|
Post by floog on Apr 9, 2006 8:12:43 GMT
Been up since 4am and am doing my UNCLE babysitting duties at present due to slight emergency......have quickly run upstairs for a breather...... *********MICHAEL, a personal appology for not being able to hook up for a ride this morning, especially as it's a lovely day.....hope we'll have our first meet this week******** Without spoiling the text from the tests in the free CD rom from 'Bike' this month, for anyone who is interested, I have taken some of the offically measured results from the three separate tests Obviously weather factors, weight of rider, cost of living, price of spuds, and all sorts of other things can be factored in and out :hmm: but they do give at least an insight into what our bikes manage under test conditions....... RESULTS FROM ‘BIKE’ MAGAZINE TESTS Best figures taken from 3 separate tests, 2 on the ‘S’ model ZRX 'S' / ZRX 'R' FIRST FIGURE FOR 'S' model, second for 'R' model TOP SPEED 153.3mph / 150.3mph 0-60mph 3.10s / 3.59s 0-100mph 7.60s / 7.77s 0-130mph 13.00s / ------ BRAKING 100-0mph 4.60s 343.2ft / 4.64s 332ft TOP GEAR ROLL ON 60-90mph 4.75s / ------ 60-100mph 6.34s / 5.47s 80-120mph 7.35s / ------ FUEL CONSUMPTION BEST 37mpg / ------ WORST 29mpg / ------ AVERAGE 32/37 (2nd test) / 32mpg 70MPH 3900rpm / 4000rpm 100MPH 5500rpm / 5700rpm RESERVE REACHED 105miles / 105miles TOTAL ACHIEVED 170miles / 142miles POWER FIGURES 109.9bhp @ 8300rpm/ 112.4bhp @ 8500rpm 77.4ib-ft @ 6800rpm / 78.3ib-ft @ 6900rpm **I have done some datalogging on my own Rex and can confirm that my 0-60mph is eventual and my stopping times less than impressive***** Now, back to those children.........
|
|
|
Post by BADGER on Apr 9, 2006 11:21:43 GMT
1st point , No probs
2nd point, very interesting reading.
|
|
|
Post by ZRX Gremlin on Apr 9, 2006 15:34:05 GMT
OK, I can understand an appreciate nearly all of those comparisons between the two models with one or two exceptions. I can understand the SREX higher top speed and to a degree acceleration times as being due to its streamlining. The SREX does carry a bit more weight though (fairing) I can also understand the apparent differences in power output figures between two mechanically identical bikes. Questions: Why the different tacho readings at similar speeds? Both bikes are geared the same. How come both bikes hit reserve at the same time and the R model apparently runs out of juice miles before the S? I could understand a difference in reserve capacity but the oveall capacity is again, identical. The one st of figures I really can't get my head round is "BRAKING 100-0mph 4.60s 343.2ft / 4.64s 332ft" :headbang: How come the R takes longer to stop but in a shorter distance from the same speed or have I missed something? Just can't get the maths to add up somehow or am I having a blonde moment?
|
|
|
Post by floog on Apr 9, 2006 15:52:35 GMT
Yep, I too was miffed by some of the figures I tend to believe that they must be fairly accurate due to the datalogging equipment, but can't see how there is such a difference in what is essentially the same engine The one I found amazing was the 0-60 time of the 'S', which is faster than a GSX-R1000 (Current model), and almost any current bike you care to mention?? :hmm: In the second test on the 'S' it was a more reasonable 3.36s (I know we're talking tenths here, but it puts it slower than some bikes, but still faster than the 'R', which is about right). The only thing I'd say, is for people like myself who like to know what our big old bus is capable of, especially when work mates are always bragging about quarter mile, 0-60, torque and BHP figures for thier Gixxers and blades ......is that at least I can prove my Rex can lift her skirt, run with the best of them, and post a respectable figure in all areas. 77/78ib-ft of real world torque and blade territory 0-60 and good roll-on times makes me a happy bunny...... Funny also in the 'R' test how they seem to dislike so much about the bike. I thought I was reading about a different bike!!
|
|
|
Post by ZRX Gremlin on Apr 9, 2006 16:38:25 GMT
I remember laughing out loud at one test I read on the R model. Apparently the instrumentation was a bit old fashioned what with all those needles and dials and things.
It's a retro bike ferchrissakes. :headbang: :headbang:
|
|
|
Post by bikesnoopy on Apr 9, 2006 16:56:55 GMT
Sadly,BIKE magazine has become a bit of a comic these days. I bought every issue from 1972(still got it)until about 3 years ago when the opinions of the writers became too tunnel visioned & samey...almost like they were reading the reports on tests from other mags before writing their own... Then theres the inconsistances all the way through the mag... Then the errors everywhere on specifications on bikes theyve tested. I take most things in BIKE with a pinch of salt these days. It used to be THE bike mag. . . but sadly,now its a load of bollocks & i wish i hadnt bought it this month just to get that CD. As youve already mentioned above,there are inconsistancies even when they just do a simple two bike comparason...and we all know that the facts stated above are incorrect. Im not even gonna bother to read the rubbish. If they cant get things like this right,why the hell should anyone believe anything else they write.
