C14 Top speed vs Fjr1300 Top speed

[FJRottie]

The difference is negligible.

Now, taking about which is better looking,

the FJR wins IMHO.

 

[Zorlac]

Don't they both have to face the same direction for the looks comparison to be fair?

Besides, I want my bags to stay on and final drive intact.

https://www.concours.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=34891

https://www.concours.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=35075

 

[markjenn]

I have always found cycleworld to be opportunistic with their performance numbers and dyno runs regarding Kawasaki and Suzuki...

Like all magazines that take advertising, CW is careful to always look through all things motorcycling with rose-colored glasses, but I've never seen any indication of deliberate bias on their part and their meassured performance data is generally very solid.

- Mark

 

[MKO]

Top speed is rwhp vs aero drag. Nothing else matters at 150.

Weight matters, but they are close enough that aerodynamic drag seems to be what is limiting the C14's top speed. It's rwhp is definitely 6-12 hp higher than the FJR's, depending on which dyno you quote.

Weight has nothing to do with top speed. Acceleration, yes, but not top speed. As already stated, HP and aero drag are the two factors that matter.

Sounds like another crooked fact!

I'll agree that weight has little to do with the top speed delta between the FJR and C14, as I stated above, but weight certainly plays a role in top speed. Who here thinks either bike could break 150 MP if it had the same drag coefficient and HP but weighed as much as a car or a locomotive?

 

[Ignacio]

Sounds like another crooked fact!I'll agree that weight has little to do with the top speed delta between the FJR and C14, as I stated above, but weight certainly plays a role in top speed. Who here thinks either bike could break 150 MP if it had the same drag coefficient and HP but weighed as much as a car or a locomotive?

Me.

Weight doesn't have anything to do with top speed itself. It does not play a roll and not a variable in the equation.

However, one variable in your locomotive scenario that would play a roll is rolling resistance...or friction. If one could make an FJR as heavy as a car or locomotive...there would be much more rolling resistance through the drivetrain. But, that's another variable. And that variable in the ranges of weight that can be on FJR is much, much smaller.

Said another way...skinny boy Skooter would theoretically go a tiny bit faster than fatboy me on the same bike, but not because of weight itself. Only because I'd produce more friction on the drivetrain. He'd get to top speed quicker than I...and I'd carry speed longer if the grade changed.

Of course...my engineering source that painfully explained all this is probably that same as Skooter's. Our friend, Tom, is wicked smart.

 

[Randy]

Of course...my engineering source that painfully explained all this is probably that same as Skooter's. Our friend, Tom, is wicked smart.

I know the movie line you're referencing and I think it's actually pronounced smaat.

 

[twowheelnut]

Said another way...skinny boy Skooter would theoretically go a tiny bit faster than fatboy me on the same bike, but not because of weight itself. Only because I'd produce more friction on the drivetrain. He'd get to top speed quicker than I...and I'd carry speed longer if the grade changed.

Nope. Skinny boy would whup-up on Fatty in all performance measures. Your speed issue, my bulky friend, is a greater Cd... kinda like a Kenworth vs. a Miata. The Miata thlips through the air much more effeminately efficiently. In other words, you are drag limited (Well, maybe not. I've seen some of your dresses). :lol:

By the way, you two should rent this video. Still makes me cry.

I know the movie line you're referencing and I think it's actually pronounced smaat.

No idn't. It's, 'smaaht', ayuh. (the former in pulmonic egressive and the latter in pulmonic ingressive). Wicked goohwd stuff!

 

[bandito]

Sounds like another crooked fact!I'll agree that weight has little to do with the top speed delta between the FJR and C14, as I stated above, but weight certainly plays a role in top speed. Who here thinks either bike could break 150 MP if it had the same drag coefficient and HP but weighed as much as a car or a locomotive?

Dude, Three Letters "TGV" the french locomotive that goes 320kph (200mph) Horsepower and Aerodynamics are ALL that matter at that speed.

 

[uctofeej]

No idn't. It's, 'smaaht', ayuh. (the former in pulmonic egressive and the latter in pulmonic ingressive). Wicked goohwd stuff!

And don't forget the ejective consonants...

