[tonyjuliano]

Uhhh, equations usually have something called an equal sign somewhere. It kind of makes it hard to perform algebra without one. I think I've seen enough here. SMH

uhhh, fractions actually ARE equations (in the simplest form). I gave you the equation (in fractional form) AND the result (in the text of the post).

Quoting....

"CD * A * (V3)
----------------
150,000

where:

CD = drag Coefficient (.7)
A = frontal area in sq. ft. (10)
V = Velocity (speed) in MPH (116.25)

This calculation gives the HP loss due to aerodynamic drag - which in this case equals 73.3 HP."

If you omit the text in RED (which was there to help clarify for the "math-challenged") you see the the full equation - including EQUALS. But of course, I should not have spelled it out, as this is what totally confused you.

Which means you have absolutely no chance of understanding much on this subject anyway.

 

[MotoChief]

F^ck it, I will get the GoPro on and video the F^ing Speedo! Math be damned!

 

[tonyjuliano]

F^ck it, I will get the GoPro on and video the F^ing Speedo! Math be damned!

Math don't lie - but speedos do!

 

[MotoChief]

Math don't lie - but speedos do!

And I ill use two different GPS devices. My phone, running the strava app, and a Garmin Forerunner 420 GPS watch!

I will solve this with observation, not theory!


And math does lie, just ask Heisenberg!

 

[tonyjuliano]

Please do...

This thread needs to be retired - before Ralph comes back from the 3rd grade.

 

[MotoChief]

Of course, this is all contingent on finding a road that I feel comfortable going balls out for at least a few miles without fear of potholes, animals and police!

 

[ralph]

Great, you gave a calculation for something nobody asked for. This thread is about top speed and your previous lengthy post gave a precise number of 116.25.
Your calculation for hp drop at various speeds due to drag offers no benefit for finding that answer. What is the formula you used to obtain 116.25? Or is that a mystery obtainable only for the enlightened few?

 

[ralph]

Please do...

This thread needs to be retired - before Ralph comes back from the 3rd grade.

Now you are resorting to childish insults not unlike previous threads that had to be locked due to your tirades. Only cowards write as you do under the protection of anonymity where there is no threat from the real world of flesh and bones.

 

[tonyjuliano]

Ralph, thought you "had seen enough"

Really wish you followed through on that.

"real world of flesh and bones"??

I love it when you talk all "pirate" to me...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ralph]

Ralph, thought you "had seen enough"

Really wish you followed through on that.

"real world of flesh and bones"??

I love it when you talk all "pirate" to me...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was done but you decided to continue. I also see you have no formula and you were just talking out your ass. It figures.

 

[tonyjuliano]

I was done but you decided to continue. I also see you have no formula and you were just talking out your ass. It figures.

I gave you the equation - both in long form and simplified - I can't help it if you can't comprehend either.

Tell you what - here's a way to verify my calculation - even though you can't understand the math. Here is a link to an independent web site that offers an on-line HP calculator, plug my variables in and it will calculate almost the EXACT same number I originally quoted...

Calculate HP For Speed

You will have to input the top speed (116.25) instead of the HP (75), but the results will match.

But of course, even if you do so, I'm sure you will find some other crazy excuse to accuse me of intentionally misleading people or "talking out my ass" - as you so eloquently put it.

Your ignorance is astounding to me, and I hold no hope that you will admit to it, but at least everyone else here can go to the same link and see for themselves who knows what.

 

[ralph]

I gave you the equation - both in long form and simplified - I can't help it if you can't comprehend either.

Tell you what - here's a way to verify my calculation - even though you can't understand the math. Here is a link to an independent web site that offers an on-line HP calculator, plug my variables in and it will calculate almost the EXACT same number I originally quoted...

Calculate HP For Speed

You will have to input the top speed (116.25) instead of the HP (75), but the results will match.

But of course, even if you do so, I'm sure you will find some other crazy excuse to accuse me of intentionally misleading people or "talking out my ass" - as you so eloquently put it.

Your ignorance is astounding to me, and I hold no hope that you will admit to it, but at least everyone else here can go to the same link and see for themselves who knows what.

Keep posting, you're only digging your hole deeper.

Still no formula from you on how you came up with 116.25 but now you give us an internet calculator as evidence. The problem is it's the wrong calculator.

You want us to input 116.25 to give us a horsepower figure but that's not the question. You're putting the cart before the horse. The question is where did you get 116.25.

You are the one who came up with the 116.25 number. All you have to do is give us the formula you used, plug in your numbers and show us how the 116.25 number was derived. But you can't do it no matter how many times you are asked.

Gearing commander can give us reasonable top speed numbers because unlike you, they know what they are doing. They take into account things you ignore like primary drive ratio, tire size and width, rpms at maximum horsepower, final drive ratio, chain pitch and the individual gear ratios, among others.

