Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   BMW R1100S / R1200S Tech Forum (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/bmw-r1100s-r1200s-tech-forum/)
-   -   MCN Test Of R11S Bolt On's Confirm Their Over Rating (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/bmw-r1100s-r1200s-tech-forum/163638-mcn-test-r11s-bolt-ons-confirm-their-over-rating.html)

bigj 05-19-2004 02:29 PM

I don't see anything wrong with spending a little money on these bikes to make them run more smothly, or to drop some weight. But if you think you're gonna get major hp out of them, you're wrong. Enjoy them for what they are. If you want more power, get a ZX10R, R1, CBR1000RR, GSXR-1000, RC51, Daytona 955, Hayabusa, ZX-12R, CBR1100XX, GSXR-750, etc.

lennie 05-19-2004 02:33 PM

I guess I must be one really smart marketing dude.

To have fooled so many people into purchasing the InDuct (registered product name) and others to copy the idea for the 'S' is really something.

They proved what I have said all along about what the dyno cannot measure the actual gains on the road.

The drop in airbox vacuum is significant if it really is 3.9 inches of water including the K&N.

Dynoing my car after adding headers increased the intake vacuum by 15 percent due to their efficiency. Adding a well designed mandrel bent free flowing exhaust system increased it again by 15 percent. If I had a large bore intake and throttle body it will drop from 2.4 to about 1. This means big HP gains.

But again the GOOD DOCTOR read an article and can believe what they have said. He still has not ridden a bike setup properly.

I guess I should just stop making and selling them to appease his superior intellect.

If I believed every stupid journalist I would have about 300 bikes that perform much better in my garage. :D

My bike at its best was 101.8 rwhp. I am really good at doctoring (sic) the numbers on the output. This is without pistons. I know it will go better with the addition of pistons. If you do pistons without opening the exhaust and intake you will not see the true potential of the real gains the pistons will make.

The sum of the parts is better than one on its own.

You can only be right just so many times.

boxercup 05-19-2004 02:52 PM

Torque???
 
Although HD based it says it all:

Power to the People
Something that when the rider whacks open the throttle to pass a car, they reward him with a good arm tug and a big smile -- real-world power
By Howard Kelly


No, this editorial is not going to have political incantations or a subliminal message; it's actually about real-world riding power. I am pretty sure you know what real-world power is, but just to play it safe, I'll explain. Real-world power is the power your bike produces that you can actually use in daily riding situations -- not on a racetrack.

All too often I talk to people and they ask what cam, heads, pipe, carb, or a combination of these parts will give them the most horsepower. It always surprises me that they don't mention torque nor do they ask what would be the most rideable combination. After all, what good does a bazillion horsepower at 6,000 rpm do you when you are moving in the flow of city traffic? When most people set out to buy performance parts, they are looking for bragging rights versus well-rounded usage. My goal this month is to set the record straight on some of that.

Real-world power is that place in the powerband where you spend 90 percent of your time -- 2,000 to 4,200 rpm -- rather than your peak power, which usually comes in more than 5,000 and is seen around 10 percent of the time or less. By planning your performance around your style of riding, your bike will feel faster than if it had higher numbers. How? Let's look at a stock Evo torque curve as a starting point. Most that we have encountered make about 60 lb-ft between 2,250 and 4,000 rpm -- not exactly arm-stretching numbers. But if you toss in a well-planned pipe, carb, head, and ignition package that pushes it to about 90 lb-ft through that range, you have increased the excitement level of where you ride by 50 percent. If it peaks near 5,500 at 100, great, but how often do you turn that high of an rpm?

So why do so many people lust after the big peak numbers and not the useable stuff? Beats me. OK, actually I do know. It is bragging rights. There is nothing as cool as saying, "I have an 80ci motor that makes 100 horsepower." Saying something like "My bike makes 87 lb-ft of torque at 3,400 rpm" just doesn't have the same effect. At least that is what I believe.

Fortunately, the majority of the performance guys see it my way too. When you stop into a shop or call one of the many performance kit manufacturers, they ask what type of function you use your bike for and make a recommendation from there. While their marketing would be better-served selling kits that peak high, we are lucky that most place a higher regard on customer satisfaction and try to build a broad torque curve for the user. Something that when the rider whacks open the throttle to pass a car, they reward him with a good arm tug and a big smile -- real-world power.

There are some people who should build the peak monster motors too. If your bike is simply to hot rod from place to place, it makes sense. When you spend most of your time at WFO, you should have the peak numbers to make it fun. As an interesting side note though, a few years ago one of the Big Four Japanese companies hooked a throttle position monitor up to one of its road race bikes. What it found was that one of the top 10 racers in the country used WFO about 17 percent of the time around a racetrack, and his midrange 77 percent of the time. Guess how they tuned his bike for the next race?

As much as we endorse real-world power, we still put blurbs on our covers (this issue included) that say, "Make 8 Billion Horsepower from Your 80ci Motor." Why? Because we tune those upgrades to make huge midrange or real-world power. Case in point is our Zipper's upgrade this month. While the cover talks about 85-plus horsepower, the real story is the 80-plus lb-ft of torque it makes at 3,000 rpm. As we all know, a solid-mount Evo is way more fun to ride at 3,000 rpm than at the horsepower peak of 5,800. And the odds are the bike will spend 80 percent of its time at 3,000 versus the 20 percent it will spend (and yes, you can count on it banging off the rev limiter) at WFO.