 

[MKO]

Sounds like another crooked fact!I'll agree that weight has little to do with the top speed delta between the FJR and C14, as I stated above, but weight certainly plays a role in top speed. Who here thinks either bike could break 150 MP if it had the same drag coefficient and HP but weighed as much as a car or a locomotive?

Said another way...skinny boy Skooter would theoretically go a tiny bit faster than fatboy me on the same bike, but not because of weight itself. Only because I'd produce more friction on the drivetrain.

Agree.

The heavier bike would go slower. Gravity and the resultant friction conspire to limit top speed.

 

[MKO]

Dude, Three Letters "TGV" the french locomotive that goes 320kph (200mph) Horsepower and Aerodynamics are ALL that matter at that speed.

How much Power does it take to move the TGV that fast? Well, it turns out it depends, among other factors, on weight. Here is a snipet from a comparison of two trains:

They are formed of two power cars (8,800 kW under 25 kV - as TGV Atlantique) and eight carriages, giving a capacity of 377 seats. They have a top speed of 300 km/h. They are 200 m (656 ft) long and are 2.90 m (9.5 ft) wide. The bi-current sets weigh 383 tonnes (422 short tons): owing to axle-load restrictions in Belgium the tri-current sets have a series of modifications, such as the replacement of steel with aluminium and hollow axles, to reduce the weight to under 17 tonnes (19 short tons) per axle.

And...

The Eurostar train is essentially a long TGV, modified for use in the United Kingdom and in the Channel Tunnel. Differences include a smaller cross section to fit within the constrictive British loading gauge, British-designed asynchronous traction motors, and extensive fireproofing...The sets operate at a maximum speed of 300 km/h (186 mph), with the power cars supplying 12,240 kW of power. The Three Capitals sets are 394 m (1,293 ft) long and have 766 seats, weighing a total of 752 tonnes (829 short tons; 740 long tons).

Given a smaller cross section, I guess it's just the poor drag coef the Eurostar has to overcome with 39% more power to attain the same 300 km/h max speed as the TGV Atlantique. I'm sure the additional 369 tonnes had nothing to do with it.

Weight matters.

 

[MKO]

I have always found cycleworld to be opportunistic with their performance numbers and dyno runs regarding Kawasaki and Suzuki...

Like all magazines that take advertising, CW is careful to always look through all things motorcycling with rose-colored glasses, but I've never seen any indication of deliberate bias on their part and their meassured performance data is generally very solid.

- Mark

I have to agree, Mark.

 

[SkooterG]

Weight matters.

Very little.

So little, than when comparing the top speed for the same type of vehicle, it is inconsequential.

And that's a fact right out of the 'straight' pile.

 

[MKO]

Weight matters.

Very little.

So little, than when comparing the top speed for the same type of vehicle, it is inconsequential.

And that's a fact right out of the 'straight' pile.

A fact that I alluded to in post #7. The greater the weight delta, the greater the consequence.

 

[SkooterG]

Weight matters.

Very little.

So little, than when comparing the top speed for the same type of vehicle, it is inconsequential.

And that's a fact right out of the 'straight' pile.

A fact that I alluded to in post #7. The greater the weight delta, the greater the consequence.

Damnit! Where's the 'beating a dead horse' smiley when you need one!

 

[MKO]

Damnit! Where's the 'beating a dead horse' smiley when you need one!

+1

 

[Leartech]

Jeeebus, what a pile of crap this turned into. LOL

Which one will the chicks dig?

 

[uctofeej]

Jeeebus, what a pile of crap this turned into. LOL
Which one will the chicks dig?

Finally, someone's asking the right question!

My daughter (she's 8) saw the AE and a Connie side by side in a dealership, so I asked which one she likes better. Let's just say she has her mother's contrarian tendencies... :dntknw:

 

[Randy]

Weight matters.

Very little.

So little, than when comparing the top speed for the same type of vehicle, it is inconsequential.

And that's a fact right out of the 'straight' pile.

A fact that I alluded to in post #7. The greater the weight delta, the greater the consequence.

Damnit! Where's the 'beating a dead horse' smiley when you need one!

 

[El Gordo]

The difference is negligible.
Now, taking about which is better looking,

the FJR wins IMHO.

+1 and he didn't even show the butt ugly exhaust side of the connie.

I don't see top end speed as a big deal on a st bike. Lower end torque and mid-range roll-on are much more important (especially if you are not as aerodynamic as some riders?).