Back to talking about bikes,,,,,

[cowpuc]

Anyone else taking time to look beyond the CCP Virus news and notice what's happening in the biking world today?? I've been watching the uptake of the new Polaris/Indian Challenger and have been overly impressed with the glee of those who have test ridden it (youtube is filled with these folks and it is amazing to hear their "HOLY SPAMOKEY" screams of joy as this new water cooled/OHC 108 engine crosses into HP heaven at the magic 5250 R's where hp always takes over for torque).. I have also been amazed at how well the Challenger has been selling and the total interest in the bike all while the world is fighting this corona thing,, pretty impressive!! It is also interesting that Polaris is openly challenging the HD Road Glide with this new one - it remarkably does resemble the fixed fairing Road Glide but the resemblance ends at the fixed fairing as the HD is still the iconic air cooled/push rod 45 degree twin = far from apples to apples IMHO.. Makes me wonder what the outcome will be in Polaris's hope of stealing HD riders from HD.. Polaris seems to have forgotten about their own air cooled push rod 111/116.. Makes me wonder how many Challenger buyers will actually be 111/116 Thunderstroke riders,, following the Polaris Indian sites seem to support this thought as there seems to be a lot of those riders trading their 11/116's in and very little mention of the Challenger on the HD Road Glide sites from what I can see..

Another interesting point has to do with the new SVTC/Eluder sales,, or lack thereof.. I personally find it interesting that Mom Yam took the polls and the polls showed that nobody was interested in a "performance" Venture/bagger back in 2018 (release of the new Venture).. Mom Yam therein jumped on the HD air cooled/push rod band wagon. Less than 2 years later shows tons of left over brand new SVTC/Eluder's sitting in warehouses and still not sellable even at +$10,000 below MSRP fire sales on left overs.. Its like the "give us high torque, low R's, electronic gizmo's light switch was just a real short "on-off" thing or something as Polaris is proving that bikers really do appreciate and love the thrill of wicking it up occasionally.. All this leaving one to wonder what would happen if Mom Yam retraced her steps and dropped that 1700cc V-Max motor into that mean looking SVTC,, worth a shot IMHO..

I have spent a fair amount time aboard the now defunct 1250 V-Rod as I helped a neighbor tune/build one up.. We ended up seeing 114 rwhp on his and it ran strong,, right about even with my 85 V-Max named Crud who would outrun a stock V-Rod easily.. Similar to Mom Yam's sales experience with the SVTC/Eluder, HD riders repelled the V-Rod like a duck repelling water.. Now,, with this new found love for performance,, I cant help but wonder what would happen if HD re-introed the V-Rod Revolution motor only in a touring/bagger platform, I bet if HD dumped another 400cc into that 1250cc V-Rod motor and did that it would be a seller!!

Could get interesting out there!!

[Flyinfool]

I bet you would love to sit down with that presenter from the SVTC unveiling about now for a case of I told you sos.....

 

I wonder just how much modding it would take for Yami to shoe horn the V max motor into an SVTC today????? Would it fit in the frame? would it just be a matter of moving a few mounting points? Maybe a stronger drive line.

 

ps

There is nothing other than math that is special about 5252 rpm. Actually the number is 5252.11312203 RPM. It has zero to do with engine design, capability or anything else. Torque is a measured thing HP is calculated using the formula HP = (RPM X torque) ÷ 5252. So torque will always equal HP at 5252 rpm, the formula says so. So when that Dyno chart is run and then printed, all they did was measure the Torque and the RPM and then apply the formula to create the HP curve. Dynos do not and can not actually measure HP.

 

Flame Suit ON:225:

[CaseyJ955]

Looking at that Polaris twin on paper shows that it is pretty likely a badass and not the underwhelming narrow twin we have come to know. I have high expectations, they essentially did everything HD should have done a generation ago. It's finally been done, I'll ride one when the opportunity arises. My faith in American vehicles has not increased in recent years but this one looks like enough of a leap in Vtwin cruisers to make it worth a solid look.

