2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR - Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org
Honda FireBlade Discussion of the Honda CBR 900RR, Honda CBR 929RR, Honda CBR 954RR, and Honda CBR 1000RR Motorcycles.

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 Old 02-09-2017, 4:07 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: 05-10-2010
Location: Holland
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 0
 
2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Saw a review today of the eagerly-anticipated new Zook big gun. They've brought in the MotoGP technology of variable valve timing based on centrifugal weights that advance the cam timing as revs increase. They are very proud of the torque figure, quoted as 87ftlb@10,800rpm. Nothing wrong with that, nor with an anticipated 199bhp@13200rpm. Great for the track, especially with all the electronic techtrickery to keep you from launching yourself into orbit.

However, for road riding, its surfing the torque curve that counts. OK, they've done a good job. But I was curious to see how my dear old 929 Blade compares. Torque 85 ft lbs max at @8500, and above 80ft lbs from 6500rpm to 11000rpm. Figures from a rolling road test run. Not too shabby. But I shall continue to have to be responsible for my own safety when getting on the gas. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.
Attached Thumbnails
929 bhp & torque.JPG‎   Suzuki GSX1000RR 2017 data.JPG‎  
oldbastard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 Old 02-10-2017, 5:24 AM
 
Join Date: 12-01-2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 1
 
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Interesting. Is that chart based on some dyno data of your bike?

What are the mods done including sprockets?

Can you share the csv data you may have? Especially as to how you got the crank hp? I collect dyno data for bikes I'm interested in and plot all of them.

I'm using the gear ratios to calculate the crank hp + 10% or so accounting for loss.
CBR929RRY is offline  
post #3 of 33 Old 02-10-2017, 5:25 AM
 
Join Date: 12-01-2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 1
 
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Also...bhp means crank hp. No such thing as rear wheel bhp keep in mind being 2017 the gixxer is subject to far more stringent emissions laws than the 929 was in 2001!! Getting rid of the cat and an aftermarket exhaust with a tune will probably result in the 929 being destroyed!

Am I reading right? The gixxer's fuel tank capacity is 16l? Pathetic. Recently theyve all started going from 18l to 17l and now 16?

Race bikes generally go from 18 to 20/22l! Not the other way around.

Last edited by CBR929RRY; 02-10-2017 at 5:35 AM.
CBR929RRY is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 33 Old 02-10-2017, 6:53 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: 05-10-2010
Location: Holland
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 0
 
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

The"rear wheel bhp" figures (next time I'll quote rear wheel kW, smartass... ) come from a Dynojet rolling road, done after some mods. The main ones were a 1/2mm shave of the cylinder head (left me with 1/2 mm clearance between inlet valve and piston top...gulp...) a plain Hindle 4-1 system + akrapowicz muffler and I closed the inlet port throats down using JB weld as per advice from mototune USA. The guy is a loon, but it works, big midrange boost. And it's been in there for 5 years with no sign of coming loose. . Looking at the graph now I see the x-axis for the rolling road figures don't match up. Revision attached. How I got from rolling road to crank figures....just took quoted figures for 929 or 954 specs that included both, and applied that factor. Usually the crank figure is between 17-21% more. What else? Golf ball dimples on inside curve of inlet port just before valve, reprofiled valve contact areas. That also makes about 7rrhp difference.

Of course the gixxer will destroy it, it has 70 more cc and revs to 14500! However, I was surprised that the 2 had such similar max torque figures. That's not because of a shorter crank throw in the Gixxer, among other things.
75.0 x 54.0 mm 929
76.0 x 55.1mm GSXR 2017
So I guess that even with the variable valve timing, the Gixxer can't generate much more bang in the midrange. Maybe it has to do with inlet velocity; the inlet ports are doubtless HUGE, and maybe even with the VVT they can't compensate enough for the enormous overlap they need to get it breathing at 13200.... Dunno. But I aim to get a ride on one a.s.a.p. Sounds like a real weapon.
Attached Thumbnails
929 bhp & torque.JPG‎  
oldbastard is offline  
post #5 of 33 Old 02-11-2017, 3:40 PM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

You are really serious whit this? You can't compare some numbers from a press release. Both bikes need to be dynoed in the same dyno. And the power loss figuress of a 929 and 954 are about 9 %.

Last edited by mika_u; 02-11-2017 at 3:49 PM.
mika_u is offline  
post #6 of 33 Old 02-11-2017, 6:53 PM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

And my 954 with 980cc high comp. pistons, ported head, regrinded cams and a full Akra has 80 ftlb:s at 9300 rpms from the engine. So your 929 is making awfull lot of torque....
mika_u is offline  
post #7 of 33 Old 02-11-2017, 7:32 PM
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-01-2006
Location: MI, TX
Posts: 5,034
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 22
           
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by mika_u View Post
And my 954 with 980cc high comp. pistons, ported head, regrinded cams and a full Akra has 80 ftlb:s at 9300 rpms from the engine. So your 929 is making awfull lot of torque....
But the claimed torque figure is 76 lb ft.

But. as you already mentioned, the dyno plays big part of this and even the operator. Another big difference, what Honda (or any manufacturer claims) may not be the actual number; they could underrate the figures. Also, some engines will produce more than others. Also, the numbers the manufacturer provides are at the crank whereas when you go to the dyno, they are estimating the crank.
lanbrown is offline  
post #8 of 33 Old 02-11-2017, 9:50 PM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanbrown View Post
But the claimed torque figure is 76 lb ft.

But. as you already mentioned, the dyno plays big part of this and even the operator. Another big difference, what Honda (or any manufacturer claims) may not be the actual number; they could underrate the figures. Also, some engines will produce more than others. Also, the numbers the manufacturer provides are at the crank whereas when you go to the dyno, they are estimating the crank.
Doesn't he claim on the first post that hes 929 has 85 ftlb:s of torque at 8500 rpms? And if you are referring to the graph at the last post probably should check it again...

Last edited by mika_u; 02-11-2017 at 10:11 PM.
mika_u is offline  
post #9 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 7:33 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: 05-10-2010
Location: Holland
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 0
 
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

It's always tricky making comparisons with makers claims, the only truth we know about is what the dyno tells us and even then as Ian says, there are still a lot of variables.
The point I was trying to make is that yes, it's fine to have 200bhp available and you'll probably only use it on track. I happen to have Germany on my doorstep and can open the throttle wide in top gear (on the Autobahn) there if I want to, but it's not much fun in the end. Its far more useful to have enough grunt to be able to make swift progress through the hills without having to dance on the gear lever , and rev the balls off the engine ALL the time.

And Suzuki are seemingly trying to address that, and get the best of both worlds with variable valve timing. I think they are on the money.
oldbastard is offline  
post #10 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 7:46 AM
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-01-2006
Location: MI, TX
Posts: 5,034
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 22
           
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by mika_u View Post
Doesn't he claim on the first post that hes 929 has 85 ftlb:s of torque at 8500 rpms? And if you are referring to the graph at the last post probably should check it again...
The claimed figure I posted was from Honda back in the day.
lanbrown is offline  
post #11 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 7:46 AM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldbastard View Post
It's always tricky making comparisons with makers claims, the only truth we know about is what the dyno tells us and even then as Ian says, there are still a lot of variables.
The point I was trying to make is that yes, it's fine to have 200bhp available and you'll probably only use it on track. I happen to have Germany on my doorstep and can open the throttle wide in top gear (on the Autobahn) there if I want to, but it's not much fun in the end. Its far more useful to have enough grunt to be able to make swift progress through the hills without having to dance on the gear lever , and rev the balls off the engine ALL the time.

