Your top speed

[popkat]

Of course it'll be nothing to do with the fact they only have about 100hp and can't pull the gearing in top.

Tyres slip, well not all tyres are the same, so one tyre would slip more than another and you'd have different top speeds for different tyres. then there's tyre profiles, (we've had this before I'm sure) different tyre manufactures slightly different size of tyre even if they are all quoted as 180/55/17, this will effect gearing slightly.

All in there's a lot of factors the dictate a top speed. but the main one with the storm is it just doesn't make much power. on mine it makes no odds to top speed weather in 5th or 6th, it just doesn't pull the faster speeds in top, it might do if there was a long down hill and a good amount of space but really I would never be bothered to hang on for that long.

Back to tyre slip how does a Ducati V4 Panigale go so fast, surely it has tyre slip, there's loads more power to aid that slipping tyre too so must be a wild ride doing a huge rolling burnout as over 200hp sends that tyre slip crazy



.

[thelens]

If your needle is being buried past 180 mark then it safe to assume you have gone one tooth smaller on the front cog.
Otherwise your in need of a new speedo

Well if you knew me you would know that I personally think going to lower gearing on a VTR is counter productive....IMHO any bike I can pull away from a standing start in 3rd gear, really doesn't need lower gearing.

As for my speedo, even with showing over 100K miles, it functions perfectly.

The reason for the increasing speedo error when the speeds rise is not due to faulty equipment but simple physics.
It all has to do with the term "tire slip" that I used before.

Ever wonder why the center of the large rear tire wears out long before the center of the small front tire, especially if you do a lot of straight line traveling? Also the higher speed you travel, the faster the rear wears?

I could get deep into it but to keep things simple the basic answer is that you must have traction to drive the bike forward. In order to have traction you must create friction. This friction is created by the rear tire spinning slightly faster than the bike is traveling.

The faster you go, the more traction you need to drive through the air, the more tire slip is created.

A place where the math shows this phenomenon can be shown is if you do the gearing/speed calculations.
Go to a site like Gearing Commander and punch in the VTR info. Then adjust the RPM to match the VTRs built in Rev limiter (10.3K RPM)

The math says the bike will have a top speed of 183.4 MPH but we all know the bike will not pull to those speeds....but why not ?

Sure the factory has a built in error, usually around 3-4% that way any speeding is on you not the manufacturer all the rest is due to tire slip as this bike reads speed from the rear tire.

To date myself, I had this conversation with Jim Allen back when he was the US Dunlop rep http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2010/01/a ... to-retire/ and got the figure of up to 10% tire slip is possible.
Which is to say, at high speeds it is possible for the rear tire to be spinning 10% faster than the bike is actually going.

Now lets take these numbers and apply them to the Gearing Commander numbers.
Take the 183.4 MPH that the math says is the top speed and then take 3% for factory error and add 10% for tire slip for a total of 13% error.
Apply this to the 183.4 and you get.....wait for it.....159.5 or right at what the bike actually does.

It is why there is no issue with my gauges when they show over 180 MPH when the bike is topped out.

Nope... there is without doubt something wrong.
Knackered speedo or maybe kph clock or the gearing has been lowered.

[tony.mon]

Of course you could just tape a cheap satnav to the bars- the mph readout is a lot more accurate than a gauge, with a 10% tolerance and varying tyre circumferences.
There's no such thing as a lossless system, so frictional losses are also significant- chain is the worst culprit, but wheel bearings, pads contacting discs, and aerodynamics.

Are we back to Fizzie feet-on-the rear-indicators? Rollie Free?

[8541Hawk]

Nope... there is without doubt something wrong.
Knackered speedo or maybe kph clock or the gearing has been lowered.

And this is why I really don't even bother anymore.....try to help someone actually understand what is going on and get a comments like this...

Now I've only owned this bike for 22yrs as I bought it new, so hell maybe I don't know what has been done to it..... it just might have KPH clocks here in the US and I never noticed or the clocks just broke one day and I never noticed or possible gremlins popped in and swapped my gearing.....who knows.

