Jump to content

faffi

Members
  • Content count

    1,810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

faffi last won the day on December 3

faffi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

About faffi

  • Rank
    Cornering Master

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Have you attended a California Superbike School school?
    No
  1. Development

    Not the same, but at least it compare handling. Weather conditions will also matter here, which does not appear. Data from MOTORRAD magazine.
  2. Development

    Thank you for the link, it does tell about performance development in a straight line for the past two decades. It also show how big tolerances there still are - just compare particularly roll on times for for instance the GSX-R600 from one test to the other. What unfortunately cannot be read from these numbers is how fast they will go around a given circuit.
  3. I have not heard it said like that before - this is how I've heard it stated repeatedly: It is easier to teach a fast rider to stop crashing, than a slow and safe rider to go fast.
  4. Development

    That would be nice
  5. Development

    Thanks, but not really. If you compare an old superbike to a new model, the older will be slower. It may be better at some details, but overall the modern bike will reign supreme. That's why I wonder how and old superbike would stack up against a current standard or sports tourer. Is the suspension better or worse on a 1992 CBR900RR than what you find on the CB1100RS of today, for instance? Or the new Z900. What about brakes? Handling? I'm curious because I personally believe 25 year old superbikes, as they were new, can still beat many current "normal" bikes when it comes to suspension and handling, and match them when it comes to the brakes. But I cannot be sure.
  6. Development

    To those who have ridden a lot of bikes over the years - if you took the best sport motorcycles from yesteryear and put them up against the current bikes of the same size but less sporty, fitted them with the same tires (where possible) and sent them around a race track, which would win? I'm asking because people have told me for quite some time that modern bikes, even budget bikes, are so much better than the stuff just a decade old. In my experience, my FZ07 has suspension no better than what many bikes could offer in the 80s, so I do not buy this. However, I could very well be wrong. So what if you teamed up something like these pairs, do you reckon the latest would beat the oldest every time? Or would it be the older sport bikes taking the honour? 1992 CBR900RR vs 2017 CB1000R 1993 GSX-R750 vs 2017 GSX750S 1994 ZX-9R vs 2018 Z900 1994 FZR600 vs 2017 FZ6R 1994 916 vs 2017 Multistrada 950
  7. We got some winter here and I took my Virago-come-scrambler out for a spin. Hard work! I have been riding a lot on winter roads on bicycles when growing up, as well as 3 winters on motorcycles before, but this - at about 530 lb - is by far the heaviest two-wheeled vehicle I have taken onto snow and ice. The tyres didn't impress, either, and combined with my limited skills when it comes to playing made things less than elegant. But at least I got to spin up some figure eights for the first time in my life, although they also proved the expected lack of talent. Still, I had fun, but during my commutes I stay away from playing since the front tucks every time the rear starts to spin up - I'd rather stay upright than topple over trying to look cool
  8. CORNERING VS. RPM INCREASE

    That is impossible to answer. If the large wheel meant 7000 rpm, the smaller wheel would give 8600 rpm. If the engine had a torque dip at 7k, it may be able to go faster with the smaller wheel at the same throttle opening. Same if the load his high, like climbing a steep hill, you would likely benefit from the extra rpm and resulting extra power to give a small increase in speed. Another thing to consider is mapping; 50% throttle will not give the same amount of fuel at high rpm as at lower rpm, meaning mapping could be better or worse if you increase rpm for any given speed. However, for most engines the extra energy required to rev higher due to more internal friction, you would not go as fast with the smaller tyre - if you have an instant fuel consumption read-out on your bike (or car) you can see how much more energy is required to go a certain speed in a lower vs a higher gear.
  9. CORNERING VS. RPM INCREASE

    Other than the slip between tyre and road, the engine is mechanically linked to the tarmac. By that it means that for any given speed, rpm is constant for a particular gear, regardless of throttle position. Let's say you need 5000 rpm to go 60 mph in 4th gear. Regardless of where the throttle is, be that full off or full on or anywhere in between, you will have exactly 5000 rpm at 60 mph in a straight line. Unless the tyre is spinning or the clutch is slipping. Now, if you lean over, the circumference of the tyre is reduced. This has a similar effect to lowering the gearing. But while lower gearing mean that the engine must turn more revolutions in order to get the wheel turned a certain amount of times, now the wheel must turn faster to maintain the speed, bringing the engine along with it. This could probably be explained much simpler, but as long as you remember that when the engine turns over X times it always makes the tyre turn Y times in gear Z. A smaller wheel must turn faster than a larger diameter wheel for any given speed, and so the engine must turn X+n to compensate.
  10. 31 year old TV spot about CSS at Laguna

    The original Ninja 600 sans fairing - thanks for sharing.
  11. Drag Racing- Why do they do this?

    They do it to lower the CoG, which again makes it less likely for the bike to wheelie.
  12. Limitations of CSS techniques?

    Thank you for calling my bike nice, although we both know it is rather ugly Your Nighthawk, however, is in a stunning condition A friend has one, and while I like the way it looks (not unlike the VT500FT Ascot I once owned), it doesn't do anything for me while riding. Seat is big and inviting, but so soft my bum quickly gets on fire. And the engine is rather lackluster in performance, and also manage to feel even tamer and slower than it is. Suspension lack damping, but is very good at flattening out frost heaves and as such worked very well for me. Albeit basic, the brakes also work remarkably well. When Cycle World tested one in 1991, they actually stopped the Nighthawk in a shorter distance than the period race reps.
  13. Limitations of CSS techniques?

    I took a beginner course in gravel riding earlier this fall. After some slow slalom stuff standing up we did maximum braking in some really deep and loose gravel. We learned to pull clutch, shut throttle, apply rear brake and lock wheel, apply and modulate front brake. In that order, but in quick succession. Having ridden quite a bit on snow and ice, I had little trouble with the test. Next was riding over a small mountain on gravel littered with stones and potholes. That also went well. After an hour with basic practice I joined the fast group, which wasn't all that fast. Got a tip from a guide at a coffee stop to stand up, keep most of the weight on the outside peg and push with the outside knee against the tank, let the front end wander and steer with the throttle. Something clicked and I went from being almost afraid of loose gravel to searching for it, enjoying having both wheels sliding about. My bike of choice was my Virago scrambler project in the making. In the ten years they have run the event, this was the first Virago they had seen. It was a superb conversation starter. I'm going back next year
  14. I think we should satisified we are both basically unhurt and ready to do it all over
×