.png "Powered by vBulletin")
Originally posted by tkent02
View Post
-
Some of the really quick ones could. Six Pack Super Bees would run in the 12s... but like anything else it takes expert tuning and driving. Stock 750s are supposed to run in the 12s, but not with me on it haha. And that's not even considering all the 'dealer' cars like Royal Bobcats, Yenkos, etc, or factory cars like the Max Wedges or Swiss Cheese Catalinas. Or if you want to get really ridiculous, the Ford Thunderbolt, good for low 11s right out of the box. However, -most- factory stock muscle cars intended for regular street use would not see low 13 second quarter mile times and thems that would were probably a bit temperamental about it."Men will never be free until Mark learns to do The Twist."
-Denis D'shaker
79 GS750N -
The mini ninja can't get much past 90 mph... A well sorted 850G can do 135 flat out. I would say that qualifies as faster.Originally posted by gs850cafe View Post
As I'm sure you know, faster and quicker are not the same. However I was informed by a friendly LEO that my 850 had a 0-60 time of just over 3 seconds (I received a ticket to prove it...) The internet tells me that the little ninja does it in 5.7
DISCLAIMER: Don't do 135 on the street!! It's super-uber-mega-ultra-illegal-to-the-enth-power and under no circumstances am I advising it!!!
Assuming your friends car is not set up for drag racing, and your GS is in top mechanical shape, I'd say you have a good chance of beating him.Comment
-
I dunno. But I'm thinkin the GS would need that extra topend just to catch up before either of em make it to the 8'thOriginally posted by 7981GS View Post
Stolen from another board.Originally posted by tkent02 View Post
Seems pretty reasonable to think many would run very fast qtr mile times.
1 1966 427 Cobra 12.20@118 427 8V 425 4-Speed 3.54 CC 11/65
2 1966 Corvette 427 12.8@112 L72 427 425 4-Speed 3.36 CD 11/65
3 1969 Road Runner 12.91@111.8 440 Six BBL 390 4-Speed 4.10 SS 6/69
4 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10@107.12 426 Hemi 425 4-Speed 3.54 CC 11/69
5 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12@107.01 454 LS6 450 4-Speed 3.55 CC 11/69 6 1969 Camaro 13.16@110.21 427 ZL1 430 4-Speed 4.10 HC 6/69
7 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 4-Speed 3.70 HC 5/68
8 1970 Road Runner 13.34@107.5 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 SS 12/69
9 1970 Buick GS Stage I 13.38@105.5 455 Stage I 360 automatic 3.64 MT 1/70
10 1968 Corvette 427 13.41@109.5 L72 427 425 4-Speed 3.55 CD 6/68
11 1969 Charger 500 13.48@109 426 Hemi 425 4-Speed 4.10 HR 2/69 12 1968 Charger 13.50@105 426 Hemi 425 automatic 3.23 CD 11/67
12 1970 Plymouth Superbird 13.50@105 426 Hemi 425 ? ? ?
14 1968 Road Runner 13.54@105.1 426 Hemi 425 automatic 3.55 CD 1/69 15 1973 Trans Am 13.54@104.29 455 SD 310 automatic 3.42 HR 6/73
16 1969 Corvette 13.56@111.1 427 L88 430 automatic 3.36 HR 4/69
17 1969 Super Bee 13.56@105.6 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 4.10 HR 8/69 18 1969 Boss 429 Mustang 13.60@106 Boss 429 375 4-Speed 3.91 HC 9/69 19 1970 Challenger R/T 13.62@104.3 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 3.23 CC 11/69
20 1970 Torino Cobra 13.63@105.9 429 SCJ 370 automatic 3.91 SS 3/70 21 1968 Biscayne 13.65@105 427 L72 425 4-Speed 4.56 SS 4/68
22 1964 Polara 500 13.70@107.37 426 4V 365 4-Speed 3.23 HC 2/64
23 1969 GTX 13.70@102.8 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 MT 1/69
24 1969 Dart 440 13.71@105 440 4V 375 automatic 3.55 CC 5/69
25 1971 Road Runner 13.71@101.2 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 CC 1/71sigpic
82 GS850
78 GS1000
04 HD Fatboy
...............................____
.................________-|___\____
..;.;;.:;:;.,;.|__(O)___|____/_(O)|Comment
-
26 1971 Cuda 13.72@106 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 SS 4/71
27 1971 Corvette 13.72@102.04 454 LS6 450 4-Speed 3.36 CL 8/71
28 1971 Super Bee 13.73@104 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 MT 12/70
29 1968 Hurst/Olds 13.77@103.91 455 W-30 390 automatic 3.91 SS 8/68 30 1970 Hemi 'Cuda 13.78@101.2 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 MT 9/69
31 1968 Firebird 13.79@106 400 HO 335 4-Speed N/A HR 3/68
32 1967 Corvette 13.80@108 427 6V 435 4-Speed 3.55 HR 5/67
33 1965 Catalina 13.80@106 421 6V ? 4-Speed 3.42 CD 3/65
34 1969 Super Bee Six Pack 13.80@104.2 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 CD 7/69
35 1971 Boss 351 Mustang 13.80@104 Boss 351 330 4-Speed 3.91 MT 1/71
36 1966 Satellite 13.81@104 426 Hemi 425 4-Speed 3.54 CD 4/66
37 1969 Coronet R/T 13.83@102.27 440 4V 375 4-Speed 4.10 SS 4/69
38 1968 Cyclone GT 13.86@101.69 428 CJ 335 automatic 4.11 MT 8/68
39 1969 Nova SS 396 13.87@105.1 396 4V 375 automatic 3.55 HR 7/69
40 1969 Shelby GT-500 13.87@104.52 428 CJ 335 4-Speed 3.91 SS 9/69 41 1969 Cyclone Cobra Jet 13.88@101.7 428 CJ 335 automatic 4.11 MT 1/69
42 1970 Olds 4-4-2 W-30 13.88@95.84 455 W-30 370 automatic 3.42 CC 11/69
43 1962 Corvette 13.89@105.14 327 FI 360 4-Speed 4.10 HR 1/62
44 1969 Barracuda 13.89@103.21 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 SS 8/69
45 1962 Catalina 13.90@107 421 4V ? 4-Speed 4.30 MT 5/62
46 1969 Mustang Mach I 13.90@103.32 428 CJ 335 automatic 3.50 CL 3/69 47 1967 GTO 13.90@102.8 400 RA 360 automatic 4.33 CL 10/67
48 1970 Trans Am 13.90@102 400 RA 345 4-Speed 3.91 HR 2/70
49 1970 Torino Cobra 13.99@101 429 4V ? 4-Speed 3.91 MT 2/70sigpic
82 GS850
78 GS1000
04 HD Fatboy
...............................____
.................________-|___\____
..;.;;.:;:;.,;.|__(O)___|____/_(O)|Comment
-
OK, my bad.
Don't see any Camaros on that list.
Life is too short to ride an L.Comment
-
Speaking of Camaros, if this kid(car owner) has, lets say, a 95 SS or Z28 in reasonable shape and he knows how to drive it the feller on the 850 might be in for some kinda rude awakening.Originally posted by tkent02 View Post
Those cars were/are quick!sigpic
82 GS850
78 GS1000
04 HD Fatboy
...............................____
.................________-|___\____
..;.;;.:;:;.,;.|__(O)___|____/_(O)|Comment
-
6 was a ZL-1 Camaro.Originally posted by tkent02 View Post"Men will never be free until Mark learns to do The Twist."
-Denis D'shaker
79 GS750NComment
-
Doh !
Life is too short to ride an L.Comment
-
Tire technology has change tremendously since the 70'sComment
-
I had a 78 T/A that'd do 13 flat in street tires. It was NOT stock however.
If you can hook up without killing yourself your gonna have a shot. It's likely going to be easier for him to hook up cleanly unless you've got a lot of experience drag racing with a bike. It definitely takes skill to launch without blowing all your "umph" with a wheelie. A problem he's not likely to have.
I drove a 96? Camero SS or Z28 one (can't remember which) that had the LT motor in it with the 6sp tranny. They were damn fast. I was quite impressed and I've driven a lot of "very fast" cars. But what was even more amazing to me was how quick they stopped! Great brakes on that carComment
-
Corvettes and Cobras are not muscle cars. They are sports cars. Hemi's were so rare where I lived, in Orange County, they were virtually never seen. Most muscle cars I saw were 383 Road Runners and Chargers, 389 GTO's, etc. Not too many with the 4.1 rear ends, either. A GS850 would have taken them in a street race
A new '83 850G ran 12.72 at 103. I have a test of a '79, it was virtually the same. Barely a second quicker than a Fatboy.
If this Camaro is actually running low 13's every week, 1t is going to beat the GS850. I virtually never see any bikes equal what magazine testers get out of them.
As to a GS850 going 135 mph, only off a cliff. That is over 10000 RPM in top gear. It isn't happening.Last edited by 850 Combat; 03-07-2012, 10:57 AM.sigpic Too old, too many bikes, too many cars, too many things
Comment
-
850Combat,
I checked up on the maths a bit. Tried various 'top speed calculators,' this one seemed to be one of the better ones.
At 9500 rpm, the bike would be doing 135.2 mph. I'd say that falls into the "possible while not riding off a cliff" category. Provided your motor doesn't explode first.
Just for kicks 10000 rpm would have you doing a blistering 142mph!!
(yes I realize that these discount many factors, like wind, rider weight, temperature, traction, degree of slope etc, but under ideal conditions with a skinny guy hanging on, its possible)
//End Hijack
Regardless this is all irrelevant because no way is the bike getting to top speed in the 1/4 mile. The race all depends on whether your car driving friend is actually right, and knows what he's talking about running low 13's, or he is exaggerating.
Only way to find out is to hit the drag strip. Ohh and get someone to video tape it, it and share with the class!Comment
-
I used the road test data that I attached:Originally posted by Tim Tom View Post850Combat,
I checked up on the maths a bit. Tried various 'top speed calculators,' this one seemed to be one of the better ones.
At 9500 rpm, the bike would be doing 135.2 mph. I'd say that falls into the "possible while not riding off a cliff" category. Provided your motor doesn't explode first.
Just for kicks 10000 rpm would have you doing a blistering 142mph!!
(yes I realize that these discount many factors, like wind, rider weight, temperature, traction, degree of slope etc, but under ideal conditions with a skinny guy hanging on, its possible)
//End Hijack
Regardless this is all irrelevant because no way is the bike getting to top speed in the 1/4 mile. The race all depends on whether your car driving friend is actually right, and knows what he's talking about running low 13's, or he is exaggerating.
Only way to find out is to hit the drag strip. Ohh and get someone to video tape it, it and share with the class!
4460 rpm at 60 mph.
135 mph divided by 60 mph equals 2.25
2.25 times 4460 rpm equals 10035 rpm
That means 10035 rpm at 135 mph
Thanks for the correction, but I'm sticking to my story just the same.
What math did you use to figure it all out?
They red line at 9000 rpm, by the way, and they will not pull red line in top gear.sigpic Too old, too many bikes, too many cars, too many things
Comment
-
If you insist. Everyone not interested in long equations don't read this. I apologize.Originally posted by 850 Combat View Post
My math...
MPH = (RPM / Overall Ratio) x (Tire Circumference x .0009469)
(The absurdly small decimal at the end is the conversion factor to get your answer in mph)
In order for this equation to work we also need the equations for Overall Ration and Tire Circumference.
Overall Ratio = Primary Drive Ratio x Gear Ratio x Final Ratio
Overall Ratio= 1.775 x 0.961 x 3.090 = 5.270
Tire Circumference = (Width/25.4 x Aspect Ratio /100 + Rim Size/2 ) x 2PI
(25.4 being conversion factor from mm to inches)
Tire Circumference = (130/25.4 x .9 +17 /2) x 2(3.14) = 82.35 inches
Now we can plug these numbers back into the mph equation and see what happens.
MPH = (RPM / Overall Ratio) x (Tire Circumference x .0009469)
MPH = (9000/ 5.270) x (82.35 x .0009469)
MPH = 133.1 mph
Using your given redline of 9000, a GS850G could mathematically achieve 133 mph.
However since 135 mph seems to be the magic number here, what RPM would be needed to achieve this? Using some Algebra to re-write the equation to solve for RPM we find that:
RPM = MPH x (1056 /Tire Circumference) x Overall Ration
(1056 being the appropriate conversion factor here)
RPM= 135 * (1056/82.35) * 5.270
RPM=9123
So therefore in order for a GS850G to achieve 135 miles per hour in ideal conditions you would only need to spin the engine a mere 123 rpm's past the redline.
Mathematically possible, and still no cliffs are needed. Given how robust the engine is I would say it could withstand this RPM for short durations, I don't suggest doing it all day.
To everyone who came here to read about a drag race for bragging rights I apologize again.
.
.
.
.
You know you go to an engineering college when that happens ^^^
Comment
-
Try adding in the secondary reduction of 1.062 into your calculation then try it again. The number you are looking for is larger than 5.27Originally posted by Tim Tom View Post
What school did you go to?
sigpic Too old, too many bikes, too many cars, too many things
Comment
.png)
Comment