And Suzuki are seemingly trying to address that, and get the best of both worlds with variable valve timing. I think they are on the money.
I think that all of the new 1000cc bikes that i would consider have enough grunt at midrange allso. For example even the S1000RR has a decent midrange considering it is a real screamer with ridicilously short stroke... I would allso think that the new Suzuki is very interesting... But if you are after torque the old K5-K8 engine has relatively longer stroke then the new one and the ones with small head/engine modifications are making tons of it at all of the rev range....
mika_u is offline  
post #12 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 7:54 AM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanbrown View Post
The claimed figure I posted was from Honda back in the day.
I know what Honda claimed.... I commented on the numbers that are claimed on this thread because i thought they were way of.... For example the losses of the drivetrain. The dyno i use actually can actually measure the losses of the drivetrain and on my bike it was aprox 9% wich is pretty standard for 1000cc bikes. Busas and other bikes with bigger engines have little more loss from the drivetrain....
mika_u is offline  
post #13 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 7:59 AM
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-01-2006
Location: MI, TX
Posts: 5,034
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 22
           
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by mika_u View Post
I know what Honda claimed.... I commented on the numbers that are claimed on this thread because i thought they were way of.... For example the losses of the drivetrain. The dyno i use actually can actually measure the losses of the drivetrain and on my bike it was aprox 9% wich is pretty standard for 1000cc bikes. Busas and other bikes with bigger engines have little more loss from the drivetrain....
Are you sure it measures the drivetrain loss compared to estimates it? It only has a single point of reference, the rear wheel power.

If you run a dyno A and the other test is from dyno B, even from the same manufacturer, the numbers can't really be compared. If dyno A and B are from different manufacturers, then there is no way to compare the numbers.

What dyno was used?
lanbrown is offline  
post #14 of 33 Old 02-12-2017, 8:36 AM
 
Join Date: 05-16-2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 13
             
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Quote:
Originally Posted by lanbrown View Post
Are you sure it measures the drivetrain loss compared to estimates it? It only has a single point of reference, the rear wheel power.

If you run a dyno A and the other test is from dyno B, even from the same manufacturer, the numbers can't really be compared. If dyno A and B are from different manufacturers, then there is no way to compare the numbers.

What dyno was used?
It actually measures the losses. It is Dynastar dyno. For example Tenkate uses similar one. We have 2 of them here and they give same readings for even 600hp turbo bikes were the regular dynos readings vary a lot... My bike was on the dyno few times when it had stock engine and the reading were under 1hp from each other.
mika_u is offline  
post #15 of 33 Old 02-13-2017, 12:21 PM
 
Join Date: 12-01-2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Reputation Power: 1
 
Re: 2017 GSXR1000RR v 2001 CBR900RR

Im interested to know how the dyno 'measures' the drivetrain loss?

Also it's not that difficult to verify Honda's claims of crank horsepower. There are a series of gear ratios before the final sprocket on the rear wheel. You can calculate the torque at each set of sprocket combination working back from the wheel to crank.

Then you need to add some % as there's that loss on the drivetrain. If you're saying it's around 9% that's good...I found something like that roughly with my calculations.
CBR929RRY is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org > Honda Motorcycle Models > Honda FireBlade

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
A valid e-mail address is REQUIRED. You will not have access to any site features until you activate your account using the activation e-mail that is sent to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2017 CBR1000RR SP- For real this time Jaybird180 Honda FireBlade 17 10-06-2016 11:01 PM
If this were the 2017 Fireblade...? Jaybird180 Honda FireBlade 0 09-29-2016 3:51 PM
2017 CBR1000RR Spy Shots Jaybird180 Honda FireBlade 0 09-16-2016 1:07 PM
Honda's new 2017 fireblade PICTURES! acemclynch Honda FireBlade 13 02-19-2016 3:18 PM
Will Honda throw us a winner in 2017? ThatOneRider Honda FireBlade 9 05-27-2014 4:07 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome