Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jurgen on November 16, 2015, 12:48:23 PM
-
Does anyone have any information on the new V9 engine? Is it a small block or big block? If it is truly NEW, (someone mentioned that it is not a further development of the small block 750) I wonder if they got away from the Heron head to allow for further development. Just wondering. Jurgen
-
It's definitely small block based. How many new parts are there? Well those details aren't out yet.
-
If we are to believe the reports (and they are from generally very believable people) it's a small block, hemi head, 2V/cylinder motor that bumps hp a conservative 10% but also seems to lower torque a hair.
-
Where did you get Hemi head from Kev? They're a horrid, dirty, inefficient thing.
Pete
-
Where did you get Hemi head from Kev? They're a horrid, dirty, inefficient thing.
Pete
Our friend Dogwalker has reported it. Says he has friends at the foundry where they're making the castings.
-
Well that will be interesting if it's the case. It would seem to me though that a pent roof 4V would make more sense but I suppose it might cost more.
Pete
-
The prototype photos here http://www.motociclismo.it/galleries/image/13458/218351
and the current V7 here: http://uk.motoguzzi.it/mediaObject/motoguzzi-restyling/notizie/01_MotoGuzzi_V7II_Stone/original/01_MotoGuzzi_V7II_Stone.jpg
Are damn close to the same engine details...the heads look different, but everything from the front to back have similar details. Motociclismo mentions that it is completely new, but I'm sure that is market speak...
-
Completely new means different things to different people. It can be roughly a scaled up V7 with tweaks and be completely new because it uses all new and different parts.
Use the same engine cases and cylinders but a new head (penta for example) with dual exhaust headers ala XR650L and over head cam - completely new as the guts are different and the heads are different.
Slippery slope. I'd prefer a clean sheet design that resembled the 1400 or 1200 engine vs. a rehash of the V7. Peak HP is not as interesting to me as a high peak torque at low rpm. Especially for a bike that looks like the V9 (for a racer version, a more perky-peaky motor would be acceptable).
Completely new = so vague as to be meaningless.
-
I'd prefer a clean sheet design that resembled the 1400 or 1200 engine vs. a rehash of the V7. Peak HP is not as interesting to me as a high peak torque at low rpm. Especially for a bike that looks like the V9 (for a racer version, a more perky-peaky motor would be acceptable).
Completely new = so vague as to be meaningless.
What you and us prefer is not where Piaggio calculates with. They have a 1977 design, and that makes up most of the production. That makes more money then reinventing something completely new. And even if a few more would be sold, it will still be low numbers.
-
Where did you get Hemi head from Kev? They're a horrid, dirty, inefficient thing.
Pete
There's very little difference between pent roof and hemi. Pent roof is necessary where there are 4 valves otherwise the valves can't open far without hitting each other and the cam needs to be kind of complicated. With 2 valves hemi is generally preferable although there's no much in it. The angles of the inlet a exhaust tracks effects power/efficiency more.
-
What you and us prefer is not where Piaggio calculates with. They have a 1977 design, and that makes up most of the production. That makes more money then reinventing something completely new. And even if a few more would be sold, it will still be low numbers.
Alas; you are quite correct in that. sigh......
-
Completely new means different things to different people.
Completely new = so vague as to be meaningless.
Actually in Mandello it means, "Yet another great opportunity to thoroughly botch the valve train on a new model."
-
Actually in Mandello it means, "Yet another great opportunity to thoroughly botch the valve train on a new model."
Lario, flat tappet 1200.... what's next? Yeah, sadly, you might be right.
-
Lario, flat tappet 1200.... what's next?
There are other rumors that Mandello R&D is looking at a revolutionary liquid-cooled, side-valve configuration that resembles the front quarter of a flat head Ford. :grin:
-
There are other rumors that Mandello R&D is looking at a revolutionary liquid-cooled, side-valve configuration that resembles the front quarter of a flat head Ford. :grin:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wait , you're kidding , right ? :huh:
Dusty
-
Lario, flat tappet 1200.... what's next? Yeah, sadly, you might be right.