I hope, by this point, you understand what I am pushing for and keep it in mind as you plan your performance upgrades. Real-world power is just what we need - power to the people y'all.

1967 R50/2 05-19-2004 03:11 PM

A. I'm not suprised if all these bolt ons don't add much power.
B. What is a Troll?...other than the kind the billy goats kick under the bridge?

roger albert 05-19-2004 03:12 PM

> > I did not select anything accept the general findings of the MCN report. They used everything they could to get more HP with aftermarket goodies

Yes, you did, in fact, you're making up, or selecting, or presuming the articles premise. Did my copy have an omission where I didn't see the headline "How to wring max hp outta youse guys sporty boxers and what-not" ? I don't recall that title or premise.

Dr. Curve 05-19-2004 03:37 PM

Oh Please! Are you calling the Dyno operator at MCM and their staff "every stupid journalist" and suggesting, along with others, that some one who reads the recent article printed there and then reports on it should be suspect? What gives? How can other listers here, who surely must know better, even tolorate the level of exaggeration that has been posted by some of the "bolt-on's crowd" that are so vocal on this list. For several years they have spouted off wild power claims with mere pipe, chip, duct, filter changes. MCM had read the list over a period of time and were taken with the HP numbers posted after the sig line of so many peligan posters. They simply wanted to see if "they to" could reach the numbers, like yours Lonnie, without the use of pistons, rods, different T Bodies,or cams. They could not do it and indeed, even though they duplicated bike mods that peligan posters had assigned 10 rearwheel HP to.............the results remained the same. Your bike may have had cams, pistons, rods, T Bodies or the like........because if you or anyone else has merely changed a Chip, a Pipe, a Filter, and a Induct .........in any combination at all........the results will not be over a 2.5 HP gain......IF THAT........and most likely if there is any actual gain in SUSTAINED POWER OUTPUT it will be in the 1.1 HP range.

Face it. A rider who changes just those four components in any combination......will not gain much sustained power, but perhaps some....... in the 1.23% to 1.75% range.......if everything goes right. Beware however, for as MCM pointed out........many of the mods suggested by this forum lead to a reduced HP output.

The usual purpose of a handful of this group remains the same............kill the messenger who bring in news you don't want to hear.......... even if its backed up solid.....as is the case in the highly respect publication, Motorcycle Cosumer News.

Where were all these "fast bolt-on bikes" this past GMR? Simply too powerful now with the new mods to run in the mountains? Pipes clogged, or what?

JonyRR 05-19-2004 04:00 PM

Geez, you think I'd learn by now, but no, I have to chime in on this one.
Dr. Curve, in my particular instance, I was concerned about real-world rideability, reliable, stable idle and a smooth, linear power output (with no surging) and if I got any additional power that was a bonus. I do admit to an infantile glee when my S sounded more like a motorcycle and less like my wife's sewing machine,but that particular metric is purely subjective on my part. As I stated in my previous post(s) on this thread, my supposedly 'within spec' S was an unreliably-idling, unperdictably-stalling deathtrap at slow speeds and this was after two very reputable shops in the PacNW had pronounced it 'teutoniclly wonderful'...I had to take matters into my own hands and the fact I've never been able to leave anything stock I've ever owned didn't even enter into it (BS meter pegs here; just kidding). So, having said that the main point (which you, to your credit, haven't disputed) was to produce a scoot that fulfilled what I originally expected from my first BMW but didn't get without a lot of time and effort......reliable stable idle, smooth linear power from idle to redline, no surging, no overheating, and yes indeedey-weedey, 'a more distinct audio signature'...read louder, enough to actually hear above the hip-hop emanating from the Escalade next to me at the stoplight...

johnnydanger 05-19-2004 04:20 PM

Okay okay okay, my turn. The S... let me rephrase that, MY S in stock tune was an ill running beast. Everyday riding home from work I would ride down a steep hill and turn right on a severe off camber turn. This turn was also where I would transition from off-throttle to on-throttle. Every single time the bike would do a single misfire hiccup and wobble severely. That's the absolute worst, losing power with a big belch in the middle of a turn. I kind of got used to it but the periodic engine stumbles got OLD very quickly. This is MY experience on MY bike as I'm sure the Curve Gerbil will point out. In any case for rideability sake, again from MY experience, I think a chip is a must with the S. With the addition of pipes, cam sprockets, and InDuct my bike is clearly quicker in my daily riding routine. The low-mid range torque is noticeably more and to loft the front end skyward is now a simple twitch of the wrist in first gear (I'm sure it be easier if I wasn't such a big galoot). Mid-range rollons also pick up noticeably quicker with less windup to get into the power. And, the bike clearly doesn't run out of steam at the top end as it used to.

I would agree however that those simple mods - chip, intake, sprockets, pipes - did not yield much increased peak horse power but they did noticeably change the power characteristics and improve rideability FOR ME. I'm sure the Curve Gerbil will agree that no two bikes are EXACTLY ALIKE, especially between 99 and 04, what with different computers, single/twin spark differences, etc. So please mister Gerbil, stop with the absolutes BS, put your horse blinders back on and sit down before someone does something extreme... Shannon?

