Their tank eliminates some body panels, requires a custom seat, and probably new tail too..

probably eliminates the tank cover and has that integrated in with the tank.

It seems to. Wonder why the factory tank isn't set up that way?

I wondered the same thing. I guess so you can tighten the bolts that fasten the front of the tank to the airbox. but they could have had those go right through the tank cover if integrated with the tank. Put some nice looking bolts on them. The 14 fairings have bolts everywhere already. Why not?

Maybe they thought it was a good opportunity to provide a place to hide electronics. Lots of people do that with the tank cover. Like they have a huge battery box and a completely unnecessary hole in the back of the air box plugged with a grommet. It's all laid out for NOS if you want it.

I wonder if they actually tried to plan for accessories like nos?

I would almost think so. They certainly engineered the tail mudflap for fender elimination. It's too perfect to be coincidence. Everything is there in the right place.

Just for what it's worth..
The catalyst tank should be about half the stock weight (stock 14.4#, cat 6-7#). The Cat tank is 2-3" lower on top than the stock tank.
I wonder how much speed that would equal in the mile?
Catalyst said that their tanks should be drained after use so not exactly a cruiser/commuter accessory. If the fuel isn't drained they estimated that the tank would need to be sealed every couple of years.

* Last updated by: CoolBrzBlu on 1/15/2017 @ 9:06 PM *

For LSR, I don't think weight is as important. The bike will go just as fast with more weight but it will take more time to accelerate to top speed. I think a mile should give you time to hit top speed even if you're 20 lbs heavier. You just won't enjoy it as long as if you were 20 lbs lighter.

My question is whether the aero Improvement and weight savings of new wheels is more beneficial than a lower tank, and new bodywork with a smooth extended bellypan? Dont think there are enough funds to do both.
The tank and bodywork would be more unique for sure.

* Last updated by: CoolBrzBlu on 1/28/2017 @ 3:22 PM *

My question is whether the aero Improvement and weight savings of new wheels is more beneficial than a lower tank, and new bodywork with a smooth extended bellypan?

I don't think you're going to recognize any improvement with aeros unless you past 150 mph. The wheels will give you an advantage from 0 on up.

I planned to make some headlight eliminator caps out of a plastic product. Without headlights, the stock fairings are probably not a lot heavier than race fairings. i'm not sure the grills help with aeros but they sure look cool.

If I went with just bodywork I think I'd still try to run the lights. Already have a track bike that I'm trying to add a headlight to. With new bodywork it wouldnt be very hard to eliminate the front and rear turn signals at least.
I wonder how hard it would be to use an aluminum undertray, and bend the tail down so that it's profile would be more rear drop like? That would require a custom seat though..
Have you seen Durbahn's unification mod where he makes a new tank, subframe and tail in one piece out of carbon fiber? Wonder how much that would cost..

I wonder how hard it would be to use an aluminum undertray, and bend the tail down so that it's profile would be more rear drop like? That would require a custom seat though..

An aluminum undertray....? you mean the belly pan or the mudflap that forms the undertail? i wouldn't do either in aluminum. Stick with plastic. Yes if you remove the lower subframe members from the tail it would not be hard to bend the tail frame down. No passengers. I have my subframe rails out but I trust the aeros were well thought out by Kaw. If race bikes don't bend the tail down, I wouldn't bother unless it's just for aesthetics. Personally, I like a higher tail. Just go with lowering links if you want a lower tail.

If you bend,, the bolt holes may not match up any more. You would not need a custom seat, you could trim the seat cowl a bit if necessary and cut all the foam out of the passenger seat. if the back seat lock doesn't engage no problem. You have the front one. I plan to remove both locks, cut out the passenger seat and use bolts through the riders seat that go into the seat lock bolt holes. Some day.

Have you seen Durbahn's unification mod where he makes a new tank, subframe and tail in one piece out of carbon fiber? Wonder how much that would cost..

A lot. You're talking serious race dollars now.

* Last updated by: Rook on 1/28/2017 @ 5:45 PM *

Tiger racing undertail/battery tray, with the catalyst street tail. I'm running the subframe with the bracing taken off already. With the new tank the seat has to be replaced anyway.

In aerodynamics the busa is still a ways ahead of the 14. The noise and tail are definitely more aerodynamic. Kawasaki went more for looks, and the Suzuki is more functional. I don't want to change the nose, although I have a race upper, but once the headlights are taped or sealed in the only difference is the protrusion for the running light.
If I get the lowered tank it requires a custom seat, so why not try to make the tail and seat at least as aerodynamic as a stock busa?

I don't want to change the nose, although I have a race upper, but once the headlights are taped or sealed in the only difference is the protrusion for the running light.