Though I do find a couple comments kind of humors.... A VTR can't pull to the stock rev limiter in either 5th or 6th.....I would say to that, you might want to look at the bike..... Yes I have a list of parts you can't get but even back before a lot of them were installed I had no problem pulling to 10.3KRPM in 6th and for 5th...easy peezy.

One would also have to wonder how the bike mags got the top speed numbers back in 97-98 if the bike couldn't pull to top speed? Possibly the issues is running the second gen bike (with the digital dash) as they made 5hp less that the early bikes. Then again maybe SportRider likes to make up numbers....again who knows.

Now for the concept of tire slip. Since there is no way I have a clue of what is going on maybe one of you fine gentlemen can explain why when you do the mathematical calculations (go to gearing commander if you want someone to do it for you) you see the bike has a theoretical top speed of 183MPH (or what my "broken" clocks read when I am at the impossible to reach 10.3K RPM in 6th) though in the real world the bike can only do between 155-160 MPH.

Why is that?
it's not parasitic drag on the drive line, as that would limit reaching 10.3K RPM not what is happening when you are there, which is what the topic was about.
The question is why when you are turning 10.3K RPM you will be going significantly slower than the math says you will be traveling?

If the rear wheel is spinning at X RPM and you know the circumference of the tire you should be traveling at Y MPH.

But you are not....so why? Is the math lying? Are magic gremlins holding you back? The center of the rear tire wears so quickly because tire manufactures have a secret pact to sell more tires?

Or could it be, just maybe, the rear tire needs to run a touch faster than you are actually traveling to generate the traction needed to drive the bike forward? Also this difference will increase as the speeds rise due to it becoming harder to push the bike through the Atm. Of course the math backs this up and is what is being seen in the real world but yeah I know, it just can't be correct.

Then again it could just all be magic

As for talking with Jim Allen about this topic, you might want to ask Roger D. about who Jim is before you just dismiss what he has to say on the topic of tires.

Carry On and I am waiting to hear your answers as I am always up for learning something new.

[8541Hawk]

Just a quick addition....in order to take the whole A VTR can't rev to the limiter in 6th thing out of this discussion, how about 9K RPM?
Can we all agree that a VTR can rev to 9K in 6th with stock gearing?

If so, again by using the old circumference X RPM or https://www.gearingcommander.com/ you will see that you "should" be traveling at 160 MPH.

Do you really think you are traveling faster than the reported top speed in all reviews at 1,300 RPM less than some bikes can make?

Also if the bike is not going 160MPH at that RPM, why not?

[thelens]

Nope... there is without doubt something wrong.
Knackered speedo or maybe kph clock or the gearing has been lowered.

And this is why I really don't even bother anymore.....try to help someone actually understand what is going on and get a comments like this...

Now I've only owned this bike for 22yrs as I bought it new, so hell maybe I don't know what has been done to it..... it just might have KPH clocks here in the US and I never noticed or the clocks just broke one day and I never noticed or possible gremlins popped in and swapped my gearing.....who knows.

Though I do find a couple comments kind of humors.... A VTR can't pull to the stock rev limiter in either 5th or 6th.....I would say to that, you might want to look at the bike..... Yes I have a list of parts you can't get but even back before a lot of them were installed I had no problem pulling to 10.3KRPM in 6th and for 5th...easy peezy.

One would also have to wonder how the bike mags got the top speed numbers back in 97-98 if the bike couldn't pull to top speed? Possibly the issues is running the second gen bike (with the digital dash) as they made 5hp less that the early bikes. Then again maybe SportRider likes to make up numbers....again who knows.

Now for the concept of tire slip. Since there is no way I have a clue of what is going on maybe one of you fine gentlemen can explain why when you do the mathematical calculations (go to gearing commander if you want someone to do it for you) you see the bike has a theoretical top speed of 183MPH (or what my "broken" clocks read when I am at the impossible to reach 10.3K RPM in 6th) though in the real world the bike can only do between 155-160 MPH.

