2017 Dyno comparison (new Gixxer)

Just because more bars serve Budweiser than Yuengling doesn't make Bud a better beer.

 

I'm completely out of popcorn. This thread delivers lol.

 

I totally agree.

Personally, I would love to see a comparison test of every MW and HW bike, AFTER installing a full exhaust (Akra, Yosh, M4, whatever, as long as each bike got the same exhaust), and after flashing the ECU to remove any restrictions.

That is why you can't really put much faith into all of these kinds of tests. Some bikes have more restrictive exhausts, some cut the redline short in the ECU, or close off the throttle bodies at higher RPM's, thereby reducing the max power-RPM at which the noise and emissions tests are performed, so on and so forth.

I want to see how much each bike makes on the same dyno, with a full exhaust, unrestricted ECU, and good dyno tune.

 

Speaking of Budweiser, I wonder what ever happened with Budweiser backing the Yosh team a year or two back?

 

These are three posts. I said shenanigans occur with press bikes, Ulrich called BS to which I stated my source but decided I didn't want to get into it and deleted it. Ulrich then confirmed that modifications to test bikes have and do occur and to think otherwise is ignorant.

yep, and I haven't deleted anything except one post. John's butt hurt over something he started.

 

Or maybe he said that he has spent a fair amount of time trying to find out if they ever send modified test bikes to the magazines, and to say that nobody tries to catch them is ignorant. Your mileage may vary.

 

That's not what I said.

I started looking for stuff in the 1980s because people kept making claims like you have made here. It comes up periodically, sort of like UFOs and alien invasions.

And as hard as I have looked, I haven't found anything to substantiate claims made by others. And I haven't seen any evidence to support your claims, which seem to be based on you claiming to have talked to somebody who remains unnamed who according to you works for an OEM.

What I object to is a guy who complains online about magazine test reports being suspect because the bikes are tweaked, including specific accusations regarding to mine, with no personal experience in the subject matter and no named source.

Periodically a new motorcycle comes along that makes a lot of power. But manufacturers tweaking bikes is not widespread--it isn't happening, period. In fact, as reported by Roadracing World, several OEMs have held intros where the bikes did not run right at all, and the bikes people bought from dealers actually ran better.

Ya know, based on your posts, Rob P, you seem like a guy who really needs to get on his motorcycle and make a few laps ASAP! Motorcycles are supposed to be fun.

 

This.

And of course, Papa has first-hand knowledge and experience regarding us doing just that.

 

Well, that, and I can read good.

 

Get your popcorn ready...

By "treatment" I meant the full nine yards of what's legal...cam degree-ing, head decking, valve jobs, erathang.
(I assume you didn't read that into it so don't take this personally.)...

Uncork 'em as much as is allowed, then see what you can get out of 'em. Pipe and tune is almost a given standard but you're just tuning to compensate for whatever ills plague that particular unit. Rippin' it apart may uncover flaws that can be addressed and, certainly, if the builder knows that a component is not as it should be, a replacement can be installed or, if it's a maintainable item, given a maintenance job, i.e., injector cleaning.
We haven't even gotten into the price of OEM parts. Do those injectors, even after cleaning, all flow the same? How about the head, are all those ports and CCs equal? Do the pistons and rods weigh the same? How much parasitic drag is created by the oil and water pumps? How balanced are the crank and clutch assembly?
Okay, so I've gone off the deep end.
But I won't stop there!

You have a whole chassis that needs to be addressed. How much weight can you lose, ergonomics, ease of access for maintenance/repair, chain/appropriate gearing (wasn't sure whether to put that under an engine category or not but I gave the nod to chassis)...
Yeah, lotsa work but, if you're gonna build a race machine, you'll find out which one is truly racer friendly.

For the longest time, Suzuki had a near monopoly on club racing. In the mean time, the aftermarket exploded with Suzuki products and it didn't hurt that an SV's controls were interchangeable with a GSX-R's.
Was a Suzuki racer friendly? Duh!
If Honda had pushed club racing back in the Hurricane's days, wouldn't the Honda's aftermarket support also have exploded?
Is either a better brand for race considerations when compared to other brands receiving the same treatment?
Let the R6, WSS, MA, et al arguments begin.

BTW, my stock-engined '12 CBR1000 (it has a 520 conversion) is neck and neck in a drag race with an S100o HP4 down the looong front straight at NJMP, and I'm down more HP than I have fingers and toes. How is that possible when the other rider of comparable skill and I lined up out of T14 and used a head-nod to start our drag race from 2nd gear? The Beemer was the class leader in HP and the HP4 is their version of a Duc S! What's up with it not gettin' away from the class underdog with the LEAST amount of power? No runnin' away, no walkin', no crawlin'...it was neck and neck, two out of two times.
What's gonna happen when I take my bike to "S" level? Imagine what it might be like with the whole treatment...
Slowest, most under-powered bike on the planet. Yeah, right.

