| Author | Message | ||
     Easyrider |
Update 30-10-2010: We have in the mean time a lot of customers riding with our intake stacks Today a customer showed up and asked me to put his 2009 1125CR on the dyno because he collects all HP shoot out graphs of all his bikes ever ridden, do we did as a service.  His setup is: - Twin Motorcycles fuelmap in a stock ECM - K&N filter - Intake stacks - Stock 1125CR exhaust with catalyc convertor  Yes Holy shit, that is excatly what i say after first riding the bike very warm and then made 1 run, and a second one. It made 144.2 HP and 121 NM of Torque SAE CORRECTED on a bone stock engine. wow....} | ||
| Type911 |
How do the mid curve numbers look compared to stock? | ||
| Easyrider |
i needed to make this woohaa  | ||
| Blower1 |
I´ve got the same set up in my -08 1125R. In the beginning of this summer I install the velocity stacks and there was nice gain in performance. About one month ago I get the Dris´s tune and there was even bigger gain in performance. I´m more than happy to my bike  Dris is THE Man if you want a real power in your Buell. | ||
| Zacks |
I've been watching Dris' charts for some time now and they've always bothered me. I'm used to seeing the torque and HP curves crossing at 5252 (HP=(Torque x RPM)/5252), but what is the formula for NM? The metric charts always cross somewhere around the 8500 mark. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Do you have a set of runs where the only difference are the intake stacks? | ||
| Littlebutquick |
 | ||
| Easyrider |
Here is the development of the stack story http://www.twinmotorcycles.nl/artikelen.asp?aid=76 | ||
| Avalaugh |
Well done guys, i will be coming over early next year for a road trip and will definatly be booking in with you for a tune and stacks  Cant fooking wait........ | ||
| Smoke4ndmears |
whats with the difference in the maximum rpm? | ||
| D_adams |
121 Nm = 90 ft/lbs The highest in the shootout was 83 ft/lbs (111 Nm) Ebr's 1190 only gets 93 ft/lbs. I'm thinking that your dyno is a little on the optimistic side. Maybe its just me, but it's been noted before that hp is a derivative of torque and you have one KNOWN constant that will never change, 5252. The torque/hp line will always cross at that rpm (5252) if it's calculated correctly. I don't get how you shifted the whole thing up like that unless your dyno software is lying to you, which is entirely possible. Maybe check out some info on a factory pro dyno, a superflow or a land & sea dyno. There's a lot of info available for comparing dynos and what it really all means. If it's accurate, that's some pretty impressive numbers. Hp= torque x rpm / 5252 Thats why that chart looks a little suspect. It doesn't matter that the torque is stated in newton meters, it's still just torque ( a mathematical equation) expressed in a different form. | ||
| 1125rcya |
D.Adams I went to the web site posted above. "The best performance for racers is our own developed Exhaust combined with our remap of the Race ECM. It's delivering 144 HP and 120 NM of torque on the rear wheel with a race ECM and 144 HP and 110 NM with a stock ECM. This is the part number: TM1125RCRexh If you have any questions about this service, please e-mail: dris@twinmotorcycles.nl" | ||
| Ridenusa4l |
so your tellin me, that with just a filter, tune and stacks, make MORE power than the exact same setup with the torque hammer? Jake | ||
| Ponti1 |
I don't know much on the subject other than the basic equation, but could the intersect appear to not be at 5252 RPM simply because there are separate vertical scales for the two measurements? | ||
| Easyrider |
Ridenusa4l, The graph above is with a stock exhaust, TM fuelmap, K&N filter, and our TM intake stacks. I did NOT test the stacks on our Torque Hammer exhaust because i develop a new exhaust this winter.. | ||
| Aseecobra |
Dris, You say your graphs are SAE corrected. Are you using J607, 1349 or 1995? These SAE standards specify measuring from the crankshaft and do not provide for measurement through the drive line. Are your graphs showing crank or wheel results? Dean, His HP and torque don't cross at 5252 because of the different scales and torque is being shown as Nm. Calculating HP or torque at each RPM interval is correct. Chris (Message edited by aseecobra on October 31, 2010) | ||