You forgot the hydraulic lifter fiasco on the 2003 EV.
-
And when they finally get it right they stop production!
Bonkers!
Pete
PS, checked the 13,000km Griso I bought for Dave and yes, the DLC is already failing. What I can't understand is why I never saw this problem for seven years? Believe me I was looking for it!
-
Looking at the photos, I don't see where a timing chain could be for an OHV set up. I would bet that they are making the 850 cc mark with an 84 mm bore and a little more stroke than a 750 engine.
I think that a hemi head would be physically much larger than the one in the picture as well.
So, just a guess here, I bet that engine is a bored and stroked 750cc engine, with a heron head and bigger valves.
I really hope it is, would love to get my hands on V9, change a few things on the body, and bolt some 4V heads on it. A nice light 850, with say 70 to 75 RWHP...that would awesome...
-
Looking at the photos, I don't see where a timing chain could be for an OHV set up. I would bet that they are making the 850 cc mark with an 84 mm bore and a little more stroke than a 750 engine.
I think that a hemi head would be physically much larger than the one in the picture as well.
So, just a guess here, I bet that engine is a bored and stroked 750cc engine, with a heron head and bigger valves.
I really hope it is, would love to get my hands on V9, change a few things on the body, and bolt some 4V heads on it. A nice light 850, with say 70 to 75 RWHP...that would awesome...
Yer an animal, Mike.. :smiley: :thumb:
-
Yer an animal, Mike.. :smiley: :thumb:
Enid Oklahoma , the world center SB speed :laugh:
Dusty
-
OK the official text:
New 850 twin-cylinder Moto Guzzi engine
The V9 Roamer and the V9 Bobber have a new power unit, as usual built at the Moto Guzzi plant in Mandello del Largo. This is of course a 90° transverse V-twin air and oil cooled engine, a set-up used in all current Moto Guzzi engines, albeit with different engine capacities and performance, which provides excellent riding dynamics and a unique sound. It was developed with the explicit aim of maximising torque and elasticity, key aspects for ensuring riding pleasure and on road fun. Starting from the bottom of the engine, the new aluminium crankcase stiffened at the key points, has a new oil pan and an inertia calibrated crankshaft for liveliness and the correct engine braking. Inside the lubrication system is designed to dispose of the greater heat capacity and reduce power absorption to the benefit of both performance and fuel consumption. The ventilation system reduces power loss due to pumping within the crank chambers and a new low flow oil pump that absorbs less power. The oil pump suction pipe is new as is the bypass valve. There are new piston cooling oil jets with check valve and flow management. The alternator cover is also new and now includes the blow-by gas output.
In the upper part of the engine, the thermodynamics are completely new. Aluminium heads, pistons and cylinders are designed to make the most of the engine's characteristics. Its cubic capacity is provided by bore and stroke values of 84x77 mm. Distribution is controlled by a pushrod system and there are two valves per cylinder set at an incline in the head (and no longer parallel, as on the V7 II engine). The fuel supply uses a one-piece Marelli electronic injection system. The electronic engine control unit is new. Of note is the presence in the entrance heads of the auxiliary air system, which, combined with the three-way catalytic converter, the double oxygen sensor and the total redesign of the engine, bring the twin 850 Moto Guzzi into compliance with EU4 standards. The unit is capable of 62 Nm of torque at just 3,000 revs/min, with a maximum power of 55 HP at 6,250 r/min, figures that show Moto Guzzi's commitment to achieving high levels of torque even at low rpms. This engine boasts surprising a character and responsiveness, which contribute to a really exciting riding experience. A version with the power limited to 35 kW is available, in line with the restrictions of an A2 licence and ideal for new Guzzi riders, who can also enjoy a record low total weight and the general ease of riding of both V9s.
