Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:19 pm
by Strika
Gosling1 wrote:I-K wrote:Gosling1 wrote:It took huge balls to ride a stock Z1 to 200,
...and not for the most obvious reason, either. Mostly, the huge balls served as stabilisers.
absolutely ! One big nad hangin' out each side to balance the old shitter !!!
Back in the 'Good Old Days', every new Kawasaki sold came with a Free Hinge in the middle of the frame................
Gos!!!!!!
Did you re-read that post before ya hit send???
You're sounding like a Ulysses member!
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm
by MIKER
Kawasaki's just keep getting faster & better ..
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:01 pm
by Gosling1
Strika wrote:....Did you re-read that post before ya hit send???
You're sounding like a Ulysses member!
NEVER will I submit to them NEVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:09 pm
by Rumbles
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:10 pm
by Gosling1
limited to 299, as are all the big-bangers.
The 2000 model ZX12R wasn't limited to 299, as the poster suggests. The infamous *unrestricted* model
is good for about 310 or thereabouts, maybe a couple more with a tailwind. The Busa of the same vintage was about 315.......so maybe 1 or 2% *faster* at absolute top-end...
Of course, speedo error never gets a mention when top-speeds are being discussed eh ?? I would love to get a radar reading at PI just to see how close the speedo was to actual *speed*...
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:29 pm
by z900/zx9
The first infamous ride with ksrc dubbed( the side cover chase) on the return trip to melbourne i recall hitting around 2 oclock and the guy behind me said when we stopped he had to overtake as there was all sorts of stuff comin out of the old z 900 and he wasnt hangin behind to watch it explode
Well it never did
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:32 pm
by Rumbles
Gosling1 wrote:limited to 299, as are all the big-bangers.
The 2000 model ZX12R wasn't limited to 299, as the poster suggests. The infamous *unrestricted* model
is good for about 310 or thereabouts, maybe a couple more with a tailwind. The Busa of the same vintage was about 315.......so maybe 1 or 2% *faster* at absolute top-end...
Of course, speedo error never gets a mention when top-speeds are being discussed eh ?? I would love to get a radar reading at PI just to see how close the speedo was to actual *speed*...
had that discussion with a mate the other day (speedo variation) because his R1 was reading 296 and i went passed him without too much effort and my bike is supposedly limited to299
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:43 pm
by Gosling1
Yep, his bike was *reading* 296, with only 5% speedo error, it knocks his *actual* speed back to around 280 or so.......could even be a little less, speedo error is supposed to increase with speed.....
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:26 pm
by Rumbles
fair enough cant expect it to be actually doing 296 it is a yamahahahaha
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:03 am
by Neka79
Rumbles wrote:fair enough cant expect it to be actually doing 296 it is a yamahahahaha
it wasnt falling off a cliff was it??
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
by Rumbles
no but maybe it should have been
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:04 pm
by Neka79
Rumbles wrote:no but maybe it should have been
woulda been a good start...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:36 am
by Rumbles
Neka79 wrote:Rumbles wrote:no but maybe it should have been
woulda been a good start...
not a fan of the yamahaha, cant blame
you i wouldnt own one either.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:39 am
by Poyda
Neka79 wrote:Rumbles wrote:fair enough cant expect it to be actually doing 296 it is a yamahahahaha
it wasnt falling off a cliff was it??
Terminal Velocity for any falling object is 260km/h i think, so rules that theory out.
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:40 am
by Rumbles
Turns out terminal velocity on a K2 isnt real flash either. racing my cousin yesterday on a modified K2 and his speedo was topped out at 299 and away i went again, admittedly he was beside me up to around 260-270 better effort than the yammie