| Author | Message | ||
     Jules |
A local bikeshop is offering Dyno runs in their newly fitted out workshop for £20 (around $30) so I thought I'd stop by with a buddy. His CB1000R put out 113RWHP (stock with a blueflame pipe) and 66 lb-ft. My 1125R (K&N, Erik Buell Racing ECM, Barker) managed 125.48RWHP - which was frankly disappointing. What did make it "better" was that the Buell put down 95 lb-ft of torque. The operator was concerned that the Buell is still running too lean at smaller throttle openings and sub 6K so I guess I need to work on that. I realise these things are reasonably subjective and don't want to re-ignite the whole "my dyno is better than yours" debate, I'm just going to keep this as a base run for comparison with mate's bikes  (Message edited by jules on August 03, 2010) | ||
| Vinb |
looks good to me you beat the rice. | ||
| Puredrive |
Was this a dynojet setup? Was it in SAE factor? | ||
| Jules |
Was this a dynojet setup? Was it in SAE factor? It was indeed a dynojet setup SAE 1990 V2.3 I read it wrong, it's 125.48HP @ 10717 RPM (Message edited by jules on August 03, 2010) | ||
| Jules |
 | ||
| Hack_job |
ahh. CB1000r, not CBR 1000. I was quite confused with the hp ratings for a second.  Cool bike. We don't get them over here. | ||
| Gofastalot99 |
While the 125hp seems a little bit low, 95tq seems very high. | ||
| Jules |
Yep - that's what I was thinking too... | ||
| Cowboytutt |
Those numbers really do seem unusual and not consistant with any other dyno runs I've seen. Very puzzling. -Tutt | ||
| Ridenusa4l |
tut- but do we have ANY other dyno runs with the barker exhaust AND Erik Buell Racing ECM to compare it too?? it may just be that the barker when tuned makes ENORMOUS torque... FWIW Jake | ||
| Anonymous |
Please, please do not let a random dyno guy play with the ECM we spent days refining! Aaaauuuggghhh! And don't get caught up in the numbers, since all dynos read differently, even when operated properly (which is often not the case). Has the dyno a full road speed fan setup to get the right amount of cold air into the intake? Unlikely. Do a roll-on with your friend on the track and see if it looks like only a 10HP difference. | ||
| Jules |
LMAO - honestly I wouldn't let anyone but you guys touch the ECM! I have absolute faith in you. I agree that the road speed fan would have made a difference - just posted exactly that same sentiment on another forum. I'm not hung up on the numbers, I'll just use this as a benchmark to compare against my mate's bikes. And, I know on a roll-on I have a LOT more than 10HP over the CB1000R, i can walk away from that all day, and my mate's speed triple too LOL | ||
| Puredrive |
were there any baseline runs prior to the mods? yep 95LBS seems very high IMO | ||
| Cowboytutt |
Jake, I think your correct and I've not seen a dyno run with EXACTLY that set-up. Tim Barker has a dyno run on his web site with I think the stock chip, his exhaust and a K&N filter. I called and spoke to him about one time. Very nice man. Then we have Al's American Sport Bike's dyno runs with the Erik Buell Racing race ECM and Barker exhaust which comes very close to Jules configuration. Surprisingly, Barker's dyno run and Al's are pretty similar whereas this shops numbers are not. Also, as Anonymous said I'm reminded of the difference of load can make on a dyno run. For example, most runs are made with zero resistance on the drum and at WOT. This is very different from real world conditions with the bike under load. Maybe that has something to do with it, I don't know. -Tutt | ||
| Jules |
No baselines I'm afraid. Like I said - I'm not massively bothered about the numbers just that it kicked the ricers butt LOL | ||
| D_adams |
I guess my question is, why did they "think" it was running lean? Did they install wideband O2 sensors or hook it up to a 4 or 5 gas analyzer to see the true air/fuel mixture? Or was it just a tailpipe sniffer stuck in just a few inches into the pipe? If they didn't do either of the first 2, I doubt I'd have them "tuning" my race ecm. Actually, I doubt I would bother with it at all. The numbers posted don't really match the averages, I'd suspect the dyno is off some, unless your bike really isn't running right. Also, without a baseline from stock, you really don't know where it's actually at. | ||
| Stirz007 |
Jules - I got about 118 RWHP bone stock at 4500 ft elevation. With EB ECM, pipes, can and K&N, it makes about 126 RWHP (probably closer to 128 if adjusted for difference in air temperature between base and upgrade runs). Not the 146 as advertised, but not too shabby nonetheless. I do not take the numbers as absolutes, just a relative difference to allow me to judge whether the mods had an effect or not. You got a good price on the dyno - I paid almost triple that. | ||
| Jules |
