Anyone faster than this guy ? . . . . Crazy bike . . . .

[Gangsta SV]

Crazy azz bike . . . heres a dyno . .

Heres a picture of the bike



From what I hear its a Hayabusa with GSXR 1000 plastics and its turbo'ed ... . . More info at www.landzer.tk . . .


Peace In the middle east , Don't eat the chicken greese . .

[RandyO]

its fake, the hp & torque mathmaticly must cross at 5252 rpm

[Degsy]

Yep, what an asshole. 455 BHP would rip a TL1000 apart.

Degs

[oreo_n2]

its fake, the hp & torque mathmaticly must cross at 5252 rpm

um, why? how does the math work?

[benVFR]

Horsepower = (Torque)(RPM)/(5252)

Ben

[stoinkythepig]

Horsepower = (Torque)(RPM)/(5252)

That's if torque is measured in ft-lbs. The graph says newton-meters.

There are 4.45 newtons per pound force and 3.28 feet per meter so there are 1.357 ft-lbs for each newton-meter. I think...

[Degsy]

Oh shit. I was bleary-eyed when I saw that. My mistake.

It's a gixxer. Still, that's nuts power and I don't think the bike would take it.

Just my opinion.

Degs

[Gangsta SV]

So is it real or fake ?

[stoinkythepig]

So is it real or fake ?

It's inaccurate. Note how the two curves are almost parallel up to about 7500 RPM. The torque curve should be substantially closer to flat with a horsepower curve like that.

[Matt K]

I'm no expert, but I am kind of a geek. Look at it this way: max tq is 366.2nm *1.357= 496.9ft*lb (which is a shitload of torque for a 4cyl sportbike, even with a turbo) Regardless of whether or not it's a lot of torque, think of this: the torque peak is at roughly 7800rpm, and according to ben's equation (which I believe is correct) hp=(tq*rpm)/5252 so, knowing tq and rpm, we can calculate the resultant hp: 496.9*7800/5252=738hp. Now I know there are many inneficiencies involved, but still, going from 738hp predicted to roughly 410hp measured would be like a 45% drivetrain loss. On a bike that's rediculous, that's saying the tranny, chain, and rear wheel inertia are eating like 328hp.

As I said, this could be real, I wasn't there. I think not though.

the other odd thing is that there's no radiator, so I guess you could only run it for a few minutes...

I CAN say that is hasn't been photoshopped,

but then, what do I know?

[RandyO]

yea, I didn't notice it was newton meters, and I don't have my conversion tables handy, (its on my desk at work, I'll check it out tommorrow, I still think it's fake

[Rye]

And in a stock wheelbase. The bullshit sniffer is on.

[Gangsta SV]

I don't know anything about bike engines but what is that thing sticking out where the gas tank is suppose to be ?

Close up



I dunno if thats a replacement for a radiator but it looks like a intake of some sort ?

[GMS1000]

from what I've read on LaBusas, a turbo Busa can make up to 500hp at full boost.

needabike, it's called a plenum. it replaces the airbox. I think?

peace

[benVFR]

No Stoinkythepig was right...

The graph is all screwy... Newton-meters is a metric measurement and horsepower is an english measurement, so that equation I posted won't work.

The equation horsepower = (torque)(rpm)/5252 is a shortcut equation and doesn't work unless all the units are english.

If you multiply each point in that graph for torque by 0.74 you'll get a new torque curve that crosses the HP curve at 5252 rpm.

So I guess the graph could be legit.

I think, but I'm not sure, that we can blame the Australians for these messed up dyno graphs that are half english and half metric. Australian bike sites seem to post these.

Ben

[Rye]

Nice nitride forks though.

[GuntherRC51]

Back to the original question "what would be faster than this thing".........uh just about everything. There is no way to easily modulate the throttle on a bike with that much horsepower. If you aren't lighting up the rear tire you'll be looping the sucker! There is definitely a clear limit to usable power and overkill.

[RandyO]

If you multiply each point in that graph for torque by 0.74 you'll get a new torque curve that crosses the HP curve at 5252 rpm.

that puts the torque/hp crossover at 7097rpm wouldn't it, this graph is showing 8k

[Matt K]

I guess basically what it comes down to is that the bike is pretty, probably took a lot of work, time and money to build, makes a lot (regardless of exactly how much) of power, and isn't exactly useful/practical. If that's what you're looking for, then go for it. More power to ya. If not, well, that's why you didn't build that bike.

[stoinkythepig]

I'm no expert, but I am kind of a geek. Look at it this way: max tq is 366.2nm *1.357= 496.9ft*lb (which is a shitload of torque for a 4cyl sportbike, even with a turbo) Regardless of whether or not it's a lot of torque, think of this: the torque peak is at roughly 7800rpm, and according to ben's equation (which I believe is correct) hp=(tq*rpm)/5252 so, knowing tq and rpm, we can calculate the resultant hp: 496.9*7800/5252=738hp. Now I know there are many inneficiencies involved, but still, going from 738hp predicted to roughly 410hp measured would be like a 45% drivetrain loss. On a bike that's rediculous, that's saying the tranny, chain, and rear wheel inertia are eating like 328hp.

Matt makes my point. The HP and torque curves do not work together. With a torque curve like that the HP curve would be nearly vertical. Torque curves on turbo engines typically climb steeply and then plateau when the waste gate (or other means of boost limiting) kicks in. The torque curve pictured is probably impossible for an engine with pistons. Looks more like something you'd get from a jet turbine.

Dynos only "measure" torque. HP is a calculated from the torque curve and drivetrain loss is not factored in. Even if it were, it would not alter rthe shape of the curve, only it's placement on the graph.

If you multiply each point in that graph for torque by 0.74 you'll get a new torque curve that crosses the HP curve at 5252 rpm.

I think you'd need to divide by 0.74 and even then it would not quite line up because the torque scale is different than the HP scale.

[benVFR]

Originally posted by stoinkythepig


I think you'd need to divide by 0.74 and even then it would not quite line up because the torque scale is different than the HP scale.

Look at the graph... at about 5252rpm it's showing about 150N*m of torque. Multiply by 0.74 and you get about 100... and the graph is showing about 100hp at 5252rpm. Yep, you'd have to redraw it to a different scale but it will satisfy the equation.

Eh... actually fuck it, looks like I read it wrong and it's not 150 at 5252.


Ben

[legalspeed]

Stock wheel base? Nope, looks like a stretched swinger to me.

Radiator? Looks like they are cooling the bike with Nitro.

Throttle? Prolly not stock.

I'd like to see how they get from the ram air intakes to the box.

I believe the chart (in Aussie). It does look like it plateaus.

[GMS1000]

Originally posted by legalspeed
Stock wheel base? Nope, looks like a stretched swinger to me.

Radiator? Looks like they are cooling the bike with Nitro.

Throttle? Prolly not stock.

I'd like to see how they get from the ram air intakes to the box.

I believe the chart (in Aussie). It does look like it plateaus.

the turbo replaces ram air?

[legalspeed]

D'oh!!
yup, I gotcha.


How about the NO2 idea?

Is that a heat exchanger on the end of the coolant tube?

And... is that NO2 plumbed in to the fuel rail?

[GadgettR1]

I'll have to look for a link I came across earlier when I was thinking about a turbo busa.. there is a company out there that just came out with there 2nd generation turbo which if I remember right was running 30 pounds of boost and getting over 400hp on a busa.... ok found a link that talks about the NLR turbo busa... making 475 hp and 325 ft lbs of torque...


http://www.dragbike.com/news/07-02/071502f.htm

http://www.nlrsystems.com/pages/nlr_turbosys_gen2.html