WR Top Speed vs R1

I would like to preface this with I have had a couple...few beers so please call me out if something I put is off base....not that you guys wouldnt lol.

So we like to say the WR is a 1/4 R1, at least I do . But when thinking about it I thought what is the top speed of the R1. After a quick search i found, and Im sure this could be disputed but the approx top speed of a stock new R1 is about 185. Now 185 is fast as shit but when you think about that, the R1 has 750 more CC's, is far more aerodynamic, has higher compression and lets face it....looks fast/bad ass! I also found out it only weighs approx 450lbs wet which i was a bit suprised about...thought it'd be more! Lets say for arguments sake the top speed of the WR is 90 mph. Compared to the R1 the R1 is only 51.5% faster. I do understand the bike is 150 lbs heavier than the WR but would think a bike that is built for speed, handling, and winning championships that also has 75% bigger displacement should do like 400 MPH!!!!!!!!! Ok, kidding about the 400 mph but you get my point. So the question is, is our bike that bad ass or is the R1 and other litre bikes not?

I know many on here are sportbike owners so please chime in. What are your thoughts when comparing your litre bike to the WR?

Here's a new but long video of a R1 and WR at Deals Gap. R1 doesnt come in until like 6 min in..... i think....

Thats actually pretty damn interesting and I'm sure theres a good answer.....but I dont know it.

First of all, the R1 is, like all modern sport bikes, electronically limited to a top speed of 299 km/h. This was done in agreement with all major manufacturers around the world to prevent governments chiming in and putting much stricter regulations in place, or even worse, max HP restrictions. I think it was in the 90? (someone correct me, not to sure about it), that bikes were getting way too fast and people were killing themselves so governments a bit everyone felt they needed a regulation. Manufacturers stepped in and agreed on 299 km/h instead to prevent even more "damage".


Ok enough of that. So that explains the top speed of the R1. Without limiter, in stock form I heard it can reach 350 km/h or so.

Then there is the fact that the faster you go, the more power you need. I think the relationship is squared. So if you want to double the speed, you need to quadruple the power. Real world example: Bugatti Veyron wanted to increase their cars speed from 408 km/h to 430 km/h. To do so they needed an extra 250 hp (!!). So a 25% increase from the original 1000 hp to increase the speed by just 6%. The laws of physics can be a bitch.


And ultimately you have the fact the R1 isn't designed as a top speed bike (like all modern sport bikes). Its a race bike. It needs to find the fastest way around a race track. And I don't think there is any proper race track in the world where you'd reach such a top speed or where it would come in handy. Much better to tune the bike and engine for better handling, more grunt, acceleration, and thus useful power which can be used on track to win races.

Just my opinion

What cha drinkin'?

That makes sense Bigg however I'm still under the impression that the WR is just that bad ass! LOL Thanks for the response.

Motokidd - I'm a Yuengling guy myself and against my better judgement I wanted to try the Bud Light Platinum. It def has more taste than Bud Light (i think BL is to watered down) but I'm not really a fan of the Platinum taste. With that said, after my 2rd one I didnt care any more and after 4, or was it 5, I realized I should have stopped being a work night. It sure does have some kick! Took me by surprise. I didnt think that extra couple of % (Platinum being 6% by volume, Yuengling is prob 4%) would really make a difference but man was wrong!! At least now I can say I tried it but prob wont purchase it again.

The math involved in power vs speed sounds very similar to that of power vs sound pressure level , in audio performance.
A book I read from the early 60's about sound engineering had some basic rules...that essentially, still apply today.
As an example, they stated for every 3 db increase in spl, you would need to double your power to achieve this...all the rest staying the same. While keeping in mind, going from a inefficient speaker cabinet, to a very efficient cabinet can gain increases of around 6 db...all else remaining the same.
Quality being another subject again.
Kinda sounds like the weight/horsepower/performance points we apply to our vehicles.

...and Bud Lite?!...around here that's called sex in a canoe...or fuckin near water...heh.

hey thats me on my wrx

Pretty nice riding there.

Just a function of wind resistance. Its also why gas mileage sucks more and more the faster you go.

fla2wnc wrote:

hey thats me on my wrx

drag is squared by speed. It takes WAY more than twice the horsepower to go 200mph, than 100mph.

Nice video ... and no matter what the numbers say, the WR is a fantastic machine. Coming from the land of sport bikes, I think this machine is more fun in so many ways. Maybe not for racing, but just the fun factor.

thanx yall
i keep posting better videos, check em out
www.youtube.com/user/braapp17

it wouldnt hurt to subscribe too lol

texascycle wrote:

Nice video ... and no matter what the numbers say, the WR is a fantastic machine. Coming from the land of sport bikes, I think this machine is more fun in so many ways. Maybe not for racing, but just the fun factor.

I agree, I had previously owned nothing but sportbikes & decided I wanted something more flexible & fun to ride not to mention lighter. I found my WR250X at my local dealer while I drove by one day & researched the heck out of it & then traded my 97 YZF for it. The WR allows you the option to go on or off-road with the right tires & is easier to maneuver in tight areas which seemed to be worth the trade off for sportbike horsepower.

sswrx wrote:

I agree, I had previously owned nothing but sportbikes & decided I wanted something more flexible & fun to ride not to mention lighter. I found my WR250X at my local dealer while I drove by one day & researched the heck out of it & then traded my 97 YZF for it. The WR allows you the option to go on or off-road with the right tires & is easier to maneuver in tight areas which seemed to be worth the trade off for sportbike horsepower.

Totally agree. Just yesterday I was driving back from university, decided I needed some time to relax so went to the nearest mud hole and was making inch deep doughnuts in the mud and blasting around through foot deep puddles. Ten minutes later I was back on the road going back home. Leaving huge chunks of mud behind me . Now you gotta love a bike like that

Plus you know the saying: it is more fun to ride a slow bike fast, then to ride a fast bike slow. Some people may not agree, but I think this applies perfectly to the wr!

The WR def scores high on the fun factor. Although i've not owned a sport bike i've ridden a ton of them and would choose the WR hands down! Sunday when taking the kids to the grandparents house i made the wife take them in the car and i hit some really good tight twisty's there and back and would guess some sportbikes wouldnt have been able to hang! Later in the day i found this spot by USF here in Tampa that i had prev seen alot of dirtbikes and 4wheelers out at so i decided to check it out. Was a lot of soft sand and on street tires wasnt the easiest to navigate but there was a long maybe 200 yard set of woops that i could hit in third gear. I ride 99% on the road so it was nice to get back to my dirtbike roots! After my second pass the arm pump got the best of me and called it a day. Point being is the WR really is the best of both worlds!!

At least on that road, I think the video sorta speaks for itself. Where you can accel hard out of and in-between turns, without traffic, the WR would be hard-pressed to keep up with the liter sportbike (R1 or the like).

Having said that, and having had and ridden two (2) R1's, an SV650S, an open class KTM SMC, the WR, and having ridden both the sport bikes with SuMos and SuMos with sportbikes, my opinion (and you've heard this before) is that (for speed) nothing replaces displacement.

There's obviously dozens of assumptions associated with that and ya have to remember that after you accelerate to light speed, you've got to be able to haul it all back down to turn it. So straight-line speed obviously isn't everything.

Yea... On a open and even radii (Clean) road the liter sportbike has a distinct advantage. However you get into sequential 180 degree turns where you just keep an even throttle, the SuMo (WR or the like) will excel, simply from the standpoint of rider fatigue.

...and (relative to the HP portion of the discussion) I've never heard of the speed limiting things Bigg is talking about. If there were, we'd (riders in the US) override them as the first mod.

X-Racer wrote:

I've never heard of the speed limiting things Bigg is talking about. If there were, we'd (riders in the US) override them as the first mod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles

Read section "Gentlemen's agreement to end competition".

As the article says, it is nothing official, but the limiter is there. Take ALL modern 1000cc sport bikes and the speedo will stop at 299 km/h. The limiter at that point kicks in. They are not 100% accurate, so it is possible that you will be actually doing 301~302 km/h even with indicated 299, some limiters work better than others.

The limiter is electronic, meaning you need some substantial knowledge to remove it. Even so, it is not very difficult to do. Most people probably don't do it because there simply isn't a point to it, let alone the fact that the insurance would never cover you.

I know for example that Turborider in germany removed his limiter off his cbr1000rr and I think I read somewhere it went 330/340 km/h in stock form. He then added a turbo bringing it to something like 420 km/h. He then went ahead to drive like a maniac around country roads at neck braking speed and selling his stuff on dvd. rumor has it he is now dead.


Anyway, the point being: All modern sport bikes are limited to 299 km/h. Period.

Oh I believe you... I just never heard of it.

Insurance ? What insurance ? :) ...and even if I had insurance ( other than required liability) they'd never know what mods were on the bike.

Regardless, it's irrelevant to me anyways. MY top speed is WELL BELOW 299 kph.

Ironically, you can die on a Vespa at 15 kph. ...or at a stand-still for that matter.

Perfectly agree with ya. Actually isn't there a study showing that most accidents happen below 50 km/h anyway?

Plus I think few people care to remove the limiter because it's useless to have such a high top speed for the track (never gonna reach it).

On the road, well, the insurance won't find out till you don't crash. But once you drive into a granny crossing the road at 350 km/h they will investigate it and find out. And then you will be f**ked.


Plus bragging rights have now changed from top speed to max hp. And we all know HPs are such so much more awesome then speed

bigg wrote:

First of all, the R1 is, like all modern sport bikes, electronically limited to a top speed of 299 km/h. This was done in agreement with all major manufacturers around the world to prevent governments chiming in and putting much stricter regulations in place, or even worse, max HP restrictions. I think it was in the 90? (someone correct me, not to sure about it), that bikes were getting way too fast and people were killing themselves so governments a bit everyone felt they needed a regulation. Manufacturers stepped in and agreed on 299 km/h instead to prevent even more "damage".

1999 was the year. If you want a fast bike you need a '99 Hayabusa,LOL

BTW OP if you think your bike is bad ass and a litre bike isn't line up against one,haha.