Weight to HP ratio?

I know what you're getting at. You trying to find out how much weight to shave off to gain the performance equivelent of a 1 hp increase. My exwife caught on to this concept real quick and mentioned that instead of spending all the money on a new exhaust, my fat butt could just lose 20lbs. I was not amused, ate 2 cheeseburgers, and added nitrous. :laugh:

Less weight means each "pony" you have does less work. Imagine a shopping cart full of bricks, and your trying to push it. Nothing you can do to yourself at that moment will make you stronger, but less bricks in the cart, it will be as if you were stronger, easier to push.

Hellbent... That's just funny!! All this makes perfect sense. I think FMA has what I am looking for but I am just too retarded to understand it. :poke:
 
WTF did you just say?

LOL... he took all the assumptions and things i chose to ignore for simplicity sake, made correct conversions plugged them into Newtons Second Law... used a little math... a basic velocity equation and pumped out effectivly a precise (but inaccurate) answer to your question..

my engineering guts are telling me he is a Mech E.....


he appears to have more gumption than me...:beerchug:
 
I know what you're getting at. You trying to find out how much weight to shave off to gain the performance equivelent of a 1 hp increase. My exwife caught on to this concept real quick and mentioned that instead of spending all the money on a new exhaust, my fat butt could just lose 20lbs. I was not amused, ate 2 cheeseburgers, and added nitrous. :laugh:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::thumbsup:
 
I believe what F=MA wrote, after all, its his FRIGGIN name!! How could he be wrong?:laugh:

F=MA once again, well done:beerchug:
 
Can we make this discussion even MORE fun by discussing the difference between weight and mass?

Or, even better...lets talk about how rotating mass changes the performance characteristics. or unsprung weight? :laugh:
 
Can we make this discussion even MORE fun by discussing the difference between weight and mass?

Or, even better...lets talk about how rotating mass changes the performance characteristics. or unsprung weight? :laugh:

good different thread, but actually rotating mass and unsprung weight are fascinating in the effects they can actually have now that you mention it.. lol

theres a video floating around on youtube about a guy in, i want to say caprice, who tried to go drag racing on huge dubs..... lets just say the wheel had a better 60' time than the caprice heheheh
 
Last edited:
This is all you have to worry about .
When the operator of a vehical, front or rear wheel drive, opens the throttle, three things could happen. The vehicle can move forward or the drive wheels can spin or the vehicle can spin about the driving wheels. Since the leverage created by the front weight of the vehical (Rear WD) or the leverage against the ground (Front WD) does such a good job resisting flipping over, forward motion is usually created. But some of the torque does go into attempting to flip the vehicle. This shifts more weight (or force) to the rear of the vehicle. This compresses the rear springs and extends the front springs as they each seek a new equalibriam position for the new loads. This is called Squat. On a motorcycle under power, the configuration of the driveline, wheel, and suspension components produce forces that work to extend the rear wheel. This is called Anti-squat. Under a given load, torquing force, and wheel position, the whole system will produce a Net Squat. Squat + (Anti-Squat) = Net Squat.

On motorcycles some net pro-squat is desirable for traction. To much net squat and the bike drives wide on turn exit, since the squatting relaxes the steering angle after the rider has already fixed his/her exit line. No net squat or net anti-squat and the tire spins. Anti-squat is affected by top chain angle, swingarm angle, countershaft sprocket position, and swingarm pivot position, as well as rear tire contact position. For a true detailed explaination see chapter 9-1 to 9-28 of the Tony Foale book (2002). Foyle is really THE GUY when it comes to chassis configuration issues and mathmatical models of suspension systems. If you do not have this book, order it right now. TONY FOALE DESIGNS - Home page.

A great amount of confusion has been caused by using term "ride height adjustment" when talking about the rear end, it would be clearer if it was refered to as Squat Tuning , but convention holds. The end goal of setting the rear ride height is to reduce (but not eliminate) squat while accellerating on corner exit. Most stock street bikes are configured in a fasion that feels very net pro squat. This is not desirable for performance riding.

