# 900bhp Viper Vs Turbo NOS Hyabusa, Bored Out Hyabusa



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

900bhp Viper Vs Turbo NOS Hyabusa, Bored Out Hyabusa, Std Hyabusa.

http://www.gigatechsoftware.com/cars/VIPER-race-small.wmv

Unbe fooking lieveable.

8) :twisted:


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

I've always wanted a ZX12R, now I want a 900BHP Viper too.

Resect due to all of those taking part.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

ag said:


> I've always wanted a ZX12R, now I want a 900BHP Viper too.
> 
> Resect due to all of those taking part.


Awesome.

I was the proud owner of a ZX12R for 3 years, up until last Autumn & that was the full power 180bhp model which was capable of running crazy speeds. Topped her out on an un-disclosed road at 220mph on the clock  8) , What a rush that was. New underwear required after that crazy ass 10mins :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I was going to see this video too, but it is huge and I don't have broadband.

220mph on a bike...nutter!! I have only gone up to 140 on a TT in Germany and was scary enough and so noisy.


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

The speed they go from 80mph to 170 is mind blowing...it's quicker than the TT goes from 0=60!

300bhp through ONE wheel with a contact patch the width of yer knob....HOW do they get the power down!


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Topped her out on an un-disclosed road at 220mph on the clock  8)


You must have balls the size of water mellons!!!! I topped my fireblade out at 180mph and that was damn quick - like 3 miles a minute quick..!! 220mph must have been just awesome


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

scavenger said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > Topped her out on an un-disclosed road at 220mph on the clock  8)
> ...


Needed to stop for 10 mins after that little run for a smoke & to calm down a little  .

The 220mph was the displayed speed on the speedo & the needle was just over that (220 was the max speed on display), so i was probably only doing about 195-205mph, although motorbike speedos do appear to be better callibrated than car speedos.


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> so i was probably only doing about 195-205mph


lol.......'only' doing about 195-205mph :roll: 8) 

on 2 wheels that takes some real guts mate!

nice one


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

Holy S***,

For a car to outrun a bike like that is awesome!!

Now, can anyone tell me the safe stopping distance at 165 mph?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

head_ed said:


> Holy S***,
> 
> For a car to outrun a bike like that is awesome!!
> 
> Now, can anyone tell me the safe stopping distance at 165 mph?


The Viper only outran the standard Busa, the ZX12R gave it a good whooping, as did the modified Busa 8)  

As for stopping disctance, i have no idea, but can be sure (as shown in the clip) that the bikes stopping distance is far far shorter


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

Ah,

That'll teach me to get bored after 9 mins and not watch it to the end..


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> As for stopping disctance, i have no idea, but can be sure (as shown in the clip) that the bikes stopping distance is far far shorter


Really?

I was under the impression most high-performance cars can easily outbrake motorbikes because of bigger tyres, more wheels & greater stability...


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> head_ed said:
> 
> 
> > Holy S***,
> ...


Sorry mate, cars stopping distance is SUBSTANTIALLY shorter than a bike......aptly demonstrated at the ring last year....the bikes go hooning past the cars who keep the pedal in up to their normal braking point only to be forced into evasive action as the bikes are braking so much sooner into the bends.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Stu-Oxfordshire said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > head_ed said:
> ...


They must have been very low quality bikers or very scared  . At lower speeds, there probably aint much in it between a car & a bike, but at higher speeds the bike would brake far later & slow down far quicker. Just popping up from behind the bikes screen at higher speeds, scrubs off shit loads of speed very very quickly without even touching the brakes, plus the mass/weight to slow down is far lower than a car.

If you watch the clip closely, you'll see that once they have all completed the run, the bikes have slowed right down far sooner than the car & most of that will be just wind resistance after they pop up from behind the screen.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

The braking markers for bikes at the Ring were always b4 the cars, I think it was more down to a car can carry more speed through the corner than a bike so the bike had to knock off alot more speed.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

No idea of braking distance at that speed, but:

Group Test in current Pef Bikes.
New Gixer tho, R1, Blade (sorry - blade ) & ZX10

Braking from 70 to stop
all circa 50 (fifty) metres.

and incidently, 0-60 all @ 3s

best was the blade at 2.82s
'worst' was ZX10 at 3.02s

Had my 916 up to R1 (electronic speedo) indicated 165.
Duc needle was flapping around anything between 120 and off the clock! 

Deserted French dual carriageway.

No way I was riding it - was just hanging on and tucking in! :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jonah said:


> The braking markers for bikes at the Ring were always b4 the cars, I think it was more down to a car can carry more speed through the corner than a bike so the bike had to knock off alot more speed.


Along with the fact that the bike would have been approaching the bend at a far higher speed that the car. As seen on Top Gear IIRC when they had the head to head with a supercar (can't recall which one), an F1 car & a Superbike.

The F1 car came out ahead, but not by that much, with the Superbike coming in a close 2nd & the supercar coming quite a way back in 3rd.


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

Quote from Bike Mag

_I've already mentioned, where cars completely stuff bikes is on the stoppers. Four big sticky contact patches combined with a much longer wheelbase, suspension that maintains the car's angle of attack on the retarders, a centralised weight distribution, and a proportionally lower centre of gravity; allow the manufacturers to fit massive calipers, huge ventilated discs and more hydraulic power than a hydro electric dam. The net result is that car stopping distances are a fraction of that of bikes.

_

http://www.caterham.force9.co.uk/bikesv~1.htm


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

I surrender then


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

Phew..................I have just got to have a *** after that ( no I quit 2 years ago !)

Blimey just imagine, did you see the bike speedo needle move faster than your eye can !     

I am exhausted now 

BTW how come this downloaded in about 10 seconds ? For such a long video I would expect it to be about 5 minutes usually... :?


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> jonah said:
> 
> 
> > The braking markers for bikes at the Ring were always b4 the cars, I think it was more down to a car can carry more speed through the corner than a bike so the bike had to knock off alot more speed.
> ...


Sorry, Paul, you are talking absolutely bollocks 

Watch Clarkson's video from about 4 years ago - R1 vs a 911 turbo round Snetterton and the 911 turbo wins. All on the braking.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Stu-Oxfordshire said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jonah said:
> ...


I surrender again then   Whoever was riding the R1 must have been weak. Now if they'd been competing against a Busa or ZX12, me thinks is would have been much closer, as both bikes have a faster 0-60, 0-100 & 0-150 & both bikes have a higher top speed than an R1 by about 30mph


----------

