From: blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com (Dances With Bikers)
Subject: Lots of performance numbers (Was: Thoughts on VMAX)
Reply-To: blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:18:17 GMT

randy@ninja.megatek.uucp (Randy Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.152317.24176@javelin.sim.es.com> blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com writes:

>[height of ZX versus FJ passenger pegs]
>|Well, there are a number of imponderable/unanswerable questions debated
>|here from time to time, but I think we have the technology to answer
>|this one. Anyone got a ruler handy?  :-)

>  There you go again, trying to get people to actually contribute objective
>FACTS to this newsgroup.  You know that that is against the DoD credo, don't
>you?

No, I didn't know that. :-) As far as I can recall the DoD rules,
in their entirety, are:

		#1 There are no rules.
		#0 Go ride.

>|>but I recall the FJ pegs being the same height from the ground,
>|
>|One of the things that various magazines have damned the FJ for is "low"
>|pegs. When I was shopping for a new bike, the FJ had noticably more leg
>|room than the ZX-11, CBR1000 and Katana 1100 (and vastly more leg room
>|than the GSXR1100 and FZR1000, but you'd expect them to be cramped).

>  We were talking passenger pegs (or at least *I* was) in that paragraph
>you are quoting.  That WAS the original question that I was addressing.

My mistake, I read that part as being about the "real" :-) pegs. As far
as them ugly little facts go, I'll be happy to measure the seat-peg
distance for rider & passenger on my FJ, but with my taller seat that's
going to skew the results. Aw, what the heck, I'll be back in a sec...

Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning! Warning!

			***FACTS*** follow!

Ok, a quick measurement shows seat-peg distance for the rider is 19" and
18" for the passenger. '91 FJ1200, with custom built Corbin seat.

>|Time for my favorite quote from the July '89 issue of Cycle magazine:

"Pay attention here: With the exception of the '88 V-Max Cycle tested -
and then only in third gear, mind you - the FJ's roll-on numbers are
better than those of any production motorcycle we have ever measured."

(Sorry, I had to put that back in. I just like the way it sounds. :-)

>  July 1989???  Let me see - that was *three* years ago, before the ZX-11
>came out in *1990*, and WAY before the possibly higher power version of the
>ZX-11 which is supposed to come out...

Hey, we went through all the numbers a couple of months ago, and though
the ZX-11 is the king of the top end, roll-on still belongs to the FJ.
(Oops, maybe not. See below. Anyone got a 41 tooth rear sprocket? :-)

>  Come-on Blaine, if you are going to quote mags, at least quote up-to-date
>mag issues... :-)

Ok, how's this? Cycle, May, 1991. (The last FJ test before Cycle got the
Hachette treatment.)

"Smooth, quick-revving, able to make speed effortlessly in the lower
reaches of its powerband, the Yamaha has the kind of flick-of-the-wrist
grunt that's irresistable no matter where or how you ride."

>|But then that was last month's flame war, wasn't it? :-)

>  Yeah, and you tried to interject *facts* into that one also...  We're going
>to get you for this... :-)

Ok, now you're going to have to kill me. Here's the roll-on data from
several issues of "Cycle", including the May 1991 comparison of the
ZX-11, CBR1000, FJ1200 and Katana 1100. Some of the data, and the format
is from Chuck Roger's "Performance Database From Hell". Sorted on top
gear roll on.

MODEL        Make Weight 1/4mile_t@v  0-60 45-70(3) 45-70(4) 45-70(5)
--------     ---- ------ ------------ ---- -------- -------- --------
FJ1200(89)   Yam  588.0w 11.03@123.67 2.95 2.4 @201 3.0 @254 3.7 @312
VMX12N(85)   Yam  618.5w 10.99@124.04 N/A  2.24@189 3.12@265 3.76@319
FJ1200(86)   Yam  579.0w 10.78@127.07 2.8  2.88@232 3.28@273 3.92@326
VMX12 (88)   Yam  624.0w 10.98@124.20 2.95 2.15@183 3.25@274 3.95@373
Kat1100(91)  Suz  599.5w 10.91@124.29 2.90 2.55@215 3.25@275 4.15@350
VMX12N(85)   Yam  618.5w 10.99@124.04 2.88 2.48@209 3.36@285 4.16@350
FJ1200(91)   Yam  596.5w 11.10@119.31 2.95 2.60@219 3.35@284 4.30@362
FJ1100(84)   Yam  571.0w 11.07@124.79 3.04 2.88@247 3.68@327 4.48@392
ZX11 *(90)   Kaw  575.5w 10.52@131.82 2.65 2.9 @244 3.8 @320 4.6 @390
R100GS(88)   BMW  491.0w 13.26@ 95.85 4.25 3.5 @300 4.2 @357 4.6 @392 
CBR1000*(91) Hon  600.0w 10.75@125.58 2.75 3.05@257 3.95@335 4.90@410
ZX-11 *(91)  Kaw  587.5w 10.51@132.21 2.65 3.40@286 4.25@358 5.10@430
ZX10 *(88)   Kaw  578.0w 10.71@128.62 2.65 3.1 @264 4.2 @352 5.1 @428

Where 0-60 is in seconds and 45-70 is in seconds@feet, in the top 3
gears (* means gears 4-6 on a 6 speed tranny, not 3-5 on a 5 speed).

Notes: I've no idea why there are two entries for the '85 V-Max, that
data is from Chuck's database, and I haven't dug out my '85 "Cycle"s.
The '91 FJ1200's roll-on performance has been hurt by the taller
gearing (39 or 40 teeth on the rear, depending on who's numbers you
trust. Guess I'll have to count them myself.). Kind of surprising what
one or two teeth on the rear can do. So where are all the Katana 1100
owners? It seems to be a serious torquer too.
-- 
Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland        580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108
blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com  uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!blgardne  BIX: blaine_g
Dumper of Dirtbikes #46       My other motorcycle is a Quadracer.      FJ1200
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles