Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

ficticious power figures

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by muso280, Aug 6, 2006.

  1. (rant)
    okay so... i'm for the position of buying the bike that you like, not the specs they advertise.... HOWEVER.... advertising bullshit power figures just... really really bugs me... its blatant lying to my face. i realise everbody bullshits everybody every day of the week, but the least you can do is cover that fact up a little better.
    ANYway- this is probably an "only in america response", but would set an interesting precident. with the latest crotch-rocket advertising 200 horses and 'only' putting out 167to the floor, why doesn't someone walk back into the dealers and say" my bikes broken- its 15% down on power- please fix this under warranty." hell they might have to put some factory warrantied mods on to rectify the "problem" or they might just *actually* advertise the real power figures... dammit its not an embarrassing figure! sue em for faslse advertising? either way, we win. should do the same for weights as well... as evidenced by the real-world performane, 160-odd-hp pulling 300 kilos of bike and rider is still very very fast so why be embarrassed about it and publish fake figures?? just bugs me = /
    (end rant)

  2. Did they quote the figure as at the rear wheel? Maybe when the ram air is working properly and having 150km/h wind forced in, not just some little fan on a dyno?

  3. And another thing!

    in a few years time its gonna be pretty damn funny when you buy a 2010 R1 with '240' horepower and the SBK R1s with all their mods make an amazing 230 horsepower, the stock bike weighs '140' kilos, and once they've ripped off everything but the paint have lightened it to 150...
  4. 15% drivetrain loss? That sounds plausible. Different dynos give different results... perhaps all the manufacturers are using a 'special' dyno that's over-estimating a little? :LOL:

    The actual power on my 9R is 11% down on the advertised spec - but that could be all drivetrain.

    Is there any particular one you think is way out on quoted power vs actual? I know their weights are complete BS, but the power didn't seem to silly to me. Quite like TWO magazine for reviews - they weigh and dyno their bikes. ;)
  5. Sheesh, it bothers you that much???

    If you're buying a 600 sports, I mean... they're ALL bloody fast and you'll never fully use them on our roads.

    You pick the one you like the look of the best, is the most comfortable with your feet touching the ground, and has the most room for a hot chick on the back.

    Keep in mind you can easily make up a percentage power loss on the bike by losing a few kilos :p

    Make it a medium instead of a LARGE Big Mac meal... save some dosh too.
  6. see theres irony in the fact i'd probably never buy that type of bike for myself to ride around on the roads on- just shits me they can't be honest... about it... sure power figure could be at the crank but so what? what way are 99.99% of bikes measured... at the wheel... see the manufacturers have basically sat down and gone; " okay we got 2 figures- one that every joe blow can check for himself (+/-) and one that can only be ascertained with the engine out of the bike on a great big expensive machine that no-one else seems to have and is therefore largely unprovable... yeah lets quote that one... !

    its the jumping through hoops thing, y'know? why not just be straight up about it? its stupid. and they should know we think its stupid... money talks, s'only thing anyone listens to these days, so protesting financially would be the ideal way to get em to be honest... same goes for rrp prices... for gods sake advertise the out the door price... how many people buy tack only bikes? let them barter a 'no-rego' price, but most people just wanna bike to ride round the streets on... by allowing all the other stuff to be added on to the price just allows dealers to add stuff so you then have to go through it with a fine tooth comb and make sure they're not ripping you off.. more bloody hoops to jump through... it should be " how much is that bike over there? cool, do you take cash? done. see you at the first service." am i alone in thinking this?
  7. "Never trust a PR man or shake hands with a gynaecologist." Charles Prentice of Prentice McCabe.

    Ducati are offering walk away deals right now. Exhaust pipes or rego added free. There are deals to be done, especially if you pay cash.
    As mentioned in this weekend's AFR, the culture of negotiation is evolving. Everything is up for grabs, particularly with rising interest rates.
  8. Advertiseing, aint it great?

