Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: TimmyTheHog on October 16, 2019, 04:37:17 PM
-
Some number for V85TT from Cycle World.
I know not everyone cares about how much HP & Torque bike makes, but I find numbers interesting.
I know there are also some private testing done already...
Dyno by CycleWorld (https://www.cycleworld.com/how-much-power-does-2019-moto-guzzi-v85-tt-adventure-make/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+New+Content+%28Feed%29&utm_content=5da731f43df6f00001cae402&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2E5kzB3yLBpI8xPLWy5pSioaLftXDudQAlfIdrfOPjL141GriUkeQ-1BM)
For those TL:DR, "We measured the V85 TT's performance on the Cycle World dyno, recording horsepower and torque measurements. The Moto Guzzi produced 66.71 hp at 7,980 rpm and 48.99 pound-feet of torque at 5,160 rpm."
-
Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.
(https://i.ibb.co/QJw0NGh/DSCN0483.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QJw0NGh)
GliderJohn
-
Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.
(https://i.ibb.co/QJw0NGh/DSCN0483.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QJw0NGh)
GliderJohn
Interesting indeed.
I guess it concur with some people feel V85TT require some more "twist in the throttle" to get all the horses out, but rather it isn't about lack of it, it is just so spread out and takes longer to get there.
But I do like how consistant the torque output is starting from ~3500RPM.
-
What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .
Dusty
-
What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .
Dusty
and considering a DynoJet dyno is about 10% optimistic compared to what manufacturers use...The 85 from Guzzi is likely at the crankshaft, not rear wheel
-
and considering a DynoJet dyno is about 10% optimistic compared to what manufacturers use...The 85 from Guzzi is likely at the crankshaft, not rear wheel
Likely nearer 72 HP at the crank . That 85 figure was nothing more than some made up number .
Dusty
-
Oh oh, your gonna wake up the bear!
-
Oh oh, your gonna wake up the bear!
I am THE bear .
Dusty
-
What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .
Dusty
I thought they said 80?
And no one thought they meant 80 rwhp.
And this is in the ballpark considering frictional losses.
Hell I think Ducati originally claimed ~80 hp for our 696 and it dynos similarly, but I think with a little less torque than the V85.
Edit looks like Duc 696 - 66 hp/44 ft lbs
Included in this article about Street 750
https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/04/02/2015-harley-davidson-street-750-versus-competitors-on-cw-dynojet-dyno/
I really don't see the problem here.
-
^^^Of course you don't .
Dusty
-
Amazing what a heavy flywheel can do to smooth out a torque curve. It's the rotating/reciprocating mass that makes guzzis so sweet. H.P. not a real important number in street riding. Torque is where its at. Thanks for sharing, can't wait to get a ride on the new 850, maybe next spring. Butt dyno is what counts!
-
Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.
(https://i.ibb.co/QJw0NGh/DSCN0483.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QJw0NGh)
GliderJohn
Not unlike an old XR 750 HD motor , the same falling torque curve , Another 25 HP it would make a good production class dirt track engine .
Dusty
-
Ummm...I’m pretty sure we had this discussion ad nauseam. 80 at the crank and 65-68 at the wheel is all you can expect from this engine design and displacement.
The V85TT has roughly the same performance as a 650 V-Strom. Those of you who aren’t eye-talian bike snobs know the Strom is widely regarded as one of the greatest ADV bikes ever made because it has decent, usable power, relatively light weight, a good seat and weather protection. All of those reasons are also why the V85TT is getting great reviews. Add in the fact it’s handmade in Italy, has an electronics package, has much better brakes and handling than a V-Strom AND it’s CHEAP for what you get.
Anyone surprised by the fact it has 65hp wasn’t paying attention.
-
My Quota 1100 (dyno tuned) makes 66 horsepower and 65foot lbs of torque.
The V85s' numbers are impressive for a 2V smallblock. I bet it's a hoot.
-
The high engine speed had something to do with the hp produced. Not what I would call a sweet spot. Anyone know the road speed at peak hp? R3~
-
Torque curve looks good on the graph. Bit of a dip at ~2700. Might explain why people keep asking me for V85 maps.
(https://i34.servimg.com/u/f34/18/91/78/64/048fd110.png)
-
Too under powered for me, great on small roads but to put in the hard motorway miles more is required.
-
Amazing what a heavy flywheel can do to smooth out a torque curve. It's the rotating/reciprocating mass that makes guzzis so sweet. H.P. not a real important number in street riding. Torque is where its at. Thanks for sharing, can't wait to get a ride on the new 850, maybe next spring. Butt dyno is what counts!
Fwiw I've said many times since riding the V85 that it doesn't feel the same as other Guzzis, even the relatively light flywheel smallblocks. It feels more like our Duc mentioned above which might be a great thing to many people.
If you're looking for that heavy flywheel/torquey feel in a modern Guzzi smallblock, the answer is the V9.
-
On a Dynojet inertia dyno, the flywheel weight affects the power reading.. A bike with a lighter flywheel can accelerate the roller faster and give a higher power reading....In reality there is no power difference.
Dynos are for tuning or bragging rights, the real test is on the road or track....
-
:popcorn:
On a Dynojet inertia dyno, the flywheel weight affects the power reading.. A bike with a lighter flywheel can accelerate the roller faster and give a higher power reading....In reality there is no power difference.
Dynos are for tuning or bragging rights, the real test is on the road or track....
