How fast will it go?

Speed3Chris

I like Dick
I had a 69 h1 that thing was nasty drum front brake.The h2 had disc .Was fun back then nothing could beat you from a stop light but another h2.I had chambers and all the good stuff on mine .It would eat a 900 in a stop light drag.first 3 gears the wheel would be off the ground.they shook so bad everything would fall off them .I even lost the lic plate lol.I dont know if I had more balls back then or if it was all the drugs and drinking we did back then lol.I ran 11s in the 1/4 mile with mine that was fast in the 70s.
Was a great era wasn't it? Drugs, sex and rock and roll. I wouldn't change a thing.
Many years ago a buddy of mine had a 900 4 cycle Kaw and he ran nitrous on it. :) That dude was a serious speed junkie. He blew the motor up running too much juice. :)
11's is still fast. I believe we all slow down with age. If we didn't the laws of average would have eliminated most of us by now. :motorbike2:
 
Last edited:

Speed3Chris

I like Dick
What a great article ivar with some very interesting metrics. Thanks for posting that.

Framing the time period of 1973, this was the low ebb of the auto industry with high performance cars having some of the lowest performance ever. So if you wanted to go real fast, a so called superbike was the ticket.

But...the superbikes of 30+ years ago aren't much faster than our latter day bonnies....in the case of the CB750, the bike that supplanted the bonnie 650, perhaps a bit slower than our bikes.
All bikes tested had about the same RWHP give and take, in some instances more....same weight...excepting the portly ZL1Kaw and CB Honda in the 500 lb range and almost the same performance.

So our bikes at almost 900cc's would be in the mix of so called superbikes back in the day.

The other notable thing...is how all the superbikes were basically standards which pre-dated the largely American phenomena referred to as muscle cruisers which have permeated the landscape all for the sake of fashion.
 
Last edited:

mikenva

Rocker
Thats a good article .That really made me think back in time.One thing they said that was spot on .When leaveing the line with the h2 you had better be up on the pipe enough to spin the tire or you had big trouble.I wish i had a old hard tire for my bike like back then would be alot easyer to keep the wheel on the ground out the hole.Thats the only thing that keeps me from taking it to the strip,its hard to leave the line with it.I think jojjie said he slips the clutch on his turbo bonnie .
 

Speed3Chris

I like Dick
Thats a good article .That really made me think back in time.One thing they said that was spot on .When leaveing the line with the h2 you had better be up on the pipe enough to spin the tire or you had big trouble.I wish i had a old hard tire for my bike like back then would be alot easyer to keep the wheel on the ground out the hole.Thats the only thing that keeps me from taking it to the strip,its hard to leave the line with it.I think jojjie said he slips the clutch on his turbo bonnie .
Many interesting revelations in the article. What you say can be applied to the CB750 where they tried the gumball tire on and it would overpower the clutch and was quicker with the stock rear tire. The other thing was how good the Trident went...even with pretty average hp. They said gearing was spot on. Would be interesting to see how the Trident is geared relative to today's bonnie. No question the 865 bonnie would do the quarter quicker with 17t front sprocket. Technique, gearing and tire compound play heavily in quarter mile times as mentioned. Most of those bikes didn't have more RWHP than today's bonnie with pipes and NARK...a few had less. Also with all the hysteria about 6 speed bikes of late, bikes back in that time were just evolving from 4 to 5 gears and two tested still had 4 speeds....kind of like cars back then versus now.
 
Last edited:

Jimbon

Scooter
Is this your clumsy way of saying...

Here we go again: more personal insults used as a put-down in support of your clear emotional need to believe in the ideological certainty that any particular claimed 'scientific fact' is right for now and ever more, especially if it appears to confirm your belief in your superior knowledge and your belief that this proves you right.

Unfortunately for slide rule nerds, that's a load of bollocks:

Reality, history (my discipline), shows that virtually every claimed 'scientific fact' and methodology for reaching that fact has later had to be admitted to have been wrong to a greater or lesser degree but this is (philosophically conveniently for those who believe in science fact rather than hypothesis) invariably put down to the 'progress of science'.

This assumption/need for factually, now and forever, certainty is part of a mindset exhibited in European/North American culture by the development of the canon of western philosophical and theological dogma based on Plato and Aristotle's interpretation of Parmenides's assertion that 'reality is a whole, constant shiny thing': therefore any 'scientific fact' or methodology that is presently considered gospel, along with the prevailing religious and political status quo, is only challenged by those heretics too stupid or wicked to see or admit the truth: Inquisition, Communism, National Socialism, Free market Utilitarian Capitalism, Newton's Mechanical Universe...

Unfortunately for those in need of certainty, belief in the constant universe/scientifically certain unchanging reality is an illusion, as any up to date physicist worth his salt will tell you.

But it's clear that now you've taken a position, any evidence to the contrary, whether cognitive first hand experience or assumed projection from a different experiment based methodology, will be dismissed condescending as wrong. So I'll remember not to bother posting on threads taken over by the faithful.

Keep banging the rocks together: I'm off to the pub.
 
Last edited:

BlueJ

Blue Haired Freak
:rock:
...So I'll remember not to bother posting on threads taken over by the faithful...

Or you could use the "ignore user" feature, which I've found has greatly enhanced my enjoyment of many of those selfsame threads.

:ignore:
 

mikenva

Rocker
Ha Mikeinva funny...

You are right when it domes to modified motors, the air box is of no use. But as every single pressure test, air fuel gauge and dyno so far has shown - for a stock engine a cut up air box is 99% as good as pods.

