Lightning LS218, 200hp, 168ftlbs | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Lightning LS218, 200hp, 168ftlbs

Forum Sponsor
CafeRay said:
Dude, that would have been an awesome burn if you were actually right, or ever raced a bike, or anything like that.
Click to expand...


I am right, and I have been racing cars for years - bikes are a newer hobby.

It's not really a burn, just a wake up call. The team that won the peak with the electric bike put in the time and the effort, and diminishing their accomplishment by saying it was due to electric power is just silly.
 
k193 said:
I am right, and I have been racing cars for years - bikes are a newer hobby.

It's not really a burn, just a wake up call. The team that won the peak with the electric bike put in the time and the effort, and diminishing their accomplishment by saying it was due to electric power is just silly.
Click to expand...

Except that it allowed them to have probably 100lb/ft of torque (more than double) on their competition, which in a mountain climb at over 10,000 feet is a huge advantage. But you know that, being an expert and all.
 
Shaman said:
Except that it allowed them to have probably 100lb/ft of torque (more than double) on their competition, which in a mountain climb at over 10,000 feet is a huge advantage. But you know that, being an expert and all.
Click to expand...

Shaman said:
No kidding. Because, you know, where the race starts in elevation has no effect on the base power level of the engine, either. Not at all. One really wonders why all the fast classes don't use electric assistance and forced induction. They do, you say? They should hire k193, he'd show them how it's done.
Click to expand...

No. Because they are building an engine specifically for a hill climb, they can use very high compression ratios and map the timing progressively as they climb.

Is there a power advantage running an electric bike for a hill climb? Maybe, but don't forget the electric powerplant is also going to be heavier for the same specific output.

It's not 20 seconds, just stop defending that - you're embarrassing yourself.
 
Shaman said:
Except that it allowed them to have probably 100lb/ft of torque (more than double) on their competition, which in a mountain climb at over 10,000 feet is a huge advantage. But you know that, being an expert and all.
Click to expand...

But imagine if they had a good gas bike and matching Uniforms and shoes.
 
k193 said:
It's not really a burn, just a wake up call. The team that won the peak with the electric bike put in the time and the effort, and diminishing their accomplishment by saying it was due to electric power is just silly.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought you were just a troll, but ignoring the reality of air pressure and density suggest something deeper is afoot.

k193 said:
I am right, and I have been racing cars for years - bikes are a newer hobby.
Click to expand...

Yes, Gran Turismo is a fun game.
 
k193 said:
No. Because they are building an engine specifically for a hill climb, they can use very high compression ratios and map the timing progressively as they climb.

Is there a power advantage running an electric bike for a hill climb? Maybe, but don't forget the electric powerplant is also going to be heavier for the same specific output.

It's not 20 seconds, just stop defending that - you're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

I hope you are 14 or 15, because you write words that you know not the meaning of.

But, Shaman, the expert is right, it's was not 20 seconds, it was closer to 21 seconds- you're embarrassing yourself.
Dunne managed to hustle the 500-pound, 200+ horsepower electrified motorcycle up the 12.42-mile, 156-turn mountain in 10:00.694 — that’s within spitting distance of the overall course record a few years back.
But they didn’t just win the electric category, they decimated the closest gas-powered bike — a Ducati Multistrada 1200 S ridden by Bruno Langlois — who managed a time of 10:21.323.



http://www.wired.com/2013/07/lightning-pikes-peak-2013/
 
CafeRay said:
Really? I thought you were just a troll, but ignoring the reality of air pressure and density suggest something deeper is afoot.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to use NASCAR as an example for talking about racing, you can see an example of what I'm trying to explain in the races they hold with restriction plates in the intake - they run a much higher compression ratio than normal to try to compensate as much as possible for the choked off air supply. You can apply the same approach when building a naturally aspirated engine for hill climbs.

High compression, and start the race with a retarded timing map slightly to avoid detonation, increasing the timing as you climb and the available air (and therefore fuel we can inject to be burned) decrease.

It's definitely a disadvantage, but they're not losing 40hp (as that calculator website would suggest) from start to finish.

The arrogant tone of my posts makes you wish I was wrong, but I'm not.
 
Clueeeeeeeeeeeeeeless.

Did you know at 5,800 feet (Bandimere Raceway), a Honda RC-51 will run a 12.4@113 with an extremely experienced rider on it? At sea level, if it's worse than 11.3@125, then the rider needs work (and I've seen a SP1 with Jardines run a 10.8x@128 @ Shannonville personally).
 
Last edited:
Shaman said:
Did you know at 5,000 feet a Honda RC-51 will run a 12.4@113 with an extremely experience rider on it? Since you're so brilliant, you want to tell us what that same bike runs at sea level?
Click to expand...

Is that RC-51 setup to run at 5,000 feet only? With higher compression and a dyno tune?

I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.
 
Higher compression and a dyno tune? What'd that get you... 2hp? 5hp? A little bit of torque?

My 1000 has a thin gasket and a high compression, it made a whole 4.5lb/ft torque more than stock - with Yosh cams, full exhaust and ported head along with the deal. Virtually all the extra power production came from the cams and head porting, not the compression bump.

Have you ever done engine work? Your suggestion is unlikely to help more than say... 2% difference. Negligible.

Meanwhile, for every 1000 feet you climb above sea level, there is a reduction in air density of approximately 4.5 percent.
(PS, I edited my post for more clarity)
 
Last edited:
This gets better by the minute. Please continue.

9230164.gif
 
Shaman said:
Higher compression and a dyno tune? What'd that get you... 2hp? 5hp? A little bit of torque?

My 100 has a thin gasket and a high compression, it made a whole 4.5lb/ft torque more than stock - with Yosh cams, full exhaust and ported head along with the deal. Virtually all the extra power production came from the cams and head porting, not the compression bump.

Have you ever done engine work? Your suggestion is unlikely to help more than say... 2% difference. Negligible.

Meanwhile, for every 1000 feet you climb above sea level, there is a reduction in air density of approximately 4.5 percent, according to Marcellis.

(PS, I edited my post for more clarity)
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why at higher altitude you can get away with higher compression (setting up an engine specifically for that altitude).

Are you really this dumb? Maybe you're the one trolling me.
 
LOL

Dude. Just stop. You're embarassing yourself.

What're you going to run, 25:1 compression? At some point higher compression works against itself, FYI (around 14:1). You know what makes more power? More air pressure to fill the cylinders, which compression ratio won't help you get.

Please. Just stop. I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Shaman View Post
Did you know at 5,000 feet a Honda RC-51 will run a 12.4@113 with an extremely experience rider on it? Since you're so brilliant, you want to tell us what that same bike runs at sea level?
Click to expand...

you mean because the air is thicker at sea level it runs a slower time trial? fancy that....:rolleyes:
 
MacDoc said:
you mean because the air is thicker at sea level it runs a slower time trial? fancy that....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Errrrrrrrrrr.... no. Please re-read.
 
cant reread if not read first time
 
k193 said:
As much as I hate to use NASCAR as an example for talking about racing, you can see an example of what I'm trying to explain in the races they hold with restriction plates in the intake - they run a much higher compression ratio than normal to try to compensate as much as possible for the choked off air supply. You can apply the same approach when building a naturally aspirated engine for hill climbs.
Click to expand...

Firstly, that is wrong. Secondly, restrictor plates, when they were used, slowed cars down significantly, which is why they were used. It appears your expertise in car racing matches bikes.
BTW, no one at Pike's Peak, or even NASCAR uses carburetors any more. Restrictor plate racing is not even a good example, the plates just restrict air flow, not lessen air density and air pressure. Go to school.

But, you figured us out man, in the time it took us to write this, we've been editing the internet to change numbers to hide your expertise.
 
CafeRay said:
Firstly, that is wrong. Secondly, restrictor plates, when they were used, slowed cars down significantly, which is why they were used. It appears your expertise in car racing matches bikes.
Click to expand...

You think? LOL
 
Here, learn something from the interwebs:

"The altitude also affects the efficiency of the engines because the closer you are to the top, oxygen and atmospheric pressure decrease"

http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/06/30/metzeler-international-hill-climb-race-report-pikes-peak/

This is from Rhys Millen, who knows a few things about Pike's Peak:

Although he would have preferred a turbo in-between the size of the old turbo and the new turbo for less lag, the larger turbo allows for sustained pressure of 18-19 psi at altitude. Power, at sea level, has effectively climbed from about 700 to around 900 hp, though power can drop by as much as 30 percent at the higher elevations.

and

Millen believes "that electric is the future, especially" at Pike's Peak where the higher altitude affects a gasoline engine, while there is "zero loss of torque and power with an electric engine… A four-wheel-drive electric car built right, built light, and driven correctly, I think, could actually be a contender for the overall."

Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/interview...ak-record-ev-racers-380367.html#ixzz3JXS41tl5


Every car and bike in the premiere classes is custom made for this one race.

Whatever the vehicle, the mountain places huge stresses on car, driver and crew. High altitude can reduce power output by up to 30% for internal combustion engined cars causing leaner running that ultimately pushes up engine temperatures. Romain Dumas, in a Porsche 997 GT3 R, was one of a number of competitors that required remapping after their first foray up the mountain. The altitude affects boiling point of water, which occurs at around 86˚C.
​
​


http://www.pmw-magazine.com/articles.php?ArticleID=420

(the BP of water is 100C at sea level)

To summarize, you are right, Rhys Millen is wrong, physics is wrong, and an electric bike did not win Pike's Peak because it was electric.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom