Kawasaki ZX-10R Forum banner

21 - 40 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
It boggles my mind that this can be figured out in a matter of weeks in the aftermarket, yet the factory engineers can't work it out over the past few years. You think it's a street vs track compromise?
I am sure that the comment this bike can be made to handle like a 600 is stretching things just a little bit. Maybe a lot.

Yes, it's a street vs. track compromise. But the bike will never handle anything like a 600 no matter what anyone does. 600s can get away with 23 degrees of rake and sub-100mm trail numbers, wheelbase in the sub-54" range.

Try those numbers on a bike with 200 rwhp and see what happens.

MotoGP bikes have long wheelbase, lots of rake and trail. They cannot turn with a Moto2 bike (600cc) let alone a Moto3 machine.

Literbikes are literbikes, 600s are 600s. Each can be taken to a certain limit based on design, materials, components, and rider.

It's the sheer HP and high speeds of the literbike that make it thrilling but those also limit cornering speeds and braking performance.

The ZX-10R is a literbike AND a streetbike so we can see where that puts it, squarely in the middle of a huge compromise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
Poo... Keep that front wheel up off the pavement, toss the bike like a dirt bike, and rear wheel steer...

For tight twisty back road bash... narrower, higher profile rear tire, quickens the beast.. :thumbsup: :wink:
 

·
Chairman of the Board
Joined
·
16,037 Posts
I understand what LDH and White Fang are saying about the manufacturer essentially dumbing down the bike for street sales. Still I like what Animal said. It does seem that starting with basic good chassis geometry would only make sense. I mean what better way to squelch chassis issues than to just make it right from the bones up to start with? Besides didn't Kawi already build "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable"? Gen 1 right?
:grin2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
I understand what LDH and White Fang are saying about the manufacturer essentially dumbing down the bike for street sales. Still I like what Animal said. It does seem that starting with basic good chassis geometry would only make sense. I mean what better way to squelch chassis issues than to just make it right from the bones up to start with? Besides didn't Kawi already build "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable"? Gen 1 right?
:grin2:

That is what they have done. Everything on a motorcycle is a compromise. Do you want stability or do you want agility, do you want to be able to hit your braking marker on a dime every single time you trailbrake into the turn or do you want that perfect drive out that lets you use all the throttle can offer, do you want almost impossible levels of rear traction or do you want to have time to react to a rear wheel slide when the tire does break loose under power because you can pick one of the two, but to get both you will have to settle for a compromise and that is what you have here and on every other cutting edge sportbike made by major players.

Again the real bottom line is they are selling a streetbike built to a price point with street tires on it for use on public roads. If they were marketing it as a push start racebike for track only use then I might be a little more vocal as to why it wants to run me wide coming out of every turn, but even then every rider still has to set-up even the best handling bikes for their own riding style, how much they lean off the bike, how upright they force the bike before getting on the gas, the size of the tires not just in diameter, but how much they compress while riding on the edge etc There is so much to take into consideration that there is no way a one size fits all approach would ever work. Lastly when all else fails it is up to the rider to adjust their way of riding the bike to make up for whatever the chassis lacks. That to me is the hardest part of test riding motorcycles. I am excellent at setting bikes up to handle properly which lets the bike work with me instead of against me, but when I get the best possible handling out of the parts I have to work with then at that point I don't like having to over-ride them to force them to do something they don't naturally want to do. It puts me outside my comfort zone and it shows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
I understand what LDH and White Fang are saying about the manufacturer essentially dumbing down the bike for street sales. Still I like what Animal said. It does seem that starting with basic good chassis geometry would only make sense. I mean what better way to squelch chassis issues than to just make it right from the bones up to start with? Besides didn't Kawi already build "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable"? Gen 1 right?
:grin2:
It doesn't really cost any more to make a bike with one geometry setup as another once you have the research done. And KHI certainly has that sorted out. So the bike is in no way "dumbed down".

I thought about this last night for five seconds and realized that this thread is based on one measurement session and ZERO test-riding of the bike.

So we have someone, most likely Chicken Little, proclaiming the bike is poorly-sorted and badly set-up from the factory, just by measuring it and claiming they've got all the answers.

Sorry folks but as I said before, I was using Computrack in the late 1990's and after, and know what it is all about.

