200 hp not really that hard to do ;)



c10

Registered
Took me a long time to track down this magazine article of testing with results on a 2011 Gen 2 bird .
As some of you recall RJ recently dynoed 206.9 hp and 116 tq . Everything listed above was done to RJ with a few exceptions .
#1 Titanium full exhaust = More Research/development in flow to make maximum power , and of course be far lighter .

#2 RJ had top of the line full synthetic oil

#3 Not race fuel , but 92 octane ethanol free fresh fuel. This has 50,000 more BTU than the same octane 10 to 15% blended E10

#4 APEX 6 wheels with Worldwide bearings , and light rotors/titanium hardware . While this does not actually create more HP there has long been debates about a higher number being read . I can say it makes for a noticeable change everywhere .

Build a 200 HP Suzuki Hayabusa
 

1busa

Registered
Titanium pipe
Lithium Battery
Aluminum Swingarm
Aftermarket Rims & Rotors

Not saying these mods are cheap but these mods will drop a substantial amount of weight off any bike!!

Of course there’s a lot more ways and you can nickel & dime ounces off with T.I. bolts etc. But those are the Big 4 IMO when it comes to dropping a lot of weight in a hurry
 

fallenarch

THE SLOW RIDER
Registered
Not all weight loss is equal. The most offensive weight is either located at the extremes of the bike, away from the CG or stuff that rotates. When stuff rotates it multiplies it's apparent weight as a gyroscopic effect that hinders direction changes. So the categories of weight in order of handling impact are:

1. Rotating weight
2. Un-sprung weight
3. Gravity weight

So light wheels win. Lighter the better. Everything is a compromise so strength is an always present consideration for a street rider. Back to rotating mass, the further the weight is from the axis of rotation the greater the gyroscopic effect. So CF wheel, which typically have the lightest rims (versus hubs) win.

The big offender on the OEM pipes are those cans. They are very heavy and they are slung way out from the bikes CG. Going to a 4:1 really reduces the weight swinging out from the CG, and gives great access to the chain too. While the weight loss between OEM and Ti is amazing, the difference between Ti and a SS high end full system is much less at nearly twice the price.

I think the aluminum gas tank is a real valuable weight loss. It's high weight so the handling impact would be immediately noticeable.

I would say Ohlins improve suspension even if they added weight. But they are lighter than stock so that's a no brainer. The purpose of upside down forks is to reduce the weight that is not supported by the springs. The less unsprung weight you have the more your suspension will follow the road.

I was shocked at how light CF is. Replacing the fairings would be significant.

The aftermarket Brembos are lighter than OEM too.

I have it on good authority that the reason a Liter sport bike will turn inside of a Busa is the frame geometry as much as anything. Second to that is the incredible rotating mass of a 1340 cc inline 4 engine spinning at 10+K. It's more complicated than that, but basically lighten all you want and you're still going to have liter bikes cutting under you and having to wait for a straight to roar past them.

Obviously loosing some weight will make both you and your bike more frisky. Just realize that being strategic about what weight to lose is more important than total pounds loss.
 

Kiwi Rider

Registered
Not all weight loss is equal. The most offensive weight is either located at the extremes of the bike, away from the CG or stuff that rotates. When stuff rotates it multiplies it's apparent weight as a gyroscopic effect that hinders direction changes. So the categories of weight in order of handling impact are:

1. Rotating weight
2. Un-sprung weight
3. Gravity weight

So light wheels win. Lighter the better. Everything is a compromise so strength is an always present consideration for a street rider. Back to rotating mass, the further the weight is from the axis of rotation the greater the gyroscopic effect. So CF wheel, which typically have the lightest rims (versus hubs) win.

The big offender on the OEM pipes are those cans. They are very heavy and they are slung way out from the bikes CG. Going to a 4:1 really reduces the weight swinging out from the CG, and gives great access to the chain too. While the weight loss between OEM and Ti is amazing, the difference between Ti and a SS high end full system is much less at nearly twice the price.

I think the aluminum gas tank is a real valuable weight loss. It's high weight so the handling impact would be immediately noticeable.

I would say Ohlins improve suspension even if they added weight. But they are lighter than stock so that's a no brainer. The purpose of upside down forks is to reduce the weight that is not supported by the springs. The less unsprung weight you have the more your suspension will follow the road.

I was shocked at how light CF is. Replacing the fairings would be significant.

The aftermarket Brembos are lighter than OEM too.

