On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:12:07 -0800, Jeffrey Fowler
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 5:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:53:52 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
burning.
ERic

I think the issue with a motorcycle reaching those speeds is not so much
horsepower as stream lining. After all, if there was no resistance of any
kind, you could reach 264 mph with a 1 horsepower engine. The only
motorcycles that have reached speeds close to that I know about have had
fully enclosed shells. It was clear from Gunner's original description that
was not the case. I am not sure why there is so much debate about this.
Gunner is a text-book classic sociopath. He will say whatever he thinks he
can get away with to gain status among his percieved peers. When questioned,
he resorts to threats.
I know about the streamlining. That's why I was thinking about how
much HP it would take to actually push a sit on bike and rider at high
speed.
Eric

For a bicycle the force necessary to overcome "wind resistance"
requires 216,228,92 watts, or 289.96 H.P. at 264 MPH. This, of course,
does not include the losses due to internal friction in the engine,
rolling resistance of tires and so on, and is calculated solely on
cross sectional area, I'm sure.

You need to know something about the surface area.

It was taken from an article on "bicycle aerodynamics" and used a
"standard" area (whatever that was). The formula was apparently
tweaked by comparing it with actual torque and RPM figures taken from
the power meters that are now fitted to some bikes.
--
Cheers,

John B.