon's 6-speed, yes, the stock 6-speed, running
1.38 60ft
5.66@126 1/8th
8.62@169.07
(right click save as please):
http://homepage.mac.com/rdwoon/8.62Pass.mov

I deed the new bikes are trully awesome, I can't wait for the 07 R1 comes out for testing. I thought my 04 reved hight 13.7k the new one is even higher and well the 06's make 183 hp I can wait to see what they do with a new engine. Wow next year is going to be fun.

How does a supra get to 200 in seconds? Are we saying like 2,200 seconds? Becouse there is now way a street driven supra does sub 10 second quarter miles.

Man your logic is all over the place.

1) There isn't a 10 second car trapping at 200mph. WTF are you talking about. That would be the worst 1500 horsepower run in history with all wheelspin.

2) I said 50-200. Read my post.

3) Watch my video with the Turbo Hayabusa. The car does 50-170 in less than 11 seconds, with wheelspin in 3rd and 4th gears.

4) There are plenty of sub 10 second full weight Supras. You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't drag Supras into this if you don't know WTF you're talking about because you'll look foolish.

Becouse there is now way a street driven supra does sub 10 second quarter miles.

:lol

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

Ok street tires you are not going to pull a 10 quarter time. supras are impressive but they make more torque than the body can handel with out tubing them. Pluse they such at handling. Thats why I have a NSX and a FD both of them handeling machines. As for 1500hp supras yeah I have seen some nice ones run 13's.

your bike friends must be stupid and there math off, is there an exchange rate there, I thought math was math. But any way. Wieght has a huge effect on acceleration and top speed, how do you think lotus makes fast cars? Also there are plenty of people on the R1 forum that have 04+ bikes and most have seen well into the 190's, you can ask the mid west group that have all seen me and my bike do our thing.

Well i do belive your motorcylce doesn't even have any parts that corospond with mine. The technoligy has change a little bit since 01. And from the huge tech articles that have been written on the 04, 05, 06 say's that the speedos are very accurate. Till you change the sprocket.

Oh geez, whenver someone argues against Supra's, it's always "dyno queens", "all wheelspin" and "cant handle."

1500hp supra's that run 13's dont exist unless the guy is tryign to mess around or its a kid who bought one from a real owner - most people who get that much power make 8's and 9's all day. Considering the stock TT 6-speed has been recorded to run at a 13.0 @ 110 (albeit from probably the best 6-speed driver in the community), and BPU Supra's run 10's, you'd have to be a very bad driver or not understand what traction is.

Wieght has a huge effect on acceleration and top speed
No weight does not have a huge effect on top speed. Read some physics.

Also there are plenty of people on the R1 forum that have 04+ bikes and most have seen well into the 190's
Sure, on the speedo.


Well i do belive your motorcylce doesn't even have any parts that corospond with mine. The technoligy has change a little bit since 01. And from the huge tech articles that have been written on the 04, 05, 06 say's that the speedos are very accurate. Till you change the sprocket.
You seem to put alot of weight on the fact that your bike is a 2004 and mine was a 2001. Does that make your arguments more valuable than mine?

So you're saying that the huge leap in technology has finally made Yamaha able to make correct speedos, or what? It would be nice to see one of those "huge tech articles" saying "that the speedos are very accurate".

in juliet, ill I seen it 1200hp supra T88 13 second quarter mile on street tires, had dyno sheets in hand, and the driver was a 45 year old doctor. Can you say mid life crisis.

I like supra on the cotrary they are awsome, only japaness car that can hadel huge power on a stock short block.

your bike friends must be stupid and there math off, is there an exchange rate there, I thought math was math. But any way. Wieght has a huge effect on acceleration and top speed, how do you think lotus makes fast cars?


Sounds like your math is off!
Weight does have a huge effect on acceleration but it has next to no effect whatsoever on top speed. Aero drag and HP are the main players there, that are fighting each other. As you approach top speed the vehicles acceleration is minimal until it becomes 0 at top speed.

Sounds like your math is off!
Weight does have a huge effect on acceleration but it has next to no effect whatsoever on top speed. Aero drag and HP are the main players there, that are fighting each other. As you approach top speed the vehicles acceleration is minimal until it becomes 0 at top speed.


I dunno about next no effect put 2000lbs in you see if it hits 5 mph hahaha

Fred00 maybe you need to go the yamaha R forums and do some reading yourself. Trying to prove a point to you is like trying to talk to a pissed drunk chick.
I am fairly familiar with physics since I am a machanical engineer.

Well the age of the bike has alot to do with it. The bikes now have more electronic in them making them more dependible and more sensitive to whats going on. This isnt just jet it and be done with it any more. I have had the 99, 01 and 02 before and the new ones are much more than just a bike.

Fred00 maybe you need to go the yamaha R forums and do some reading yourself. Trying to prove a point to you is like trying to talk to a pissed drunk chick.
I am fairly familiar with physics since I am a machanical engineer.

Being a mechanical engineer you sure have made some strange comments in this thread...


Well the age of the bike has alot to do with it. The bikes now have more electronic in them making them more dependible and more sensitive to whats going on. This isnt just jet it and be done with it any more. I have had the 99, 01 and 02 before and the new ones are much more than just a bike.
And in what way is this relevant to the discussion?

BadR1: I did some reading on R1-forum.com. It seems as if most guys there agree that the speedo is off quite a bit and that the 2004 has a top speed between 178-182mph.

Quotes from R1-forum.com:

"I was going to mention to post up GPS pics.

The indicated # is all BS, most guys won't look at their speedo / tach at high speeds + the 'fudge' factor."

"With GPS 04 R1's get 182 or so. 03 models usually in the 174 range with basic mods..

Without GPS the indicated numbers are useless - can be off by more than 15mph at those speeds..."

Not even your fellow R1 riders seem to be on your side.:stickoutt

I don't know what else to say. I would bet everything I own that your bike is not capable of speeds exceeding 194mph.

really than, post were it says such non sence

really than, post were it says such non sence
Sure, this thread is named "04 R1 Top Speed" and fits our discussion pretty well:

http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=138365&highlight=speed

Wieght has a huge effect on acceleration and top speed, how do you think lotus makes fast cars?

:lol Dude, you're stuck in the mud: STOP DIGGING!

Weight has HUGE effects on handling, acceleration, braking, mileage but nearly zero effect on top speed. Sure it will take longer to get to the top speed but even an extra 1000 lbs won't have much effect.

Salt Flats motorcycle racers often add up to 100lbs lead over the rear wheel (sometimes increasing their bike's weight by 25%) cause it helps with rear wheel traction without reducing the top speed. Top speed is hp, aeros, and gearing. Weight affects none of those.

There might be a nomial amount of suspension sag with A LOT of extra weight which could actually help aeros and raise the top speed a fraction. There could also be a nomial amount of added pressure to the tires which would negate that advantage. But we arent even taking a 1 MPH difference.

-Eff

I am fairly familiar with physics since I am a machanical engineer.

MACHanical?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
:bs
-Eff

I am having fun here leave me along. Need less to say that link is bias. Try this is even in your presious kilometers

http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107718&highlight=speedo+correction

and I dont know if you read that article but is says most the stock guys and light mods were pulling mid to high 180mph 299km

fast typing dip shit

Please read and comment on my weight vs top speed post.

-Eff

fast typing dip shit
lol Okay, my apologies.

