I GOT SPANKED!
#72
10-06-2005, 02:02 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
Originally posted by: Freez
Guys, sorry to burst your bubble, but 100HP @ 7500 RPM on 12:1 compression pistons are not possible. I run some math on this and the Volumetric efficiency shows off the charts on this motor. I run the figures with an 800cc making 100HP at 7500 RPM and it showed me this motor has a VE of 123%. 123% means this motor is consuming 800cc plus 23%, meaning it breathes the same amount of air as a 985cc motor filling 100% of it's capacity. Without a turbo or Nos to boost normal aspiration, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this motor to make 100HP at 7500 RPM. Now if this motor is a 730cc it means it has a VE of 135%, meaning the 730cc is breathing the air of a 985cc motor. Clearly that is not possible.
Just to put these claims into perspective. A Formula 1 car does not have a VE of 123%, nor does a superbike or any other normally aspirated motor. A 750cc superbike with a pipe and a well tuned motor does not make 100HP at 7500 RPM. It only makes around 70HP.
For a 800cc to make 100HP you need to crank it up to 10 000 RPM and have a perfect filling cylinder. More likely, you need to crank if to 11 000 plus, since it is nearly impossible to fill a cylinder to 100% of it's capacity at very high RPM. Looking at a 750cc superbike motor and you also get 100 HP at around 10 000 RPM and these motors are built for it and sues much smaller pistons and higher compression.
The problem with the KFX is the belt drive. It messes with the figures on a dyno and reads way higher than what it should. For example. I have seen dyno runs on a KFX700 where the dyno shows around 65HP, and the bike only had a new pipe and jet kit on it. The rest was stock standard. Kawasaki themselves claim 49HP at the crank with this motor, so how does a dyno show 65HP with just a pipe and jet kit? Keep in mind this 65HP run was also done with the stock tyres. If it had dyno tyres on, the HP output should have been closer to 70HP and this was figures at the rear wheels.
Dynos are made to run at a fixed gear ratio, something that you cannot do on a KFX, since the CVT changes constantly. The only way to get accurate HP figures on a dyno is to the lock the CVT in one position and then run the bike. If you don’t you just messing the dyno number up big time.
If I work it out mathematically, a well tuned KFX 700 (730cc with 12:1 compression) should provide around 65 to 75 HP at the crank if it has a VE of around 90 to 110 %. 65HP plus should make for a very quick bike, especially with a CVT keeping the gear ratio and power output perfect all the way. There is no argument, that it will be quick and eat up most other quads.
But 100HP is impossible without NOS or a turbo.
Guys, sorry to burst your bubble, but 100HP @ 7500 RPM on 12:1 compression pistons are not possible. I run some math on this and the Volumetric efficiency shows off the charts on this motor. I run the figures with an 800cc making 100HP at 7500 RPM and it showed me this motor has a VE of 123%. 123% means this motor is consuming 800cc plus 23%, meaning it breathes the same amount of air as a 985cc motor filling 100% of it's capacity. Without a turbo or Nos to boost normal aspiration, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this motor to make 100HP at 7500 RPM. Now if this motor is a 730cc it means it has a VE of 135%, meaning the 730cc is breathing the air of a 985cc motor. Clearly that is not possible.
Just to put these claims into perspective. A Formula 1 car does not have a VE of 123%, nor does a superbike or any other normally aspirated motor. A 750cc superbike with a pipe and a well tuned motor does not make 100HP at 7500 RPM. It only makes around 70HP.
For a 800cc to make 100HP you need to crank it up to 10 000 RPM and have a perfect filling cylinder. More likely, you need to crank if to 11 000 plus, since it is nearly impossible to fill a cylinder to 100% of it's capacity at very high RPM. Looking at a 750cc superbike motor and you also get 100 HP at around 10 000 RPM and these motors are built for it and sues much smaller pistons and higher compression.