AAnother innovative aspect of the 850 Moto Guzzi engine is the 179 mm diameter single dry plate clutch, providing a perfect transmission of torque and power with no jerkiness or hesitation. This increases robustness and reliability over time and decreases the load on the handlebar lever, for better controllability and riding comfort. The six-speed gearbox is new, precise and with a soft clutch, which benefits from unprecedented ratios that make the most of the torque and engine power. The final transmission is carried out by a new double-jointed drive shaft offset by the increased size and the new bevel gear, which provides solid and reliable management of the powerful torque supplied by the twin engine. The cast aluminium swingarm has been designed and sized to support engine performance, as well as to accommodate the new 150 mm tyre.
Chassis architecture: the quality of the Moto Guzzi tradition
Carlo Guzzi was probably the first person to grasp the importance of a frame able to exploit the full potential of the engine and a suspension unit that responds perfectly to the imperfections in the road surface. Indeed, the Norge GT of 1928 was the first motorcycle with a "spring frame", equipped with front and rear suspension, bringing enormous advantages in terms of safety and riding pleasure. The Moto Guzzi tradition is replete with models recognised for their excellent ride qualities. In terms of custom motorcycles, we should really mention the California, which in 1970, under the name V7 Police, was bought by the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) after a series of tough tests.
On the back of this tradition, Moto Guzzi now builds motorcycles like the V7 II and the fleet of the big 1400s, which are real benchmarks in terms of handling in their respective segments. The V9 is the latest jewel from Moto Guzzi for riding pleasure and effectiveness. The new steel twin tube cradle frame creates optimal weight distribution on the front and rear of the engine, thereby providing the rideability and dynamic balance typical of all motorcycles built at Mandello del Lario. The designers paid special attention to the front, which has gussets in the steering head and new slope and trail abilities, making for a superb ride with the perfect combination of handling and stability, as well as precision and feeling. In addition the entire structure benefited from care and finishing of the details, including welding and painting. The suspension is also new, using traditional long-travel (130 mm) inverted forks and a new pair of spring preload adjustable shock absorbers connected to the frame, which provide a gradual and controlled response at all times. The braking system is dedicated to the V9: the forecarriage has a new pump and Brembo opposed four-piston callipers against a 320 mm steel disc. At the rear a pump with integrated tank activates a 260 mm disc and a two-piston floating calliper.
Moto Guzzi Media Platform connects the V9 to the world
An optional multimedia platform is available for Moto Guzzi V9 Roamer and V9 Bobber riders. MG-MP is an innovative multimedia system that allows you to connect the bike to your smartphone and consequently to the web. With this application, downloadable free from the App Store and Google Play, your smartphone (iPhone or Android) becomes an actual sophisticated on board multifunctional computer and the link between the vehicle and the Internet.
The wireless connection allows you to simultaneously view a set of vehicle information on a smartphone screen, so you can constantly have an eye on the travel parameters. The “Eco Ride” feature helps to limit fuel consumption and to maintain eco-compatible riding conduct, providing a brief assessment of the results obtained during the trip.
You can record trip data and review them on your computer or directly on your smartphone, analysing the distance covered together with the vehicle's operating parameters. The system also allows you to easily locate your vehicle when you park in a strange place, automatically saving the position where it was switched off. MG-MP includes the “Grip Warning” function which replicates the indications on traction control operation for maximum visibility and provides information in real time on your riding performance with relation to the road surface conditions. A dedicated indicator light warns in the event of excessive use of available grip. Thanks to the synergistic use of gyroscopes and the information coming from the vehicle, the smartphone becomes a sophisticated instrument to measure the lean angle in turns thanks to algorithms developed specifically for the new Moto Guzzi. The limit thresholds can be set both for lean angle as well as vehicle and engine speed. When these limits are exceeded the relative indicator lights will come on or the virtual dashboard will flash.
Versions and colours
The Moto Guzzi V9 Roamer is available in two different colour variants, both with a glossy finish: Giallo Solare with black inserts; Bianco Classico with red.
The Moto Guzzi V9 Bobber is available in two colours, both with a completely matt finish: Nero Massiccio with yellow inserts and Grigio Sport with red inserts.
