FZ6 is a beast!

[thisisbenji]

I think what he meant is that the R6 would put down 130*.91=118ish if the R6 actually made 130hp at the crank. The reason he doesn't trust crank numbers is because all of the motorcycle companies lie about how much power their bikes make so they can say things like "The 2015 [insert model here] is the most powerful 600 bike ever!" They can say it all they want, but an inertia dyno won't lie.

Also, where does one find crank numbers? Yamaha doesn't list them on their website.

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Also, where does one find crank numbers? Yamaha doesn't list them on their website.

Whenever you see a number in a review for a bike, it's the quoted crank value from the company itself, unless the review mentioned that it did it's own dyno runs.

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Dyno results can be misleading if done improperly. There should be a minimum of three runs for each bike being compared, and all done on the same day.

He is pulling numbers from one comparison involving an FZ6 and some other non SS 600 bikes, an then another comparo involving an R6 and other SS 600cc bikes. This is disingenuous, to say the least.


This space intentionally left blank.

I was speaking generally. I agree with your conclusions. 3 runs, similar temperatures, etc. , etc. But the fact remains that all companies say they make some number, but that's sitting on an engine dyno during development and never after putting the bike on an independent, third-party inertia dyno. I'm not saying his numbers are end all be all, and honestly I would be surprised if the R6 makes less than 110hp at the rear wheel.

 

[thisisbenji]

Dyno results can be misleading if done improperly. There should be a minimum of three runs for each bike being compared, and all done on the same day.

He is pulling numbers from one comparison involving an FZ6 and some other non SS 600 bikes, an then another comparo involving an R6 and other SS 600cc bikes. This is disingenuous, to say the least.


This space intentionally left blank.

Idk man, I honestly just think your either trolling me or your really stupid.

and honestly I would be surprised if the R6 makes less than 110hp at the rear wheel.

Have you ever even been on a R6? The thing doesn't even feel faster than the FZ6 until your way up there in the RPM range. It's such a tinny difference unless your on a race track. Heck, the FZ6 might even make more power than the R6 under the curve.

Note that I'm purposely comparing the R6 and FZ6 as the Daytona (my choice of SS machine) makes a ton more power than the FZ6 everywhere.

 

[Dvan5693]

Where are you guys getting your weight figures from? A 2006-14 R6 is 354-366 dry. Not 430....wtf haha.

The fz6(US) goes from 423-410 dry. That's almost a 70 lb difference! 70lbs on a bike that weighs 355lbs is HUGE! That's 20%. I think most underestimate how much of a factor weight is on a motorcycle.

Everyone answer me this. If an fz6 is as fast an R6. Why dont they use or used to use fz6's in motogp? Oh because the R6 is FASTER.

Our motor is a detuned R6 motor. How could a motorcycle that weighs more and has a detuned motor be as fast as a motorcycle that weighs less with the same motor that's not detuned. You guys literally aren't making sense....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChevyFazer]

Since when does a crank number matter?

You can make a million horsepower at the crank, but if you can't put it to the road it's not going to make you any faster.

I'v NEVER ever seen a stock 600cc put down 130 whp. In reality most supersports are right around 100 whp and the fz6 is at 90 whp. That's only a 10hp difference.

Well I stand corrected, but am surprised there's that much drivetrain loss on the R6, that's pretty pathetic to be honest. So in most cases yes HP at the crank matters but I know I for one want to see if other 600ss bikes have about the same drive train loss

 

[ChevyFazer]

Where are you guys getting your weight figures from? A 2006-14 R6 is 354-366 dry. Not 430....wtf haha.

The fz6(US) goes from 423-410 dry. That's almost a 70 lb difference! 70lbs on a bike that weighs 355lbs is HUGE! That's 20%. I think most underestimate how much of a factor weight is on a motorcycle.

Everyone answer me this. If an fz6 is as fast an R6. Why dont they use or used to use fz6's in motogp? Oh because the R6 is FASTER.

Our motor is a detuned R6 motor. How could a motorcycle that weighs more and has a detuned motor be as fast as a motorcycle that weighs less with the same motor that's not detuned. You guys literally aren't making sense....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are talking about wet weights, real world weight, you can't race a bike with no fluid so why even consider the dry weights?

