shovelstrokeed

I have stock gearing on mine and when compared to the GPS I am right at 8% off. Actually 7.78% but who is quibbling. 90 mph indicated, 83.5 mph GPS. I pay no attention to the stock speedo as the GPS gives me nice, accurate information. The nice thing is I am right at 5000 rpm at that speed and the 'bird seems to like that.

There is a perfect venue that would put a stop to all this nonsense. It is not even all that far away. Maxton, NC. I have access to a Freightliner motor home with a 36 foot trailer attached. Might be interesting to see how fast an ultra fast '02 really is. 202 mph is the production chassis/production motor record. Held by a Busa and might get broken this weekend by a ZX-14. The next event is Sept 23-24 if anyone is interested.

1500? 1500? I am never at that RPM unless pulling away from a stop. You are lugging the motor there and the chugging you feel is the motor protesting such abuse. I wouldn't feel comfortable running the motor at that speed in any gear.

Vindication for Tomek. I actually went and got the formula and an explanation. The following is a quote from Wikipedia. Power The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by: Pd=Fd*v=-1/2pV^3*A*Cd Where Pd=power to overcome drag Fd= the force of the drag V is the velocity pV is the change in velocity A is the cross sectional area Cd is the drag coefficient. Since, for the same vehicle, the latter two items may be considered as unity, the equation becomes simply Pd=Fd*v. Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Since power is the rate of doing work, exerting four times the force at twice the speed requires eight times the power. It should be emphasized here that the drag equation is an approximation, and does not neccessarily give a close approximation in every instance. Thus one should be careful when making assumptions using these equations. [edit] Now if we could only get 2002 Blackbirds to read.

It is pretty common on EFI bikes, especially those equipped with closed loop systems using an O2 sensor for feedback. The sensor is a bit slow to react and, at least for the typical narrow band sensors used to meet emissions controls on bikes using catalytic converters is really no more than a switch that oscillates back and forth between saying "too lean"/"too rich" trying to keep an ideal mixture to maintain the converter in a "lit" condition. Problems occur when the O2 sensor starts to age and loses response causing longer periods of correction by the ECU. Sometimes the system gets into a feedback loop that causes prolonged periods of too rich or too lean running with larger swings than would be normal. The motor then can seem to hunt for an RPM kinda going between bogging and surging. In fact, at least in BMW land, it is called surging. Some other factors can influence this as well such as valve clearance, throttle body synchronization and ignition timing variations (knock sensor). I have not really noticed this so much on my Blackbird but have seen it, in a very minor way, on a couple of my BMW twins. It is pretty easy to ride around it just by dropping a gear and keeping the revs about about 3K RPM or so.

Dyno readings, as you stated, are usually corrected to standard conditions. Probably 60 deg F and 14.7 PSIA and God knows what relative humidity conditions. All depends on which units and which definition of the standard the dyno mfg. chose to use for his software. Attatched are a collection of those definitions a got from Wikipedia and a search for Standard Temperature Pressure on Google. Oops, still can't attach pictures I guess.

Yeez, ,read my post. :icon_wall: :icon_wall: Obviously you have problem with physics and math too. :icon_wall: Cube of 2 is 8 right ? . 8 X 20hp = 160 hp. OK, I get it, HP requirement varies as the cube of the change in speed. Gotta pardon me, I just flew in from LA to FL on a redeye and I'm not firing on all cylinders. Your simplistic first formula was throwing me off. Don't really know what I did to cause all the animosity, people do make mistakes you know.

