| Author |
Message |
    
Frank Ammerman (Torqd)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 01:15 am: | 
|
Rocket you act like i am tearing you down...but I am saying that your motor has much more potential...if they flow 170 at 10...but I know they probably dont. My heads flow 155 at 10 and I made 103hp...you say you have 170 and make a few less that doesn't add up to me. I would say that 170*.913=155 just like mine. Doesn't that seem right...we flow the same and have similar parts and have the around the same hp...that is all that I am saying
They both run really strong!
I am not competing with you. I want people to have the most they can, and if that is more than me, so be it.
If your heads flow 170 you better get some better parts to go with them...more cam maybe?
And the other thing of "there are many who have been faster on street legal buells(i.e. nitrous turbo, etc)
My point was that there are probably faster buells with power adders out there....you are right I can only name one Richard Nallin. And as far as your friend being an begginer I had no idea and that is great that he is doing so well...it just seemed as if you were putting you motor guy and the racer as the best of the best. I had no idea they were new to this.
Lets be friends
What do you think of the cubes...look like fun:-} It is! I am going to try the redshift 585's or maybe even the 643's. |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 08:15 am: |
|
Frank, if you read the above post I converted 168 cfm, using the constant .913.
You can see the result: 91.26 RWHP, and no that doesn't add up. See my dyno chart !
OK, I've done the math at 12" and at 10" (they're all above), and only one add's up........October 27th 9.21pm, heading ROCKET POWER
So, thanks to you guys, I'll conclude that Mr Denish's V Twin Tuners Handbook is bollocks, and all I can say for certain is I have a dyno chart that peaks at 100.5 RWHP, but that's probably wrong. Oh, and one last thing I know for a fact, Mr O'Brien was flowing heads when the Nallin's were but foetuses, but hell, that's an age thing !
Don't get me wrong, I take nothing away from the Nallin's, but I belive Dick O'Brien to be amongst the best, if not the BEST, head tuner in the world, and I'd include the Nallin's and others in the same league, but hell, who am I to say !
And, power boosters or not, who's faster than 10.41 on the strip (street legal) ? Us Brit's need to know !
Rocket in England |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 10:41 am: |
|
Here is the girlie's input...My X-1 makes 117.5 rear wheel hp and 103+ foot lbs of torque. It hasn't been dyno-TUNED yet as my carb is a cast-off from a test we did for a company and not set quite right...poor fuel delivery.
I have Cycle-Rama heads
AAC cylinders
S&S Rods
I was trying to bring up my Dyno Chart. It is on our web site:Cyclerama.com but I can't make it work for some reason.
Pammy |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:02 am: |
|
Pammy, dare I ask, can you post your flow specs ?
As I'm no expert, I'd sure like to compare. After all, I've opened up a can of worms, so I might as well eat 'em !
Rocket in England |
Koen van der Linden (Grizz)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:07 am: |
|
Great Pam..
That should teach the boys some humility..
ciao
Grizzly "may the BUELL be with you"
'00 X1 |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:41 am: |
|
Pammy Pammy PAMMY! At least learn your own web address! LOL You forgot the dash. www.cycle-rama.com.
I've taken the liberty of posting Pammy's chart for her. But I just talked to her and found that this isn't the latest chart she's referring to (117.5 HP). That one is on her computer at home. She told me this run was done *before* the bike was broken in at about 500 miles (you *ain't* gonna get me to do that with my bike Pammy!!) and virtually no tuning whatsoever. Cobbled up carb and all. She told me the latest run she's alluding to *still* has the bike untuned! Pammy... you guys are *too* busy! Finish you own bike for God's sake! But finish mine first! LOL
image{X1run}
RPM (x1000)
As Measured on Dynojet's Model 150 DYNAMOMETER
.
Max POWER = 115.6 Max TORQUE = 103.3
3 31/16 american cooled cyl. je pistons, Cycle-Rama ported head, stock valves, borla ex. cv carb, io rbreak in purposes, andrews cam, Crane hi4e ignition
DYNO-TUNED BY CYCLE-RAMA INC.