We can't just "shoot" a bike and then say, "Oh, well, Kawasaki got this all wrong, you'd better change this, that, and the other and then have us measure it a few more times but WOW, the bike is WAY off from where it ought to be."

That's laughable.

The bike has essentially the same geometry as the Gen 5, with a longer wheelbase and slightly longer swingarm and revised riding position to put the rider more over the front tire -- that last is a very good thing.

Forget all these numbers and measurements as being predictive of anything, at least as assessed by this outfit.

Without an exhaustive test session with a capable rider, we don't know a thing.

Also think about the newest R1's numbers, much shorter wheelbase, tighter rake/trail numbers, yet even that bike hardly lapped faster at WSIR than the Gen 4 with Jason Pridmore at the controls. And the Gen 4 had higher mid-corner speeds and a quicker roll rate, but better stability.

MotoGP bikes have rake/trail numbers even MORE conservative than the Gen 4 and 5, and LONG wheelbases and swingarms. They turn pretty good.

Oh yeah, KHI did build a "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable". It was the H2 Mach IV!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
It doesn't really cost any more to make a bike with one geometry setup as another once you have the research done. And KHI certainly has that sorted out. So the bike is in no way "dumbed down".

I thought about this last night for five seconds and realized that this thread is based on one measurement session and ZERO test-riding of the bike.

So we have someone, most likely Chicken Little, proclaiming the bike is poorly-sorted and badly set-up from the factory, just by measuring it and claiming they've got all the answers.

Sorry folks but as I said before, I was using Computrack in the late 1990's and after, and know what it is all about.

We can't just "shoot" a bike and then say, "Oh, well, Kawasaki got this all wrong, you'd better change this, that, and the other and then have us measure it a few more times but WOW, the bike is WAY off from where it ought to be."

That's laughable.

The bike has essentially the same geometry as the Gen 5, with a longer wheelbase and slightly longer swingarm and revised riding position to put the rider more over the front tire -- that last is a very good thing.

Forget all these numbers and measurements as being predictive of anything, at least as assessed by this outfit.

Without an exhaustive test session with a capable rider, we don't know a thing.

Also think about the newest R1's numbers, much shorter wheelbase, tighter rake/trail numbers, yet even that bike hardly lapped faster at WSIR than the Gen 4 with Jason Pridmore at the controls. And the Gen 4 had higher mid-corner speeds and a quicker roll rate, but better stability.

MotoGP bikes have rake/trail numbers even MORE conservative than the Gen 4 and 5, and LONG wheelbases and swingarms. They turn pretty good.

Oh yeah, KHI did build a "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable". It was the H2 Mach IV!
Boy, I guess you just have ALL the answers. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Boy, I guess you just have ALL the answers. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure I was saying I don't have any answers.

We will have answers when the real tests come through, with real riders, not motojournos, although the riding impressions so far are very positive.

Or we can do like they did with the dyno thread and try to solve everything on the Internet without putting a tire to pavement.

For Pete's sake, let's see how the bike does and then try to find where it can be improved.

Let's get the metrics in the real world under real condtions.

Otherwise let's just get an X-Box program and twiddle our thumbs.

Dang -- I am beginning to sound like Skydork...:iamwithstupid:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
I'm pretty sure I was saying I don't have any answers.

We will have answers when the real tests come through, with real riders, not motojournos, although the riding impressions so far are very positive.

Or we can do like they did with the dyno thread and try to solve everything on the Internet without putting a tire to pavement.

For Pete's sake, let's see how the bike does and then try to find where it can be improved.

Let's get the metrics in the real world under real condtions.

Otherwise let's just get an X-Box program and twiddle our thumbs.

Fuck me -- I am beginning to sound like Skydork...:iamwithstupid:
Well I can tell you that they did test (MotoAmerica riders), and the numbers confirmed what they were feeling. 117mm of trail on Dunlop Slicks is no bueno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
I understand what LDH and White Fang are saying about the manufacturer essentially dumbing down the bike for street sales. Still I like what Animal said. It does seem that starting with basic good chassis geometry would only make sense. I mean what better way to squelch chassis issues than to just make it right from the bones up to start with? Besides didn't Kawi already build "a death trap motorcycle that is unstable"? Gen 1 right?
:grin2:
I ride a gen 1, and wouldn't want any other gen.

