Joined
·
828 Posts
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...
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...