    Your bike probably does achieve those figures at the crank, Chains only run up to 98% efficient and the box will rob a bit as well and the alighnment of the moon with mars could also have an impact.

    Facts and figures are always able to be manipulated to say virtualy anything.

    It's like wtf has dry weight got to do with performance figures, bikes won't perform long if run dry if at all.

    Heres some figures I can't understand,
    my bike is 299KG with 120-130 hp and capeable of low 10's
    Modern bikes, 170 kg, 200+ hp and still only running low 10's

    Surely the modern bike can't be torquless but it sounds like some one is telling lies.

    Just try and get used to being told lies, it's normal.
  9. That, and the unrealistic published figures, can be partly explained by the fact that 'at the crank' testing is usually not done with a standard exhaust system, and with the engine in a 'dirty' state of tune. While drivetrain losses are significant, as has already been said, technology has not significantly changed in this area over the years. The greatest technological change, and the main difference between a Z1300 (nice bike by the way), and a modern bike, is the lack of a catalytic converter. Emission control requirement are the primary reason why current bikes actually need more primary horsepower to achieve the same effective 'work' at the wheel as an older bike.

    Mrs Incitatus's 1980's Benelli Quattro 250 produces more power at the wheel than any modern 4-stroke 250, and a standard 1989 Ducati 900SS theoretically produces around 6hp less at the crank than a 1998 900SSFE, but actually produces around 2hp more at the wheel. This is mainly due to the 40mm carbies of the 89', (as opposed to the 38mm of the 98' for emission control reasons), and the lack of a cat.
  10. also what doesnt help is the factory will stick 10 or so engines on the dyno run em all and then publish the best figure out of the lot (even if the hp figure comes from one engine and the torque comes from another)

    but yeah it would be nice if real world figures were provided at the stealerships not some maketing ploy bullshit (gee, wouldnt that be a nice world to live in)
  11. WHAT??

    How are these figures BS? It's the amount of power that the engine is putting out! Perhaps you would like the dealer to weigh you (with full gear on of course) and simply hand you a print out of the final power-to-weight ratio before you buy? :LOL:

    Next you would probably want car manufacturers to state power at the wheels...

    The manufacturers need to start being honest about 'dry' weights before worrying about a horsepower discrepancy. I would safely bet money that the manuafcturers dry weight figures could never be achieved by you or I, no matter what fluids are in the bike.
  12. Has ANY manufacturer of ANY engined product EVER published performance figures that were EVER anything close to accurate????

    Muso, I don't know how old you are, but, my boy, you are far too idealistic :LOL:
  13. all makers publish power figures at the crank. cars, bikes - anything and we all know that. the figures aren't fake, thats what the engine makes.

    its all relative anyway. if they all were publishing at the wheel figures then 167 would be a massive figure compared to what other bikes were making.

    167 at wheels=200 at crank=bike still goes the same speed

    what the problem??
  14. Ford and Holden use different measurements for power (DIN and something else ECU). Also crank and wheel measurements are less due to frictional losses.

    Changing sprockets, running down hill (like the Umerican strips), tail winds ...

    End of the day, all the new sports bikes are gonna go very fcuken fast!
  15. Who cares about horsepower anyway..it's all about torque!
    As said above, from year dot, engine specs have been flywheel horsepower, whether SAE or DIN, or pre about 1975, gross horsepower.
    Advertising has always been about oneupmanship, and sadly, there are people who wil buy something because it has 5hp more, but handles like a pig. Hello GM/Ford fans!

    Regards, Andrew.
  16. couldnt agree more, which is why i ride a zrx. 100'lb of torque at the back wheel makes for some serious fun
  17. Read it and weep !!!! :grin:

    05 TTR250 Rear wheel (dyno) 25.5 HP

    Top speed in a head wind up a hill with partner 70 kph ish

  18. pah!!! my old virago had 17hp at the rear wheel! watch out briggs and stratton!