As for why don't they use the fz6 in motogp, well no one uses a r6 either in Moto 2. As for right now they all use a 600cc Honda engine. But there actually was a FZ6 cup in Australia, wolfmans bike if I'm not mistaken is a former cup bike

No one is saying that a FZ6 is a faster bike than the R6 or other 600ss when it comes to bike for bike, we are saying that they are close enough in performance to beat a R6 or 600ss in a race based off the rider themselves based off their weight and skill which it is possible, I've done it myself and seen someone else do it, the member Yamihoe on here.

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Idk man, I honestly just think your either trolling me or your really stupid.



Have you ever even been on a R6? The thing doesn't even feel faster than the FZ6 until your way up there in the RPM range. It's such a tinny difference unless your on a race track. Heck, the FZ6 might even make more power than the R6 under the curve.

Note that I'm purposely comparing the R6 and FZ6 as the Daytona (my choice of SS machine) makes a ton more power than the FZ6 everywhere.

No, I've never been on an R6, but I don't see why that makes any difference? We're talking about raw HP numbers. Being as HP is Torque*RPM/5252 (in the US at least), it makes obvious sense why the R6 Should make more HP than the FZ6. The R6 has at least an extra 1000RPM of redline room compared to the FZ6, and it continues to make its torque high in the RPM range (see the thread about the R6 cam swap in an FZ6 motor if you don't believe me). Extra RPM's and no torque drop off means more HP in the high RPM's.

As a side note, I don't know why you're talking about race tracks. We've gone from a discussion of realistic HP numbers to "whether or not you can tell the difference." Unfortunately, we're human beings and NOT an inertia dyno, so we aren't very good at determining HP numbers just from a ride...

Where are you guys getting your weight figures from? A 2006-14 R6 is 354-366 dry. Not 430....wtf haha.

The fz6(US) goes from 423-410 dry. That's almost a 70 lb difference! 70lbs on a bike that weighs 355lbs is HUGE! That's 20%. I think most underestimate how much of a factor weight is on a motorcycle.

Everyone answer me this. If an fz6 is as fast an R6. Why dont they use or used to use fz6's in motogp? Oh because the R6 is FASTER.

Our motor is a detuned R6 motor. How could a motorcycle that weighs more and has a detuned motor be as fast as a motorcycle that weighs less with the same motor that's not detuned. You guys literally aren't making sense....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since engines require oil, coolant, and gasoline, and brakes, shocks and forks all require fluid to actuate, let's keep our discussion to wet weights. Unless you're going to race your R6 with no fluids, the dry weight means nothing. Also, take posted manufacturer weights with a grain of salt. As I previously mentioned with crank HP numbers, manufacturers love lying about how much their bikes weigh so they can advertise "This bike is the lightest around!"

Additionally, we're all making a ton of sense. If you'd read through the thread, no one has said anything about FZ6 being faster than R6. In fact, if you'd read any of my posts, you would know that I said the EXACT OPPOSITE of this. We're talking about this question, and this question only: Could someone on an FZ6 beat someone on an R6 in a race?

And the answer is yes, for the numerous reasons discussed prior to this post.

 

[FIZZER6]

 

[Dvan5693]

We are talking about wet weights, real world weight, you can't race a bike with no fluid so why even consider the dry weights?

As for why don't they use the fz6 in motogp, well no one uses a r6 either in Moto 2. As for right now they all use a 600cc Honda engine. But there actually was a FZ6 cup in Australia, wolfmans bike if I'm not mistaken is a former cup bike

No one is saying that a FZ6 is a faster bike than the R6 or other 600ss when it comes to bike for bike, we are saying that they are close enough in performance to beat a R6 or 600ss in a race based off the rider themselves based off their weight and skill which it is possible, I've done it myself and seen someone else do it, the member Yamihoe on here.

The weight difference is the same whether they're full of fluids or not? Both bikes still require all of the same fluids. Sure one may hold a slight bit more or less than the other....maybe 5lb difference wet. It's still a large difference.

Well I mean of course. Put an experienced rider who can drag knee against a newbie on an R6......no **** the newbie is going to get out ridden lol. They don't know how to use the full potential. We could play the what if game all day long, what if they're heavier, what if they have better tires, what if they're a track racer.

Bike for bike same rider skill all BS and "what if's" aside, no way an fz6 would ever beat an R6 or any 600cc SS bikes. They're SS's for a reason.

 

[Dvan5693]

His OP is referring to an R1 though. The person on an R1 would have to be not even trying to ride hard or anything, for an Fz6 to keep up.....which at that point, it doesn't matter. Anyone on an R1 riding spiritedly would easily out ride an Fz6 all day. Way more power, less way, far superior suspension. Especially an Fz6 with an passenger haha.

The R1 must of just been cruising along for OP to keep up lol.

 

[ChevyFazer]

You asked where we got our weight numbers from and I answered. And maybe you missed the 10 post where its been said bike for bike yes a r6 is a "faster" bike no one is disagreeing with that, its about the rider that's more or less what we've all been talking about. And yes even a R1 can be outran by a fz6 with a good rider on the fz6. It actually takes a lot of skill to push a big liter bike hard so its not that hard to outrun either in the turns, no way on a straight but the turns yes. As I said earlier I also did that on a KLR650 which by no means in anyway is a performance bike

 

[Dvan5693]

You asked where we got our weight numbers from and I answered. And maybe you missed the 10 post where its been said bike for bike yes a r6 is a "faster" bike no one is disagreeing with that, its about the rider that's more or less what we've all been talking about. And yes even a R1 can be outran by a fz6 with a good rider on the fz6. It actually takes a lot of skill to push a big liter bike hard so its not that hard to outrun either in the turns, no way on a straight but the turns yes. As I said earlier I also did that on a KLR650 which by no means in anyway is a performance bike

Ahh sorry I did miss a few of those posts . But the OP said he kept up with an R1 in a straight line....which I don't believe lol.

 

[Marthy]

+1 and most inline 4s I'd imagine due to their power coming in so late. The FZ-09's torquey triple obviously requires different treatment haha. I see what you mean though and parrrtially retract my statement but still believe straight line flooring of a bike takes little skill in comparison, not counting the first maybe three gears of course.

+1, and I still say that our number is actually quoted from the wheel and their's from the crank. I seem to remember seeing a dyno of a stock R6 vs a stock FZ6 and they were stupidly close.


Unless the two are closely similar from the actual power at the wheel

If I could only dig up that dyno comparison between the R6 and FZ6 of similar year range, it showed VERY small differences. Definitely to the point where any small change in weight or skill would make one or the other a winner. (in a straight line, I won't argue suspension differences and different setups)

And really shouldn't be all that hard to do, but again versing power vs power is silly lol.

Good read overall. My 09 peak at 111HP at the rear wheel but I have 60-63 Ft.Lb of torque from 5K all the way to 11K on a 400 lbs bike!

I did 3 track days last year. You have no idea how many 600s I slingshot coming off the corner. I even keep up with them up to 140 MPH.

 

[thisisbenji]

No, I've never been on an R6, but I don't see why that makes any difference? We're talking about raw HP numbers. Being as HP is Torque*RPM/5252 (in the US at least), it makes obvious sense why the R6 Should make more HP than the FZ6. The R6 has at least an extra 1000RPM of redline room compared to the FZ6, and it continues to make its torque high in the RPM range (see the thread about the R6 cam swap in an FZ6 motor if you don't believe me). Extra RPM's and no torque drop off means more HP in the high RPM's.

As a side note, I don't know why you're talking about race tracks. We've gone from a discussion of realistic HP numbers to "whether or not you can tell the difference." Unfortunately, we're human beings and NOT an inertia dyno, so we aren't very good at determining HP numbers just from a ride...



Since engines require oil, coolant, and gasoline, and brakes, shocks and forks all require fluid to actuate, let's keep our discussion to wet weights. Unless you're going to race your R6 with no fluids, the dry weight means nothing. Also, take posted manufacturer weights with a grain of salt. As I previously mentioned with crank HP numbers, manufacturers love lying about how much their bikes weigh so they can advertise "This bike is the lightest around!"

Additionally, we're all making a ton of sense. If you'd read through the thread, no one has said anything about FZ6 being faster than R6. In fact, if you'd read any of my posts, you would know that I said the EXACT OPPOSITE of this. We're talking about this question, and this question only: Could someone on an FZ6 beat someone on an R6 in a race?

And the answer is yes, for the numerous reasons discussed prior to this post.