| Easyrider |
Aseecobra RWHP SAE corrected with a extra barometric correction for temperature and humidity. I use a barometric correction on top of SAE. | ||
| Easyrider |
Aseecobra, Sorry for the late reply We are not allowed to use the J606 because it is correcting by more then 10% we correct barometric pressure also and there fore the Dyno uses J1349 JUN90 for SAE correction. | ||
| Aszinegh |
Hey Easy, I have an 08 1125r with K&N air filter, HMF exhaust and EB racing ECM. Running very well. Will your stacks work on mine and give me extra HP without messing with the fueling? I could always use a few extra ponies to further embarass my buddies on their Japaneese iron. Thxs | ||
| Dman |
"Hey Easy, I have an 08 1125r with K&N air filter, HMF exhaust and EB racing ECM. Running very well. Will your stacks work on mine and give me extra HP without messing with the fueling? I could always use a few extra ponies to further embarass my buddies on their Japaneese iron. Thxs" Yea, times two for me. I have K&N, Barkers and E B R ECM with Barkers tune. What would your stacks do for my config? Surprised there's not more chatter on this, your results are nothing short of amazing! | ||
| Easyrider |
Do 1 of you guys can do a dyno run before and with installed stacks on the same day?? with the same bike same fuel same operator?. same engine temperature?? | ||
| Dman |
That should be easy enough, shop with a dyno right down the street. | ||
| Easyrider |
well buy a set. and run it on the dyno. and lets post your findings here. I give you 100% Guarantee that your happy, or your money back... | ||
| Littlebutquick |
I HAVE TESTED THE STACKS BACK TO BACK AT THE DRAG STRIP WHEN I 1ST GOT THEM .THEY WORK I'M NOT TAKING THEM OUT  | ||
| Gemini |
stole this "For metric, multiply RPM by 2*pi/60 to get radians per second, that times newton·meters of torque gives watts; divide by 745.7 W/hp to get horsepower. That net result of all that is replace 5252 by 7120.9 (or 7121). Of course in metric, the proper thing to do is stop with watts or kilowatts. Horsepower is for farmers." from john S from this site http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showthread.php?t =373. as for the amount of power output from the bike with the new stacks and ecm tune, i like most would like to see a stock bike vs the setup bike from the same dyno, with the same user on the same day with the same conditions. there is alot of talk about how "corrections" can cause the numbers to become inflated. i can not site my source of reading at this time because i did not save the website, but it is believed by some that, dynojet, among others, gain popularity is sales because it resulted in higher numbers than other machines and methods. some of these "corrections" are believed to have the same effect. i am not saying that anyone is playing with numbers at all. what i am saying, is me being a skeptic that i am, i would rather see the "improvment" over the baseline. meaning the amount of improvement over the baseline is more important to me than the claimed numbers of a dyno. just my 2 cents | ||
| Dannybuell |
Gemini +1 | ||
| Blower1 |
Here is velocity stack test dyno chart. Stacks were the first long prototypes. Shorter ones made more top end power and about same mid range torque gain as long ones. Same day, same operator and same engine temperature. The test is made in V-Twin City Loimaa, Finland Run file 6 = stock ECM, stock stacks, stock exhaust, K&N. Run file 7 = stock ECM, long stacks, stock exhaust, K&N Run file 5 = O** Perf. tune, stock stacks. Run file 8 = O** Perf tune, long stacks.  | ||
| Aszinegh |
OK, I'm ordering a set, hope to get them, ride to the shop to do a dyno run before and after install, before it snows here. If the weather turns ugly, I will wait till spring. Will definately post results. | ||
| Gemini |
see, now that is what i am talking about!! very nice. thanks for posting. the convergance of torque to horsepower at 7121 looks reasuring as well. actual numbers are for bragging rights, the improvment is where it's at |
