When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That is precisely the point. The engine is not producing more power than it was - no change in tune or anything else in the engine. Yet, the Dyno is REPORTING more power, due simply to the change in tire.
That's not old news. It's confirmation of a theory I have long held.
Jim G
Not trying to be disrespectful Jim, but this is old news. It has been known for decades. Why do you think horsepower at the rear wheel is less than hp at the crank? Its beacause of the friction and weight of the drivetrain. ANY decrease in weight or friction will result in more power to the ground. The dyno is simply measuring the power you put to the ground.
That is precisely the point. The engine is not producing more power than it was - no change in tune or anything else in the engine. Yet, the Dyno is REPORTING more power, due simply to the change in tire.
That's not old news. It's confirmation of a theory I have long held.
Jim G
Jim, that so-called theory of yours respectively your conclusion is old hat as FLS103 stated. That is the reason why e.g. -at least here in Germany- the power of a vehicle has always (for decades) been stated as crank hp and never as rwhp.
And sorry, but your little project has yet missed to provide sufficient 'proof' that the lighter tire is the cause of the marginal power gain...too many variables were disregarded, just my .02.
But nonetheless, if you feel happy with your experiment and the alleged proof for your theory, just don't worry about anybody telling otherwise.
Not trying to be disrespectful Jim, but this is old news. It has been known for decades. Why do you think horsepower at the rear wheel is less than hp at the crank? Its beacause of the friction and weight of the drivetrain. ANY decrease in weight or friction will result in more power to the ground. The dyno is simply measuring the power you put to the ground.
Of course I know that there are drivetrain losses. The problem HERE is that an innocuous change - a tire change - causes the dyno to report a different result than it did before the tire change.
Actually, that's a 1 percent different in diameter. It's also smaller, which gives less moment arm for the ground to act against the drive train.
The cool dense air contributed more to true engine performance. The tire's weight and diameter stole less energy than the larger, heavier tire.
Incorrect.
One precent of 25.91 is 0.2591 inch. The difference between the Pirelli and the Dunlop is 0.16 inch - just over half of that one percent. Check your math.
The cooler denser air was supposedly allowed for by the correction factor. If you don't believe in the effectiveness of correction factors, then you don't believe in the value of comparing dyno reports, and therefore you don't believe in the value of DOING dyno tests in the first place, because not every day is a "standard" 77 degree SAE day.
Jim, that so-called theory of yours respectively your conclusion is old hat as FLS103 stated. That is the reason why e.g. -at least here in Germany- the power of a vehicle has always (for decades) been stated as crank hp and never as rwhp.
And sorry, but your little project has yet missed to provide sufficient 'proof' that the lighter tire is the cause of the marginal power gain...too many variables were disregarded, just my .02.
But nonetheless, if you feel happy with your experiment and the alleged proof for your theory, just don't worry about anybody telling otherwise.
Crank horsepower is interesting from an engine design point of view, but it is NOT the amount of power available to the rider on the street, so is or academic versus practical interest.
I never claimed total control of all variables. That is not within my practical capability. I do not own the dyno, note the facility, nor can I control the weather, nor can I think in advance to warn a certified experienced mechanic to not over oil the air filter. I do the best I can. I think the results are clear enough despite the limitations.
Of course I know that there are drivetrain losses. The problem HERE is that an innocuous change - a tire change - causes the dyno to report a different result than it did before the tire change.
Jim G
Replace the belt drive with a chain drive and you will also realize a gain in RWHP with no gain in crank HP. Replace the belt drive with a shaft drive and you will lose RWHP...
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Slideshow: The bar-and-shield logo shows up on far more than motorcycles, some of the company's most unexpected products have nothing to do with riding.
Slideshow: From the troubled AMF years to modern misfires, these bikes earned reputations for reliability issues, questionable engineering, or disappointing performance.
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Slideshow: The Swiss custom shop has taken a Harley Softail and stretched it into something so long and low that it looks closer to a rolling sculpture than a conventional motorcycle.
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Slideshow: A standard cruiser becomes an intricate metal canvas in the hands of a Swiss custom house known for pushing Harley-Davidson platforms far beyond their factory brief.
Slideshow: Harley-Davidson's challenges aren't abstract; they show up in dropping shipments, shrinking dealer traffic, and strategic decisions that aren't yet translating into growth.