Back on topic, there are more tests that can be conducted on a dyno other than outright peak HP. Why are there no reported roll-on/load tests? What about negative HP, or tribological, tests (they indicate parasitic drag)?
Slappin' a bike on the dyno for a peak power run without any tuning considerations or utilizing any of the other functions available is like slappin' the fattest rear tire on a bike and not checkin' for balance, let alone pressure, before takin' it for a spin. It's a wasted exercise geared solely to look bad ass...and indicates virtually nothing relevant to a racing application.

I guess all I was tryin' to say was, let's not be squids by basing a purchase on some perceived attribute that's supported by arbitrary results.

 

Good god, man.

You been taking Broome's vitamins?

 

I suppose at some level in this sport a 1% improvement in this or that can be critically important. At my level being "comfortable" on the bike is much more important. I tried to like the R6, really tried, and I am generally a Yamaha guy ('00 R1, '85 & '89 FJ, '84 RZ350, '04 FJR, '14 FZ09, even a Zuma). The GSXR just feels right to me on the track. When RRW world figures out how to judge "fit" then I'll be able to buy a bike based on magazine articles. Until then I'm happy to read the stats and dream.

 

Shouldn't that be I can read well?

 

Ah, I see what you are saying...you want to see a full on Superbike comparison. We are likely never going to see that, for obvious reasons such as cost.

Personally, I would be happy with just seeing a comparison with a level, unrestricted playing field (full exhaust, all restrictions removed, dyno tuned). In other words, a true comparison of what the bikes makes when unrestricted and tuned (but no motor work done).

In essence, that is what you get when you watch World Superstock (WSTK) racing because they aren't allowed to do any motor work (I believe they can change the head gasket, but that is it). Other than that, it is all just bolt-ons. Their rules are even more restrictive than WERA's SS rules.

That is why from 2011-2015 the ONLY bikes you saw running in the top 5 were the Panigale, ZX10 and BMW. I don't mean sometimes, I mean always. They were the only 3 bikes capable of being in the 190's HP wise, without going into the motor (which isn't allowed).

The Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha, and Aprilia were nowhere to be seen. In those years not one of those bikes landed on the podium. The Ape was dominant in SBK, but in SS trim it didn't make enough power. The new Yamaha has been competitive, so has the Ape since it got a bump in power, and I am sure the new Suzuki will be also. I am not so sure about the Honda, it might still be down on power in stock form, but we will see.

As far as you and the HP4, it is really hard to say, there are many factors. He could have been in a higher gear, or he could have been at lower RPM's, or he might not get on the gas as early as you, or he might have less grip, or he might have his TC turned up too high, there are a ton of factors that go into things like that. I have blasted many Liter bikes on the long straights even when I was on a 600, due to those aforementioned reasons.

But all things being equal, more HP will always get you from point A to point B faster (as we see in the WSTK example, where rider talent, tires, etc are all relatively equal).

 

Really? Damn, I learn new words every day.

 

I've looked at that (comparing modified bikes). And concluded that A. It is beyond the scope of anything a motorcycle magazine can support, and B. It would lead to endless arguments along the lines of, "Well, if you'd just used an XYZ pipe instead of an AKY pipe, and a Bazzazz box instead of a Dynojet box, and timed the cams this way instead of that way, then the bike I want to win would have in fact won, you stupid jerks!"

Beyond that, bikes with really good baseline stock performance often make really good racebikes when modified as per the rules, too.

 

Oh, I get it, you were writing 'merican, right?

 

That's the rub...all things are never equal. For example weight or aero. Weight for acceleration and aero for top speed HP requirements.

 

When is the last time you read a Roadracing World test or comparison test?

 

That is true, to an extent. But like I said, in WSTK things are about as equal as humanly possible because they don't allow motor work, you have to run stock wheels, can only do bolt-ons etc. All of those dudes are tinkerbells, none of them are 6'2" and 215lbs, they are all relatively equal in size.

That is why I say that WSTK is the best measure of a bike's performance from the factory. They have all of the emissions/noise/govt/etc restrictions removed, but the motors aren't built. They are essentially unrestricted stock bikes, that are all on the same tires and using the same fuel.

Which goes back to what I said about how through those 3-4 years, the ONLY bikes that were capable of being on the podium were the Panigale, ZX10, and BMW...because they made the most HP in stock form.