7200 73RD ST. N., PINELLAS PARK FL (727) 546-0889
. |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:43 am: |
|
What the heck! Where's the chart? Let me try again.
 |
Bryan T Nill (Loki)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 11:44 am: |
|
Hey! aint this sandbox big enough for all of us to play in?
Rocket, Avon is quite the place. Been there a couple times while visiting on my dear old uncles dime. The dyno numbers are very respectable. really like the torq curve.
? aint that tube in the box a pea shooter? ala 007ish |
John Sachs (Johnsachs)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 06:25 pm: |
|
Rocket,
I wasn't trying to shoot you down.I was trying to pass on info. reference your air flow.Butttttt if your formula is gospel, why do some of the posts on this board make 100+ h.p. with stock unported heads? The average stock T-Storm head flows 133@10",.560"lift.
As far as not hearing about me,probably,is because I was in the Jap bike wars for 20 years.
As far as not doing your heads--That's your tuff luck.
John |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 07:22 pm: |
|
Thanks Steve...no wonder I couldn't get in....
I thought the web guys updated the site regularly.
The 117.5 chart is after some break-in miles and removal of some internal parts of the air box. One of these days I am going to get to put my bike on the dyno and tune it in.
If you look on the web site cycle-rama.com, you will also see a stock bore M2 with NO dyno-tuning. It puts out around 110 rearwheel hp and I don't recall the torque. It also has Cycle-Rama, ported heads.
I don't know...maybe it's the Florida weather....
Pammy
P.S. I will check to see if I can dig up the records on my head. Although we use flow for reference only. I have seen some bikes put together(not by us) with heads that had astonomical flow #'s but would not get out of their own way on the street. |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 07:25 pm: |
|
Hey John...Wes says hello.... |
John Sachs (Johnsachs)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 08:04 pm: |
|
Hi Pammy,
Tell Wes hello,and I'll see you folks at the Prostar race 11/19.I just had JE make me a batch of pistons for 95" Twin Cam Aerocharger application.I have them in stock if you need them.
John,sr. |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 08:27 pm: |
|
I don't know if Wes will go to Pro-Star, this year. He has been working 7 days a week and is a little roasted at this point. If he doesn't go...it will be the 1st time he has missed it.
I think it may be nice and cold up there this year!We may go to observe. Who knows...Wes may get a wild hair and race my bike!!!!(I haven't mentioned that idea to him yet)
Pammy |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 10:19 pm: |
|
John, it's not my formula, it's D W Denish's, and like I keep saying, all the sums you guys have asked me to do, don't add up. My dyno chart and flow figures, at 10" do !
Now, Frank maybe correct in what he is trying to say, but he's still a cheeky bleeder, because he implied I was down on power. What he should have said is "you know, there still might be some more power to be had ", but he didn't until later when he ended up back pedaling.
When O'Brien did my heads he also did the drag racers heads, and as far as I'm aware, both sets of heads were flowed the same. Maybe I could run more cam and a 45, big bore too, but for now what I have is 100.5 RWHP on the dyno and flow specs as posted, but for all I know, all that could be wrong, right ?
Well, if that's the case, all I can conclude is that using my arse as a dyno, I reckon I've got more than 90 RWHP, but you guys would know more than me, I've only got a ring back book for my intelligent source of information, and no flow bench, nor the 20 years with a file up my arse 
Thanks for the help anyway, and be sure to post me the formulas you work to, then perhaps I'll be able to "doctor" my figures to suit everyone elses tastes. Then you can all go and doubt some other sucker !
Rocket in England |
Paul Batts (Xlwp)
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 10:13 am: |
|
Has anyone, with time slips and dyno charts, compared these real world numbers with Denish's formulae for HP from ET and HP from MPH? Just curious about how they compare.
Thanks
PB |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 11:10 am: |
|
 |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 11:14 am: |
|
Thanks Steve....
This is still not a good run...No tuning for me. I am last on the list around here.