If I get the lowered tank it requires a custom seat, so why not try to make the tail and seat at least as aerodynamic as a stock busa?

In aerodynamics the busa is still a ways ahead of the 14. The noise and tail are definitely more aerodynamic. Kawasaki went more for looks, and the Suzuki is more functional.

Where did you get this? Overall both bikes have a very similar shape it's more in details. I am interested in how you determined that about the aerodynamic differences.

I've heard it claimed a number of times as Cool mentioned, the busa is more aerodynamic.

Personally, I think your splitting hairs a little bit. I'm sure both were wind tunnel tested. The busa looks pointier and smoother and the hump and down point tail probably do help with backdraft turbulence. The thing to consider is that the rider is not so aerodynamic as much as he tries to be. If the tail is any more aerodynamic on a busa, it would improve acceleration at high speed a bit and maybe get the bike moving a half mph faster---maybe. I was going to go as far to say the tail doesn't really matter much but I don't want to encourage Cool to bend it down hoping to achieve better aeros. Lets say I think the other end is a lot more important.

I do not think "splitting hairs" means what you think it means. "ways ahead" is not splitting hairs.I would say aerodymaically between the two bikes is splitting hairs. Yes, I'm sure from a drag coefficient standpoint, one bike has less drag than the other. But I doubt one has a 20 and the other has a 40. 20 vs 20.1 would be splitting hairs, not ways ahead.

I found something on another 14 forum where it was estimated (by a magazine I thinkg) the Busa's aero required 197 hp to hit 200mph and 14 203 hp to hit 200 mph. I believe htis was referring to Gen 1 14s. Get 2s aero was further refined in the wind tunnel.

Put the two side by siide and the profiles are extremely similar. Yes, in aero dynamics little things make little difference but "ways ahead" I think is disproporitinate.

eh- Semantics...if I wanted to do 200, I'd pick the 14R. I wish we had some more test videos. This was the one i referenced last year.

The busa tops out it's tach in 21 seconds, the 14 hits it's peak rpm in only 18 seconds.

No sense in comparing speedos because of speedo error discrepancy. Also, the busa continues to accelerate (presumably, since the tach continues to rise)after pegging the speedo.

BUT--Both bikes cover the same ground in 22 seconds(starting line to where fence drops just before the first curve). I assume the video time bar is accurate enough to compare times to the second but as for .1 seconds, IDK or really care much for this type of run. So maybe--just maybe that busa went faster if it took longer to hit top speed but still covered the same ground in 22 seconds.

Like I said, I wish we had more videos like this to compare.

I've watched that a few times, guys got some iron balls! Yeah, me watching it I really couldn't see any difference in acceleration. And this makes sense. In the 1/4 Busa's only a couple tenths slower than 14R, and it's probably as fast as Gen 1 14s. A couple tenths is half of a blink.

It's funny when someone tells me a 14 or Busa isn't fast enough for them, you know, it doesn't do it for them. Put em on that track, if they can do what that dude does, fine, it's not fast enough, put your superchargers or nitrous or whatever on there.

At any rate, my point was just to real in Busa's and 14's are very simliar and it's a matter of at most a few percent in their aero dynamic efficiencys. Yes, at 200 miles 3% is a difference. I'll say this, 14R looked a little more stable than the Busa in that vid too.

Yes the busa seems to have some bumps in the steering. I like them both but if you're choosing between a busa and a Gen1 14, don't bother trying to compare power and speed. There's not enough difference. one is a little stronger here, the other is a little stronger there....it's nothing significant. You can lift the rear of the 14 a bit to make it handle better than the busa and you can get better brakes for the busa so it out-brakes the 14. It really comes down to which one you like the look of best. And they do have a little different character so ride both if you can.

Better brakes for the Busa? What's the difference?
Anyway, from what I've read Kawi wanted more looks than aerodynamics. Why else does the tail point up? The hayabusa has a better nose, seems like a longer windscreen, and a much better tail.
As far as the nose being much more important than the tail, I'm not sure.. I think the fender is the bodypart that starts to separate the airstream for the rest of the body, before the nose, so that can be easily fixed at least. The less gaps there are in the bodywork the better, so a longer windscreen that comes as close as possible to touching the helmet it better. A streamlined undertray is also very important, not sure if we will have time and money to address that this year.
The tail should continue the silhouette so that the bike looks like a teardrop. Definitely shouldn't stick up, unless its supposed to be a spoiler. Maybe it helps with really high hp bikes at high speed?

* Last updated by: CoolBrzBlu on 2/17/2017 @ 4:16 AM *

Better brakes for the Busa? What's the difference?

First there was butt dyno. I'm coining a new phrase, butt tunnel. This is evaluating aerodynamics by your ass, i.e. butt tunnel testing.