Was thumbing thru July's Sport Rider and saw their dyno for the RR to be @ 105.6hp & 44.8 ft/lbs tq. I'm not even passed 100hp WITH my mods...wtf?
Could it be the dyno reading or is my bike all crapped out now? Any ideas?

(copied my post from a VS thread)

Found my charts. Before (Blue) and After (Red).

Bike info =
2005 CBR600RR - 8700 miles (under 6krpm for first 600/breakin)
Yoshimura RS-5 Carbon Cone End cap Slip-on
Factory Pro Velocity Stacks - Installed to 2nd chart
BMC Filter - Installed to 2nd chart
PCIII USB - Installed to 2nd chart
HRC 1/5 turn Throttle
EVAP Canister/Smog System still Connected
15/45 520 chain+sprockets with speedohealer
Rear tire pressure = 32psi
Honda GN4 20/50
Premium/91 octane from Shell...V-POWER!!!

Don't know if some of these things even matter but eh.

They gave me the map on a jump drive.
So if anyone running a similar setup want the map....:biggrin:

http://www.zshare.net/download/05-600rr-rs-5-velocitystacks-bmcfilter-pciii-map-zip.html

So here's what it do do....
How the hell do you read this? lol
BEFORE/BASE RUN
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h81/BiGxbOix510/Misc%20Pics/VS-Base.jpg


AFTER/TUNED RESULTS
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h81/BiGxbOix510/Misc%20Pics/VS-Mapped.jpg

not only is it mostly a dyno difference issue but magazines arent worth sh1t anyway.

barely 100hp still seems slightly low though. that yoshi may be some of the issue. i know guys on bikes other than suzuki (who yosh sponsors) who are dissapointed with their yoshis and are actually losing power over stock. another thing may be the thicker 20/50 oil believe it or not.

I'd say it's more the dyno than the pipe. I haven't seen a 600RR lose power with a pipe yet, but depending on the dyno, they'll give anything from 96-105 stock, depending on the dyno. Forget it, it's really pointless comparing your figures to anything other than a bike from the same dyno you used. Not the same brand, or same area, the exact same dyno.


PS: I cannot believe I just defended a post against Yosh pipes. Haha But anyway. What I will add to Potate's post is that it's the same deal withtheir lack of h.p gains for Suzuki as it is for every other bike. There's no magic in a Suzuki engine that only Yosh know about. LOL

Your bike was run on an Eddy Current dyno. The true HP numbers they give are more accurate than those of the typical DynoJet dynos.
Your bike is right in line with DynoJet numbers, as 90HP on an Eddy Current is ~103HP on a DynoJet, and 100 on EC is ~115HP on a DJ.

plus sport rider uses "corrected" hp numbers.

Btw,you have a hrc 1/6th turn throttle.

"Your bike was run on an Eddy Current dyno. The true HP numbers they give are more accurate than those of the typical DynoJet dynos. "

You guys really need to start reading more up to date websites and forgetting the absolute BS that Factory Pro gon with. Seriously, ANY Dynojet dyno that has a brake on it, or runs tuning link etc IS an eddy current dyno. And on my experience, most of these dyno's or people that crap on about Dynojet dyno's not being that way, and talk about PC's and refering to the old PCII's for their comparison are just tools, and that their dynos usually read higher than Dynojets eddy current dyno's but anyway, I'm done.

Yes, DynoJet now makes an Eddy Current dyno, and their old dynos can be upgraded to an Eddy Current.
It is not B.S. at all, just many old DynoJet kool-aid drinkers refused to see the light. DynoJet did realize that the other system was better and quietly changed their tune.

What I stated holds true. An Eddy Current dyno - whether Factory or DynoJet (happy now, sookie?) will read lower than the old DynoJet B.S. system, period. Eddy Current systems flat read better and more accurate. Factory Pro was right, and DynoJet had to compensate. Stop drinking the DJ kool-aid once in a while, and get up to date information.
All the real tuners have upgraded to Eddy Current systems so they can tune properly.

Doesn't matter if it was run on a Factory (which all DJ pansies hate) or a DJ version Eddy Current, it is the same thing.

hahahaha yeah but how many people now, I mean seriously, how many people that map bikes run the OLD dyno, it ain't a recent thing, and to put load on the bike, and as bikes changed (coz load on carb'd bikes doesn't change jack really, carb and throttle are the same regardless on carb'd bike are they not?) so did Dynojet. I seriously doubt Dynojet chaged anything under pressure from Factory Pro, (bwaaaahahahha) but anyway. What I said was right and to this day, on their site you'll see why their dyno is better than 10 y/o dynojet models and the very first PC's compared to what they use. NO comparison to PCIII's or USB's and apparently, dynojet don't make eddy current dyno's, go read the site, they will tell you. LOL

But as I have pointed out in the past, in the grand scheme of things, FP are irrelevent in comparison to DJ, plain and simple. I just get pist when people make sweeping statements about how FP dyno's read lower than DJ's coz they aren't eddy current. Like YOU DID say. It just ain't true in most cases later than the jurassic period. LOL

why tire pressure at 32?

my guess would be gearing. 15/45, which gear did you dyno on?

dont forget the other factors of where they dyno'd: altitude, temperature, etc.

our california editions have cats, too. i think your slip-on would be less restrictive without the cat.

Really, sookie? DynoJet "don't make Eddy Current dyno's"?
I understand you are a few years behind up-to-date tuners, but have a gander here:
http://www.dynojet.com/motorcycle_dyno/250i_dyno/index.php
Shock!! Look at that!!! Maybe you should talk to a DJ rep more than once a decade.
Yes, DynoJet has an Eddy Current system as well as an upgrade kit to their old crap.
Yes, they measure lower. All GOOD tuners know this.

LOL......wow.

"Really, sookie? DynoJet "don't make Eddy Current dyno's"?
I understand you are a few years behind up-to-date tuners, but have a gander here:
http://www.dynojet.com/motorcycle_d..._dyno/index.php
Shock!! Look at that!!! Maybe you should talk to a DJ rep more than once a decade.
Yes, DynoJet has an Eddy Current system as well as an upgrade kit to their old crap.
Yes, they measure lower. All GOOD tuners know this."

Are you on drugs dude? where did I say that dynojet didn't make eddy current dyno's? That was my argument against what you said in the freakin first place.

HURRROOOOOO????

No wonder you have troubles understanding what it's all about. Hahaha I said this:

"I just get pist when people make sweeping statements about how FP dyno's read lower than DJ's coz they aren't eddy current. Like YOU DID say!,"

Because you DID say that the FP's read lower coz DJ's are NOT eddy current, did you not? Oh man, I can't believe I had to point this out. LOL. And just to make sure you get it, you said this:

"Your bike was run on an Eddy Current dyno. The true HP numbers they give are more accurate than those of the typical DynoJet dynos.
Your bike is right in line with DynoJet numbers, as 90HP on an Eddy Current is ~103HP on a DynoJet, and 100 on EC is ~115HP on a DJ."