Saintly 05-19-2004 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
B. What is a Troll?...other than the kind the billy goats kick under the bridge?
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

profWacko 05-19-2004 04:23 PM

Doc, I am glad that you like your bike stock.

I like mine a lot better with the mods I have made to it (zTechnik exhaust, Vanderlinde chip, SJ intake and K&N filter housing) because I like the way it feels now compared to how it felt to me when it was stock. I really don't care how the differences before and after might show up on a dyno.

What matters to me is I like it better, and that's all that really counts.

To me. And, yes, it IS all about me because it's my bike, not yours.

See how easy that was.

Your bike's good for you. Mine's good for me.

Mr. Deltoid 05-19-2004 04:38 PM

Doc, Doc, Doc.To quote that fine old movie, Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."I'm flogging a dead horse, but here it goes once again...IT'S ABOUT FUNCTIONAL POWER SILLY. I almost traded my dear ol' S in for a K1200 unit. Let's see here, hum, I paid around 15 grand for a bike THAT WILL NOT IDLE.So I found a used Two Bros. system for 350.00(whole system). BINGO!!! WE NOW HAVE A FUNCTIONAL MACHINE! If your looking for hooligan HP, you've reached the wrong address, check next door.But that 350.00 was money WELL spent considering I don't need the fast idle at EVERY stop light.I know your going to say it was probably not tuned properly, wrong answer my dear Doktor.It also had over 20k on it, broken in thouroghly.I like MCN, but they are WAY off base on this subject.I hope the mighty K1200S doesn't need aftermarket goodies to run properly.......

markjenn 05-19-2004 04:52 PM

For the record, my stock S runs fine: it idles, pulls to redline, doesn't surge that I can tell, has linear throttle response, etc. It might run better with inducts, chips, pipes, etc., but it might not too - I really don't want to spend 20% of the bike's value finding out - I've got other machines to tinker with. I like a sport-touring bike to be quiet anyway.

The Doc is off in left field as usual, but you guys are just as bad the other way.

- Mark

Dr. Curve 05-19-2004 04:52 PM

Agreed Wacko, to each his on. I never said anyone should not change their bike to best suit their needs. A better sound, quicker initial throttle, lighter weight, fewer flat spots, less surge, and the like may all be obtained, at least according to many, yourself included, by making the switch to "bolt-ons" of various combinations. So be it............just don't confuse this with adding meaningful HP because it just is not going to happen. I have had all manner of bike both stock and highly modified, but in the case of the R11S, there is simply not much to be gained without real engine work. Case closed. The MCM article is fair balanced, and correct. I happen to have already aggreed with its findings before the test was ever done, and pleased to see the results they have so helpfully pointed out.

Sorry so many of you have such poor wrenchs at your local shops........otherwise your stock bike would not have cause you to seek poor solutions to problems most likely caused by poor setup, owner mis steps in tuning, improper breakin, or a combination of all of the above.

The parts often mentioned were hyped to the R11S masses and like lemmings over the cliff.........many fell for the talk. They may sound fast ........but they likely are not. Still, like Wacko says.....to us all.......your bikes good for you mine's good for me.

Feeling good to you is not the same as offering more power to you however and thats the point. No real HP gains are to be found in the way so many here suggest.

blakebird 05-19-2004 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Curve
A better sound, quicker initial throttle, lighter weight, fewer flat spots, less surge, and the like may all be obtained..... by making the switch to "bolt-ons" of various combinations. So be it............just don't confuse this with adding meaningful HP because it just is not going to happen.

This is exactly where you've underestimated at least half the people on this forum....by mistakenly thinking (and stating in bold fashion) that we're basically lemmings, duped into thinking we could easily have big power gains, etc.

Maybe if you sat back just for a second you'd understand that we do actually get that.... and vehemently resent being spoken for.

Many of us have been enthusiasts for 35 or 40 years or more, and have owned 35 or 40 bikes or more. We absorb every iota of information, pictures, articles available on the sport.....we get up early to ride in the rain....it's part of who we are.

Do you have ANY idea how your ramblings insult and anger those of us who are informed and have a clue?

Go somewhere else to put words in people's mouths, and offer something besides insulting opinions.

...at least take a lesson from someone like Roger who's able to offer up excellent fact-based information with no rancor or offensive leanings - and will admit freely when he doesn't know or learns something. It's clear you feel you have little left to learn.


....and, I'm spent.

boxercup 05-19-2004 05:27 PM

Really? Are you sure Dr.?
 
Greetings Dr. C,

I like MCN and thought the article was a good read. I thought Mr. Bill Shaw put a lot of time and much effort into it. Especially for the use of his personal Replika; the dyno does stress a drive train and engine. I must add that I have no connection to him and he purchased the LASER product at full price.

How is it possible to come to any conclusion with regard to one of the article’s segments; the one that dealt with PEAK hp?

Basically Mr. Shaw combined a group of items and used a dyno to compare the results to a baseline run. They published the PEAK figures. Boy, did you run with those figures.....Like a rabbit.

But really Dr.C, what good are those figures, what do they show?

Again, they do show enthusiasm and hard work by the author Mr. Shaw. However, MCN does not have a dyno. I do!

Let me tell you what the PEAK HP tests reveal. NOTHING!

It is all about torque! Mr. Shaw does allude to that in his conclusion.

I would think that you, as member of academia, would have had the idea/concept of synergy come to mind. None of the items that were selected and grouped were designed to work together in a complimentary fashion. Although, the author’s conclusion revealed a more responsive "S"; it was by coincidence not design.

Due to many hours of conducting experiments on the “S”, I have observed firsthand the benefits of the addition of bolt on items. They do raise HP above baseline runs and they very much flatten out the torque curve. Synergy is essential to optimum performance. I use the word PEFORMANCE as it best describes what happens between idle and redline.

User friendly HP (a flat torque curve over a wide RPM band), not JUST peak HP ratings, will get you better lap times and a pleasant ride, 100% of the time. That is what we want. In fact Dr. a wide torque band will get you to top speed faster! That is where you like to be, right?

Next time you take a high speed run, use an InDuct from Boxer Performance. You won't believe the difference.

BTW, Dr.C, pistons are bolt-ons also.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1085012819.gif

Mr. Deltoid 05-19-2004 06:08 PM

My good Doktor, I am a wrench myself.Not to brag but more than sufficient to deal with this particular machine.Frankly the catalytic monstrosity on this machine is the main source of the EPA related problems.Sure , trashing the Cat might lower your top end in a miniscule manner, but the pay-off is better idling and a cleaner range of power from 0-8500rpm.I'm kinda disturbed at the poor wrench theory you offered in the above post.I don't care who wrenches on your bike, he or she will not be able to produce a machine with stock exhaust and cat that runs smoother than the aftermarket options available.As a joke my brother, after the installation of my Two Bros. exhaust ,stuffed a rag in the left exhaust pipe to simulate highly restricted running.Guess what, it ran like SH$! just like stock!!!What does this prove? Maybe my brother had few too many Sam Adams, but by-golly the proof is the pudding.Try stuffing a banana up your monster SUV's tail pipe and see what happens.To focus on top end HP is far to simplistic, redlining from stop light to stop light is far from my reality.Useable HP and Torque is the key to harmonious riding grasshopper.Confucious say he who runs in front of car get tired, and he who runs behind car gets EXHAUSTED.:)

Bob in Tucson 05-19-2004 06:25 PM

Blake, thanks for doing the typing for me. Better, actually.

BMW Atlanta 05-19-2004 06:27 PM

Well Curve,...........you know darn well where my bike was,....at the shop while I hauled demo bikes to the rally in my luxurious cage. I really wish I could have made it up the GMR and show you what USEABLE power is. I have done many a rolling accelleration tests against customers and their bikes and boy the bestest running stock bike I have ever seen was barely noticeable in my rearview mirror after less then 6-7 seconds and I was certain I would have a very marginal gain over the bike. Boy was even I surprised and almost insulted my poor customer. I have shown net peak HP gains to be in the 3+HP range with just a Laser Race system and this is exactly what the Boxer Cup authorities will tell you, I have just a tad bit more insight to that realm then yourself. But my offer still stands, you make it up to Atlanta and you ride my bike for a day, you will be forced to re-think your version of the "box" But honestly I would have to wonder if you would be able to appreciate all that extra USEABLE power as you know you lost a pretty prominent "road race" of sorts to an AIRHEAD a couple years back with your trusty 99 S, do you care to tell your side of the story? Cause I know what really happened anyhow, hard to say what a stock S is capable of when you loose to a 30 year old Airhead, but hey who's paying attention anyhow? And we both know that Airhead isnt 100% original, but according to you bolt ons net nothing, so whats your excuse?

pdonnell 05-19-2004 06:53 PM

Dr. Troll,
.
Why do you insist on hanging around us mere ignoramouses? Isn't there someplace else your arrogance would be more at home?

Dr. Curve 05-19-2004 06:57 PM

What are you referring to here Bobby?

"But honestly I would have to wonder if you would be able to appreciate all that extra USEABLE power as you know you lost a pretty prominent "road race" of sorts to an AIRHEAD a couple years back with your trusty 99 S, do you care to tell your side of the story? Cause I know what really happened anyhow, hard to say what a stock S is capable of when you loose to a 30 year old Airhead, but hey who's paying attention anyhow? And we both know that Airhead isnt 100% original, but according to you bolt ons net nothing, so whats your excuse?"

This above line or events is new to me.

Anyway thanks for the offer of a chance to ride another R11S. Rather than me ride your bike why not you ride it. I will start over wolf pen gap, up old 60, or across War Woman road.......... and you can try and stay near me for at least 1/4 of a mile on your bike. Care to try that type of "real world" ride Bobby? You may say yes on this forum........but in the real world, on those roads, I would leave you in several minutes time at the most, no matter what your R11S has on it. And you full well know it.

roger albert 05-19-2004 07:21 PM

Lot's of speculation there, none of it (riding ability) which has much to do with the thread's point.

I think Blake did a great job of articulating the point. Jim underestimates many people here. He's right however in that some folks drastically overestimate the power obtainable. That's their loss and in my book, Jim's right to criticize that. He's wrong to paint all the list members with such broad strokes.

It almost seems as if Jim is arguing with himself, as I'm not sure of anyone who is posting big gains.

> The MCM article is fair balanced, and correct.

I agree. I only disagree with _some_ of the conclusions you manage to glean by reading between the lines.

> happen to have already aggreed with its findings before the test was ever done, and pleased to see the results they have so helpfully pointed out.