I have it on good authority that the reason a Liter sport bike will turn inside of a Busa is the frame geometry as much as anything. Second to that is the incredible rotating mass of a 1340 cc inline 4 engine spinning at 10+K. It's more complicated than that, but basically lighten all you want and you're still going to have liter bikes cutting under you and having to wait for a straight to roar past them.

Obviously loosing some weight will make both you and your bike more frisky. Just realize that being strategic about what weight to lose is more important than total pounds loss.
Excellent analysis Arch . . . thanks for posting that :race:
 

ROADTOAD1340

Registered
Got to agree with Arch about the some of the SS exhaust being closer to Ti , but the Brock CT Meg is listed as 3.7kg , 8lb flat almost vs the 21+ kg stock . I also remember thinking the stock header exhaust + collector ( cat ) is really heavy , but of course low under the bike .
Some weight saving the L2 bike features to help handling and I hope performance .
The L2 runs world wide bearings with full ti sprocket / cush drive bolts and ti nuts , ultra light sprocket on the 6.25" BST , with lighter rear disc and ti fasteners . The front BST also world wide bearings , and is fitted up with lighter Braketech 330mm dictile iron rotors and lighter Brembo calipers and lines .
The FGRT208 Ohlins features a lighter weight unsprung wheel and caliper mount carrier and all ti fasteners . The 3 main axles are ti , as are all the suspension and engine mount bolts .
Steel subframe swapped for DME aluminum , with full mounted ti fasteners and aluminum and ti mix for everything hanging on it .
Shorai battery , Gilles rearsets , aluminum gas cap and kickstand , light weight clip ons and top triple , some lightweight carbon pieces throughout bike + ti bodywork fasteners for durability over aluminum .
All components , and the the entire bike feature ti or aluminum or both in place of any steel . I saved on light weight mirrors , a slightly lighter swingarm , there is probably more minor things .
Then I got a good man to do the ECU , and the L2 is now ready to get on a Dynotec Dyno before next summer ( Sth. Australia ) . I run full synthetic (sreetbike) oil Repsol , a race air filter and 98 unleaded super pump gas .
 

Yellow09

Registered
I've read that article before and like all things, all it takes is money and knowledge to gain power (emphasis on the money part).

However, if one were to buy a brand new Busa and put $5 k into it, you'd still be cheaper than an H2 and in my opinion have the better bike.

I also read where there is forced air effect on these bikes due to the forward facing air intake nozzles. Kawasaki includes the forced air effect in their hp numbers and their forward air nozzles aren't that much different than the ones on the Busa.
 

fallenarch

THE SLOW RIDER
Registered
Well another stra
Got to agree with Arch about the some of the SS exhaust being closer to Ti , but the Brock CT Meg is listed as 3.7kg , 8lb flat almost vs the 21+ kg stock . I also remember thinking the stock header exhaust + collector ( cat ) is really heavy , but of course low under the bike .
Some weight saving the L2 bike features to help handling and I hope performance .
The L2 runs world wide bearings with full ti sprocket / cush drive bolts and ti nuts , ultra light sprocket on the 6.25" BST , with lighter rear disc and ti fasteners . The front BST also world wide bearings , and is fitted up with lighter Braketech 330mm dictile iron rotors and lighter Brembo calipers and lines .
The FGRT208 Ohlins features a lighter weight unsprung wheel and caliper mount carrier and all ti fasteners . The 3 main axles are ti , as are all the suspension and engine mount bolts .
Steel subframe swapped for DME aluminum , with full mounted ti fasteners and aluminum and ti mix for everything hanging on it .
Shorai battery , Gilles rearsets , aluminum gas cap and kickstand , light weight clip ons and top triple , some lightweight carbon pieces throughout bike + ti bodywork fasteners for durability over aluminum .
All components , and the the entire bike feature ti or aluminum or both in place of any steel . I saved on light weight mirrors , a slightly lighter swingarm , there is probably more minor things .
Then I got a good man to do the ECU , and the L2 is now ready to get on a Dynotec Dyno before next summer ( Sth. Australia ) . I run full synthetic (sreetbike) oil Repsol , a race air filter and 98 unleaded super pump gas .
Well another strategy is to attack all weight! You certainly have an awesome build Road. It would be cool to get a magazine to ride her and compare it to both a normal Busa and other bikes. I bet those guys would be amazed at what can be done with the basic Busa platform!
 

fallenarch

THE SLOW RIDER
Registered
Took me a long time to track down this magazine article of testing with results on a 2011 Gen 2 bird .
As some of you recall RJ recently dynoed 206.9 hp and 116 tq . Everything listed above was done to RJ with a few exceptions .
#1 Titanium full exhaust = More Research/development in flow to make maximum power , and of course be far lighter .