Once again, and no matter how much you try and spin it, you're full of it. Thanks

....blah blah........dynojet don't make eddy current dyno's, go read the site, they will tell you. LOL
Right there, moron. You can't even remember a few posts up with all the double talk and BS you spread around the web.
try keeping your stories in line every once in a while.
Yes, Eddy Current systems read lower than old DJ systems. It is a fact, DJ even knows and talks about it.
I'd have you try running the same bike back to back on an old DJ system and a new 250i system, but you're a small-time shop, not a real race tune shop. Not a good enough tuner to handle a load control Eddy Current system.
I had this very thing done at a local shop. They still have their old DJ system and just got a new one. We ran it on both, back to back.
The Eddy Current system read 11HP lower.
Yes, it is a fact, no matter how much smoke you continually try to blow up other's skirts, you are wrong. But that's par for your course all over the web.
you may be able to snow some, but not others.

Mate seriously you need to learn to read and comprehend what you read. Go read their (factory Pro's) site, coz again that is who I was talking about in response to your fact filled info on his dyno numbers.

In referecne to Factory Pro:
"on their site you'll see why their dyno is better than 10 y/o dynojet models and the very first PC's compared to what they use. NO comparison to PCIII's or USB's and apparently, dynojet don't make eddy current dyno's, go read the site, they will tell you. LOL "

Fill in the Blah blah's and it suddenly makes sense does it not? well, maybe not if you read "blah blah" out of that. THEY is FP doofus.

Did you read where I also said this? It was only my first comment to your wealth of knowledge. Hurroo??


"You guys really need to start reading more up to date websites and forgetting the absolute BS that Factory Pro gon with. Seriously, ANY Dynojet dyno that has a brake on it, or runs tuning link etc IS an eddy current dyno. "

As for my tuning etc, LOL You're the expert, I can't argue with that, I've got nuthin'. Hahaha

"my guess would be gearing. 15/45, which gear did you dyno on?"

BTW, gearing has nothing to do with the peak hp figure either.

What I will add to Potate's post is that it's the same deal withtheir lack of h.p gains for Suzuki as it is for every other bike. There's no magic in a Suzuki engine that only Yosh know about. LOL

well i figured at least they would have some more research and whatnot into a suzuki but you're right i guess it couldnt be all THAT much different. probably why they can get away with slappin a different clamp end onto every slipon they make and sellin it for every kind of bike pretty much.

the guy dissapointed with his and who said he felt like he was actually losing power was on an R6

Tell you what, sook. you've been caught with your pants down in another spreading of crap, but I'll just let you keep on thinking you're some kind of moto-God here. Those that have been snowed by you can continue to think you actually know what you're talking about, while the rest of us on all the other boards you've shown your hand to will know.
You're wrong, many people know you're wrong. You refuse to ever accept any other input from real tuners and refuse to ever accept the many times you've been wrong.
It is just flat out proven fact that EC dynos read a lower number than old DJ systems. ALL good tuners know this, you never will.
Spin it all you'd like, but you were caught out. Again. I know you have a hard time with the English language above the 6th grade level, but you'll get it eventually.
Keep on screwing up, as it's so much fun to watch and call you on.

Hey, since you think you're Colin's best friend and hang out with him all the time, tell us which WSBK team he's going to be with next year?

hey BDA116... do you realise you just said exactly the same thing as birdman said?

"It is just flat out proven fact that EC dynos read a lower number than old DJ systems. ALL good tuners know this, you never will."

old being the important word here. you haven't specified how old, birdman (who actually speaks with the companies) has already said that its the REALLY old ones.

P.S. it's interesting to read that you keep changing what you say while avoiding the main point of birdmans argument (which he keeps repeating) until you eventually say the same thing as he says and claim it as your own thought. are you a politician by any chance?

P.P.S. when you say things to the effect of 'gearing changes the dyno reading', it really puts a hole in your arguments. it shows you don't have a clue what you are saying. go do some research and learn a thing or two, then talk with people who have.

bye bye.

hahahah bda, as odd just pointed out, you're a dill, you will not show me ONE person that has proven me wrong about mapping etc on a forum, except for dills like you that keep spewing shiit, without really having any idea what so ever. You get you and 2 of your bum buddies on a forum that think the same stupid crap, and yeah, you'd prove (to yourself) that Dan Kyle is wrong, Ten Kate is wrong, who ever you don't like etc etc) PLEASE show me where I said, that my dyno and other Dynojet dyno's are NOT eddy current. Oh man, you surely cannot be this stupid without trying really hard. Go re-read the thread again and once you wake up to yourself and see you've just made a tool of yourself, reply again and I'll accept your apology. haha Or, you can just keep wandering through fantasy land, up to you.


BTW, going to Sepang in September to hang with CE and then to PI, I'll tell him you said Hi. Bwaaaaaaaahahahahaha

Birdman all I ever hear from you is how stupid people are and how smart and correct you are.

Now what exactly are your qualifications? At first I just figured you had a lot of exprience, but you get worked up way to easily.

So yeah, are you a mechanic on a MOTOGP team or something?

hahaha No Kul and I am not out to put people down or say they are stupid. I am here to steer people in the right direction when tools like bda say stuff like it's gospel when in fact they don't know jack. I have gone hard on this thread coz I have had dealings with this idiot in another forum. One thing you have never seen me post is that I am smart. I am a knock about idiot most of the time, but I DO own and run my own dyno and bike tuning shop and I do map bikes for the likes of the Factory Yamaha team in Oz, I mapped Anthony Goberts 1000RR last year, the Factory Ducati teams 999 the year we were their competition, etc etc.

Is that good enough for you? Or you'd rather take advice from people like bda? Up to you, if you're happy getting absolute shite for advice, I'll go and you can all carry on. I get worked up coz I am committed and passionate about what I do and came to forums like this coz of what people get told on forums and then walk into shops sprouting like it's the truth when all it is, is rubbish that someone like bda has told them.

But whatever, up to you.

I DO own and run my own dyno and bike tuning shop and I do map bikes for the likes of the Factory Yamaha team in Oz, I mapped Anthony Goberts 1000RR last year, the Factory Ducati teams 999 the year we were their competition, etc etc.



That would deffinately qualify you as a knowledgeable person in my book. =)

Just take it easy man, flaming out means less respect. If you know so much and obviously you do just state the facts and if someone chooses to ignore your obviously valuable advice then screw em. Who gives a dayum, it ain't your bike they are f*cking up

kelsy, do you know many aussies? hahaha
its in their blood but they dont mean any harm by it
they are all good bastarrds by all accounts!!!

peace

kelsy, do you know many aussies? hahaha
its in their blood but they dont mean any harm by it
they are all good bastarrds by all accounts!!!

peace

No I'm not familiar with any aussies. Just a bunch of Irish bastards haha =D

and that is saying something coming from a Kiwi. LOL Thanks Golly. In any case, if you read my "forum imposed" signature, you'll get the idea. Haha

No I'm not familiar with any aussies. Just a bunch of Irish bastards haha =D

virtually the same... just more drinking, less whining and we're faster on motorbikes

*note, i am not racist, i have an irish mate reading this over my shoulder*

virtually the same... just more drinking, less whining and we're faster on motorbikes

*note, i am not racist, i have an irish mate reading this over my shoulder*

MORE drinking? LOL I didn't know that was possible.

