Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twolanerider]

My baseline dyno graph (above) at Joe's was "Actual". SAE would have been 106hp/111ftlbs, so the peak # comparisons with the previous year's dyno results weren't "exactly the same".

There is so much that can be tweaked to effect output readings.  Final gear used for the pull or correction factors.  Usage (or not) of sensors to compensate for ambient conditions.  Bike owners are rarely aware of all the voodoo they might do (do); intentionally or not.  There are somewhat presumed standards for outputs we'd like to see.  But that's all, just a presumption.  Different shops do it differently.  That's one of the reasons I pay far more attention to the shape of the curve, when it comes in and how long and flat it stays in (hopefully) screaming good VE.  Aside from that comparisons across different machines from different operators on different days is just curb racing.  It may be fun but it rarely actually informs.  Especially in an industry where dyno reports are sales tools for the end user as much as they are tuning tools for the dyno operator.

[Unbalanced]

Heatwave, the shape of the curve is due to the characteristics of the cam/heads and exhaust.  It should be similiar.  The disconcerting part of the dynosheets is your fuel line at WOT.   in 1 it is flat and nice the other it is all over the place.   Something changed or the tuner didnt tune the 2nd cylinder and that happened to be the one that Joe Checked.  

For all comparisons to be equal though you need to have winpep 7 on both dyno's and you need to not only have the stack checked, but the dynodrum and the software all calibrated together.    Then you run with SAE and the correction should be bring you in line for that day that run.\

  

[Twolanerider]

These types of comparisons are always going to be exercises most useful for entertainment rather than information.  Buyers accept what they're told too often uncritically.  And that's ok.  After all, it's fun to think your 110 with little more than a cam change and some head work is actually spooling out 140hp.  It's a lot of effort to do real analysis and actual comparative research and it's a pain in the ass to actually challenge a builder who suggests that's what you're getting.  Since we ride the bikes for fun there's nothing the matter with simple acceptance and being happy.  Reality and critical analyses aren't requirements when we're doing what we're doing just for the fun of it. 

The end user is going to have a cool dyno sheet who can put on the wall.  It's fun to show that to friends and curb race about how well that beast rides.  It must be.  Because it cost a lot of money to get that sheet.

[Unbalanced]

Twolane,

I agree and disagree at the same time.   Problem is people start to believe that is possible to actually get those numbers and while it sounds great and woohoo cheer, the reality is run it against a bike that actually makes that power and cry.   Reality is as long as your happy its great, once you compare it, you realize you have been told a bag of goods as the first one to do it, the second guy that goes down that path is now sold a bag of goods that doesn't hold up to the sniff test or the comparitive test, yet X vendor has sucked in your friends.   Bike is probably a good 125/120 bike.  If they took it afterwards to say Zepka's in PA or Black Hills in NJ they would hae a comparison to validate the numbers.   Until a sheet is posted in SAE it is nothing to be considered and people should be wary of the results.   Other sites instituted rules because of this and funny part is the bell ringer posts have all but stoppped, that has to make wonder.   

[Heatwave]

Heatwave, the shape of the curve is due to the characteristics of the cam/heads and exhaust.  It should be similiar.  The disconcerting part of the dynosheets is your fuel line at WOT.   in 1 it is flat and nice the other it is all over the place.   Something changed or the tuner didnt tune the 2nd cylinder and that happened to be the one that Joe Checked.   

For all comparisons to be equal though you need to have winpep 7 on both dyno's and you need to not only have the stack checked, but the dynodrum and the software all calibrated together.    Then you run with SAE and the correction should be bring you in line for that day that run.\

 

Unfortunately the earlier graph is really NOT "flat and nice". It just looks that way because the scale is different. Both graphs actualy show the fuel (WOT) for BOTH cylinders. If you were able to zoom in you would see that the AFRs for both cylinders are nearly identical in both graphs. It's difficult to see due to the scanning but both AFRs are present in both graphs and the results are very close.

[Heatwave]

There is so much that can be tweaked to effect output readings.  Final gear used for the pull or correction factors.  Usage (or not) of sensors to compensate for ambient conditions.  Bike owners are rarely aware of all the voodoo they might do (do); intentionally or not.  There are somewhat presumed standards for outputs we'd like to see.  But that's all, just a presumption.  Different shops do it differently.  That's one of the reasons I pay far more attention to the shape of the curve, when it comes in and how long and flat it stays in (hopefully) screaming good VE.  Aside from that comparisons across different machines from different operators on different days is just curb racing.  It may be fun but it rarely actually informs.  Especially in an industry where dyno reports are sales tools for the end user as much as they are tuning tools for the dyno operator.

I absolutely agree. Given my experience with my own tuning experience and working with at least a half dozen efi tuners since some of the early efi tuning with the SEST (2002/2003), there are many ways to "game" the system (tire pressure, how your ride the bike when tuning, gearing, AC on/off, etc)  therefore you're absolutely correct that how the bike ultimately rides is the most important test.

That being said, a bike might ride nice but be leaving alot of performance out of the engine without the ability to "measure". In that light, being able to measure AFR, knock, spark, hp, Tq etc are very important tools to not only make the bike ride nice but also maximize the performance of an engine build.

IMO, the fact that comparisons across time, operators and measuring equipment is consistent, can only make for a better outcome when tuning an engine build.

[Unbalanced]

Dunno heatwave, i see a high of 14 to 1 in orginal dynosheet by JDS and i see a high of 16 to 1 in the joes run.   That is a huge discrepancy especially at WOT

[Heatwave]

Dunno heatwave, i see a high of 14 to 1 in orginal dynosheet by JDS and i see a high of 16 to 1 in the joes run.   That is a huge discrepancy especially at WOT

There is a difference in the rear cylinder measurement but it's clearly lean in both cases. Could be placement of the sniffer, could be the accuracy of the sniffer, could be the fuel etc. I'm certainly inclined to believe the most current measurement as a starting point for tuning. In the case of DJS dyno tune it was presented as the best he could do.

Personally I agree with SAE as a "consistent" measurement. But let's keep things in perspective. That SAE graph that you attempt to compare with another bike's SAE graph is only as good as the algorithyms behind the standards used in the SAE "adjustments". To really make comparisons, I would want to see all 3 dyno graphs from different bikes/dynos/operators. STD, SAE and Actual. With all 3 results you would be in the strongest position to make a comparison.

Unfortunately most guys don't get into this level of detail and more importantly most dyno operators don't provide their clients with all 3 versions of the graph. And to be honest, it's probably better that they don't since for most guys it would only create more confusion. Being somewhat of a tech geek, I consider myself an exception... and so does my wife

[Twolanerider]

Twolane,

I agree and disagree at the same time.   Problem is people start to believe that is possible to actually get those numbers and while it sounds great and woohoo cheer, the reality is run it against a bike that actually makes that power and cry.   Reality is as long as your happy its great, once you compare it, you realize you have been told a bag of goods as the first one to do it, the second guy that goes down that path is now sold a bag of goods that doesn't hold up to the sniff test or the comparitive test, yet X vendor has sucked in your friends.   Bike is probably a good 125/120 bike.  If they took it afterwards to say Zepka's in PA or Black Hills in NJ they would hae a comparison to validate the numbers.   Until a sheet is posted in SAE it is nothing to be considered and people should be wary of the results.   Other sites instituted rules because of this and funny part is the bell ringer posts have all but stoppped, that has to make wonder.   

That's absolutely true Harry.  That one can choose to be absolutely thrilled with a questionable reality and doubtful outcome makes those outcomes and realities no less questoinable and doubtful. 

The "sniff test" is all too often unapplied; even when it's application seems obvious to many.  Suggestions that all that's important is a happy end user in such cases are of course facetious and sarcastic.  That doesn't detract, however, from the fact the end user is in fact happy (even if not accurately informed) and consequently won't challenge.

