My 250 was a 99... Before i played with it it would barley do 55, after the change it was doing 65 regularly with 70 as a max.... But keep in mind i am 300 pounds.... And with my fiancee on the back it was pissed doing 45-50 -----Original Message----- Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:01:19 pm To: [email protected] From: "Javier Garcia" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Nighthawk Lovers] Fuel Mileage
Allen, I think you really want a sport bike ;) Javier. On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Allen Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > The power band is the same Paul, but it really kicks in above 5K. To > me these engines are HP engines and are a bit lacking in torque. If > you keep them spinning fast they are a hoot, but chugging along behind > a line of cages @ 45-50MPH they don't have any roll on power. I do so > little highway riding that I wouldn't mind closer gears and higher > rpms. As for being buzzy I think it smooths out from 65-85 MPH, either > way it's smoother than a HD. > > On 9/15/10, paul annen <[email protected]> wrote: > > wow... hearing that 5k your bikes are screaming makes me love my wing > even > > more... 4200 is where i start to really get power and i redline at 9k > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Kurt Nolte <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Allen, > >> > >> My standard of performance is the vehicle I'm in the most; that is, > >> 13 ton bus powered by a 275hp turbodiesel. Snappy acceleration and > >> "Awesome!!!11!" levels are easily attained when your normal vehicle > >> can only attain .2g acceleration in a straight line, .3 down a hill. > >> :D > >> > >> My long time driving small displacement cars with a stick makes > >> downshifting to pass quite a natural reaction; going another gear > >> won't hurt, or be weird. > >> > >> I'll be sure to report on things, as well as getting some > >> "reproducible" readings on acceleration performance and the like. > >> > >> -Kurt > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Allen Thomas <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Mine is a 92, I guess it is a matter of opinion and how you like to > >> > ride. I for one would like to know you're thoughts on the change, so > >> > post a report once you switch the gears. Personally I have considered > >> > trying a 14 tooth to get better roll on power. I find myself keeping > >> > it in lower gears so that I can get snappier acceleration especially > >> > when there is traffic. Besides @ 70 MPH you can't hear the engine over > >> > the wind so the 5K RPM wouldn't bother me. > >> > > >> > On 9/15/10, Kurt Nolte <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I have played with that site before.17 tooth countersprocket is a 12% > >> >> decrease in RPM, 6 teeth off the driven sprocket is a 16% decrease in > >> RPM. > >> >> > >> >> Bike is a '93 750, 15/38 stock tooth count. > >> >> > >> >> On Sep 15, 2010 2:52 PM, "Allen" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> What year is your NH? Adding two teeth to the countershaft sprocket > is > >> >> like taking away 6 teeth from the driven sprocket. Using the last gen > >> >> NH transmission gearing you would drop rpm by 500 @ 60 MPH. That > would > >> >> put the bike way below it's torque curve for any kind of decent > >> >> acceleration. I would imagine downshifting to 3rd would be necessary > >> >> to pass a slow vehicle with any authority. Try playing with > >> >> http://ww -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en.
