Kawasaki Ninja 1000 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I’ve been using some performance modeling software that I’ve used for cars for quite some time. Basically it allows me to run a lot of testing scenarios based on changing different parameters and seeing the result.

It takes a while to setup a vehicle profile but once you have it setup, you can play with it and see the effect of various mods. You can do roll-ons in top gear, 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. It does a pretty good job determining top speed of the vehicle as well.

You’ll need info like torque, hp, all internal gear ratios, final drive, tire sizes, frontal area, etc. So I took the time to setup a profile for the N1K so I could play a few different scenarios to see the effects.

I was prompted to do this by my anecdotal evidence of going to a 16T sprocket up front didn’t seem to make much, if any, difference in the 1/4 mile and a very negligible one at most roll-on speeds that I do. I wasn’t concerned as much about absolute times as relative differences. Based on my modeling though of a stock N1K, my first “pass” was at [email protected] mph.

So after running a few scenarios, I tried to optimize the launch and shift rpms and a few other things. I ended up with at [email protected] So this became my stock baseline (15T/41). I then did the same for the 16T/41, 16/39 & 16/37. I also did roll-on scenarios in various gears.

What I learned is that a 16/41 results in almost the exact same results in the quarter. It is just .06 seconds slower and same trap speeds. The 16/39 was about a .1 off that and the 16/37 comes in at [email protected] Still pretty good and shows how flexible the motor truly is.

So what about roll-on? Obviously the shorter gearing will help in 6th but not as much as you might think. From the 16/41 combo, it is only marginally slow UNTIL I get well over 100 in 6th. From 60-90 or 70-100, it is only about .3 to .4 seconds slower and still **** strong. Even going all the way out to the 16/37 isn’t as bad as you think. Most bikes would be happy to pull as well as the N1K does with the equivalent of a 7th or 8th gear. If you drop to 5th with the tall gearing, it is about the same as the stocker in 6th. Not too hard to downshift anyway but most time it wouldn’t be needed.

So for the heck of it, I tried shorter gearing combos. So if you are willing go to a smaller front or larger rear, it will reward you with better ¼ mile times. You can shave off about .2 seconds or so by even shorter gearing. What I also learned in general is only run to 11k in first and then shift at 10.5k later from 2nd & 3rd and then at 10k from 4th.

Also the taller gearing (not shorter) makes it easier to launch. There is a wider plateau for a sweet spot where you can still have a good run. With the shorter gearing, it rewards you if you hit it just right but the margin to go from hero to zero is pretty narrow.

Anyway it was pretty fascinating to model different scenarios and see the effects of adding HP or removing weight. Note to self – need to get on a better diet. It will make a bigger difference than Ivan's reflash for me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
I have to say Day Trippin that wealth of data has to be of great assistance to any one contemplating various sprocket ratios; I decided on the 16/39 to reduce revs and I guessed it would also improve fuel consumption. Several tests I read up on suggested a fuel consumption of up to 7l per 100 kms though obviously less with average riders.I am using very close to 5l per 100 kms,on a local district ride of around 200 plus kms at speeds of up 120 kph, So I feel the higher gearing has been to my advantage,and I really have not felt any less acceleration when needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Day, thats just too cool.

I'd love to see what you'd get with a "full ivans" package on it. Thats weight at around 475 (full exhaust) and ecu reflashed hp of 147.

I still wish we had a program for feel. No, heres what Id like to see. Probably impossible, but it would be fun.

My thought would be how something feels at 1/4 throttle, 1/2 and full. We'd assign a number to this feel.

I dont know how many time this summer Id have the front wheel up, 2nd gear, and still not be at full throttle.

The reason is because you can jump on a 2015 r1 and open the throttle 3/4 in 3rd gear and it feels like a gsxr 750.

A way to put a number on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Info = power

It also saves me from making mistakes too in time, money or direction. I was totally surprised how consistent this bike can be based on the sim. What is really cool is how close the modeling seemed to be to my real life experience.

RC - I'll run the numbers tomorrow on Ivan's. I have to find a dyno plot and input the a enough points to get an idea. Sometimes the dyno charts are hard to read. I think I can get close enough to give an idea though.

Keep in mind that once you are in sub 12 second 1/4's, any gains don't come easy. So even a .2 second gain is significant when you are already in the 10's.

FYI - I ran top speed scenarios. I had to take a guess at the drag coefficient and frontal area. With optimum gearing the N1K should be right at about 159 or so. The stock gearing does limit the top speed. You need to go to at least the 16T front for best Vmax. Stock gearing looks to clip about 3-4mph from the top speed.

I can also solve for best gear ratios as well. It takes more time but that is pretty cool as well. The wider gear range of the 16T does really help the bike at as it has such a wide torque peak. Absolutely no value in a close ratio gear box other than in a very limited scenario.