-Eff

read it they may ad weight over the tire but the cut weigh every were else. 3 gallons of fuel tube or honey comb frames hollow bolts and screwss so why would they do that if they want more top end? may be they should ad a cast iron block that will make hit do like 300 Wow! I better get yamaha on the phone man was that an Idea. Holly cow!

I'm stratching my head trying to make sense of BadR1's Lotus comment. Then I realize he is thinking to himself: "Lotus' are so quick 0-60 and aren't very powerful, it's all due to their weight" Which is, more or less, true). And I see where he is getting confused: Quick and fast are two different terms whe it coems to racing.

Quick = acceleration.
Fast = top speed.

My 1100S motorcycle at 0-60 in 3.7 seconds is quicker than almost ever car on this site. With it's 139MPH terminal speed, it's also slower than almost every M vehicle on this site. Follow me?

Lotus aren't particuarly fast (top speed) though they are scary quick all things considered.

Why is this? Cause their light weight has no effect on their top speed. Again that's all hp, gearing and aeros.

-Dip Sh_t

awe thank you I knew you start to see it my way.

Yes I win again

read it they may ad weight over the tire but the cut weigh every were else. 3 gallons of fuel tube or honey comb frames hollow bolts and screwss so why would they do that if they want more top end?

HUH!?! Salt Flat racers aren't cutting weight anywhere. They run and if rear wheel spin (it's salt after all, not tarmac) is an issue, they add 100lbs of lead and run again.

You do know what I mean when I talk about Salt Flats right? There's not one turn. It's a lake bed. No one is wasting $ (or time) reducing weight...weight has no effect on top speed.

Any racer that is dropping weight is doing it to better handling mainly and acceleration/braking. On a track with turns.

Also mileage is improve with lower weight. Never terminal speed. It does nothing, Toots.

This clearly is news to you, and you don't believe it. And, I suspect, you don't want it to be true, but it is true, Sweetpea.

-Eff

awe I see so your say the uss constilation will do 200mph? and weight has nothing to do with terminal speed? yeah see a whole lot of 3 ton supercars in the world.

awe I see so your say the uss constilation will do 200mph? and weight has nothing to do with terminal speed? yeah see a whole lot of 3 ton supercars in the world.

Bugatti Veyron, close to 2 tons= 252+ mph

this might be a good time to drop this ;)

awe I see so your say the uss constilation will do 200mph? and weight has nothing to do with terminal speed? yeah see a whole lot of 3 ton supercars in the world.

Nice try but...as you increased weight in boats will increase drag (it sits lower in the water, right Engineer?). Increase the weight in a car and the air doesn't get any thicker. LOL
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/uss/carriers/constel/cv64con.jpg
See? It's still the same rules I tried my beste-est to explain to ya.:

Top speed: hp, gearing, drag (aeros with cars, hydros with boats)

Here you have increased the weight which INCREASES the drag WHICH lower the terminal speed.

Now, you would have a leg to stand on if adding weight to bike and cars changed hp, gearing or aeros. But they don't.

Psst: The fastest cars on the planet have to play by the same rules as my lil' 26-hp '69 BMW: hp, gearing and aeros.

Rocket cars are INCREDIBLY HEAVY. The weight makes no effect. It's all about hp (their big advantage), their gearing (cart blance as there's no gearing to limit them, those cheaters) and aeros (there's a reason why they are shaped like lil'missles.

-Eff

BADatPhysicsR1,

I'll give you a real simple experiment, that if you do will prove all of this and then you'll get it.

Take two object that are VERY different in weight (the thing you think matters so much) and yet are roughly the same size (same size will = same drag, one of the three things I am suggesting matter so much). I suggest something like a pool ball (rather heavy) or say a Rubic's cube. Versus a light Xmas ornament or something like a same-sized piece of styrofoam or foam even. You can't use something like a piece of paper cause it's much larger and hence has much more drag. Well, actually, if you don't have foam or something really tightly pack a bootleg "snowball" outta a few sheets of paper. Remember, they must be the same size so the drag's the same.

I want you to hold them up in the air, even get on a chair so they have about 8-9 ft to fall. Drop them at the same time and see what happens.

hp, gearing, drag.

hp = the pull of gravity (which will be the same on both objects)
gearing is the same as there's no gearing to limit
drag = the same as the air is the same density for both objects.

Again, weight is not in the formula, right?

Drop'em and see what happens.

Repeat...but out your window so they drop a story or two.

Same results, right?

If you dropped them from a 25 story building, the hp/gearing/and drag would all be the same and the result would be the same. Weight's a non-issue.

Just do it. So I can stop typing and go out dancing.

Cliffnotes: similar-sized but different-weight objects dropped outta a window will hit the Earth at the exact same moment. Because weight has no effect on terminal speed. Gravity won't change here. Gearing won't change here. The only way to speed one up or slow it up is to change the drag (i.e., make one object either larger or smaller so it drags more air or less air).

Weird as it sounds, this experiement would work off your roof with even a bowling ball and a similar-sized chuck of styrofoam.

-Eff

rocket car would have thrust not hp. Wow you just wont give up, must be a bmw owner thinks there always right. Also with a boat the drag is produced by the water not how much it weighs, also balis will deturmane how deep it sits in the water and how large the boew is.

May be you could take some night classes come back and then we could have a conversation about who to make stuff fast and quick.

Also 3100 pounds is a typical sports car smart guy. hahahahahahha
sorry can t help my self merrcy .

Yes weight does have a key in velocity it takes more power to go faster when you weigh more. Not touqe mine you actuall horse power by the sae standars. Do you know what horse power is? No i am sorry its not a buggie and carrage

Thats why bikes are soo fast they dont have much power but they are light.

now your talling about terminal velocity a free fall is diffrent you tard. go back to high school my god. horse power and gravity have nothing to do with one another. gravity keeps us stuck to the earth. when you reach top speed you are fighting wind resistence not gravity. O my

are you going to your high school dance??

Wow, for an engineer, you have some of the poorest grammar I've ever witnessed and had the unfortunate displeasure of reading on the Internet.

"Thats why bikes are soo fast they dont have much power but they are light."
:lol Denial: not a river in Egypt.

Again he confuses "quick" with "fast". Bikes (even weak bikes) are insanely "quick" cause that's where weight matters.

Plenty of EXTREMELY heavy cars (in comparison) are "faster" in top speed than said bikes cause weight doesn't matter with top speed.

Best of luck with your future in engineering,:alright
-Eff

thank you I pride my self as writing like a tard and being a guiness,
I am english inclined, good thing I was born in germany.

How do you know that was in Germany? (not denying it, just curious... ) :DRoad signs/markings. I lived there for 7 years. God I miss driving there. But yeah, I've had people remark to me that I'm hardly phazed by 140. Alert definetley, nervous no. Unless there was snow or bad fog I was on the high side of 200km/h every day going to and from work.

when you reach top speed you are fighting wind resistence not gravity. O my

and since gravity pulls your WEIGHT down ...
congrats, you finally got it !

Incidentially, from your profile BadR1:

"Occupation:
dont have one"
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
http://www.techimo.com/photo/data/505/medium/129711bikes.jpg
-Eff

Road signs/markings. I lived there for 7 years. God I miss driving there. But yeah, I've had people remark to me that I'm hardly phazed by 140. Alert definetley, nervous no. Unless there was snow or bad fog I was on the high side of 200km/h every day going to and from work.

what signs did you see in the vid?
I looked and couldn't find anything, the guy sounded like he was speaking Italian.
any Italians here to confirm that?

Definately Italian.