|
|
|
Post by floog on Apr 9, 2006 17:43:49 GMT
I remember laughing out loud at one test I read on the R model. Apparently the instrumentation was a bit old fashioned what with all those needles and dials and things. It's a retro bike ferchrissakes. :headbang: :headbang: I'm glad you mentioned that Gremlin I am very disappointed with my 'R' model because when I insert the key and turn it, no needle crashes to the red line stop pin and then back ......There's no 'Welcome FLOOG' message on the dash on start up, there are no nice coloured lights whizzing around like jet fighters on the dial .....there's nothing digital to keep me occupied......no lap timer, ambient temperature guage, ice warning gizmo, clock, shift change toy with adjustable settings not even provision for me to hook up a laptop computer or personal phone?? It's also quite a heavy bike and shakes and twitches a little when you're leant over, knee kissing tarmac, caning it round country lanes (or so the upstart bike journo's tell me)......It doesn't stop on a sixpence with a single finger stroking radial brakes and wavy discs.... It doesn't even have fuel injection .......and there's an antiquated fuel tap with no countdown gizmo telling you how many miles till your expire at the side of the road.... Bit old fashioned really........ What was I thinking when I bought it......... ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by bikesnoopy on Apr 9, 2006 17:59:41 GMT
I rest my case . Most of these "journos" wernt even born in the era of the true musclebikes...what the hell do they know...
|
|
|
Post by BADGER on Apr 9, 2006 18:09:06 GMT
Which leaves us with the question, who are the REAL bikers? ZRX riders I thank you
|
|
|
Post by floog on Apr 9, 2006 18:32:33 GMT
I rest my case . Most of these "journos" wernt even born in the era of the true musclebikes...what the hell do they know... I agree with you Bikesnoopy about 'Bike' mag these days .......I sound a bit like an old fart but, to me it's lost it's way a little. When you have young staff writers like Luke Brackenbury slating his long term test bike Honda CB1300S because he really wants to pull wheelies and thrash the tits off a GSX-R1000 etc ....you have to step back and ask, WHY??? I gave up on TWO because the testers only ever wanted to stunt every bike they got their grubby little hands on (Warren Pole blowing the ZRX1200 big ends with continuous wheelies on a straight from the factory bike, did it for me )......I have gone off RIDE because, although it is quite useful to mechanic-knob jockeys like myself, it's articles and reviews are so lightweight and fluffy..... :hair: WHAT IS IT?........A motorcycle WHAT'S IT FOR?.......riding IS IT ANY GOOD?......erm yes Performance bikes and Superbikes are a little too sports oriented for my tastes .. :violin: ......I'm almost ashamed to admit that I have on occasions turned to the sobering, informed, incisive and well written articles by ALAN CATHCART in some aged old monthly bike mag I dare not mention here...... Gawd...things ain't what they used to be :zzzz: .....Call me old but I remember when you could go out with yer mates, twenty woodbines and half oz of boare's head, nip down the chippy and still have change from a ten bob note.....and road testers...don't get me started........
|
|
|
Post by ZRX Gremlin on Apr 9, 2006 20:10:59 GMT
I've said something like this before so I may as well say it again. I tend to tkae the cynical view where the motorcycle press is involved. They are not trying to sell us motorcycles. It would seem that they are barely trying to sell us the content of their so called bike magazines. No, what they are in fact selling is advertising space. If enough punters (morons?) can be persuaded to fall for their monthly drivel then quotas will be met, said advertising space sold and everybody's happy. So it's then off to the press room with the next months output. Unfortunately there are a minority of real bikers out there (us) who feel let down and disappointed by the quality of these writings Not all of us need to know if their bike can be wheelied/thrashed/abused in some way. What we really want is an unbiased opinion of some of the everyday bikes out there (including the Rex) and not be force fed all the guff on the latest plastic fantastic which let's face it, is very little different to the last one or even that of its competitors. :swear: :ups: I think I've said enough.
|
|
|
Post by bikesnoopy on Apr 9, 2006 20:36:39 GMT
:agreed: Grem...
|
|
|
Post by floog on Apr 10, 2006 4:18:57 GMT
I've said something like this before so I may as well say it again. I tend to tkae the cynical view where the motorcycle press is involved. They are not trying to sell us motorcycles. It would seem that they are barely trying to sell us the content of their so called bike magazines. No, what they are in fact selling is advertising space. If enough punters (morons?) can be persuaded to fall for their monthly drivel then quotas will be met, said advertising space sold and everybody's happy. So it's then off to the press room with the next months output. Unfortunately there are a minority of real bikers out there (us) who feel let down and disappointed by the quality of these writings Not all of us need to know if their bike can be wheelied/thrashed/abused in some way. What we really want is an unbiased opinion of some of the everyday bikes out there (including the Rex) and not be force fed all the guff on the latest plastic fantastic which let's face it, is very little different to the last one or even that of its competitors. :swear: :ups: I think I've said enough. :agreed: :ten: :ten: I'd vote for GREMLIN, BIKING AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINAIRE........if you stood in the European parliament........ Every word so true Grem
|
|
|
Post by wardourdrive on Apr 10, 2006 4:35:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Les on Apr 12, 2006 13:48:21 GMT
The one st of figures I really can't get my head round is "BRAKING 100-0mph 4.60s 343.2ft / 4.64s 332ft" :headbang: How come the R takes longer to stop but in a shorter distance from the same speed or have I missed something? Just can't get the maths to add up somehow or am I having a blonde moment? Try thinking weight and momemtem. The S is heaver and therefore will remain at higher speed longer, therefore covering more distance, however, as most of the extra weight is over the front wheel once it starts to slow it will stop quicker. PS Have I ever mentioned trying to get a jet aircraft to take off on a conveyor belt.
|
|