| Author | Message | ||
     Newxb9er  |
Just got this emailed to me. Seems they did a good job in stacking mods and doing runs. Just over 5HP on the pipe, yet the midrange dip is still there. I bet with the Techlusion on top of it all, it would be nice. If anyone wants the full res image, email me.  (Message edited by NewXB9er on January 19, 2005) | ||
| Cataract2 |
Bit blurry. | ||
| Newxb9er |
Because I had to lower the res to allow it to be uploaded. If you want the full screen shot, email me. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Nah, I just saved it and blew it up a bit to read the words. | ||
| Dtx |
Chris, Could you email that chart to me? I am thinking about getting the Latus Exhaust. Do you like it? I haven't heard one yet either, but have read that it is louder than the Buell race muffler and slightly quieter than the D and D. My email is dtollefson@lithko.com Thanks! | ||
| 12bolt  |
I have the Latus can and love it. It has great sound plus the dual chrome tips are cool! I have not heard the race can or the D&D but if you look into the archives you will find some comparisons. | ||
| 12bolt |
I have not had my 12r dyno'd but the Latus can, race ecm, and k&n made a huge difference! | ||
| Daves  |
Newxb Could you send me the big version? daves@h-dappleton.com Thanks | ||
| Newxb9er |
You guys have mail! | ||
| Daves |
Thanks! | ||
| Blake |
Big file please? Anyone?  | ||
| Daves |
On it's way Blake | ||
| Reepicheep  |
Thats a great result for a 9 Newxb9r, especially with those "modest" modifications. | ||
| Cdrlmr |
I would like the big version also please. | ||
| Blake |
Just can't beat www.xat.com jpeg optimizer...  | ||
| Blake |
Thanks Dave! | ||
| Daves |
I think that their dyno is plenty "happy". Pay more attention to the AF and the curves than the numbers. The 9 that I rode in 03 with a 1050 kit,ported heads,roller rockers,TFI box,race ecm and a Latus muffler dynoed, if I remember right between 80-85 hp. Of course that dyno was always unhappy compared to others numbers. | ||
| Newxb9er |
Well, once I get the D&D installed with the tfi and airbox mods, I'm gonna dyno mine at the local HD. Gonna be interesting to see if that machine is "Happy"! | ||
| Blake |
Could ya get it dynoed before too? Please? | ||
| Newxb9er |
What the heck!! I'll give it a go!! | ||
| Cataract2 |
Butchered my airbox, got the TFI installed with the stock settings. Going to take it out tomorrow and play. I also have a race kit on the bike so.... | ||
| Crnrstr8nr |
d&d has a realplayer download on there site using an xb12s. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ummm.... look at the temperatures. 67 degrees for the low "stock" run, then in the 90's for the post mod runs? Maybe that has something to do with the "happy" numbers for that dyno are coming from. If the temperature reads (incorrectly) higher, the built in correction factor will make the HP results look higher then they really are. That stock fuel air plot looks way rich as well, is that normal for a stock bike? | ||
| 12bolt |
Doesn't the Dyno program take the temp. into account when figuring the correction factor? If thats so then any temp would produce the same results ( I think) | ||
| Reepicheep |
Correct 12bolt... it does take it into account, and applies a correction factor based on that and other factors, and uses it as a "correction multiplier" based on what the bike actually did to the drum to calculate a guess at horsepower. The correction factor is not perfect though. For example, Aaron (who has his Dyno on top of a mountian) consistently sees lower numbers then when that same bike runs closer to sea level. Further, if one were to want to make their dyno "happy" (which would make their work look better), they can play with the temperature to accomplish that end. I don't know if you can manually go into the software and mess with the temperature setting, but I bet you can. Artifically bumping it up would make the run have appeared to make more power. Even if you can't change it in the file, it may be possible to mess with the sensor mechanically. Put a cold can of coke on it before he "stock" run, and come back with a hot cup of coffee for it for the "modified run". Or just always settle for "happy" runs and put the temperature pickup close to a place that is likely to be hotter, or just initially calibrate the thing wrong. Please note I am NOT accusing the operators of cheating. Just explaining what *could* be done, and noting that the temperatures between the "stock" run (which looks awfully high for a 9 anyway) and the modified runs (which look awfully high for that set of mods) were WAY different. Then again, so was the date, so it could mean nothing. I used to design data acquisition systems for research and development testing of jet engines (cool job, we instrumented just about anything you can imagine, including a Daniels gas Chromatograph for exhaust gas checks... that was a major PITA to integrate into our data system in "real time"  . There are calibrations and corrections *everywhere* such that if you can pretty much get just about any result you want if you wish to influence the output. Even when you don't want to influence the output, you can have a devil of a time making sure you don't end up comparing apples to oranges, especially if you are in different conditions or at different facilities. (Message edited by reepicheep on January 21, 2005) | ||
| Glitch  |
The only thing I've found that most dynos have in common is the shape of the curve. Throw the numbers out. Dynos are best suited for tuning, bragging rights come from how well you ride. | ||
| Opto |
I find it interesting that the K&N and modded airbox alone (compare blue to green) appear to have added 2-3 HP from 4000rpm to redline. It also looks like the race ecm is struggling to provide enough fuel for the Latus and breathing mods (no big surprise - it is mapped for the Buell race kit). | ||
| Blake |
Bill, The stock run was on May 7th, while the other two runs were on July 16th. Dyno results look okay to me. The A/F results are very sensitive to a number of factors. I wouldn't trust them other than to show trends for pulls performed on the same day. | ||
| Dcmortalcoil |
That stock fuel air plot looks way rich as well, is that normal for a stock bike? My understanding is that stock XB9s run really lean. The graph here shows it running rich from 3800-7500RPM with stock ECM. That's quite rich as compared to what I seen from other dyno runs. Anyone with more info regarding A/F? Also, note the date. More than a year apart between the stock and latus runs. Just wondering whether the dyno machine loses accuracy due to use and wear. | ||
| Blake |
The accuracy of the A/F data is subject to a number of factors. The sensor must be clean and properly calibrated and up to temperature, the dyno run must be on a hot machine, the sensor's filter must not be clogged. I doubt very much that the A/F data above is accurate in magnitude and so precludes comparison between the stock and modified configurations. The A/F data may accurately reflect the general trend across the rev range though, so we can see that the ratio goes up or down at certain points. That would be enough to help optimize the TFI. It just might report an A/F of 15:1 where you find optimum performance. Then you just adjust the TFIto flatten out the curve at 15:1 all across the rev range. Better would be to get the thing working properly. I've seen goofed up A/F data on a number of dyno runs. Pretty common problem. | ||
| Aaron |
Bill makes a number of astute & accurate comments. Correction is imperfect to begin with. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a bike's dyno result change with the weather, despite the completely automatic weather station built into the dyno that's supposed to correct the results. One day I was tuning the M2, struggling to crack 120, and an afternoon thunderstorm moved in. Results fell to 117-118. Came back the next day, it was hot and dry, and it cracked 120 right out of the chute. Al Lighton came to my place once and we pounded on the S1 for a day. It was cold and trying to snow. The bike could only muster low 90's, even perfectly tuned. A week later, it was pulling 96 with no changes whatsoever. Bill is also right in that it's damn easy to manipulate sensor inputs and thus dyno results, too. Lots of other ways to manipulate the results as well. I can make a comparison come out however I want it to. It comes down to the integrity of the person running the machine. Not that I have any reason to believe there was any hanky-panky here. I can't believe nobody has commented on the STD correction, as opposed to the more commonly used SAE correction. That's a significant factor in the "happy" numbers. Y'all have got SAE numbers on the brain and you're looking at STD numbers. | ||
| Court |
>>>It comes down to the integrity of the person running the machine. Thank you . . . wanna tune an old 1995 S2? I can have it there by Wednesday. | ||
| Reepicheep |
DO'OH! (forehead slap) That's what I love about standards, there are *so* many to choose from! (Message edited by reepicheep on January 22, 2005) |