Thanks, I think it might apply, the cube thing, if we were talking about acceleration to a given speed in the same time frame. So, zero to 100 mph in 5 seconds vs zero to 200 mph in 5 seconds might easily require the cube of HP given the same mass. All this nit picking aside, I just don't see a Blackbird reaching 200 mph (real, not indicated) with anything like a stock motor. My old drag bike would run 8.0 at about 160 and was nosing over in the lights. Given the 600 lb bike and rider combination, I was making about 200 HP. No fairing on that thing and I have a pretty wide cross section Pro Stock bikes are hitting right at 190 or so in the quarter and they are pretty close to 300 HP these days. Given that the average bike has about the same drag coeefient as a school bus, just less total area, it's gonna take a whole bunch more than 140 RWHP to see 200 mph. Another side track, yes the 'bird is slimmer than a Busa or the ZX-14 but their fairings do a better job of getting the rider out of the wind, hence the 5-8 mph advantage of the Busa over the Blackbird. That big hump is back there for a very, very good reason. The current crop of GP bikes are capable of 200 mph but they are a heck of a lot smaller and more aerodynamic than a Blackbird with right at 180-190 RWHP.

Yes. Do you have a problem with that? Just a tiny one given that by your own numbers 175 mph only takes 140 HP or so. I'll grant a better Cd for the larger bike and we can discount rolling resistance but that cube number just keeps bothering me. There comes a point where HP, or better, the thrust at the tire's contact patch = the drag force. From there, a corresponding increase in drag due to increased speed should require an equal increase (percentage wise) in HP to match the opposing force. Methinks you are factoring the velocity twice.

Well,no,as usually you are wrong. Drag increases as a square,hp needed as a cube. You can convert HP definition to something like HP=F X v F is force needed to propel bike at given speed,for small gains we can "forget" rolling resistance, aero drag is much greater in those speeds.In reality F is a aero drag plus rolling resistance,so there is some shortcut in cube rule. v is a speed. Basicaly in order to go twice faster you need 8 times more hp.20 hp bike will do,let say 75 mph,160 hp will get close to 185-190 mph.Does this sound about right?.20 hp bike is usually 100-150 pouds lighter so rolling resistance comes into play. So your saying that the 20HP bike, assuming it is HP limited at 75 mph will require 8000 HP to go 150! I haven't calibrated my calculator lately but 20*20*20=8000. I dunno, but I think something may be off there.

Close, HP requirement varies as the square of the speed increase not the cube. Still need over 180 RWHP.

BTW, this is not uncommon with an EFI bike. I think it is caused by the lag between actual casting temperature, air temperature sensor and water temperature in the motor. Everything cold, the ECU opens the idle speed a bit. Water temperature comes up and idle speed drops but the air temperature sensor hasn't really come up to temperature yet so the motor goes a bit rich, further dropping the idle speed below what would be normal. As the entire system comes up to temp, things normalize and idle returns to its proper level.

The radar detector and the GPS together don't draw 1 watt. Ditto the Chatterbox in standby mode. HID lights, as stated, once they start up, draw less than the stock headlight. Driving lights will draw somewhere around 110 watts as stated but that still leaves you plenty of overhead with a healthy charging system. Your alternator won't produce its full rated output till about 4K RPM or so but even there, unless you spend a good deal of time idling with the fans on, you won't draw down the battery's reserve capacity. If you are at all concerned, wire a switch into the driving lights and turn them off when stopped. Conspicuity is an illusion anyway. I have witnessed a car load of geezers down here drive right into the side of a 12' tall, 30' long flourescent green pumper truck with lights, air horns and a whooper going full blast.

When I picked up my 'bird back in November, it had a Corbin GF+L on it. I brought a sheepskin pad with me and used it for the ride home. 1190 miles done in one 320 mile day and on 870 miler. At the time the bike also had Heli bars on it. Can't say I liked the seating position at all nor was the seat comfortable. In particular, it was too wide at the thigh to seat junction and felt like I was splitting in half at stop lights. (I have a narrow ass). A week later, the dealer shipped me the stock seat, and bars and they went on post haste. I couldn't be happier. I do use the sheepskin over the stock seat and it makes all the difference in the world. The seat is easlily 800 mile day comfortable and with the stock windscreen and bars I find the seating position as well as the air management about the best I have ever encountered on a motorcycle. I'm 5'10" about 220 lbs and can ride the bike 10-12 hr days with no problems.