Racist? come on man **** them PC mother fuckers. They ruin everything.

i'll be nice and won't mention american beer... on the other hand

q) what's the difference between american beer and having sex on the beach?

a) nothing. they're both ******* close to water!!!

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha hahahahahahahhahaha for OMG

"Racist? come on man **** them PC mother fuckers. They ruin everything"

You mean like how we can't buy a Bacon and chicken burger in many KFC's out here now coz Muslims don't like it? You sir are correct.

You mean like how we can't buy a Bacon and chicken burger in many KFC's out here now coz Muslims don't like it? You sir are correct.


What the hell is a bacon chicken burger haha. Umm can't the muslims just not order the bacon chicken burger? This **** is out of control.

virtually the same... just more drinking, less whining and we're faster on motorbikes

*note, i am not racist, i have an irish mate reading this over my shoulder*

dont forget you dont burn as easy in the sun!
and you have better neighbour!!!!
hahaaha

ps i hope the cockroachs smash the dirty canetoads!

hahaha It's a Chicken burger that KFC sells with Bacon and Cheese on it as well. Well it is in most places, but in some areas, no apparently they can't just not get the one with Bacon, and coz they don't wanna, NOBODY f'kin can, eat what they want to. Yeah, we're the land of the free alright. LOL

As Chris Rock once said, all those years ago, when you killed a pig and it sat and rot, people would get sick and die, so they had to get people to stop eating them, and what's the best way to do that? Say GOD said you can't eat it. Now we have fridges, ceran wrap, tuppaware containers etc etc, a pig won't kill ya, it'll save your freakin life. I refuse to believe that on the day of judgement, my diet will come into question. "yeah, I killed 3 kids, and raped my sister, but I didn't eat Pork". Hahahaha

Not sure if it's any value, but see my thread (http://www.600rr.net/vb/showthread.php?t=51427). I just had my bike custom mapped and we have similar mods I think, although my bike is an '03.

Lets see if I can add some fuel to the diminishing fire of this thread.

So much emphasis on HP #s (FP or DJ who gives a rats ass) and so little discussion of the curve and HC & O2 #s leads many inexperienced folks like me to believe that dyno tuning is all about HP gains.

Please help me out here Birdman or whoever else wants to chime in.

Is the main purpose of dynotuning to improve HP/torque or is it rather to improve fuel air ratio across the board to achieve optimum performance?

Does dynotuning "add horsepower/torque" or does it allow the engine to produce the horsepower/torque that is already available but not achieved due to poor fuel/air ratios?

Is it true that FP eddy current HP #s are always 10-12 HP lower than the DJ eddy current? If so why the difference?

"allow the engine to produce the horsepower/torque that is already available but not achieved due to poor fuel/air ratios?"

That about sums it up right there mate. And that was my point in the first place, that NO it is not true that FP dyno's show that sort of h.p under Dynojet eddy current dyno's. That whole idea comes from FP themselves (and other people around the place like Dyno Dynamics over here etc) that use comparisons of their stuff to 150 model dynojet dyno's that most people do not even use any more. Anyone with tuning link andno doubt plenty of others that don't have it as well, use the 250 dyno or later which is an eddy current dyno, just like the FP dyno is.

Birdman,

You've stuck around this site a long time and have always given folks usefull information. I, and others, have jacked you for your "attitude" at times but your info is always straight up and helpful. It is much apreciated.

I can tolerate attitude from folks who know what they are talking about as at times it comes with the territory. There is nothing worse than a jackass with an attitude who does not know **** about the subject they speak of. We all have encountered them and its always a blessing when they STFU and leave.

Thanks for your help and your willingness to try and help out around here.

Thanks for the kind words Ed. Beyond the **** and the way I come accross at times, that is why I am here. have fun

Birdman! Wow!!!! I was beginning to think you really didn't care - You've been so nice lately to everybody else, even the newbies!
I see that the old blood pressure rose a few hundred notches when somebody mentioned Factory Pro's eddy current dyne systems, again.
Yes - we just installed a new 4 gas EGA EC997 system at a previous dynojet facility as mentioned previously.
A brake dyno (eddy current, hydraulic, water brake, etc.) measures power under a controlled LOAD.
An inertia dyno measures power by accelerating a known mass in an uncontrolled sweep rate over time to calculate power.
Which way does dj promote to measure power?
I forgot.
and you are right - I need to update the pc and dyno comp pages. I was spending time with the new 4 gas ega and the new dyno SCU speed calibration unit.
Best regards -
Marc
Factory Pro Dyne
San Rafael, CA
USA

I can tolerate attitude from folks who know what they are talking about as at times it comes with the territory. There is nothing worse than a jackass with an attitude who does not know **** about the subject they speak of. We all have encountered them and its always a blessing when they STFU and leave.


Fasteddie_rr -

100% agree with you.

If someone's really good in an area, you can tolerate a bit of "arrogance".
If someone's a bit uninformed or "ignorant" of a subject, it's OK, we all didn't grow up exposed to the same things.

The thing that's never excusable is "arrogant ignorance".

M
Marc Salvisberg
415 491-5920
Factory Pro Dyne
San Rafael, Ca
Official Test Dyne of F-USA / ASRA Series

Was thumbing thru July's Sport Rider and saw their dyno for the RR to be @ 105.6hp & 44.8 ft/lbs tq. I'm not even passed 100hp WITH my mods...wtf?
Could it be the dyno reading or is my bike all crapped out now? Any ideas?


Why so high and you not?

Sportrider and Motorcyclist use a Superflow brand dyno.
The Superflow natively reads in True HP, but some people worry about the number.....

In the words of an acquantence of mine, Harold Betts of Superflow at AMA roadrace in Colorado Springs some years ago, "Say, have you noticed that dj hp numbers are kinda high?".
"Yes, I guess you don't read the our website details."
He says, "We have a dj 'emulation" math channel. It makes our Superflow read like a dj dyno.".
"Oh. I see. What do you do about the dj's reading differently between themselves? How close can you get if the dj dynos are +/- 5%? "
"Oh - we took care of that - it's only +/- 10% djhp emulation."

So - the Superflow, using the user's choice OPTIONAL djhp emulation channel is + or - 10% from a dj hp number. I think it is math channel 84(?) that makes the dyno read higher than True HP and within 10% of a djhp number. I'd guess that 75% of Superflow owners use the big numbers and the others use True hp.

Sportrider uses the big numbers and SF's "emulation" is a bit optimistic as most people that I know with dynojet dynos don't get readings as high as the SF's dj emulation numbers.

What Birdman did say previously makes all the sense in the world.
You should really never look at somebody else's absolute numbers on a dyno run done on a different dyno.

Speaking from my own experience in decades of steady state, inertia sweeps, controlled steps, timed single steps, ramped steps, programmable load sweeps, programmable rate sweeps and even the differences between different rates of progammable loaded sweep tests.
If you don't know the type of test, you can't even confidentally compare the shape of the power curves.

The inflated djhp numbers (http://www.factorypro.com/magazine/dynojet_dyno_inflated_hp_reason.html) are all screwed up by varing amounts, dyno brand to dyno brand, if they tried to emulate djhp - so scientific comps generally aren't possible.