 

Wait until they put it in a sport/tourer...

 

I'm sick of Chinavirus news, and especially on how much we are spending on it. I like bikes more!

 

Oh yea, there are some poke/stroke kits for the Vrods that make them might hard to shake out of the rearview mirrors. I agree, if they could slap that Vrod motor in an appealing bike it would have my attention.

[Du-Rron]

Another interesting point has to do with the new SVTC/Eluder sales,, or lack thereof....

 

There is a lot of GOOD stuff in there but... I really like that shot.

[CaseyJ955]

I bet you would love to sit down with that presenter from the SVTC unveiling about now for a case of I told you sos.....

 

I wonder just how much modding it would take for Yami to shoe horn the V max motor into an SVTC today????? Would it fit in the frame? would it just be a matter of moving a few mounting points? Maybe a stronger drive line.

 

ps

There is nothing other than math that is special about 5252 rpm. Actually the number is 5252.11312203 RPM. It has zero to do with engine design, capability or anything else. Torque is a measured thing HP is calculated using the formula HP = (RPM X torque) ÷ 5252. So torque will always equal HP at 5252 rpm, the formula says so. So when that Dyno chart is run and then printed, all they did was measure the Torque and the RPM and then apply the formula to create the HP curve. Dynos do not and can not actually measure HP.

 

Flame Suit ON:225:

 

I did not realize that about dynos, thank you!

 

I know a lot of folks here have Gen3s and love them, so they did something right. Yamaha knows how to make quality bikes. BUT I think they were answering a question that not many young buyers were asking, instead focusing on a fast shrinking demographic. Another heavyweight low-revving narrow-angle air-cooled twin in a market already saturated with them was apparantly not a ticket to stardom, however superior they are to HD. Things were already difficult with motorsports before the global economy was Wuhanified. It's going to be very ugly now and for a while yet, I hope Polaris can make enough sales in this harsh fiscal climate to get this advanced twin off the ground. It will be nice to be able to get excited about an American motorcycle again!

 

The Challenger is pretty good looking except for the nose, I'm glad they stepped back from the heavy retro look. I think the powerful twin is whats going to be the big deal for this bike. I also see Polaris is making the electronic gadgetry optional. I cant see touch screens as being the future of motorcycles, but I might be wrong on that one. We'll see.

 

I do have one rosy prediction, I think time and history will be very kind to the Gen3. At some point they will still be uncommon and very sought after for the same reasons those that have them bought them to begin with. Polaris listened to younger buyers and Yamaha did not (IMHO). That's how it panned out (pun intended). They made this great Gen3 about 20 years too late.

 

I'm locked and loaded with I-toldja-sos and not wearing a flame suit haha.

[cowpuc]

There is a lot of GOOD stuff in there but... I really like that shot.

 

I know brother,, I am one hopelessly sick lop eared varmint aint I?

[cowpuc]

I bet you would love to sit down with that presenter from the SVTC unveiling about now for a case of I told you sos.....

 

I wonder just how much modding it would take for Yami to shoe horn the V max motor into an SVTC today???? PActually not that bad.. The new one has a fair amount of frame clearances molded into its design due to: additional width and length from the xtra balance shaft, xtra alternator and reverse/forward assist system. Would it fit in the frame? I am very certain it woul, I have a video of the complete new drive train from Sturgis if you'ld like to see more about this. would it just be a matter of moving a few mounting points? Maybe a stronger drive line. Unfortunately the new bike is belt drive and the 1700cc max is shaft so it would involve a complete rear end design upgrade if they were going to use pre-existing V-Max parts to do the swap.

 

ps

There is nothing other than math that is special about 5252 rpm. Actually the number is 5252.11312203 RPM. It has zero to do with engine design, capability or anything else. Torque is a measured thing HP is calculated using the formula HP = (RPM X torque) ÷ 5252. So torque will always equal HP at 5252 rpm, the formula says so. So when that Dyno chart is run and then printed, all they did was measure the Torque and the RPM and then apply the formula to create the HP curve. Dynos do not and can not actually measure HP.

 

Flame Suit ON:225:

 

From a mathematicians stand point I can somewhat see where one may get that impression but from an end use consumer/dyno tuning mechanics perspective that may not be entirely true.. If what you are promoting were rock solid, it would seem that all dyno graphs would show, especially above the magic 5252 R range where HP and Torque curves always cross and where HP always becomes greater than Torque, the HP curve as a perfectly straight mathematical line.. Unfortunately, this is not the case.. As a matter of fact, dyno techs use the dips and valleys shown in the dyno curves (both torque below 5252 and HP above 5252) on a tune in process to work out.. Its the irregularities in the these non-mathamatical fluctuations in the curves that a good mechanic tunes out = smoothing out and creating a lenier pull hopefully..

From an end use consumer/riders perspective, crossing into HP heaven (at 5225) on a properly tuned, good running scoot will usually result in a "kick in the pants" feeling. That feeling can easily be seen and explained on a dyno graph (this is why people put big money into dyno tuning,, meaning actually adjusting parameter fuel/ignition inputs within each parameter = IMHO, the early HD Screaming Eagle Race tuners were the best for this and most fun as they allowed exact adjustments within 200 rpm increments = wayyyyy cool and with a little time you could adjust the valleys and dips - both torque and HP above 5225 very close to a straight, hard pull.

IMHO, In the real world where dyno output numbers and graphs are used as tools for tuning, that 5252 number is in fact magical as it gives a solid base for the tech to tune from - its a given in the endlessly unuser friendly, Murphy filled world of tuning..

In adding to my perspective of the matter here on the debate floor, take a quick peek at the attached dyno graph.. Notice the 5252 on the blue lines = 1600cc Beemer 6 banger.. Notice the dips and valleys in the graph lines both from torque and up into HP country.. Those are the dips/valleys that, if it were only numbers on a page figured out mathematically instead of induced from actual engine pull pulses, would appear as perfectly straight lines. Those are also the exact varations that a good tech would be seeking to straighten out by adjusting fuel/ignition maps. At least, that is how tuning has worked for me,, doesnt mean I am right though

Another point to ponder on this graph is I would guess that the rider riding the Beemer (blue line) would experience a much harder increase in accelleration boost above 5252 than that of the Wing rider (red line). Matter of fact,, I recently watched a video of a couple riders reviewing the Wing and the Beemer and they did some time, two up, on a track, comparing the two.. Its a pretty telling video concerning our little debate here Fool. I will see if I can find it.. Until then, here is the dyno graph I was referring to:

 

[bpate4home]

, I recently watched a video of a couple riders reviewing the Wing and the Beemer and they did some time, two up, on a track, comparing the two.. Its a pretty telling video concerning our little debate here Fool. I will see if I can find it..

 

Here is that vid you were looking for. Saw it some time ago.

 

[Flyinfool]

OK Puc, lets use your dyno graph that you posted.

Lets start by looking at just the Bemmer lines because it is more visually evident. (although it holds true for both sets, Honda just did a better job of making nice straight lines so it is hard to visually spot the dips and bumps)

Everyplace that there is a peak or valley in the torque or HP lines, there is a matching peak or valley in the other line. This is because they are mathematically tied together. You can pick any point you want along the graph and that math formula will still work out exactly. A tuner can move those lines all over the place to achieve a specific goal. A good tuner can put the peak HP the peak torque any where he wants them but the relationship between torque and HP will mathematically follow. But no tuner in the world can move one line without the other line also moving a proportional amount. This is because the math don't lie.

If you really want to melt down, look at some metric dyno charts where the power is measured in Watts and the torque is measured in Newton-meters. Run the vary same engine measuring in metric units and every chart will have a different crossover point and many charts will never cross. BUT is the same engine under the same conditions just different units of measure and the lines never cross, BUT if you do the math conversions to convert from metric to imperial you will find that you once again have identical dyno charts. You can not escape the fact that HP=RPMxTorque)/5252. The formula is defining the crossover point, Do you see the 5252 in the formula That is WHY all imperial dyno charts cross at 5252, because the formula says torque will equal HP at 5252. Please pick ANY imperial dyno chart you like and pick a random RPM and apply the formula and you will ALWAYS get the HP number from the same chart.

 

I know you spent a lifetime believing that there is something magic about 5252, but there just scientifically is not. I'll bet there are a bunch probably/maybe even a majority of people that do not understand to relationship between torque and HP, but a majority vote can not change the laws of physics. A majority once believed the world was flat.

[cowpuc]

Here is that vid you were looking for. Saw it some time ago.

 

 

EXACTLY,, THATS IT BP :thumbsup:!!! A very telling video to say the least, IMHO of course!! BP,, thank you for the find = I knew someone like you would have noticed this Beemer/Wing comparo' and know where it was!! @Flyinfool, go to 19:38 into this vid,, those YEEEEEHAWWWWWW's and multigear wheelies are the result of a couple of fun lovers discovering the magic at 5252 and above :crackup:

[cowpuc]

OK Puc, lets use your dyno graph that you posted.

Lets start by looking at just the Bemmer lines because it is more visually evident. (although it holds true for both sets, Honda just did a better job of making nice straight lines so it is hard to visually spot the dips and bumps)

Everyplace that there is a peak or valley in the torque or HP lines, there is a matching peak or valley in the other line. This is because they are mathematically tied together. You can pick any point you want along the graph and that math formula will still work out exactly. A tuner can move those lines all over the place to achieve a specific goal. A good tuner can put the peak HP the peak torque any where he wants them but the relationship between torque and HP will mathematically follow. But no tuner in the world can move one line without the other line also moving a proportional amount. This is because the math don't lie.

If you really want to melt down, look at some metric dyno charts where the power is measured in Watts and the torque is measured in Newton-meters. Run the vary same engine measuring in metric units and every chart will have a different crossover point and many charts will never cross. BUT is the same engine under the same conditions just different units of measure and the lines never cross, BUT if you do the math conversions to convert from metric to imperial you will find that you once again have identical dyno charts. You can not escape the fact that HP=RPMxTorque)/5252. The formula is defining the crossover point, Do you see the 5252 in the formula That is WHY all imperial dyno charts cross at 5252, because the formula says torque will equal HP at 5252. Please pick ANY imperial dyno chart you like and pick a random RPM and apply the formula and you will ALWAYS get the HP number from the same chart.

 

I know you spent a lifetime believing that there is something magic about 5252, but there just scientifically is not. I'll bet there are a bunch probably/maybe even a majority of people that do not understand to relationship between torque and HP, but a majority vote can not change the laws of physics. A majority once believed the world was flat.

 

I get it,,, I really do Fool... Bottom line,,, I think I tend to live in a world of Applied Mathematics where you prefer pure logic.. Sort of a Kirk/Spock relationship

[Flyinfool]

But Kirk, as you know, Spock is always right.........

 

[Patch]

OK Puc, lets use your dyno graph that you posted.

Lets start by looking at just the Bemmer lines because it is more visually evident. (although it holds true for both sets, Honda just did a better job of making nice straight lines so it is hard to visually spot the dips and bumps)

Everyplace that there is a peak or valley in the torque or HP lines, there is a matching peak or valley in the other line. This is because they are mathematically tied together. You can pick any point you want along the graph and that math formula will still work out exactly. A tuner can move those lines all over the place to achieve a specific goal. A good tuner can put the peak HP the peak torque any where he wants them but the relationship between torque and HP will mathematically follow. But no tuner in the world can move one line without the other line also moving a proportional amount. This is because the math don't lie.

If you really want to melt down, look at some metric dyno charts where the power is measured in Watts and the torque is measured in Newton-meters. Run the vary same engine measuring in metric units and every chart will have a different crossover point and many charts will never cross. BUT is the same engine under the same conditions just different units of measure and the lines never cross, BUT if you do the math conversions to convert from metric to imperial you will find that you once again have identical dyno charts. You can not escape the fact that HP=RPMxTorque)/5252. The formula is defining the crossover point, Do you see the 5252 in the formula That is WHY all imperial dyno charts cross at 5252, because the formula says torque will equal HP at 5252. Please pick ANY imperial dyno chart you like and pick a random RPM and apply the formula and you will ALWAYS get the HP number from the same chart.

 

I know you spent a lifetime believing that there is something magic about 5252, but there just scientifically is not. I'll bet there are a bunch probably/maybe even a majority of people that do not understand to relationship between torque and HP, but a majority vote can not change the laws of physics. A majority once believed the world was flat.

 

I get it,,, I really do Fool... Bottom line,,, I think I tend to live in a world of Applied Mathematics where you prefer pure logic.. Sort of a Kirk/Spock relationship

 

 

Well said Jeff!

Puc I think it time to pass on to the younger crowd the facts that imperial measurements mislead the workings of J. Watts and Archimedes. Horsepower is marketing always was and Watts knew it to be, is why he derived it as an inaccurate science based formula, to sell his product, period.

 

And for those still unclear, a crankshaft in rotation is a 100% measurement of torque rules, and, is what the pistons and angles produce. TDC is not a position of angular force, it is the max stroke/it longest point measured off of crank center or zero angle!

Think about it

Edited April 26, 2020 by Patch

[cowpuc]

Well said Jeff!

Horsepower is marketing always was and Watts knew it to be, is why he derived it as an inaccurate science based formula, to sell his product, period.

 

Try convincing Maggie, my R1, that as she bounces the rev limiter in 5th gear and is completely capable of doing the same in 6th if you or Fool have got the guts to experience life in HP heaven above 5252 R's:scared::rasberry:

 

 

[Patch]

Not for me anymore Puc, I don't even run my old Kat's now!

My arms are plenty long enough

 

We three had this conversation a couple years back I think we ended that one with a agree to disagree as well. lol

 

To not confuse others tho, horsepower is an accepted rating or measure of engine output and as mentioned it came from Mr. Watts work long time ago.

Of course as you say you are making lots of HP on that bike over 6000 rpm.

So if there is a point to it then we need to look first down at the crank, then the total lever/over center, that is torque and that what the effort is all about. That said Puc, the resulting HP happens above the crown, right, that is where the craziness happens. The force is expansion pressure @ angle to the crank center and that as we know is assumed thru another test procedure flowing the heads for potentials or as is - stock... Then another true measure is CCing deck down and combustion chambers plus gasket which again I know you know can be done via math or wet. At this point we are close to establishing enough information to choose cams but, any change in lift and duration anywhere at that point would call for the flow measure to be repeated.

 

So in the end and as you state with your r1 the efficiency level increases (hopefully) least wise in relationship to WOT so air flow is greater right but; again that is also the band where efficiency can fall off with naturally aspirated engines very quickly... Regardless of fuel delivery used or efficiency potential of one over the other.

 

That is solid procedure from crank up then output which can be measured in torque, horsepower or watts.

 

Following that train of thought then (agree or not) 5252 is only a conversion point in this type of dyno use.

Concluding then if the above is correct then theory is that the crank delivers the output, and that only happens when the lever is @ angle so that is torque and efficiency in relation to the rotating crank.

 

So Puc for those that enjoy this type of debate, can one just simply rejet or size up/down injector cc or even change carb model without the use of a dyno? Of course and quite easily too, with just the use of a O2 sensor for tuning efficiency.

In my case I use a strobe and temperature thingy, then also there are the plugs which can be read, I don't need a dyno slip to know if I am moving in the right direction, for simple tuning.

 

remember Puc time over distance traveled is something we too go thru not just engines

sometimes I forget what the four stoke rule is, sometimes I forget even the basics on the list of what it takes to start and engine,,lol not that I don't know its just that I shelved the knowledge somewhere. That is the outcome of experience over a life time:think: