| Author | Message | ||
     Cowboytutt |
Hey guys, well the weather finally let up and I was able to go down to our own “Fireman Jim's” tuning facility at Infineon Raceway very close to Sonoma, CA. Jim and his partners Terry and Sam together are JT&S Performance. They are an authorized Land & Sea DYNOmite Tuning Center and they build and tune Harleys, Buells, Metric Sport Bikes and even Quad's, Karts and Bonneville Streamliners. Here is their website: http://jtsperformance.com/ I've met Jim a couple of times at Laguna Seca when the SCAB group (Southern California Area Buellers) come up for their yearly pilgrimage to see the Moto GP racing there. Jim was very interested to test my velocity stacks from Twin Motorcycles on my 09 CR that already had a Barker pipe, matching Erik Buell Racing ECM and K&N filter in it and invited me down for some down and dirty dyno fun. We first ran the bike which was fully warm from my hour drive there with the stacks on. The initial results were very disappointing as the bike only made 121 HP if memory serves. This did not make sense to either of us as my “seat of the pants dyno” told me the bike ran better with the stacks then without. We put the OEM stacks back in and the bike made 137 HP to the rear wheel. We were debating installing a Power Commander to see what we could do but Jim insisted on putting the stacks back in for another run. The results were totally different this time and the bike made an impressive 141 HP (Standard not SAE). We are not sure what happened with those initial dyno runs but it seemed to self-correct. The real gain from the 'stacks is in the “power under the curve” though. The bike gains TQ from 5500 all the way to 10,000 rpm, sometimes as much as 7 lbs. Its very difficult to see the faint orange line that represents the TQ without the 'stacks in this cell phone pic. I will take a better photo later. We had some difficulty putting the different graphs onto one chart and weren't able to change the color of the plots without further tinkering.  So, in the end, I was very happy with the results and also relieved that my “seat of the pants dyno” was not wrong. The stacks work well with the Erik Buell Racing ECM although there is a very slight miss at extremely light throttle inputs. My friend Tym's bike (known as T-Rider here) also exhibits the same character trait so we do not think its a fluke. It was clear that the bike ran leaner at times with the stacks then without. Perhaps the velocity stacks work even better with Twin Motorcycles own tune but nevertheless the Barker/Erik Buell Racing ECM/K&N/Twin Stacks combo is a very good one with a perfect “mushroom head” TQ curve. It just doesn't get any better than that! Thanks to Jim and Terry for having me over today. It was a lot of fun! -Tutt (Message edited by CowboyTutt on April 16, 2011) | ||
| Avalaugh |
This is more like, the publics dyno results  No doubt someone will chime in soon with blah blah but what about the ......... Just proves the race ECM and pipe work, as do the stacks, but no doubt will be even better with a TM tune if your funds allow. Good results, congrats, I'll have mine and Albert666 results in a fortnights time. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Very nice info. thanks for sharing. Nice boost from the TM stacks. | ||
| Mrrickbo |
Nice numbers! I have been thinking about getting the stacks and an Erik Buell Racing ECM. I have even thought about sending the stacks, along with my HPE pipe, to one get a custom tune for myself, and two, Erik Buell Racing would have a HPE tune, a TwinMotorcycles V-stack tune, and I would have a tune with them together. | ||
| Firemanjim |
Hey,what could be better---road to the track on a gorgeous saturday, AFM races going so bikes everywhere, and played with a friends bike on the dyno! Did I mention the shrimp sandwich for lunch Tutt bought! Yum! | ||
| Cowboytutt |
Jim, its always a pleasure to see you and what you are up to with your bikes. Your 'Busa really brings back some good memories for me and my own '99 'Busa and the current tech that goes into their ECM's is amazing! Glad you enjoyed the sandwich, it was the least I could do. I would still enjoy a day of riding with you in your neck of the woods just to see some new territory. Thanks for the dyno time and expertise! -Tutt | ||
| Easyrider |
Nice work people, what was the max torque and what RPM?. | ||
| Cowboytutt |
About 85 lbs at 7350 rpm. -Tutt | ||
| Easyrider |
the stock exhaust with catalyc convertor makes 88.53, on 8 different bikes on my dyno (-: still some improvement on the tune then... the barker needs to make that amount also.. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
the stock exhaust with catalyc convertor makes 88.53, on 8 different bikes on my dyno (-: still some improvement on the tune then... the barker needs to make that amount also.. Different bikes, different dynos. Inconclusive. | ||
| Easyrider |
fresh, That has nothing to do with what i mean, You don't hear me talking about the end result they achieved, They used a stock race ECM calibration, that was not made for this setup.. That is why power is Down, If they used a ECM calib that was made for this setup, or fine tuned the bike timing/fuel for this setup (THAT IS NOT DONE NOW) they gained more and better HP and Torque. just my 2 cents about it.. | ||
| Cowboytutt |
I think 3 1/2 lbs of TQ difference would fall into the "standard error of measurement" category when you consider they are two different dyno manufacturers on two different continents! Cheers! -Tutt | ||
| Easyrider |
I Think, If Jim had a full race ECM, and could play with the timing and fuel as it should be, he even would gain more HP and Torque (-: | ||
| Americanmadexb |
Why did JT&S use "standard" measure when all of the exhaust shootout numbers where run on that exact same dyno in "SAE"? So to me, the 141hp is really 137hp. Which is what the Barker ran last year without the stacks. So the stacks gain nothing. SAE j1349 correction: 29.23 in/hg 77 degree temp 0 percent humidity Standard correction: 29.92 in/hg 68 degree temp 0 percent humidity What this means is that "Standard" will give you 2.6 percent better numbers. Multiply that standard HP by .974 to get the SAE HP output, which is typically the number dyno operators will use. So, if you do the math, 141hp is really 137hp. Just a thought. Any gains are a good thing. | ||
| Firemanjim |
Could be, and we use a Land and Sea dyno,reads about 10% lower than a Dynojet. We have to warn the harley guys so they won't be disappointed in their numbers. Tutt just wanted to show how pleased he was with the stacks. Would love to have been able to tune his bike to them but that was not an option. You guys would argue over whether water was wet------ | ||
| Americanmadexb |
I understand, but i was just curious as to why you chose standard over SAE? If your dyno reads 10% lower than Dynojet, that would put it at 155hp? Not arguing here, just wondering! | ||
| D_adams |
Not to belabor the point, but if that's the land and sea dyno output chart in unconverted form, multiply that by 10% nets you about 155 hp on a dynojet. I'm sorry, but I don't think so, that sounds extremely high for a "stock" 1125 with just a pipe, stacks and a tune. If it were converted to dynojet prior to printing, why not use sae like you did from the shootout? More of an apples-apples comparison. That 2.6% is worth the 4 hp up near the peak rpm range. It's tough to tell what the real gains were from the stacks as far as the torque goes, but at least the hp gains are pretty obvious. Btw, water isn't wet, it's just more damp than dry. | ||
| Blake |
Doesn't matter the dyno or the standardization scheme (SAE vs STD), they ran both versions on the same dyno. The difference is what matters. That plot shows that the stacks work. >>> You guys would argue over whether water was wet------ in the form of ice or steam it may not be.  | ||
| Jetbuilder |
I think that to argue any numbers from one Dyno to another is a falacy. Numbers only work with a given bike on a given dyno on a given day. Ex.Take a bone stock bike make a base line run then do the mods. Take a new run record the results. Then you know what the improvment is. Bounce that against buell`s numbers then you know what gains you have. Also there is the I dont care it feels good too me method and just enjoy. Red | ||
| Fast1075 |
It's time for some...  OKRA | ||
| Cowboytutt |
Well, I still think 3 lbs is well within a standard error because you usually run multiple pulls on a bike and you will see fluctuation of 3 HP and TQ no problem between all the pulls. As to whether its Standard, SAE or the well tuned CowboyTutt Butt Dyno, the stacks work as claimed. Can you get more out of a Twin MC tune? Maybe. Could you feel the difference from the saddle. Probably not. Is it absolutely necessary to have the Twin Tune? I don't think it is. Its a big world and its nice to have friends across the pond so interested in Buells, not just us crazy Americans. The stacks are a great product and I encourage people to purchase them. Somebody please pass the Okra! Cheers! -Tutt | ||
| Father_of_an_era |
Good info Tutt. I really appreciate the effort you put into having your bike dyno-d and passing on the info. It gives me a little insight on the HP and Torque my bike may produce since we have nearly the same set up. The only difference (I think) is that I have the KEDA on mine. So, no arguments from me today, just appreciation. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
the stacks work as claimed. Agreed. Things got dicey when someone started to try to compare numbers from one dyno to another.} | ||
| Cowboytutt |
(Message edited by cowboytutt on April 19, 2011) | ||
| Mountainstorm |
Thanks Cowboy and Fireman for the info and Easy for marketting the stacks. I love to hear customer reviews. | ||
| Kinder |
1) "the stock exhaust with catalyc convertor makes 88.53, on 8 different bikes on my dyno (-: still some improvement on the tune then... the barker needs to make that amount also.. " No offense and keeping in mind I also have bought the stacks... In the shootout not one kit made those kinda numbers. What kinda correction factor, fuel or air are you running over there? 2) Cowboy... Did you ever figure out why the poor first run? 3) In end it's not the end numbers that mater here it's the spread between the low and high we achieve with our mods. (Message edited by kinder on April 22, 2011) | ||
| Jasbiz66 |
Do they change the sound of the bike any? LIke changing the intake on a vehicle. Any pictures, or issues with install or anytihng? | ||
| Easyrider |
Kinder, More interesting discussion would be to test this in the USA on a dynojet dyno, 2009 1125 with my intake stacks and my tune in a stock ECM, with a stock exhaust, closed airbox k&n filter don't you think, any volunteers here??? (Message edited by Easyrider on April 22, 2011) | ||
| Pattio |
I hope I will be able to contribute soon. Last season my '08 had the TH slip-on and tune, and this season I will soon have the stacks, TH, and stack/TH tune. I have a spare ecm now, so I will soon be able to book a back-to-back dyno day at my local dealer and compare the bike with stock pipe & tune against the same bike with TH/stacks/tune, same bike same dyno same day. I won't expect anyone else in the world to recognize the numbers as 'official' or the last word, but I expect there will be a visible 'difference' between the runs that will be useful to observe. | ||
| Easyrider |
Keep an eye on the coolant temp in the dashboard I developed the torque hammer on low end torque make the runs from 1500 rpm, I keep for sure an eye on your results have fun |