Max McAllister of Traxxion Dynamics recommends attaining an experimental rear ride height by setting the swingarm 12.5 degrees relative to the ground on a fully unladed bike (raised off the ground with tires just touching floor). This is a very crude approximation, but it is easy for everyone to understand and perform. It completely ignores how gearing affects squat. Later in the tuning process, the ride height will be raised or lowered based on rider feedback with a correctly tuned suspension system and gearing. 12.5 degrees is just a good starting point and will get you in the range to work on the suspension system.

I think that a better way exists for doing this. First, set you sag as you otherwise would and measure the eye to eye lenth of the rear shock while rider sagging. Then, go out riding with your preload tools to a turn that causes hard understeer under power. Add preload untill the understeer goes away. Go back home and measure the eye to eye length of the shock now while rider sagging. The difference of these two measurements should get you very close to how much the shock length needs to change to get proper squat. This technique works well for bikes with stock (non adjustable) shocks or bikes that need shims to adjust. It can also be used with the common ride height adjustment threads on most aftermarket shocks, since it gives infomation to the tuner that is a lot more relevent than unladen swingarm angles.

Traxxion Dynamics sells shim kits that may help to adjust ride height on some bikes. Other companies sell dogbones to adjust at the linkage, and Dan Kyle and Ammar Bazzaz even sell replacement linkage rockers for RC51. The most favored way of adjusting ride height is by using a feature available on almost every aftermarket shock sold. A thread and nut near the clevis changes the shocks overall length in small increments. Simple.

Do not adjust for corner entry or mid turn using the rear ride height. Many uneducated riders will say that raising the rear does the same as dropping the front, but this is flat out wrong. No matter how much you move the forks in the clamps you will not effect the squat characteristics of the rear end (essentially).



SO I have been told a few times over the years that for every 10 Lbs you shave off your bike you gain 1 horsepower. Is this true? How can I find the formula for weight to horsepower ratio on the Busa?
 
F=MA...well done...and you must have way too much time on your keyboard..So, please continue with the math....so if we lose 10 lbs...what does that equate to in accleration or horsepower? I am a medical scientist and never went past calculus or first year physics....but I can tell you have:laugh:2hip

A 10lb reduction in weight (or 1.4% in our example) would equate to the same percentage reduction in mass. As our F has not changed, mass and acceleration remain inversely proportional...theoretically speaking. In other words, a 1.4% decrease in mass will equate to a 1.4% increase in acceleration.

There are practical limits to this of course, because friction is required to transmit our torque to the pavement. A 90% decrease in mass will not produce a 90% increase in acceleration unless we can figure out how to get the rear tire to stick to the pavement.

WTF did you just say?

:laugh:

Hellbent... That's just funny!! All this makes perfect sense. I think FMA has what I am looking for but I am just too retarded to understand it. :poke:

Sorry I didn't explain it clearly enough. If there's something in particular you're struggling with let me know and I'll try again.

LOL... he took all the assumptions and things i chose to ignore for simplicity sake, made correct conversions plugged them into Newtons Second Law... used a little math... a basic velocity equation and pumped out effectivly a precise (but inaccurate) answer to your question..

my engineering guts are telling me he is a Mech E.....


he appears to have more gumption than me...:beerchug:

If I had discovered physics before I discovered airplanes, I may well have been a Mechanical Engineer. Perhaps I was just thrilled to finally have an application for Algebra, which up to that point in my life had seemed nearly pointless.

These days I just enjoy learning things for learning's sake. It had been a long time since I'd done any back of the envelope physics calculations, so I enjoyed the challenge.

I believe what F=MA wrote, after all, its his FRIGGIN name!! How could he be wrong?:laugh:

F=MA once again, well done:beerchug:

Thanks for the compliment. :laugh:

Can we make this discussion even MORE fun by discussing the difference between weight and mass?

I touched on that, but didn't want anyone to get bogged down by it.

wait found it...


it was a regal... lol


That is funny! :rofl:
 
hey dont forget to complicate this further.. :rofl:

if I take ten pounds off my fat azz vs. ten pounds off say my "tires/wheels" :whistle:
 
This is all you have to worry about .
When the operator of a vehical, front or rear wheel drive, opens the throttle, three things could happen. The vehicle can move forward or the drive wheels can spin or the vehicle can spin about the driving wheels. Since the leverage created by the front weight of the vehical (Rear WD) or the leverage against the ground (Front WD) does such a good job resisting flipping over, forward motion is usually created. But some of the torque does go into attempting to flip the vehicle. This shifts more weight (or force) to the rear of the vehicle. This compresses the rear springs and extends the front springs as they each seek a new equalibriam position for the new loads. This is called Squat. On a motorcycle under power, the configuration of the driveline, wheel, and suspension components produce forces that work to extend the rear wheel. This is called Anti-squat. Under a given load, torquing force, and wheel position, the whole system will produce a Net Squat. Squat + (Anti-Squat) = Net Squat.

On motorcycles some net pro-squat is desirable for traction. To much net squat and the bike drives wide on turn exit, since the squatting relaxes the steering angle after the rider has already fixed his/her exit line. No net squat or net anti-squat and the tire spins. Anti-squat is affected by top chain angle, swingarm angle, countershaft sprocket position, and swingarm pivot position, as well as rear tire contact position. For a true detailed explaination see chapter 9-1 to 9-28 of the Tony Foale book (2002). Foyle is really THE GUY when it comes to chassis configuration issues and mathmatical models of suspension systems. If you do not have this book, order it right now. TONY FOALE DESIGNS - Home page.

A great amount of confusion has been caused by using term "ride height adjustment" when talking about the rear end, it would be clearer if it was refered to as Squat Tuning , but convention holds. The end goal of setting the rear ride height is to reduce (but not eliminate) squat while accellerating on corner exit. Most stock street bikes are configured in a fasion that feels very net pro squat. This is not desirable for performance riding.

Max McAllister of Traxxion Dynamics recommends attaining an experimental rear ride height by setting the swingarm 12.5 degrees relative to the ground on a fully unladed bike (raised off the ground with tires just touching floor). This is a very crude approximation, but it is easy for everyone to understand and perform. It completely ignores how gearing affects squat. Later in the tuning process, the ride height will be raised or lowered based on rider feedback with a correctly tuned suspension system and gearing. 12.5 degrees is just a good starting point and will get you in the range to work on the suspension system.

I think that a better way exists for doing this. First, set you sag as you otherwise would and measure the eye to eye lenth of the rear shock while rider sagging. Then, go out riding with your preload tools to a turn that causes hard understeer under power. Add preload untill the understeer goes away. Go back home and measure the eye to eye length of the shock now while rider sagging. The difference of these two measurements should get you very close to how much the shock length needs to change to get proper squat. This technique works well for bikes with stock (non adjustable) shocks or bikes that need shims to adjust. It can also be used with the common ride height adjustment threads on most aftermarket shocks, since it gives infomation to the tuner that is a lot more relevent than unladen swingarm angles.

Traxxion Dynamics sells shim kits that may help to adjust ride height on some bikes. Other companies sell dogbones to adjust at the linkage, and Dan Kyle and Ammar Bazzaz even sell replacement linkage rockers for RC51. The most favored way of adjusting ride height is by using a feature available on almost every aftermarket shock sold. A thread and nut near the clevis changes the shocks overall length in small increments. Simple.

Do not adjust for corner entry or mid turn using the rear ride height. Many uneducated riders will say that raising the rear does the same as dropping the front, but this is flat out wrong. No matter how much you move the forks in the clamps you will not effect the squat characteristics of the rear end (essentially).

you couldve just posted the link,:laugh:

Peter Verdone Designs - Motorcycle Ride Height
 
ahhhhh, my head hurts! need some aspirin pronto....yup, math was always painful for me :(
 
Back
Top