Pammy |
John Sachs (Johnsachs)
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 08:05 pm: |
|
Jim Dye's Sheet @14LBS Boost  |
John Sachs (Johnsachs)
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 09:13 pm: |
|
Rocket,
I don't think anyone is looking to cut your n--ts out.I've never seen a dyno,flow bench,or a formula drive down the racetrack,we're trying to make a point.The reason I posted, was nobody had an answer as to flow rate.If you ran 10.41 on a stock wheelbase Buell,with no bars,you did a great job,no matter what power you had.
I'll lay out some small points of info,so everyone can compare apples to apples.
Influencing Factors for dynos and flow benches:
Was the dyno or flow bench calibrated for atmospheric cond.before testing?
F.B.-test at how many inches? Leakage factor?
Dyno-elevation relative to sea level.
F.B.-temp. difference of air in and out.
Dyno-how close to the engine,or heat source,is the temp. probe?
F.B.-What was on the port during test,i.e. carb and manifold,inlet guide,ex.pipe?Size and shapes of inlet guides and pipes make a difference.
Dyno-Air pressure in rear tire,body weight of the operator,tension on the rear straps,and was the operator sitting on the bike or standing next to it while making a pull? What gear or gears were used?
P.S.Before anyone with P.M.S. jumps my shi- this is not intended to belittle,criticize,or shoot anyone down! |
Daniel Dunn (Buelliedan)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 05:32 am: |
|
Pammy,
Is that 117 hp with the carb on still or have you switched back to the FI? Gawd, that's a ton of power!! Not trying to get a piece by piece quote but ballpark what would someone have to pay to get his engine close to those numbers?
Dan
99S3
00X1 |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 06:58 am: |
|
Bulliedan... being Pammy's spokesperson (!!!)... that run is with the 44 CV carb. They were initially going to put a Mikuni on... then they were going to go with the FI. Basically... the engine isn't even complete! Matter of fact... I think the run is with the stock exhaust with some pieces cut out. They have *no* time to finish her bike... although I'm sure they'll get to it eventually. Right Pammy?
I can't comment on the cost to build something like Pammy's motor. That's her area. I think cost can vary widely as the options are tremendous. But... I'm having "some" of that work done right now... and I'm having to sell my first born... I've sold my house... car... and my soul to the devil!!! 8-0 But it's gonna be worth it!!
I *did* have the opportunity to ride her bike. And it really surprised me. The power didn't. I KNEW it would be there in spades. But the *smoothness* did! The bike is like glass.. much smoother than mine! And it's extremely tractable. Don't let anyone tell you a built motor has to be rough and unrideable. If it's done right... it'll be perfect. Man... you just begin to roll on the throttle on her bike and the front wheel lofts! It'd be interesting to see it finished and run through the quarter mile.
Steve |
Frank Ammerman (Torqd)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 09:32 am: |
|
Rocket
Sorry I coundn't answer until today...but only one more thing to say. Flow numbers/HP eq for my motors. Using winflow flowbench info. and 18% loss
145*.423=61.5*2=123*.82=100.86 I had 100.5hp
155*.423=65.5*2=131*.82=107.42 I had 103.5hp but had a bent valve and other problems (but richards heads are the same on his sporty and made 106 and change). I am not that familiar with all the equations but this is what the computer says. A flow rate of 168=117hp that is why I said that your bike should be (sorry)... COULD be making more power
Again I am only trying to figure out how heads that flow alot more than mine don't produce more power. I am not saying that your bike is slow or you suck or anything like that and if you took me that way I am sorry. I am not in a pissing contest with you or anyone elso out there. If you want to be on the offensive so be it.. I just wanted to talk and have other people learn. See ya |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 01:51 pm: |
|
YOu know Steve, I am the red-headed stepchild around here. I never(almost never) get to ride my bike anyway. It does make an awful nice display in the showroom here though.
Dan, Steve's bike will probably make almost as much hp as mine is making right now. I have a lot of things done to the bottom end that are not really necessary for horsepower...but like Steve said, my bike is SMOOOOOTH! A motor just like mine would cost some where around 5500 to 6000 dollars, including the carb and dyno-tuning. It could be done for less. I have AAC cylinders, Axtell could be used. My tranny has been undercut and has the billet door...not really necessary. I have a balanced crank(by Cycle-Rama) and S&S rods. But my heads have stock valves and are fairly mild(Wes does some really WILD stuff!). Steve's heads should be similar.
Anyway, price depends on what you want to do. We just offer the options and our customers are free to pick and choose what they want.
Pammy |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 01:55 pm: |
|
Now to get the torque I have and will have ...That's a different story...... |
Jerome Chappellaz (Jerome)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 03:53 pm: |
|
John : thanks for your message bringing back to one's memories some of the factors which can affect an hp reading on a dynometer... IMHO, discussing a difference between two bikes which were run on different dynos is an apple and orange story.
Pammy, yes 117.5 RWHP sounds wonderful. A lot of people on the BBS would probably love to own such bike and it's probably one of the most powerful Buell around. But... I read again an article on the Sundance Weapon Harley built by the japanese engineer Takehiko Shibazaki, and racing at Daytona, wonderful race machine shown below :
That racing machine has a 12:1 compression ratio, XR reworked overheads, JE pistons, double FCR 41 Keihin carbs, bore and stroke are identical (allowing higher rpm for a given piston linear speed) still for 1200cc, and it produces 118 RWHP at 6900rpm... What does it mean ? These racing engineers should go back to school ? Your bike can win Daytona after break-in is done ? :-)
Measurement is always something difficult to do. Comparing measurements is even more difficult. To be realistic, it must rely on intercalibration of instruments and identical conditions of measurements, something that unfortunately we don't have here when we compare dyno runs. |
Frank Ammerman (Torqd)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 04:09 pm: |
|
Pammy lookin good....was that dip at 3500 from the exhaust or the jetting (I know it wasn't tuned spot on yet)just curios because I never saw a dyno with that new borla.
Does anybody else have a dyno sheet with the new style borla? |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Bench racer's you are, and bench racers you shall always be !
Now pi$$ off and play with someone else's dyno results or come back with some real answers, because frankly, I think you're taking the pi$$ !
Rocket in England |
Jasonl (Jasonl)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 08:18 am: |
|
No reason to leave in a huff Rocketman. You know we don't pay attn to anyone who isn't a yank! |
Aaron Wilson (Aaron)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 09:37 am: |
|
Okay, I'll jump in here ...
Rocket, look at Denish's book again. The constant he suggests is .40 for a well tuned bike, not .35. That .35 constant is a huge assumption on your part. Truth is, none of us really know that number for your bike.
Let's just use his number for a second ... reverse calculating: 100.5 hp/.85/2/.4 = 147.8cfm. That would be a whole lot more consistent with what other, very good people, are pulling from these heads.
Let's say your heads flow the typical 150cfm or so ... that comes out to a constant of .39.
Frank makes an excellent point, too ... ignoring the math, if your heads are really flowing 171cfm at 10", then 100.5hp is waaaaay down on power compared to everyone else. Lots of folks are making that much power with around 150cfm. I know of one motor that made 102rwhp with 135cfm t-storm heads, and I saw both the flow sheets and the dyno sheets myself.
Bottom line, I, too, suspect the 171 figure is at 12".
AW |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 09:39 am: |
|
Rocket, I am not a racer at all! Bench or other wise. I never claimed to be. This is the Dyno-chart section and I finally learned to post one, so I did.
Jerome, Steve Madden's bike should have close to that HP when it is done. It will still be stock bore and stroke and mild head. Now we have a purely Cycle-Rama built S-1 that should have UN-believable HP and Torque!!!!
Pammy |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 11:32 am: |
|
Okay... now you're starting to scare me Pammy. Am I going to need to learn to ride all over again??!! The bike is definitely gonna feel different.
To all... I'm sorry, but other than subjective B.S... I can't contribute much to this topic. I'm *far* from a mathematician and I'm doing good to simply balance my checkbook. I have to place my trust with Cycle-Rama. And that's something I don't have a problem with.