Which is plain horseshit. An engine, when properly worn in, will acheive almost all of its ring seal, the primary contributer to oil consumption, in the first 500 or so miles. Even less if an agressive plan is followed. Beyond that, there is no point in waiting for some mystical milage level. A goodly number of premium cars come, these days, with full synthetic in the crankcase right from the factory. no evidence of excessive oil consumption there. Both my current, street driven BMW motorcycles, with Nikasil liners, a notroiously hard surface, have been run on synthetic oils since their 600 mile service. Neither burns any more than 8oz of oil in 3K miles. This on a relatively high specific output twin cylinder engine that I run pretty hard.

The Motul 20w50 semi synthetic is what is in my bike now. I'm actually going to the Shell Rotella stuff next weekend as the bike is due for another oil change. As to the leaking seal thing, most synthetics have an additive package that includes some stuff that improves 'wicking' of the oil. In the bad old days of synthetics, they were very agressive about this and did cause some seal problems. Mfg's have since cut way back on that particular property and it shouldn't be a problem so long as the seals are not marginal to begin with.

I would probably approach Erion Brothers Racing for something like this. They have considerable experience in making Honda motorcycles go fast. There is a lot to this cylinder head modification thing. Port work has to be integrated with cam timing, exhaust and intake system modifications and combustion chamber/piston crown work as well. HP improvement is not, in and of itself, the best thing to seek. Yeah, I know, when it comes to power, wretched excess is just barely enough. Problem is, big HP numbers when chased in the conventional way, tend to beat on low and mid range torque with consequent reduction in driveability. There are also penalties in the overall reliability of the motor even if you go with top shelf stuff. Those narrow seats, right out at the edge of the valve that allow maximum breathing, won't retain their good seal over a long period. The higher compression is going to require premium gas or more to keep things out of detonation. I guess, it depends on what you want. A little light porting, along with a precision valve job, some drop-in cams and a good pipe, along with a jet kit for your carbs could get your another 20 HP or so at the crank. Maybe a little bit more. You could go all out and bring the motor to near pro stock specs and probably get 45 or so more but you wouldn't want to spend any time touring on the thing. What are your goals? What is the intended use of the bike? You may just find, that the investment isn't worth it. You might be able to sell your stocker and put the money you were going to spend on modifications into a newer, faster motorcycle.

I think it is supposed to be at 1050 +/- 50 so 1200 would be a bit high. This is just speculation but comes from experience with K1200 series BMWs. First, you cold idle speed is governed by, I think, idle air control motors which bypass the throttle plates. Normal idle speed is adjustable by a little knob protruding under the tank on the left side. Set your warm idle speed using that. However, if your thorttle cable lacks sufficient slack as the jacket expands with heat, it will raise the idle speed just a bit. The same behavior can come from a slight vacuum leak. As water temperature comes up, the casting temperatures lag a bit behind and you could have a leak that only shows with the engine up to full operating temperature. If you go back under the tank, make sure that the pull cable has a bit of slack in it and check the various clamps and vacuum plugs/lines for signs of cracking.

Some comments, a little exageration and some hard won knowledge. There are about 14 people in this entire country who fully understand the fueling needs of a turbo motor, especially a small displacement, high compression, low crankshaft inertia motor mounted in a lightweight vehicle. There are maybe another hundred or so who know enough to get by. The learning curve is long and slow with more valleys than peaks and a couple of cliffs at the bottom of which are holed pistons, burnt exhaust valves, bent rods and twisted crankshafts. (not exagerating) I'm in neither classification but I can offer some advise. In particular to running one around on the street at mild boost levels. First thing is 8 PSI is not really mild, 5 PSI can be livable and is relatively easy to tune for. A properly sized turbo is all important here. Too small and it won't pump enough air efficiently to handle the inevitable desire to turn up the boost. Too large and throttle response becomes notchy and all sorts of problems arise on overrun. Some things that get overlooked quite often are the return oil system. Crankcase pressures can get pretty high on these motors and a gravity feed just might never return the oil properly. You need to make provisions for additional venting lest you spend more time maintaining turbo seals than you do riding. An air to air intercooler is a really nice thing to have if you can find someplace to mount it. Really makes whacking the throttle open at even 5 lbs of boost on a 45 degree night a fun thing to do. At 5 PSI you can usually just get away with a boost piloted fuel pressure regulator and stock injectors. From around 8 PSI up, unless you are adding closed loop control, the need for bigger injectors is going to make low speed and light throttle tuning difficult. Above that, you might want to consider running an auxillary fuel rail with something like a Haltech F5 fuel controller. Do get yourself some form of monitoring system for mixture. Wide band O2 sensors can work as can EGT gauges. Response of the latter is a bit slow even when placed right at the exhaust ports but if you appoach things from the rich side you can gain some useful tuning information. A data logger is also wonderful as you will be pretty busy when doing full throttle testing and won't want to look too long or hard at gauges. Turbo's do have a way of putting things in fast forward like almost nothing else.

My '01 does the same thing. In fact, I can hear it a bit in second as well if I'm on a short ride and didn't bother to put in ear plugs. That, BTW, is the solution. With the plugs in, I don't hear it. I'm pretty sure they all do that. Along with a little clutch basket rattle in neutral with the clutch engaged. I might be whistling past the grave yard but I plan to igonore it.

Has nothing to do with the pressurized oil running around inside the engine. That is all contained within oil passages until it bleeds out the sides of the bearing surfaces and returns to the sump, at which time it is free oil. It has everything to do with the fact that pistons pump air and from both sides! (who would have thought). In theory, since two pistons are going up and two are moving down almost all the time within the engine crankcase volume should remain the same and crankcase pressure should remain neutral. In practice, the air communication between the cylinders is not that good and the crankcase can become pressurized at even fairly low RPM. For quite some time now, drag racers have been fitting vacuum pumps to the crankcases of their engines as these pumping losses are significant. There is about 10 net HP to be gained at the expense of a little weight and complexity. The NASCAR boys do it too, just in a different way, with their dry sump systems. They run as many as 3 or 4 stages of scavenge pump on their dry sump systems.

I picked up some form of double bubble shield, I don't remember the name, from Matey Peeps. Nice quality and in excellent condition. Honest dude. Mounted it on my bike and didn't like it all that much. Looks good just that it moved the impact point of the air from my chest to my helmet and the air is not quite as clean as before so I wound up with both more neck and arm fatigue. I'm about 5' 11" with only a 30" inseam so I sit a little tall in the saddle. I also prefer the stock seat and stock bar position and therefore benefit from the extra breeze. I prefer to deal with the elements with riding gear so extra protection from same isn't an issue. I have gone back to the stock screen and am happy. Honda did a great job on the aerodynamics and the ergonomics of this bike. The aftermarket is hard pressed, IMHO, to improve very much on it. Of course, I do fit their profile pretty well except for the weight thing, which I am working on.

Apparantly a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and no knowledge even more so. All discussion of sag is moot until spring rates are set correctly for the bike/rider combination. Sag fine tunes this and can be used to adjust (slightly) for differing loads/road conditions. Finally, compression and rebound damping are set to suit rider preference in re control of the wheel motion generated by the springs and their reactions to road irregularities, cornering loads and chassis pitch from acceleration and braking. Ride height variations may also be adjusted via shock length/mounting position and sliding the forks up or down in the triples to vary the pitch of the chassis and thus, steering geometry but they have no effect on suspension reaction. Huge effect on steering and stability, but that is another matter altogether and one best left to those with a more thorough understanding of suspension geometry and its effect on steering, traction and stability.

I'll get some uneveness in both idle and low speed throttle response right after a hot start. One quick squirt of the throttle seems to cure it. I attribute it to heat soak of the air temperature sensor causing the idle mixture to lean out a bit. A little air flow seems to correct it. I seldom operate my bike below 2500 RPM and most times I'm between 3500 and 4K. I have to pay a little attention to this as the bike is so smooth, torquey and willing at even sub-2000 RPM levels, it is easy to just troll along. Not reallly very good for the motor. I think that lever in front of the left footpeg is there to correct that.

Pair system?