Yes, quite helpful. You do realize however that the article very much does (Explicitly) substantiate the benefits of low restriction intakes, via the quantifiable airbox pressure readings. The article also finds improved response and moderately improved power via intake/exhaust, and mixture enrichment. (remember, the r259, not a stock mixture, made the most power)

Implicit (also via the reduced airbox vacuum) is that larger gains would be seen on the road than the dyno. Admittedly small, but still there. A group of roll on tests would have added greatly to the article, but as it stood, it was still quite good.

Again, I want to objectively and publicly partially disagree with Jim, not bash him.
I agree with much of what he says.
i.e. no big hp from the simple external bolt-ons The factory effort, though a bit mixture and flow restricted to make the DOT and TüV happy, is a pretty damn well balanced package, and isn't easy to improve upon, certainly in regards to peak power.

Our own Austin 5 bike dyno test revealed much the same. The only bike with a big gain (12hp) was the only one with extensive mods. (Eron's, of course)

No free lunches here, but also no reason to believe nice improvements can't be made.

I think most people here are too inflamed by Jim's (and others') rhetoric to note that we agree on more than we disagree with.

Another example of a poor communications style ruining the message.

Lorenfb 05-19-2004 07:22 PM

Let's all lighten up! Accept the dyno runs for what they are. Also, accept the fact
that many, as I do, enjoy spending money on their bikes. The mods do look good,
sound good, and feel good to many. Our bikes are an enjoyable part of our lives,
aren't they?

Everyone's got good points, so let's not hammer one another. So guys, let it be!

Dr. Curve 05-19-2004 08:44 PM

Can we agree that 1.1 HP and 2.9 ft pounds of torque is not much for the time, trouble, skint knuckles, mared paint, and sheer cost of the 'bolt-on' parts that it took to get even that little ammount?

Months ago when the subject of long rods, high pin pistons, cams and the like came up the word here was it was not needed...........just induct, chip, pipe, tech 259, and K&N.........and that would more than do the trick. I, among others pointed this out as wrong........which it is.......and suggested that only through the regular channels would real world power be added. Sure enough, the same crew that is ganging up on this issue were there to shut down comments and herd foward on a mantra of sameness.........when it comes to "what should I do to my R11S" to really get it to run.

Can these same group not be big enough to see that they were wrong as to the actual HP that they gained.........and admit that the real HP comes right from where many of us said it would. What is it with this group? Do you really care about performance of do you just want to hear more of your same thoughts repeated among youselfs?

MCN is a no BS publication and they pulled no tricks in this article. The power gains were not there. Face it.

They did a wonderful job of pointing out what few postive things they could (intake track pressure, throttle response, CO readings, ect) but the fact remained.......the most they got was 1.1 peak HP gain for all their work, money, and effort.

SUSTAINED usable power is where it at Roger, and you should know that after Eron's bike left you other guys for dumb as you stated at once after the Austin run you guys staged. He has the real mods that are needed.........and there is much more he can do as well. No anger or bad feelings here......just trying to keep the facts straight. Very little sustained power gains to be had from the mods most often touted on this list. Tell the truth.

BMWRider 05-19-2004 08:51 PM

mcn previously reported a 1/4 mile time of 11.7 and 0-60 of 3.6 ( i think ) did they post new times with those mods...i would use that to see what type of real difference there was in power gain...

Rider

ckcarr 05-19-2004 09:37 PM

I can't believe I wasted 15 minutes reading through this.

JonyRR 05-19-2004 09:56 PM

Now to really stir the pot some;
Pull the O2 sensor and put it on a shelf. Install an r259 techlusion; then get a 5-gallon jug of VP 110 octane lo-lead and add 15% nitromethane and 2% PO (Propelyne Oxide) by volume or, easier to obtain, 2 16oz cans of Klotz Nitro (nitroparrifin, methanol and a little castor oil) fill 'er up. let 'er rip...I guarantee easier wheelies and much more percieved power, at least 'till it frags and the smell is.......marvelous....hehehehehe! (I used to run that very combination in my XR200 woods bike...no one could pass me in the woods 'cause I was gassin' 'em like it was chemical warfare, which it was..)

lennie 05-20-2004 12:12 AM

To all the "lemmings".

Firstly, I must apologise for adapting a normal automotive idea to the R1100S. If I knew back in early 1999 that this would have upset the good Dr Curve I would not have ever created the product.

Secondly, Good Doctor, show me the place where the outrageous claims for power gains are made for just an InDuct and chip.

Thirdly, to list each mod done and tested individually the following achieved the 101.8 rwhp on my bike. I cannot account for the accuracy of the 2 dyno jet dynos and the Erv Kanemoto built dyno that all read within 1 hp of each other to give the result.

1. Cylinder head porting
2. Foran exhaust
3. InDuct developed and tested
4. Cams reground and tested.
5. Epicycle VariReg fuel pressure regulator.
6. Advance ignition timing.
7. Vernier cam sprockets to advance cam timing.
8. Internal exhaust welds ground out (1.8hp from 20% cross sectional area gain)

It has been stated many times that with the fitment of the correct fuel ratio mapped chip the bike will show less power on the dyno. What don't you understand about this statement. It is admission that on the dyno it reads less, but on the road is much better.

How many times do you need to be told this Doctor. Also, ride a bike set up like many have done here and tell us that it does not run better and is as pointed out the driveability is improved.

