| Author | Message | ||
     M1combat |
Really? Maybe I'll go there next time  . I assume it's lower than 7K' elevation... | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
They are located right by the Deer Valley Municipal Airport if you can look that up on a topographical map. | ||
| Opto |
Kev, I might have to take you up on your offer, I have 2 Drummers so may as well get one of them converted, the one with the dinged-in bottom, nothing that a hammer won't fix after it's opened up (I hope!). I'll start looking for some freight options...increased fuel requirements will not be a problem, more like a pleasure with the MS EFI. Don, it looks like you are getting really good results with the PCIII, persistence has paid off! (Message edited by opto on July 08, 2005) | ||
| M1combat |
That it has . Now I just need to replace my stock header (I traded it for the PCIII) and do all this again . Then it's on to suspension . My REAL cup of tea . | ||
| Kds1 |
Ian, Check the postal air mail, it's cheaper and we're not in that big a hurry....or are we???? Kevin www.kdfab.com | ||
| Moe03xb |
Would the force be alright as I ride around 4-5k in the twisties? Those pipes just sound great. | ||
| Hogs |
Hey Moe03xb, Stick that baby on and Ridee............... | ||
| Moe03xb |
I love to cane the thing and I'm almost always in third when I should be in fourth just to get the fraction of extra thrust out of the corner. Maybe I'm wrong, but the dyno seems to show that the force makes more hp and tq from ~3250-4700. Sounds like midrange to me. The peak numbers don't really matter to me, tq does though. Also, I would be interested to find out how it performs on a 9, as that is what I have. I will still have to re-remodify the stock can until I can hide enough money from the woman to get it. | ||
| Opto |
Kev, I think that's the way to go. USPS is pretty fair prices. No hurry since I have the other one on the bike. Will send you an email soon. Ian. | ||
| M1combat |
One thing to note is that before I got the PCIII and dyno tuned the Force it was quite bad. I could go WOT anywhere under 3K and would SLOW DOWN. WAY too rich. It does work pretty well above 3K, but before I tuned either pipe the Drummer worked quite a bit better overall. This was with the 12 race ECM. I tried the stock ECM with the Force, but it was pretty much the same. I was running the spars last night and trying to make some time... I came out of four corners total in third JUST under 3K. VERY annoying. I certainly could have shifted down, but IMO it's better to just have power everywhere so I don't need to. I figure I can't use WOT while leaned over anyway, so I don't need the extra power at that point. By the time I get stood up enough to use WOT, I'm running high enough R's that I'm in the right gear. You are very correct though... The Force pipe does sound better than any other pipe made IMO. The Drummer sounds good too, but I'm fairly addicted to the VERY EFFING LOUDNESS of the Force. As soon as I get the PC software loaded on my laptop I'm going to switch back over to the Drummer. One more thing... The whole wheezing after ~5500 is fairly annoying, so I just went back to switching up at about 5200. The Force works... It's just that it's pretty annoying while in town and cruising the twisties. I take my GF out sometimes and I can be running 3K and up with her on the bike... It's too loud and "un-cruise-like" IMO. The problem is that the Force FORCES me to do that. The Drummer just pulls the bike out of the corner anywhere above 1500RPM's... I'll probably use the Force pipe on a race track, but it's annoying on the street. I really think you'll be happier with a Drummer both before and after you put a PCIII on the bike (especially before). | ||
| Blake |
Craig, Your math/assumptions appear to be terribly flawed. The correction factor (1.3) is multiplied by the actual measured power. To back-calculate the theoretical HP at sea level you simply multiply the actual measured HP by the correction factor (1.3). Conversely, if given only the reported SAE HP and the CF, you simply divide the SAE HP by the CF with the result being the actual measured HP. There is no discrepancy. Where did you hear such a thing? | ||
| Blake |
Your flaw is in your use of 30% by addition and subtraction. It is not 30%. It is 130% and you must multiply or divide not add or subtract. By adding and subtracting 30% you corrupted the integrity of the equation. | ||
| Blake |
The equation being... SAE HP = (Actual Measured HP) * CF or... AMHP = SAEHP/CF | ||
| Craigster |