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: ya, I am having a seat with you on this debate..
but just kind of interesting how we perceive the dyno and what actually came out of it.
-
Moto Guzzi never claimed 85 HP. They claimed 80 Hp and that is at the crank, not rear wheel like a dyne shows. Quite a difference between crank HP and rear wheel Dyno HP. I saw a dyno chart from Mistral calming 79 HP with the cat delete Y pipe, Mistral muffler and V Twin Power Boost hook up. I have that on my V85TT and by the seat of the pants, it feels pretty close.
-
I am kind of surprised that my T-3 HP started dropping off in the early 6K range with the mods I have. I thought it would have peaked closer to 7K. Maybe need go up a bit on the main jets.
GliderJohn
-
I am kind of surprised that my T-3 HP started dropping off in the early 6K range with the mods I have. I thought it would have peaked closer to 7K. Maybe need go up a bit on the main jets.
GliderJohn
I would leave it alone John , how often do you spin it past 6K ?
Dusty
-
From oldbike54:
I would leave it alone John , how often do you spin it past 6K ?
I am not planning to change anything at this time as it is such a tractable motor, just musing.
GliderJohn
-
Ten to fifteen percent loss from crank to rear wheel is typical. I've noticed that a lot of newer bikes seem to be closer to 10%. Don't know if its due to more efficient drivelines or manufacturers downplaying crank HP (kinda of doubt that myself). 66.71 is about 83.5% of 80, so a 16.5% driveline loss. A little high, but not that bad and could easily be due to that particular dyno or the humidity that day or a number of other factors.
Its enough for me considering its about 16 or 17 more horsepower than my 1000cc BMW and it seems to get me where I'm going.
-
Quoting HP at crank is a complete wank. Who cares? RWHP is what counts, if at all. If RWHP really counted, no one would ride a V7.
79 RWHP? Ha ha. You're funny, Mistral. I believe Mistral as much as I do Piaggio. :violent1:
Q haters.
-
In a million plus miles I've never cared about dyno reports. In fact, at most rallies we are talking about gas mileage, tire life, roads, weather etc. I guess you can say that there are for the most part two groups, one of the specs and the other of the roads. Did I tell you about the ghost town Zabcikville that I recently went to?
Enjoy the numbers that concern you and I'll like mine and we are still friends
Love,
Tex
-
Quoting HP at crank is a complete wank. Who cares? RWHP is what counts, if at all. If RWHP really counted, no one would ride a V7.
79 RWHP? Ha ha. You're funny, Mistral. I believe Mistral as much as I do Piaggio. :violent1:
Q haters.
In the end it doesn't matter much does it Mark . Guessing on a real accurate water brake dyno the new motor makes about 62 RWHP and an equal decrease in torque . That would translate to 71 crankshaft HP , not even the 80 some seem to be claiming . That would still be sufficient , just don't tell me it makes more than it really does because you want it to , right ?
Dusty
-
Jez, it's not all black and white all the time.
Yeah none of us RIDE spec sheets. They're just data which can be fun to compare and contrast when talking about bikes.
In this case I think the data supports my riding impressions.
Other times I've been surprised when my impressions showed something different (good or bad) from the spec sheet.
Either way what's that harm?
It's not like anyone here is looking towards specs for any sort of bragging rights.
-
In the end it doesn't matter much does it Mark . Guessing on a real accurate water brake dyno the new motor makes about 62 RWHP and an equal decrease in torque . That would translate to 71 crankshaft HP , not even the 80 some seem to be claiming . That would still be sufficient , just don't tell me it makes more than it really does because you want it to , right ?
Dusty
Not for nothing but how are you so certain about the exact percentage of frictional losses?
You remember a few years back due to some changes to EU standards for OEM testing and reporting of such things Ducati was forced to publish (and had it on their website for a few years) revised (lower) crankshaft numbers for their entire line and a good number of model years.
Presumably Guzzi has followed these guidelines and therefore their crank numbers from some years might not be apples to apples with later.
We definitely see, confirmed by multiple sources, that there's are differences in claimed crank and it's relationship to Dyno runs on various other late-model 2TB and 1TB smallblocks.
That said, I don't think it particularly matters to anyone here or most of the general riding public unless the individual in question never gets past spec sheets or magazines.
-
Maybe because accuracy matters , dunno .
Dusty
-
It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power. At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp. So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!
So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining. It never ends.
-
Not for nothing but how are you so certain about the exact percentage of frictional losses?
You remember a few years back due to some changes to EU standards for OEM testing and reporting of such things Ducati was forced to publish (and had it on their website for a few years) revised (lower) crankshaft numbers for their entire line and a good number of model years.
Presumably Guzzi has followed these guidelines and therefore their crank numbers from some years might not be apples to apples with later.
We definitely see, confirmed by multiple sources, that there's are differences in claimed crank and it's relationship to Dyno runs on various other late-model 2TB and 1TB smallblocks.
That said, I don't think it particularly matters to anyone here or most of the general riding public unless the individual in question never gets past spec sheets or magazines.
Was being generous and allowing 15% loss , it gets even worse at only 10%
Dusty
-
This is great data. A European V85TT test measured 68 RWHP some months ago, CW now at 67 RWHP, almost the same number and consistent with Piaggio’s 80 HP at the crank number that has never changed and is clearly accurate. That amount of power with a flat power spread from a small block is phenomenal... A 4-cam, 8 valve water cooled Suzuki 650 makes the same power with the disadvantages that come with more complexity, a bit less torque and so on.
