I'm hearing super-charged.
I'm hearing fastest ever.
Who wants one?
I'm hearing super charged 750.
I've heard the sound track.
I want it.
Kawasaki have been using a supercharged zzr 1400 engine in their jet ski's for a while so it's good to see the idea coming over to bikes.
I've heard bits and pieces about this, but not seen any pictures as of yet.
Still like a go mind you.
Who needs more power or faster, though?
Aren't superbikes are already too powerful for normal people to exploit anywhere near fully?
Still like a go mind you.
Quote from: tucola on September 09, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
Who needs more power or faster, though?
Aren't superbikes are already too powerful for normal people to exploit anywhere near fully?
Still like a go mind you.
Most people can't even ride 600s to their limits. I only felt I was near there when on the track, and that was only when the litre class riders powered past on the straights (and I am by no means a 'quick' rider)
Quote from: tucola on September 09, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
Who needs more power or faster, though?
I'd actually like to downsize back to a decent 400, but I don't think they'll make one a) due to demand or b) in my price range!
The modern Superbike have massive power with electronics continually cancelling it out...totally pointless...so a Supercharged faster engine is even more pointless...the roads are getting tougher to stay away from Speed traps.
If you can't go bigger or faster with your engine choice then how on earth does one broach the subject of penis size without directly bringing it up in public?
I think Kawasaki are trolling everyone. It'll be an electric scooter
Isn't it about meeting newer and tougher emmissions regs?
The bonus being more power among other things?
The sillouette picture of it looks great.
(http://i0.wp.com/www.asphaltandrubber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/new-ninja.jpg)
They've said things like this in the past and then inflicted bikes like the Zx9r on an unsuspecting world....
Is this Kawasaki gracefully getting out of the 1000cc Sportsbike arms race?
I doubt they'd be out of the sportsbike arms race when they're doing rather well in bsb and wsb with the zx10r? my money is on a lower capacity forced induction replacement for the ZZR1400 :cool:
No-one really buys sportsbikes anymore though so WSB is becoming less of a marketplace. And Triumph have done very well by going their own way and ignoring racing.
Quote from: Alzo on September 09, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
The modern Superbike have massive power with electronics continually cancelling it out...totally pointless...so a Supercharged faster engine is even more pointless...the roads are getting tougher to stay away from Speed traps.
I miss the days of the ZZR, Blackbird, Hayabusa pissing contests. Plus it'll do a bomb in the states, they love straight line shit and big numbers there.
Quote from: Lord Danoir the first on September 10, 2014, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: Alzo on September 09, 2014, 04:41:23 PM
The modern Superbike have massive power with electronics continually cancelling it out...totally pointless...so a Supercharged faster engine is even more pointless...the roads are getting tougher to stay away from Speed traps.
I miss the days of the ZZR, Blackbird, Hayabusa pissing contests. Plus it'll do a bomb in the states, they love straight line shit and big numbers there.
I want one... :moto:
Quote from: David W on September 10, 2014, 06:52:26 AM
No-one really buys sportsbikes anymore though so WSB is becoming less of a marketplace. And Triumph have done very well by going their own way and ignoring racing.
Their doing rather well in BSB at the moment!
Quote from: J3Math on September 10, 2014, 01:32:17 PM
Quote from: David W on September 10, 2014, 06:52:26 AM
No-one really buys sportsbikes anymore though so WSB is becoming less of a marketplace. And Triumph have done very well by going their own way and ignoring racing.
Their doing rather well in BSB at the moment!
BSS... ;)
Wasn't this meant to be unveiled last Friday?
30th sept allegedly
nothing wrong with zx9rs . most under rated road bike out there. i've covered close to 60k on zx9rs, nothing bad to say about them. in fact , even my 2001 zx9r track bike with 53k on the clock is still going strong.
The original ZX9 was touted as a Fireblade alternative though, and was nowhere near. Decent roadbikes but never been anywhere near the cutting edge.
Quote from: Phil_8 on September 15, 2014, 01:34:32 PM
Wasn't this meant to be unveiled last Friday?
Probably didn't want to compete with the iPhone 6 launch....
Quote from: David W on September 16, 2014, 09:43:42 AM
The original ZX9 was touted as a Fireblade alternative though, and was nowhere near. Decent roadbikes but never been anywhere near the cutting edge.
IIRC, the blades of the time went very lardy
Not compared to the ZX9r....
The C/E/F model ZX9's were as good or better than the same age Blades. The 954 Blade just about put itself ahead but there was little in it - I borrowed a mate's for a few days and decided it did nothing that my F couldn't. Nice bike though.
Good for you. In my opinion the Fireblade pissed all over every ZX9 ever built, at least as a Sportsbike. Faster, lighter and better handling. Only thing I could maybe see a ZX9 doing better is two-up touring.
I've never owned a 9R or blade, my preference for hooning in the 90's was an EXUP..... such a wonderful motorcycle and better in every way, in my twisted opinion, than any blade from the period.
But I also have to agree with Gobert, and I'll try to keep my food down in doing so, but I always preferred road riding on the 9R.
Quote from: David W on September 17, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
Good for you. In my opinion the Fireblade pissed all over every ZX9 ever built, at least as a Sportsbike. Faster, lighter and better handling. Only thing I could maybe see a ZX9 doing better is two-up touring.
Between the lot I used to ride with we had the last of the old shape blades, a 929 and C/E/F ZX9's - I rode them all and there was little between them. Most of the road test's at the time came to the same conclusion.
Have you ridden all these bikes?
Car manufaturers are now using smaller capacity, forced induction engines to maintain power but reduce fuel consumption and emmisions..
Why wouldn't the bike manufactures go the same way ?
Smaller engine = less weight and would only be slighty offset by the extra weight of a turbo or SC IMO..
2p
Quote from: Gobert on September 17, 2014, 04:01:09 PM
Quote from: David W on September 17, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
Good for you. In my opinion the Fireblade pissed all over every ZX9 ever built, at least as a Sportsbike. Faster, lighter and better handling. Only thing I could maybe see a ZX9 doing better is two-up touring.
Between the lot I used to ride with we had the last of the old shape blades, a 929 and C/E/F ZX9's - I rode them all and there was little between them. Most of the road test's at the time came to the same conclusion.
Have you ridden all these bikes?
Most of them.
If you lads are done arguing ;)
PICS!!
http://www.bikeland.org/story.php?storyID=76855
leaked a touch early unsurprisingly, like they always do!
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/ahh-my-eyes.png)
It's not that bad...........
Its kinda busy isn't it ...
It's different but then it's sort of what I expected from Kawasaki.
Well its announced and they are saying 296bhp in a track version and 200bhp in the road version
New S1RR will be 200BHP.
Be interesting to see what lights, indicators and a reg plate do to it.
I'm very interested to know if it will race in Superbikes.
We need electronics to control the 193bhp in the current S1000rr...with road bikes and our Speed camera and Mobile camera Laden roads less is more...a 100bhp Street Triple will put more smiles on the masses than any of these bikes...the H2 is missing the point.
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 10:34:47 AM
We need electronics to control the 193bhp in the current S1000rr...with roads bike and our Speed camera and Mobile camera Laden roads less is more...a 100bhp Street Triple will put more smiles on the masses than any of these bikes...the H2 is missing the point.
tend to agree, but cant help thinking its a gimic bike, a technical exercise so to speak
surely they don't expect to shift that many of them?
sports bike sales are already in decline, I don't think more power is the way forward!
Things like this tend to run down model lines so perhaps this a technical exercise that will appear on other models over the years
Will be interested to see what else it adds when the s1000r is kicking out similar figures. Should we expect big gaps in services and 65mpg?
other than the silly wings I rather like it actually :afro: Admittedly I'd have liked it more if it was making 1000cc superbike power from a much smaller engine with higher mpg like I was expecting. :huh:
Agreed there is not necessarily a need for faster road bikes but the concept of making more power from an engine to you can decrease engine size / weight / consumption to make all bikes better is exciting.
Bike looks ugly.... but I like it.
I like the clocks on it, better than the ZX10 ones
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan of triple engines I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
I'd have a go for a laugh, but honestly I think I'd prefer a daytona or zx6r.
Looks like a mix between the J model zx9 and a panagale to me
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
It is using a centrifugal supercharger (which is like a Turbo on the inlet side, but driven by the crank, not exhaust gas). There will be a lot of torque from tickover and no lag.
Quote from: ash on September 30, 2014, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
It is using a centrifugal supercharger (which is like a Turbo on the inlet side, but driven by the crank, not exhaust gas). There will be a lot of torque from tickover and no lag.
Small pistons and light crankshafts will not generate torque.
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
Parents have got a new 1 litre turbo 'ecoboost' focus and the engine is the tits. For a run of the mill family hatch it's got plenty of power and torque. Granted, not as fuel efficient as you'd hope from a supposedly eco car, but it's not un-efficient and in my view better than a NA equivalent model.
Sounds cool too.
Quote from: Gilby104 on September 30, 2014, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
Parents have got a new 1 litre turbo 'ecoboost' focus and the engine is the tits. For a run of the mill family hatch it's got plenty of power and torque. Granted, not as fuel efficient as you'd hope from a supposedly eco car, but it's not un-efficient and in my view better than a NA equivalent model.
Sounds cool too.
Sounds a pointless exercise then...and you and your parants may well be happy...differing expectation...I drove a Focus with that engine and thought it was horrific...hills had it working like a hyper crack cocaine user...daily use would destroy me...
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:58:54 PM
Quote from: Gilby104 on September 30, 2014, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
Parents have got a new 1 litre turbo 'ecoboost' focus and the engine is the tits. For a run of the mill family hatch it's got plenty of power and torque. Granted, not as fuel efficient as you'd hope from a supposedly eco car, but it's not un-efficient and in my view better than a NA equivalent model.
Sounds cool too.
Sounds a pointless exercise then...and you and your parants may well be happy...differing expectation...I drove a Focus with that engine and thought it was horrific...hills had it working like a hyper crack cocaine user...daily use would destroy me...
not saying it's perfect but seems like progress (or on the way to progress maybe). Managed to get an engine with pretty decent characteristics (granted I didn't tackle any serious hills) and saved quite a bit of weight and is pretty efficient. With development and fettling to suit various needs could be cracking exercise
My 875cc Fiat pissed all over my 1.4 Corsa in every way. Torque, power, economy, character.
I think the Twin Air may be an exception...but it has a reputation for eating Turbos...also power to weight with the Fiat helps...stick that engine in a Focus size and weight of car and the story would be very different.
I have to be honest, seems like an engineering willy waving competition and imo 200BHP is pointless on the road - I am very excited to see if it will be cleared to race BSB etc and who might take it on....
Quote from: Phil_8 on September 30, 2014, 12:43:19 PM
Looks like a mix between the J model zx9 and a panagale to me
+1 although it's j zx6r or e/f 9r :oops:
Like the single sided swing arm and exhaust, wonder how huge the production can will be...
Quote from: Phil_8 on September 30, 2014, 12:43:19 PM
Looks like a mix between the J model zx9 and a panagale to me
exactly my thinking!
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:48:27 PM
Quote from: ash on September 30, 2014, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Alzo on September 30, 2014, 12:22:22 PM
This small engine high power notion is also flawed...has anyone driven these latest engined cars...the lack of torque is horrendous and they need thrashed....daily ownership must be tedious...we could end up with 2 stroke power characteristics from 4 stroke engines...as a fan if triple engines...I'll have the torque...and you can stick your 296bhp Bar figure up your ass.
It is using a centrifugal supercharger (which is like a Turbo on the inlet side, but driven by the crank, not exhaust gas). There will be a lot of torque from tickover and no lag.
Small pistons and light crankshafts will not generate torque.
The mass of the crankshaft helps to maintain momentum, but it doesn't create torque. That comes from the energy being released from the fuel. Superchargers don't scavenge energy from the exhaust in the way which a turbo does, but the extra boost they produce by being able to put a much denser charge into the combustion chamber is where they produce the power. BHP is the measured ft lbs of Torque x engine revs (divided by 5252) . In a turbo the engine has to rev to a given point to produce the pressure to make the turbo spin (hence the lag), but superchargers being directly linked to the crank increase the inlet pressure from tickover. The downside is that they can suck up to 1/3rd of the power from the engine to do this. 300bhp either way isn't shabby, but I'll wager it is as juicy as fcuk when wound up.
It may be too much but plain and simple..... WANT :azn:
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on September 30, 2014, 04:19:42 PM
I have to be honest, seems like an engineering willy waving competition and imo 200BHP is pointless on the road - I am very excited to see if it will be cleared to race BSB etc and who might take it on....
FIM Homologation banned forced induction some years back .. great technical exercise by Kawasaki and they should be applauded for it.
Only 15 R's coming to the UK.
Engines with forced induction, superchargers/turbo chargers....have MORE torque not less for a given capacity. In a fact it's the torque that you really notice with them rather than the power. As Ash says power is simply torque x rpm and turbo engines often actually have lower rpm ceilings than N/A engines because the fans have a limited rpm range in which they are efficient.
Also as Ash says, with it being supercharged it'll have no lag either.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because an engine has a small cc it will have no torque.
The F1 engines have dropped cc and gone forced induction yet their torque has gone through the roof.
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on September 30, 2014, 04:19:42 PM
I have to be honest, seems like an engineering willy waving competition and imo 200BHP is pointless on the road - I am very excited to see if it will be cleared to race BSB etc and who might take it on....
Wasn't that always the case for the Panzer S1000RR. You yourself sunk a lot of time and money into getting your own Panzer above 200bhp. The reality is that someone can lose their license just as easily on a 600 as one of these bigger bikes if they ride like a twat all the time.
No, I spent alot of time and money making it sound proper and getting the power delivery, throttle response and torque improved to make it an easier machine to ride, especially on the UK's roads. The power gain was just a by-product bonus and still too much for the road..... And it was 197 BHP.....
Thanks for pointing that out though.....
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on October 01, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
No, I spent alot of time and money making it sound proper and getting the power delivery, throttle response and torque improved to make it an easier machine to ride, especially on the UK's roads.
And then you sold it.... :moto:
Quote from: Jarse on October 01, 2014, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on October 01, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
No, I spent alot of time and money making it sound proper and getting the power delivery, throttle response and torque improved to make it an easier machine to ride, especially on the UK's roads.
And then you sold it.... :moto:
I get bored quickly
Quote from: mc101 on October 01, 2014, 08:31:20 AM
.. great technical exercise by Kawasaki and they should be applauded for it
+1
Rob
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on October 01, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Jarse on October 01, 2014, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on October 01, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
No, I spent alot of time and money making it sound proper and getting the power delivery, throttle response and torque improved to make it an easier machine to ride, especially on the UK's roads.
And then you sold it.... :moto:
I get bored quickly
As is your right...I'll protect your honour bro. ;)
It was Ash's comment I was digging back at :rofl:
Quote from: The Wizard of MOz on October 02, 2014, 06:32:39 PM
It was Ash's comment I was digging back at :rofl:
Hey, I never said you ride like a twat all the time ;)