Dyno Day, Shocking Results!!!

[shreddr]

120.7 RWHP! So if there is a 9% drive train loss, we are looking at 132.6HP at the crank or HP2S territory. There I said it!

An interesting morning to be sure, I took the bike to the local racer shop, and Ron hooked my bike up to the Dyno Jet. He wasn't sure where to pull the coil signal from, and experimented with some of the wires running near the secondary plug, but in the end we didn't get HP correlated with RPM, just MPH. Not a big deal though as I have seen enough of the curves, and know where the power flattens off from riding, so estimating rpm shouldn't be too difficult.

We did a bunch of runs, and when things seemed to settle out at the 121RWHP mark, we tried a few things, the first was to pump up the full throttle setting on the Techlusion from a 3 to a 5, which actually netted a 2 HP gain around 6500 rpm (my guesstimate) but nothing on the top. The next thing we did was disconnect the Techlusion altogether, and as you can see from the charts the Techlusion is helping with the fueling in a big way, as there is a 10HP difference at the same 6500rpm level. Ron even said he could feel the difference on the dyno as the Techlusion bike was pulling hard. But again little difference on the total.

So, I told him I thought that might be low, and I have seen evidence of other runs with higher numbers, and he said there were a lot of factors that influence the result, but that he had done thousands of runs, and had his results correlated with other prominent tuners dynos. One interesting note, was that he had a bike (Ducati) on his dyno, that the owner sweared had tested at 8HP higher on the Ferraci dyno, so the owner took it to a third tuner, and got the same result as my tuner did. Which started a big discussion on what any one particular tuner is trying to prove, such as "my pipe, gives 5 extra HP" or "my tuning skills extract the most HP from an engine" you get the idea, I don't know how you get a dyno to read higher, but evidently if you want it to happen, you can make it happen.

I guess this is close to what I expected, I didn't baseline it so I will never know what kind of top end improvement I have gained. The MaxBMW guys told me that with the parts I had in my bike, and their ECU upgrade I would see 122. They weren't too far off. All in all good fun, I am happy with my upgrades, the bike is a frickin rocket, and definitely faster than it was pre piston and rod swap. Maybe there is a few more HP to be found with a different ECU map, or an RBIII instead of the Techlusion, but I doubt it will be that perceptible, so I am gonna call it complete on the engine side....unless of course I go for those cams!!

[NakedRider]

Pretty impressive. Who would have imagined this just a few years ago from an air cooled twin?

[EZ-RIDER]

Nice work !!
So you got 9 wrhp gain

[EZ-RIDER]

R1100xx series had a 15 % loss

[peter f]

Cams is the easy part. PROBLEM is that no one (at least to my knowledge) offers valve springs and/or some valve rockers that...etc etc. Why springs? Well...if these wild cam lobes are about lift AND duration...I have a feeling that OEM valves couldn't cope very well.

PS: Kurt Roesner gave no sign (so far) with regard my full wish list (the known pistons/rods etc...plus cams plus valve springs plus rockers).

PS: I'm as Ron (RB3 in my case): 122-124 rwbhp (but absolutely linear). Waaay far from what M-TEC claims...

[EZ-RIDER]

[Deans BMW]

Shreddr, that looks great and reasonable.

[shreddr]

Ron had posted this link about the M-Tec bike that is similar to mine, the major difference being the cams, and the RBII. Is it possible that the cams alone could be worth 10HP?

http://www.m-tec.org/html/r1200s_m_tec.html

I assume the biggest advantage to the mods I have made is that the engine revs quicker, and that I can definitely feel, but I dont think that shows up on the dyno, unless you add a time component.

[shreddr]

Originally Posted by EZ-RIDER

R1100xx series had a 15 % loss

If this was your assumption regarding you 104 HP at the crank, then you would have seen 88 RWHP on the dyno. If I assume 15% loss then my crank numbers get in the ridiculous range. The M-Tec article uses ~7% loss for the R12. If I use Bob Hancock's stock result as a baseline, then I am seeing a 10 HP increase, which is pretty cool for a bunch of bolt ons.

My tuner also told me if I wanted to see another 4-5 HP on the dyno that using some $30/gallon race fuel would get me there, he also said NJ pump gas sucks. So if I want to impress you guys I will buy a tank of gas and do another run!

[throttlemeister]

Well, there are several things you have to keep in mind when comparing your results to for instance Ron's:

1) you have stricter emissions regulations than we have here, and as such there are differences between European bikes and US bikes that might affect power

2) we do not have ethanol mixed with our gas (yet). Ron is running 98RON gas, but like me, gets the expensive stuff which burns better than regular 98RON. Some claim it does not make a difference, but the first time I got BP Ultimate 98 in my S, I pulled an accidental wheelie out of the gas station... It's good high octane stuff.

[EZ-RIDER]

Originally Posted by shreddr

If this was your assumption regarding you 104 HP at the crank, then you would have seen 88 RWHP on the dyno. If I assume 15% loss then my crank numbers get in the ridiculous range. The M-Tec article uses ~7% loss for the R12. If I use Bob Hancock's stock result as a baseline, then I am seeing a 10 HP increase, which is pretty cool for a bunch of bolt ons.

My tuner also told me if I wanted to see another 4-5 HP on the dyno that using some $30/gallon race fuel would get me there, he also said NJ pump gas sucks. So if I want to impress you guys I will buy a tank of gas and do another run!

That isn't what I was saying stock R1100S is 98 hp at the crank, rear wheel horse power is between 81 to 83 RWHP that would be about 15% percent loss!

Mine is 104 RWHP around 119 at the crank!!

[jduke]

Great job shreddr. I think you're making a lot of power there. I've always heard chains lose 7% and driveshafts lose closer to 15%. Maybe the newer driveshafts are more efficient, but whatever, you're making serious power. Congrats. I wish you could make GMR. I wold love to see ot run with Curves HP2Sport.

[shreddr]

If 15% is the right number, then I got 142 at the crank, that's some serious ponies! Is there any consensus on the conversion factor?

[Bob Hancock]

An engineer friend of mine said that 12% is about right. Shreddr.....to get the rpm I just put the lead around the primary plug wire.

[AndrewA]

Congratulations!

I really don't know how to read these graphs...but are there any torque figures?

[EZ-RIDER]

15% for the R11xxx series not sure what it would be for the R1200S

[shreddr]

Originally Posted by AndrewA

Congratulations!

I really don't know how to read these graphs...but are there any torque figures?

I don't know why the printout didn't include torque graphs, maybe the calculation needs rpm, which we didn't have. The dyno guys don't see many Beemers, and I think they were at a loss for words when they saw what it was kicking out as an aircooled twin. One of the techs said his well tuned R6 pumped out 110 on the dyno.

Bottom line is I got some serious increases as a result of my mods, and if stock at the crank is 128 and Bob H's baseline run of ~112 is RWHP then the conversion is about 12-13% So I should have about 138HP at the crank, that rocks!

[AndrewA]

Can I ride it?

[AZ-Twin]

Very Cool Shreddr!

[shreddr]

Originally Posted by AndrewA

Can I ride it?

Sure, I'll try to make the WST this year.