Print

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

[glens]

FWIW, http://www.ehow.com/how_5845776_convert-din-hp-sae.html says "Divide the DIN HP by 1.0139 to find the SAE."

[grc]

Yup, it's not that big a deal in terms of the difference in numbers.  It just makes very little sense for a tuner in the USA to use a DIN correction factor, so it makes curious folks like me wonder if they are just that sloppy when printing out the charts for the customer, or they think that extra 1-2% will make a customer think they are better tuners than the guys down the street.

The numbers from a DynoJet aren't exactly ultra accurate anyway, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't still be corrected consistently with the same widely accepted standard used by the rest of the industry in this country.  That would be SAE.  Not uncorrected, not STD, not DIN, but SAE.  It doesn't take any more effort for a tuner to use the SAE standard, so why do some still resist?  It's because SAE will give lower numbers, and even 1 or 2% might affect advertising and bragging rights I suppose.  Much easier to mislead than to educate customers.


Jerry

[Unbalanced]

Yup, it's not that big a deal in terms of the difference in numbers.  It just makes very little sense for a tuner in the USA to use a DIN correction factor, so it makes curious folks like me wonder if they are just that sloppy when printing out the charts for the customer, or they think that extra 1-2% will make a customer think they are better tuners than the guys down the street.

The numbers from a DynoJet aren't exactly ultra accurate anyway, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't still be corrected consistently with the same widely accepted standard used by the rest of the industry in this country.  That would be SAE.  Not uncorrected, not STD, not DIN, but SAE.  It doesn't take any more effort for a tuner to use the SAE standard, so why do some still resist?  It's because SAE will give lower numbers, and even 1 or 2% might affect advertising and bragging rights I suppose.  Much easier to mislead than to educate customers.

Jerry

Jerry,

You are correct except if you look at it this way then they should also be including the run factors that make up the SAE Correction.   As an example of correction this is the same bike one run at an in-famous place the other at a harley dealer same bike same tune just 3 weeks apart.  

[Unbalanced]

Here is one without correction factors ...   Why the best answer is advertising.  Too bad the build didnt deliver except without the use of dyno tricks.  If you check the dynosheet you will see this one was tuned first.  

Again same bike 3 weeks apart no changes.  But its an honest dyno the stack was checked LOL       

[smiley1049]

They shut down the other thread now you had to come to this thread to tarnish it!

Here is one without correction factors ...   Why the best answer is advertising.  Too bad the build didnt deliver except without the use of dyno tricks.  If you check the dynosheet you will see this one was tuned first.  

Again same bike 3 weeks apart no changes.  But its an honest dyno the stack was checked LOL       

[Unbalanced]

They shut down the other thread now you had to come to this thread to tarnish it!

I am sorry you feel its tarnishing the thread I didnt start it, I didnt bring it up, just cited an example of how it used and how it affects dyno graphs on the same bike not a comparison between 2 bikes with a build, but the exact same bike.   

[Heatwave]

I am sorry you feel its tarnishing the thread I didnt start it, I didnt bring it up, just cited an example of how it used and how it affects dyno graphs on the same bike not a comparison between 2 bikes with a build, but the exact same bike.  

Here we go again. It appears you have no other purpose then to do your best to try and shut down threads. I hope the moderators find a way to show you the exit door. Instead of your relentless attacks to tarnish a good shop, why not TRY to stay on-topic!

[Unbalanced]

Pete Garabaldi Heatwave,  I am sorry you were proven inept in the thread that got locked down you did that by continuing on and not even knowing your own numbers, all i did was point it out.    You stated your baseline run was the same as your final run from the HD Dealer which they weren't .. you were proven wrong with your own dynos that you posted.   I think it is you that wants the threads closed you continued on in the last one and bring it forward here.  Please stay on topic which is SAE with Corrections.   Since you are obviously simple minded in this case its how a dyno is used without showing correction factors and how misleading that can be for a person who doesnt know any better only to find out they been screwed.   Sure SAE is there, but what about what makes up the SAE which is the whole reason to use it.   I suspect when you finally get over the denial and run your bike on another dyno with correction factors you may feel the same till then continue on like an osterich.   I understand you hae to defend your build you paid for it and finding out you got screwed would just ruin the experience its understandable, but I wasnt talking to you or targeting you  although that would be easy instead I was posting to the thread and the commentary that was there,  not attacks like you, maybe you should be the one removed.  

[HILLSIDECYCLE.COM]

 

[Heatwave]

Here's the facts;
- My bike ran 111/115 SAE tuned at another shop.
- It ran OK but I felt it could run better.
- I took the bike to Joe's Cycle Repair in Troy NY and stood next to the dyno while the initial baseline run was made.
- Joe had no idea what the bike's performance previous was.
- The dyno came back with the similar results 111/114 Actual (SAE was lower) as the performance measured on another dyno hundreds of miles away  
- Joe tuned the bike
- The performance when I left was 123/123 SAE
- The difference from the saddle is like night & day

Simple facts.

If anything, Joe's dyno results were conservative compared to the previous dyno results. Here's the SAE dyno of my bike before taking it to Joe's:

[PASN YU]

Oh, look! It's another bench racer hijacking! This could be a movie. Seriously, you guys need to back off of others threads with your ill intent of tarnishing reputations. Create your own thread and do it there.

[Heatwave]

And here's Joe's baseline on my bike before tuning. If anything, Joe's dyno could be considered "conservative" in this example since the SAE results were lower than results for the same bike on a different dyno with a different operator.

[Unbalanced]

wow smoke and mirrors now from you.  Lets change gears after you failed your last try,  A very good try though unfortunately you dont compare SAE to Uncorrected, Yeah nothing fishy with you.   Here is the SAE 102 for proper comparision that is consistent with the SAE from JD's.   Ohh no the baselines arent the same.   Then forget the Tramantin dynosheet.    Keep trying your just proving the point for me.

[hawgzilla]

Here is another vote to get these guys off of other peoples threads.  They are serving absolutely no useful purpose.

[Heatwave]

There's nothing fishy at all. I have been completely transparent. My engine upgrade with Hillside headwork was assembled by Tramontin over 2 yrs ago. You pulled the old dyno from a 2 yr old post and it is accurate.

I subsequently had the bike tuned at JDS Cycle about a year ago and posted the SAE results above showing the bike at 111/115 SAE.

I wasn't satisfied with the results and decided to have one last tuning by Joe's Cycle Repair this past Feb. His baseline showed 111/114 Actual and even lower for SAE. You've been kind enough to post my SAE baseline results above which confirm those results.

After Joe's tuning I was dynoed at 123/123SAE. If anything, these dyno results would be low using the baseline 111/115 SAE dyno results from JDS.

This thread is focused on both dyno graphs and SAE results, this is certainly relevant to the OP's post. The conclusion is that Joe Cycle Repair tuning results were outstanding from both the seat-o-pants meter and from the dyno results and suggest that the combination of Hillside Headwork, 58mm TB, roller rockers, 5.3 injectors and a knowledgeable tuner will generate outstanding results that should exceed 120/120 SAE on any dyno. I suspect that other CVO 110 owners would find that information helpful.

It also suggests that cropsure's original performance when compared to the dyno's above for a 110 with significantly more work, are excellent for having just changed his exhaust and air cleaner.