There is no "right" for all the different uses.

It is up to the rider to start with what is most right, and prep it to make it absolutely right for how they use it. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I am sure that the comment this bike can be made to handle like a 600 is stretching things just a little bit. Maybe a lot.
All of your points are entirely spot on. However, the massive thing I notice missing in your breakdown is the mention of rotating inertia. No matter what suspension setup you dial in, absolutely nothing invented to this point has been able to counteract the gyroscopic forces of big heavy 1000 parts slinging around almost as fast as smaller 600 parts. Mladin and Doyle in Sonoma measured trap speeds through 6 at infineon and compared vs Yates on the 600FX bike. What they found was the 600 was pulling 5-7mph fairly consistently on the superbike.

The reason this was launched was Honda's big push to turn 600FX bikes into "superbike," class under the guise of safety. The argument was made by everyone (read: not honda) was that the higher corner speeds were contributing to the lack of safety, not big displacement. But, at the end of the day, essentially unlimited 600 vs. unlimited superbike.. the 600's still run faster through the corner. It's not really curb weight, it isn't really setup, it's not budget. It's rotational inertia.

One interesting thing of mention is how much longer the BSB/SBK swingarm is than the factory arm. They're trying to have the best of both worlds, as LDS was speaking to. Trying to keep wheelbase short as possible, while leveraging against big HP.. flickability vs. driving hard off of corner exit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,976 Posts
Just to toss something into the pot... 600's are lame at high altitude. If a rider does sea level + high altitude as a day ride, with some serious freeway speeds where truckers travel in convoy... They have a reason to have versatile power (like a ZX-10).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Back to topic.
After reading post #11 (evallarta1), I'm thinking what should we do about 2016 geometry then?
How much stuck are we with exessive trail when we shoud not raise rear because swingarm angle may be perfect already?

Lets say we are not moving swingarm pivot (stays standard) and try to get rake from 25 to 24 to steer better.
We lower front some 20mm (almost an inch) and set swingarm angle to 12.5 after that.
Let's assume doing this we got acceptable trail number (rake arround 24 degrees).

Questions:
Trail, rake, swingarm numbers are better now, but are we now having problem with too much weigth on front tyre, beacuse front was lowered too much??
Now lets use swingarm kit inserts and move pivot point down as much as possible, put forks to standard and set swingarm angle to "twelve comma something".
How much does new swingarm pivot position help reduce trail (and rake)?
Will it be enough to get trail in ballpark for fast A group rider?
Or are in addition triple clamps with bigger offset needed?
 

·
Chairman of the Board
Joined
·
16,037 Posts
I ride a gen 1, and wouldn't want any other gen.

There is no "right" for all the different uses.

It is up to the rider to start with what is most right, and prep it to make it absolutely right for how they use it. :thumbsup:
I ride a gen 1 as well and have for 12 years. While I do understand that "there is no right for different uses" the 10r isn't made for different uses. Its a sport bike. That being said I can bet you that in general most folks will do faster lap times on a GSXR 750 than they will on a 1st gen 10R. The 1st gen 10 is inherently twitchy and unforgiving with a very raw power delivery. The Gixxer is much more forgiving. Certainly every rider is different but that's really not a part of the equation here. We are talking about chassis geometry. The fact is that certain chassis characteristics will cause the bike to behave in certain ways. All Im saying is that as a manufacturer I would think you would want to start with as close to a perfect set up as possible.
:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
I ride a gen 1 as well and have for 12 years. While I do understand that "there is no right for different uses" the 10r isn't made for different uses. Its a sport bike. That being said I can bet you that in general most folks will do faster lap times on a GSXR 750 than they will on a 1st gen 10R. The 1st gen 10 is inherently twitchy and unforgiving with a very raw power delivery. The Gixxer is much more forgiving. Certainly every rider is different but that's really not a part of the equation here. We are talking about chassis geometry. The fact is that certain chassis characteristics will cause the bike to behave in certain ways. All Im saying is that as a manufacturer I would think you would want to start with as close to a perfect set up as possible.
:thumbsup:
Absolutely. Very true re: the GSX-R, but how did Suzuki screw up the TL (Tankslappin')1000R? That was a beast. One bike I don't think I ever personally rode, but what a beast.
 
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
Top