Dyno Day, Shocking Results!!!

[signit98]

Originally Posted by KMoore

Don't worry Ralf, just come back as Peter signit98 or Ole signit98. No-one will know you were even gone.

lmao... funny, Kevin... very funny

[RoLoo]

Originally Posted by peter f

Hmmm...

M-TEC claims ~140 rwbhp > that's + 20....but to tell you the truth I'm a bit skeptical about what M-TEC claims (in general).

...nope ; they claim 131,6 RWHP, not 140...

...and yes, Leistungprüfstand is a dyno...

[boxercup]

Leistung - prüf - stand

Achievement - Test -Stand

[Trex]

Shreddr - good news. Thanks for taking us through it all from beginning to end to Dyno. Don't forget to keep everyone up-to-day with more "anecdotal evidence".

[AZ-Twin]

Originally Posted by shreddr

SCARY Fast!

Shreddr,

What did the speedo read when the GPS indicated 169?

[signit98]

Originally Posted by boxercup

Leistung - prüf - stand

Achievement - Test -Stand

LOL... that would be ONE literal translation, Robert.

Much like it is in the English language, one word - depending on the context - can have many meanings...

In this case, Leistung = Power... but the same result holds true for both ways to translate... languages are funny!

[shreddr]

Originally Posted by AZ-Twin

Shreddr,

What did the speedo read when the GPS indicated 169?

I wasn't looking at the speedo AZ...

[signit98]

Hmmm, he must have changed gearing... mine runs into the rev-limiter at about 155-157 mph...

Btw. I have a GPS reading of 242 MPH, accomplished on my GS... now that's FAST!

[shreddr]

I don't know what to believe. I know the speedo is 10mph slower than the GPS when I am cruising at 80. its hard to imagine that the speedo can be that far off, and if Ralf's GS is reading 242mph then for sure he doesn't know the difference between km and miles, but thats another story.

[signit98]

Hmmm, wait... MPH does not equal Miles Per Hour? Dangit... and here I was thinking it did.

If you really think you went 169 MPH on your 12S, Jeff, you are even dumber that I thought... and THAT is a reach, trust me!

[bill pierce]

Originally Posted by signit98

If you really think you went 169 MPH on your 12S

I don't know Ralph. I did an honest 168 MPH on my FZR 1000. It had 125 RWHP. So I'm thinking with 120 RWHP he could be close. I think my fizzer was a little more aerodynamic than a boxer though.

How much do you weigh Shreddr? Did you have a tailwind?

[Bob Hancock]

Level ground? Downhill? Surely not uphill.

[JonyRR]

the long downhill straight on I-90 going east from wenatchee to the Columbia river hs seen some exceedingly high speeds; it's multiple-miles-long straights with like a 3% downhill grade and can get seriously lost on a early summer weekend morning.
In my parts, that't the place for the gps-certified runs.
laugh if you will but my un-aerodynamic honda V65 sabre did a gps'd 158 down to the river....and that was a scary ride

[signit98]

Originally Posted by bill pierce

I don't know Ralph. I did an honest 168 MPH on my FZR 1000. It had 125 RWHP. So I'm thinking with 120 RWHP he could be close. I think my fizzer was a little more aerodynamic than a boxer though.

Aerodynamics are only one hurdle to be overcome, Bill... the gearing is another... if he rides a stock R12S, he did NOT run it up to true 169 MPH or 273 KM/H!

As I said in an earlier post, he must have changed the gearing or there is NO way in hell he has reached that speed... the rev-limiter wold have kicked in LONG before that!

I have the same bike, pretty much the same power numbers and my bike runs into the rev-limiter in 6th... takes a little while, but it does. Flat, straight desert road, no wind, 89 degrees...

[Bob Hancock]

Is it safe to say, engineering-wise, that the rev limiter is the LIMFAC whether you're on flat ground or falling off a cliff?

[signit98]

Originally Posted by Bob Hancock

Is it safe to say, engineering-wise, that the rev limiter is the LIMFAC whether you're on flat ground or falling off a cliff?

Nope, a scientifically safe statement would be that the LIMFAC for falling off a cliff (provided that you are high enough) is drag or wind resistance.

A free-falling object achieves its terminal velocity when the downward force of gravity (Fg) equals the upward force of drag (Fd). This causes the net force on the object to be zero, resulting in an acceleration of zero.

[signit98]

Originally Posted by JonyRR

laugh if you will but my un-aerodynamic honda V65 sabre did a gps'd 158 down to the river....and that was a scary ride

You apparently have the NAFOD-Gene, Jony... That's pure bravery...

[Bob Hancock]

Originally Posted by signit98

Nope, a scientifically safe statement would be that the LIMFAC for falling off a cliff (provided that you are high enough) is drag or wind resistance.

A free-falling object achieves its terminal velocity when the downward force of gravity (Fg) equals the upward force of drag (Fd). This causes the net force on the object to be zero, resulting in an acceleration of zero.

You miss the point of my question. Assuming all that....power available to overcome parasitic drag and all that......oh nevermind.

[signit98]

I am just pulling your leg... sheesh

[AZ-Twin]

Originally Posted by signit98

Aerodynamics are only one hurdle to be overcome, Bill... the gearing is another... if he rides a stock R12S, he did NOT run it up to true 169 MPH or 273 KM/H!

As I said in an earlier post, he must have changed the gearing or there is NO way in hell he has reached that speed... the rev-limiter wold have kicked in LONG before that!

Okay Swami......what is the theoretical top speed of an R1200S with stock gearing and stock rev limiter?