It really is amazing how much work it takes to get to these numbers and money when other v twins from our sport bike brothers are making so much more. I know it’s a lot diff motors and tech. Just can’t believe how little power our motors make stock.
It's the Power Vision. I also thought the numbers were a lot lower than what I have seen posted for that motor. I'll ask the shop that ran the dyno if they have an SAE corrected reading. Without that, I am left with a rougher correction based on altitude, and I'm not sure how accurate that correction is.
I have seen in several places on the inter webs that HP Loss = (elevation x 0.03 x horsepower @ sea level)/1000. My brother who maths better than I do says that means that horsepower at sea level ={(1000×horsepower at elevation)÷(1000-0.03 elevation)}. Applying that formula to my horsepower and elevation means that my horsepower at sea level would be around 138, and at Detroit, MI it would be 135.54.
I like the sound of that. I am confident in the math part of it, but less confident in the underlying proposition regarding the effect of altitude. What do you all think?
It's too long since I last studied, to recall the maths! Most significant IMHO is the shape of your torque curve, which is quite something. Makes me very envious! I've had my S&S 107" for ten years now, but so wanted a 124". I was advised back then that they didn't make a good touring engine, however we can see that S&S has put that right nowadays! I do have the 585 cam (in an Evo), which gives an excellent wide flat torque curve, albeit about 20TQ lower than yours.
What tuner? See if you can get the sheet in SAE correction so you can better compare with others. I've never tuned one with that exhaust but I did a lot of L.C. 124's and most are in the upper 120's to mid 130's on HP
OK, so I haven't got the whole sheet in SAE correction, but I did find a few calculators online that might be useful to others so I'll share them here. The first is a correction factor calculator:
This calculator is simpler than the correction factor formula I found online, and it yields the same result. However, you might need to calculate some of the inputs. For example, my dyno sheet doesn't show the vapor pressure. I use this calculator to determine that:
The dyno sheet shows the temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (69.38) and the relative humidity (8%), which yielded a dew point of 5.5 degree Fahrenheit. That figure, in turn, gave me an actual vapor pressure of .06 in. of Hg. With that vapor pressure, and the actual pressure of 25.75, I was able to calculate the correction factor to be 1.153. That number, multiplied by the measured HP gave an SAE corrected HP of 137.69. If I understand all of this correctly, the corrected Torque figure would be 147.13.
It really is amazing how much work it takes to get to these numbers and money when other v twins from our sport bike brothers are making so much more. I know it’s a lot diff motors and tech. Just can’t believe how little power our motors make stock.
Your not looking at it from right point of view.
Sure Hyper bikes make 180+ hp right from the factory and ours only make 80 something. But ask them how much torque they make. There is not a single Hyper bike that makes anywhere near as much torque as our bikes do.
Same thing with most of the others. That fancy BMW Bagger that everyone is going nuts over? 160 hp and 80 ft/lbs of tq. Don't get me wrong they are faster than out bikes, but not for the reasons you think.
After going through all that mathing, I saw the "CF: EEC" in the upper right corner. I'm guessing HarleyTuner, and maybe most of you, already recognized that. Does that mean that a correction factor of 1.16 (the number noted in the bottom right for the EEC) has already been applied?
Your not looking at it from right point of view.
Sure Hyper bikes make 180+ hp right from the factory and ours only make 80 something. But ask them how much torque they make. There is not a single Hyper bike that makes anywhere near as much torque as our bikes do.
Same thing with most of the others. That fancy BMW Bagger that everyone is going nuts over? 160 hp and 80 ft/lbs of tq. Don't get me wrong they are faster than out bikes, but not for the reasons you think.
This right here is the most plausible explanation for my seat-of-the-pants, unconscious decision to trade my 2010 BMW R1220RT for a 2014 Harley Ultra Limited for 2-up cruising.
Your not looking at it from right point of view.
Sure Hyper bikes make 180+ hp right from the factory and ours only make 80 something. But ask them how much torque they make. There is not a single Hyper bike that makes anywhere near as much torque as our bikes do.
Same thing with most of the others. That fancy BMW Bagger that everyone is going nuts over? 160 hp and 80 ft/lbs of tq. Don't get me wrong they are faster than out bikes, but not for the reasons you think.
After going through all that mathing, I saw the "CF: EEC" in the upper right corner. I'm guessing HarleyTuner, and maybe most of you, already recognized that. Does that mean that a correction factor of 1.16 (the number noted in the bottom right for the EEC) has already been applied?
Yes, corrections factors take the UNCORRECTED results (what the bike did that day in the conditions it was ran in) and mathematically converts the results to what it would have made in another set of conditions. SAE is the standard in the industry and what we use here in America. SAE takes your UNCORRECTED results and converts them to what the bike would make if it was ran at 77°F (25°C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa).
04-02-2018, 02:28 AM
Thanks.