For comparison, rear wheel horsepower on a small valve Guzzi 949 cc big block (for example a 1000 SP) is typically about 48 RWHP, a big valve LeMans 1000 with B-10 cam makes around 62 RWHP stock and a BMW R100R made 51 RWHP. Those ‘stone axe’ bikes are actually more complex and more difficult to maintain than this engine, which also meets 2019 regulatory standards.
-
Maybe because accuracy matters , dunno .
Dusty
I'm not so certain it's Piaggio who was bring inaccurate.
-
This is great data. A European V85TT test measured 68 RWHP some months ago, CW now at 67 RWHP, almost the same number and consistent with Piaggio’s 80 HP at the crank number that has never changed and is clearly accurate. That amount of power with a flat power spread from a small block is phenomenal... A 4-cam, 8 valve water cooled Suzuki 650 makes the same power with the disadvantages that come with more complexity, a bit less torque and so on.
For comparison, rear wheel horsepower on a small valve Guzzi 949 cc big block (for example a 1000 SP) is typically about 48 RWHP, a big valve LeMans 1000 with B-10 cam makes around 62 RWHP stock and a BMW R100R made 51 RWHP. Those ‘stone axe’ bikes are actually more complex and more difficult to maintain than this engine, which also meets 2019 regulatory standards.
:thumb:
-
Here's another CW Dyno of a similar market, popular, similar CC, air-cooled, 2V motor (though Desmo not Pushrod) and low and behold it's making similar numbers
https://images.app.goo.gl/UeFxpRmZ1ygMyKwv6
So that's another example that shows how Piaggio has given us a decent and competitive product.
-
[If you're looking for that heavy flywheel/torquey feel in a modern Guzzi smallblock, the answer is the V9.]
True that Kev. When I was looking to downsize from my then current Stelvio I posted on looking at the V9 and you recommended that it may well be the way to go. I bought a left over 17 new Bobber and have been smiling ever since. With 1k on it I am loving that old time Guzzi feel and sound with a bike that fits my needs. It will keep me on two wheels for a few more years. :thumb:
-
[If you're looking for that heavy flywheel/torquey feel in a modern Guzzi smallblock, the answer is the V9.]
True that Kev. When I was looking to downsize from my then current Stelvio I posted on looking at the V9 and you recommended that it may well be the way to go. I bought a left over 17 new Bobber and have been smiling ever since. With 1k on it I am loving that old time Guzzi feel and sound with a bike that fits my needs. It will keep me on two wheels for a few more years. :thumb:
That's awesome. I'm jealous even though I have no room to complain. Glad you're enjoying!!!
-
Never cared much for stat sheet hp numbers.
-
I'll add my 2 cents for what it is worth. I read an article many years ago about parasitic losses due to different drivetrains in motorcycles. Belt drive was deemed to be the most efficient.Shaft drive was the worst. Partially due to the fact everytime power transmission changes direction there is additional loss.All of this doesn't matter to me because of reliability and low maintenance of a driveshaft type of drive. Although BMW has had problems with some of their rear differentials. Nevertheless I would not at all be surprised to see a 15% loss on our MG's.
On a further note I think that torque curve or lack of a curve on the 85 dyno run to be impressive despite the dip in the 2,000 range. Especially after hanging around Harley sites for the last few years. With the reputation of Harleys having massive amounts of torque I don't remember seeing any as flat at this one. A good amount of torque will be a lot more rideable than gobs of horsepower IMO.
kk
-
. A good amount of torque will be a lot more rideable than gobs of horsepower IMO.
This.
-
It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power. At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp. So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!
So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining. It never ends.
Yeah it does BC.
They go quiet and stop posting.
-
It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power. At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp. So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!
So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining. It never ends.
Ha ha, hell they made one that puts down just a few more hp (~48 go) and I bought another.
-
Never cared much for stat sheet hp numbers.
Ya im with you... They are good for seeing changes though.. Other then that its a number. I bet you grab 10 bikes off the showroom floor they will all be a few % apart also. Even with todays better engine controls and manufacturing, you still get a good one, and a bad one out of the bunch.
-
Before we get all judgie here , it isn't a matter of how much power the new motor makes . Some manufacturers didn't post figures for years , terms like "adequate" were used . It is just now here in 2019 when those cheap dynojets are everywhere making it easy to test power , why publish an inflated number . And please don't tell me that 67 RWHP translates to 80 crankshaft HP , the math doesn't work . Just tell us the truth , the engine makes 77 HP at the crank , maybe :laugh: This smacks of those nonsense figures published in motomags back in the day , the "new" engine makes
3 more HP than last year's model , yeah , sure it does :rolleyes:
Dusty
-
please don't tell me that 67 RWHP translates to 80 crankshaft HP , the math doesn't work . Just tell us the truth , the engine makes 77 HP at the crank , maybe
IIRC Piaggio’s published dyno sheet shows a little over 79 HP, they rounded up versus down to get the even 80 HP, which reasonably equates to 67 or 68 at the rear wheel.
-
IIRC Piaggio’s published dyno sheet shows a little over 79 HP, they rounded up versus down to get the even 80 HP, which reasonably equates to 67 or 68 at the rear wheel.
A 15% loss thru the driveline isn't much of a recommendation for the system .
Dusty
-
A 15% loss thru the driveline isn't much of a recommendation for the system
An example of the same percentage loss on a similar shaft drive bike is the BMW rated 60 HP R100R which on a new bike measured 51 RWHP.