Moto Guzzi V9 Roamer: technical specifications
(V9 Bobber data in brackets)
ENGINE
Type 90° V-twin, 4-stroke, 2-valves per cylinder
Cooling air and oil
Engine capacity 853 cm³
Bore and stroke 84 x 77 mm
Compression ratio 10.5: 1
Maximum power 40,44 kW (55 HP) at 6,250 rpm
Torque 62 Nm at 3,000 rpm
Fuel system Marelli MIU single-body electronic injection, integrated management of traction control on 2 levels
Starter electric
Exhaust system stainless steel, 2-in-2 type, three-way catalytic converter with double lambda probe
Emissions compliance Euro 4
TRANSMISSION
Gearbox 6 speeds with final overdrive
Gear ratio values 1st 16/39 = 1: 2,437
2nd 18/32 = 1: 1,778
3rd 21/28 = 1: 1,333
4th 24/26 = 1: 1,083
5th 25/24 = 1: 0,96
6th 28/24 = 1: 0,857
Primary drive with helical teeth, ratio 21/25 = 1: 1.190)
Final drive double universal joint and double bevel gear units (8/33 ratio = 1: 4,125)
Clutch Ø 170 mm single disc with integrated flexible couplings
CHASSIS
Chassis ALS steel twin tube cradle frame
Wheelbase 1480 mm
Trail 125.1 mm (116.1 mm)
Headstock angle 26.4°
Steering angle 38°
Front suspension traditional fork, Ø 40 mm
Front wheel travel 130 mm
Rear suspension swingarm with double shock absorber with adjustable spring preload.
Rear wheel travel 97 mm
Front brake stainless steel floating disc, Ø 320 mm Brembo opposed four-piston callipers
Rear brake stainless steel floating disc, Ø 260 mm Brembo opposed two-piston callipers
Wheels Aluminium alloy
Front wheel rim 2.50” x 19” (3,50” x 16”)
Rear wheel rim 4.00” x 16”
Front tyre 100/90 R 19” (130/90 R 16”)
Rear tyre 150/80 R 16”
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
System voltage 12 V
Battery 12V - 18 Ah
DIMENSIONS
Length 2134 mm (2124 mm)
Width 722,4 mm (892,3 mm)
Height 1110 mm
Saddle height 775 mm (770 mm)
Kerb weight ± 200 Kg
Fuel tank capacity 15 litres
Reserve 4 litres
-
Very unimpressive power numbers.
Very disappointing.
Why would they go through the time and expense of designing an upgraded motor that puts out about the same power of the 750 motor?
The 900 version of the new Triumph will leave the Guzzi behind in the dust.
-
Paul , do the angled valves indicate this is a hemi head or still a Heron head engine ?
Dusty
-
Paul , do the angled valves indicate this is a hemi head or still a Heron head engine ?
Dusty
The copy says the valves are not parallel so that means valves at an angle which would mean some sort of hemispherical head instead of the flat-topped heron heads.
Who cares? Whatever changes they've made seem to have produced little gain over the 750 motor.
Maybe something else is in the works.
-
as Leafman says, but to know for shure we have to wait a little, they come in the shops in the Netherlands "early" 2016. Never trust it as marketing starts with technical details were they have no clue about
-
The copy says the valves are not parallel so that means valves at an angle which would mean some sort of hemispherical head instead of the flat-topped heron heads.
Who cares? Whatever changes they've made seem to have produced little gain over the 750 motor.
Maybe something else is in the works.
Hmm , doesn't your beloved HD keep building larger engines every year with very little real performance gains ? 5 HP is a 10 % gain , the aftermarket makes a fortune every year selling products that do less . Besides , these bikes aren't sold as performance bikes , if you want that , go buy a Yamaha .
Dusty
-
Very unimpressive power numbers.
Very disappointing.
Why would they go through the time and expense of designing an upgraded motor that puts out about the same power of the 750 motor?