Clear anything up or at least "less muddy"?

Enjoy the weekend - been pretty hot in CA....

Marc

Marc Salvisberg
415 491 5920
Wheelsmith / Factory Pro
San Rafael, CA
Official HP dyno - F-USA / ASRA

Hahahha. "I see that the old blood pressure rose a few hundred notches when somebody mentioned Factory Pro's eddy current dyne systems, again"

No, I have nothing aginst your dyno's persoanally , only the absolute BS that gets put out everywhere about them and how they are so much better and more accurate that DJ's. Comparing SF's to DJ's and using that as a measure of yours means what exactly? LOL And again, being able to hold a bike at 9000rpm and changing fuel to get the most h.p means what when you then get the bike on the track and pass through it under no where near that amount of load and for nowhere near the time it spent there while you map for max power? Hahaha Too funny.

"A brake dyno (eddy current, hydraulic, water brake, etc.) measures power under a controlled LOAD.
An inertia dyno measures power by accelerating a known mass in an uncontrolled sweep rate over time to calculate power.
Which way does dj promote to measure power?"

OH, ok so 250 model DJ dyno's are NOT eddy current dynos? Great thanks, you should maybe call DJ and let them know. This is why I get so pissed, at bullshit like that. When you do a h.P run and print it out for a customer, exactly how much load do yo apply to the bike? Telling half stories as per the website and comparo's on dyno's PC's etc, is great for making you look good, but doesn't help people out a great deal that wanna know the truth.

"What Birdman did say previously makes all the sense in the world.
You should really never look at somebody else's absolute numbers on a dyno run done on a different dyno."

Great, so after all that BS, what you're saying is, that regardless of how inflated you think or say DJ's numbers are vs someone elses dyno, it doesn;'t matter a damn anyway, as long as you compare it to runs on the same dyno, and so, all thsi bs about yours being more accurate is all for nothing anyway, Thanks very much. Haha I've said it before and I'll say it again, say all you want about who say this or you say that about DJ, in thgrand scheme of things you're not in the ballpark. Have fun

The more I study the controversy regarding "HP" (true vs. false, DJ vs. others)

the more I find myself laughing. It is true the debate is a worthy one and has been going on for years. The business world competition boils down to huge sums of money in sales, endorsements etc.



What amuses me is when the debate boils over into threads like this one. It starts out with a guy who has a legitimate question.... WTF is up with my horsepower? Why after spending a grand or two on mods do I have a bike that produces 10 HP less than Joe Blows with the same mods?



You guys give the answer but then break down into debate that just confuses most of us. The fact is simple that some dynos give higher/lower HP numbers based on lots of **** we really do not need to know.



What we need to know is this..... If you have had your bike dyno tuned by a good tuner, hopefully using steady state testing, you will see the results in increased HP base run vs. final, cleaner curves, balanced HC/O2 numbers and finally improved performance at the track or on the street!

You guys kill me really!! You are very helpful nad are obviously good at what you do but this freakin debate just muddies the issue that the original poster is trying to get resolved.

Ed, I stated what you need to look for and why, it's all there. As did Marc. ONLY COMPARE FIGURES BEFORE AND AFTER ON THE SAME DYNO. THE END NUMBER MEANS JACK ON IT'S OWN" If that is confusing, I apologise. The rest of the debate is just Marc trying to sell BS and comparisons of his stuff (and using other brands to make that comparison btw, lol) to DJ's. Like i said, and the only problem I have with their stuff in general, is that all the comparisons and statements of why there's is better is BS and even he agreed with what I said about comparing dyno numbers on the same dyno. Well, if that is true, why they invest so much time and energy inot making the most accurate dyno for one off power run figures is for what exactly? Hahaha Funny ****. The number on it's own means NOTHING, yet every day, someone else posts "I dyno'd my bike with a full system and filter and mapping and got 105h.p, what is wrong?" and add to that, many of those posts are with DJ graphs attached, which is contrary to what Marc is saying also. The fact that he still thinks DJ dyno's aren;'t eddy current is hilarious also, but lastly, how often is Marc here to answer questions and help people out with their mapping probs, h.p q's, etc etc? Only wants to step in to add more crap about how FP is more accurate than DJ stuff when someone points out that it's BS.

Anyway, sorry for any confusion. Not my intention.

Quite right my friend......

Never seen Marc around to help out board members, only shows up to debate the whole true EC vs DJ HP blah blah blah.

Quite right my friend......

Never seen Marc around to help out board members, only shows up to debate the whole true EC vs DJ HP blah blah blah.

Not to be annoying (but, I probably am.... :-)

Since the thread's starting question was only answered by the simple, generally true and catch-all "blanket" statement that "you have to use the same dyno when you compare HP readings", I provided background information as to why that is true, which nobody else did. I would assume that nobody posted background information because - well, maybe because nobody knew why it was true?

If I posted anything untrue or mistaken in this thread, please email me.
marc@factorypro.com

I'm reasonably confident that most people who are interested in progressing in tuning methodology actually read it and perhaps even understood it, too.
If one is not interested in knowing how things work, then don't read it. If you don't lke the information? I can't help that. As I said, before, if you find I made a factual mistake, tell me and I'll see what's up.

You may be a bit mistaken about the help thing, too. In years past, I have posted here before to help people. I do recall posting before and I got the same response from some people: "gorilla chest thumping that dynojet is bigger and better than you" if I actually mention anything about anything that involves tuning in a method that some people aren't familiar with.

Since I'm usually talking about engine tuning and dynos, it almost always happens whenever I post here. Why don't I post more? I suppose that it's draining.
I kinda have to run a business and design new products, too. Why don't some other qualified tuners post here?
The same reasons.

This list has a a wide cross section of members. Some are new to tuning and some are experienced in tuning. The "new to tuning" people aren't going to understand what the experienced people understand.

Some see things and want to know "why". Others have a different life to live and different interests other than the joy of tuning.

I happen to love tuning and am somewhat decent at it, too. I do dynamometer design and develop engine test routines and have several relatively interesting (to those who are interested in such things enough to do an internet search) patents on dynamometer traction, carburetor fuel atomization, ignition timing setting devices and a couple pending that include velocity stack production and design and a unique dynamometer automatic tuning process that will even work on pc's.

Anyhow, I answered one of my my local customers' questions on the list. It's the same thing that I would have told him if he had called me the other building in San Rafael.

Best regards -

Marc

Marc Salvisberg
415 491 5920
Factory Pro Tuning
EC997 Dyne Systems

I cop the same crap at many forums, but I couldn't care less, you'll never help those tools anyway. But I'm interested enough to look past people like that and am happy that I can help the ones that will listen. Nothing better than seeing a post from someone you've helped out that is thanking you for the great advice. But I can understand what you're saying 100%. I guess it is just a matter of how passionate you are about what you believe in.