Because I'm talking about wheel horse power and none of you dumb dumbs seem to think my numbers are right. There's absolutely no ****ing way the r6 makes 130 or even 120 whp. The reality is the r6 only makes 10-15 extra wheel horsepower over the fz6. That's not enough to make a difference unless the riders have identical skill levels. I'd argue that most riders might be a tiny bit quicker on the fz6 due to it having its power slightly lower in the rev range.

It's down right idiototic to quote crank numbers because you can't ride a ****ing engine.

I honestly don't even understand your argument against. We both agree that the r6 is faster than the fz6 but that it comes down to the rider. However I think you believe the r6 is faster than it is. Having spent quiet a bit of time on a 2006 r6 recently I can for sure say it's slower than the fz6 until you get it over 12,000 rpm.

 

[ChanceCoats123]

Because I'm talking about wheel horse power and none of you dumb dumbs seem to think my numbers are right. There's absolutely no ****ing way the r6 makes 130 or even 120 whp. The reality is the r6 only makes 10-15 extra wheel horsepower over the fz6. That's not enough to make a difference unless the riders have identical skill levels. I'd argue that most riders might be a tiny bit quicker on the fz6 due to it having its power slightly lower in the rev range.

It's down right idiototic to quote crank numbers because you can't ride a ****ing engine.

Look, I don't know if you've even read my posts, but I'm not looking to get into an argument. I'll suffice to say that you're right and crank hp numbers are useless, but I also never said the R6 makes 120 whp (and me never riding am R6 doesn't change that). In fact, I just used a solid argument to explain why the R6 makes more power than the FZ6 (which it does, obviously high in the rev range), but none of us are talking about track riding here, so that's a complete non-factor.

 

[FinalImpact]

Utube channel of the local boys.... lots of stock bikes on DJ250 dyno to review HP numbers.... EDR Performance dyno videos

I offer it as its one dyno, many bikes and mostly the same operator. And ya, the ones with moded fuel, ignition, and exhaust throw flames!

Yes, Rider skills matter most of the time!

 

[Dvan5693]

Hey guys my old Ninja 250 is just as fast as my new Ninja 300, it actually can keep up with it too! [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iviyth0s]

No, what I'm saying is one of those crank numbers is inaccurate.

The drive line loss doesn't seem correct.

This is why I always go by wheel numbers, crank numbers are utter BS.

Either the FZ6 makes far more than 97 HP at the crank or the R6 makes far less than 130 HP at the crank. There's absolutely no way the R6 is losing 30 HP but the FZ6 is only down 7.

+1 This is all I was trying to get at, there's some lying about the crank power of the R6 or some terrible engineering of its transmission to steal all that power away.

Dyno results can be misleading if done improperly. There should be a minimum of three runs for each bike being compared, and all done on the same day.

He is pulling numbers from one comparison involving an FZ6 and some other non SS 600 bikes, an then another comparo involving an R6 and other SS 600cc bikes. This is disingenuous, to say the least.


This space intentionally left blank.

Also true, but sadly no dyno charts ever directly compare the two bikes stock on the same day in the same conditions
The best we can do is pull different sources and get a rough average representation

Because I'm talking about wheel horse power and none of you dumb dumbs seem to think my numbers are right. There's absolutely no ****ing way the r6 makes 130 or even 120 whp. The reality is the r6 only makes 10-15 extra wheel horsepower over the fz6. That's not enough to make a difference unless the riders have identical skill levels. I'd argue that most riders might be a tiny bit quicker on the fz6 due to it having its power slightly lower in the rev range.

It's down right idiototic to quote crank numbers because you can't ride a ****ing engine.

I honestly don't even understand your argument against. We both agree that the r6 is faster than the fz6 but that it comes down to the rider. However I think you believe the r6 is faster than it is. Having spent quiet a bit of time on a 2006 r6 recently I can for sure say it's slower than the fz6 until you get it over 12,000 rpm.

LOL at riding an engine!!

But yeah it's all about actual whp and wet weight weight and when those are close between two bikes, the rider skill/weight will be enough to tip the scale in either's favor.

Hey guys my old Ninja 250 is just as fast as my new Ninja 300, it actually can keep up with it too! [emoji23]

Are you a wizard, how do you ride two bikes at once?

 

[Dvan5693]

No I'm actually an octopus! I can ride up to 4 bikes all at once!

I often go on group rides, alone! All of my bikes with less horsepower and smaller engines are always faster though, ALWAYS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk