I'd like to see them all ran back to back using SAE correction factor & not DNI.. lol that would tell some real stories. I don't doubt the zuk will have power, it should, they've had nearly a decade to do it, plus.. V-tech yo..
Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time trying to catch somebody sending a modified test bike. Including looking at cam timing and cylinder head ports. To say nobody has ever done that and nobody is doing it now is ignorant. I've also used customer bikes in tests, just to see if what is being sold matches test bike performance. Recently compared a customer bike to a test bike at a local racetrack. I've also collected dyno info from guys like Jason Ferrell and compared it to runs we made on test bikes.
And, at various times in my career, have torn down test bikes to the crank and published photos. And compared test bike parts to parts on customer bikes. So much for "never."
It prolly doesn't happen so dramatically anymore but, back when, the same model bikes could have relatively wild differences in dyno outputs all due to MFG processes/tolerances. This one's head flows better than that one's head kinda thing... To do realistic reporting on/for dyno results for any one model, you woulda had to have a pool of bikes. I think for racing considerations, you might as well give each bike "the treatment" before doing any testing. And lest ye forget, HP isn't the end all to beat all. That's why I bought a Honda.
So my original statement was factually correct, yet you felt the need to challenge it so you could then come on and tirelessly self promote how well your magazine goes after manufacturers trying to cheat. That about sum it up?
I love it! We are still in the early learning stage of finding the limits so I'm not pushing it to hard yet. I'm taking baby steps getting back to know the smaller bike. No real rush because I told myself if I'm not having fun at this I'll quit,,,,,again lol The only thing I missed from A this past weekend was starting on the front row
I think the part of John's quote that you highlighted was referring to your earlier post here: So he was showing that your statement that RRW never attempted to keep manufacturers honest was not correct. Also, you come off as a bit of a dick in that first post I quoted.
Rob P is not factually correct, especially when he claims my magazine has not been doing the right thing and that test bike cheating is widespread, based on info he says he got from talking to an un-named guy. I was talking to a friend of mine this morning about Rob P's claims and he reminded me of a test of a bike that made A LOT of power. Just to double check, we got one from a dealer, compared it to the test bike we got from the OEM, and published the story in the magazine. Look it up.
It's really not self serving when some guy calls out the business you're in, then follows up by singling out a magazine you own and operate, makes false claims, and in response you defend your life's work by laying out the facts.
John, didn't one of the manufacturers threaten to sue you and the magazine and to pull their advertising over you doing that? Can't remember all the details, it was a along time ago and I can't remember what I had for dinner last night.
Was that the time I challenged the "stockness" of the 2001 GSXR1000 because I couldn't believe how badly it bitch-slapped the R1? I remember you went out and got another bike that time.
Remember the dyno-tested HP limited classes from years ago in ASRA. No one ever loaded a different map into the computer after the test, or flipped a switch, or ran different gas.