Again, I am not saying your product sux or isn't as good or anything like that. I am saying that some of the things you said were crap (Dyonjet dynos aren't eddy current. Hahah They're not?) and you did not answer my Q of how much load you put on a bike when you do a h.p run, you know, to give such low and more accurate figures compared to the inflated DJ numbers. Haha That is the stuff that cracks me up. And funnily enough, it's real easy to jump on and tell people what you do and that it's great, another thing to answer questions to statements you make that are comeplete BS. Have fun

I cop the same crap at many forums, but I couldn't care less, you'll never help those tools anyway. But I'm interested enough to look past people like that and am happy that I can help the ones that will listen. Nothing better than seeing a post from someone you've helped out that is thanking you for the great advice. But I can understand what you're saying 100%. I guess it is just a matter of how passionate you are about what you believe in.

Again, I am not saying your product sux or isn't as good or anything like that. I am saying that some of the things you said were crap (Dyonjet dynos aren't eddy current. Hahah They're not?) and you did not answer my Q of how much load you put on a bike when you do a h.p run, you know, to give such low and more accurate figures compared to the inflated DJ numbers. Haha That is the stuff that cracks me up. And funnily enough, it's real easy to jump on and tell people what you do and that it's great, another thing to answer questions to statements you make that are comeplete BS. Have fun

Sorry - I missed some of the questions -

It's actually a very common misconception that "eddy currrent dynos in general" read lower than "inertia dynos in general".
I just let it go - as the real reason sounds pretty unpaletable.

Our "insignificant EC997" probably fostered that edddy current / inertia idea as it's the "other" dyne system in the states. Pretty much the most common "eddy current dyno" for years until dj, ("the inertia dyno" in the equation), started adding an eddy current brake to use to slow down the rapid acceleration of the drum, so that they could get a rough matchup of rpm and o2 sensor data.

As far as "how much load" and how it relates to lower hp numbers question?
Any reasonable load, from 100%, "steady state" to "some predetermined acc. allowed" amount for a controlled rate sweep, differences aren't much of a factor. From 100% loaded steady state to acc. rate of 20fps/ps it's 100% minus a few pounds of load when you have a drive roller that only weighs 175#.

You can steady state test or sweep test, within reasonable acc. rate limits, (I mean that an acc. rate of 30+fps/ps in a sweep will def. skew the power curve shape and peak numbers) and within reason, still get pretty much w/in a percent or two of the same hp numbers.

We've done all that stuff already and determined acceptable acc. rates for relevent combustion chamber material temps that are similar to real world use.

All dj horsepower testing, as far as I know from customers of ours, is still using the dj dyno as an inertia dyno, accelerating a known mass and backing out power required over time, to cover the rpm ranges.
So - while it may have an eddy current brake on the end of the 900# inertia drive roller, it's used primarily as an inertia dyno when used to measure power.
When it's using the eddy current brake to retard the acc. rate when tuning to an af ratio, it's not, technically, being used as a dyne - it's a rolling road.

I pretty sure that I didn't say they didn't have an eddy current brake. I kinda know they have a brake - the first couple brakes, they bought from my supplier. They ended up having to use a larger capacity brake than we do for obvious reasons.

As far as the differences, I do happen to know several ex dj employees and also, the guy who started dynojet - so I might know a bit more than I tell.

The real difference in why the EC997 dyne systems and the dj dynos read differently is on page 3, I believe.
http://www.factorypro.com/magazine/Sports%20car%20magazine/Dobeck_making_honest_really.pdf

As to the real reason why older dj dynos read higher (some did) and why new dynojet dynos would read lower (some don't)? I don't know why they would unless James Watt woke up from the dead and used different ponies in his calculations and added a pair of lucky dice is each sheet of paper with the new secret formula.

If one measures power using inertia, even though an inertia dyno may have an eddy current brake installed, it's not being used as eddy current dyne. That's my actual point.

I'm sure you weren't REALLY cracking up - but typically, when we tune FI, I'm looking for hp in .1 to .2 increments, one rpm and throttle position at a time - and that's what I see on the screen in realtime. It's a true number and potentially repeatable to 1 to 2 tenths of a hp.
http://www.factorypro.com/media/dyno,5k_target,cbr600rr,ROCHA.MOV
I need to be at an rpm point for a couple seconds and that's several 1000 speed and load samples - all "averaged" or "smoothed" a minimal amount. Why do that?
If one can go through, even only every 500 rpm, with very high accuracy to make Best Power, you can't be off very much from Best Power settings anywhere you can get to in the power commander fi table.

That's sort of the answer to the "low hp" numbers.

http://70.141.63.105:8080/image1 Dynocam
Marc

Marc Salvisberg
Factory Pro Tuning
415 472-4962

Marc,

Dont read me wrong.... I am always interested in knowledgeable information regarding various topics. I read through the entire article you refrence and found it very interesting.

My point was and is that the "debate" belongs elsewhere and the answer to the original post (which I stated you both have answered) was quite simple.

As for your background on this site.... this is the first time I have seen you here. Birdman has been around a long time and has helped many people. I welcome you here and hope you can contribute in the future.

I live and ride in the Bay Area and I know a lot of riders. Your shop and the products of your buisness are highly regarded in the community. If you hang around this site a while and help out this community in line with the Birdman it would be great.

OK, thanks for the answers. So, in varying the load put on each bike, you would be able to offer different h.p figures right? So in fact, when someone walks in with a bike and a guy in the shop dyno's it, in "theory" you could give them gains without doing anything, just by varying the load put on the bike. Dunno, might be wrong, but sounds feasable to me. Either way, as we both agreed, it is ireelevent what the actual end h.p figure is on it's own. All that matter is the gains on the same dyno, so say for a sec you are correct with regard to accuracy, does it matter if someone has a print out saying they made 10h.p, from 100-110, or 120-130? I don't think so. Bike runs exactly the same on either dyno and on the street, just the numbers are different from each.

OK, now with the mapping. An air/fuel ratio at a bazillion points, when held at those points, will vary to what that ratio will be passing through that ropm and TP under load. As it will passing through under no load at all. So what you map a bike at holding it at 8000rpm and 60% throttle, has exactly what relevance to the air/fuel and therefore the "max power" that it will have passing through there under a different set of circumstances? OK, so you can go through and do that, steady state, and then do loaded sweep tests and iron out the differences, and by the time you're finished, you've spent how long? and why not just map it via the loaded sweeps in the first place, as that is what the bike is doing on the road or track anyway, not being held under whatever load needed to keep it at each rpm and TP. I have seen it myself on similar dyno's to yours here, (Dyno Dynamics) they read live h.p etc like yours, and they "map for power, not to an air/fuel), but I've done a few bikes that have been done that way, and then brought to me to map with tuning link, and each time, I have made more h.p than whatthey had. Why? Coz again, your bike is never held under that much load at any set given TP at any rpm and so, the "max power" will differ due to the air/fuel difference that the bike has now under different circumstances.

But thanks again for the answers.

and I hope you stick around as well.

OK, thanks for the answers. So, in varying the load put on each bike, you would be able to offer different h.p figures right?

Absolutely incorrect.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. (or I should write less..... :-)
Within reasonable load values, varying the load makes little to NO difference in the True HP number, at least on an EC997 dyno.

