Re: sv650 top speed?
 

Why does everyone seem to think that reducing weight will increase their top speed?

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

Bet you never saw a fully laden supertanker top the ton.
If I lost a bit of weight I would present less frontal area and thus make it go faster.

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

Ive had mine at approx. 135 and i didn't want:nomore: of it!!! That was plenty fast for me!! Everything was :shaking2: and a blur!!!

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

No, you're right I haven't. Doesn't change my point though!

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

Because it's absolutley true!?

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

I think you'll find a fully laden supertanker tops thousands of tonnes when fully loaded ;)

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

No, it isn't. Reduced weight will allow you to reach a given speed quicker but the effect of drag at higher speeds beomes the largest impediment to achieving a high terminal speed.

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

No it's absolutely nothing to do with it

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

I agree, as they discuss on this thread:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14909
if there was no friction then the top speed would be the speed of light no matter what size of bike or power of engine.

As for someone saying that sat nav speed will be inaccurate because of the time it takes for the signal to get to/from the satellite, I don't think this will matter either because

1st position reading = real position A + error (due to signal time)
2nd position reading = real position B + error

distance covered = real position B + error - real position A - error = real position B - real position A

I suspect they are calibrated to take into account signal time, I think the GPS system even takes relativity into account! But whatever the error is it will tend to cancel out on average when comparing two positions anyway.

Re: sv650 top speed?
 

That's assuming that the error is the same each time, you could have
distance covered = real position B + error - real position A - error = real position B - real position A + 2xError