Perth Dyno Tunerz

[zimtuff]

Whats the 2nd graph telling us? I thought the lines were supposed to be closer the median line at 13.
My readout meanders along that line just below and above that line

 

[Haggisboy]

Whats the 2nd graph telling us? I thought the lines were supposed to be closer the median line at 13.
My readout meanders along that line just below and above that line

I dont know mach about it. The 2 lines represent 2 tunes - Power and Exonomy.

As to what exactly it's telling me... Who knows... (Hansooooo?)

 

[HansO]

What Zimtuff is saying is that the tuner of his bike was more focused on extracting max power without sacrificing too much economy, where your tuner was looking to give you a bit more balanced tune between power and economy, the truth of the matter is that anywhere between 13 and 14 gives the best balance while if you dip below the 13 you gain HP at the sacrifice of economy if you were to go over 14 you start to sacrifice power, these of course just my opinion based on conversations with a couple of dyno-tuners and what I have read and the basis I used to make my AFR Tables for the PCV and if you have been following the progress in the thread about that you will see that after I richened up the AFR Table from version 1 to version 2 while only a bit, I and others have actually found we have achieved better fuel economy while not even trying due to the extra torque generated in the 14 to 13 area which is where you spend most of the time.
I personally would be happy with your AFR line graph Haggisboy as it sits just above the 13
Cheers
Hans

 

[zimtuff]

What Zimtuff is saying is that the tuner of his bike was more focused on extracting max power without sacrificing too much economy, where your tuner was looking to give you a bit more balanced tune between power and economy, the truth of the matter is that anywhere between 13 and 14 gives the best balance while if you dip below the 13 you gain HP at the sacrifice of economy if you were to go over 14 you start to sacrifice power, these of course just my opinion based on conversations with a couple of dyno-tuners and what I have read and the basis I used to make my AFR Tables for the PCV and if you have been following the progress in the thread about that you will see that after I richened up the AFR Table from version 1 to version 2 while only a bit, I and others have actually found we have achieved better fuel economy while not even trying due to the extra torque generated in the 14 to 13 area which is where you spend most of the time.
I personally would be happy with your AFR line graph Haggisboy as it sits just above the 13
Cheers
Hans

Thanks for the clarification Hanso. Im getting about 6.5 to 7/100klms with 145hp and 148ft/lbs (from memory) with standard filter and jards.
The line on mine is smoother,the upsies and downsies are less pronounced.
As you can see ,Im not that proficient at explaining graphs either.

 

[HansO]

Thanks for the clarification Hanso. Im getting about 6.5 to 7/100klms with 145hp and 148ft/lbs (from memory) with standard filter and jards.
The line on mine is smoother,the upsies and downsies are less pronounced.
As you can see ,Im not that proficient at explaining graphs either.

I wouldn't stress to much, as you have still got Standard filter you bike is effectively choked so your dyno guy has extracted as much as he can. I would seriously look at getting a different filter set up as most guys with Jars are pulling close to or about 10 HP more than you, I don't know if you have seen but there are some interesting variations of filters out there in some of the threads, you don't have to go like me and stick the biggest filters out there, there is even a good alternative being developed by Warp and other's whose names escape me (Sorry Guys), which is just one filter covering the three injectors and it will probably not be as noisy as K&N 2780 funny thing also is that my larger K&N RX 4040's are quieter than the 2780's
Cheers
Hans

 

[mr hunt]

Thanks for the clarification Hanso. Im getting about 6.5 to 7/100klms with 145hp and 148ft/lbs (from memory) with standard filter and jards.
The line on mine is smoother,the upsies and downsies are less pronounced.
As you can see ,Im not that proficient at explaining graphs either.

Mate that's pretty good - I'm getting exactly the same fuel numbers as you for pretty much the same power/torque numbers except yours are rear wheel and mine are at the crank!!

 

[zimtuff]

I wouldn't stress to much, as you have still got Standard filter you bike is effectively choked so your dyno guy has extracted as much as he can. I would seriously look at getting a different filter set up as most guys with Jars are pulling close to or about 10 HP more than you.
Hans

Thats exactly what Brett at Tokyo Motor Performance told me.He couldnt believe the tiny slots under the seat that pass for a filter intake.
Im hoping to fit a single filter,maybe the Pipercross type .
I want to do it in conjunction with a Reband exhaust instal so I only have to pay one
dyno fee.

 

[zimtuff]

Mate that's pretty good - I'm getting exactly the same fuel numbers as you for pretty much the same power/torque numbers except yours are rear wheel and mine are at the crank!!

Yes ,he dide an excellent job considering it was the 1st R3 he had worked on.
He told me the fuel economy may improve slightly and it did by about 5%.

Im glad I have met Dave as now we have 2 operators who are proficient at dyno tuning our bikes with Tuneboy/TuneEcu.
Too many pretenders out there that just want to slap Power Commanders on as if its the end all for everything..

Are those figures for a stock Roadster?

 

[mr hunt]

Are those figures for a stock Roadster?

Sure are - Triumph quote 146hp and 221NM (which I believe equates to roughly 140ft-lb)

Shame about the cost of dynoing - be interesting to see the difference between the 2 exhaust systems w/- and w/o filter changes.

 

[Dennsell]

Rocket has to find a new Lover

Well Guys Sadly my pride and joy has to find another stable..

Sorry Guys wrong place

Re-posted in Final Drive