The 900 version of the new Triumph will leave the Guzzi behind in the dust.
Could be, as people have been speculating, it was as much for emissions as for power.
And, as Jay pointed out, we both find the small 1-2 hp gain the 1TB offered over the 2TB smallblock to be a not insignificant difference. This appears to be "even more of that" - meaning more than double that.
Maybe it means nothing to the 100 hp crowd, but it might mean something to the rest of us. Time will tell.
-
And, as Jay pointed out, we both find the small 1-2 hp gain the 1TB offered over the 2TB smallblock to be a not insignificant difference. This appears to be "even more of that" - meaning more than double that.
If those 55 HP means 50 at the rear wheel, we have a gain near to the 20% over the V7 II, that's surely sensible.
Still disappointing (from a 850 hemi head, I estimated 58 at the rear), but that could mean that there is room for improvement with more sporty models.
-
If those 55 HP means 50 at the rear wheel, we have a gain near to the 20% over the V7 II, that's surely sensible.
Still disappointing (from a 850 hemi head, I estimated 58 at the rear), but that could mean that there is room for improvement with more sporty models.
How could 55 crank = 50 wheel
When V7 50 crank = 40 wheel
???
-
How could 55 crank = 50 wheel
When V7 50 crank = 40 wheel
???
Only through some miraculously low-loss drive train.
The real answer is, with shaft drive, that ain't happening. 55 crank is likely 44 wheel.
Refer back to previous comments regarding increased emissions controls, real world usable torque etc.
If the V7 line continues, it will have this motor in it by 2017.
-
How could 55 crank = 50 wheel
When V7 50 crank = 40 wheel
10% loss from crank to wheel is the norm.
More loss, means that someone cheated on the specifications.
V7II however have 42 ps at the wheel, and 48 reported on the specs.
-
10% loss from crank to wheel is the norm.
More loss, means that someone cheated on the specifications.
V7II however have 42 ps at the wheel, and 48 reported on the specs.
Norm for what/according to who?
In the automotive world it's 15% manual/20% auto, but can range as high as 35%.
With bikes I'd think it would be lower for chain and highest for shaft.
-
Of note is the presence in the entrance heads of the auxiliary air system, which, combined with the three-way catalytic converter, the double oxygen sensor and the total redesign of the engine, bring the twin 850 Moto Guzzi into compliance with EU4 standards.
Does this mean internal EGR then.
-
10% loss from crank to wheel is the norm.
More loss, means that someone cheated on the specifications.
V7II however have 42 ps at the wheel, and 48 reported on the specs.
Which is 12.5%
Chain is usually to lowest loss at around 10%.
Shaft is more, with 12% to 15% loss.
Belt is inbetween.
-
Which is 12.5%
Chain is usually to lowest loss at around 10%.
Shaft is more, with 12% to 15% loss.
Belt is inbetween.
12-15% of 55 = 6.6-8.25
So
46.75-48.4 rwhp
though I'm more inclined to believe the reports on the 1TB V7 which clearly show 20% from 50 to 40 rwhp
And if that's true on this very similar bike then we're talking 55 - 11 = 44 rwhp.
My optimistic prediction is for MCN to report 45 rwhp sometime in the next year.
-
Chuck's 750cc Hemi Aero mill read 46.6 whp on a dyno. I think the Ippo literature was saying it would make 58 HP.
So with a 14% loss the Ippo should have made 49.88 whp.
Chuck's said he could probably get more, but he's guessing with carbs vs fine tuned fuel injection for the Ippo.
Still, let's say the new engine is Hemi at 850cc. With a 14% loss it should make at least 47.3 whp. That's more than Chuck's, and he has a blast riding it...
I would imagine the air injection, emissions, etc. has also affected performance.
I've read several times online where the V7 sport read 48~50whp on a dyno. Put it in a V7 Racer and maybe people will stop complaining that it's not comparable to a V7 Sport... It will now make at least the same power, while being lighter, and meeting modern standards of emissions, braking, etc.