Blake, In your efforts to prove me wrong your not reading the post. Do you honestly belive that if you subtract 30% from a value and then multiply the new number by 130% you arrive at the same number? Let's try it: 130 * 0.70 (30% reduction) = 91 (this is similar to a super bike running at high altitude- makes 130 at sea level and only 91 uncorrected at altitude....with me?) Now let's apply the 1.30 CF 91 * 1.30 (30% increase) = 118.3 Oh No....118 does not equal 130....how can that be? I didn't make this up (but have studied it for quite some time) It is well understood after many years of testing. I suggest reading the following. It is dated but was from the original Dynosource newsletter that Dynojet sent out to it's DJ100 Dyno owners. http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage1.jpg http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage3.jpg The article spells out clearly how the correction does not know or care if the deviation from standard temperature is higher or lower. It simply uses a percentage. To bring our 91 hp motor back to 130 hp would require that the factor some how know weather conditions were biasing a drop in performance or gain in performance. Our 1.30 CF would have to become 1.4285 to get back to 130. Problem is we only experienced a 30% loss (according to the actual power drop and what the correction factor understands). Still don't believe the one published document? http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-mite_newsletters/newsletter_winter-2003.htm (I used to work here) Or this: http://www.superflow.com/support/cycledyn-theory.html#Factors You may call my math 'terribly flawed' but some how I don't think it is me or my math.....I know this stuff pretty well.  | ||
| M1combat |
To me... All formulae aside... it boils down to this... A race kitted bike with about 2K miles on the clock made 86RWHP on THAT dyno on THAT day at 6800RPM. Mine was making ~82 at about 6200 The curve for the Drummer took a turn up at about that RPM (you can see the torque starting to level off). I did make one run that bounced off the limiter with each pipe once we got the upper end fairly sorted... The Drummer made ~89-90 (I don't remember what it said after the decimal). I didn't make another one for the "final" run because my bike doesn't see anything over 5500 regularly and I've run it into the redline maybe five times since it was born. I'll not be doing it just for a dyno's sake. This means I'm about 3-4HP up on a race kitted bike with 13K miles less than the 15K that I have (and I've ridden it hard). I was making a good deal more in both the middle and the bottom as well. I should have thrown that kitted one in for comparison, but because it wasn't the same day etc I didn't want to have to explain... That didn't work  . In any case... You two can debate the correction factor all day, but I was standing in the dyno room helping to tune my bike (Don't EVER remove your ear protection "just once" in a dyno room with a Force pipe just to see how loud it really is... I made it to about 3500 RPM before I was scrambling to put them back on... It HURT!), and I know what was going on. I've also ridden with both pipes and I can tell you, the complete lack of power at 2500-3200 w/ the Force is down right annoying. The sound however, is fabulous... As soon as I load the software on my laptop I'll be loading up the Drummer map and swapping the pipes back out. I'll be keeping the Force though just because I bought it and I've done so much fixing (welding) on it to fix it so it doesn't break (It broke three times before I got the bracing right so I could use my damn chin spoiler). (Message edited by m1combat on July 12, 2005) | ||
| Craigster |
M1, I think your statement ties in nicely. Correction factors greater than 7% (L&S suggests 5%) are too great to compare apples to apples. Correction factors exceeding 7% (5%) WILL suffice for comparison at the same location under similar conditions. i.e. a shop at 10,000 ft elevation can use corrected power to compare results from bike to bike that they service and tune only at locations at similar altitude. It is not good to use the numbers generated to compare to a site at sea level. I would not worry about the peak numbers compared to what others have measured in the valley or the desert……Only those who have been tested near your locale. I have not tested a Drummer, but I do agree the Force has hole in the bottom end and comes alive past 3000 as it climbs out. At least when ridden and measured on an XB9 with intake mods. I think you have done a good job of testing AND giving the general ‘feel’ of the options available, much like some magazines do with ‘off the record’ columns. Very nicely done (IMHO). | ||
| M1combat |
Well thank you . | ||
| Blake |
<sigh> Why does it always have to be a fight??? In your efforts to prove me wrong your not reading the post. Do you honestly belive that if you subtract 30% from a value and then multiply the new number by 130% you arrive at the same number? No. But that is where your math and assumptions are inaccurate. Here's what you stated... The math for the SAE (and others) correction factor is linear. Picture a bike at sea level making 130 HP. Just for shites and grins assume a CF of 1.0 (77deg F, 29.23 Hg and 1% RF) Okay, so for a CF=1.0 the measured and corrected HP values are equal, in this case both are 130 HP. Agreed? ... now take it up to where you tested. Let’s assume it really lost 30% of its power. You'd be running on only 91-hp actual uncorrected power. Ooops, that's bad assumption leading to bad math. A CF of 1.3 does not coincide with a power loss of 30% to the uncorrected (actual measured) HP. That is your mistake. Why? Follow the math... What you are assuming in mathematical terms is the following (note: "Actual Measured HP" is the "uncorrected HP" to which you refer)... Actual Measured HP = SAE HP * (2-CF) (bad math) So for your example you get... Actual Measured HP = 130 SAE HP * (2-1.3) = 91 HP But your assumption and your math are flawed. The correct mathematical relation for determining the corrected HP is... SAE HP = CF * Actual Measured HP Agreed? I hope so. Thus we can solve for the measure HP as follows... Actual Measured HP = SAE HP / CF Therefore the correct values for your example would be... Actual Measured HP = 130 HP / 1.3 = 100 HP (not 91 HP) Remember now: The CF does not care if it rises or falls, the % change is the same - so when it deviates, it now multiplies your 91 hp actually measured at the wheel by 30%. That is not true. Nothing is multiplied by 30%. The uncorrected HP is multiplied by the CF which in your example is 1.3. You could call that 130% if you like. You could also say that the corrected HP is 30% greater than the uncorrected HP. What you cannot say is that the uncorrected HP is 30% less than the corrected HP. It is not. The uncorrected HP is 23% less than the corrected HP. Read on. A CF of 1.3 does not mean that the bike has lost 30% of its STP power at sea level, it means that in order to correct the measured HP to be equivalent to that which would be measured at STP it must be increased by 30% (multiplied by 1.3). SAE HP = CF * Uncorrected HP Uncorrected HP = SAE HP / CF So again if the bike is 130 HP measured at STP (CF=1.0) then for a correction factor of 1.30 it's actual measured (unfactored) HP would be 130/1.3 = 100 HP, not the 91 HP you stated. 130 * 0.70 (30% reduction) = 91 (this is similar to a super bike running at high altitude- makes 130 at sea level and only 91 uncorrected at altitude....with me?) Absolutely not. To correctly calculate the actual measured (uncorrected) HP for a CF=1.3 you would divide the 130HP by 1.3 with the result being 100 HP, not 91 HP. Now let's apply the 1.30 CF 91 * 1.30 (30% increase) = 118.3 Oh No....118 does not equal 130....how can that be? Bad assumption leading to bad math. The correct math is that you have 100HP*1.3=130 HP, exactly the same as measured at sea level standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions. I didn't make this up (but have studied it for quite some time) It is well understood after many years of testing. I suggest reading the following. It is dated but was from the original Dynosource newsletter that Dynojet sent out to it's DJ100 Dyno owners. http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage1.jpg http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/hellfireperformance/dynosourcepage3.jpg The article spells out clearly how the correction does not know or care if the deviation from standard temperature is higher or lower. It simply uses a percentage. To bring our 91 hp motor back to 130 hp would require that the factor some how know weather conditions were biasing a drop in performance or gain in performance. Our 1.30 CF would have to become 1.4285 to get back to 130. Are you sure about that? Care to change your mind. I hope so. Problem is we only experienced a 30% loss (according to the actual power drop and what the correction factor understands). The correct percent loss is found as follows... Percent loss = 1 - 1/CF = 1 - 1/1.3 = 0.23 or 23% Still don't believe the one published document? http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-mite_newsletters/newsletter_winter-2003.htm (I used to work here) Or this: http://www.superflow.com/support/cycledyn-theory.html#Factors You may call my math 'terribly flawed' but some how I don't think it is me or my math.....I know this stuff pretty well. You know it better now. | ||
| Blake |
Bottom line, a correctly calibrated dyno with accurate atmospheric data will report very accurate corrected HP no matter what the CF or where the testing is done. | ||
| Blake |
BTW, thanks for posting those geocities links about the effects of parasitic losses and varying correction factors on dyno results. Seems as though dynojet has recognized that issue and addressed it fairly well. Interesting stuff. | ||
| Blake |
One should note that even a significant change in temperature will affect the calibration of a dynomometer. Colder temps leading to more viscous bearing lubricant would likely cause more drag on the drum bearings and thus slightly diminish measured results. The same would be true for the motorcycle being tested if it were not brought up to the same exact operating temperature (oil temperature). | ||
| Craigster |
<sigh> Why does it always have to be a fight??? Hmm, I’m not fighting. The only animosity seems to be coming from somewhere else…… Craig, Your math/assumptions appear to be terribly flawed.There is no discrepancy. Where did you hear such a thing? Instead of a discussion we get into accusations like 'terribly flawed'. Why can’t you simply ask where I would get such a thought and did I have any data or testing to show such flaws? Nope Instead I get I nice warm opening greeting as above, and later I’m accused of arguing. Seems If we don’t agree, I must be argumentative. | ||
| Craigster |
The error I see in the situation you present is that you figure the bike loses the equivalent of 130hp / 1.3 = 100 The bike actually loses more like 30% resulting in 91 measured ponies. Your next step in your process is certainly correct Measured power * 1.3 = SAE-HP. The problem is the bike is not making 100 hp....it's only making 91. That’s not even dealing with 85% ME assumption (Which is why in my earlier example I clearly state that my 'CRAIG'S-calculation' of power at sea level for the tested XB is also not totally correct. However, I simply attempted to show that measured and corrected power at altitude will not be the same measured and corrected at sea level). Look at the charts in the news letter. They show that even with the CF applied, the numbers never match up. The high altitude testing is always lower even with CF applied. See what I mean? | ||
| Craigster |
BTW, thanks for posting those geocities links about the effects of parasitic losses and varying correction factors on dyno results. Seems as though dynojet has recognized that issue and addressed it fairly well. Interesting stuff. I'm glad you like the articles. I always hang onto my old info. Drives my wife crazy as I have bike magazines from 1967 still stored in Rubbermaid bins in the garage and the attic. It also comes in handy when working on new projects. I got to have a hand in the start of the Land -&-Sea motorcycle chasis dyno (left the job before it was completed) and got to develop and test the worlds only snowmobile chassis dyno that the tester simply drives a sled onto much like a cycle chassis dyno. If the system did not have a weather station at the time of test, we had to calculate the CF by hand....hence some of those old documents come in handy. If you would like to lik them in the KV,please feel free to do so. | ||
| Kds1 |
You guys are way too smart for me, but I do know that if the Drummer and the Force were tuned at the same air/fuel ratio the Drummer would have been even higher than it already is, thanks for the education this is some awesome info....I hate that it has to be an argument all the time..... Kevin www.kdfab.com ` | ||
| M1combat |
"OK hotrod, your Drummer is on the way to ya........try for 13 to 1 airfuel ratio at least...." I just tuned it to where you asked . It was indeed making a little more in between 13:1 and 14:1. The Force made it's max exactly where it's at. I just wanted to make sure I did exactly as you asked is all. When I read "at least" I figured that was the leanest you wanted... Maybe not. My bad. In any case, the pipe DID make more power a little leaner. When I load the map for the Drummer back up and swap the pipes I'll be leaning out the map just a bit... Just FYI. I'm also going to try out one of those simple A/F ratio's so I can adjust the map should I see anything wrong with it in the future. | ||
| Kds1 |
Don, You did fine on the whole thing, I just know that an aircooled v-twin will feel alot better on the richer side of 14:1 under everyday driving circumstances... ride the wheels off it till I come up with something else.... Kevin www.kdfab.com (Message edited by kds1 on July 14, 2005) | ||
| M1combat |
Will do . | ||
| Blake |
Craig, Your math is wrong due to a bad assumption. No attack against you. I'm a blunt spoken kind of guy. I call it like I see it. Don't get your feelings hurt over a mistake. I've made plenty of them. The article's point about the affect of the varying CF's on parasitic losses is correct. That has nothing to do with the error you are making. The article also stated that the dynojet software compensates for the effect of CF on varying parasitic loss. The math is simple and straightforward but you are missing it due to your inaccurate assumption that a 30% gain in CF translates to a 30% loss in uncorrected power. It doesn't. A 30% gain in CF coincides with a 23% loss in uncorrected power. I did the math above. Math don't lie. Again, here is the one and only equation you need to look at... SAE HP = Uncorrected HP * CF Which when rearranged via simple algebra becomes... Uncorrected HP = SAE HP / CF Which for your example is... Uncorrected HP = 130HP/1.3 = 100 HP (not 91 HP) You don't subtract 30%, you divide by 130% (1.3)which is simply dividing by the CF. Do the math. Or explain in mathematical terms how you arrive at your assumed 30% loss in power. You'll get there eventually. | ||
| Ingemar |
For some reason I completely missed the first page. Just read it. Thanks for your time & efforts on this M1. Great stuff. |