There is nothing wrong with a guy who has a stock motor, will keep it stock and wants to tinker around and cut up his airbox for no money. With jets , pipes, etc he does get a real HP gain, maybe 10 - 15 hp .Its right there on Piemans chart, ventura's testing and the OP of this thread.
sal thats true but the fact is that most everyone that puts that much time ,money and work into there bike wont stop looking for more power .Once you go to the dark side it never ends .You know I told Ventura the same things when he started his testing .He has pods now that might tell you something.What many of the guys dont relize is all or most of that testing was done years ago thats why we have ark lol.I would not go that the air box mods are 99% as good more like 90% as good all depending on what pipes and other mild bolt ons you have.I tell the new guys to get rid of the air box to try and save them money and work that could be spent to where they will end up at the end.When I first got my bike I did pred pipes and told the wife well thats prob all ill do to it lol.I try and tell new guys ether leave it stock and ride it or come up with a long term plan to what you want in the end that way you dont buy what you dont need Thats the only way you will save a dime on hot rodding these bikes.I hear alot of people say this part wont give you this or that ,but they dont know because they havent used that part.To me thats bull shit they should not talk the talk unless they have walked the walk.I have wasted as much time money and work on these bikes as most learning things the hard way lol.
 

northcountry

Two Stroke
H1-2

Now I better understand your need for speed Mike. :)
No doubt you remember when the h1 came out. A friend of mine had one in high school and used to cut class and ride the back wheel down the road for everyone to watch. He was a pretty outrageous guy....good looking and a tough guy who used to win his share of fist fights. One of the most popular kids in the school and ended up in prison for selling drugs. He always had fast motorcycles and cars. No idea where he is now.
Lots of articles were written about how many that rode a h1 killed theirself on them as the power onset was outrageous when it came on the curve as you know. Lots of them went over backwards.

I found some well written words about the h1 and h2. They were iconic bikes to be sure.

Production: 1972-1975 (Maybe?)
Engine: 748cc Air-cooled two-stroke inline-3
BHP: 74
Price Today: Varies, but shouldn’t be more than about $7,000

Why is it important?: It was knick named “the Widow maker”. Come on, how could it NOT be important! In 1969, Kawasaki released the 500cc H1 two-stroke triple to both fear and praise from the motorcycling public. Nothing else on earth could accelerate as fast the H1, but the flimsy frame, crappy brakes and hairy nature of the big two-stroke engine scared the living daylights out of most riders. Apparently, the fine people at Kawasaki weren’t pleased with freaking out 80% of their customers. This was unacceptable for the world’s most fearsome motorcycle manufacturer. So, they decided to make a bike that would soil the pants of even the most hardened two-wheeled warrior. Enter the big, bad H2 750. The new H2 was 250cc’s bigger than the H1, and had about 14 more horsepower. Now, Kawasaki claimed the H2 was more tamed than the H1. They cited the fact that due to the H2’s larger capacity, the spread of power was much broader than the H1, enabling the rider to putz along casually all day without any real struggle for more power. However, everyone knew the wider power band was just a side effect of the increased engine size. The H2 was meant to be jaw-droppingly fast, and it accomplished that goal beautifully. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could out accelerate a well-ridden H2. If you were dumb enough to try and race an H2, the only thing you’d see after that light turned green would be a cloud of blue smoke and a very, very brave man or woman hanging on to their machine for dear life. And this is exactly why the H2 is an icon. It dared to be dangerous. In a time where motorcycles were drifting into the boring, stuffy world of four-strokes, Kawasaki comes out with one last two-stroke hurrah. It reminded the world that living dangerous is still fun.
__________________

Was Fun- H1 converted to 750 before H2, Wiseco teflon f4 pistons, 40mm Mikunis, 20% nitro-80% methanol, crome-moly frame, Dr. Gorden Blairs formula chambers, triumph trophy bars!!, etc.. Poor old pics.
 

Attachments

  • Scan.jpg
    Scan.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Scan 1.jpg
    Scan 1.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 0

Kframe

Street Tracker
Fast enough, is my standard answer.:rock:

If you wanna get scientific about it, well, I saw 111mph on the GPS before I backed off. :bug: Bike felt like it had more, but the front end was feeling feathery...

Nowadays, I just take deserted country roads and go up to 90 or so and back down, that satisfies my 'go-fast-fix'.

2007, T100, TOR's, pods, jetted appropriately by A/F ratio gauge (13's).
;)
-K
 

Sal Paradise

Hooligan
Bike magazine this month has a feature called The Indispensible Bike Guide which has stats for almost every bike made. It lists the Bonneville Top Speed as 125 MPH and I think thats probably accurate if you run every gear to redline lay down on the tank and tuck in for a while.
 

BlueJ

Blue Haired Freak
Bike magazine this month has a feature called The Indispensible Bike Guide which has stats for almost every bike made. It lists the Bonneville Top Speed as 125 MPH and I think thats probably accurate if you run every gear to redline lay down on the tank and tuck in for a while.



Downhill. :)
 

Sal Paradise

Hooligan
Ok, motorcyle news says 112 mph for the 790. Does that sound plausible to you guys?

My relatively stock bike can go over 115 indicated easily with more to go. So I don'thave anything to argue against Bike magazine's number.

The main problem with the Bonny breaking the ton is it better be a racetrack or a runway because the stock wheels and suspension are not adequate for 100+ mph speeds on a road.
 

BlueJ

Blue Haired Freak
Check out this link, which will let you see your top attainable speed as a function of tires size and front/rear sprocket size. Plain old geometry. To get to those top speeds in 5th gear you'll need to soup up the motor, but unless you're mounting a jet turbine engine, these calculations tell the tale.
 
Top