You're the one who said "Gearing, stock or otherwise, has nothing to do with", and yet you are able to come up with a more precise number than gearing commander.....amazing.

All you have to do is show the formula and plug in the numbers showing how you got the 116.25 but it will never happen because you just pulled that number out of your you know what and everybody knows it.

 

[tonyjuliano]

Omg, I give up. You are a total idiot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[m!ke]

[URL="http://[/URL]

 

[stavely]

I'm loving this!!! So I'm going to stick my oar in to prolong the fun...
As i see it the answer to tonys equation is the horsepower required to achieve V (the velocity), in tonys case 116.25 mph. If you shove in tonys parameters then the HP would be 73.3, a figure the bike could produce. By the way in the equation that is V cubed not V times 3. Its difficult to type a cubed on a std laptop!
However i've done some quick measurements on the bike and in a good Chris Carr racing tuck, but still my standard bike kit, I think the frontal area is more likely to be 8 squ ft or even a little under. And some people say I'm a fat b&stad. (I think they just have distorted vision...)
If you put 8 in instead of 10 for frontal area, then velocity would be 125mph. Hey presto I'm the winner of the pole! yeah!
Gear commander says this velocity is achievable on standard gearing before the rev limiter screams "Too much fun!!".
So if we take the scrambler manual as gospel and the speedo is 5 percent fast then we need video footage of 131 mph or 210 kph to be a corrected 125 mph.
I live near Guadix race circuit (for legal reasons) and have clocked over 200 kph so far, so will go back and have another try.
Now, who can lend me a gopro?
P.s. before anyone piles in, I realise the scrambler is not a bike for outright speed. But a lot of people just like to see how quick their vehicle could go. Normally I just like to stroke cats like the rest of civilisation....

 

[stavely]

F^ck it, I will get the GoPro on and video the F^ing Speedo! Math be damned!

That's the right attitude MC. Hard video proof. I hope that Seattle rain stays off long enough!
Which safe private road are you going to try this on then
....can't wait...

 

[tonyjuliano]

I'm loving this!!! So I'm going to stick my oar in to prolong the fun...
As i see it the answer to tonys equation is the horsepower required to achieve V (the velocity), in tonys case 116.25 mph. If you shove in tonys parameters then the HP would be 73.3, a figure the bike could produce. By the way in the equation that is V cubed not V times 3. Its difficult to type a cubed on a std laptop!
However i've done some quick measurements on the bike and in a good Chris Carr racing tuck, but still my standard bike kit, I think the frontal area is more likely to be 8 squ ft or even a little under. And some people say I'm a fat b&stad. (I think they just have distorted vision...)
If you put 8 in instead of 10 for frontal area, then velocity would be 125mph. Hey presto I'm the winner of the pole! yeah!
Gear commander says this velocity is achievable on standard gearing before the rev limiter screams "Too much fun!!".
So if we take the scrambler manual as gospel and the speedo is 5 percent fast then we need video footage of 131 mph or 210 kph to be a corrected 125 mph.
I live near Guadix race circuit (for legal reasons) and have clocked over 200 kph so far, so will go back and have another try.
Now, who can lend me a gopro?
P.s. before anyone piles in, I realise the scrambler is not a bike for outright speed. But a lot of people just like to see how quick their vehicle could go. Normally I just like to stroke cats like the rest of civilisation....

Thank god, someone who actually understands math! You are my hero from now on, I swear.

No way the frontal area should be calculated at 8 sq feet, though. Rider must be included.

And the CD picked (.7) was super optimistic.

Extremely unlikely that anyone hits 120 mph on a stock motor - and I would bet my motorcycles (all of them!) that nobody gets beyond that.

The speedo error is not linear, no matter what the manual states. At those speeds it is greater than 5%..

I will however accept evidence showing speed verified by GPS, and I'm totally looking forward to your run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kjs]

Thank god, someone who actually understands math! You are my hero from now on, I swear.

No way the frontal area should be calculated at 8 sq feet, though. Rider must be included.

Why is this figure definitely at least 8 sq ft or 12 as you original stated? Where is that measurement coming from?

 

[tonyjuliano]

Oh, and one more thing...

Of course, in the equation I posted, "V3" was to mean "V-cubed" (as opposed to "V*3") - totally impossible to type on a keyboard. To put alleviate any further source of confusion, this is the formula (see photo)...

 

[tonyjuliano]

Why is this figure definitely at least 8 sq ft or 12 as you original stated? Where is that measurement coming from?

Draw a rectangle around the frontal area of the motorcycle (including rider). The dimensions of this rectangle (L X W) equals total frontal area, which is one of the variables required for accuracy (and a very important one!)

The red rectangle illustrated in the attached picture is an illustration of this...

This is the main obstacle in achieving higher speeds, as the speed increases it takes exponentially more HP to "punch a hole" through the air.