Why is that?
it's not parasitic drag on the drive line, as that would limit reaching 10.3K RPM not what is happening when you are there, which is what the topic was about.
The question is why when you are turning 10.3K RPM you will be going significantly slower than the math says you will be traveling?

If the rear wheel is spinning at X RPM and you know the circumference of the tire you should be traveling at Y MPH.

But you are not....so why? Is the math lying? Are magic gremlins holding you back? The center of the rear tire wears so quickly because tire manufactures have a secret pact to sell more tires?

Or could it be, just maybe, the rear tire needs to run a touch faster than you are actually traveling to generate the traction needed to drive the bike forward? Also this difference will increase as the speeds rise due to it becoming harder to push the bike through the Atm. Of course the math backs this up and is what is being seen in the real world but yeah I know, it just can't be correct.

Then again it could just all be magic

As for talking with Jim Allen about this topic, you might want to ask Roger D. about who Jim is before you just dismiss what he has to say on the topic of tires.

Carry On and I am waiting to hear your answers as I am always up for learning something new.

Your missing out on the most well known and obvious things that are well known to everyone for decades.
Perhaps the biggest is simple aerodynamics followed closely by power to weight ratio.
There is no maths that can determine what the top speed should be.
Middle of the tyre wearing out more quickly than the edges ? Errrrrrrr not even sure if you are being serious about this !
But if I lived in a place which had a single road and that road was a figure 8 shape and I lived in the middle of that 8 ....
again I am certain that the middle of the tyre would easily outlast the edges.
Just as I’m certain if you are seeing a standard VTR with standard gearing top over 180mph on your clock there is something wrong !
Because otherwise it’s you that is creating the magic.
There are plenty out there that genuinely believe the world is flat. No joke ! Check it out yourself.
There is plenty of seemingly good evidence they produce to convince people that it is so.
Of course it does not mean that it is so.

[popkat]

You don't help yourself do you. you reckon your bike shows 180mph on the clock, corr look mister that clock shows 180mph it must do it then... your's is the only one. you get a bee in your bonnet and you have to be right, but your not all the time. But then again you might own the only one, from the past I remember you seem to have a unique bike

Come on explain why when people go for top speed they pump the tyres up way above the recommended pressures, in your world of tyre slip it would slip much worse and go slower.
Explain what I asked earlier, how does a Panigale V4 go so fast with 200hp (or more) your theory of tyre slip would prevent it.

Why does every bike on a dyno not spike and show crazy speeds. yeah i know the rollers are grippy, but if you stop the "tyre slip" all dyno speed readings are wrong (I doubt they are that accurate anyway, same reason as below)

Gearing commander is theoretical, it shows what's possible from the maths, doesn't take into account anything in the real world. And who knows if it's calculated right or not, I know I've used it before for race bikes and thought it's not right.

6th gear is too long, 5th is pretty long too, if you had a close ratio box with 5th and 6th better matched it would probably help it. 6th seems more an overdrive, the bikes don't even like it until about 80mph when cruising,

Tyre slip is just wheel spin, you get it on rapid acceleration and reduced adhesion.


I can't remember what revs I was doing last time I did 150mph, it was a fair while ago, but have a feeling it was around 8500rpm but that's not a confirmed figure. I don't claim to have the fastest in a straight line bike, the only mods are a pair of cans, my first storm had DJ kit and K&N, from memory it was fitter and went probably a bit more on the speed, maybe 155mph. Both would probably have gone more but there's just no puff left, you need a very long clear road, a downhill, a tailwind, whatever to get the last bit, it's just not worth hanging on for the tiny bit more on the clock.. 100hp bike 150mph, that's pretty good I think.



.
.

[thelens]

You don't help yourself do you. you reckon your bike shows 180mph on the clock, corr look mister that clock shows 180mph it must do it then... your's is the only one. you get a bee in your bonnet and you have to be right, but your not all the time. But then again you might own the only one, from the past I remember you seem to have a unique bike

Come on explain why when people go for top speed they pump the tyres up way above the recommended pressures, in your world of tyre slip it would slip much worse and go slower.
Explain what I asked earlier, how does a Panigale V4 go so fast with 200hp (or more) your theory of tyre slip would prevent it.

Why does every bike on a dyno not spike and show crazy speeds. yeah i know the rollers are grippy, but if you stop the "tyre slip" all dyno speed readings are wrong (I doubt they are that accurate anyway, same reason as below)

Gearing commander is theoretical, it shows what's possible from the maths, doesn't take into account anything in the real world. And who knows if it's calculated right or not, I know I've used it before for race bikes and thought it's not right.

6th gear is too long, 5th is pretty long too, if you had a close ratio box with 5th and 6th better matched it would probably help it. 6th seems more an overdrive, the bikes don't even like it until about 80mph when cruising,

Tyre slip is just wheel spin, you get it on rapid acceleration and reduced adhesion.


I can't remember what revs I was doing last time I did 150mph, it was a fair while ago, but have a feeling it was around 8500rpm but that's not a confirmed figure. I don't claim to have the fastest in a straight line bike, the only mods are a pair of cans, my first storm had DJ kit and K&N, from memory it was fitter and went probably a bit more on the speed, maybe 155mph. Both would probably have gone more but there's just no puff left, you need a very long clear road, a downhill, a tailwind, whatever to get the last bit, it's just not worth hanging on for the tiny bit more on the clock.. 100hp bike 150mph, that's pretty good I think.



.
.

An there I was trying to be diplomatic
I was not that bothered about total top end, but I hate not having proper accurate answers.
I would not have bothered doing it again but i now want answers lol
All being well I shall try it again on Sunday.
Only I shall take a bit more notice of the clocks this time.
I was just watching the speedo really last time and it was not sumit I kinda planned on doing.
It was just a curious kind of moment
It did hit 150 for sure on the clock but it was still going but very leisurely
I did notice it was struggling to redline, so I shall down gear it slightly eventually.
If memory serves correctly, it was only about 5 mm off the redline.
If I can bury the needle 5mm past the redline I think it will show 160.
It was enough to tell me that going one tooth bigger on the rear will help a lot in every area and possibly an even better top end.
I could also have tucked in much better than I did last time. That will help too. But as I say... I was just playing last time lol.

[popkat]

You don't help yourself do you. you reckon your bike shows 180mph on the clock, corr look mister that clock shows 180mph it must do it then... your's is the only one. you get a bee in your bonnet and you have to be right, but your not all the time. But then again you might own the only one, from the past I remember you seem to have a unique bike

Come on explain why when people go for top speed they pump the tyres up way above the recommended pressures, in your world of tyre slip it would slip much worse and go slower.
Explain what I asked earlier, how does a Panigale V4 go so fast with 200hp (or more) your theory of tyre slip would prevent it.

Why does every bike on a dyno not spike and show crazy speeds. yeah i know the rollers are grippy, but if you stop the "tyre slip" all dyno speed readings are wrong (I doubt they are that accurate anyway, same reason as below)

Gearing commander is theoretical, it shows what's possible from the maths, doesn't take into account anything in the real world. And who knows if it's calculated right or not, I know I've used it before for race bikes and thought it's not right.

6th gear is too long, 5th is pretty long too, if you had a close ratio box with 5th and 6th better matched it would probably help it. 6th seems more an overdrive, the bikes don't even like it until about 80mph when cruising,

Tyre slip is just wheel spin, you get it on rapid acceleration and reduced adhesion.


I can't remember what revs I was doing last time I did 150mph, it was a fair while ago, but have a feeling it was around 8500rpm but that's not a confirmed figure. I don't claim to have the fastest in a straight line bike, the only mods are a pair of cans, my first storm had DJ kit and K&N, from memory it was fitter and went probably a bit more on the speed, maybe 155mph. Both would probably have gone more but there's just no puff left, you need a very long clear road, a downhill, a tailwind, whatever to get the last bit, it's just not worth hanging on for the tiny bit more on the clock.. 100hp bike 150mph, that's pretty good I think.



.
.