I wish I had more time to play with different scenarios but only so much time in the day and I actually need to "work" when I am at work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
It probably wouldn't be a good idea to state my top speed in a public forum, but I will say the last 5 or so MPH took the longest to reach. Stock gearing and ECU. A 16t sprocket is on the way right now. I was checking out the gearing commander site and at 10mph for example, the RPM difference in 1st was only 100RPM, and 388 at 80mph in 6th, 676rpm at 160.A 55 series rear tire would gain another 44rpm in 1st at 10mph, 100rpm at 80 and 300 at 160 in 6th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Ok, I am a sucker for this stuff. I went back to my work computer to run some more scenarios. Here is the good news/bad news with Ivan's tune. This is based on the numbers for a full tune including exhaust and all other mods.

So in my sims, it is worth about .2 seconds and 1.8 mph in the 1/4. This is a significant improvement however if you look ahead you can get that same ET improvement with shorter gearing alone and with the stock heavier bike. As we know that the gearing would suck anywhere but in the 1/4 mile. So I ran the scenario going with shorter gearing. It ends up dropping about another .12 seconds off. And we gain another .5 mph trap speed.

So while this is a significant improvement, the real gains are noticed once you get above 80mph in a pure max acceleration scenario. It is clearly moving faster/quicker for any distance once you are over 90. It is decisive.

So what does this show? Just like if you run a ZX10R with the N1K, you are can mix it up nicely and hang close to them in sub 100 mph range on the street. In a track scenario you are going to get pulled no matter what whether you have an Ivan N1K or stock. They just give up too much HP and weight to the SS bikes. Still it is interesting to see. Ivan's will definitely pull better than a stock N1K while running at 16T up front as well at any speed in 6th. So I can have my cake and eat it too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
One last thing I noticed, the real key to a faster N1K isn't more HP/TQ but put it on a diet. That is what's holding it back the most. You get more gain from shedding the stock mufflers from weight savings than you do the 2-3 hp you'll get from slip-ons. I am definitely doubling down on my diet to get back under 200# some day (in the next century). :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Day, that part about weight is true. Back in the 70'sand earlyn80's, quarter mile time was everything in a magazine test. If one bike ended up with a quarter mile time .001sec faster than the other, it was a clear cut winner.

I'll bet there were 25 different 4 into 1 pipes made for the kz 900/1000. Maybe more. Of course, once THEIR pipe was bolted on, you would gain so much horsepower, the quarter mile time would drop by .5 seconds! Obviously, it would have been poor marketing to mention the gain was because of the reduced weight, so they usually ignored that.


Keep in mind, I'm an idiot and barely literate, but the part I found fascinating is how losing 100lbs helps acceleration but does little to nothing for top speed.

If we took a 600lb stream liner and a 700lb model, same exact shape, the light one would get to top speed faster, but to speed would be almost identical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Tops speed is all about drag (aerodynamic primarily once over 40, rolling & parasitic). That is why most motorcycle suck for top speed. They are like pushing a barn door through the air. That is why a lot of cars get better mileage on the highway then your bike even though they are much bigger (i.e. more frontal area).

It is something I've complained about for years and do what I can to optimize the bikes that I am serious about going really fast with. So to go fast requires either a lot of HP or very little overall drag. To be quick requires a good weight to torque ratio.

A good example of how much reducing drag can impact your top speed is the 50cc bike at Bonneville a few years ago. It went 144 mph in 2008. Sure it was a modded Aprilia RS50 motor and stout for a 50cc bike but it was 21 times smaller than our bikes and almost the same top speed and Bonneville isn't at sea level so it definitely lost some HP being up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Given the numbers and feedback reported, I'm going to put the 39T rear sprocket on when I change my tires (coming pretty soon) to go with the 16T front I put on some months ago.

thanks for keeping this thread going, I think it's been enlightening.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Glad to help out. Let me know if there is some scenario you want to run. With a 16T countershaft best launch is achieved at 4900 while dumping the clutch. For stock gearing you want 4800 and to dump. FYI - the difference in 0-60 time is only .04 seconds so you aren't giving up much by going to the 16T up front for sure.

That would likely be the first mod I'd do on my bike. I just got Ivan's tune installed and will ride tonight and maybe that will move to #1. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
You will like this, and sorry for not telling you about this sooner.Back in 2013 we all hid the discussion fo lightweight ninja and z 1000. Out of the blue, some guy created a spreadsheet showing what the common mods we do did to reduce weight.

Nothing in his spread sheet is made up. Its all verified. The only thing not exact is the exhaust weights. He weighed the stock system, and was supplied weights of several 4 into ones and 4 into 2 combinations, then averaged these. So,maybe give or take a few lbs on exhaust, but its very good.

The 2014 bikes might be 3 lbs heavier, but very, very close.

Weight Reduction Guide 3rd Gen Z1000

Many of us with ivans work also have an exhaust system. Thats -25lbs Also, the 503lbs of the stock bike can be reduced, free, by subtracting 4 gallons of fuel. That would be -24lbs

Both of these mods are reasonable. If a person was going for serious times, surely they would not fill the tank first and would choose to run one gallon.

So, what does it show for a 454lb ninja 1000 at 147 hp? Both are very possible and there are many ninja 1000's out there at this weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I'll run them on Monday and let you know RC. I spent all day with bike porn. I went to the motorcycle show and rode everything I could swing a leg over including the Suzi competition to the N1K.

All I can say is that there are so many bikes worse than the N1K and few better. One of my faves was the Indian Chieftain. A pretty cool ride. What was annoying was how almost every bike I rode had bars that buzz/vibrate except the CanAm Spyder RTS.

A lot of cool stuff to try and one thing I really appreciate about the N1K is how well it controls heat compared to most bikes. On the pavement according to most bikes that had air temp gauges, it was over 100 in the parking lot. I thought the Chieftain was going to roast my chestnuts well before Christmas.

I saw something cool modded bikes that give me ideas for the N1K. I am definitely putting the bike on a diet for sure. I've started mine as well. :) Dieting is cheap speed according to the perf. analysis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
I like the Indian scout. There, I said it.

If they would build a bike that looked like that project 156 from cycle world, I'd own one. That was a victory brand, but the scout engine would be perfect in that application, or for the foundation of a similar bike.

Victory Motorcycles Racing Project 156 - Pikes Peak Hill Climb

I put my bikes specs into the spreadsheet. I have every mod on that list other than smaller mirrors and integrated tail light.

I was also able to subtract another four lbs from whats available on the list. I have a lighter shock and lighter brake calipers.

The spreadsheet says my bike should weigh 463 with a full tank. I would subtract 4 lbs from that to end up with a "spreadsheet" weight of 459.

When I rolled the bike onto a scale at my local freight company , it showed 463 with a full tank, so the spreadsheet is very accurate. My extra weight is from my t rex frame sliders which are 5lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
The wallet is just fine. If the money I spent (@ 3k) was significant to my life, I had no business buying the bike. It made the machine mine, and turned it into something I want to keep, long term.

If I avoid even one trade, I more than pay myself back. Plus, I get to ride a motorcycle with world class suspension and a well set up motor.

I motorcycle way more towards the side of do it right, or dont do it. Saving money and buying new motorcycles is LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
711 Posts
Holy cow this is deep reading.

I kind of want to change my sprockets, but I like the bike's feel now. I would rather have more zip. It feels very tame for a liter bike.

But

Every bit of this is solid. It really doesn't look like the sprockets effect the speed much at all.

I will be looking into that spread sheet tomorrow. I found diets worked great for acceleration gains with my evo (now sold)

Maybe that is my problem. My evo would have given my ninja a run for its money. It ran high 10's, low 11's depending on temp and driver. Kind of redefined my view point on speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
A lot depends on you how your ride your bike. If pure 1/4 mile is your thing then Kawi didn't go with short enough gearing to optimize that. What they did is some middle ground that really isn't much good for anything. It isn't best for top speed and it isn't best for best 1/4 mile times.

So figure out what is best for you. The fact that changing the gearing to something taller doesn't really hurt the acceleration is a testament to how strong this motor is. If you don't do a lot of highway cruising it may not matter. I for one appreciate the lower revs and if I give up a bit of peak acceleration in 6th gear @ 110 mph then so be it. If I want to keep my license and stay out of jail, then I need to watch the speeds on the roads anyway.

It isn't like it is impossible to downshift anyway. It still will be one of the stronger bikes in roll-on at that speed as well. I do appreciate that the cruise speed of staying out of the tingly zone gets bumped up as well into a more useful 80mph range rather than 70's.

I don't think it is doing much to alter the character of the bike other than to give it longer legs on the highway. If you have a chance to ride one that's been regeared you'll see what I mean. I can't tell the difference 99% of the time between the 16T & stock gearing. The bike is a bit easier to launch though. The performance modeling bears that out with a wider plateau of optimum rpm to launch and have good acceleration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Day, I was at IMS on Saturday too. Got to ride a few different bikes, including the GSX-S1000, the rest were v-twin tourers. I noticed right away that the gearing is quite a bit different, taller in 1st gear. I have a 16t ready to go on my N1k and like Russ, will probably do a 39t rear at some point along with a 55 series tire.
I got to IMS at 7:50 and the Suzuki reps didn't start signing people up for rides until after 8:30. I missed out on Honda all together. Tried Indian too late in the afternoon and after looking at pricing of the Roadmaster, couldn't afford one anyway. :) So took a Road Glide Ultra out as the last bike instead. I wish Kawasaki had been there.
I couldn't go back yesterday as I had a 400 mile drive back to Phoenix.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top