So in fact, when someone walks in with a bike and a guy in the shop dyno's it, in "theory" you could give them gains without doing anything, just by varying the load put on the bike. Dunno, might be wrong, but sounds feasable to me.

Sweep Test:
No.
In fact - By varying the amount of load, you cannot change the hp numbers. At least we can't on our EC997 dyno.
Infeasible to me that a proper dyno would allow you to apply braking force during a sweep test and NOT calculate the correct power, taking the additional load and change in the sweep rate into account.
The reduced acc rate is compensated for by the increased load required to reduce the acc rate.
You might be more familiar with applying "some" fixed load and doing a test.

Steady State Test:
No.
If you do a Steady State test, "power produced = braking force required to hold at an rpm". True HP (http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html).

You tell the computer to hold bike to 10,000 rpm.
Open the throttle and the bike acc's to 10,000 rpm.
The computer says: Apply load to hold bike at 10,000 rpm.
So, the computer increases voltage to the brake till the braking force produced by the brake = the power delivered to the surface of the drive roller.
The technical $500 load cell / strain guage or new $5000 word "torque link" measures braking force applied to hold the engine to 10,000 rpm.
Computer says "Ok, stable, 10,000 RPM, record data".
1000's of samples a second recorded / averaged.
Let off throttle. Data IS recorded on computer screen.
3 to 5 seconds.

The load value is fixed - it's what equaled the bike's power output.

So - I don't understand applying more or less load. A sweep test should not be uncalculated and irrelevant in a steady state test.The only way that I could think of making the base run read atificially low is doing a single quick sweep (commonly named "dynorun.001" as a base). I always cringe when I see someone posting the nasty, scratchy, un-warmed up dj "dynorun.001".

We do HP testing for F-USA / ASRA here in the states and it's the only time we consistantly use sweep tests on an EC997 dyne. The bike is run in consecutive loaded sweep tests in top gear. As the engine's combustion chamber material heats up, each sweep increases in power for a while, and then, as engine intake tract heat starts to decrease intake charge density, starts to decrease in power.
From an engine that hasn't been run recently, it might take 8-10 sweep tests for HP to stablize - that's on well tuned bikes. If a bike is on the lean side at full throttle, it may take up to 20 runs to get the combustion chamber temps to match the lean mixture and make best power.
Hence, when I see a scratchy, cold "dynorun.001" posted along with a nice smooth "dynorun.018", I wonder what the base test would have looked like if it was fully warmed up.

Either way, as we both agreed, it is ireelevent what the actual end h.p figure is on it's own. All that matter is the gains on the same dyno, so say for a sec you are correct with regard to accuracy, does it matter if someone has a print out saying they made 10h.p, from 100-110, or 120-130? I don't think so. Bike runs exactly the same on either dyno and on the street, just the numbers are different from each.

On one point, I wouldn't agree. Load types and load qualities make a difference in tuning values and there's little similarity in optimal tuning values in a steady state vs. a 40 fps/ps run. (remember, I've done that)

On the other point - I agree 100% that because the HP values wander all over the place, dyno to dyno, and a lot of dyno brands don't even match their own dynos http://www.factorypro.com/magazine/mag_cyclecanada_Dynojet_dyno.htmland the bikes themselves are simply not identical and can vary 3% to 5% in hp, you can't look at someone else's hp numbers and honestly compare them to what you got.

That's 98% of the concept.

OK, now with the mapping. An air/fuel ratio at a bazillion points, when held at those points, will vary to what that ratio will be passing through that ropm and TP under load. As it will passing through under no load at all.

Ahhh - I "think" I see something -
I don't even know how to write it -
You seem to be adding in some factor / condition.
I think you are mixing up "added brake load" with "engine loading from all sources".
Inertia is a load, too. Real world wind load, making a 500# bike accelerate on a track is a load.
If you open up the throttle to 5% and are doing "any" sort of sweep test, the bike will acc to wherever "power delivered to the drive roller" = "power required to spin the bike's rotating parts and the dyno's parasitic drag".
It will go to "some rpm" and stop accelerating and remain at a speed when bike power out = dyno / rear wheel drag (bike/dyne parasitics). Then it's "steady state".

If there was "no load" at all, you'd open the throttle and the bike would instantly hit the limiter.

As you somewhat touched on, You can tune for steady state or 10 fps/ps (slow for anything), 20 fps/ps (kind of like a 600 on a dj hp sweep) or 30 fps/ps (kinda a quicker sweep, less loaded and cooler combustion chamber material temps) to 40+ fps/ps (pumped Busa / gsxr1000 on dj hp sweep, combustion chamber essentially only slightly warmer than the coolant temp at the end of the run, but never up to real world temps).
The steady state, 10 and 20 fps tune carbs and FI usually tune essentially to the same fuel rates and ignition values. The problem with 10 is that it's a really long pull and the engine, internally, gets too hot. The 30, you start getting tuning errors and the bike has to be or could be changed at the track for optimal performance - and with 40 fps/ps it's almost, from a trackside tuner's point of view, mandatory to make track changes.

On the high hp bikes with ram air systems, it's commonly attributed to "ram air" "problems", but that's only a small part of it.

So what you map a bike at holding it at 8000rpm and 60% throttle, has exactly what relevance to the air/fuel and therefore the "max power" that it will have passing through there under a different set of circumstances?


What relevance "exactly"?

Well - the better a dyno duplicates real world loading, the better the potential results can be.
Within limits, a steady state and a moderate sweep rate rate, 20fps/ps, for example, works out to be essentially the same in tuning. I mean, we are talking about .2 to .3 hp tolerance here.
At a 20fps/ps sweep, it takes 15ish seconds to go from 3000 rpm to redline on the new bike stuff. That's a pretty real world relevant 4th gear sweep.
A 6 second 4th gear sweep isn't too real world.

So - so - steady state and tune to best power and then do a 20 fps/ps sweep and It'll be pretty damn close to best power.
I can see how you'd want to do sweeps, as doing steady state, rpm/TH % specific test on a dj dyno would take many, many painful hours.
I could see how you'd want to do af ratio, as changing the fuel values across an rpm/TH position range to get best power would be a draining experience.


OK, so you can go through and do that, steady state, and then do loaded sweep tests and iron out the differences, and by the time you're finished, you've spent how long?

Enough time and well enough that we charge more than most anybody else and 2 dj centers closed up locally and they charged about 1/3rd of what we do.


and why not just map it via the loaded sweeps in the first place, as that is what the bike is doing on the road or track anyway, not being held under whatever load needed to keep it at each rpm and TP.

As I said before, since I have DONE steady state, and have DONE loaded sweeps (with hp!) and I have DONE inertia sweeps, that it's easier on the bike to do the steady state. It allows one to control coolant temps to 5 degrees, control internal combustion chamber material temps and it's rare that I have tire problems. (you aren't blessed with "dual compound" "Daytona" Dunlop tires, I hope - they blister in 10 minutes).

So - I use steady state for 98% of all tuning.

I didn't just buy a dyno and use it. We designed it, MADE it and did all the software and built the high speed 4 gas analyzers.

Steady State - It's also the only way to get a clean, un-polluted exhaust gas samples at a particular rpm. A sweep mixes up rpm samples and that might be why you think that things are so different in steady state vs. loaded sweep. Clean gas sample vs. mixed up gas sample.