An there I was trying to be diplomatic
I was not that bothered about total top end, but I hate not having proper accurate answers.
I would not have bothered doing it again but i now want answers lol
All being well I shall try it again on Sunday.
Only I shall take a bit more notice of the clocks this time.
I was just watching the speedo really last time and it was not sumit I kinda planned on doing.
It was just a curious kind of moment
It did hit 150 for sure on the clock but it was still going but very leisurely
I did notice it was struggling to redline, so I shall down gear it slightly eventually.
If memory serves correctly, it was only about 5 mm off the redline.
If I can bury the needle 5mm past the redline I think it will show 160.
It was enough to tell me that going one tooth bigger on the rear will help a lot in every area and possibly an even better top end.
I could also have tucked in much better than I did last time. That will help too. But as I say... I was just playing last time lol.

I thought I was being diplomatic and the flat earther analogy did make me chuckle.

I raced my first storm and had one tooth bigger on the rear, at Brands hatch GP circuit down the hill on the back straight it showed 160 on the clock, on a faster straight it might ? have gone a bit more, the speedo though was inaccurate due to the gearing. the bike had DJ kIt, K&N, arrow pipes, it was lighter than stock, no headlight, no mirrors so slipped through the air a bit better. even in road trim it was generally faster than my current one but most I ever saw on the speedo in road trim was 160mph (still with that gearing).



.

[thelens]

You don't help yourself do you. you reckon your bike shows 180mph on the clock, corr look mister that clock shows 180mph it must do it then... your's is the only one. you get a bee in your bonnet and you have to be right, but your not all the time. But then again you might own the only one, from the past I remember you seem to have a unique bike

Come on explain why when people go for top speed they pump the tyres up way above the recommended pressures, in your world of tyre slip it would slip much worse and go slower.
Explain what I asked earlier, how does a Panigale V4 go so fast with 200hp (or more) your theory of tyre slip would prevent it.

Why does every bike on a dyno not spike and show crazy speeds. yeah i know the rollers are grippy, but if you stop the "tyre slip" all dyno speed readings are wrong (I doubt they are that accurate anyway, same reason as below)

Gearing commander is theoretical, it shows what's possible from the maths, doesn't take into account anything in the real world. And who knows if it's calculated right or not, I know I've used it before for race bikes and thought it's not right.

6th gear is too long, 5th is pretty long too, if you had a close ratio box with 5th and 6th better matched it would probably help it. 6th seems more an overdrive, the bikes don't even like it until about 80mph when cruising,

Tyre slip is just wheel spin, you get it on rapid acceleration and reduced adhesion.


I can't remember what revs I was doing last time I did 150mph, it was a fair while ago, but have a feeling it was around 8500rpm but that's not a confirmed figure. I don't claim to have the fastest in a straight line bike, the only mods are a pair of cans, my first storm had DJ kit and K&N, from memory it was fitter and went probably a bit more on the speed, maybe 155mph. Both would probably have gone more but there's just no puff left, you need a very long clear road, a downhill, a tailwind, whatever to get the last bit, it's just not worth hanging on for the tiny bit more on the clock.. 100hp bike 150mph, that's pretty good I think.



.
.

An there I was trying to be diplomatic
I was not that bothered about total top end, but I hate not having proper accurate answers.
I would not have bothered doing it again but i now want answers lol
All being well I shall try it again on Sunday.
Only I shall take a bit more notice of the clocks this time.
I was just watching the speedo really last time and it was not sumit I kinda planned on doing.
It was just a curious kind of moment
It did hit 150 for sure on the clock but it was still going but very leisurely
I did notice it was struggling to redline, so I shall down gear it slightly eventually.
If memory serves correctly, it was only about 5 mm off the redline.
If I can bury the needle 5mm past the redline I think it will show 160.
It was enough to tell me that going one tooth bigger on the rear will help a lot in every area and possibly an even better top end.
I could also have tucked in much better than I did last time. That will help too. But as I say... I was just playing last time lol.

I thought I was being diplomatic and the flat earther analogy did make me chuckle.