-Eff

thank you I pride my self as writing like a tard and being a guiness,


You pride yourself as being a brand of beer? ;)

Incidentially, from your profile BadR1:

"Occupation:
dont have one"
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
http://www.techimo.com/photo/data/505/medium/129711bikes.jpg
-Eff

Unemployed MACHanical engineer. LOL

-Eff

yea Im sorry but that top speed issue I belevie your right to an extent like i said before add a ton of weight and we will see how fast something moves if at all adn aslong as your on gravity will be part of resistance

what signs did you see in the vid?
I looked and couldn't find anything, the guy sounded like he was speaking Italian.
any Italians here to confirm that?Could be autostrada, I just initally saw a blue lane sign ( very beginning of the video) and assumed autobahn. My bad.

hey the airplanes i fix can go 500 mph and travel 3000 miles without refueling beat that suckers.:buttrock i must say though i got owned by a turbo supra spitting out flames from it's tailpipes on my 99 R6. Bikes can't accelerate fast enough at top speeds.

i dont understand why there is a big argument about this...weight and top speed have no effect on eachother...
if you dont believe it, see the video again
m6 is 4000lbs
bike is a hell of a lot less (idk how much they way)
then the bike should have a higher top speed, right? BUT IT DOESNT

yea Im sorry but that top speed issue I belevie your right to an extent like i said before add a ton of weight and we will see how fast something moves if at all adn aslong as your on gravity will be part of resistance

Again, you're confusing "fast" with "quick".

Make something REALLY heavy and it will not accelerate well. It will not be "quick".

But it will be just as "fast" (as in, top speed). It'll just take longer and more distance to get up there.

The top speed factors are (always):
power
gearing
drag

Never weight.

-Eff

Planes are another great example of the formula.

Take a jet with no cargo and no passengers and compare it to a fully-loaded one. Only changes are mileage, acceleration rate, braking distances, handling. They'll have the same top speeds.

-Eff

Again, you're confusing "fast" with "quick".

Make something REALLY heavy and it will not accelerate well. It will not be "quick".

But it will be just as "fast" (as in, top speed). It'll just take longer and more distance to get up there.

The top speed factors are (always):
power
gearing
drag

Never weight.

-Eff

But wait adding weight wouldn't it require more power to hit a top speed I belevie the Bugatti veyron(1001hp) is prefect example of this it only does 13 mph top speed higher than mclaren f1(650hp) now if you could add 75 hp to the mclaren it should be able to hit the same top speed as the bugatti. The difference more weight requireing more power do you see where im going with this??

bike is a hell of a lot less (idk how much they way)

Litre bikes are roughly 600 lbs wet, with the rider with gear. My proper gear is usually just under 30 lbs.

-Eff

But wait adding weight wouldn't it require more power to hit a top speed I belevie the Bugatti veyron(1001hp) is prefect example of this it only does 13 mph top speed higher than mclaren f1(650hp) now if you could add 75 hp to the mclaren it should be able to hit the same top speed as the bugatti. The difference more weight requireing more power do you see where im going with this??

Drag coefficient is the only thing that requires more power to reach a higher top speed. Weight has nothing to do with top speed, just how long it takes.

The McLaren probably has a better drag coefficient that the bulky ass Veyron. Then again, I'm not sure.

But wait adding weight wouldn't it require more power to hit a top speed...

Nope. Just more time, more distance, and more gas from your tank.

"The difference more weight requireing more power do you see where im going with this"

It will take more gas to get up to that speed. Like I said weight affects mileage.

However, the gearing doesn't change. The density of the outside air doesn't change, and the hp of the car does change with the added weight so the top speed doesn't change.

Promise.

-Eff

The McLaren probably has a better drag coefficient that the bulky ass Veyron. Then again, I'm not sure.

Remember, there's three factors: Power/gearing/drag.

Roughly, power x gearing x drag = top speed

If the power is greater but the top speed is less, it would have to be either one or both of the other factors making the difference. So you are half right...potentially.

In addition to drag, gearing could be the factor. Or a factor.

Note: anything not in the equation doesn't matter. Weight's not there, just like favorite color, just like what music is playing on the radio, just like what what temp my hot tub is set to. All non-issues.

Anything you can dream up that would affect top speed would be a result of also changing the power, the gearing and/or the drag.

-Eff

The reason Im so adamant about this is because I have the article somewhere i will find it, but they pointed out that engineers of the veyron were having a problem hitting they're top speed goal of 250 mph + with thier bulky a$$ car and needed to add more power they actually used the example of the mclaren F1 only needing 75 more hp to the same top speed. It was either road & track or motor trends latest issues...

But wait adding weight wouldn't it require more power to hit a top speed I belevie the Bugatti veyron(1001hp) is prefect example of this it only does 13 mph top speed higher than mclaren f1(650hp) now if you could add 75 hp to the mclaren it should be able to hit the same top speed as the bugatti. The difference more weight requireing more power do you see where im going with this??

don't know the exact numbers but at those speeds (250 mph), 75 extra ponies would get you maybe 3 mph. It takes exponentially more power to increase speed when going that fast.
The only effect that increased weight has is the increased tire friction and bearings etc. This doesn't amount to much though. Besides, we were talking about a few hundred pounds here, not carrying the whole emp. state building.

Could be autostrada, I just initally saw a blue lane sign ( very beginning of the video) and assumed autobahn. My bad.

Either that or they drove over into Germany. At those speeds it should not have taken long:D

cannonball thru Europe:alright

The reason Im so adamant about this is because I have the article somewhere i will find it, but they pointed out that engineers of the veyron were having a problem hitting they're top speed goal of 250 mph + with thier bulky a$$ car ...

Well, the only reason I am being so adament is because...I'm correct here.

I'm telling you they could make that car weight 500lbs. If the hp/gearing/drag (shape) of the car was the same, the top speed won't change a pinch. It will accelerate, much faster, handle better, brake shorter, get better mileage but have the same top speed.

Try to think of it this way:
With your 500 lbs or 5,000lbs car, it's still gonna have that exact same monster engine (the power), with the exact transmission (gearing), pushing the exact same shape of the car against all that wind resistance (drag). Til the party's over and you're at...the exact same terminal speed.

It's just the combination of the power, gearing and drag that = top speed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Weight's a non-issue here.

If they were concerned about bulk, perhaps it wasn't weight but making the car more compact so that it has less drag. That fits into the formula. Otherwise, the article is incorrect. Stranger things have happened. If that's teh case, most likely it's the fault of the writer, as any race car engineer(s) would know this very simple rule like the backs of their balls.

-Eff

Remember, there's three factors: Power/gearing/drag.

Roughly, power x gearing x drag = top speed

If the power is greater but the top speed is less, it would have to be either one or both of the other factors making the difference. So you are half right...potentially.

In addition to drag, gearing could be the factor. Or a factor.

Note: anything not in the equation doesn't matter. Weight's not there, just like favorite color, just like what music is playing on the radio, just like what what temp my hot tub is set to. All non-issues.

Anything you can dream up that would affect top speed would be a result of also changing the power, the gearing and/or the drag.

-Eff

lol, yes, thats the extended version of what I meant to say. thanks for clarifying for others

Either that or they drove over into Germany. At those speeds it should not have taken long:D

cannonball thru Europe:alrightVery possible. I seem to remember autosrtrada signs being green, but then there's a lot of things I don't remember about Italy:)
Did a Trier to Munich blast with one of my German friends one time. Me in my 535i that had a few mods and him in a 328is (which is so ironic that I drive one now) The bet was whoever got to the hotel last had to buy beer the whole weekend. And it was Oktoberfest. Needless to say I used the 5 er's top end to great effect. He confused quick with fast. I drank for free. I'm told I had a great time.:redspot

[QUOTE=Effervescent]One word of caution Pops,

From a low speed start, you will probably run outta tarmac long before your higher top speed allows you to past them.

The young ones, on their litre rockets, from a start (or sane speed) will be SO FAR AHEAD of you by..say...150MPH that you will have to travel A LOT of distance, at your higher top speed, to finally past them. A LOT of distance.

Better just to sneak up on them when they are already at their near limit.

-Eff[


You are correct about sneaking up and winning. But here you go. A ricer is running say 130 and sees a PAIR of headlights running up. what do you do??? you wait and see what it is. both downshift and the race is on. at 130+ the race will be close. if the bike wins by a couple of CL, OK, but eh,:buttrock the biker will still be looking in the mirrors and seeing this car come up and WALK away. SWEET.

first off..YES at 2005 GSX-R1000 will do much more than 180mph...limiter removed and a simple rear sprocket change.

A CBR-929 does over 180mph! Ive seen CBR-1000s do 192mph stock with the limiter removed.

have you ridden one....what type of bike you ride again???


and you are missing the point.....WHO IS STARTING A RACE AT 120MPH????

even on a 600.....I will be SOOOO far ahead of the car if we start from a dig or a 50mph roll...that it will be nothing but a catchup and pass game for the car. and no....i dont think my bike accelerates "slowly" after 120mph.....it would take a 500+hp car to beat me at those speeds....never seen a "mediocre" car with around 300-400hp beating a supersport bike no matter what cc.

My bike isnt as quick as a 1000cc...no.....but my bike is still good for a 10 second 1/4 at 130mph!...thats enough to beat a 12 second BMW!

I dont know where in the USA someone will be able to hold at 190mph+ in a car or bike for more than a few seconds.....especially on long island where I live...so i will never have this problem!



yes the car is fast......but you are forgetting something.....this isnt the Z06 with 505hp which weighs less than 3200lbs.....this is a 4000lb cruiser!!!!!


take another look at the video...look how SLOWLY the car is creeping up on that bike......I bet that race started about 2-3minutes prior!!!!!..

who races from more than 10-15 seconds????? before calling it quits


I must say that I am sorry for your New York Address!!. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF MILES OF INTERSTATE THAT WILL ACCOMPANY THE 150MPH SPEED! You just have to have the balls to go there. I35 Kansas turnpike is one it is a few hundred miles of yummy, also there is the whole entire state of IOWA I-80! Just take a weekend and find your fun!

THANK YOU BADR1!!!!!!

like i mentioned....THE ONLY car i have seen personally hold off 900cc bikes...not even 1000ccs....is my friends S/C Z06 with 580rwhp!!!!! and even then...he could only hold it off from a roll-on. from a dig or low end roll on race...forget it...he would get walked much easier.

i dont see the point of saying.....well over 130mph the car can start to walk on the bike?....WHO STARTS RACES AT THAT SPEED????? the race would be LONG over well before then.

unless the car is lightweight and has over 600hp......it aint walking away from a supersport bike!!!!!!

....unless you want 3 miles of clear roadway where you can bring a car to over 200mph and play catchup

and yea...not only will my 05 gixxer 600 walk all over most cars....the new 600s coming out are CRAZY!!!!! my bike has a 15,500 redline and makes about 105hp at the wheels.....the 06 gixxer 600 and yamaha r6 are raising redlines to over 17k rpm and making about 115-120hp at the wheels....weighing less than 400 lbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....try that on for size. unless you are in a supercharged viper....you arent touching it.

In the mid '80s my uncle had a triumph spitfire with a blown (8:71) 429 big block, tube frame, 4 spd, dana 60 rearend. STREET LEGAL!!! kick the crap out of any Ninja on the road! I think that today it would walk all over the superbikes 'til 165 mph.

why is everyone talking about quarter miles times? the original poster was talking about beating bikes at high speed, which he will because weight becomes less of an issue. I want to see what the M6 does 60-200 for sure he can those 600cc if not there then at 120 he will and Im sure he wont need that much road do it. Regardless I wondering if the guy on the bike who gets passed at 180 mph will be thinking did i just get passed by solara????



SOLARA !!! HAHAHAHAHA

how many mpg did it say ?? M6 wow

:lol Dude, you're stuck in the mud: STOP DIGGING!

Weight has HUGE effects on handling, acceleration, braking, mileage but nearly zero effect on top speed. Sure it will take longer to get to the top speed but even an extra 1000 lbs won't have much effect.

Salt Flats motorcycle racers often add up to 100lbs lead over the rear wheel (sometimes increasing their bike's weight by 25%) cause it helps with rear wheel traction without reducing the top speed. Top speed is hp, aeros, and gearing. Weight affects none of those.

There might be a nomial amount of suspension sag with A LOT of extra weight which could actually help aeros and raise the top speed a fraction. There could also be a nomial amount of added pressure to the tires which would negate that advantage. But we arent even taking a 1 MPH difference.

-Eff

YOU ARE CORRECT. Torque gets you out of the hole. HORSEPOWER gets you FASTER!!!

BADatPhysicsR1,

I'll give you a real simple experiment, that if you do will prove all of this and then you'll get it.

Take two object that are VERY different in weight (the thing you think matters so much) and yet are roughly the same size (same size will = same drag, one of the three things I am suggesting matter so much). I suggest something like a pool ball (rather heavy) or say a Rubic's cube. Versus a light Xmas ornament or something like a same-sized piece of styrofoam or foam even. You can't use something like a piece of paper cause it's much larger and hence has much more drag. Well, actually, if you don't have foam or something really tightly pack a bootleg "snowball" outta a few sheets of paper. Remember, they must be the same size so the drag's the same.

I want you to hold them up in the air, even get on a chair so they have about 8-9 ft to fall. Drop them at the same time and see what happens.

hp, gearing, drag.

hp = the pull of gravity (which will be the same on both objects)
gearing is the same as there's no gearing to limit
drag = the same as the air is the same density for both objects.

Again, weight is not in the formula, right?

Drop'em and see what happens.

Repeat...but out your window so they drop a story or two.

Same results, right?

If you dropped them from a 25 story building, the hp/gearing/and drag would all be the same and the result would be the same. Weight's a non-issue.

Just do it. So I can stop typing and go out dancing.

Cliffnotes: similar-sized but different-weight objects dropped outta a window will hit the Earth at the exact same moment. Because weight has no effect on terminal speed. Gravity won't change here. Gearing won't change here. The only way to speed one up or slow it up is to change the drag (i.e., make one object either larger or smaller so it drags more air or less air).

Weird as it sounds, this experiement would work off your roof with even a bowling ball and a similar-sized chuck of styrofoam.

-Eff

Hey kid,
this was proven on the moon. Check it out!! ball -v- feather

Wow, for an engineer, you have some of the poorest grammar I've ever witnessed and had the unfortunate displeasure of reading on the Internet.

thanx!!

thank you I pride my self as writing like a tard and being a guiness,
I am english inclined, good thing I was born in germany.
So as a German?! you understand the comment of graduated liscensing! Go Faster Must Have More Schood. GFMHMS! what a deal!!

I Love the Conversations!! But I Must say that about 15min ago I kicked the crap out of a honda nighthawk 93-2001 version CB750 in the '06 330i. stoplight to light and he exited with me to the freeway and lost each event!!

BMW Uber Alles!!

Ok street tires you are not going to pull a 10 quarter time. supras are impressive but they make more torque than the body can handel with out tubing them. Pluse they such at handling. Thats why I have a NSX and a FD both of them handeling machines. As for 1500hp supras yeah I have seen some nice ones run 13's.

.

Wow another clueless person. Keep telling yourself Supras can't do 10's on street tires. Actually 9's on drag radials. Those are street tires. DOT Legal.

Also keep telling yourself the handling sucks or "suchs" I'll see you in my rearview mirror in the canyons.

OF COURSE you've seen some 1500hp ones run 13's. (Haven't all the haters?)

I've been to every single Supras invade Las Vegas for 3 years and I've seen a BUNCH of 9 second passes on drag radials.

"In the mid '80s my uncle had a triumph spitfire with a blown (8:71) 429 big block... blah-blah-blah... kick the crap out of any Ninja on the road! I think that today it would walk all over the superbikes 'til 165 mph."

:lol Mid-80's? Any Ninja? You do know there was only ONE Ninja in 1985. The 900.

And it is quite slow, even by today's 600 standards. Let alone the current ZX-10R, or dare I say ZX-14!

And you really think a long-gone modded Spitfire (two decades ago!) could best a 0-60 of 2.6 seconds? Or 0-150 of about 10 seconds?

Thanks for the laugh.

-Eff

...about 15min ago I kicked the crap out of a honda nighthawk 93-2001 version CB750 in the '06 330i. stoplight to light and he exited with me to the freeway and lost each event!!!

Psst...such a bike is capable of 4 sec range 0-60's.

The assumption, that that guy had any clue as to what he was doing, is exceedingly silly.

-Eff

YOU ARE CORRECT. Torque gets you out of the hole. HORSEPOWER gets you FASTER!!!
No, you can't make that distinction. You could have all the torque in the world and barely be moving. A car could have next to no torque and 1000hp at a zillion rpm and still be fast as hell with the right gearing.

Another car could have next to no power but 1000nm and it would barely accelerate at all no matter what gearing.

A ricer is running say 130 and sees a PAIR of headlights running up. what do you do??? you wait and see what it is. both downshift and the race is on. at 130+ the race will be close. if the bike wins by a couple of CL, OK, but eh,:buttrock the biker will still be looking in the mirrors and seeing this car come up and WALK away. SWEET.

Honey Bunny,

A) What car is cruising around town (or highway) at 130MPH, looking for action? 130!?! 70 MPH over? Come on, that's silly.

B) How many "ricers" are gonna be packing anywhere near 507ponies with a 7 speed SMG? About...oh...none. Again, you're being silly.

C) Current litrebikes at 130MPH have, oh say, 50MPH left. That a whole lotta reserve. They accelerate INCREDIBLY hard at 130MPH. Ricer "losing by a couple of CLs"? You spelled "complete devastation" incorrectly.

You gotta come up with some other situation. That one ain't happening.

-Eff

AHAHAHA...WOW....big discussion!!!!!!!

I'll try to end with this....

ok....your picking on the top speed of a 10-12 thousand dollar bike with a 100k sports car.
needless to say the bike will hand almost ANY car its ass short of 175mph...


how about you try on a turbo busa???? typically 250-300rwhp....top speed of 230mph+....and a 1/4 mile of mid-low 8s at over 165mph!!!!!

and before you say...mods dont count.....you can buy a turbo busa right off the showroom floor nowadays.

and i dont care what mods you slap on the M5-M6.....it aint doing an 8 second 1/4 and over 230mph+

try that.

AHAHAHA...WOW....big discussion!!!!!!!

I'll try to end with this....

ok....your picking on the top speed of a 10-12 thousand dollar bike with a 100k sports car.
needless to say the bike will hand almost ANY car its ass short of 175mph...


how about you try on a turbo busa???? typically 250-300rwhp....top speed of 230mph+....and a 1/4 mile of mid-low 8s at over 165mph!!!!!

and before you say...mods dont count.....you can buy a turbo busa right off the showroom floor nowadays.

and i dont care what mods you slap on the M5-M6.....it aint doing an 8 second 1/4 and over 230mph+

try that.

I run bikes all the time and the only ones that give me issues are the liter bikes and turbo bikes. From 100mph I can usually do well against any bike when the aerodynamics is gone for them.

okay...and how much hp do you have??? im sure ALOT more than the M6....

and...if you start at below 60mph roll....what are the results for you against a 900 or 1000


do you destroy 600s completely? or just after 80-100mph....how do the new 600s do against you off the line or from a 30-40mph roll????

okay...and how much hp do you have??? im sure ALOT more than the m6

Use quote so people know who you're talking to.

You said a bike would hand almost any car it's ass, not really. It depends on what year model and size bike you're referring to. The newer bikes are all mostly fast including the CBR600RR, but the older bikes aren't really hard to beat on a roll. 400rwhp willl beat the older 600's.

okay...and how much hp do you have??? im sure ALOT more than the M6....

and...if you start at below 60mph roll....what are the results for you against a 900 or 1000


do you destroy 600s completely? or just after 80-100mph....how do the new 600s do against you off the line or from a 30-40mph roll????

What's with all the rules? If I start against a 900-1000 at 60 he'll jump and its his run depending on what the terminal velocity is. The faster we go the more I can catch up.

600's aren't even a close race for me from a roll. I can put trains on them. From a dig who knows, I haven't run my car in the 1/4 because I just got my correct clutch.

Use quote so people know who you're talking to.

You said a bike would hand almost any car it's ass, not really. It depends on what year model and size bike you're referring to. The newer bikes are all mostly fast including the CBR600RR, but the older bikes aren't really hard to beat on a roll. 400rwhp willl beat the older 600's.


well i had a pretty good couple of races yesterday with a 400rwhp camaro SS (2000)....we went from a dig to about 120mph....and I had bim by about a couple of buslengths!....then we went from a 60mph roll to about 130mph (on my speedo)...and I had him by about 8-10 carlengths.....

so for the current 600s I would say you need at least 450rwhp-500rwhp to hang or pass.


**im talking about production vehicles bro....not highly modified.

Most people are well aware (at least I am) that i could very well run into a 600rwhp civic that will dust my bike.


but for the most part.....NEW 600-1000cc supersport bikes can beat up on almost any PRODUCTION car available short of 170mph.

when you start talking about 500rwhp Cobras (like i have) and 600hp vettes and 670rwhp supras (like you have).....then yeah....i guess bikes have their matches.

but there is about 1 600rwhp car for every 100 bikes on the road....thats why a bike losing isnt all that common.

well i had a pretty good couple of races yesterday with a 400rwhp camaro SS (2000)....we went from a dig to about 120mph....and I had bim by about a couple of buslengths!....then we went from a 60mph roll to about 130mph (on my speedo)...and I had him by about 8-10 carlengths.....

so for the current 600s I would say you need at least 450rwhp-500rwhp to hang or pass.


**im talking about production vehicles bro....not highly modified.

Most people are well aware (at least I am) that i could very well run into a 600rwhp civic that will dust my bike.


but for the most part.....NEW 600-1000cc supersport bikes can beat up on almost any PRODUCTION car available short of 170mph.

when you start talking about 500rwhp Cobras (like i have) and 600hp vettes and 670rwhp supras (like you have).....then yeah....i guess bikes have their matches.

but there is about 1 600rwhp car for every 100 bikes on the road....thats why a bike losing isnt all that common.

CBR600RR (the new one) you definitely need more than 400rwhp. The older ones no.

Agree with this post as a whole though. :buttrock

BTW...brad D...

whoever is holding the camera in that 350z race in your sig...needs to be slapped....how hard is it to hold a camera?...all i see is black after the race starts.

CBR600RR (the new one) you definitely need more than 400rwhp. The older ones no.

Agree with this post as a whole though. :buttrock


cool:)

yea ive never ridden the new cbr600rr....I have a 2005 gsx-r600......im pretty sure my bike is a little quicker than the honda though.

Lotus aren't particuarly fast (top speed) though they are scary quick all things considered.

very true.

btw does anyone want to guess how much the thrust ssc (worlds fastest "car") weighs? 10.5 tons!!


thank you I pride my self as writing like a tard and being a guiness,
I am english inclined, good thing I was born in germany.
wirklich? wo?

and before you say...mods dont count.....you can buy a turbo busa right off the showroom floor nowadays.

I need to find me one of those showrooms

BTW...brad D...

whoever is holding the camera in that 350z race in your sig...needs to be slapped....how hard is it to hold a camera?...all i see is black after the race starts.

Go figure...it was the owner of the 350z..seems like everytime he got owned it was drop the camera time.

I need to find me one of those showrooms


I got a couple here on long island...


one of them is called maximum motorsports....out east on long island.

they will setup a turbo busa for you before you even take delivery.


heres a quick writeup......(notice the 1/4 mile *8.72 @ 170mph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

http://www.mrturbo.com/hahn.html

Damn, I was gonna post that place!

Hey Brad D., can you speak to the "weight's relation to top speed" issue.

-Eff

Damn, I was gonna post that place!

Hey Brad D., can you speak to the "weight's relation to top speed" issue.

-Eff

I would think it would be pretty obvious, it takes more horsepower to overcome weight and wind resistance. There is absolutely no way a 200 horsepower 2000 pound vehicle has the same top speed as a 200 horsepower 5000 pound vehicle. Not possible.

get a dodge tomahawk and go 300mph roflmfao.... lmfao... its a joke for you non comedians out there

...it takes more horsepower to overcome weight and wind resistance. There is absolutely no way a 200 horsepower 2000 pound vehicle has the same top speed as a 200 horsepower 5000 pound vehicle. Not possible.


More hp for wind resistance: yes. I've said that.
More hp to overcome weight? Nope.
Only takes more hp to match acceleration when weight is added. It'll slow down acceleration, which means longer distance requirements to reach top speed. But not a slower top speed.

With same engine, same body shape, and same gearing? Just the weight difference? I say wrong.

How does a guy with a near 800hp car not know this? :help

Let's bet a cigar. Seriously.

With the (very) minor exception of a lil'more stress on stuff like wheel bearings and the tires force on the road (and, actually, the slight advantage of possible suspension sag causing better aerodynamic), they will have essentially the same top speed. It'll take more time, more gas, and long distance to reach it but whatever. Given enough of all that, it come down to the power "giving in to" the wind resistance..at the same speed.

I'm saying this because: the horsepower is the same, the shape of the car is the same, the air's resistance is the same, and the gearing is the same.

Same car but just a 3,000 lbs difference. Same top speed (without counting the very nominal difference that the suspension sag and bearing/tire load causes...which would probably amount to...like...1MPH). Shall we bet? :devillook

-Eff

http://www.jrcigars.com/graphics/cig-vt/LGW35.jpg
Come on...a 5-pck of La Gloria Cubana Wavells Maduros from JR Cigars:

http://www.jrcigars.com/index.cfm?page=cig_view&itemcode=LGW35

Roughly $15 shipped.

-Eff

How do you know that was in Germany? (not denying it, just curious... ) :D
The road signs look like german autobahn signs. And m6's everywhere are limited to 155, unlike what one poster indicated. Clearly someone has taken the limiter out of that thing.

More hp for wind resistance: yes. I've said that.
More hp to overcome weight? Nope.
Only takes more hp to match acceleration when weight is added. It'll slow down acceleration, which means longer distance requirements to reach top speed. But not a slower top speed.

With same engine, same body shape, and same gearing? Just the weight difference? I say wrong.

How does a guy with a near 800hp car not know this? :help

Let's bet a cigar. Seriously.

With the (very) minor exception of a lil'more stress on stuff like wheel bearings and the tires force on the road (and, actually, the slight advantage of possible suspension sag causing better aerodynamic), they will have essentially the same top speed. It'll take more time, more gas, and long distance to reach it but whatever. Given enough of all that, it come down to the power "giving in to" the wind resistance..at the same speed.

I'm saying this because: the horsepower is the same, the shape of the car is the same, the air's resistance is the same, and the gearing is the same.

Same car but just a 3,000 lbs difference. Same top speed (without counting the very nominal difference that the suspension sag and bearing/tire load causes...which would probably amount to...like...1MPH). Shall we bet? :devillook

-Eff

You are close Eff

Lets imagine a car that has a frontal area of 25 square feet , weighs 3200 lbs and can reach 170mph and has a drag coeff of .31

Rolling resistance power is 0.013 x 3200 x 170 / 375 = 18.8 bhp

Were 3200 is the total weight of the car in lbs and 170 mph is the top speed that you were able to reach.
At that speed it takes 18.8 hp to overcome rolling resistance.

Now we will add an extra 2000lbs
Rolling resistance power is 0.013 x 5200 x 170 / 375 = 30.6 bhp

Delta of 11.8 hp, that is how much additional power is required to overcome rolling resistance after adding 2000 lbs



now lets look at air resistance:
power required to overcome Air resistance
@ 170 mph = 25 x 0.31 x 0.00256 x 170 cubed / 375 = 260 bhp
Where 25 is the frontal area in square feet and .31 is the drag coeff of our car

(Air res) 260 hp + (roll res) 19hp=279 whp and that yields 170 mph

after adding 2000 lbs:

279 hp –31hp=248 only 248 whp available to fight air resistance since 31 went to fighting rolling resistance.

Guess what:

When plugging those numbers in to the air resistance formula the top speed is now just shy of 168 mph.
So in conclusion, adding a TON (2000 lbs) to a 3200 lbs car only took away 2 mph from your top speed.



Bench racing formulas came from:
pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm

My guess is this 200 hp car isn't gonna be doing anything near 170MPH. Why not factor it at say...120MPH instead. That's probably more realistic.

Also are weight are 2,000 lbs and 5,000 lbs. Not 3,200 and 5,200.

Kindly redo it and get back to me.

-Eff

While you are at it...if you are gonna go through the effort to factor the "nominals" I mentioned, you gotta do them all:

Same car, same suspension...now bearing MUCH more weight = some severe suspension sag (probably maxing it out, for a 2-3 inch drop) = some better aerodynamics, correct?

I bet you see you a slight MPH raise with that factor.

-Eff

My guess is this 200 hp car isn't gonna be doing anything near 170MPH. Why not factor it at say...120MPH instead. That's probably more realistic.

Also are weight are 2,000 lbs and 5,000 lbs. Not 3,200 and 5,200.

Kindly redo it and get back to me.

-Eff

I gave you the formulas to prove your own point.
Now it is time for you to put your variables in and find out the results.
I can tell you this much, at lower speeds(120mph)
weight will be more of a factor than at 170

I actually did it up until this point: "When plugging those numbers in to the air resistance formula"

First 8.32
then 20.8
then 91.4
then 99.72
then 12.48
then 78.92

HELP!