I do NOT think that it's easier on the bike to do steady state on a dj dyno, lugging around a 900# drive roller. On the contrary, I wouldn't recommended steady state on a dj at all. Takes too long.

Does the dj rpm load control might still require fiddling around with PID loops.

In the previous post, I posted a link to a 5000 rpm steady state test with 4 gas info, .1 hp resolution, and Flux factor visual.
http://www.factorypro.com/media/dyn...600rr,ROCHA.MOV (http://www.factorypro.com/media/dyno,5k_target,cbr600rr,ROCHA.MOV)
It looked like it might be a teeny bit lean and wants another degree ignition advance. I richened up 2 dj numbers and got another .2 hp. 4 dj numbers lost a bit. So, +2 it was.
That's steady state on a dyno that was designed to have the easy capability to do steady state testing
So - That takes fractions of a minute to do.

Question:
Why does one dj "tune to an af ratio" in a loaded sweep test (w/o hp) and then test for djhp in an inertia sweep? The recorded af ratio in an "unloaded" inertia sweep surely is different, such as extrapolated logic would dictate based on your assumptions of steady state and sweep tests.


I have seen it myself on similar dyno's to yours here, (Dyno Dynamics) they read live h.p etc like yours, and they "map for power, not to an air/fuel), but I've done a few bikes that have been done that way, and then brought to me to map with tuning link, and each time, I have made more h.p than whatthey had. Why? Coz again, your bike is never held under that much load at any set given TP at any rpm and so, the "max power" will differ due to the air/fuel difference that the bike has now under different circumstances.

I don't know what you think I should say?

Maybe that I heard an OZ band that sounded so bad I had to change rental cars? <snicker!> (and you guys do sound ok)

I don't do Dyno Dynamic's hardware, their DAQ equipment, their software interface, their control algorthims OR do their tuning training.
Just because it's "not an inertia dyno" and reads "realtime hp", doesn't really mean it's the same.........
I can think of lot's of ways to use a good tool poorly. I don't really know about Dyno Dynamics.
Unless all the "parts" are there and they are easy to use for a tuner, the dyno won't be used optimally.

I can think of 3 different brands of dynos in the states that can do what our dyno does, but the EC997 does what a tuner needs to do easily and naturally.
The difference is that the others are all rather cumbersome and bothersome to use for a day to day tuner - and the only relatively easy thing that they can do is a sweep test with an o2 sensor. The are best used on single research projects with a dedicated engineer to run them.


I'm trying to stay out of "my dyno is better than your dyno" but you keep bringing up dj "touche" points.
I'll keep addressing them till you stop it and keep off our dyno's case......

I keep out of trouble (mostly), by talking about what I actually know and have firsthand experience with. If someone came up to me and said that they could optimally tune by "sound quality", I'd ask them how that worked, for instance. Same with "fans" in airboxes and fuel anti static devices.
FWIW, I've worked with the above 3 concepts and it's amazing what you can learn if the concept isn't immediately dismissed.
The sound is def. a plausible concept under certain load conditions. Think part throttle / light load / small TH% and small TH% / high rpm.
The fans in airboxes provided and interesting variable restriction that actually made a bike with slightly retarded intake cam timing make more low and mid and interestingly and surprisingly, only affected the top a teeny bit.
The fuel anti static thingie actually worked well in an engine with very long, cold intake runners (BMW 2002). Ground the unit and the engine started chuffing out light black smoke and we had to lean it out at idle to make it idle right again. Hmm.. we just got the same idle speed with less fuel. Mileage, because we leaned it out, improved 1-2 mph. It didn't really work much on engines with short, warm, individual runner intake systems, though.

You've apparently done a great job in OZ and helped people online and that's great, too.




1. But thanks again for the answers.
and
2. I hope you stick around as well.

haha!
1. You are welcome.
2. hahaha!

To those whose eyes glazed over reading the above - QUICK! Stop - If you keep looking you'll get hairy palms and need glasses........ (ooops... too late...)

That's about 3 hours of sorting and explaining. Did I mention that I tend to explain things in detail and give references (a lot :-).

To those who understood, great! and the 99.99% of the rest of the world, sorry about the palm and glasses thing.....

On one hand, it's great to have actually done all that engine and dyno stuff - as you get ton of experience and learn new things and meet interesting people.
On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily endear you to others.....

So - the original question has been answered - Don't compare different dyno hp numbers on different dynos.

So -

Not much to some people's chagrin, signing off for the day -

Marc

Marc Salvisberg
Factory Pro Tuning
San Rafael, CA
415 491-5920
Dynocam (http://70.141.63.105:8080/image1) tm (check to see if they are working!)

"Absolutely incorrect"

then "Within reasonable load values, varying the load makes little to NO difference "

right, so once you put unreasonable loads on, you can I rest my case.

"Hence, when I see a scratchy, cold "dynorun.001" posted along with a nice smooth "dynorun.018", I wonder what the base test would have looked like if it was fully warmed up." I agree.

"Steady State Test:
No.
If you do a Steady State test, "power produced = braking force required to hold at an rpm". True HP.

You tell the computer to hold bike to 10,000 rpm.
Open the throttle and the bike acc's to 10,000 rpm.
The computer says: Apply load to hold bike at 10,000 rpm.
So, the computer increases voltage to the brake till the braking force produced by the brake = the power delivered to the surface of the drive roller.
The technical $500 load cell / strain guage or new $5000 word "torque link" measures braking force applied to hold the engine to 10,000 rpm.
Computer says "Ok, stable, 10,000 RPM, record data".
1000's of samples a second recorded / averaged.
Let off throttle. Data IS recorded on computer screen.
3 to 5 seconds.

The load value is fixed - it's what equaled the bike's power output."


what I was saying was that the air/fuel at that point, and/or what is needed to give it MAX POWER won't be the same at that point when it passes through that rpm under load. Coz the air/fuel DOES CHAnGE between the two instances and so, so will the max power air/fuel you'd need. Again, I've seen this for myself. and you said the same "Load types and load qualities make a difference in tuning values and there's little similarity in optimal tuning values in a steady state vs. a 40 fps/ps run."

"Maybe that I heard an OZ band that sounded so bad I had to change rental cars? <snicker!> (and you guys do sound ok)"

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha Thanks.

It's all good, we'll just agree to disagree. Thanks heaps for the time and effort, obviously we both believe in what we do and why and it will no doubt be of benefit to people on here. Again, I ain't slaggin your dyno's, I just get as pissed as you do about what I'm saying, when people say things like "I dyno'd my bike and it's higher than other readings coz it was dynojet" . LOL or vice versa. Have fun

"Absolutely incorrect"
then "Within reasonable load values, varying the load makes little to NO difference "

right, so once you put unreasonable loads on, you can I rest my case.


You win a box of Fruit Loops (it's a USA breakfast cereal).