I raced my first storm and had one tooth bigger on the rear, at Brands hatch GP circuit down the hill on the back straight it showed 160 on the clock, on a faster straight it might ? have gone a bit more, the speedo though was inaccurate due to the gearing. the bike had DJ kIt, K&N, arrow pipes, it was lighter than stock, no headlight, no mirrors so slipped through the air a bit better. even in road trim it was generally faster than my current one but most I ever saw on the speedo in road trim was 160mph (still with that gearing).



.

What is even funnier is it is a genuine fact. Honest to god... google it !
I’m not talking history here, but a right now thing. It even hit the news lol
I was not taking the piss, more a, you can some times add 2+2 and come up with 5 with a little misunderstanding.
He clearly seems genuine and believes he is right. And that’s fine with me

Thanks for the info !
Interesting indeed. Of course the total top speed is not as important as how quickly it gets there. So even if top speed stays relatively the same, if it gets there much faster then it’s a big improvement.
I tried using the bike last Sunday kinda ignoring or forgetting the 6th gear for the most part.
I concluded that it was a different bike !
If you think of 5th as top it pulls hard !
So I think I will experiment more of this next time out.
Last Sunday I was playing around the 8500 rpm mark. In 5th of course ! The speeds I was doing was around 120-130 mark !
So I suspect I can perhaps hit 150 in 5th. And it will certainly get there vastly faster than rolling it on in 6th.
If I can I will take it flat out in 5th on sun.
If it works it will just need a brain train
Then having 6th for a touring overdrive is worthwhile on the VTR. So a bonus !
Speedo correct ish.... another bonus !
Free.... another bonus !
Ok.... I’m intrigued

[8541Hawk]

Well since you guys like to tell folks they don't have a clue....why don't you argue with these guys....
http://insideracingtechnology.com/tirebkexerpt2.htm
Fig. 6.6

During braking and acceleration tires generate longitudinal force, and there is some longitudinal slip between the tread and the road. This shows up as a difference between the actual rotation of the tire and the rotation needed if there were no slip. Under hard acceleration the tire turns a little faster, and during hard braking the tire rotates less than it would if there were no slip. These two graphs show driving (Fig. 6.7) and braking forces (Fig. 6. vs. percent slip.

if we take this statement "This shows up as a difference between the actual rotation of the tire and the rotation needed if there were no slip."
Couldn't it be concluded that the bit of the tire on the road will wear due to the different speeds from this?
Wouldn't the most used part of a tire (center) see accelerated wear due to this? Is it really such a hard concept to grasp?

or maybe these papers on the subject
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/945995

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/945995

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... .189.14152

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 28823-6_13

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... dinal-slip

and it can go on and on....lots of papers written about something that I made up.....all one need to do is a quick search for "Longitudinal Tire Slip" and you might learn something new.

So you guys can be as rude as you like but longitudinal tire slip is real. There is scientific proof it exists. So who are actually the flat earthers?
Now if you guys are done patting each other on the back because you showed me....you might want to do a bit of research.

[thelens]

Well since you guys like to tell folks they don't have a clue....why don't you argue with these guys....
http://insideracingtechnology.com/tirebkexerpt2.htm
Fig. 6.6

During braking and acceleration tires generate longitudinal force, and there is some longitudinal slip between the tread and the road. This shows up as a difference between the actual rotation of the tire and the rotation needed if there were no slip. Under hard acceleration the tire turns a little faster, and during hard braking the tire rotates less than it would if there were no slip. These two graphs show driving (Fig. 6.7) and braking forces (Fig. 6. vs. percent slip.

if we take this statement "This shows up as a difference between the actual rotation of the tire and the rotation needed if there were no slip."
Couldn't it be concluded that the bit of the tire on the road will wear due to the different speeds from this?
Wouldn't the most used part of a tire (center) see accelerated wear due to this? Is it really such a hard concept to grasp?

or maybe these papers on the subject
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/945995

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/945995

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... .189.14152

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 28823-6_13

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... dinal-slip

and it can go on and on....lots of papers written about something that I made up.....all one need to do is a quick search for "Longitudinal Tire Slip" and you might learn something new.