-Eff

To the thread starter:
Yes i would be impressed by a car that could pass me at speed on the bike. It would have abit of wow factor, since such cars are quite rare here. But you are beating a $5-12k machine with a $100k + machine. Im loving the M6 too, but i wouldnt splurge on a car like that just to beat bikes on the highway! I'd get a bigger bike!

checkout the kawi zx14r

the video was shot in portugal...

Weight becomes less of an issue at higher speeds, but it still an issue to some degree (however small). Just like aeros are a very minor issue at lower speeds, but still some kind of issue.

BMW M6: 0-200 km/u in 12,8 sec
Honda CBR1000: 0-200 km/u in 7,6 sec

By the time the M6 reaches 150 km/u the bike is already travelling 50 km/u faster. Which is a lot in terms of distance.

I actually did it up until this point: "When plugging those numbers in to the air resistance formula"

First 8.32
then 20.8
then 91.4
then 99.72
then 12.48
then 78.92

HELP!

-Eff

Whatever that means.

Here you go:

2000lb car with 200 whp and 25 ft sqr frontal area

roll resist for 2000lb car at 153mph .013x2000x153/375=10.6 hp

power to overcome air resist for 2000 lb car with fa of 25 square feet at 153mph

25x.31x.00256x153 cubed/375= 189.5 whp

189.5+10.6= 200.1 whp which yields a top speed of 153 mph
__________________________________________________ ____________

5000lb car with 200 whp and 23.5ft sqr (2.5" lower) frontal area

roll resist for 5000lb car at 152 mph .013x5000x152/375=26.3 whp

power to overcome air resist for 5000 lb car with fa of 23.5 square feet at 152mph

23.5x.31x.00256x152cubed/375= 174.7 whp

174.7+ 26.3= 200 whp which yields a top speed of 152 mph
__________________________________________________ ____________

if the 5000 lb car did not drop 2.5" it would reach 148.5 mph
even if car is dropped 2.5", the area reduction it is questionable since now less air can flow under the car.

Conclusion:
Top speed difference between 200whp 2000 lb and 200whp 5000 lb cars is
-4.5 mph if areo stays the same and -1 mph if aero is improved by weight.

Lowering the car doesnt necessarily improve aerodynamics. It depends on the contours of the bottom as compared to those on the top and sides. Modern cars are pretty smooth on the underside.
What lowering the car does improve (with adequate air dam in front) is increase downforce by creating an area of reduced air pressure under the car and increased air pressure over the car.

The hayabusa and gsxr1000 and kawi-zx12r...etc etc...are ALL capable of well over 200mph....but they are limited to 186mph.



!

All motorcycles from 1998 or 1999 were speed limited to 184 or 187 MPH.

Wow, that guy is mellow as hell. I would have been screamin and yellin the whole time if I was driving that fast.

holy crap, thats sick.

All motorcycles from 1998 or 1999 were speed limited to 184 or 187 MPH.
189 to be exact. and i believe the only bikes with the limiter are the busa and zx12r

189 to be exact. and i believe the only bikes with the limiter are the busa and zx12r


actually no....he and I were right...

all bikes that are capable are limited to 186mph. read ANY bike magazine and the press releases about the new bikes.

even the new ZX-14 is most likely going to be limited to 186mph from the factory.


the zx-10r...zx-12r...R1...cbr-1000......cbr954....busa....gixxer 1000....etc. are all limited to 186mph from the factory.....sure give or take a few mph here and there since bike speedos have error...but the point is that everyone agreed on 186 from the factory for all sport bikes on the street.

of course a power commander gets rid of that.

Whatever I don't get what the big deal is with the video. Bikes are slower on the top end because of aerodynamics. The faster you go the more being on a bike is a disadvantage.

A new CBR600RR would eat a M6 for lunch all the way up until that aerodynamics kicked in then maybe the M6 would catch eventually.

and thats the smallest displacement bike.

lol...whats with you and the cbr600rr? is that what you own or something? you mention it in every thread for some reason and its the "slowest" of the 600s....

just wondering thats all....

Point is that the m6 is really fast and so are bikes.

OK, a bike will be faster off the line than pretty much any car. At high speeds a car would be faster. LOL. Its become bike vs m6 war. Brad, the big deal is that eventually a car beats a motorcycle. Despite the bike owning the car for the first couple miles, the car reamins on top which many find to be amazing.(Even though the bike has a speed limiter. But it still is cool). Do we really need 7 pages to clear this up? They each have their strong points.

OK, a bike will be faster off the line than pretty much any car. At high speeds a car would be faster. LOL. Its become bike vs m6 war. Brad, the big deal is that eventually a car beats a motorcycle. Despite the bike owning the car for the first couple miles, the car reamins on top which many find to be amazing.(Even though the bike has a speed limiter. But it still is cool). Do we really need 7 pages to clear this up? They each have their strong points.


the point is like you kinda mentioned in that post....after a couple of miles...LOL


the point is....who cares if one vehicle is faster by 10mph up top if it takes that other vehicle 2.5 miles to get there where the bike can get there in about 15-16 seconds!!!!! or about a mile.

in "ALMOST EVERY" situation....(except for setup track events or cleared away road in the middle of no where).....

the bike will be SOOOOO far ahead of the M6 by 150mph (bike speed)...that the owner of the m6 would be stupid to waste his gas trying for the next 2 miles to catchup!!!!....sure eventually he might pass the bike....

but how many people are able or will even bother racing for 2-3 miles at over 150mph???? most races are over in about 10-15 seconds and in that case...the bike will already be at 180-190mph and the car will only be a 100-110mph.

Did anyone not notice that there is no ///M emblem on the gauge? Is this really an m6?

lol...whats with you and the cbr600rr? is that what you own or something? you mention it in every thread for some reason and its the "slowest" of the 600s....

just wondering thats all....

I don't own any bikes, but it's retarded to post a video of a bike trying to keep up with a car over 180mph. Alright both the R6 and the CBR600RR would wax the M6 from 0-Aerodynamics.

Point is that the m6 is really fast and so are bikes.

:nono
M6 is really fast.
Bikes are really quick. Not necessarily fast. As their light weight doesn't help with top speed.

-Eff

:nono
M6 is really fast.
Bikes are really quick. Not necessarily fast. As their light weight doesn't help with top speed.

-Eff


NO.

the best example of "quick" is more like an EVO or STi or SRT-4.

anything that can go over 150mph in less than 20 seconds is FAST!!!!.....and i dont know about you....but even though I travel at 150+ at least once or twice a week....155+ is good enough to be considered FAST for me.

your bike is "quick".....but a supersport bike most certainly is FAST.....

are u trying to say only 200+mph means "fast"....??? because bikes do 180-190 pretty easily....and AT LEAST 160-170mph for the smaller supersports.



MY POINT....is ....who cares if something can do 200mph when it takes forever and a day to get there.....especially when chances are you wont have the opportunity for that type of clear roadway...ESPECIALLY here in america.

sure I can probably find a place to hit 160-180mph routinely for a car such as my M3/Cobra...or even if i had an M5/M6.....

BUT....as SOON as I hit 160-170mph...i have to get on the brakes and downshifting within a second or two.

on my bike....I can hit 160-165ish mph in about a half of a mile and hold it there for 3x the amount of time I can in a car before having to slow down.

NO.

the best example of "quick" is more like an EVO or STi or SRT-4.



I think what he meant was quick as an expression of acceleration whilst fast as an expression of top speed.. not sure how to articulate the reasoning but it makes sense to me. Not meaning quick < fast, rather quick != fast.

did the readout say 7 mpg? or was that 7 liters per km? either way... lol

I think what he meant was quick as an expression of acceleration whilst fast as an expression of top speed...

Ding ding ding!

"Quick" refers to acceleration.
"Fast" refers to top speed.

Let's compare your aforementioned Evo versus say a relatively mild-performance sportsbike...say the brand new 06 Kawasaki Ninja 650R. Assuming they are stock.

With it's low weight (438lbs wet) and puny power (60rwhp) the bike is MUCH "quicker" (0-60 in 3.16 sec and 11.7 in the 1/4), whereas the car is much "faster" (that Ninja bows out at just 126MPH top speed).

Not sure of an '06 Evo's number but I would guess it's 1.5 seconds "less quick" in the 1/4 and 40MPH "faster" in terms of top speed. Roughly.

-Eff

AGAIN...
you are mentioned bikes such as your own..."mild sportbikes"....nothing sporty about it except for their shape!..lol

whos talking about katanas, ninja ex's, BMW bikes or even slow ducatis???
yes they are kinda quick but not meant for racing.

this race showed a supersport bike. so lets stick to that. mid 9 1/4s and 180mph-190mph top speeds.
(150-170rwhp) and only 400-420lbs. forget beginners bikes like you are talking about with just 60-80hp.


supersport bikes are both QUICK as HELL!!!! and very fast up top.
the M6 is somewhat quick and very fast up top as well.

The M6 is a great car and very fast (for a car)

BUT.. And this is a pretty big but.. If you want to compare it, you should compare a very fast GT car like the M6 to a very fast SportTouring bike, like the GSXR1300 Hayabusa or the Kawasaki ZX-12 or the new ZX-14.

The 2000 GSX-R Busa has 175Hp on 215kg-480 lbs. Giving the bike a ratio of about 0,81 HP/kg. Top speed exceeds 185mph/320kmh.
0-60 is alot more difficult to master.. but 3-3.4 seconds is possible.

The all new ZX-14 boasts 187 hp.. Top speed is unknown, but it´ll be faster then the busa.

That is both quick AND fast.

But we all know that bikes will always (with few exceptions) be faster then any car without VERY heavy modifications.

Top speed exceeds 185mph/320kmh.


which is it?
185mph=298 kmh
320 kmh= 199mph

The all new ZX-14 boasts 187 hp.. .

Actually 198hp with the ram air. They were trying to achieve 200Hp.
With the new design, the bike will be capable of well over 200mph.

which is it?
185mph=298 kmh
320 kmh= 199mph

Sorry.. Got it wrong in my math.

320 kmh is possible on a "stock" Busa. That would mean 199MPH.. And THAT is fast.

But most Busa riders don´t ride them stock. Exhaust and intake mods are very common. That will probably boost horsepower by 3-5%.. Add a Powercommander and you may get up to 10% more.

//amullo

this race showed a supersport bike. so lets stick to that. mid 9 1/4s and 180mph-190mph top speeds.
(150-170rwhp) and only 400-420lbs. forget beginners bikes like you are talking about with just 60-80hp.
supersport bikes are both QUICK as HELL!!!! and very fast up top.
the M6 is somewhat quick and very fast up top as well.

Exactly! Those are bikes that are both quick and fast.

M6: not really quick (by bike standards) but very fast (well, once chipped that is). Mild bikes: very quick, not fast at all. Supersport bikes: very quick and very fast.

Do you understand my point about: "Quick" refering to acceleration and "Fast" refering to top speed? Cause that's what it is I am saying here. That, and that weight has barely any effect on top speed.

-Eff

So this thread has come down to one person's definition of quick and fast in relation to cars and bikes.

LOL

Technically, the dictionary definitions would point to FAST as being reference to accelleration:

FAST:
# Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly; swift.
1. Accomplished in relatively little time


Regardless, I liked the video.

I hate rice but love to eat it!!:buttrock

:lol im trying to picture a 60 year old gray haired man rocking out like the buttrock smiley.

Does anybody have a test where the Hayabusa reaches speeds exeeding 320km/h? I've never seen numbers that fast for the Hayabusa. Some mag tested three different Hayabusas back in 1999 and got speeds between 307-311km/h.

OMG thats F**** fast. M6 :buttrock :buttrock. How much are those going for anways?

Does anybody have a test where the Hayabusa reaches speeds exeeding 320km/h? I've never seen numbers that fast for the Hayabusa. Some mag tested three different Hayabusas back in 1999 and got speeds between 307-311km/h.

Yepp. I´ve seen atleast 2 vids from Busa´s clocked at over 320. Both had "slight" mods on them like exhausts and intake mods. Not really anything "big" lika a big-bore kit or Turbo/nitrous.

I can´t post links to the vids (not 50 posts yet), but they are availble if you google a little.

There is ofcourse the SWT Busa that has been clocked at 437 km/h (270 mph). But that is a heavily moddified Turbo-Busa on a closed airstrip.

amullo: Okay, and that's not read on the speedo? I'm not trying to bash, just curious. :)

amullo: Okay, and that's not read on the speedo? I'm not trying to bash, just curious. :)

The speedo in the clips I´ve seen where all bottoming out, but one of the clips shows a radar readout. In the clip they claim over 320 km/h topspeed.

But as i haven´t seen them IRL and that they ARE of the internet.. well... who knows for sure.

The fact on the Turbo-Busa is real. You can read about it in "The guiness World book of records". He wheelied the thing at over 350 km/h.:eek:

:lol im trying to picture a 60 year old gray haired man rocking out like the buttrock smiley.


Every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!!
60 is a long way from dead my friend!:buttrock

Every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man!!
60 is a long way from dead my friend!

Hey, 60's is the new twenties!!

There's a E60 M5 that also went over 200mph with just AA chip -- crazy. Can't wait until run-in is finished so that I can also go for a top speed run!! in a closed track of course!

Does anybody have a test where the Hayabusa reaches speeds exeeding 320km/h? I've never seen numbers that fast for the Hayabusa. Some mag tested three different Hayabusas back in 1999 and got speeds between 307-311km/h.


if you guyz want to see "countless" busas and 1000s breaking 200mph....take a look at some bike forums ....www.uponone.com is a good one.

there is at least 12 videos of busas all between 200-250mph runs. and countless 900s and 1000s reaching 190-195mph under 16 seconds.

there are also some videos of turbo busas riding 1 wheel at over 140mph!...touching down again and hitting 220mph within another 7 seconds.

hardly any bikes on the road are stock nowadays...just like sportscars.....most bikes are equiped with at least a slip-on and a filter and possibly a Power commander which adds maybe 5hp but removes the speed limiter!

man I love that video, M6's are beasts. I wouldnt mind one.

i love the m6, if you get it you better post pics within 30 minutes of purchase hahah, i really hope you do get it, its a beautiful and fast car. GONNA BE SICK when it comes out

i love the m6, if you get it you better post pics within 30 minutes of purchase hahah, i really hope you do get it, its a beautiful and fast car. GONNA BE SICK when it comes out


All sell my soul for a New M6 :evil2 :evil2 :evil2

i love the m6, if you get it you better post pics within 30 minutes of purchase hahah, i really hope you do get it, its a beautiful and fast car. GONNA BE SICK when it comes out


I'll sell my soul for a New M6 :evil2 :evil2 :evil2

M6 is great
but I'd prefer one of these:
Z9http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/sharkm3/Z9bmwfront.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/sharkm3/Z9bmwrear.jpg