But after the motor work is done and the bike is broken in... I'll post a chart with the modifications as *I* understand them. Maybe Pammy can post flow numbers or whatever else may be relevant.
Steve
P.S. Rocket... I *will* eventually get up the nerve to run the bike down the strip. I'm curious as to what it'll do. I wonder though.. if I'm good enough a rider to get a good run. It would be interesting to make some runs myself, then have some lightweight expert drag racer run it to see how it compares. Just hope no one is in the stands my first time out! LOL |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 09:18 pm: |
|
Yep, I can read too, and I can do math's.
Denish's book says the constant can vary between .25 for a stock motor and .43 for a highly tuned motor. He also says .43 assumes a motor built with maximum compression, optimum camshaft and a tuned exhaust system.
I have stock compression, and like Frank pointed out, and I agree, I could run more cam, and the Race Kit Exhaust I'm sure could be bettered if noise and design constraints were not an issue. That's why I used a HUGELY ASSUMED constant of .35, because I don't belive my motor is tuned to its maximum potential. And if I use the constant .40 on 168 cfm @ 10", as Aaron suggested, that's 114.3 RWHP, and that doesn't add up, so .40 on 153 cfm @ 12" makes about 104 RWHP. Well maybe 12" is the correct one.
However, to suggest, as Frank did, someone's motor should make "lots more power" and "things aint adding up", is not the same as "is not tuned to it's maximum potential" (ie. big bore, more cam, 45 carb). What is crucial to our debate here, is how come Rocket's motor flows 168 at 10", or is that 12" ? And if it's 10", why doesn't that same motor make a bucket full more power ?
Having said that, the math I have shown in relation to my motor is based on factual findings and thoeretical formulas, and I have attempted to explain how I achieved those cfm's and HP's, and my maths hit the target. I showed how 168 cfm-10" @ .550 lift = 100 RWHP, using .35 as a constant as explained. But then again, Aaron hit the target too, but I think his constant of .40 is also a HUGE assumption on his part. See (my constant) .35 x 153 cfm @ 12" = 91 RWHP and that doesn't add up too !
So, to conclude, I did some math, they worked out fine, then you lot jumped in and from where I'm sitting, I'm supposed to be the one with egg on his face. Not so, I'm afraid. I was only attempting to explain what I belived to be correct, and I still do belive it, to a point, but I'm not gonna get into anymore of this shite with the numbers, because I belive there are some folks who are not trying to be informative, rather, they are attempting to belittle my findings. And if we can't debate the issue as grown ups, and Leadhead posts stupid racial comments like that, what's the point.
Anyway, I give up. What with all you 30 year experts and World Champs around, who needs to listen to my dumb arse. I'm just a Yorkshire puddin' who can't even win a bench race!
Rocket in England |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 10:33 pm: |
|
I'm a mathematical midget who doesn't understand all the technical stuff... you guys totally lose me on it. But I know one thing Rocket... turning the times you're running at the strip... your motor is *bound* to be strong! And dare I say it... please don't take offense... but you say you're not exactly a small person.. just think how it would run with say... Angele Seeling riding it! |
Sean Pepper (Rocketman)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 06:08 am: |
|
Smaddy Babe, that's what I said earlier too :@)
I've run a best of 11.70
Duncan ran 11.25, first ever run, and he weighs somewhere under 200lb's.
Now, with a 10 stone pro like Richard Nallin aboard, well, I'd say 10's wouldn't be a problem.
Would anyone else like to throw in there 10 cents worth !
Rocket in England |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 06:42 am: |
|
Weight (all weight including rider/driver/fluids/vehicle/etc.) is obviously an important element in racing.. particularly in motorcycle racing. I'd think the smaller the vehicle racing (car, bike, whatever), the element of power to weight ratio becomes more critical to performance. Sure... the NASCAR guys are sometimes big, good 'ol boys. But did you ever see a motorcycle racer like that? Heck those big cars just get up to speed and stay there. (Hope I'm not showing my ignorance or dislike of NASCAR racing too much!!)
There was a brief discussion in the GDB about reducing the bike's weight. It would be interesting to pursue that. I have a friend that races in the Lightning series. His bike runs great and puts out the power the rules allow. In talking with him I told him my street bike would be putting out pretty much more power than what he has in his race bike. He smiled and said "yeah... but my bike weighs 390 pounds!"
He went over some the weight saving chores. No starter... no charging system. Handmade, lightweight fairing brackets, etc. Lightweight fasteners where ever possible. Hmmmm... my Bultaco Metralla (250 street bike) weighed 212 pounds. Just think what it would do with over 100 HP!! Now that would be scarey!
Steve
P.S. If Duncan went that fast on one pass... I'd say your bike is most definitely a 10 second capable bike. Regardless of formulas used.... that's a fast Buell!!! |
Jerome Chappellaz (Jerome)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 07:34 am: |
|
Yeah, this is a good idea ! Instead of comparing dyno runs, we could compare strip times, and I promise, I'll not make disobliging comments on how to intercalibrate the measuring instruments... :-)
And I propose that Steve makes several laps at Daytona with Pammy's 117.5 RWHP Buell and compare his time with the 118 RWHP Sundance Weapon Harley. :-)) |
Pamela O. Brown (Pammy)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 07:43 am: |
|
By Daytona time, Pammy's X-1 won't have 117.5 rwhp....it should have more....
Pammy |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 12:38 pm: |
|
And to further comment... it takes a heckuvalot more than HP to turn fast laps. I'm talkin' street bikes... not race prepped (suspension, weight, etc.) bikes. Isn't the Sundance bike a race bike? As I commented above... I have a buddy who races the Lightning class (and at Daytona). There's *many* street bikes that produce more power... but they're not set up... in any way... to be competitive at the track. His lower powered, lower weight bike would blow a typical street bike away. His power is limited by the rules. Also... some bikes may make more power than a race bike. But will they do so *reliably* running at race speeds for the length of a race. I'm sure some cutbacks most be made in the interest of finishing the race. A higher powered street bike may be reliable on the street... but will it last on the track? I really don't think you can compare the two. Apples and oranges you know!
And another thing.. not only would Pammy not let me ride her bike at Daytona... Daytona wouldn't let me ride her bike at Daytona! LOL
And one more thing Jerome (and probably the source of any irritation you may percieve in my post!)... are you doubting that her bike has actually turned those HP and torque numbers? Sounds like you are. If not... please accept my sincere apologies! :-)
Steve |
Steve Madden (Smadd)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Sundance
Click on the above if there's any doubt about the Sundance being built for a single purpose. This is no streetbike!! Pammy's bike... my bike... Rocket's bike... would not compete with this weapon at Daytona or any track! |
Jerome Chappellaz (Jerome)
| | Posted on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Steve : no irritation I hope, we are discussing between Netiquetian gentlemen, don't we ?! Well, you're correct, I'm very puzzled by the 117.5 RWHP of Pammy's X1 when I hear that it is still long-stroke, mild overhead and nearly stock exhaust... And that I compare this with the Sundance Weapon Harley which is an ultimate racing Harley supposed to deliver as much power as possible, and which gets (depending on the source of information) 118 RWHP (my source) or 121 RWHP (the source you mentioned in the previous message, thanks for the link !).
But maybe you're right, maybe it's an apple and orange story, except that when one sees the HUGE amount of special stuff inside the Sundance engine (details in the link you mentioned), one can ask himself why so much energy, research, tuning, for such little difference in power compared with Pammy's bike... ;-)
I'd love to see dyno numbers of a stock M2 run on the same dyno as Pammy's X1, under the same conditions. I think this would really show up the work made on the bike, better than a magic number (117.5) which can be subject to debate due to all the variables surrounding the output of a dyno run. Another possibility would be to have it strip timed, so that we can compare with the wonderful time of Rocket. |
|
»
Buell Dynamometer/Dyno Testing Archives »
Archive through November 3, 2000