An 1100 Sport was rated by Guzzi at 90 HP and tested at around 76 RWHP (plus or minus about 2 HP). Also the same percentage.
-
let's throw some actual facts from experience at this discussion.. My old Triumphs have spent hours on the dyno ,with me on the bike not the dyno operator..The place I use is Dynotech in Batavia NY. The machine is a Superflow dyno capable of inertia reading line a Dynojet and eddy current like the manufactirers use.. Some may still use a water brake, but both work on the same principle
You can read this part of the power sheet... The first two columns are DJ, meaning the machine is operated as DynoJet, usuable for tuning.. The seconf two columns are brake HP like used by manufaturers.The tests were done in third gear of a four speed, The A/f was not hooked up...Notice the difference, about 10 percent...For the record, my creaky of 650 set speed records of 133 plus mph with only 49 "real" rear wheel HP...It ain't the power on a piece of paper that matters, it's putting the power to road that counts..
So based on this evidence,can we assume the "actual" RWHP on the Guzzi is about 60 and if the factory claims 80, then 20 hp was lost in drivetrain?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4433/36184093524_a165aa9312_c.jpg)
-
An example of the same percentage loss on a similar shaft drive bike is the BMW rated 60 HP R100R which on a new bike measured 51 RWHP.
An 1100 Sport was rated by Guzzi at 90 HP and tested at around 76 RWHP (plus or minus about 2 HP). Also the same percentage.
True , but those figures were likely inflated also ,
Look , the point is , what Guzzi should be doing is focusing on how well the new motor works in the real world and not publish questionable HP figures. I realize this is a seemingly small thing , and maybe to most folks it doesn't matter . However , we had a discussion re HP at the Okie , and someone claimed his T3 was rated at 65 HP stock and was really adamant about this . This is how nonsense get started , we make fun of CL ads that make silly claims , why can't we hold the manufacturers to the same standard .
Dusty
-
I believe somebody posted Guzzis dyno sheet in WG. It is anyway available and consistent with the 80 HP figure. I did smile when seeing it that they rounded up instead of down from 79.4 HP or another similar number... the lure of 80 HP versus 79 HP must’ve been too much :grin:
It’s a marvelous achievement that they’ve made such a nice engine out of something that was formerly much underpowered in relation to its competition... for 40 years.
-
DynoJet in Batavia, NY has a reputation second to none.
-
Its interesting how close the V85TT power and torque curves are to the Suzuki and Yamaha middleweight twins, except they are water cooled, 8 valve engines that rev a little higher and are much more complex to maintain. The V85 puts the same power to the ground and makes a little more torque, as one would expect from a larger displacement engine. And in addition to absorbing shaft drive losses, Guzzi is doing this with a single cam, push rod, 2 valve per cylinder, screw valve adjustment, single throttle body, air cooled engine!
Guzzi V85 TT in Cycle World
(https://www.cycleworld.com/resizer/WwvlNluNvSfQfuz2xCAOL3YXdwM=/813x610/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JQQ5YL6SZWZAH5TZJ2KYYCKS3I.jpg)
Yamaha FZ-07 and Suzuki SV650 (https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/suzuki-sv650-vs-yamaha-fz-07-review-comparison/)
(https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/resizer/OCcwtsC9E5CNvqNuTRNeHh2ctSg=/804x603/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LVWLMULM4U47DSIYRNGYVIE56Q.jpg)
-
DynoJet in Batavia, NY has a reputation second to none.
Yup, Jim Czekala the shop owner is not just a dyno operator..He loves doing it and helps you tune the machine based on his experiences over the years. His dyno tests bikes and snowmobiles...Did you know some competition sleds have 750 HP? He's aslo a personal friend of Kevin Cameron..
-
I don't understand why this HP thing is even a thing?
What has Guzzi done that is different than Every Other mfg? As far as I can tell they haven't done anything but follow common practice.
-
I don't understand why this HP thing is even a thing?
What has Guzzi done that is different than Every Other mfg? As far as I can tell they haven't done anything but follow common practice.
Because we don't follow the herd ?
Dusty
-
Because we don't follow the herd ?
Dusty
I've heard that. Or should I say, I've herd that? :wink:
John Henry
-
True , but those figures were likely inflated also ,
Look , the point is , what Guzzi should be doing is focusing on how well the new motor works in the real world and not publish questionable HP figures. I realize this is a seemingly small thing , and maybe to most folks it doesn't matter . However , we had a discussion re HP at the Okie , and someone claimed his T3 was rated at 65 HP stock and was really adamant about this . This is how nonsense get started , we make fun of CL ads that make silly claims , why can't we hold the manufacturers to the same standard .
To reiterate what everyone has already said:
80hp was that crank figure
A 15-20% loss to the wheel is totally normal.
The dyno charts showing mid to high 60’s is normal.
It’s like Winter has come early to WG....
Dusty
-
My understanding is that on dyno runs the actual losses are not anywhere near the 15-20% range , so that really doesn't hold up . Sorry .
Dusty
-
Before we get all judgie here , it isn't a matter of how much power the new motor makes . Some manufacturers didn't post figures for years , terms like "adequate" were used . It is just now here in 2019 when those cheap dynojets are everywhere making it easy to test power , why publish an inflated number . And please don't tell me that 67 RWHP translates to 80 crankshaft HP , the math doesn't work . Just tell us the truth , the engine makes 77 HP at the crank , maybe :laugh: This smacks of those nonsense figures published in motomags back in the day , the "new" engine makes
3 more HP than last year's model , yeah , sure it does :rolleyes:
Dusty
JEZUSSSS mothe@$@^#$ key @%@#$^@ on a Motor BIke....
There's no talking to you.
Did you not pay attention to the earlier posts.
The EU seems to enforce a standard with regard to crankshaft hp testing and reporting.
That standard changed at some point.
Ducati was found to be over-reporting based on that, and compelled to update the data on their website for years. Now they must have served their term because that data appears to be gone (or I can find it now). But I clearly remember some of the ratings because I added them to my spreadsheet.
EXAMPLE
Jenn's Ducati - was rated at 79 hp / 51 ft lbs - crank output by Ducati. It was later "revised" down to 74 hp. Multiple sources Dyno'd it at ~67/44.
That driveline loss is with a CHAIN.
It's perfectly believable that the V85 is up in that ballpark at the crank considering the greater frictional losses of a shaft.
But it didn't ever really MATTER to about 99% of the motorcycling public. Everyone else KNEW they were talking a crankshaft number, maybe one that was slightly optimistic. And most who spend time looking at these stats ALSO were pretty damn sure that it would dyno in mid-to-high 60s.
Viola it has.
and it is competitive with 700-800cc air-cooled, 2V Ducatis.
Damn, that sounds perfect. That DOES NOT sound like something to bitch about constantly feigning ignorance that one thought it would be 80 RWHP, or it can't be anywhere NEAR 80 because... bla bla bla - no - it is or it is close enough, certainly it is where it SHOULD be compared to competitors.
-
My understanding is that on dyno runs the actual losses are not anywhere near the 15-20% range , so that really doesn't hold up . Sorry .
Dusty
Then you need to read up.
-
Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this :laugh:
Dusty
-
Good one Dusty!! :grin:
-
Is it time to play..?
-
Good one Dusty!! :grin:
Not really.
We are all emotionally invested or we would not comment.
Roper/ Kev/Dusty/Beetle/Tusayan/Chuck...et al, have all made comments regarding the fraudulent power claim by Guzzi regarding the V85, these guys are ALWAYS worth listening to among many others, but there are some here who are uncharacteristicall y allowing themselves to be dragged into pointless debate over semantics.
Yes, Guzzi DID build the V85.
Yes, Pete did eat and digest his crow pie and I respect him for his post on the subject.
Yes, Guzzi lied through their yellow teeth to try to attract buyers away from their more credentialed competitors.
Roper had them pegged from the start..(again)
This has morphed from a discussion about power readings from dynamometers into an, “I told you so” debate..
It’s been a cesspit of claim/counterclaim, opinion/rebuttal and spicy debate from the get go.
Not bad for a bike that several noted luminaries said would never see the light of day.. :embarrassed:
I get your point Kev on every level.
Blasting out towards the Kilmore Gap yesterday with 110 km/h of Australian breeze anointing my new bike that would never be built...? :popcorn:
A touch of the RBW throttle and I didn’t care if it was 32.5 hp..
It felt like 100..! :bike-037: and riding bikes for me is more about how it “feels” than how it “is”, on this topic.
And BTW.
What is THAT smell that a new bike makes as the engine fully warms for the first time, it would make a nice spray on fragrance.
It makes me feel as good as when I was 18...(never changes)
-
Good one Dusty!! :grin:
Like I stated earlier , it doesn't really matter . But considering what a stickler for detail some of us are it seems odd that we accept the claim of 80 HP. Hell , it was Roper and Rough who both mentioned the dynojet being optimistic , and they are . Notice that no one even bothered with that ? :laugh: "Everyone does it" seems kinda silly .
Dusty
-
Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this :laugh:
Dusty
Not even a little but I do appreciate physics. :grin: Powertrain loss in motorcycles is a subject of interest to a lot of us. Running energy through a couple 90 degree bends using heavy gears and a shaft is the least efficient of the three methods used to transfer power from the crank to the rear wheel on a motorcycle. It’s accepted by everyone who knows anything on the subject that 15-20% is lost between the crank and wheel. 67/80-1=16.75% loss between the crank and wheel. I don’t feel like digging through my posts on the board from the last six months but I know that’s what we’ve been saying since the bike was announced.
It’s plenty in a 450lb bike to keep most folks entertained. I know I’d love to see a standard/roadster/classically styled sporting bike using the engine. I’d buy one.
-
Huzo, what do you mean by this statement, "Yes, Guzzi lied through their yellow teeth to try to attract buyers away from their more credentialed competitors." Not trying to be coy, but I don't know what you are referring too?
-
Like I stated earlier , it doesn't really matter . But considering what a stickler for detail some of us are it seems odd that we accept the claim of 80 HP. Hell , it was Roper and Rough who both mentioned the dynojet being optimistic , and they are . Notice that no one even bothered with that ? :laugh: "Everyone does it" seems kinda silly .
Dusty
This one reminds me of the problem the world seems to be suffering through now. You have your "facts" and I have mine. I don't know shit about dynos, but some claim that dynojet's are known by everyone to be weighted, others say that is not necessarily the case at all! Does this sound at all familar?
If I wan't to get on the "Guzzi is full of bs bandwagon, I can go down the road that all these dyno reports are BS, and Guzzi claimed 85hp!"
On the other hand, I could go with the other position, " multiple dynos all conclude the stock v85 puts down 66-68 hp, in line with the claimed factory output of 80hp at the crank". Clearly to me anyway, one position is essentially honest and the other is irrational. But it is bizarre how we got here.
-
Not even a little but I do appreciate physics. :grin: Powertrain loss in motorcycles is a subject of interest to a lot of us. Running energy through a couple 90 degree bends using heavy gears and a shaft is the least efficient of the three methods used to transfer power from the crank to the rear wheel on a motorcycle. It’s accepted by everyone who knows anything on the subject that 15-20% is lost between the crank and wheel. 67/80-1=16.75% loss between the crank and wheel. I don’t feel like digging through my posts on the board from the last six months but I know that’s what we’ve been saying since the bike was announced.
It’s plenty in a 450lb bike to keep most folks entertained. I know I’d love to see a standard/roadster/classically styled sporting bike using the engine. I’d buy one.
Except with the Guzzi only one 90 degree corner gets turned . If the run is made in a direct drive gear that also decreases the losses . I sorta grew up in a shop where dirt track racing bikes were built , watched dyno runs with everything from 125CC two strokes to thundering Triumphs and Harleys . One of the first iron head XR's made its way into that shop , everyone was astounded when it made 59HP at 7,200 RPM's . Of course it went boom on its first actual outing. I tend to be skeptical of HP claims , sorry .
Dusty
-
If everybody could stop bickering for moment:
Please explain why a Guzzi's loss of power from the crank to the wheel should be ca 15 - 20 %, and not ca 10 - 15 hp?
I mean, why would a smallblock with say 60 hp at the crank lose significantly less power, measured in hp, than a big block with say 100 hp at the crank?
-
I don't know if this does much to answer your question, but when Guzzi or any mfg makes a claim of hp, which we all now understand, is at the crank, it's a claim only. I'm unaware of anyone taking motors out of bikes so they can verifi crank hp claims. So Guzzi claims, as I recall 52 hp for the v7, which I believe puts down something like 42-44hp. They also claim 55hp for the v9, which puts down 50-51hp. They essentially have the same drive train, yet the claimed hp vs the tire to the tarmac are significantly different by percentage. What's going on?
-
I propose a new standard for power/torque claims.
1. Will pull the skin off a custard.
2. Won't pull the skin off a custard.
-
I propose a new standard for power/torque claims.
1. Will pull the skin off a custard.
2. Won't pull the skin off a custard.
Works for me .
Dusty
-
Those lying Mother Truckers!
October 16, 2019Dirck Edge40 Comments
New Ducati V4 Naked Will Make More Than 200 Horsepower
208 to be exact!
Surly, any real mans dyno will confirm 55-58 hp!
-
Huzo, what do you mean by this statement, "Yes, Guzzi lied through their yellow teeth to try to attract buyers away from their more credentialed competitors." Not trying to be coy, but I don't know what you are referring too?
Ok mate I see.
The lying bit was a reference to the misrepresentation by Guzzi regarding the power prediction that was revealed here early on by Pete.
The yellow teeth bit was a vision I have of some heartless Piaggio exec. who would sell his own Grandmother if it meant he could boost their profits. It’s just a vision, not necessarily reality.
A mental image that personifies a stereotype.
-
why would a smallblock with say 60 hp at the crank lose significantly less power, measured in hp, than a big block with say 100 hp at the crank?
It has to do with the physical size of the driveline components. Bigger components (e.g. gears) designed to carry higher torque tend to have higher losses. As a result, losses tend to be a percentage of the total.
-
Huzo, I'm still in the dark. What was proven out by Pete? I apologize if I'm daft, but I don't know what you're talking about.
-
I really have zero interest in how much power it does or doesn't produce. It's the nonsense spouted and silly claims that give me the shits.
My own experience was that it surprised me, it is fairly weak at the bottom end and, like Charlie with his V7 I personally think that it could do with a bit more flywheel but the midrange is really quite tolerable and it runs out of puff at the top. I assume that the low redline is imposed simply because there is no point in revving it's great wheezyness any higher. It's nowhere near as awful as I thought it would be but it certainly doesn't stir my nethers and I found it bland compared to what I like in a motorbike. (This should not be interpreted as me stating it is totally bland but compared to what I'm used to? Sorry but it is.)
I'm glad it's selling and I'm glad owners are enjoying them.
Pete
-
I get all that Pete, and it all makes sense. I just don't get what Huzo was speaking too.
-
Point of order.
My argument is NOT that everyone lies therefore it's ok.
My argument is everyone understands crank does not equal rear wheel AND comparative claims of crank vs proven rear wheel prove Guzzi was not lying.
-
I'm confused, am I watching WG or Jerry Springer?
-
This is one of the bikes the Moto Guzzi needs to take sales from. (2016 Africa twin and was also done by Cycle World on a DynoJet)
Not that powerful but they have a decent spread of power and a reasonable amount of grunt off the bottom if not a little flat up top.
(https://photos.imageevent.com/time_warp1959/misc/tr5t/RGUTYZ7UXBAG5JQSUB2E3JVBCE.jpg)
At the end of the day, the purpose of the bike needs to be met and that would include decent power in the low to mid range, although the hp numbers have a bearing, seat of the pants is where speculation stops.
The Africa Twin is happy once it gets to 4000 rpm in top gear which is no surprise to me (now) looking at the torque curve.
Comparing the read outs of both bikes, the Moto Guzzi with the smaller engine looks to be doing fine compared to the big Honda and would think it would be a great engine out on the road. (verses the safety of ones couch)
Uh , looks just like the V85 chart , in fact I think it IS the V 85 chart :laugh:
Dusty
-
Very entertaining. Sort of reminds me of NASA and the bumblebee. NASA studies the bee from every known area and concludes that it should not be able to fly. Power to weight, aero efficiency, lift, drag, the whole nine yards. Seems like someone forgot to tell the bee................ ......
-
Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this :laugh:
Dusty
ZZZZZzzzzzziiiinnnn nggggg omfg it's going to be a long winter I see :laugh:
Who needs cable TV :bow: :popcorn: :copcar: :police: :angel:
Carry on men :thumb:
Tks for the giggles after a riding season far too short & ending far too soon
Kelly
-
Very entertaining. Sort of reminds me of NASA and the bumblebee. NASA studies the bee from every known area and concludes that it should not be able to fly. Power to weight, aero efficiency, lift, drag, the whole nine yards. Seems like someone forgot to tell the bee................ ......
Yup! Like the million dollar program to design a pen that would work in space,,, the Russians used a pencil. :rolleyes:
The simpler the engineering the better, anything more than what it takes to make it work well, is too much, jmho
Sometimes guzzi gets it right,
Interesting discussion, especially in regards to torque and the heavier flywheel bikes, like the older V7 & V9.
I've found that although guzzi's aren't known for great power, when I grab a handful of throttle, I always get a nice satisfying shove, :thumb: fwiw ymmv
Kelly
-
New data points:
The German magazine MOTORRAD made a test (after the bike competed favourably in the annually "Alpen Masters" with very diverse bikes). The Dyno used: Dynojet 250. Crank hp computed acc. European standard 95/1/EG , plusminus 5%. The outcome: 56,3 kW (77 hp) @ 7800/min, torque 73 Nm @ 6700/min. The torque curve looks identical to those published above, the power curve almost identical. Another data point: average braking decelaration 10 m/s².
They regarded the bike quite favourably. The main author of the test itself wants to buy a new bike. He is undecided whether to choose the Guzzi or the quite different but fantastic Yamaha Tenere 700. Go figure!
-
It is supposed to be in the high 60s here today so I am going to ride my "weak-assed" V85 and fret over the dyno readings. I know it will just ruin my ride today.
-
It is supposed to be in the high 60s here today so I am going to ride my "weak-assed" V85 and fret over the dyno readings. I know it will just ruin my ride today.
Thanks for making my day. :laugh: No wonder there is so many low mileage Guzzis when the rider is more concerned about dyno reports than riding.
Tex
-
I propose a new standard for power/torque claims.
1. Will pull the skin off a custard.
2. Won't pull the skin off a custard.
The term in Indiana is, "pull granny off the pot." :grin: That came from comparing tractors (Guzzi content) back in the day.
So.. will it or won't it?
I don't get all the arguments. It's built well, some say it absolutely has to have suspension upgrades, some think it's fine. Most that ride it think power output is "adequate." It is *not* selling like rat sandwitches for a change.
No, I'm not in the least interested in one.. it doesn't meet my needs.. but the ADV segment is hot right now, and smaller adventure bikes are hot.
Yay, Guzzi.. :grin:
-
Is the reason why Harley doesn't release HP figures is to prevent pissing matches like this one. There was a big deal about 10 years ago, class action lawsuit I think, against lawnmower manufacturers who were advertising their mowers as having 5hp when in fact they didn't. I think Honda was the biggest offender.
I also seem to remember that the German government would take action against any German auto manufacturer who overstated HP for any of their cars.
On an an opposite view, I collect and run antique and classic outboard motors. Back in the 50's Mercury severely underrated their engines. As an example their 10hp labeled model produced more like 16hp. In actual use they were much faster than 10hp Evinrudes. Mercury sold a lot of motors, a whole new line, due to this deceptive advertising but also due to advanced technology for the day. The main reason for more HP from the same cubic inches as the competition.
kk
-
This thread brings up an interesting observation on perceptions.
* I'm not sure why people are perceiving this as a pissing match. A debate can be passionate without it being a Johnson measuring tool. I don't see the latter in this thread and wonder why/how others do. Perception.
* Talking about these things has no reflection on how much riding one does. And how much much riding one does has no reflection on one's worth (in these debates or in any other way). I kinda struggle to see why one would think or suggest otherwise. Perception.
The comments about taking it personally puzzle me the most. Taking WHAT personally? The hp? The marketing? The debate? It's possible to "care" about something without "taking it personally" which suggests offense. Yet some here seem to be perceiving offense. Projection or Perception?
-
The dyno numbers won't matter if the factory forgot to get grease where it belongs , or the engine goes boom . That was kinda the point all along , Guzzi is touting the all "new" engine , what matters is if quality control has improved .
Dusty
-
The dyno numbers won't matter if the factory forgot to get grease where it belongs , or the engine goes boom . That was kinda the point all along , Guzzi is touting the all "new" engine , what matters is if quality control has improved .
Dusty
Agreed.
But as usual color me optimistic.
-
Is the reason why Harley doesn't release HP figures is to prevent pissing matches like this one. There was a big deal about 10 years ago, class action lawsuit I think, against lawnmower manufacturers who were advertising their mowers as having 5hp when in fact they didn't. I think Honda was the biggest offender.
I wouldn’t be completely surprised if HD doesn’t release numbers to avoid embarrassing themself. :cheesy:
I work for an engine OEM. There are rules they must follow regarding actual horsepower vs. published horsepower although I don’t remember what those rules are. It’s a few percent if I remember right. A common game for manufacturers to play is to start on the low end of the allowable advertised power range so they can advertise power increases in subsequent years with no actual engine or calibration changes. I wouldn’t be surprised if Guzzi went the other way with this engine/bike because the competition all makes more power. But that doesn’t leave them any room to grow either, which may put them farther behind in the long run. Or maybe they just don’t care...
I’m satisfied with the V85 power output. It runs good and does everything I want it to do. All bikes could use more power though so if a big bore kit or some engine mod that will significantly increase the power comes along I’ll definitely consider it.
With regard to your outboard story, the same problem exists in light airplane engines. In comparable engines one manufacturer’s engine makes significantly more power than the other. I suspect the manufacturer that is light on power was being generous with their claimed ratings in order to compete while the other manufacturer was being conservative.
As far as dynos go, the typical DJ simply has a roller of a known mass and the unit figures power by monitoring the time to accelerate the mass. Accurate or not they do seem to produce consistent numbers, which can be seen in this thread by observing that multiple operators are getting similar results. If one wants to measure actual power output you’re going need different equipment. Obtaining a horsepower figure isn’t something I really care about in the test lab anyway.
-
Point of order.
My argument is NOT that everyone lies therefore it's ok.
My argument is everyone understands crank does not equal rear wheel AND comparative claims of crank vs proven rear wheel prove Guzzi was not lying.
Yes, that's what I learned from this thread.
And I'd say it's confirmed by the German dyno figures fossil quoted:
New data points:
The German magazine MOTORRAD made a test (after the bike competed favourably in the annually "Alpen Masters" with very diverse bikes). The Dyno used: Dynojet 250. Crank hp computed acc. European standard 95/1/EG , plusminus 5%. The outcome: 56,3 kW (77 hp) @ 7800/min, torque 73 Nm @ 6700/min. The torque curve looks identical to those published above, the power curve almost identical. Another data point: average braking decelaration 10 m/s².
They regarded the bike quite favourably. The main author of the test itself wants to buy a new bike. He is undecided whether to choose the Guzzi or the quite different but fantastic Yamaha Tenere 700. Go figure!
-
Huzo, I'm still in the dark. What was proven out by Pete? I apologize if I'm daft, but I don't know what you're talking about.
Pete was sceptical to say the least regarding the V85’s ability to produce the power figure claimed.
I think he predicted that the rear wheel would get around 62 or something and he was miles out, he missed by about 2 hp...
Also most of his guts aching was not whether the new bike made the power or not, it was that some poor schmuck spends his hard earned on a bike that he expects to run with his mate’s Duke or Tiger etc.. and then finds he’s been lied to
And no..
You’re not daft :thumb:
-
Thinking about the percentage loss from crank through the drive train to rear wheel... How much would the values change when the mechanism is worn in verses new? We've all heard how it take several thousand miles for a Guzzi to loosen up, and I think I have "felt" it in the few new Guzzis I have bought. May be just confirmation bias, but have not seem to have noticed it on other brands.
-
Pete was sceptical to say the least regarding the V85’s ability to produce the power figure claimed.
I think he predicted that the rear wheel would get around 62 or something and he was miles out, he missed by about 2 hp...
Also most of his guts aching was not whether the new bike made the power or not, it was that some poor schmuck spends his hard earned on a bike that he expects to run with his mate’s Duke or Tiger etc.. and then finds he’s been lied to
And no..
You’re not daft :thumb:
*It dynos at 66-67, meaning he missed by 4-6 hp.
*Again, it dynos like a Ducati Scrambler or 797 Monster where Ducati claims they make 79 hp. People seeing that and seeing Guzzi won't be disappointed in the similar rwhp or real world performance.
-
For god sakes will it ever end? The whole USSR used a pencil and NASA spent millions coming up with a pen is bull crap, it never happened!!
-
Calm down Chad , it'll be alright :laugh:
Dusty
-
For god sakes will it ever end? The whole USSR used a pencil and NASA spent millions coming up with a pen is bull crap, it never happened!!
You sound like you're taking it personally. :azn:
-
For god sakes will it ever end? The whole USSR used a pencil and NASA spent millions coming up with a pen is bull crap, it never happened!!
You may be right, it might have been Crayolas, but I can't verify the details; the original news story was written in vanishing ink :evil:
-
I’m fine. Or maybe I’m not, it’s just frustrating how much misinformation flows around the internet like turds circling the toilet.
-
Those are nice numbers and should be attainable on the V7 as well.
-
I'd wager that if the Guzi rider can't "keep up with his mates xxxxx........" in anything other than a drag race (and who would by an 850 for THAT) then the issue lies with the pilot, not the bike.
-
Those are nice numbers and should be attainable on the V7 as well.
?!?
:shocked:
?!?
Way too many differences....
-
I’m fine. Or maybe I’m not, it’s just frustrating how much misinformation flows around the internet like turds circling the toilet.
Chad, myself being of the "engineering" mindset, it's hard for me too. But I'm coming to grips with the "perception is reality, and facts don't matter" world we now live in.
Remember when a group of guys could set around with some beer and BS back and forth. Then came then smart phone and everything was fact checked on the spot. That really kind of sucked for our social interaction times. Now it has gone the other way where nothing is solid fact, which I am not sure how I feel about it.
-
You guys are alright! :thumb: