Grizz 660 top speed ?
Dec 30, 2001 | 09:32 PM
#3
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
hey crazycat'
i got mine up to 68 on the speedo, but on gps it read 67, not a big differance. i was on flat land, and ran for about 150 yrds or so to get there. not something i would reccomend couse when i got up there, it got a little squirly. but i have jumped the crap out of it, and got up 6 ft at a distance of 24 ft on 1 jump. now, some people look at that as nothing, but for a big bike, it flew real nice. being i am not 20 and 140 lbs, ( more like 35 and 220 lbs, ) i was proud of me, lol. great bike!!!
my pictures
i got mine up to 68 on the speedo, but on gps it read 67, not a big differance. i was on flat land, and ran for about 150 yrds or so to get there. not something i would reccomend couse when i got up there, it got a little squirly. but i have jumped the crap out of it, and got up 6 ft at a distance of 24 ft on 1 jump. now, some people look at that as nothing, but for a big bike, it flew real nice. being i am not 20 and 140 lbs, ( more like 35 and 220 lbs, ) i was proud of me, lol. great bike!!!
my pictures
Dec 30, 2001 | 11:59 PM
#6
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Mitch660~
Egads Man! That's incredible. Perhaps you should change your name to CrazyMitch660. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] I knew the Grizz would jump, but I had no idea it would go like that. Awesome.
Rides4fun~
Interesting question. I can't honestly say that I've every heard of some sort of standards such as you brought up. Maybe we should start something?
SilverBear
Egads Man! That's incredible. Perhaps you should change your name to CrazyMitch660. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] I knew the Grizz would jump, but I had no idea it would go like that. Awesome.
Rides4fun~
Interesting question. I can't honestly say that I've every heard of some sort of standards such as you brought up. Maybe we should start something?
SilverBear
Dec 31, 2001 | 01:10 AM
#7
Range Rover
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Hey Silverbear, maybe we could do the following tests for ATV's:
Dirt times
* 100 yard dash (how fast can the ATV get up to, on flat dirt, within 100 yards)
* 0-30 mph (from a stand still, on flat dirt, time to 30 mph, radar checked, not speedo)
* 30-50 mph (on flat dirt, time to go from 30 to 50 mph, radar checked, not speedo)
(I picked 50, because mine can't go 60 :-)
* Top Speed (from a stand still, on flat dirt, speed at the end of 1 mile)
* 30-0 mph (from 30mph, on flat dirt, distance it can stop)
I was thinking we could even have other conditions, notice I called these Dirt times. We could also, have mud times (not all the tests though), asphault times, grass times, etc.
Also, if we could pick a standard hill gradient, and test engine braking. By the time it takes an ATV on the standard hill gradient, without brakes, to go down a 100 foot hill. (lower number would be better)
Depth tests, could show what depths the ATV could go in water and what depths in mud and still keep running (and moving)
Then if a standard technical trail could be created that could be duplicated easilly for others to test against. We could time how long it takes an ATV to go through the standard technical trail (lower time would be better).
Tests geared at strength, could be various pulling tests with diff weights over diff terrains. Also, how well the ATV rides with various amounts of weight on the racks.
Of course all the specs about ATV's we all already look for, but in an organized fashion that is ordered by the same for all manufacturers. And for God sakes, let's get HP and Torque ratings, not sure why they're so misterious now.
Fuel consumption. could be test that shows the # of miles an ATV gets per gallon on 3 different types of riding (mudding/hilling/technical, trails, roads) then averages them out.
Maybe even some type of slalom run, similar to cars, to show the stability & agility of the ATV through a standard course.
These are just some of the things, I could think of that if we could standardize on, would make a neat little "report card" that could "unbiasedly" be performed against any ATV. Then people could easilly look through dozens of diff models, selecting certain "specs" that they are looking for in an ATV. Imagine if we could do this for each ATV, and put it on a website (once it's done, it's done, static info after that), they would see a picture of the ATV, the standard spec sheet, then results of all the tests. Just throwing ideas around, but think it would be a BIG plus to the ATV world for the consumers AND manufacturers (they could improve test results to get their ATV closer to a competitor or better). sorry so long, I rarely have writers block.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]
Dirt times
* 100 yard dash (how fast can the ATV get up to, on flat dirt, within 100 yards)
* 0-30 mph (from a stand still, on flat dirt, time to 30 mph, radar checked, not speedo)
* 30-50 mph (on flat dirt, time to go from 30 to 50 mph, radar checked, not speedo)
(I picked 50, because mine can't go 60 :-)
* Top Speed (from a stand still, on flat dirt, speed at the end of 1 mile)
* 30-0 mph (from 30mph, on flat dirt, distance it can stop)
I was thinking we could even have other conditions, notice I called these Dirt times. We could also, have mud times (not all the tests though), asphault times, grass times, etc.