He'll also stay happy.  Right up until the time he gets spanked by something comparable or even less than what he thinks he has when the other guy actually has it.  Of course since most of this nonsense is for purposes of curb racing and internet posts it's rare the bikes actually get pushed that hard in the real world anyway.  So the end user rarely ever knows.  Even if he doubts he rarely wants know badly enough to spend money and time elsewhere to gain independent verification.  And if that indenpent effort cast doubt on the earlier flowery reports any doubt or upset would likely be thrown at the latter rather than the optimisitic report.  That's the nature of self indulgence.  To really find out if what he's being told is bullchit or not is actual intellectual effort rather than optimistic acceptance and that detracts from the fun. 

That vendors all to often spread the fertilizer all too often leads to the growth of good cheer and hope rather than insight.  Both could grow.  But sales grow better from the former than the latter.  For the "next guy in line" that's obviously a bad thing.  He will hear and accept; and spend his money.  That some vendors use sites like this as a target rich environment is unfortunate.  But it's also part of the reality we work and play within.  In the end its up to the individual to accept or challenge.  If he prefers to "don't worry be happy" that's ultimately up to him.  And his wallet.

[Unbalanced]

Don,
Buyer beware is definitely the best suggestion, but not everyone knows they are being duped and while it is a shame it is also the reality that you pointed out.   

In an effort to try and level the playing field and help everyone yet still allow people to brag and show results, I posted a request in the announcement section to set a fairer playing field to help the newer, less in the know member by requesting that we go to a standard for dynosheets.  Does it stop a happy dyno No it doesn't , but I think it levels the playing field a bit more and would also help keep the fairy tales more to a minimum. 

Let's hope the site administration agrees and puts a policy in place.

http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=71313.msg984854#msg984854

[Heatwave]

That's absolutely true Harry.  That one can choose to be absolutely thrilled with a questionable reality and doubtful outcome makes those outcomes and realities no less questoinable and doubtful. 

The "sniff test" is all too often unapplied; even when it's application seems obvious to many.  Suggestions that all that's important is a happy end user in such cases are of course facetious and sarcastic.  That doesn't detract, however, from the fact the end user is in fact happy (even if not accurately informed) and consequently won't challenge.

He'll also stay happy.  Right up until the time he gets spanked by something comparable or even less than what he thinks he has when the other guy actually has it.  Of course since most of this nonsense is for purposes of curb racing and internet posts it's rare the bikes actually get pushed that hard in the real world anyway.  So the end user rarely ever knows.  Even if he doubts he rarely wants know badly enough to spend money and time elsewhere to gain independent verification.  And if that indenpent effort cast doubt on the earlier flowery reports any doubt or upset would likely be thrown at the latter rather than the optimisitic report.  That's the nature of self indulgence.  To really find out if what he's being told is bullchit or not is actual intellectual effort rather than optimistic acceptance and that detracts from the fun. 

That vendors all to often spread the fertilizer all too often leads to the growth of good cheer and hope rather than insight.  Both could grow.  But sales grow better from the former than the latter.  For the "next guy in line" that's obviously a bad thing.  He will hear and accept; and spend his money.  That some vendors use sites like this as a target rich environment is unfortunate.  But it's also part of the reality we work and play within.  In the end its up to the individual to accept or challenge.  If he prefers to "don't worry be happy" that's ultimately up to him.  And his wallet.

I agree with most of your feedback. However given that feedback, I'd be interested to hear if your believe the tune on your '05 is both accurate from the tuner you recieved it from and do you believe the tune is fully optimized for the engine build? If the answer is yes to both, I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion because it might be instructive to others not as familiar with a "sniff" test.

[Twolanerider]

I agree with most of your feedback. However given that feedback, I'd be interested to hear if your believe the tune on your '05 is both accurate from the tuner you recieved it from and do you believe the tune is fully optimized for the engine build? If the answer is yes to both, I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion because it might be instructive to others not as familiar with a "sniff" test.

In fact what I've often said about the tune on my 05 is that I don't care what the numbers are.  That I've only seen consistent numbers across the same machine doesn't speak to any comparative analysis at all.  The shape of the curve tells me things that corrolate to how the bike feels.  But I know I don't know enough to make comparative analyses about that report and, therefore, can't (and don't) speak to it as a claim of anything more than a data point.  The shape of the curve is ok.  It suggests a decent VE.  I know that jives with the how the bike runs.  And that's all I know.  But that's all I ever expect to begin to know from a dyno sheet.  Way too many operator and other variables to really believe we're really learning much more.  At least not without doing a lot more comparative work and spending a lot more time and money.

[Talon]

There is a difference in the rear cylinder measurement but it's clearly lean in both cases. Could be placement of the sniffer, could be the accuracy of the sniffer, could be the fuel etc. I'm certainly inclined to believe the most current measurement as a starting point for tuning. In the case of DJS dyno tune it was presented as the best he could do.

Personally I agree with SAE as a "consistent" measurement. But let's keep things in perspective. That SAE graph that you attempt to compare with another bike's SAE graph is only as good as the algorithyms behind the standards used in the SAE "adjustments". To really make comparisons, I would want to see all 3 dyno graphs from different bikes/dynos/operators. STD, SAE and Actual. With all 3 results you would be in the strongest position to make a comparison.

Unfortunately most guys don't get into this level of detail and more importantly most dyno operators don't provide their clients with all 3 versions of the graph. And to be honest, it's probably better that they don't since for most guys it would only create more confusion. Being somewhat of a tech geek, I consider myself an exception... and so does my wife

Plus there are differences in dynos, the tires on the bike can influence the numbers along with other variables, the bottom line is how do you like it when you ride, not what on a piece of paper.

Craig

[Heatwave]

In fact what I've often said about the tune on my 05 is that I don't care what the numbers are.  That I've only seen consistent numbers across the same machine doesn't speak to any comparative analysis at all.  The shape of the curve tells me things that corrolate to how the bike feels.  But I know I don't know enough to make comparative analyses about that report and, therefore, can't (and don't) speak to it as a claim of anything more than a data point.  The shape of the curve is ok.  It suggests a decent VE.  I know that jives with the how the bike runs.  And that's all I know.  But that's all I ever expect to begin to know from a dyno sheet.  Way too many operator and other variables to really believe we're really learning much more.  At least not without doing a lot more comparative work and spending a lot more time and money.

But how do you know you got a tune that was worth the money? It seemed as though that was the point of your earlier comment. I would say that the most basic of tuners can get a reasonably smooth running bike from their tuning efforts on a dyno. If a tuner can't at least achieve that outcome, it's time to move on to a different shop.

A smooth running bike with a decent trq curve however does not tell you if that tuner was able to optimize the performance of that build. I would suggest that after having dealt with enough tuning shops, that the vast majority achieve what you describe in your post above.

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for me. I want a tuner that is capable of telling me the following after working on my bike:
- the engine has no situation where it knocks
- there are no lean points in either cylinder
- the bike runs cool
- the performance is fully maximized for the components in my build in all operating ranges including WOT
- throttle response is crisp with no points of stumble
- there's no backfires

A clean dyno at WOT only starts to tell the story but it is an important factor nonetheless. The fact that Joe's Dyno told a consistent story with previous dyno runs on my bike can only be considered a good starting point, however that's far better than if the results had been significantly different than prior dyno results showed.

While I have no idea what the performance was of your '05EG when it was tuned, I don't believe that you "didn't care what your numbers were" when you had it tuned. If the graph had shown you had 75hp and 75ft/lbs, you would have definitely cared, even if the bike ran great. And of course if they had shown you had 110/110 but the bike ran like crap, I'm sure you would have been pissed. However if the bike felt tremendously strong and dynoed at 120/120, I'm quite confident that those dyno #s would have been treated like they were written in stone

[FAST380]

well, so much for Slackers thread..... You guys done pounding your chest's now? Just sayin........