the NEW ZZR1400 (edit:in Oz its Ninja ZX-14!)

Lainie · Post by **Lainie** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:46 am

mmmmmmmmm I like that too

Tones baby X-Mas next year

Smitty · Post by **Smitty** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:59 am

zx9r king wrote:Specifications for the 2006 ZX-14 Coming Soon!

...zactly what Kawasaki Oz say

Gosling1 · Post by **Gosling1** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:38 am

Jonno wrote:I want to know if keeping the 12R and spending a grand or so to make it produce simular power is worth it and within easy financial reach

absolutely Yes, and Yes. It is easy to obtain 200 RWHP for the 12 if you want it, and as all 12R owners know, just a pipe and PCIII will get you about 180 at the back wheel when set up correctly .......

Can't wait to test-ride one of these........

hoffy · Post by **hoffy** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:16 am

here we go, hoffy is going to blindly lead into more massive debt in the next 12 months to get one of these puppies, I can see it.

Shifty · Post by **Shifty** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:51 pm

The front view is hot. The side will take a while to grow on me... and the rear is VFR-cool.

hoffy · Post by **hoffy** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:34 pm

Jonno,

Controversial I know, but I think the 12R looks slightly better, and whether you would notice the difference in power on road to a 12R is unlikely.

However, you wont get the same what the f*** is that looks on the 12R.

What do ya do?????

Slow and wobbly · Post by **Slow and wobbly** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:58 am

Bring on the horsepower wars !!! With speculation that this engine is good for 200hp at the rear wheel then what is Suzuki's answer? So much for the "Gentlemans agreement" of the mid 90's. If a zx12 can devour a tyre in about 3000k's without too much effort then does the 14 come with a tyre changing machine and racking for the garage as an optional accessory?

ZX14
Power to weight ratio wet unladen = 0.862 hp per kilogram / 862hp per tonne
power to weight ratio with rider @ 85kg = 0.631 hp per kilogram / 631hp per tonne

ZX9R
power to weight ratio wet unladen = 0.609 hp per kilogram / 609 hp per tonne
power to weight ratio with rider @ 85kg = 0.444 hp per kilogram / 444 hp per tonne

Falcon xr6 turbo
1725 kg 326hp
power to weight without passengers or golf clubs
0.189hp per kilo / 188hp per tonne

Nasa space shuttle - approx calculations I couldnt find exact figures, but from a seat of the pants kind of feel.....
7500hp per kg
7.5million hp per tonne - figures from here http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Sta ... uris.shtml

Correct me if I am wrong

Gosling1 · Post by **Gosling1** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:24 am

Slow and wobbly wrote:ZX14 Power to weight ratio wet unladen = 0.862 hp per kilogram / 862hp per tonne
power to weight ratio with rider @ 85kg = 0.631 hp per kilogram / 631hp per tonne

Correct me if I am wrong

Are you quoting ZX12 figures here , or ZZR-1400 figures

If they are the latter, I would love to know where you obtained your figures from........

Hoffy - you are dead right mate

ZX10R King · Post by **ZX10R King** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:24 am

*snip*

Slow and wobbly wrote:
ZX9R
power to weight ratio wet unladen = 0.609 hp per kilogram / 609 hp per tonne
power to weight ratio with rider @ 85kg = 0.444 hp per kilogram / 444 hp per tonne

Correct me if I am wrong

Yeah, my diet starts tomorrow. I want more hp/tonne

Slow and wobbly · Post by **Slow and wobbly** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:29 am

Gossling - 14 figures taken from article on previous page

Gosling1 · Post by **Gosling1** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:34 am

Slow and wobbly wrote:ZX14 - Power to weight ratio wet unladen = 0.862 hp per kilogram / 862hp per tonne
power to weight ratio with rider @ 85kg = 0.631 hp per kilogram / 631hp per tonne

OK, so you have used 200hp and 232kg wet as the basis for the figures.......I think a more realistic version would be 'estimated' rear wheel HP ( as all the figures quoted so far are only estimates), and this would give.....

.733 hp per kg (est wet weight, estimated rear wheel HP).

I put the 'dry' figure of 196kg to my dealer a couple of days ago.........he just laughed

.

But the 'estimate' of 200 crank HP - he just had a far-away sort of stare in those wildly glazed eyes of his

- so the HP figure sounds *reasonably* accurate

BTW, for comparitive purposes, a ZX12R comes in at .666 (now thats appropriate

), using 'est' rear wheel HP of 165, and wet weight of 240kg ( I think they are pretty close to the mark....)

If you use crank HP and dry weight for the 12, well its .900

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. When Kawasaki Oz release the *factory* horsepower, torque and dry weight figures, we will then have something *concrete* to work from.

Post by **MadKaw** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:02 pm

Based on your figures of 165 hp and 240 kg I get .687 hp per kilo...

The zx10r at 155hp (rw) and wet weight of about 190 kg is .815 hp per kilo
but using the quoted crank hp of 180 and dry weight of 170 kg you get 1.059 hp per kilo.....

Gosling1 · Post by **Gosling1** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:25 pm

MadKaw wrote:Based on your figures of 165 hp and 240 kg I get .687 hp per kilo...

correcto, I used 160hp, but posted 165

its a hot day, and the humidity affected the readings on my solar-powered calculator

Slow and wobbly · Post by **Slow and wobbly** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:42 pm

Sorry should have just said
" Wow I want one "

Slow and wobbly · Post by **Slow and wobbly** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:43 pm

And a space shuttle