900/1000 dogs compared to 650/750?

yeah! well,my dad can beat up your dad! (God its been a long winter is this really what we've been reduced too?)

hei plummen, the comparison i asked about , 1982-1983 is interesting just becasue of what you are saying, i.e. not too much development in tires in one year and other than the (very primitive) early uni-track the gpz frame was still a double cradlle, much like the 1000. the front end of the racing gpz750 was lifted directly from the 1000...

BTW, when motogp racing changed from 990c.c. to 800c.c. in 2007 it didnt take long for the smaller bikes to lap faster than the big ones.

have little doubt that in real life, stoplight to stoplight drag race downtown on a saturday night, a built 1000 (or 1400 ) will beat the "small blocks" but racing around a course is really about the mix of motor and handling.

If it's any consolation, in our ccvintage racing, the top 500 guy racing a ex GP Paton TWIN, can lap at the pace of the 80's 1000c.c. superbikes on some tracks. That bike's got only 70hp but weights 260lbs

i agree with that,but not all racing occurs on a twisty track is all im saying and to compare any 2 items you need the same lab doing the comparing. :woohoo:

Frankn9 wrote:

yeah! well,my dad can beat up your dad! (God its been a long winter is this really what we've been reduced too?)

Go with the flow and have some fun with it


You realise we are arguing about which air cooled bikes are the fastest, and that's kind of like arguing as to who has the fastest horse and buggy? The current ZX1000 and the BMW liter bikes both weigh around 400 pounds and produce around 190 hp box stock, and anyone can buy one straight from the dealer. And then you have the turbo Busas and ZX14s running around on the street.

So we'll sit around the workbench and argue about which one of our dinosaurs is faster, knowing it doesn't matter anyway, but it's fun.

steell wrote:

Frankn9 wrote:

yeah! well,my dad can beat up your dad! (God its been a long winter is this really what we've been reduced too?)

Go with the flow and have some fun with it


You realise we are arguing about which air cooled bikes are the fastest, and that's kind of like arguing as to who has the fastest horse and buggy? The current ZX1000 and the BMW liter bikes both weigh around 400 pounds and produce around 190 hp box stock, and anyone can buy one straight from the dealer. And then you have the turbo Busas and ZX14s running around on the street.

So we'll sit around the workbench and argue about which one of our dinosaurs is faster, knowing it doesn't matter anyway, but it's fun.

For some reason, this thread remind me of the old days at the Kaw/Suzuki dealership. We had customers bu FA50 Mopeds that had a claimed top speed of 30mph. People would bring them in complaining it would only go 25MPH.

Counter guy would write the service ticket with the complaint. We'd get the job and find the moped, then stand there in awe at the plastic milk crate bungied to the little luggage rack. Of course the crate was packed full of various tools, etc.

So after a good laugh we'd pull it in the shop and go about the business tweaking that little 2 stroke for superior performance.

The BEST laugh was when the owner would come to pick up their ride and you discovered they weighed about 200lbs :woohoo:

the fastest kawasaki i owned was the turbo.
but that was also built. it was dynoed @ 148 rwhp.
the fastest natural aspirated bike i own is the 1100 in stock form.
the 650 can rev faster but don't have the grunt the 1100 does.
it's like comparing a semi built 1000 from days ago to a modern 600 class bike.
guess who's winning that race?

andy9802gt wrote:

PLUMMEN wrote:

turboguzzi wrote:

back to a bit of science.... shooting this at Larry
C as he stated elsewhere that he has seen Rainey in action on the GPZ750, but if anyone has answer to the next question he's welcome to shed some light:

What was the difference in lap times in AMA superbike racing when the switch was made from 1000cc to 750cc in 1983? Kawasaki won back to back in 82' with eddy on the KZ1000 based bike and in 83' with Wayne on the GPZ750 based bike, so which one was faster on pure lap times, (on same circuits of course)?

TG

and to make it really fair,how much faster was was eddie lawson on a 750 than a 1000 of the same year?

So I'm starting to get confused. I spent about $3000 on my big motor to make it faster and I could have just bought a 650? I guess the entire racing world has had it wrong for 50 years, there IS a replacement for displacement.

The secret to a fast motorcycle is in knowing the magic words

turboguzzi wrote:

back to a bit of science.... shooting this at Larry
C as he stated elsewhere that he has seen Rainey in action on the GPZ750, but if anyone has answer to the next question he's welcome to shed some light:

What was the difference in lap times in AMA superbike racing when the switch was made from 1000cc to 750cc in 1983? Kawasaki won back to back in 82' with eddy on the KZ1000 based bike and in 83' with Wayne on the GPZ750 based bike, so which one was faster on pure lap times, (on same circuits of course)?

TG

Good question. I don't have the answer off the top of my head. I did however have the opportunity to see both bikes raced at Pocono. Both Eddie and Wayne in 82 on the 1000's and Wayne on the 750 in 83. Eddit moved up to F1 that yere with KR on the Yamaha team.

The memory that stands out from 82 was how much Eddie's bike smoked when it was being warmed up by Rob Muzzy. It would puff pretty good on every rev.

On a track like Pocono, I'd expect the 1000 would have been quicker lap times. At a track like Louden, it may have been the 750 that came out on top. Just a guess. It's got to be out there in the AMA record books though.

Pocono is a HP track. At least it used to be. I haven't been there in many years now.

Regarding the 1000cc motor that produced 150HP. I spoke with someone that was working at Kawasaki during those days. They told me that motor did't run worth crap below 7000 RPM on Kawasaki's Dyno. So as you can see, this making HP thing is relevant to the intended use of the vehicle.

Take nothing away from the 650 / 750 bikes. They're fine motorcycles. But the formula for HP has that little element called RPM that comes creeping in

Make it bigger
Spin if faster
Make it more efficient

And if it's a road racer.....might be nice if it handles good also :laugh:

.this started out with 900/1000s being called dogs compared to 650s,how the hell did sportbikes find there way in here? :laugh:
meanwhile back in the good ol days we have the cav-and-ah racing special getting ready for track testing with the fat plumber at the wheel and Larry adjusting the valves and adjusting the smoothbores in the corners.
the fat plummer was heard to say these new mechanical brakes are da bomb,hydraulic disc brakes will never catch on.
while Larry was heard to say our new Cav-and-ah racing oil bath air filter seems to be doing a better job of keeping the birds out than plummens sock which kept getting sucked into the dual 26s.and our new Cav-and-ah racing exclusive thunderball camshaft with an advertised .237 lift combined with the john deere valves plummen borrowed from city snow plow((off season of course!) and heavily ported head with lots of plaster work.(hey it was 1932,no devcon! :laugh: )
we're hoping to break the elusive 99mph mark this year :woohoo:

well, guess the people to ask about lap times would be Dean Adams from superbikeplanet.com or Brian O'Shea from vintagesuperbike.com... wanna try?

AMA archives go back only to 2004.... but I did ask them about "earlier" stuff, lets see

and who could forget the famous cav-and-ah/hocbj side car team back in mid 30s? with bj at the bars and larry hanging off the side doing double duty tuning and tightening the wheel nuts in the corners :laugh:

Hell with it I think I'll sell the 1000 and get two 305 Hondas, tie them together and run like the wind.