Isn't France Brilliant!

By 'transport' do you man convenient packages of useful tools[1] at 100km
intervals along your proposed route...?

Dave

[1] I'm assuming that the main tool requirement for your, er, wonderful
classic is a roll of Duck tape and a hammer.... )))

 

@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

Yes. The tape should stop you screaming when I belt your fingers with the
hammer.

 

"Dear Cab,

Please find enclosed your certificate from the ACME school of witty retorts.
We hope you enjoyed the course and will benefit from your new found
razor-like repartee for many years to come.

ps. Please note, course fees are not refundable under any circumstances.

pps. **** Off ;o)

 

Most bike magazines measured the gixxer K1/k2 at around 142~145 at the
rear wheel. Can't remember what the K3/K4 and K5 are.

Frankly, I don't "believe" your 9R could make a genuine 145 at the
rear wheel just with the addition of a pipe. There is so much black
magic around dyno readings (Race Techniques told me their dyno as
something like 14 different correction factors), plus operator
error/competence that unless you measure two bikes on the same dyno on
the same day, there's not much value in comparing raw numbers

 

There is so much black

A bloke I know claimed not very long ago that his R6 was putting out a
genuine 116bhp with the addition of a K&N filter and an end can. I queried
how this could be given that Kate's, with can, Dynojet kit and careful
setting up on a rolling road dyno was producing a mere 99.something.

The reply was along the lines that the dyno shop told him that their
calculations indicated that the crank figure was *definitely* 116bhp.
Strangely enough, he couldn't say what the actual rear wheel bhp was as he
didn't have a graph to show me.

Of course when you do get your bike on a dyno and a mate goes on straight
after with his bike then you really do need to start getting imaginative
with the excuses like I had to last year when my be-piped and new
injection-mapped Daytona was, IIRC, 26bhp down on another mate's totally bog
stock early R1...

Dave

 

No, *you* **** off, Joe.

 

159 at the wheel for the K5 according to this month's Bike.

 

*Want*

'Hog

 

Ah, of course - I was umming and ahhing about whether it was just
under 150 or just under 160. Quite amazing, really.

 

I'd certainly not say no to having one - but I suspect it'd still cripple me

 

The quality of the repartee is definitely falling.
"He came here for an argument..."

 

One way or the other...

 

Champ wrote:
dwb :

That's almost profound.

 

<small voice>

So why couldn't it keep up?

</sv>

 

Different gearing / the gixxer had a pipe too / the gixxer rider was
lighter*

*delete as applicable - or not

 

Because of the variability of dynos, most of the magazines always use
the same one. Bike mag certainly does. The amazing thing about the
new gixxer is not the headline number, but the fact that it's 10bhp
ahead of the competition.

 

Heh. And smileys must be invisible in some newsreaders.