| Author |
Message |
    
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 12:28 pm: | 
|
No wait, that doesn't make any sense, if it was a square function, hp loss would have a greater effect on speed than a cube function does. Hmm, nevermind. |
Madduck
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 01:14 pm: |
|
Aaron,
The really fast car guys believe in something called "stickiness". Good air and you can go a lot faster for the same hp. This good air exists primarily at altitude, it is very rarely found at sea level. Apparently this good air accounts for the universal acceptance of Bonneville as "The LSR". Bad air can also exist at altitude but the only way to find out what the air is like is to push against it. If you go faster it was good air. All this stuff seems to become a cult and we are being indoctrinated. Consenus is running at 200+ forever changes your life. Those in the cult say it is an improvement. All others are ignored.
Live long and prosper
Paul |
Madduck
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 01:15 pm: |
|
Aaron,
This is beginning to take on aspects of quantum mechanics and "quark" theory.
Paul |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 03:46 pm: |
|
Aaron,
Drag (FD) = CDQV2
where Q is the stagnation pressure which is proportional to the air density (r). 
Now we know why you always hit your targets, you've had some secret built in conservatism. Keep it!  |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 03:47 pm: |
|
So, if a Busa will run 198 mph at sea level... ![:]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 04:30 pm: |
|
No, my calcs have all been based on Bonneville passes, I've never based any calculations on what an RR can do at sea level.
I've seen stock 'busas run at Bonneville. 180's. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 08:21 pm: |
|
What did you do in 2000? |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 09:01 pm: |
|
I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.
(it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out) |
Snowdave
| | Posted on Saturday, November 23, 2002 - 06:46 pm: |
|
Since this is the closest forum to the topic I have a question on....and you guys have gotten waaaay off the topic, here goes.
For a 13:1 compression bike, what are the best brands and octanes of gas to run at the track and on the street?
Turbo Blue seems to be the least expensive on the street, but the performance leaves something to be desired.
The guy I bought my bike from ran VP C12 and I have just bought some 113 octane fuel, but I forget the brand name. It was over twice the price of Turbo Blue though.
Any thoughts? |
Jssport
| | Posted on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 11:44 am: |
|
Below is a good site to help understand the basics of race fuel. There is a lot more to it than just the octane rating.
http://vpracingfuels.com/ |
Racerx1
| | Posted on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 02:49 pm: |
|
on the subject of methanol, I don't have experience with mixed fuels (methanol/indolene, but i did a big project over the summer running a pure methanol supermotard bike. There are some big advantages to methanol (especially for an air cooled motor). Methanol's latent heat of vaporization is much higher than gasoline (472 btu/lb vs 135 btu/lb), so it sucks a bunch of heat out of the engine and cools the intake charge big time just because of the tremendous amount of heat it takes to vaporize. We actually had problems icing the carb on a 95 deg day. On the down side, methanol only contains about 1/2 the energy potential of gasoline, but since your running A/F ratios of 5:1 with methanol vs 12.5:1 with indolene, you actually make more power per lb of air burned. By just dumping in pure methanol and jetting apprpriately, we saw about a 7% increase in power.
The beauty with Methanol is its octane rating of about 150! If you optimize your motor with more compression, you can get >15% power increase over gasoline. Engine runs a bunch cooler too (very nice for highly stressed air cooled engines!).
the downside of methanol from my point of view: it takes a lot of fuel!!!!! MPG is cut in half and then some....we could barely do 15 miles on a full tank. You also have to make sure your fuel delivery is adequate since your doubling all your flow rates. Methanol does nasty things to aluminum if it sits for a while. Methanol does even nastier things to plastic based fuel system components not designed for alcohol use. Also when you first switch to methanol, all that nasty crap in your tank that didn't react with gasoline suddenly disolves and slimes everything. Jet size/needle selection can be a problem as well, as most pilot jets are physically too small to drill out big enough for methanol use. You have to go with needles with twice the flow area as well which can be tricky to source. And just because Methanol has a high octane rating, don't think it won't lean knock! (don't ask me how i know that). After you open you container, you can throw the stuff away after a couple hours, as it absorbs moisture out of the air very quickly (it is cheap though....$2.00 a gallon around our area). After every race day, we had to run gasoline through the motor before storing the bike. It was also a bitch to kick start cold, and we would actually start it on gasoline first. Exhaust note has a softer audible, and it smells sort of cool. Is all the trouble worth 12% more hp? in our case, we decided no and went back to gasoline, but there are some definate advantages if you need the HP.
Just my $0.02
WFO |
|
