Wilsons Sandbox
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/
http://www.frenchandlogan.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=254469
site?> Have y'all seen the dyno result the Patman posted on the other KLR
Patman Dyno Results
------------------------------------------------------ I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by Kawa to have 47 to 48 .> > cav_wolverine wrote: > > > > 3) I assume you were at sea level? >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Devon lives in New York City; it's hard to get far from sea level here no matter how hard you try.> > I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether > or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be
The result doesn't surprise me much -- there should always be a significant loss of horsepower between the countershaft sprocket on the motor and the rear wheel where you actually put the power onto the road. The factory likes to quote c-shaft figures...> converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at > altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The > results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments > unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by > Kawa to have 47 to 48 .
> The result doesn't surprise me much -- there should always be a > significant loss of horsepower between the countershaft sprocket on > the motor and the rear wheel where you actually put the power onto > the road. The factory likes to quote c-shaft figures...
There is no point in trying to compare horsepower figures from one dyno to another, and even less in trying to correlate dyno readings with a manufacturer's claimed HP ratings. The dyno operator is not going to bother to correct for altitude, because he doesn't care what number a different bike, or even the same bike, might give on a different dyno, or on the same dyno on a different day. The point of most dyno work is to maximize the output of a given bike. You test that by getting a baseline reading, and then measuring the effect of various tuning changes. The actual number doesn't mean much; the interesting figure is the delta. However, I tend to have more confidence in the horsepower numbers generated by people who use the dyno as a tool of inquiry, like Devon and Patman, rather than a tool of advocacy, such as bike manufacturers, or purveyors of tuning parts. The latter, especially, are notorious for throwing out big numbers without reference to any baseline, in order to sell snake oil. For this and a number of other reasons, it is probably more appropriate to think of the KLR as a 30 horsepower motorcycle than as 40 horsepower motorcycle. But it doesn't really matter one way or the other.> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Walter Mitty > wrote: > > Have y'all seen the dyno result the Patman posted on the other KLR > site? > > > > http://www.patmanracing.com/klrdyno.htm">The > Patman Dyno Results > > > > cav_wolverine wrote: > > > > > > > > 3) I assume you were at sea level? > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I'm not sure theres any consistency among these dyno runs in whether > or how they adjust for altitude. Ideally, results would be > converted to sea level where torque and hp are higher than at > altitude. Theres a formula, but I dont know what it is. The > results referenced above didnt seem to mention altitude adjustments > unless I missed it. 33 to 34 seems very low for a bike claimed by > Kawa to have 47 to 48 .