You continue to insult the "lemmings" here and report about how much bull**** this product is as you call it by name, the "InDuct".

You yourself have admitted to modifying a BMW with a snorkel that protruded from the front of the bike that brought fresh cold air into the airbox for use with high speed runs.

I do not dispute that good pistons either large bore or high compression do not give a good result. I do state that there is an alternative for the warranty conscious in the world.

Again, whether it is I or anyone else who would develop non Dr approved products, your continued rantings and attacks only lessen your creditability here. I have respect for your achievements in the past even using the "snorkel" concept, but it is hard to respect you with your constant attacks on a product proven to improve the driveability of the much loved R1100S.

Torque gets you off the line and horsepower carries you to top speed. Without torque, you will not accelerate quickly and all my tuning is about increasing midrange torque and not outright horsepower. I hope you can intelligently respond to what I have wriiten and not ignore what I have to say as you always do.

arbik 05-20-2004 01:53 AM

...just a thought
 
...So I've been thinking about this

Curves (the torque & HP kind) cannot be analyzed just by looking at the peaks. You have to study the whole curve.

However, a meaningfull way to simplify this analysis can be had, but looking at the area under the curve.
If you calculate the area under the curves, I'm willing to bet you'll see the improvements these "bolt-ons" give.

-arbi

ArmoredVeh 05-20-2004 03:54 AM

All,

Dr. Curve is right that in order to gain substantially more RWHP, the displacement has to be increased. However I do take exception that just because the dyno only registered a (very) modest HP increase means that some of the modifications did not work. To the contrary, the objective results of the article conclude that:

1. The combination of a larger snorkel and a less restrictive air filter significantly reduce the air pressure in the air box thereby allowing for more air to be available under hard acceleration/throttle; and

2. The Laser exhaust (and this is something that no other exhaust has been able to do) flattened out the 6,000 rpm flat spot thereby improving the useable torque/HP.

In brief, the useable torque range is flatter and because more air is available on demand, the bike is more responsive. Robert Foster at FosterRAD is absolutely correct in this regard (BTW, this guys knows of what he speaks...he's done more dyno testing than all of us together). The dyno does not reveal everything. I too would like to extend an offer to Dr. Curve (or any naysayer) who cares to ride my bike...I live in Virginia outside of WDC.

I know this won't settle anything since I essentially wrote the same conclusions in my article, but I just wanted to restate some of the facts for those (foolish) people ;) who don't subscribe to MCN...sorry I couldn't resist. :) BTW, I am trying to get approval to release the article and post it here for those that don't subscibe.

Regards,
Bill Shaw
armoredveh@aol.com

lennie 05-20-2004 04:23 AM

Arbik,

You hit the nail on the head. If the whole of the curve ('scuse the pun) for hp and torque are analysed, there are significant gains. As stated many many times before, "peak hp is less relevant than the raising of the curve overall". I have posted my graphs in the past and shown significant gains in many areas for both hp and torque. The most notable is at the rev limiter at 8350 rpms where my bike has around 19 more hp than a stock bike. This helped by getting more air in with less restriction.

Cams, pistons and any other internal bits matched will give good gains and has been proven by thousands of engine builders the world over. The problem is this goes against at least 90% of most BMW owners wishes as it affects warranty. BMWs are known for longevity and the warranty is a big issue.

My changes and the results are not the only way to do it and not being claimed as the best either. But most people who add a less restrictive intake get the big "smile on the dial factor" as the end result.

Curve,

You issue another challenge to ride on familiar roads to you and you will kick butt on your stock 'S'. I have ridden with people on unfamiliar roads and keep a good pace. Not the fastest in the world but a respectable pace none the less. Maybe a challenge for you to bring your stocker 'down under' for many types of riding on both familiar and unfamiliar roads for me and even some track time. This is a ludicrous challenge from my point of view as yours is for anyone else.

Get over it, get on with your life, and let people enjoy spending their money however the hell they want. If you will not go and ride a tuned 'S' and enjoy the benefits, and the really are there, then get off the "spend your money on invasive engine mods" soap box and leave it alone. By continuing to bring the subject up, it only gets in peoples faces and makes more people aware of the benefits.

If I still lived in Richmond, VA, I would gladly ride down to your neck of the woods and take up your challenge and forget about my 20 to 30% margin of error and have some fun with you.

lennie 05-20-2004 04:51 AM

By the way, I just glanced through an Aussie bike mag with a 500 rwhp turboed Hyabusa. The guy runs faster times at the drags with it dialled in at 240 rwhp.

To quote him, "I feel safer with the rear wheel spinning than when it hooks up and gets traction". Awesome amount of power and here we are disputing 2 or 3 rwhp. Gotter get me a new perspective on life.

Oh, by the way, his answer when he was asked why he did it and got the 500. "I just got carried away and could not stop myself".

Why do I do things ? Because they can be done. The journey is more interesting than the destination sometimes.

But heck, I am just a boy from down under who never grew up. Seems there are a whole lot more of us down here. :D

Dr. Curve 05-20-2004 05:32 AM

Thanks for the post Bill. While it true that the products you tested were all well made, fit well, and lighter..........the bottom line is that a sustained increase in power to the Rear Wheel........was not a result your testing found. Indeed the max you printed in the MCN is less than a 1.3 % gain.
As stated in the article you, and many others, had been taken (very taken) by the wild claims so many had made concerning the mods touted on this forum, and I am glad your efforts at MCN showed these "touts" for what they were and are...........overly exaggerated. "Mythbusters" was a wonderful to subtitle the section on the Dyno runs and what a experienced person you were able to secure to conduct the test.
When you say above, that displacement "must be increased" to improve RWHP, this statement is essentially wrong...........because as you know, a piston switch to Higher Compression while leaving all other things stock.......will add more useable RWHP than all the "bolt-on" mods did. Even a simple change of cams in a otherwise stock bike will add more than the tested mods did.
While the torque range is flatter in one small area, and the throttles suck with more ease, and the bike is lighter..........a sustained increase in power to the RW (other than about 1.3% is not much for the money spent, as you pointed out.
Another thing the article pointed out (and not discussed much here) was that many of the combo touted on this forum actually DECREASE THE RWHP

PEP 05-20-2004 05:41 AM

Hey, Doc!...

http://aceRph.smugmug.com/photos/2494817-M.jpg

First of all, I always remove the stock exhausts from any BMW I buy... But my primary motivation for that is weight savings... Better sound is cool, and less backpressure is cooler, but it's really a weight savings thing for me...

Second, I also put a K&N air filter in any BMW I buy, because oiled filters work better [Which is why dirt bikes use them], and if you get a freer flowing exhaust, it's a good idea to free up the intake as well [Helps to keep the valve temps happy]...

Third, I removed the evap can from my RS, but just because BMW hung it on the side of the bike, and it was ugly as sin... The LT's is under where the topcase sits, so I left it... Out of sight, out of mind...

Fourth, I rode the very first K1200RS on the planet that had the prototype Rhine West chip in it [No rev limiter :eek: ]... Yes, it had a groovy smooth throttle response, and the idle was dead solid perfect [But I don't let my bikes idle anyway, except at stoplights... I turn them off], but I don't recall that HP was what we were looking for... BMW has to contend with the EPA, so their fuel maps are what their fuel maps are... They can only emit so much... As a result, throttle response is not what it could be... That being said, I never got one, because I was always perfectly happy with how mine worked [Knowing how to sync the TB's properly helps :cool: ]...

Finally, MCN and the good Doctor are right... You might like how your bikes "work" with the pipe/chip/induct mods, but if you want significant horsepower gains, you have to get inside the motor... And don't give me this "void the warranty" crud... Who hasn't gone over the warranty mileage on their BMW within the first couple of years? [My LT was out of warranty within 18 months]... After three years, it's gone anyway, right?... So, what are you waiting for?...

I've decided I want to set up a really powerfull oilhead motor [That's still reliable], so I bought a spare just for that purpose... We're going to take it completely apart, balance and blueprint it, port and polish the heads, dual spark 'em, get the correct cams, add a second oil cooler, make the throttle bodies twin injector with adjustable fuel mapping, and turbo and intercool it... THAT'S how you get really good HP and torque gains!...

Notice I didn't mention an aftermarket exhaust...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1081455504.gif

roger albert 05-20-2004 05:58 AM

Thanks for the post Bill. I'm sure the non subscribers to MCN would appreciate it. I too dont' understand why anyone wouldn't already have a sub though.

As for Jim, I still don't see where he's arguing with himself. Nor do I understand Bill's perceived myths on the list. I see very very very few outlandish claims for cheap and significant HP improvements, and the ones that are made are routinely dismissed. I don't know if claiming there are ridiculous claims supposedly makes for more interesting reading or what. Jim seems to think so, and I don't know enough about Bill (other than seeing articles and posts over the years -- all good by the way) to know what his reasoning is in this respect.

BMW Atlanta 05-20-2004 06:28 AM

Well now Curve,............I didnt say anything about me leaving you in the dust,......I'm showing some respect(for my elders, lol) but since you went there. I wouldnt need to go up to N GA mountains 4 days prior to "practice" my riding skill as you so eloquently put it in your own thread not even a month ago cause its MY BACKYARD!!!!!!! As for how you ride,.......how about Bob Reynolds and I show you how to lead,.......cause I hear you're really great at following and mimicking us GA boys around the curves. I am not proclaiming to kick your ass in the mountains,.........but I do know my bike will kick your bikes ass PERIOD hahahahaha

And I can have the cost versus outcome argument cause I was able to procure some of these items at little to no charge, just right place right time. If a guy has patience and an Ebay account, he can do most of these mods at almost a 1/3 of their retail value, better yet if youre involved in Boxer Cup or give your life to the family business you may get a few good opportunities yourself.

As for the Blue Ridge 500 3 years ago,..............what happened in Alpharetta?????? care to eloborate??????? and you DO know what I am talking about. So if you want to take this personal,.....go for it. But I think its funny as hell, I been rolling on the floor this morning. Besides I know youre green with envy as I will be riding a new K1200S before you ever get to see one in person and to top it off I think I might even get onto Nurbergring with one,...........damn life is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!Of course I could just be dreaming on that account,........or maybe I'm not

BMW Atlanta 05-20-2004 06:34 AM

on that note,................a Turbo is a bolt on and is the most efficient power adder you can find. I would rather do a turbo then put high compression pistons but the cost is prohibitive as well as the air cooling aspect to make it reliable and go like hell

BMW Atlanta 05-20-2004 06:45 AM

by the way,..............there are still a couple of openings for the MITM Barber track day Friday July 2nd for any Talkers,...........I mean takers

ArmoredVeh 05-20-2004 07:01 AM

Dr. Curve,

PEP stated it best: "...if you want significant horsepower gains, you have to get inside the motor..." I think BMW engineers did a great job of maximizing the available HP/Torque from the stock engine (even though it runs lean and has a restrictive air intake and exhaust system). However, that is not to say there isn't room for improvement to be had from a stock engine...even if the dyno only shows marginal gains. The modifications I made addressed the factory's shortcomings by reducing the vacuum in the airbox, making a near ideal air/fuel mixture and flatter HP/Torque curves...and yes, reducing the weight. The concomitant result is a more responsive motorcycle.

I'm not an expert in this regard. But I think you, Robert Forster and Bobby Wooldridge would agree that making any modification to an engine (air intake, fuel delivery, high compression pistons, exhaust, etc) will affect performance in some way. And as you aptly pointed out, sometimes the change is for the worse. That's why I feel it's important for everyone to understand the results of the changes beforehand and the need to take a holistic approach to making any performance modifications. That's all. :)

Sorry to add to the confusion. Regards,
Bill Shaw

PEP 05-20-2004 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BMW Atlanta
on that note,................a Turbo is a bolt on and is the most efficient power adder you can find. I would rather do a turbo then put high compression cylinders but the cost is prohibitive as well as the air cooling aspect to make it reliable and go like hell
Hey, Bobby... How much research have you done into turbos for an oilhead?... I found the old Luftmeister/RB Racing R1100RS, and have read just about everything I could get my hands on over the past year or so...

My partner Brian used to hold a few class records in MC drac racing from teams he's worked for, so the mechanical part of it is no problem, it's just the technical understanding we want to make sure we have down...

After spending nearly 12 months trying to figure out all the plumbing for a single turbo and not coming up with anything we liked, I stumbled on these very small Aerocharger units that are used for snowmobiles and personal watercraft motors of 600cc and less... They are really tiny: Just a bit bigger than tennis balls, and they are also self contained, so there isn't any oil plumbing to worry about... Not only that, but they have variable vanes, so there is no bypass valve needed... Very, very clean...

We are thinking now about just fabricating some adapter flanges and bolting one to the front of each cylinder... This would make the exhaust plumbing a cinch, since the outlet would be nearly the same as the header path for the R1100S/1150R headers... Fabricating the rest of an underseat deal would be very simple...

The compressed air would exit the turbos pointing right back to where the stock airbox is, which we'd replace with a two in/two out intercooler with ducting... The output would be in almost the same place as the airbox output is, pointing right at the throttle bodies... Super clean...

The motor we have for the project is an R1200C motor I bought last year, which we'd like to put R1100RS heads on that will be ported, polished, and twin sparked by SJBMW... Of all the cams for the oilhead, the original R1100RS cams seem like the ones that will work with the turbo the best... I'd like to get a set of the early "beta" heads with the larger valves [I don't want to tear up my R1100RS motor to get 'em, because the motor will take a long time, and I like riding the bike :D ]...

For the FI, we're thinking about an RB racing twin-injector system that would allow us to adjust the mapping for the turbo... We only plan to run a modest 5 PSI of boost, because what I'm looking for isn't high revs and huge HP, I want a torque-monster [Which is why I got the R1200C lump ]... The R1200C motor came with the two oil coolers [It was from a wreck], and we plan to work those into the oil lines for some additional cooling and oil capacity...

Other than balancing and blueprinting the motor, the only other thing we plan to do is throw the C's super-heavy flywheel in Brian's lathe and lighten it...

We're going to replace the R1100RS clutch with a ceramic clutch made for the R1100GS...

We plan to start work on this next winter... Sound like we're on the right track?...

BMW Atlanta 05-20-2004 07:31 AM

If you go with a larger oil cooler,........you will need a larger oil pan as well if you wish to monitor true oil levels. Not sure how you would accomplish that. My fear of adding an additional cooler would be you would not have any of the oil left on the bottom of the motor to suck up cause it would all be hiding in the extra coolers.

As for the vein turbos,........they would be boost limited so your expections sound realistic. The R1200C would need some higher compression and better cams for sure if you wish to get some good power out it. Otherwise you will be adding 6psi to a 61HP & 71lbs motor and netting marginal gains in my mind. At 6 psi you wouldnt have to necessarily intercool the system if you were sucking cold air. Intercooling becomes essential at 10+ psi or so. It would also be easier to intercool if you have a water cooled engine. Team Mettisse turbo'ed an S and I believe obtained 160HP out of it, that wouldnt be a good daily driver but the volumetric efficiency is kicking! I would definitely recommend some kind of aftermarket fuel injection with boost retard control and maybe a knock sensor. Haltec makes a great programable fuel management system, but it costs just over $1000 buck. A boost regulated fuel pressure system would also be nice as you will have the ability to dial in the bike better with less hassle and can optimize your injection system that way.

I was friends with the great late John Meyers who was the pro drag bike guy in 95-97 until he met a dear on his street bike in 98 or somewhere around there. I learned alot from him and he helped my car and I do wonderful things with turbos that left many scratching their heads.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.