Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (
-   BMW R1100S / R1200S Tech Forum (
-   -   MCN Test Of R11S Bolt On's Confirm Their Over Rating (

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

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 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 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' 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


Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
B. What is a Troll?...other than the kind the billy goats kick under the bridge?

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 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


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 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'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. 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.

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, know darn well where my bike was, 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.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.