Joseph , I think Playful meant , if you loose weight on a bike this frees-up the ponies that would normally be driving that weight. So they can run around to the back wheel and push there Not that it actually creates more horse power.

It also has the side effect of making the bike handle better as well

 

That makes a lot of sense. I can see how being able to optimize the fuel/air mix for every RPM level would be huge.

 

Maybe, except for the fact that the original question was as to why the newer bikes make so much more horsepower. The lighter weight of the bikes has nothing to do with it. Also, he stated the difference was at the rear wheel, while again, the lighter weight has no affect on either crank or rear wheel numbers (though lighter transmission and final drive components may marginally affect rear wheel numbers).
But to get back to the original question, as JHouse originally alluded to, I think that the higher red lines also play a huge role here. When our bike's power begins to tail off a little past 9000 RPMs, a newer bikes power just keeps on climbing. I suspect that if you compared dyno charts for a 1000F and a 1000RR, the numbers wouldn't be that much different below 8000 or 9000 RPMs.

 

playfulgod was being well..... playful.

What he really meant was that not only is the motor superior in it's advancements, the weight difference adds "hp", too.

He's stabbing at our bikes because he's jealous.

Aint that right, buddy?....
It's ok, you don't have to answer.... I know what's up.

 

Also, I don't think the redline has too much to do with it.
I think the RR puts down about 135HP to the wheel, even at 9k RPMs.

You can't deny that the RR has a more advanced motor that produces more power. If Honda couldn't manage to improve on their bikes in the 22yrs it's been since the 'Cane came out, I'd probably sell my stock in the company.

HOWEVER, I run race gas in my bike, so I can smoke RR's ALL DAY LONG!!

 

TBT, comment sa va Mon Ami ?, .........your answer in my book has the most comprehensive perspective relative to newly engineered motors generally speaking.

 

Certainly, sprock. I agree.
I meant to mention that to TBT. Good post, man.

 

FWIW, I pulled up a couple of dyno charts, one of which I posted yesterday in another thread, for a 93 CBR1000F, and another for a 2005 GSXR-1000- the respective charts showed the following approximate HP figures at the following RPMs-
RPM.....................CBR1000F.................. .GSXR
4000........................45.................... ......45
5000........................62.................... ......65
6000........................75.................... ......78
7000........................92.................... ......97.
8000.......................104.................... ....120
9000.......................112.................... ....138
10000.....................111..................... ...152
11000.....................- -...........................160
12000.....................- -...........................160

Midrange HP numbers are very similar, and any differences don't become really dramatic until about 9000 RPM, when our bikes are running out of steam and the GSXR's power is still climbing fast.

 

Well that explains a hellava lot. Since I (almost) never get past 7 or 8K, I'm good with the old mill. No use scaring myself to death.

 

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

I agree that PlayfulGod was referring to the greater acceleration due to the lesser weight.
By spraying some WD- 40 on the chain the results are greatly magnified. LOL