So you guys can be as rude as you like but longitudinal tire slip is real. There is scientific proof it exists. So who are actually the flat earthers?
Now if you guys are done patting each other on the back because you showed me....you might want to do a bit of research.

It would seem your a flat earther !
Tyre slip is often discussed when talking more about 4 wheels than two !
Where bikes are concerned it is more about the elasticity of the compound and heat that it causes.
In both cases you have it all wrong.
What you describe is literally a rolling burn out.
It simply does not exist as you describe. Neither does your bike push past the 180 mark in standard trim.
You might have been given the wrong front cog even if you did not ask. Go and count the teeth on the thing !
Since you are not even capable of seeing that yours is the only VTR on the planet that pushes past 180 on the clock in stock trim,
This discussion ends here for me. Because you seem blind to the most basic of things.
There has been aero dynamics, power to weight ratio ect which answers your questions in full, but you choose to totally ignore all and everyone’s explanations, to a degree that is rather odd.
Truth is I find the whole thing rather odd.
I am not a rude person. In this case, I do not think there are enough words to convince or explain things to you.
I will just conclude with yes... tire slip does indeed wear out the tyre faster.... just not in the way you describe. As you describe it a rear tyre would last 5 min tops. All this is so blatantly obvious that I have serious doubts if you are genuinely serious to begin with.
So please count me out of this discussion from this point.

[popkat]

I will attempt to leave this conversation now too. I just hope anyone reading this thread in the future is sensible enough to see through these rubbish claims of 180mph and max speed burnouts, it's more like facebook sh1t.. on a forum info is stored and is best that it's correct. hopefully this thread will disappear fairly quickly and never be found again.




.

[tony.mon]

Shall we do religion next?

[8541Hawk]

Yeah I am such a tw@..... Doesn't really matter that the math and physics back up what I have to say.
You guys have decided it is untrue, with no offered proof except your opinion but it is all good.

I know the published papers mean nothing..... you guys have decided.

It is also sad that sites like gearing commander are so bad at math that they can't do the simple calculations to figure out how fast the rear wheel is spinning at a given RPM and how far it should travel. Guess Honda sucks at math also as they use the same calculations.

I am sorry that your bikes can't pull to the rev-limiter. Some can though again you guys have declared it impossible.

If it were possible to pull to the limiter, the math states the speedo will be reading over 180MPH.
Again that pesky math proves it unless you can show where the calculations are wrong.
Which would answer the question of why are you not moving at the speed the math says you should be?
The wheel is spinning at a set RPM so it should travel a set distance. Instead the wheel is traveling a shorter distance.
Why?
Math to hard to figure out?
Where is the loss?


All this chatter about you can't get to 10,300 RPMs.....Ever consider my bike is far from stock?
That it just might be a possibility that with over 110HP at the rear wheel I can get to and past 10.3K RPM as I also am running an HRC ECU and a Full Akra exhaust, besides all the rest of the bits which lets the bike rev in the upper limits much better than the stock ? Though I'm sure you will claim this is somehow untrue also.

So me looking at the speedo pushed past 180 is just a lie because you guys say so... No proof but you know.

So again I am refereed to as a flat earther because I am using math and physics to explain why a scientifically proven phenomenon is occurring.

The whole...oh that's about 4 wheels not 2......Sorry wrong.
Latitudinal Tire Slip or Angular slip, to not use big words, is related to 4 wheel vehicles
Longitudinal Tire Slip or Straight forward doesn't care and in fact is more pronounced in bikes as you have a smaller contact patch to apply the power.
Pretty obvious....the more tires or contact patch, the less slip.

So if those papers where only about 4 wheel vehicles one would have to extrapolate that a 2 wheel vehicle would experience a higher rate of longitudinal slip due to less available starting traction. So all the provided graphs should be more pronounced.

So even though you can not find one shred of evidence anywhere to dispute Longitudinal Tire Slip or any of the published papers on the subject, it doesn't apply here because you say so.

Ok fine you win and have a nice day