860hp Viper vs. A Few Suzuki Hayabusas (Language!!!)

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 30, 2004 | 12:34 AM

#11

Burgundy_Boat

Guest

Posts: n/a

Re: I think I get it

Quote:

Originally Posted by SisoRogue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgundy_Boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by SisoRogue

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000SilverBullet

Thanks for that link. It'* great!!!!!!

I thought the Tomahawk was the fastest bike in the world...

Is a busa with NOS faster?

fastest or quickest??? think about it now... the busa comes stock with i believe 173 HP out of a 1.3L engine while the Tomahawk (concept only btw) has a 8.3L V-10 putting out 500 HP. now, i'm going to guess that the busa might be faster in the 1/4 due to the fact that it will be slightly difficult to put that 525 ft-lbs of torque to the ground while the busa might not have that problem with only about 98 ft-lbs of torque

WOWWWwww ... I'm surprised I followed most of that... So what you're saying is that the Tomahawk might beat the Busa in the mile or something but it would get owned in the 1/4 because of the launch?

<---------------- slowly learning about things with motors lol

pretty much when the tomahawk get'* traction the busa is owned, all things being equal. but all things arn't equal, the tomahawk only has a 2 speed tranny, so pulling those gears might be a problem...

Sep 14, 2004 | 09:36 AM

#12

UniqueSE

Senior Member

Posts like a Turbo

Joined: Oct 2003

Posts: 209

Likes: 0

From: Vassalboro, Maine

I also have this video. It'* sick no doubt. The viper has a paxton supercharger on it running 883RWHP without cats and about 20 less with the cats. The viper pretty much walked all over the stock busa, then the busa with the pipe mod pretty much took him, then it was no contest with the nitrous busa with a big bore kit and lightened wheels and body work, then that ZX12 Kawasaki with a big bore kit destroyed him as well.

Sep 14, 2004 | 11:04 AM

#13

willwren

Junior Member

Posts like a Ricer Type-R

Joined: Aug 2002

Posts: 11

Likes: 13

Yup. That'* what I saw, too. Sounds like the same video.

Sep 14, 2004 | 03:33 PM

#14

misfit-x

Senior Member

Posts like a Turbo

Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 227

Likes: 0

From: monona, wisconsin (right near madison)

i wonder what the top speed of the day was

Oct 11, 2004 | 10:20 AM

#15

GFlem

Member

Posts like a V-Tak

Joined: Sep 2004

Posts: 88

Likes: 0

Re: I think I get it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgundy_Boat

I don't know about that...

I think the reason they did that 2-speed tranny is so that they could A) preserve the tires and B) preserve the clutch. You put that size engine in a chassis that small and light, and you're going to have problems with overpowering the rider like nothing the world'* ever seen before. A six-speed tranny in that frame with that engine? You'd have to be a madman to ride that.

BUT, if you put in a two-speed tranny where the engine'* going to have to utilize more torque to move the bike early on, you've got a self-limiting system, and you're not going to have to worry about anything like the bike flipping under itself and killing you.

Also, it'd proably be a concern if the torque of the engine tossed the damned bike onto its side from wrenching the chassis over.

Nov 10, 2004 | 12:39 PM

#16

bmsgaffer86

Senior Member

Posts like a Corvette

Joined: Jan 2003

Posts: 1,250

Likes: 0

I saw a tomahawk at a show... and they said one reason it isnt practical is because undernormal acceleration is almost impossible for the rider to balance out the torque of the 500 HP engine. Mush less under racing acceleration (if you can keep the rubber planter.. or even intact for that matter)

I would really like to see it on a strip like those tho.