Ok - you are correct and you are trying too hard.
If one totally disregards any sort of logic, one can indeed go out of their way make a base test at 40fps/ps and compare it with "some other rate of "sweep test" that could read higher and, incidentally, have ALL the test conditions and fps/ps rates and loads displayed nicely on the each run printout (as you can see from the scanned printouts in this thread).
You could then take scissors and cut out the test conditions section and give the customer 2 weird shaped pieces of paper and say, "Here's your dyno charts. They are on that new EU sized paper."
We made the software so that it's not possible to hide the conditions unless you cut the paper and white-out the differing sweep rate plots on the graph.

It's too simple to make changes to improve power that actually work - not required to cheat.


It's all good, we'll just agree to disagree. Thanks heaps for the time and effort, obviously we both believe in what we do and why and it will no doubt be of benefit to people on here. Again, I ain't slaggin your dyno's, I just get as pissed as you do about what I'm saying, when people say things like "I dyno'd my bike and it's higher than other readings coz it was dynojet" . LOL or vice versa. Have fun

I am having fun. (but this is boring for the hairy palmed ones)

I guess you brought it up - you'll just have to accept the myth that a stock 1985 V Max makes 120 hp and that's the source of all dj hp numbers. I didn't do that to you, we didn't do it to you, dynojet did that to you. Be pissed at them.
Remember that the next time someone says that "it's higher because it was dynojet."

I told the truth - a stock 1985 V Max really DOES make about 90 True HP.
http://www.factorypro.com/magazine/dynojet_dyno_inflated_hp_reason.html
Dobeck had it right in the first place: 90 hp - he decided to make the dynojet dynos read higher to sell more dynos - and, that, he did!
I wonder what was going through his head in the interview, though?

BTW - that article is pretty ludicrous on many points of accomplishment - "other jet kit company?, making his own 4 gas ega??? The salesguy for the company who makes them was pitching them to us, too...) but the hp part was verified by ex dj employees.

The low readin', right readin', scrappy #2 who was happier when he knew less (ok - that's a fib),

Marc

Marc Salvisberg
Factory Pro Tuning
San Rafael, CA
415 491-5920
www.factorypro.com (http://www.factorypro.com)

Yay for Hondas......

Mate, most people on here wouldn't notice two graphs showing different dates and whether or not they are over rpm or speed, so to expect them to be able to lok at what sweep rate it is done at etc is , well, hopefull. But anyway............... again, there just as many graphs posted from DJ dyno's that have read lower than yours and other dynos but it really isn't the point is it? You have already agreed that it makes NO F'IN DIFFERENCE what the end numberis, and so, WHO CARES if the Vmax makes 90 or 120 on a piece of paper? Haha The point is that if you have a 600RR and you have either 100h.p, put a pipe on and map it, then you have 108h.p. Or you have the SAME BIKE and go to another dyno and it says 105 start to 113 result, IT'S THE FREAKIN SAME. Same bike, and real world, without numbers on a sheet it makes the same h.p, and so, you cannot say that "my bike made 100h.p which sounds low, what's up?" the same as you can't say "my bike made 120, and that beat my mates bike that had his bike dyno'd elsewhere that only made 114 with a full system and mapping, mine only has a slip on". So as for which is is more accurate and which isn't, WHO CARES? LOL and you cannot say that in every case your dyno will read lower than DJ dyno's, coz I have seen graphs of bikes that have read higher. High low, who cares, it's the GAINS you want to see.

Another box of Fruit Loops.

So, next time somebody says that "The hp number is high because it's dynojet" youll not get pissed off like you said you get, I suppose? - because you read the article and are more aware after all this?
That was one of the specific things that pissed you off, you mentioned.

Already agreed that you can't compare hp from different bikes and dynos.
I think that you are assuming that a large number of people on this list are a bit ignorant.

Well, somewhere in between a newbie and a person who does dynamometer design, youll probably find 75% to 80% of riders here who have a reasonable amount of life experience and can read with decent comprehension.

They know enough to not ask the basic questions and not enough to post with technical test information. (though, even they should be getting bored by now). They read to learn and have learned to read.

I have found that if I don't print a torque plot with the hp, most of my customers, at least, will ask about it. If I do a sweep, one with 20 fpsps and one with 40 fpfps, you can be pretty sure I'd get "What are these 2 lines?".

That's how it is in northern Ca, anyway.

As far as dj dynos sometimes reading lower. Yep. Especially high hp bikes for "some reason".
YOU are welcome to explain that to the 75%ers.

Man!
You just won't quit! (an endearing trait?)

OK - you WIN!!!
How about I send you the concrete for a nuclear reactor and send you over Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, some extra politicians, a case of Twinkies and a container of iranian nuclear physicists?
OK? OK? You can feel that you won!

At least post JUST that I'm a know-it-all jerk and I'll agree and this thread can end!

You blast off a long one-liner and it takes me an hour+ to answer your -

Marc

Haha what the? If you could read as well as you could APPEAR to be smart, you'd be much better off. I see why things are the way they are on your site now, coz you spin **** from semi facts you gather and make them look however you want them to look.

"That was one of the specific things that pissed you off, you mentioned"

No, what I said was that people jump n with a FP chart and say it is lower than everyone elses, coz it was on your dyno. BS and you just agreed that with many bikes the DJ's will read lower. But every time someone walks out of a tuning centre that has your dyno's they are told it's low coz it's more accurate. Hahahaha maybe it;'s just how they tune them and it's a great excuse???? (kidding)

"Already agreed that you can't compare hp from different bikes and dynos.
I think that you are assuming that a large number of people on this list are a bit ignorant."

Ifyou were around here more instead of only to defend your BS claims and half truths spun to gold you'd see that threads like this are the norm.

http://www.600rr.net/vb/showthread.php?t=52709

I have posted at least a kazillion times that these numbers mean jack, but yet all the time, another thread starts and people are disspointed in their mods and bike coz it dyno'd less than another with less mods, or people say their bike is best coz it only has a slip on and beats another bike with a system. Damn, even SELECTOR, the self professed friend of racers and user of "what works for Ten Kate, so it must be good" guy had a week long go on here with me and others about how his bike with the Arrow system made more h.p than someone elses (on the other side of the country) 600RR with a different system on it,so it must be better. But anyway...........

"If I do a sweep, one with 20 fpsps and one with 40 fpfps, you can be pretty sure I'd get "What are these 2 lines?"."

why would they need to know that? Or even see the difference? hahah I thought the differences within rasonable boundaries would yield the same results? Maybe I was wrong? or was that you? Hahaha

Ok - I'll leave this clearly and eloquently summed up thread all to you.

The people who read and learned something, have done so by now - not much else productive left to be said - These old bones grow weary.

Best regards --

Marc

Marc Salvisberg
Factory Pro
San Rafael, Ca
415 491 5920

Holy freakin horsepower Batman!


Glad you guys didnt take my advice and stop the dialouge.

I have likely learned more about Dynos and understanding the results than I ever would have just thumbing through the internet.

Seriously good stuff gents.

Carry on.

Oh yah..... just one more question..............




















How come DJ dynos always read higher HP #s?


AAAAAHHHHH HA HA F'N HA

Agreed Marc. I hope what you said was right and that people are smart enough to seperate fact from fiction and the differences between things, for then my job is done. Thanks for your time. LOL