Ye it feels like a proper bike now, i was surprised by how restricted it actually was..The Akra is very loud without the baffle but sounds good. I’d prefer it slightly quieter but I’ll live with it.
I’m talking figures at the wheel not engine..
No it shows 95 at the wheel in that graph..it would take engine power to approx 110.. I think that’s a streeetch..
you know your stuff. i like to run ethanol-free gas in my bike. i think the octane is 89. do you think it makes a difference in anything? just looking for slightly better MPG. manual says 86 is fine for my year. thx
Ethanol has less energy than gasoline, so mixtures of gasoline and ethanol will have a little less energy in them too. The ethanol free gasoline might give you slightly better fuel economy than 10% ethanol because you use less fuel to get the same power output. Typically ethanol-free gasoline is more expensive than the blended stuff. If you use ethanol-free gasoline, your miles per gallon might go up a little bit, but your miles per dollar certainly won't. In the end, increasing MPG is really about increasing miles per dollar right?
. I'm told the 71.8 hp on the Aussie dyno converts to 82.5 on the dyno jet. i run 98 octane only and that's what they dyno tuned with. Also, it was done locally to local conditions i.e we only have 2 seasons here: 6 months of the year is 36 degrees Celsius and 98% humidity and the other 6 months is 32 degrees Celsius and 80% humidity. I've been told this can make a considerable difference to real world hp?
Absolutely will affect how much power your bike will make. Not gigantic, but will make a difference.
Although quantifiable, the metrics used by dynamometers to measure power and torque differ between dyno manufacturers, even here in North America. As a Honda guy and enthusiast of Golden Era Hondas, I've worked on, and modifed Honda engines (mostly B-series, but now now K-series), and you'd be surprised at the different numbers the same car can produce on the same day and temperature/humidity, with a DynoJet dyno (most common here), versus a Mustang dyno - the latter reading about ~10% lower values.
True, however the bolded statement would lend you to believe that it's not an exact number, yet this guy's dyno operator had a specific value between the two and a dyno by definition is a measurement tool. They all have a "correction" variable they are to apply in the software to the output readings that make them accurate or you just have 2 rulers that have different graduations and the board you need to cut to 5' using one ruler is actually 4'7" because you used another inaccurate "ruler".
powertestdyno.com
And what I bolded in your statement therein lies the crux: the correction factors in the software are not always the same, and thus net different results between manufacturers.
@North Oz ran on), and the variances in their readings are even greater than that of a Mustang dyno, so the difference in their output numbers compared to a much higher-reading DynoJet dyno, are even more pronounced.
The correction value is a variable, and it supposed to be changed when needed to give it an accurate measurement. Whether you should calibrate hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annually, etc. I do not know, and it would depend on how often your unit goes out of accuracy. But I do know that is the variable you set to calibrate the dyno.And what I bolded in your statement therein lies the crux: the correction factors in the software are not always the same, and thus net different results between manufacturers.
To use a different blunt example: 1 US gallon is different than 1 Imperial gallon, even though they both use "gallon" as a measure of fluid volume.
Edit: I just looked up info on a Dynotech dyno (from Aussie manufacturer Dyno Dynamics, and possibly the one
You missed my point on the gallon example. As for your last statement, the values it produces, despite software correction, has always been different between the two, even though they are both inertia-style dynos and would happen to be calibrated on the same day.
This was your original statement. And as you were curious, I offered an explanation, seeing as I've had experience with those different types of dynos. Whether or not you choose to believe what is, versus what should be (I'm not aurguing with you on the latter) - in this context of dyno-use for tuning - is entirely up to you and I'll leave it at that.
So there is no standard and they are all also trying to simulate different external variables that make calibration between machines impossible? (since none of them measure HP at the wheel alone it seems)You missed my point on the gallon example. As for your last statement, the values it produces, despite software correction, has always been different between the two, even though they are both inertia-style dynos and would happen to be calibrated on the same day.
This was your original statement. And as you were curious, I offered an explanation, seeing as I've had experience with those different types of dynos. Whether or not you choose to believe what is, versus what should be (I'm not aurguing with you on the latter) - in this context of dyno-use for tuning - is entirely up to you and I'll leave it at that.
Happy Friday!
I'll concede the gallon analogy was not the best. A probably better analogy would be like power output measured in watts-per-channel for amps in the audio world: peak power vs RMS. Even within RMS values, there's different measuring sticks that different manufacturers use:
