Quote from EspenLund :

You know, there is bright side - gays are attracted to you so it means you're handsome I'm not surprised this was uncomfortable, but if he wasn't intrusive I think it's ok, eberybody needs somebody

I look like a reject from Duck Dynasty. They like the bike.

But you know, you're the man who owns it

Oops, I was wrong. The power requirement increases with the cube of velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power

Quote from EspenLund :

It is fun, but if you think of serious offroad its too heavy I like this bike but im thinking to change it for somethings like yamaha wr250/450, because i discovered i really like dirt and speed, more than ability to go long-distance travel (it would be fine to have both bikes but monies, monies)

Remember WR450 needs lots of maintenance (dunno is that right word). You have to change oils every 10 hours and things like piston and bearings from engine needs to be changed faster than in normal bikes. Same thing with KTMs, Husaberg etc. If you want to do that they will be very nice bikes. WR250 X and R models are nice for road use because you dont need to change oils very often. Only negative thing is low power. F models are pure enduros I think and needs also lots of maintenance.

I would suggest Suzuki DR-Z 400 for you. It's very good for offroad, ok amount of power and have to change oils like every 3-5k km's.

I have to admit I don't have any personal experience of these bikes but I've read more than enough of those different enduros because I wanted to get one. Just one problem, I dont have enough money (and age yet) for bike.

Quote from CardsetCrazy :

Remember WR450 needs lots of maintenance (dunno is that right word). You have to change oils every 10 hours and things like piston and bearings from engine needs to be changed faster than in normal bikes. Same thing with KTMs, Husaberg etc. If you want to do that they will be very nice bikes. WR250 X and R models are nice for road use because you dont need to change oils very often. Only negative thing is low power. F models are pure enduros I think and needs also lots of maintenance.

I would suggest Suzuki DR-Z 400 for you. It's very good for offroad, ok amount of power and have to change oils like every 3-5k km's.

I have to admit I don't have any personal experience of these bikes but I've read more than enough of those different enduros because I wanted to get one. Just one problem, I dont have enough money (and age yet) for bike.

Thanks m8, DR-Z looks like something for me Maybe next seanson...

Quote from Racer Y :

I'm glad you wasn't hurt. To be honest, I hated your video. It sucks to be reminded how easy and quickly something like that happens. Yeah, I know. It comes with the territory, but it still sucks. And again, I'm glad you're OK.

It was not me in the video. I was on the other side of the track at the time of the crash. I should have made that a bit more clear in my post


And for those going on about top speed...

Reading the speedo is pointless. I could get my little 400 to read 200mph if I wanted. If people are going to go around quoting their top speed then yes I do expect them to calculate it properly!

The 600s that support the WSBK series were hitting just over 270kph at monza. That is around 170mph.

Every year there is a meeting where you can do standing and flying 1/4 miles. Results here: http://www.cliffhanger.org.nz/sprints/results/results.html

Last year a turbo busa got to 206 mph http://www.cliffhanger.org.nz/ ... sults.html#flying_fastest
Fastest 600 last year? 163mph.

Quote from sil3ntwar :

It was not me in the video. I was on the other side of the track at the time of the crash. I should have made that a bit more clear in my post


And for those going on about top speed...

Reading the speedo is pointless. I could get my little 400 to read 200mph if I wanted. If people are going to go around quoting their top speed then yes I do expect them to calculate it properly!

The 600s that support the WSBK series were hitting just over 270kph at monza. That is around 170mph.

Every year there is a meeting where you can do standing and flying 1/4 miles. Results here: http://www.cliffhanger.org.nz/sprints/results/results.html

Last year a turbo busa got to 206 mph http://www.cliffhanger.org.nz/ ... sults.html#flying_fastest
Fastest 600 last year? 163mph.

Good grief, I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out.

Quote from Gills4life :

Good grief, I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out.

Good anti-intellectual grief, I bet you're a right prick all the time.

Quote from Gills4life :

Good grief, I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out.

Stock speedometers....
I know in cars, they'll show some stupid high number on the dial and there's no way you'll get that car that fast.
I forget how fast the speedometer claims it will go on my wife's Toyota. LOL you couldn't throw it off a cliff and get it to go as fast as that speedo claims.

Now motorcycles, they're not always very accurate either. Especially after you've hopped up something. My Suzuki's speedo only goes to 120. LOL I know it goes a bit faster than 120. But again after you hit 95, the needle goes nuts and after you go faster, it buries itself into 120. I think stock, this bike would have had to fight to go that fast if it could hit it at all.
I imagine tire size affects the accuracy too. How much though? i don't mean radical differences in diameter, just something little. Like the variation of the actual tire used compared to the tire size the speedometer was calibrated with. I dunno. As far as that bike goes, I'm debating on getting rid of the speedometer anyways vs re-finishing it.

Digital speedometers. Are these any good on bikes? The only ones I've seen were in mid '80s model cars and they sucked as far as accuracy went. They just looked cool.

650s and speed. My friend had a 1984(?) yamaha 650 turbo. God that bike was ugly. The turbo was more of a gimmick if anything else. He'd a got better performance from a hyper charger than that thing. This bike was stock and since it was his, not very well maintained. It could get up to maybe. Maybe 120. I only rode on the back of it. With both of us on it, he got it to 100....eventually. Man that bike was ugly.

This:
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co. ... ha/yamaha_xj650_turbo.htm

The pics don't really do it justice. This bike is uglier than a Yugo Lowrider
And the stats are an understatement. It's performance was the same as a... Yugo Lowrider.
Some drunk @ss hole decided it was ugly too and ran all into him in Galveston and disintegrated it. I don't remember the extent of his injuries, but his left hand is still pretty screwed up from it.

Quote from Gills4life :

Good grief, I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out.

Hah could see that comment coming a mile away

Quote from Forbin :

Good anti-intellectual grief, I bet you're a right prick all the time.

Woe is me, a personal insult on the internet! Please teach me to be so cool :bowdown:

On bikes its very easy to alter the final drive (down gear it) and as the speedometers normally run from the gearbox these days they will read all sorts of crap.

Like this joker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifrk6JeCafo


Not the case on my BMW as the reading comes from the wheel speed sensors.

Someone say Turbocharged 650? This is the way to go with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIUiPqjw9Q

Quote from skstibi :

Someone say Turbocharged 650? This is the way to go with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIUiPqjw9Q

I had heard Kawasaki made a turbo in the late 1970's. I thought they put it on a bigger bike than the 650 though. I thought they put it on the 1000 model they had
I heard the reason turbocharging wasn't so well received was because of turbo lag at the start was too slow and the big boost at the end was too dangerous.
That's just what I was told and what I've read. The only turbo I know anything about is my friends ugly Yamaha and I really didn't see a real performance boost from it. I remember it did make a funky noise. A kind of whining sound.
I wouldn't think turbo would be a great thing for motorcycles, at least as not as effective as turbo charging a car. Velocity stacks with decent airflow I think would be more effective. I dunno. It depends on how much boost the particular turbo cranks out.

Electric Superchargers. A friend of mine bought an electric supercharger for his car. It didn't look like it could really do all that much for the car. In fact, he told me it sucked. I wonder if that would be the case on a bike?

I'll look up youtube..... they have a bunch of bike videos with mechanical superchargers, but not any electric ones. Hmmm.

Quote from Racer Y :

I had heard Kawasaki made a turbo in the late 1970's. I thought they put it on a bigger bike than the 650 though. I thought they put it on the 1000 model they had

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_GPZ750_Turbo

Quote from Racer Y :

I heard the reason turbocharging wasn't so well received was because of turbo lag at the start was too slow and the big boost at the end was too dangerous.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly why they got rid of them so quickly. 80's turbos were notoriously laggy. Modern turbos are much better with respect to lag but I still prefer naturally aspirated.

Quote from Racer Y :

I had heard Kawasaki made a turbo in the late 1970's. I thought they put it on a bigger bike than the 650 though. I thought they put it on the 1000 model they had

They didn't put a turbo on a 650, it's just common practice for people to do it to the old KZ's these days. Kawasaki Made the GPZ750 Turbo and the Z1-R Turbo which was the 1000.
http://motorcyclespecs.co.za/m ... ki/kawasaki_z1r_turbo.htm

The factory bike only made 125hp and was a bit touchy but turbocharging them came to be common for racing and then street use on the KZ's. You see guys with turbo KZ1000's making anywhere from 130hp on low boost to the nutters that push 30psi and well over 300hp on a street ridden bike.

They look great and ride normally until you want to scare yourself.

I've looked up Turbo bikes, supercharged bikes... there's some nut in California that makes and sells sportbikes with a jet engine in it. LOL talk about crotch rockets...
Anyways, I wonder what a racing bike designed for NASCAR oval racing would look like?
I know there's flat track ovals but I mean a big oval, banked curves and I dunno...a 300 mile race. What would the bikes designed for that sort of racing look like? Maybe a longer wheel base? A front fairing that completely covered the front end? I'm not all that big a fan of NASCAR, but I am kind of curious as to what one of those motorcycles would look like if they had those sorts of races.

Why does it look like his rear tyre is under-inflated?

Quote from Racer Y :

there's some nut in California that makes and sells sportbikes with a jet engine in it. LOL talk about crotch rockets...

Jet engine is a bit of a misnomer. It's a turbine from a helicopter. It directs its power to the ground like any other motorcycle, rather than to the air like an airplane.

Quote from Racer Y :

Anyways, I wonder what a racing bike designed for NASCAR oval racing would look like?
I know there's flat track ovals but I mean a big oval, banked curves and I dunno...a 300 mile race. What would the bikes designed for that sort of racing look like? Maybe a longer wheel base? A front fairing that completely covered the front end? I'm not all that big a fan of NASCAR, but I am kind of curious as to what one of those motorcycles would look like if they had those sorts of races.

Probably something like this.

Quote from Forbin :

Jet engine is a bit of a misnomer. It's a turbine from a helicopter. It directs its power to the ground like any other motorcycle, rather than to the air like an airplane.

yeah. that. but I was running late for work.



[/QUOTE]Probably something like this.

[/QUOTE]

That's too easy....
No. Specialized racing. Bikes designed for Oval only.... OK Maybe Watkins Glen.. Not that sane people would do anything like that. The wrecks would be horrific. But wouldn't the bike be bad ass?

Quote from Racer Y :

That's too easy....
No. Specialized racing. Bikes designed for Oval only.... OK Maybe Watkins Glen.. Not that sane people would do anything like that. The wrecks would be horrific. But wouldn't the bike be bad ass?

Probably something like this



Or this

I was thinking something almost sci-fy. A 2500cc flat 8. Like a goldwing or a BMW type. Needs to be a flat so the stroke won't be limited by the frame. Shaft drive instead of traditional chains and sprockets. The loss of power from take offs should be minimal since it will be rolling start races. Plus who wants to get hit with a busted chain at 245+ mph? Probably a twin turbo. This bike should also have a long wheelbase. Something that keeps everything in the center of the bike though.

You're basically describing a Triumph Rocket 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Rocket_III

Quote from Forbin :

You're basically describing a Triumph Rocket 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Rocket_III

No...LOL have you seen one up close? You'd think they took that motor out of a deisel tractor or something. Forget trailer. A rocket can pull a plow!
...I'm thinking something that would look like a cross between a ducati Panigale and a Honda Rune. Unfortunately, not the cool forks that come on the rune though. Just the basic motor/tank shape and the wheel base.

Reason for Editing:
I'm getting a little obsessed with this. I got kind of a rough LOL a REAL rough mock up. It's kinda looking a little like a drag bike though.

I'm selling my GPX600.

I am just sick and tired of this piece of crap bike breaking down all the time.
The sad thing is that I will probably be out of the saddle for at least half a year.
But It will give me time to safe up for a proper bike that isn't crap. In other words a bike from the year 2000 and upwards.

Sad how private sellers lie about the state of a bike.