The problem with the KFX is the belt drive. It messes with the figures on a dyno and reads way higher than what it should. For example. I have seen dyno runs on a KFX700 where the dyno shows around 65HP, and the bike only had a new pipe and jet kit on it. The rest was stock standard. Kawasaki themselves claim 49HP at the crank with this motor, so how does a dyno show 65HP with just a pipe and jet kit? Keep in mind this 65HP run was also done with the stock tyres. If it had dyno tyres on, the HP output should have been closer to 70HP and this was figures at the rear wheels.
Dynos are made to run at a fixed gear ratio, something that you cannot do on a KFX, since the CVT changes constantly. The only way to get accurate HP figures on a dyno is to the lock the CVT in one position and then run the bike. If you don’t you just messing the dyno number up big time.
If I work it out mathematically, a well tuned KFX 700 (730cc with 12:1 compression) should provide around 65 to 75 HP at the crank if it has a VE of around 90 to 110 %. 65HP plus should make for a very quick bike, especially with a CVT keeping the gear ratio and power output perfect all the way. There is no argument, that it will be quick and eat up most other quads.
But 100HP is impossible without NOS or a turbo.
This Sh1tzz classic..lol
#73
10-06-2005, 02:57 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
[quote]
Originally posted by: Freez
Sandbomber.
You have no idea what I do for a living.
Sell BS
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
All you did was come on here and call guys a lier with your math bs!!!! They are bashing there knuckles daily to get more hp out of these motors and you are talking smack get over yourself[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
Originally posted by: Freez
Sandbomber.
You have no idea what I do for a living.
Sell BS
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
All you did was come on here and call guys a lier with your math bs!!!! They are bashing there knuckles daily to get more hp out of these motors and you are talking smack get over yourself[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
#74
10-06-2005, 04:54 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
Freez, you might want to recalcutale your F-1 numbers. A modern F-1 3 liter engine makes upward of 1000HP, thats over 300HP per 1000cc's.
It's just technology, don't base your thoughts on 20 or 30 year old calculations. Back in the late 80's F-1 were in the 1400-1500HP range with the 1.5 liter turbos, when they change to 3 liter normally aspirated engines in 1989, HP went way down, around 700 HP now there up to 1000HP with the same size engine.
Technology is a wonderfull thing, I worked with Cosworth on another project in the late 90's and some of the stuff they were doing then was mind blowing now that stuff is basic to any good engineer/engine builder.
If we listen to most people as to what they thought was impossible, we would still be driving horse and buggies. At least then it would be easy to tell who had how many horse power, 1, 2, 4 or 6, LOL
Ray
It's just technology, don't base your thoughts on 20 or 30 year old calculations. Back in the late 80's F-1 were in the 1400-1500HP range with the 1.5 liter turbos, when they change to 3 liter normally aspirated engines in 1989, HP went way down, around 700 HP now there up to 1000HP with the same size engine.
Technology is a wonderfull thing, I worked with Cosworth on another project in the late 90's and some of the stuff they were doing then was mind blowing now that stuff is basic to any good engineer/engine builder.
If we listen to most people as to what they thought was impossible, we would still be driving horse and buggies. At least then it would be easy to tell who had how many horse power, 1, 2, 4 or 6, LOL
Ray
#75
10-06-2005, 05:56 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
Ok. Let’s go there.
Please check out this web site. I am using this so you can see I am not cheating here.
nullMcLaren F1
Anyway, it is only the fastest sport car out there. It uses the F1 engine technology.
Ok, as per this web site. Capacity 6064cc, 11:1 compression ratio, 7500 RPM and making... 627 HP. I run the math.. and.. low and behold... VE is at a perfect 110% As one should expect from a motor like this. AMAZING... the 20 year old math still work today!!!!... hmmm… if this motor had your technology of making 123% VE then, it would be making like 705HP
Ok, here is the best one...
VE claims made by the F1 guys themselves
I did not write this web site, but here.. they say... even the F1 guys are struggling to achieve 100% VE, and in most cases are only getting around 95%.
So, as per this web site, capacity is 3000cc, Hp output is 780HP at 17 000 RPM plus. Don't see them specify compression ratio, but lets take a conservative 12.5:1. Working out the VE and... damn... again, this 20 year old math shows only 108% VE. they claim about 95% so they are either using 13:1 or higher compression ratio's or the RPM output is more towards 18 000. We seem to be using the same math, me and the F1 guys.
So, now... web sites, F1 teams and a few examples of the most powerful normally aspirated engines on earth, seems to agree with my old crapy math.
Then, the more I give examples, the higher this RPM figures go. We started at 7500, then 8000 now we are past 9000 RPM. Only now do people start telling me it is at 9000 RPM plus. Did I not mention this a few posts back that you need this high RPM to make 90 plus HP? Why did you not correct me upfront, and only when you are in a corner do you start making amendments to your claims.
If I may, 800cc, making 100HP at 9000 RPM and using 12:1 compression and VE shows 102% spot on. If you where running higher compression, like say 14: 1 you get a VE of 88%, which is about average for this head and motor design
If you read my posts, why did you not correct me back then and said I used the wrong RPM. Now only do you make claims that you are making this power at past 9000 RPM, as I said you need to, and you are still calling my math wrong and out of date. Strange! Keep in mind that I used math to work this out, without knowing or seeing any of your dyno runs. Now my math actually agrees with the "amended" claims and yet, you still call it out of date in not applicable to your 4 stroke engine. I am not the one changing the math, others are changing their story, since you cannot argue with me.
Last question. How do you connect this motor up to the engine dyno? What do you use as a link between the motor and the dyno? Did you make a fitting that bolt onto the crank itself or you doing the link at the shaft at the back of the crank case?
Please check out this web site. I am using this so you can see I am not cheating here.
nullMcLaren F1
Anyway, it is only the fastest sport car out there. It uses the F1 engine technology.
Ok, as per this web site. Capacity 6064cc, 11:1 compression ratio, 7500 RPM and making... 627 HP. I run the math.. and.. low and behold... VE is at a perfect 110% As one should expect from a motor like this. AMAZING... the 20 year old math still work today!!!!... hmmm… if this motor had your technology of making 123% VE then, it would be making like 705HP
Ok, here is the best one...
VE claims made by the F1 guys themselves
I did not write this web site, but here.. they say... even the F1 guys are struggling to achieve 100% VE, and in most cases are only getting around 95%.
So, as per this web site, capacity is 3000cc, Hp output is 780HP at 17 000 RPM plus. Don't see them specify compression ratio, but lets take a conservative 12.5:1. Working out the VE and... damn... again, this 20 year old math shows only 108% VE. they claim about 95% so they are either using 13:1 or higher compression ratio's or the RPM output is more towards 18 000. We seem to be using the same math, me and the F1 guys.
So, now... web sites, F1 teams and a few examples of the most powerful normally aspirated engines on earth, seems to agree with my old crapy math.
Then, the more I give examples, the higher this RPM figures go. We started at 7500, then 8000 now we are past 9000 RPM. Only now do people start telling me it is at 9000 RPM plus. Did I not mention this a few posts back that you need this high RPM to make 90 plus HP? Why did you not correct me upfront, and only when you are in a corner do you start making amendments to your claims.
If I may, 800cc, making 100HP at 9000 RPM and using 12:1 compression and VE shows 102% spot on. If you where running higher compression, like say 14: 1 you get a VE of 88%, which is about average for this head and motor design
If you read my posts, why did you not correct me back then and said I used the wrong RPM. Now only do you make claims that you are making this power at past 9000 RPM, as I said you need to, and you are still calling my math wrong and out of date. Strange! Keep in mind that I used math to work this out, without knowing or seeing any of your dyno runs. Now my math actually agrees with the "amended" claims and yet, you still call it out of date in not applicable to your 4 stroke engine. I am not the one changing the math, others are changing their story, since you cannot argue with me.
Last question. How do you connect this motor up to the engine dyno? What do you use as a link between the motor and the dyno? Did you make a fitting that bolt onto the crank itself or you doing the link at the shaft at the back of the crank case?
#76
10-06-2005, 06:43 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
When you get to my age you see what was once impossible, now a everyday occurance.
In 1960 they said the fastest who could go in the quarter mile was 179mph.
Don Garlets and the Golden Greek from Chicago went over 200 by 1963.
Ay one time they said you could not get more than 2hp per cubic inch.
NHRA Pro Stockers are producing over 2.6hp per cubic inch with carbs and 2 valve engines.
Math is like computers - junkin equals junkout.
800 v twin producing 2.25hp per cubic inch is very realistic in the 7500 to 8000rpm range.
People who break the ground for others to follow are motorheads hero's.
Congratulate them, change and new idea's don't happen everyday.
If this oldman can accept change, why can't you young folks.
In 1960 they said the fastest who could go in the quarter mile was 179mph.
Don Garlets and the Golden Greek from Chicago went over 200 by 1963.
Ay one time they said you could not get more than 2hp per cubic inch.
NHRA Pro Stockers are producing over 2.6hp per cubic inch with carbs and 2 valve engines.
Math is like computers - junkin equals junkout.
800 v twin producing 2.25hp per cubic inch is very realistic in the 7500 to 8000rpm range.
People who break the ground for others to follow are motorheads hero's.
Congratulate them, change and new idea's don't happen everyday.
If this oldman can accept change, why can't you young folks.
#77
10-06-2005, 06:57 PM
I GOT SPANKED!
Originally posted by: Doctorturbo
You know, I read this post and I will have to say a post like this would never remain civil in most other forums. There would be name calling and hard feelings. None of that has happened here. I just wonder why? Is it the age of the posters? Is it because most DS owners are "big" and therefore they are jolly? Is it that most DS owners are mello?
I just find it refreshing when I see a post like this. Can someone give me some answers?
You know, I read this post and I will have to say a post like this would never remain civil in most other forums. There would be name calling and hard feelings. None of that has happened here. I just wonder why? Is it the age of the posters? Is it because most DS owners are "big" and therefore they are jolly? Is it that most DS owners are mello?
I just find it refreshing when I see a post like this. Can someone give me some answers?
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
Is that harsh enough for you???
LOL
#78
10-06-2005, 07:07 PM
Extreme Pro Rider
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I GOT SPANKED!
Originally posted by: learnem
who you callin jolly...thats it your not getting **** for christmas pal, and those cookies you left me last year tasted like your wife's puZZy
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
Is that harsh enough for you???
LOL
Originally posted by: Doctorturbo
You know, I read this post and I will have to say a post like this would never remain civil in most other forums. There would be name calling and hard feelings. None of that has happened here. I just wonder why? Is it the age of the posters? Is it because most DS owners are "big" and therefore they are jolly? Is it that most DS owners are mello?
I just find it refreshing when I see a post like this. Can someone give me some answers?
You know, I read this post and I will have to say a post like this would never remain civil in most other forums. There would be name calling and hard feelings. None of that has happened here. I just wonder why? Is it the age of the posters? Is it because most DS owners are "big" and therefore they are jolly? Is it that most DS owners are mello?
I just find it refreshing when I see a post like this. Can someone give me some answers?
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
Is that harsh enough for you???
LOL
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
thats just what I needed man, thanks! Now I can go home..
Bigger.
#79
10-06-2005, 07:22 PM
#80
10-06-2005, 07:46 PM
Military Rider
My hobbies are NASCAR, Rockin' in the Free World, and riding my Sand Pigs at every available opportunity.
My hobbies are NASCAR, Rockin' in the Free World, and riding my Sand Pigs at every available opportunity.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts