| Author |
Message |
    
Pammy
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 05:10 pm: | 
|
It does have a hidious looking 'step' pipe on it. Built by Cycle-Rama....I have the 'recipe' for it. Since they are built for each application(and tuned as such) the bike must be present. It's not a big secret so if you want to know the recipe, let me know. The step pipe is open so it actually causes a loss of torque! Aaron, you would have to add a little something for back pressure.
I believe he has Andrews 630 lift cams and of course Cycle-Rama heads. It is 103ci motor with a 5" stroke. It is chain driven and is a monster to ride. Not for the faint of heart...(it still has a 55" wheel base, for now)We are working on a modified swing arm for it.
I would give you more info, but I am supposed to do an article for Reg on this bike so it seems a little redundant to do it here first.
Tripper...I can just say...it ain't cheap. And Steve you are right, it is not a cruiser. Although Dan did cruise around in that horrible traffic at Daytona, with nary a problem.
Pammy...fairytales can come true.... |
Pammy
| | Posted on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 05:12 pm: |
|
Oh, the coke can...I didn't know I told you about that...my life is an open book.
Pammy ;o) |
Smadd
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 11:56 am: |
|
Pammy... you sure know how to kill a topic!!!  |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 11:37 pm: |
|
My Stock '00 M2
Need a slip-on to bump up the mid-range. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Need heads and pistons from Mr. Nallin too. 
Till I can afford the Cycle-Rama 88" special anyway. |
Jasonl
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2001 - 10:10 am: |
|
Damn Blake. Thats a nice trq curve and hp peak. Stock you say? No pipe, just rejetted? At the crank, according to this and assuming 15% drivetrain loss, yer pumping 90+ hp and that with 80+ trq. I hope my S3 does as well. |
Pammy
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2001 - 08:41 am: |
|
Blake, a Supertrapp slip-on would help you realize an increase of hp/tq midrange.
Pammy |
Peter
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2001 - 11:32 am: |
|
Wot Pammy said....
PPiA |
Buckinfubba
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 08:56 am: |
|
hey folks. almost got these damn cast off my hands
can't wait to hit it. but I need to know if any body's got dyno charts on the streetfighter pipe.
got my new used 98 S1 since my 2000 m2 got demolished in the wrestling match I had with that ford f 150. he won by the way. Buells are tough
but Fords are bigger. Need to start mods on the lighting. thats just one I am thinkin of. after I pay the hospital bill..or file bankruptcy since the dunkard that hit me didn't have insurance. oh well thats another story. |
Dougp
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 10:17 am: |
|
These are the mods. to my S1W;
Branch heads, wiseco pistons +.030", red shift cams, taper-lite rods, crane roller rockers and HI-4e ignition, hydro-solid lifters, and believe it or not a Keihin CV carb with thunderslide, yost tube, 205 main, 48 pilot.
Ran my mikuni on it but had a flat spot around 4500 rpm I couldn't solve.
The keihin produces less hp, but a smoother climb.
Stock 2.5 header w/borla cf can.
 |
Dougp
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 10:26 am: |
|
 |
Rickie
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 11:36 am: |
|
Doug,
Either you have been duped or you are attempting to dupe us. Your chart defies all known math as it applies to calculating horsepower from torque.
If that engine did make 108 FTLB @ 6000, that would calculate to 123 HP at the same RPM
It is a nice graph but more believable if it read about 20 HP and 1000 rpm less since hp and torque intersect at 5252 rpm.
BTW, the bike does look good!
Rickie |
Matty
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Rickie, I believe you need to reinspect that graph. I think you've read the HP as torque and vice versa. Also note that the HP and Torque values on the sides of the graph are staggered - that accounts for the lines crossing at a different rpm than what we're used to seeing.
Doug, the motor is still stock dicplacement right? Do you have more details on the headwork & cam combination? That's some sweet stuff! |
Hans
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Rickie: Different scales left and right !!
Very nice curves.
Hans. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Rickie: Good point, but not quite as much a dupe as you say... Still a dupe though. Check the Torque scale on the right side of the chart; it's different than the HP scale. Torque at 6000 rpm is right near 100 FT-LB. HP is shown to be around 104 HP. It should be closer to 100*6000/5252= 114 so it appears that the chart is off by around 10% somewhere.
Doug: Very nice curves, but the numbers aren't working out and aren't SAE (SAE allows easy comparison to other bikes' dyno charts). Can you get the correct SAE numbers? Or get the correct STD numbers along with ambient temperature and pressure during the dyno run?
The math to which Rickie is referring is the very simple relation between HP, torque (T) in FT-LBs, and rpm (HP = T x rpm / 5252). Thus a simple way to quickly check a dyno chart's credibility is to confirm that at 5252 rpm (smack between 5000 and 5500 rpm) the torque and HP values are equal. At 5252, your torque shows to be around 100 FT-LB, while power is showing around 93 HP. Your chart obviously violates the unwaivering relationship of HP = T x RPM/5252, so it is very simply put, not credible. Ask your dyno man what the deal is and/or get the correct numbers or his answer as to the discrepancy. Still a very nice set of curves (just the shape of the torque curve says a lot about the state of relative tune of a motor).
We look forward to your reply.
Blake |
Rickie
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 01:44 pm: |
|
Guys,
I didn't notice the STD rating! However, all graphs that I am aware of intersect horsepower and torque at 5252 regardless of the scale layout. This one intersects at 6200ish
It appears to me the top of the graph states 115.3HP and 108.0ftlb, that would calculate as follows.
115.3hp X 5252rpm = 605555.6, then divided by 7000 rpm = 86.5ftlb @ 7000rpm.
108ftlb X 6000rpm = 648000, then divided by 5252rpm = 123.38 hp @ 6000 rpm.
Now if you read the scales for torque @ rpm, you will see approximately 98ftlb at 6000rpm that should calculate out to;
98ftlb X 6000rpm = 588000 divided by 5252rpm = 111.95hp @ 6000rpm.
94ftlb X 7000rpm = 658000 divided by 5252rpm = 125.28hp @ 7000rpm
Dig where I'm comin from…. |
Dougp
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Rickie, torque reads 101 ft./lbs.
I will certainly inquire about the discrepancy.
When this was initially set-up I was told the dyno had recently been re-calibrated.
If the 10% inaccuracy holds true, the interstice at 5252 would indicate a hp gain from 94 (indicated) to somewhere near 100.
I'll get an answer or I'll take it to another shop.
Thanks for the heads up. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 02:52 pm: |
|
Blake's post is 100% correct. Per the formula, Tq and Hp are equal at 5252rpm ... so the graphs will only intersect there if the scales are equal, indicating equal values.
Doug: congrats on a terrific bike and result, whatever the actual numbers are!
AW |
Smokin84
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 04:21 pm: |
|
Doug, What RedShift cam are you running? |
Dougp
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 05:46 pm: |
|
Red Shift #567. |
Jasonl
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2001 - 03:19 pm: |
|
DougP - still...100hp at the rear wheel without massive $$'s in the motor is something. That means you've raised the hp by AT LEAST 15% or 15 hp on top. No easy accomplishment considering the motor is well hot-rodded from the factory. |
Locutus
| | Posted on Friday, May 04, 2001 - 03:00 pm: |
|
It's the 100+ ft/lbs torque that caught my attention.. wow!
Does the bike snap over like a big mousetrap when you gas it? |
Dougp
| | Posted on Friday, May 04, 2001 - 05:53 pm: |
|
Locutus, I split the case on my M2 when I got it new. Installed a myriad of mods. Some worked, others were a waste of time and money. Thus I saw no real benefit from that. The real secret seems to be porting and polishing e v e r y t h i n g. Slick as a gnats ass in and out.
The S1W does everything better than the 'clone did. And as I wrote before, the cv was the biggest suprise. (I'm a HUGE mikuni fan.)
The S1W is better tempered with the cv. Still launches like a flat side but doesn't have that sudden "throw you over the handlebars" lunge when you shut the throttle down. My mikuni shod M2 would literally jerk you down the road. Every shift, every time. A little too sensitive.
I've put very little miles on it since getting it back together, but spend most of it with the tank in my face. |
Moperfserv
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 03:46 pm: |
|
In regards to the chart above:
Just not possible to make that kind of power with a "stock" carb. That torque curve looks very similar to stock. And what's with all the blacked-out data at the top? |
Dougp
| | Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 06:35 pm: |
|
Mo, the "blacked out" data was the way it scanned on my scanner. Top of page was blank. Although I'm sure you've read, there is some major descrepancies on the results. Still attempted to get to the bottom of that.
Carb is Keihin CV, thunderslide, yost tube, 205 main, 48 pilot, polished throat.
dp |
Skulley
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 02:02 am: |
|
Im looking to hit the dyno soon. Any recommendations for a first timer? What do I need to do to prep the bike for the best proformance? What to bring with me? Type/brand of gas? Ideas to tell the tecnition? Id like all the help/ideas I can get from the Pros out there.
'00 X-1
Force sidewinder w/ram check fer air leaks
race ECM ensure 0'ed
Buell race kit exhaust check fer air leaks 2
TM plugs
Penske rear adjust
180/55 Bridgstone proper psi.
50/24 sprockets- 520 DID lube |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 10:00 am: |
|
Don't breath too much fumage and don't stand behind the rear wheel when at speed. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 03:36 pm: |
|
First off, sorry about the image quality, no scanner, couldn't get the Dyno to save a jpeg file, and my digital camera ain't great. I ran these thru the pic editor and traced over the lines.
The first image is from the 2000 Homecoming dyno shootout at Hal's. Stock exhaust, stock/original carb jetting, carbon race air filter was the only mod at that time.
The second image is from today. Wileyco exhaust, 45 slow jet, carbon race air filter, mileage on the bike is about 12,800 currently.
Some numbers from today's run:
| Actual Measured | SAE Corrected | DIN Corrected | Time | | Engine RPM | T(FT-LB)/HP | T(FT-LB)/HP | T(FT-LB)/HP | Seconds | | | | 2250 | 53.8 / 23.1 | 54.8 / 23.5 | 55.9 / 24.0 | 0.000 | | 3250 | 70.7 / 43.7 | 71.9 / 44.5 | 73.4 / 45.4 | 1.342 | | 4250 | 72.6 / 58.7 | 73.9 / 59.8 | 75.4 / 61.0 | 2.633 | | 5250 | 68.0 / 67.9 | 69.2 / 69.2 | 70.6 / 70.5 | 3.893 | | 6250 | 60.3 / 71.8 | 61.4 / 73.1 | 62.6 / 74.5 | 5.304 |
It may not be a 100hp at the rear tire bike, but I'm happy (for now). |
Mikej
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 04:16 pm: |
|
Oops, I almost forgot, I have to add in the American Dyno conversion factors for Rocket's benefit. Enjoy....
 |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2001 - 05:43 pm: |
|
VERY FUNNY
Rocket in England |
|
»
Buell Dynamometer/Dyno Testing Archives »
Archive through May 12, 2001