#2 RJ had top of the line full synthetic oil

#3 Not race fuel , but 92 octane ethanol free fresh fuel. This has 50,000 more BTU than the same octane 10 to 15% blended E10

#4 APEX 6 wheels with Worldwide bearings , and light rotors/titanium hardware . While this does not actually create more HP there has long been debates about a higher number being read . I can say it makes for a noticeable change everywhere .

Build a 200 HP Suzuki Hayabusa
This article sort of raises the mystery even more to me. With thin oil, no air filter, and race fuel they were only able to get 195 hp. Basically they through out all the good-sense longevity stops and still got less results than RJ by 10 hp? Lol! What are you hiding Bryan? Come on you old crafty drag racer, spill the secrets. :poke:
 

Dopey

Registered
When I seen the wheels and bearings brought up on the original post I did some googling of my own and actually found where someone had tested this theory, of course it was a car and not a bike but they showed a significant increase just by lightening the wheels. So now everyone like myself that couldn't afford or just didn't jump in on the wheel buy powerhouse did is definitely wishing they had. :banghead::banghead:
 

Dopey

Registered
Not all weight loss is equal. The most offensive weight is either located at the extremes of the bike, away from the CG or stuff that rotates. When stuff rotates it multiplies it's apparent weight as a gyroscopic effect that hinders direction changes. So the categories of weight in order of handling impact are:

1. Rotating weight
2. Un-sprung weight
3. Gravity weight

So light wheels win. Lighter the better. Everything is a compromise so strength is an always present consideration for a street rider. Back to rotating mass, the further the weight is from the axis of rotation the greater the gyroscopic effect. So CF wheel, which typically have the lightest rims (versus hubs) win.

The big offender on the OEM pipes are those cans. They are very heavy and they are slung way out from the bikes CG. Going to a 4:1 really reduces the weight swinging out from the CG, and gives great access to the chain too. While the weight loss between OEM and Ti is amazing, the difference between Ti and a SS high end full system is much less at nearly twice the price.

I think the aluminum gas tank is a real valuable weight loss. It's high weight so the handling impact would be immediately noticeable.

I would say Ohlins improve suspension even if they added weight. But they are lighter than stock so that's a no brainer. The purpose of upside down forks is to reduce the weight that is not supported by the springs. The less unsprung weight you have the more your suspension will follow the road.

I was shocked at how light CF is. Replacing the fairings would be significant.

The aftermarket Brembos are lighter than OEM too.

I have it on good authority that the reason a Liter sport bike will turn inside of a Busa is the frame geometry as much as anything. Second to that is the incredible rotating mass of a 1340 cc inline 4 engine spinning at 10+K. It's more complicated than that, but basically lighten all you want and you're still going to have liter bikes cutting under you and having to wait for a straight to roar past them.

Obviously loosing some weight will make both you and your bike more frisky. Just realize that being strategic about what weight to lose is more important than total pounds loss.
So I definitely got a lot from that but the biggest was sounds like your changing your fairings again this time with cf to match that fender??? :poke: :lol:
 

sportbikeryder

Registered
If the dyno has a load cell and is calibrated, you can eliminate the wheel inertia difference by doing a steday state pull since you are at fairly low HP.

Chain weight, wheel weight (inertia), and tire type all can make a significant difference in the HP shown on a solely inertia dyno.

Correction factors, engine / transmission temps, and blowers facing the air Inlets can also all change HP readings (on any type of dyno)
 

Yellow09

Registered
If the dyno has a load cell and is calibrated, you can eliminate the wheel inertia difference by doing a steday state pull since you are at fairly low HP.

Chain weight, wheel weight (inertia), and tire type all can make a significant difference in the HP shown on a solely inertia dyno.

Correction factors, engine / transmission temps, and blowers facing the air Inlets can also all change HP readings (on any type of dyno)
I would figure real world applications would really affect the readings as well...barometric pressure, temperatures, road conditions, wind, etc, etc...….
 


Latest Bikes

Forum statistics

Threads
173,375
Messages
3,104,697
Members
47,932
Latest member
EvanHub
Top