Supra Forums banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
[///M] Humdizzle
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just a quick question. How would a 600cc bike(ie...04 Gixxer 04 r6 and so on) face against a older say 96 Ducati 916?
Just wondering how much technology has advanced within the past few years.
 

·
Formerly NA-TT
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
google search for hp specs, but i would say when it comes to bike racing, over car racing, that it is more about the rider than the machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Depends on track as well...duc will pull anything out of a croner even in too low a gear. Gearing of the bike to the track as well. The last trackday I was at on my 999, I was taking it easy on corner entry speed/late braking so I wouldnt push myself to the limit. People on 05/05 japanese 1000s would pass me on the straigts, but I would come in tight and pull them out of the corner so hard...With the duc you can lower the entry speed to position yourself better against another rider and pull them out of the corner.
 

·
2/3 HP to the Paws
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Depends what you're doing with it. If you were to drag race them, it'd be pretty close, stock for stock. A CBR 600RR, for example, is in the high 10's with a competent rider. A 916 is slightly deeper in the 10's with an equally competent rider, though with a significantly higher trap.

On a road course, however, just about any 600 short of a full out race bike would be lunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Simba said:
Based on your extensive experience with each, right? :rolleyes:
Based on common sence and experience- also just because a 96 ducati costs as much as a 03 600 doesn't mean they are equivalent.
 

·
Formerly NA-TT
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
96 ducati senna 916
430lbs
114hp
no tq found on google
lbs to hp = 3.77lbs/hp


04 gsxr 600
355lbs
120hp
51.5tq
lbs to hp = 2.96lbs/hp...... means new gsxr wins.... maybe.


My bike: 05 kawi 636
361lbs
136hp
52tq
lbs to hp = 2.65lbs/hp...... means mine is faster.... maybe.
 

·
2/3 HP to the Paws
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
The weight to power argument is meaningless benchracing nonsense. Powerband matters. Gearing matters. Torque really matters, especially in road course environments. None of those metrics are reflected in the tried and false weight to power metric.

I've personally dusted every 600 I've run across on the street and track, save for a few which were either highly modified or ridden by someone better than I on a given track, with my 916. Anyone in the NY metro area who'd like a personal demonstration is welcome to one.
 

·
2/3 HP to the Paws
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
PSIMR2 said:
just because a 96 ducati costs as much as a 03 600 doesn't mean they are equivalent.
Correct. The Duc is faster on just about every type of track, will be worth about the same two years later, and has a style that has been mimicked by every major bike manufacturer for the last decade. They're not equivalent at all. :loser:
 

·
GT40 1.5JZ
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Supra SONIC said:
96 ducati senna 916
430lbs
114hp
no tq found on google
lbs to hp = 3.77lbs/hp


04 gsxr 600
355lbs
120hp
51.5tq
lbs to hp = 2.96lbs/hp...... means new gsxr wins.... maybe.


My bike: 05 kawi 636
361lbs
136hp
52tq
lbs to hp = 2.65lbs/hp...... means mine is faster.... maybe.
Just so that everyone's clear... those are just PEAK figures, and don't have much to do with "area under the curve". Your bike has more HP than my '04 RR though... wanna take it to the track??? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
on my 99 748 (built to the hilt of course) I would pass the then new 929's and R1's in the turns but when the straight came they would jog on by. It was a game of leap frog more than anything. I had a CBR 600F3 (remember them :) ) and rode against a 916 years ago. He ate me in the strights but the new 600's are pretty quick. I was just in Germany and got a new GSXR to 162 pretty easily on a windy day on the Autobahn. A new 600 would be a good fight I think and would come down to rider most likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
Simba said:
The weight to power argument is meaningless benchracing nonsense. Powerband matters. Gearing matters. Torque really matters, especially in road course environments. None of those metrics are reflected in the tried and false weight to power metric.

I've personally dusted every 600 I've run across on the street and track, save for a few which were either highly modified or ridden by someone better than I on a given track, with my 916. Anyone in the NY metro area who'd like a personal demonstration is welcome to one.
Well I agree and disagree with some points. For example, the 2006 R6. Not shit for bottom end and the fun doesn't start until 9k RPM. HOWEVER, on a racetrack, who drops below 9 grand on a 600? Torque doesn't means as much as peak HP on a track, you never let the R's drop enough and over rev is great for corner entry\exits. Sure, on the street twins are great, but look at it this way, how many motoGP bikes are twins? None, everyone has atleast 4 cylinders. More cylinders means more HP, means better track oriented motorcycle. You're outrunning 600's on the street and track because you're the better rider, I know this because I can wax duc's on the track with my F4i :D. On the racetrack, RPM should never fall low enough to the point where low end matters, have to keep those motors spinning!

It all boils down to the rider, but from a purely technical point of view, a modern 600SS is superior.
 

·
Formerly NA-TT
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Simba said:
The weight to power argument is meaningless benchracing nonsense. Powerband matters. Gearing matters. Torque really matters, especially in road course environments. None of those metrics are reflected in the tried and false weight to power metric.

I've personally dusted every 600 I've run across on the street and track, save for a few which were either highly modified or ridden by someone better than I on a given track, with my 916. Anyone in the NY metro area who'd like a personal demonstration is welcome to one.
Obviously there is more to it. Could I find dyno graphs of all the bikes? No, but it is clear that the newer bikes have more power and less weight, not to mention the newest in suspension. I'd bet the 600 will win, and your personal experience is just that, personal to you, and no more scientific in its analysis than my numbers. Until you have equal experience on the two bikes and ride them both on a track, and so do others who are good riders, I see no justification to believe a newer 600 would loose to an older 916.

"....were either highly modified or ridden by someone better than I...", so you are saying a few things here, but first what is highly modified?: sounds like you are saying your bike will win unless the rider is better than you, meaning that you understand that the bike needs a rider who can use all that the bike is capable of. You are saying a better rider on a 600 will beat you, which draws either two scenarios: One is your bike is faster/better, but you can't push your bike to its limits, making full use of its potential, so you'll loose to a better rider; the other possibility is the 600 is a better/faster bike and just needs a rider equal/better than you to demonstrate it is better/faster. Since you seem to be supporting the 916 being faster, I will assume you mean the former is the case over the later. But why couldn't the latter case be the truth?
 

·
A T-Rex going "Rawr!"
Joined
·
2,778 Posts
doug said:
:kekegay:
I've seen lightly modded newer 636s and R6s running low 10s and high nines. Its all rider. I don't think you could run a lightly modded 916 vs a new lightly modded 600 with equal riders the 916 would lose in a straight line. In the curves the extra torque would make a huge difference though especially if the 916 rider couldn't ride well.
 

·
2/3 HP to the Paws
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Supra SONIC said:
but first what is highly modified?
Head work, cams, map work, higher compression, etc, etc. Highly modified = major internal work. 140+ hp.

One is your bike is faster/better, but you can't push your bike to its limits, making full use of its potential, so you'll loose to a better rider; the other possibility is the 600 is a better/faster bike and just needs a rider equal/better than you to demonstrate it is better/faster.
More like, my 916 is a street bike, not a track bike, so I'm not going to ride it to the very edge and risk thrashing it to prove a point. If someone on a fast 600 didn't give a shit about their bike, then could probably ride it farther into the pucker zone than I'm willing to, and hence beat my faster bike.

Given a rider with similar skill and a similar regard for his bike, I'd win, and have, many times.
 

·
A T-Rex going "Rawr!"
Joined
·
2,778 Posts
Simba said:
Head work, cams, map work, higher compression, etc, etc. Highly modified = major internal work. 140+ hp.
So whats 400+ hp? :)
 

·
Formerly NA-TT
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
Simba said:
Head work, cams, map work, higher compression, etc, etc. Highly modified = major internal work. 140+ hp.



More like, my 916 is a street bike, not a track bike, so I'm not going to ride it to the very edge and risk thrashing it to prove a point. If someone on a fast 600 didn't give a shit about their bike, then could probably ride it farther into the pucker zone than I'm willing to, and hence beat my faster bike.

Given a rider with similar skill and a similar regard for his bike, I'd win, and have, many times.

I still disagree that a heavier, less powerful and outdated bike is better than a lighter, more powerful and one that is probably updated with more aerodynamic parts and better suspension. I think you would have to show more evidence besides, "I'd win" to convince me the less of the two is better.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top