You would need to streamline it. Remember that fluid drag (i.e. air drag) is exponential, unlike static drag (i.e. plates sliding across each other) which is linear. Moving an object over liquid, for example is much easier than sliding it across a solid, but only at low speeds. Since we can't run in a vacuum, reducing the CdA is the only way to go without exponentially increasing power.
Right now, going from 100 to 200 seems like a cakewalk. Now if you keep the body the same, you have to almost double the power just to hit 220. It might help put this into perspective by looking at the drag equations:
Power can be defined by force times velocity. The force of the bike must be equal to the force of drag at a specific velocity for it to travel at that velocity:
P = Fv
So, we look at the drag force now,
F(drag) = ½CdA * p * v²
CdA is the coefficient of drag times area, p (or 'roe') is the air density. Since these are constant, let's ignore them and look at the variables.
F≡v²
and
P≡Fv
so,
P≡v²*v ≡v³
That means you are now have to overcome the cube of velocity. Let's throw in some arbitrary numbers to see the difference, for the power change from 100 to 200:
Pd = 200³ - 100³ = 7,000,000
So, 200 to 300 should be the same, right?
Pd = 300³ - 200³ = 19,000,000
Well, not exactly, eh? Doubling the power difference from 100 to 200, at 200, will just get you to 246.
Of course, this does not factor in rolling drag, internal drag and all the other little static forces involved. The same also goes for acceleration and drag racing. Going from 10 seconds to 9 seconds is not the same as going from 9 seconds to 8 seconds by any stretch of the imagination.
Just keep those things in mind next time you're shooting the crap at Starbucks, sipping $50 a cup frappuchinos, talking to your buds and someone talks about how easy it must be making a 300+ MPH bike that does 6 seconds in the quarter.