It was just the sniffer I'm afraid, again I'm not overly concerned but I can't help thinking it probably is running a bit lean, it certainly has that "feel" to it, but it's not enough to worry me. I wasn't planning on having any tuning done there (they couldn't do it anyway). The bike itself is running amazingly well (aside from the very first throttle opening upon startup where it bogs down) - other than that it pulls like a train, flies up to ludicrous speeds and sounds fantastic. I don't have a great deal of confidence in the figures as a comparison for other bikes run on other dynos, but as a comparison against other bikes run on this same dyno the figures should be OK.. | ||
| D_adams |
That "advertised" 146 hp is at the _crank_ not at the wheel. | ||
| Jules |
Thanks Jeff that sounds close enough to mine to make me a bit happier | ||
| Stirz007 |
Dean - You are correct sir - I was being a little sarcastic. I recall that the early releases and promo stuff said 146 RWHP. That has since been quietly revised to 146 Hp. | ||
| D_adams |
Guess I never saw the early ads, or I just missed the rwhp part. I always took about 15% off the advertised number for belt drive bikes and 18-20% for chain drive. Shaft drive is the worst for losses from what I remembered though. I usually paid about $30 for a set of dyno pulls for testing runs, the shop rate was $88/hr at the time. I put a set of PLX Devices wideband sensors on mine with the original intent of doing tuning myself. I know for sure exactly how mine runs now with the Erik Buell Racing race map. It's a little fat on the bottom and switches over to a little lean after 6000 rpm (14:1 a/f) up to maybe 10k rpm. It still needs some tuning for the pipe I built, but it's certainly better than it was stock. | ||
| Stirz007 |
Dean - I made the same rough calc when I got the first dyno back at 118. My first response was WTF?. Then I backed out shaft to wheel, then altitude (4500), at which point the 118 was 'in the zone'. And yes, shaft drive sucks power big-time. I paid shop rate of $80/hr, one hour minimum. Dude says "you should be on the 100 Hp board". But then no one ran out with a camera. I guess they didn't want to have a Buell on the board at all, or sure didn't want it to be the leader - I really didn't care, but thought it was ironic ... | ||
| D_adams |
The last time I was there to have mine run, a guy with a V-rod was bragging about the 114 hp he was getting to the ground. My last run at Gateway netted 134 hp without any tuning at all. Same dyno, the guy wasn't too happy when he heard the numbers I got out of a smaller motor. I need to get down there again and have them run it once more to see where it's at with this pipe on their dyno. Should be 137-138 hp. I might take the laptop along and see if I can tweak a little more peak hp out of it. I'd love to see 140+ at the wheel on mine. I'm pretty sure it can be done, I just need to find an extra hour or so to get down there. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
I recall that the early releases and promo stuff said 146 RWHP. Wrong. Buell never advertised 146 RWHP. Why would any manufacturer advertise RWHP when they could add another 15% onto that figure with crank HP? they let the moto rags give the RWHP figures. | ||
| Blake |
Thanks Harlan. | ||
| Easyrider |
It is runnin very lean at 7000, when that dip is there, it should make max torque at around 7000-8000 with the barker. I am curious what it would make on that same dyno with my Barker tune. | ||
| Jules |
Easy - I am still contemplating putting the stock ECM back in and having you remotely load your tune onto it. Can you remind me how much that costs please? I'd be interested in the comparison too. | ||
| Easyrider |
$225 USD look here: http://www.fuelsolutions.nl/index_files/Page1025.h tm | ||
| Puredrive |
-TuttCowboytutt Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2010 - 06:04 pm: Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Jake, I think your correct and I've not seen a dyno run with EXACTLY that set-up. Tim Barker has a dyno run on his web site with I think the stock chip, his exhaust and a K&N filter. I called and spoke to him about one time. Very nice man. Then we have Al's American Sport Bike's dyno runs with the Erik Buell Racing race ECM and Barker exhaust which comes very close to Jules configuration. Surprisingly, Barker's dyno run and Al's are pretty similar whereas this shops numbers are not. Also, as Anonymous said I'm reminded of the difference of load can make on a dyno run. For example, most runs are made with zero resistance on the drum and at WOT. This is very different from real world conditions with the bike under load. Maybe that has something to do with it, I don't know. The Drum is the LOAD on a dynojet. I'll be doing a dyno soon to compare my HPE exhaust to my stock baseline.  |
