Tweet
Jesus Mary & the Orphans look at the duration on those puppies!!!!
(PO tato PO tato PO tato)
Another idea, is you can buy a very interesting tool and do back to back testing right on a desk top...
Build your motor or the theoretical one you WANT to build, then run various cams, intakes, exhausts on it and see what they will do and how they compare. But the real value is with back to back tests you can see WHERE you improve and where you lose power. Torque is where its at on the street,, and for a street bike, especially a chop you want off idle and low end power but also a comfortable cruise speed for the freeways.
Silly pursuit of HP power at RPMS you will never see or your motor would grenade well before is only useful when bench racing with lots of beer involved and those stories are 98.9% bullpuckey anyway.
So, its a super useful tool assuming you take some time to LEARN about how cams work, and input correct data. (Big point of reference is the 20 thou vs 50 thou reference point and lobe centers.)
I have used this tool extensively over the years for a lot of Brit bike builds and was useful for educating owners about what worked and what does not. Helped me make some suggestions on what parts to buy vs what they read in a magazine, on the net or their Brothers uncles cousins next door neighbors setup that is so shrouded in mythology that someone lights a candle every time THAT story is told.
The older versions I had were much more limited, but newer ones are pretty flexible and can most any motor on them. (Earlier ones had some limitations such as 3 inch bore or larger that was tough to work around, plus the early stuff was heavily tilted towards car applications, not bikes) But now current versions even have a version you can buy that you can Briggs & Stratton racing engines on them for those little kids dragsters.
I have yet to do much with any Harley or Buell grinds but collecting data and will run a bunch of back to back testing this winter when the weather turns bad.
We will be shopping for cams for my wifes 69 Chevelle project this winter as well, Its her first full engine build, (She is learning to weld too) The softwares comes with thousands of grinds in the data box already loaded but not much for HD, but you can enter that data in.
For those who doubt how well this works its a tool like any other. Its how well you use it. IMHO its best suited for making educated decisions and comparisons.
I have read that compared to a actual Dyno these things come pretty close to accurate. But the truth is ALL DYNOs lie. I have actual print outs for my monster Buell motor and I dont believe any of it. The Prev owner spent a small fortune on that motor and I believe the printouts were to make him happy.
Dynos from one to another are useless, only the same motor tested on the same dyno over and over is useful. Anything else is just a reference point. (Construction and operator vary widely, plus crank HP or rear wheel? Method of testing?)
Seems to me the money invested in this software package could be very useful and cost effective. ($50 bucks well spent IMHO)
(PO tato PO tato PO tato)
Another idea, is you can buy a very interesting tool and do back to back testing right on a desk top...
Build your motor or the theoretical one you WANT to build, then run various cams, intakes, exhausts on it and see what they will do and how they compare. But the real value is with back to back tests you can see WHERE you improve and where you lose power. Torque is where its at on the street,, and for a street bike, especially a chop you want off idle and low end power but also a comfortable cruise speed for the freeways.
Silly pursuit of HP power at RPMS you will never see or your motor would grenade well before is only useful when bench racing with lots of beer involved and those stories are 98.9% bullpuckey anyway.
So, its a super useful tool assuming you take some time to LEARN about how cams work, and input correct data. (Big point of reference is the 20 thou vs 50 thou reference point and lobe centers.)
I have used this tool extensively over the years for a lot of Brit bike builds and was useful for educating owners about what worked and what does not. Helped me make some suggestions on what parts to buy vs what they read in a magazine, on the net or their Brothers uncles cousins next door neighbors setup that is so shrouded in mythology that someone lights a candle every time THAT story is told.
The older versions I had were much more limited, but newer ones are pretty flexible and can most any motor on them. (Earlier ones had some limitations such as 3 inch bore or larger that was tough to work around, plus the early stuff was heavily tilted towards car applications, not bikes) But now current versions even have a version you can buy that you can Briggs & Stratton racing engines on them for those little kids dragsters.
I have yet to do much with any Harley or Buell grinds but collecting data and will run a bunch of back to back testing this winter when the weather turns bad.
We will be shopping for cams for my wifes 69 Chevelle project this winter as well, Its her first full engine build, (She is learning to weld too) The softwares comes with thousands of grinds in the data box already loaded but not much for HD, but you can enter that data in.
For those who doubt how well this works its a tool like any other. Its how well you use it. IMHO its best suited for making educated decisions and comparisons.
I have read that compared to a actual Dyno these things come pretty close to accurate. But the truth is ALL DYNOs lie. I have actual print outs for my monster Buell motor and I dont believe any of it. The Prev owner spent a small fortune on that motor and I believe the printouts were to make him happy.
Dynos from one to another are useless, only the same motor tested on the same dyno over and over is useful. Anything else is just a reference point. (Construction and operator vary widely, plus crank HP or rear wheel? Method of testing?)
Seems to me the money invested in this software package could be very useful and cost effective. ($50 bucks well spent IMHO)
Comment