Spank me hard
- Thread starter MET
- Start date
RaiderDm
Registered
<span style='color:green'></span>NE, you forgot one important spec...
MPG now equals 17 gallons per mile. :tounge:
Seriously tho...Thats pretty damn awesome!
But remember, no matter how fast you go....
there is always someone.....
Slower!
Any more power and you are going to have too get a speedo that shows your MACH #
<!--EDIT|RaiderDm
Reason for Edit: None given...|1066859952 -->
MPG now equals 17 gallons per mile. :tounge:
Seriously tho...Thats pretty damn awesome!
But remember, no matter how fast you go....
there is always someone.....
Slower!
Any more power and you are going to have too get a speedo that shows your MACH #
<!--EDIT|RaiderDm
Reason for Edit: None given...|1066859952 -->
The Oracle
Registered
After hearing Steve K's response, I did a little calculating of my own... I was a rocket scientist in my previous life...
NE started at 70mph, next to a car. Lets assume that the car is very long, 20 feet long. He then accelerated (lets assume at a constant acceleration for simplicities sake) up to 146mph. Therefore his average speed was ((70 + 146)/2 = 216/2 =) 108 mph. His relative average speed then is (108 - 70 =) 38 mph. At 38mph (38(miles/hour) * 5280(feet/mile) = 200640(feet/hour) = 200640(feet/hour) / (3600sec./hour) = 55.7 feet/sec.), he would travel the length of the car (20 feet) in (20 feet / 55.7 feet/sec = .359 seconds). So Ninja Eater is saying that he can accelerate from 70 to 146 in just over a 1/3 of a second! At that rate, he could accelerate from 0 to 228 mph ( = 335 feet/second) in one second. That is over 10 Gs (1G = 32 feet/sec/sec).
Don't get me wrong, 330HP on a 550lbs bike is insane, and much faster than anything I've ever seen, but this example may be a hair embellished.
-Rip
<!--EDIT|The Oracle
Reason for Edit: "recalc"|1066858872 -->
NE started at 70mph, next to a car. Lets assume that the car is very long, 20 feet long. He then accelerated (lets assume at a constant acceleration for simplicities sake) up to 146mph. Therefore his average speed was ((70 + 146)/2 = 216/2 =) 108 mph. His relative average speed then is (108 - 70 =) 38 mph. At 38mph (38(miles/hour) * 5280(feet/mile) = 200640(feet/hour) = 200640(feet/hour) / (3600sec./hour) = 55.7 feet/sec.), he would travel the length of the car (20 feet) in (20 feet / 55.7 feet/sec = .359 seconds). So Ninja Eater is saying that he can accelerate from 70 to 146 in just over a 1/3 of a second! At that rate, he could accelerate from 0 to 228 mph ( = 335 feet/second) in one second. That is over 10 Gs (1G = 32 feet/sec/sec).
Don't get me wrong, 330HP on a 550lbs bike is insane, and much faster than anything I've ever seen, but this example may be a hair embellished.
-Rip
<!--EDIT|The Oracle
Reason for Edit: "recalc"|1066858872 -->
That would be great. Maybe even meeting in the middle sometime...
Whoops if I said 298 in the Torque. That would be wrong. 198 torque which is still extreme.
The Oracle
Registered
that explains it!
:tounge:
The Oracle
Registered
So NE,
did you get post 100,000??
You deserve it bro!
did you get post 100,000??
You deserve it bro!
OK OK cut me some slack here in over stating a bit. The point was when i looked at the speedometer after passing i hit 150mph quicker then i ever did on the bike. Yes i would guess that the best time for 200mph would be now about 8/10's of a mile. Thanks for the accurate calculations.
Well I got so excited I mis printed some details. I have corrected the errors (well most) that I made. I am hoping to open this puppy up as soon as the rooads dry in a couple of days. I may have to put in a new O2 sensor for the Halmeter though. All indications show I am running rich (the way I want to) but Halmeter shows lean. May have burned it out when I used Cam2. :tounge:
Actually if Oracle did his math based on change in speed and we assume that the car is not accelerating then his math is correct. Because the car is the origin of a stable coordinate system relative to the starting point of the bikes acceleration.OK OK cut me some slack here in over stating a bit. The point was when i looked at the speedometer after passing i hit 150mph quicker then i ever did on the bike. Yes i would guess that the best time for 200mph would be now about 8/10's of a mile. Thanks for the accurate calculations.
Basically, what I'm saying is that because they were traveling at the same initial velocity the speed of the car does not matter so long as it's velocity remains the same.
KILLER N.E. !!!!!!!
I know what you mean as far as the I looked down and stuff, right after passing. When you're at the helm of the Busa, ya don't have Mr. Spock there collecting data, and ya got Capt. Kirk's delayed reaction. So the times will always be off, but the reality is that no matter what, that's one awesome rocket you have put together!!!!
I know what you mean as far as the I looked down and stuff, right after passing. When you're at the helm of the Busa, ya don't have Mr. Spock there collecting data, and ya got Capt. Kirk's delayed reaction. So the times will always be off, but the reality is that no matter what, that's one awesome rocket you have put together!!!!
The Oracle
Registered
precisely my friend.Actually if Oracle did his math based on change in speed and we assume that the car is not accelerating then his math is correct. Because the car is the origin of a stable coordinate system relative to the starting point of the bikes acceleration.OK OK cut me some slack here in over stating a bit. The point was when i looked at the speedometer after passing i hit 150mph quicker then i ever did on the bike. Yes i would guess that the best time for 200mph would be now about 8/10's of a mile. Thanks for the accurate calculations.
Basically, what I'm saying is that because they were traveling at the same initial velocity the speed of the car does not matter so long as it's velocity remains the same.
Similar threads
