Bike potential calculations

[Bacchus]

in another thread, I was reading some detailed analysis of 1/4 mile runs and the author, I think it was sean, was able to calculate how close the driver was able to push the bike to its 'max potential.

I have made approximately 20-25 runs on my completed restoration bike a 1987 Kawasaki ZL1000 and I am currently on the home stretch (I hope) on my current project a 1989 vmax.

I was wondering if someone would be able to explain how to calculate how closely the rider was able to get the bike to perform to its full potential.

I would like to calculate this based on my current best run data for the ZL1000. I belive that all necessary data and a picture is here

http://www.dragtimes.com/Kawasaki-ZL-Timeslip-14016.html

the ZL1000 ran an 11.865 @ 110.943 mph
this run represents my best 1/4 mile to date but, the trap speed is slower than average of 111-112.
My best recorded trap on this bike is 113.323 mph

weight of bike with rider is estimated at 720 pounds. This bike has been dyno'd on both a Dyno jet @92hp and a factory pro @85hp dyno's

obviously these numbers are very different which I guess is due to these companies using a different HP scale>>::??

Botom line is... I belive this bike has an 11.6 or better in it, and I was wanting to confirm this by calculating it out.

If one you guys could help me out on this Id really appreciate it. It would sure be nice to be able to first calculate the potential of a bike, and then take it out to the track and try to run it up to that mark.

It would also be great to know when you've hit a "perfect" run

 

[Birdoprey]

What is your bikes wheelbase? Is it lowered?

Here is a calculator that will get you in the ball park. I've found it to be very accurate, but if you are really good, you can run et's better than what it shows.
Its only as good as the info put into it, so don't estimate anything. Find out for sure! Weight can REALLY change things...

http://www.torinocobra.com/horsepower.htm

 

[lankeeyankee]

Wow If this accurate I can run a 4.26 @ 319.59MPH ......................if I made 2000 Horsepower on my VMAX!:rofl_200:

 

[Thevmaxrider]

Kewl calculator, says I should be able to do a 9.85 @ 138.25 mph on Snowmax. Lankee you should be able to go faster:biglaugh: Next summer!!

 

[Bacchus]

that is a cool calculator. Im not shure off hand what the wheel base is on a ZL1000 but I will find out tomorrow and let you guys know.

I have lowered the rear by using lower progressive shocks. 1" lower.

 

[Birdoprey]

that is a cool calculator. Im not shure off hand what the wheel base is on a ZL1000 but I will find out tomorrow and let you guys know.

I have lowered the rear by using lower progressive shocks. 1" lower.

Be sure to get an accurate weight. Every 22-25lbs is worth .1 sec and 2mph in the 1/4, so you can see it really makes a difference!

 

[Bacchus]

ZL1000 Wheelbase = 1,615mm
wet weight 697 lbs

played around with the calculator and some time slips seems like it might be pretty accurate, and I may have had some very well exicuted runs.

 

[Birdoprey]

Was that 697 for just bike or bike/rider(suited)?

Also, what were the other stats of the pass? 60', 330', 1/8mi et/mph??? Happen to know the DA(Density/Altitude) of the night you made the pass?

 

[Bacchus]

birdoprey--

wet weight of the bike is 597 lbs without rider or gear. I weigh about 160 plus gear.

Unfortunately the time slip has faded and most of the data is not legable any more so I will provide some data from another respectable run. The data for the 11.865 run may be available at dragtimes.com, but im not sure on that Ill have to check it out later.

this data is from a 11.91 run made noverber 24th of 2007
for a good run this one had a relitively poor trap time of 111.83 mph

reaction---.145 quick draw !

60----------1.880

330-------4.92

1/8------7.595

1/8 mph---92.116

660------9.840

1/4 ET----11.91

trap-----111.83

As far as the D/a this is unknown however I used this calculator and it shows an imprvoved "corrected ET"


just checked at dragtimes.com my 60 was 1.805 on the 11.865 run


any serious veterans want to give a analysis of this data that would be great !!!
seems like pretty good runs but I really dont know.

d/a corrected numbers for this run are 11.752 @ 115.623 MPH
exactly what is being corrected and why???

 

[lankeeyankee]

Kewl calculator, says I should be able to do a 9.85 @ 138.25 mph on Snowmax. Lankee you should be able to go faster:biglaugh: Next summer!!

Yeah tell Cornell we have something for him from the Forum. I say we set up a bracket race with dial in's and we will see how good of a racer corny is. 3 time trials with 3 runs with dials in's off a .500 tree for 5000.00

 

[Birdoprey]

birdoprey--

wet weight of the bike is 697 lbs without rider or gear. I weigh about 160 plus gear.

Unfortunately the time slip has faded and most of the data is not legable any more so I will provide some data from another respectable run. The data for the 11.865 run may be available at dragtimes.com, but im not sure on that Ill have to check it out later.

this data is from a 11.91 run made noverber 24th of 2007
for a good run this one had a relitively poor trap time of 111.83 mph

reaction---.145 quick draw !

60----------1.880

330-------4.92

1/8------7.595

1/8 mph---92.116

660------9.840

1/4 ET----11.91

trap-----111.83

As far as the D/a this is unknown however I used this calculator and it shows an imprvoved "corrected ET"


just checked at dragtimes.com my 60 was 1.805 on the 11.865 run


any serious veterans want to give a analysis of this data that would be great !!!
seems like pretty good runs but I really dont know.

d/a corrected numbers for this run are 11.752 @ 115.623 MPH
exactly what is being corrected and why???

Well, yours does'nt quite add up like "most" do. With a race weight of over 850lbs, your definately doing well. 1615mm = 63"! You sure thats right? Need to measure from center of front axle to center of rear axle. If so, your 60's could use some work. If the bike is at stk height(and the wheelbase is indeed 63"), i figure you should be able to 60' in the high 1.5's-low 1.60's if riding VERY well. If lowered front and rear(with 3" or so ground clearance), your bike should be "capable" of high 1.4's-low 1.5's. Of course, there are factors that can affect what a bike/rider is "capable" of. Rider being the biggest factor. Clutch being another biggie. None the less, 1.5's should be fairly easily attainable. With practice of course.
Was the HP #'s from your two dyno runs in STD format or SAE? I'm guessing that it was STD, which is not corrected for altitude/temp, etc. It should take over 90rwhp to knock off over 112mph with a 850lb + bike/rider combo. Prolly more like 95 or so.

The corrected D/A is basically what your pass would have been if you had run at a "Standard" altitude/temp, etc. Basically, your bike would have made more hp/tq at sea level and say 59deg, etc due to the more oxygen content. The xtra hp would have gained you hp which = trap speed/lower et. The hp gain is pretty pedictable. This of course assumes proper jetting, but gives everyone a level playing field. Out here in West Texas, everything is much slower due to the altitude/crappy air. When i lived in East Texas i normally trapped 117mph from my 04 Busa in the 1/8. Moved out here and the best i ever did was 115mph. That 2mph loss hurt me by just over .1 in the 1/8. I was riding the same with the same 60's(my 330's were slightly slower due to the lack of hp starting to show even in that short of distance). Knowing the DA lets you know what the bike is capable of at different altitudes, and lets you know what kinda hp gains/losses you can expect. Dunno if any of that even makes sense. Been sick for 3 days and i'm verrry tired...
Get your 60's in the low 1.7's and you'll see 11.60's or better(provided you don't bog it at the end of the clutch).
Dunno if i'm a "serious veteran", so you may not can use anything i posted.:confused2:

 

[Bacchus]

actual bike wet weight is 597 not 697 as stated.

thanks for your input. you obviously have more exp. than I and I appreciate the information and opportunity to learn from other guys who can help.

the wheelbase given was stolen from site online, I will try to take the physical measurements myself soon to verify.

My bike is lowered 1" in back and the stock seat has been modified to lowere rider position 1-1.5" additionally.

as far as std or sae HP..... Idunno... I wasnt aware of this and never asked. Ill try to check this out as well

 

[lankeeyankee]

Kewl calculator, says I should be able to do a 9.85 @ 138.25 mph on Snowmax. Lankee you should be able to go faster:biglaugh: Next summer!!

Even though your MAX makes great HP and stump pulling torque 9.85 @ 138mph takes some power to move 800 lbs.
Your bikes dyno numbers with stock wheelbase and a soft rear tire no bars I would shoot for a realistic of 10.20's-10.30's
Your bike is pretty close to my VMAX with the 60HP shot of nitrous, but you would be a little quicker due to I cant use the nitrous until the top part of 2nd gear so this would give you an advantage in the 60ft, and 330ft marks.

 

[Bacchus]

actually, my '89 vmax is still under construction. the data provided is for a 1987 kawasaki ZL1000.