520 conversion?
Login  | |
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 4:12:30 PM
|
|
|
Calkidd
Posts: 216
Joined: 11/25/2004
Status: offline
|
To be honest for street use you will probably notice nothing with this conversion, however I did it on my 929.
The basic principle is the reduce rotating mass, thus, allowing the bike to accelerate faster. There are website which stated you will get an increase in HP, that is a bunch of BullSh**. How can the engine produce more power but reducing rotating mass? If that was the case remove all your body work, use a gallon jugg for a fuel tank and you should gain 200 hp......RIGHT.
_____________________________
http://streetbikereview.com
http://rrzone.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 4:34:12 PM
|
|
|
Vermino
Posts: 1201
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
i always cant figure out what spockets do, i mean "I know what they do" it's just my mind can figure out what the out-come is.. yeah, with my 600F3, accelerating was fast enough for me.. like someone need a faster acceleration on their bike on the streets haha (i mean you already popping the front wheel up when it's stock.. and you want to accelerate faster? haha)
but thanks for the info.. just a waste of a couple hundred dollars (i would only do it if it's the last upgrade or something)..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 5:10:58 PM
|
|
|
chainstretcher
Posts: 4501
Joined: 11/5/2004
Status: online
|
You misunderstand -- less rotating mass has nothing to do with what the bike weighs. The HP at the crank is gonna remain constant but the HP at the wheel will increase slightly with a lighter chain.
_____________________________
It's better to burn out ...
Than high side!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 5:28:41 PM
|
|
|
Vermino
Posts: 1201
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
ohhhh ok.. sorry haha
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 5:53:06 PM
|
|
|
Tahoe SC
Posts: 5874
Joined: 8/24/2005
Status: offline
|
yea mang...calikid...sup with that...gots to represent...no mang...you don't get more at the engine with 520 and less rotational mass...but see, the less mass to turn (sprocket and chain) means less power used by the engine to turn it, which means it can turn it faster than harder, which translates all the way back to the tire...and that is where the gain is at...so if you also swap for lighter wheel, you'll get even more at the wheel. engine stays the same.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 5:59:07 PM
|
|
|
Vermino
Posts: 1201
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
ok, so it's kind-of like positive traction for a bike? (you could have 500hp engine but you got a peg-legger RWD and only pulling out 200 or so horsepower because of it)
I would know about positive traction because I need it for my camaro haha..
so 520 conversion is actually a pretty nice upgrade to the bike
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 6:43:15 PM
|
|
|
Tahoe SC
Posts: 5874
Joined: 8/24/2005
Status: offline
|
no, not like positrack mang...
say this...
your tranny sucks and it takes lots of power just to turn it...so in the end, your left with less at the rear.
as opposed to nice awesome slick tranny, the engine easily turns it...so you get more at the rear.
it's parasitic loss.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 6:55:58 PM
|
|
|
Vermino
Posts: 1201
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
yeah, it's not more gain from the engine (it doesnt nothing for the engine) it just make more at the rear wheel.. just like saying "108hp engine" but you could be only getting like "100 or less to the rear"
And if i'm still getting it wrong
*pulls the gun out of the cabinet*
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/3/2006 7:02:45 PM
|
|
|
chainstretcher
Posts: 4501
Joined: 11/5/2004
Status: online
|
Damn Tahoe -- just when everybody thinks you is a idiot ya go throwing out phrases like "parasitic loss"  You guys pay attention cause Tahoe is on da money.
There's also a down side to the 520 -- less chain material = won't last as long as your stocker and you need to pay more attention than usual to chain maintenance (chain stretch, slack and keepin it lubed).
With it being crappy out (either cold or wet) I'm thinking about putting the 530 back on the 1kRR. Left work this morning and barely hit the gas in 2nd and the rear was all over the place.
_____________________________
It's better to burn out ...
Than high side!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/4/2006 4:03:13 AM
|
|
|
Calkidd
Posts: 216
Joined: 11/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tahoe SC
yea mang...calikid...sup with that...gots to represent...
I am sorry did I miss something here. Where did I disrespect someone?
_____________________________
http://streetbikereview.com
http://rrzone.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 520 conversion? - 2/4/2006 6:44:52 AM
|
|
|
mazdajoe
Posts: 109
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Calkidd
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tahoe SC
yea mang...calikid...sup with that...gots to represent...
I am sorry did I miss something here. Where did I disrespect someone?
I dont think you did, but what you said was completely wrong. Rotating mass and the weight of the fuel tank are totally different things. It does increase power to the rear wheel because the motor is using less power turning the chain and sprocket, so more power will be transferred to the rear wheel. Its like underdrive pullys for automobiles, they do not increase the power output of the motor but they do increase the amount of power that hits the ground. Less rotating mass "frees up" horsepower. Yes the 520 may not last as long as the stock 525, but really its not that big of a deal. The kawasaki zx6r is running a 520 stock, and that makes considerably more power than an f4i, so obviously 520 lasts a long enough time. And to comment on the posi traction thing, thats wrong too. If you have 500hp in a car, the rear wheel power will be the same with lsd as without. A lsd will just distribute the power to both wheels evenly where as a car with an open differential will try its best to distribute equal power to both wheels, but when traction is lost it will apply all the power to only one wheel, the wheel thats slipping. A 500 wheel horsepower car with lsd should, in theory, distribute 250hp to each rear wheel. A 500 wheel horsepower car with an open differential with one tire spinning, will put 500hp to the spinning wheel and none to the other. Its also funny how you guys with domestic cars still call it "posi-traction." That is just the term pioneered by American car companies in the 60s, mainly GM, to differentiate their LSDs, Limited Slip Differentials (the proper generic term), from other auto company's limited slip units. In my mind the term posi track is assosiated with guys in mullets smoking pall malls listening to zepplin with the t-tops off like in Joe Dirt. Engineers definately dont call it "posi-trac" unless they work for GM. Sorry, just had to rant a little bit about "posi-trac."
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
520 conversion? - 
