Hp @ the Crank or @ the rear wheel?

Maholli · 10-16-2007, 8:37 PM

As most people know Honda has done away with the dry weight bs and are now listing the wet weight of there bikes which is what really counts.. So I was wondering why the bike companies don't start give rear wheel hp instead of at the crank. I think the hp at the crank numbers are just too misleading..

954rr Irl · 10-17-2007, 5:06 PM

i agree, its always something i have wondered...maybe the higher figure is just more impressive from a selling point??

bladeracer · 04-27-2008, 12:27 PM

My understanding is that _every_ engine is run-in on an engine-dyno anyway to ensure it's good before being put into a bike and quality control probably requires noting the output so it's costing the company nothing to quote that figure. To actually run dyno tests on some completed bikes simply to be able to quote another figure is probably just an unnecessary expense.

rokitt51 · 04-27-2008, 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeracer

My understanding is that _every_ engine is run-in on an engine-dyno anyway to ensure it's good before being put into a bike and quality control probably requires noting the output so it's costing the company nothing to quote that figure. To actually run dyno tests on some completed bikes simply to be able to quote another figure is probably just an unnecessary expense.

, but i would like to see them starting to chassis dyno every20-30 bikes or so. That would be a good average base for HP at the wheel for consumers like us that like the details.

bladeracer · 04-27-2008, 1:44 PM

I sort of agree but my guess is they won't do it precisely because of the consumers :-)
Unless they quote a ridiculously low figure so that you can take yours to be dynoed in Texas in summer and I can take mine to be dynoed in Tasmania in winter on different brand dynos by different operators and still both get at least a figure that isn't less than the claimed figure...

lanbrown · 04-27-2008, 1:51 PM

+1. Dyno numbers vary to much and where did Honda NA give any HP numbers on the '08 RR?

slickwill · 04-27-2008, 8:12 PM

They also would all have to agree to do it at the same time or the uneducated masses would all have a hard time figuring out why the 1KRR makes 20hp less than the other three. If people see GSX-R 180hp, ZX-10 180hp, R1 180hp, then CBR 1KRR 160hp they'd be confused. Sorry but there are too many stupid people out there.

Then I also think it is a lot for the reason bladeracer, and lanbrown point out. There are already WAY to many threads on here that involve someone saying, "I had my 929 dynoed and it only makes 118hp, what's wrong."

lanbrown · 04-27-2008, 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slickwill

They also would all have to agree to do it at the same time or the uneducated masses would all have a hard time figuring out why the 1KRR makes 20hp less than the other three. If people see GSX-R 180hp, ZX-10 180hp, R1 180hp, then CBR 1KRR 160hp they'd be confused. Sorry but there are too many stupid people out there.

Then I also think it is a lot for the reason bladeracer, and lanbrown point out. There are already WAY to many threads on here that involve someone saying, "I had my 929 dynoed and it only makes 118hp, what's wrong."

Even that wouldn't help. You have 49-date and Cali bikes and then what happens on the odd years when no chnages are made, but one or two of the competing models gets updates. Do they dyno them all again? If someone does a dyno test on their bike, they may not get close to the power that the manufacture claims.

DynoJet dynos are the worst and offer the most variation. Then again, look at why they do things they way they do. The owner wasn't happy with the power his bike made and decided to make "corrections" to boost the power.