Power Lines

[Indyrocket3]

You can consider that if you want....... it would be like comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that the only thing comparable in the drivetrain area of the 675 and the Rocket is the fact that they have rubber hitting the ground. Other then that there is nothing in common w/ eachother. Therefore you might as well be comparing a FWD car w/ a RWD car..... which I might add will give you drivetrain losses from 25-35%.....but thats a rule of thumb of coarse....... :wink: The fact is that every type and fit of drivetrain is different which is why you are getting such different # between bikes.

 

[thirdrock]

Indy mate, I don`t wish to be rude ,but of course they are very different,that was the whole point.A shaft driven bike (as I would have hoped we all knew) , has a GREATER power loss through the drive train ( don`t see too many gp/ sports bikes with a shaft !! ) sooooo the rocket is bound to have AT LEAST AS MUCH power loss as the 675 .I think this is going nowhere,there seems to be some desperation to justify inflated figures. I hope ,at least it gave food for thought.

 

[Jethro]

I think this is going nowhere,there seems to be some desperation to justify inflated figures. I hope ,at least it gave food for thought.

Who then, might I ask, is trying to justify inflated figures. If you doubt what I have shown you, do the tests yourself. I realize there are different conditions that will effect the dyno results like temp, humidity and so forth,
but only a couple of horsepower + or -. I can assure you my tech is a pro-
fesional and would have no reason to exaggerate, nor would I.
As for the drive-train I think the 16% give or take sounds about right, but
of-course I have not done any research to prove or disprove this.

 

[Indyrocket3]

Longitudinal verses transverse crank could be the reason more HP to the rear wheel is lost. With a shaft drive a longitudinal crank is more efficient. With chain drive the opposite is true. I'm not familiar w/ the 675....... which is it? Besides frame flex/ poor meshing/chain flex then I am at a loss. Where did you get those #'s for the 675?

 

[thirdrock]

..oh yeah...and hey Jethro , for what it`s worth , I actually think that your figures sound pretty well right (though the triple filter increase is a bit of a surprise ).Think about it though...the tors and jardines really do add a cosiderable amount (I`m sure we all agree on that )..I would say they added quite a bit more than the step from a 125 baseline,if 125 was the actual base to begin with.(in other words I`ll bet you started with a 118 -119 region).

- I said some ,Jethro ,not all.Oh and Indy ...the Daytona 675 (what other is there ?? ). Anyway,I`ve tossed in my two cents,I`ll leave it at that.

 

[Indyrocket3]

Oh and Indy ...the Daytona 675 (what other is there ?? ).

I know what make and model you speak..... I'm talking about it's set-up.....is it a longitudinal or transverse crank set-up. It could explain the difference.

(as I would have hoped we all knew)

:lol:

 

[Triple Trouble]

Dynojet dynamometers are known to be approximations at best. The only truly accurate dyno is a proper brake dyno that can coninuously apply a known load. However, I believe that you can get very accurate information when making changes on a Dynojet. If triple K&N's give you 9 HP at the rear wheel then that would be fairly accurate regardless of where you started from. This is good evidence and works better for me than the old "I drilled out my mufflers and put big jets in and it goes like hell now" B.S.