Also, if we could pick a standard hill gradient, and test engine braking. By the time it takes an ATV on the standard hill gradient, without brakes, to go down a 100 foot hill. (lower number would be better)
Depth tests, could show what depths the ATV could go in water and what depths in mud and still keep running (and moving)
Then if a standard technical trail could be created that could be duplicated easilly for others to test against. We could time how long it takes an ATV to go through the standard technical trail (lower time would be better).
Tests geared at strength, could be various pulling tests with diff weights over diff terrains. Also, how well the ATV rides with various amounts of weight on the racks.
Of course all the specs about ATV's we all already look for, but in an organized fashion that is ordered by the same for all manufacturers. And for God sakes, let's get HP and Torque ratings, not sure why they're so misterious now.
Fuel consumption. could be test that shows the # of miles an ATV gets per gallon on 3 different types of riding (mudding/hilling/technical, trails, roads) then averages them out.
Maybe even some type of slalom run, similar to cars, to show the stability & agility of the ATV through a standard course.
These are just some of the things, I could think of that if we could standardize on, would make a neat little "report card" that could "unbiasedly" be performed against any ATV. Then people could easilly look through dozens of diff models, selecting certain "specs" that they are looking for in an ATV. Imagine if we could do this for each ATV, and put it on a website (once it's done, it's done, static info after that), they would see a picture of the ATV, the standard spec sheet, then results of all the tests. Just throwing ideas around, but think it would be a BIG plus to the ATV world for the consumers AND manufacturers (they could improve test results to get their ATV closer to a competitor or better). sorry so long, I rarely have writers block.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]
Trending Topics
Dec 31, 2001 | 02:02 AM
#8
Extreme Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,909
Likes: 0
From: Mountainburg, AR
Fastest I ever got the speedo to read downhill was 69. Never can get it to say 70 for some reason. Now reality check. I used a Magellan 315 GPS to get the readings I always quote. Flat pavement, about a mile stretch to totally wind it out, and the speedometer read 65. The gps maxed out at 60.0 mph. Thats it.
So my number for top speed is 60.
So my number for top speed is 60.
Dec 31, 2001 | 09:27 AM
#9
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 999
Likes: 0
rides for fun.
man, that would be the test of all tests on a quad!!! how would anyone say therewas bias with a test like that!!! the numbers would speek for themselvs now, wouldn't they. that might just be the reason you never see such tests in magazines, couse then they couldn't butter the factorys designs on the factorys who buttered there wallets! now, i have seen alot of men race there quads against mustang gt's. the standard seems to be that a quad can outrun a mustang gt to about 30 or so, giving or taking 5 mph. people in this forum have done it too.
hey silverbear,
i didn't know it would either, haha. i kept walking it up 5 mph per. at 40, it bottomed out for the first time. my cousin, who is 6 ft tall, said it got over his head, and took a pic of it while he was staring the front rim eye to eye. so, if you ever think a big quad cant jump, now you know at least a grizzly can, at least a little, lol.
my pictures
man, that would be the test of all tests on a quad!!! how would anyone say therewas bias with a test like that!!! the numbers would speek for themselvs now, wouldn't they. that might just be the reason you never see such tests in magazines, couse then they couldn't butter the factorys designs on the factorys who buttered there wallets! now, i have seen alot of men race there quads against mustang gt's. the standard seems to be that a quad can outrun a mustang gt to about 30 or so, giving or taking 5 mph. people in this forum have done it too.
hey silverbear,
i didn't know it would either, haha. i kept walking it up 5 mph per. at 40, it bottomed out for the first time. my cousin, who is 6 ft tall, said it got over his head, and took a pic of it while he was staring the front rim eye to eye. so, if you ever think a big quad cant jump, now you know at least a grizzly can, at least a little, lol.
my pictures
Dec 31, 2001 | 01:53 PM
#10
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Mich660~
Ohmygod! Awesome pics! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] Ya a Big Grizz most certainly can jump. Pretty cool Mich!
Andy~
I don't have a GPS yet, any suggestions on a good one to purchase. Also, I know I've read somewhere on a difference thread that someone stated GPS's were not reliable for speedo checks. Can you or anyone else confirm or deny this?
Rides4fun~
On the dashes do you think it should be 2WD or 4WD? I, personally think your idea has a lot of merit. I can only foresee a couple of problems, which maybe you've already thought about:
Modiifications.....this would be a huge issue. Take tires, for instance. I'm pretty sure that I'll do mud a heck of a lot better with 27" Tri Claws, than the stock 25" dunlops. So, my "yamaha grizzly" could bring in better numbers than "Joe Smow's" "yamaha grizzly"...or, and here is where I can see the fighting, Joe Smow's Bro's Polaris SP700 with stockers. Do you see what I mean? A whole new way to have brand wars, while it should be taken in the light of useful information to make decisions or changes. There, of course, are other items which modifications will effect numbers, exhaust systems, rejetting, high perf air boxes, hi comp pistons, tires, and even rims, etc.
I really like the standard hill gradient. I think it should be done on several different terrains as well, snow, hardpack, trail. This should finally expose whether or not rear wheel EBS performs as well as all wheel EBS going down hills, and who has the best EBS out there. Probally should have classes for this as well....I would think it should be model class more than weight class...whatever quads actually compete for that same consumer dollar. (So you aren't checking a 660 Grizzly against a 400 Kodiak.
Depth Test-Right on
Technical Trail - Right on
gearing test and riding w/weight - Right on
Fuel consumption - Excellent for the different terrains. This is an important factor and it isn't because I would buy a quad with "better mpg", it simply allows a person to plan trips and not run out of fuel.
Slalom run ~ Excellent idea as well.
Rides4fun, you have some really great ideas. Have you considered if an impartial 3rd party would be needed to post numbers? I hate to be a fly in the wound, but I can still see some people, because they are so blinded by brand loyalty, posting false numbers.
Anyways, i'm sure you have ideas about that as well...so lets hear them!
SilverBear
Ohmygod! Awesome pics! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] Ya a Big Grizz most certainly can jump. Pretty cool Mich!
Andy~
I don't have a GPS yet, any suggestions on a good one to purchase. Also, I know I've read somewhere on a difference thread that someone stated GPS's were not reliable for speedo checks. Can you or anyone else confirm or deny this?
Rides4fun~
On the dashes do you think it should be 2WD or 4WD? I, personally think your idea has a lot of merit. I can only foresee a couple of problems, which maybe you've already thought about:
Modiifications.....this would be a huge issue. Take tires, for instance. I'm pretty sure that I'll do mud a heck of a lot better with 27" Tri Claws, than the stock 25" dunlops. So, my "yamaha grizzly" could bring in better numbers than "Joe Smow's" "yamaha grizzly"...or, and here is where I can see the fighting, Joe Smow's Bro's Polaris SP700 with stockers. Do you see what I mean? A whole new way to have brand wars, while it should be taken in the light of useful information to make decisions or changes. There, of course, are other items which modifications will effect numbers, exhaust systems, rejetting, high perf air boxes, hi comp pistons, tires, and even rims, etc.
I really like the standard hill gradient. I think it should be done on several different terrains as well, snow, hardpack, trail. This should finally expose whether or not rear wheel EBS performs as well as all wheel EBS going down hills, and who has the best EBS out there. Probally should have classes for this as well....I would think it should be model class more than weight class...whatever quads actually compete for that same consumer dollar. (So you aren't checking a 660 Grizzly against a 400 Kodiak.
Depth Test-Right on
Technical Trail - Right on
gearing test and riding w/weight - Right on
Fuel consumption - Excellent for the different terrains. This is an important factor and it isn't because I would buy a quad with "better mpg", it simply allows a person to plan trips and not run out of fuel.
Slalom run ~ Excellent idea as well.
Rides4fun, you have some really great ideas. Have you considered if an impartial 3rd party would be needed to post numbers? I hate to be a fly in the wound, but I can still see some people, because they are so blinded by brand loyalty, posting false numbers.
Anyways, i'm sure you have ideas about that as well...so lets hear them!
SilverBear