I just hope they offer the new mill in some finer trim. Maybe a new frame even?
-
Unkept, I still have seen no evidence to suggest such a small loss from MG's claimed crank hp.
And I've not seen a single credible report that suggested the V7 Sport actually put 48-50 to the rear wheel, though I've seen plenty of posts by board members who suggest the MG specs of the period were highly questionable.
-
Unkept, I still have seen no evidence to suggest such a small lots from MG's claimed crank hp.
And I've not seen a single credible report that suggested the V7 Sport actually put 48-50 to the rear wheel, though I've seen plenty of posts by board members who suggest the MG specs of the period were highly questionable.
Sure, Canucks initial results on his bottom up V7 Sport restoration were under 40whp. I think he broke 40 with tuning.
My main point to make is the new engine should make similar power to Chucks Laeiro. He says its a great power ratio for the small block, and I believe him.
Despite the naysayers, I think it will be a fun engine.
I know you understand.... You have a love affair with your current V7. ;)
-
If the horsepower is that big of a concern, just get the new Aprilla with 230 HP.
I have only owned one car with that much horsepower, a 1960 Pontiac.
-
Why would we assume a new 2V Hemi head 850cc smallblock would put out the same hp as the Lario in question?
And yes, I do think the new motor and bike will be a blast like I LOVE my V7. I just don't pretend either is something it is our is capable of something it is not.
-
Norm for what/according to who?
The test bench can approximate the power at the crank basing on the resistance of the drive train in neutral.
The datas for the V7 II are: 42.64 RW, 46.24 crank (48 on the official specs)
BMW R 1200 R: 107.12 - 125.13 (125 spec)
Kawasaki Versys 650: 61.49 - 67.39 (69 spec)
Honda Crossrunner: 97.26 - 106.6 (106 spec)
Yamaha MT-09 Tracer: 102.82 - 112.69 (115 spec)
Yamaha R1 M: 180.74 - 198.1 (200 spec)
BMW R Nine T: 99.19 - 109.82 (110 spec)
Ducati Scrembler 800: 67.82 - 74.33 (75 spec)
HD 883 Iron: 44.41 - 50.24 (nd)
Kawasaki W800: 44.07 - 48.31 (48 spec)
Triumph Bonneville T100: 58.44 - 64.05 (68 spec)
Yamaha XV950R: 46.88 - 51.17 (52 spec)
Aprilia Caponord 1200: 113.72 - 124.65 (125 spec)
Honda Crosstourer: 111.15 - 128.14 (129 spec)
KTM 1290 Super Adventure: 147.15 - 161.28 (160 spec)
Triumph Tiger Explorer 1200: 117.09 - 132.29 (137 spec)
Yamaha XT 1200 Z: 99.99 - 113.04 (112 spec)
Kawasaki Vulcan S: 54.83 - 59.83 (61 spec)
Aprilia Tuono V4 Factory: 159.49 - 174.8 (175 spec)
Indian Scout: 86.65 - 94.97 (100 spec)
Ecc... ecc...
10% loss from crank to wheel is normal.
More loss, means that someone cheated on the specifications.
-
Sure, Canucks initial results on his bottom up V7 Sport restoration were under 40whp. I think he broke 40 with tuning.
After a couple hundred miles the rings fitted in and the compression is an equal 165 +/- per side, running on the lean side it makes 50 ~ 51 hp on the dyno. I think I need to fiddle a bit with the timing (Dyna) it's running too hot, and too lean, if I get 45 hp out of the back tire I am going to call it done!
I have a B10 cam in the 750 S3 I am finishing and want to see what the Dyno results will show.
Surprised that the new technology is not producing more hp.
-
After a couple hundred miles the rings fitted in and the compression is an equal 165 +/- per side, running on the lean side it makes 50 ~ 51 hp on the dyno. I think I need to fiddle a bit with the timing (Dyna) it's running too hot, and too lean, if I get 45 hp out of the back tire I am going to call it done!
I have a B10 cam in the 750 S3 I am finishing and want to see what the Dyno results will show.
Surprised that the new technology is not producing more hp.
:thumb:
It's not that new, still probably pushrods, still air cooled, now Hemi head probably (but that's what is in your sport!).
V7 Sport is still fast enough right? :)
-
:thumb:
V7 Sport is still fast enough right? :)
For 40+ year old technology with drum brakes it's definitely fast enough. :thumb:
-
V7 classic 44-45hp, rear wheel just over 38hp.
Add just under 10%
V7 II. 48hp rear wheel 42hp
Add 10%
New 850 55hp, rear wheel just over 48hp
14% loss in power to rear wheel seems correct for V7II
Classic was probably a bit more loss. Guzzi did say they improved the drive efficiency.
New 850 has over 25% more power than Classic/Breva
At the wheel
-
After a couple hundred miles the rings fitted in and the compression is an equal 165 +/- per side, running on the lean side it makes 50 ~ 51 hp on the dyno. I think I need to fiddle a bit with the timing (Dyna) it's running too hot, and too lean, if I get 45 hp out of the back tire I am going to call it done!
I have a B10 cam in the 750 S3 I am finishing and want to see what the Dyno results will show.
Surprised that the new technology is not producing more hp.
:thumb:
It's not that new, still probably pushrods, still air cooled, now Hemi head probably (but that's what is in your sport!).
V7 Sport is still fast enough right? :)
As Unkept said, the basic architecture, pushrods, air cooled is not new technology, but, the engine management is.
No, it doesn't really make any more power, but, it does so much more cleanly, as required by gov't regulators so that we don't kill the environment for future generations.
-
Dog my friend, I think we're having another communication problem. Language barrier maybe? FWIW, if I was trying to speak another language it would be a very one-sided conversation cause I'd not be able to say a thing.
But you didn't actually answer my question:
The test bench can approximate the power at the crank basing on the resistance of the drive train in neutral.
I was basically asking according to WHOSE TEST BENCH?
I should say that though I enjoy specs and bench racing and all that (to the point of obsession at times) I also recognize that it's hard to compare apples-to-apples when you look at the result of one test bench vs. another. I think these days most manufacturers are relatively accurate with their crank figures and they can be, more or less compared with some accuracy. Certainly any time they are off by much they are caught by the press (if not directly with RWHP testing, indirectly by 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile time testing).
That said, there will always be hero dynos (test benches set to read high to make customers feel good). And some of the results you show below certainly sound like hero dynos or they don't really make your point (my comments in RED):
The test bench can approximate the power at the crank basing on the resistance of the drive train in neutral.
I'm not sure how much I'm going to believe the estimation of the crank power based on an unknown bench, but let's look at the claimed spec vs. actual rwhp
The datas for the V7 II are: 42.64 RW, 46.24 crank (48 on the official specs) This on is puzzling. It's 11.2% below the claimed spec. But I still don't get why Guzzi would claim 2 hp lower than the 1TB V7, unless you're simply saying they were drastically over-stating the 1TB V7 (and most of the modern smallblocks before it).
BMW R 1200 R: 107.12 - 125.13 (125 spec) This doesn't help your case. It shows an 18.01 hp loss to the rear wheel or 14.4%, which is almost 50% more than 10% :wink: But that's more in line with the 15% from a shaft.
Kawasaki Versys 650: 61.49 - 67.39 (69 spec) MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News) rated the Versys at 58-59 hp, which is interesting. Because at your rating it only lost 7.51 hp from spec of 69 or 11%, but according to MCN it's 10 hp or 14.5%.
I deleted a couple of models we don't get or with which I'm unfamiliar.
BMW R Nine T: 99.19 - 109.82 (110 spec) OK, you're showing only 9.8% reduction, but Cycle World got 96.5 which is more like 12.3%, though neither is too shabby, especially for a shaft.
Ducati Scrembler 800: 67.82 - 74.33 (75 spec) You're showing only 9.6% (right inline for a chain), and I should say for the record that MCN (M Consumer News again) got 70 at the rear wheel, which is an amazing only 6.7%
HD 883 Iron: 44.41 - 50.24 (nd) Harley themselves suggest about 47 rwhp which agrees with MCN's test, but yeah, without a factory crank spec we don't have much to go on. I'll say I've seen estimates of 57 crank, which would suggest 17.5% and that seems high even by this discussion.
Triumph Bonneville T100: 58.44 - 64.05 (68 spec) Your own test is suggesting 14% less than spec. MCN suggests even more as the best I can find from them is 57 rwhp or 16% which is a lot for a chain.
Triumph Tiger Explorer 1200: 117.09 - 132.29 (137 spec) Your own specs shows 14.5% here, though once again MCN (M Consumer News) give me 113.94 rwhp or 16.8%
Indian Scout: 86.65 - 94.97 (100 spec) Your own specs say 13.4% from spec, which is funny because I have data that suggests 93.75 hp or a seemingly optimistic only 6.25% of spec, so I'd tend to believe your data more
So what conclusions can we draw from this discussion?
PROBABLY NONE LOL
But we'll try anyway.
10% loss from crank to wheel is normal.
More loss, means that someone cheated on the specifications.
The problem with that statement is it uses an assumption that your test bench is more accurate than any other source. It also, I think, is drawing a conclusion from it's own programming. You're telling me it estimates crank hp BASED on the results it measures, but that assumption must be based on a set formula and you can't actually tell variance from manufacturer spec hp to actual crank hp this way.
The best we can do is compare the ACTUAL measured hp to the claimed spec and we immediately note that the differences vary so wildly it is hard to make an accurate guestimate what the average example of any given bike will measure.
BUT the losses shown just in these examples OFTEN go above the 10% mark.
I'm sorry, but I reject your claim that 10% is an accurate rule of thumb, especially when comparing such different drivelines as Chain, Belt, and Shaft. There's got to be a range.
Of course, none of this really matters. We'll see when the V9 gets in the hands of some testers what they come up with. A couple of dynos and some 1/4 mile times should give us a more apples-to-apples comparison to what is already in the marketplace that has been tested the same way.
I stand by my prediction of 45 rwhp, and maybe a 1/4 time that nudges into the high 13's instead of the low 14's of most modern smallblocks.
-
Yeah, as Jay says, the current smallblock is dealing with much tougher emissions standards.
V7 classic 44-45hp, rear wheel just over 38hp.
Add just under 10%
V7 II. 48hp rear wheel 42hp
Add 10%
New 850 55hp, rear wheel just over 48hp
14% loss in power to rear wheel seems correct for V7II
Classic was probably a bit more loss. Guzzi did say they improved the drive efficiency.
New 850 has over 25% more power than Classic/Breva
At the wheel
Actually I like your math. Aw hell, I just should have read that before delving into the data. That tells the story very nicely.
Good spin!
:thumb:
-
My '13 V7 has been dyno'd to show 41.86 RWHP. The 850 lump ought to do better but if it's still Heron head I would not expect it to see much improvement. Unless this thing has been made hugely over square the valves won't be much, if any, larger and thus the absolute air flow will be unchanged. The bikes are only gaining 50cc per lung so it ain't much change in bore diameter.
BTW, stock the bike dyno'd at 39.57 RWHP...the only change was re-flash by Rexxer. Still have stock exhaust and air cleaner.
Peter Y.
-
Press blurb says inclined valves but makes no mention of included angle or combustion chamber shape or design. I can't believe they would use a domed piston in this day and age so my guess is the included angle will be quite narrow.
Pete
-
I was basically asking according to WHOSE TEST BENCH?
All the above data are collected by the test bench of the magazine Motociclismo in the same year, for maximum comparability.
That said, there will always be hero dynos (test benches set to read high to make customers feel good). And some of the results you show below certainly sound like hero dynos or they don't really make your point (my comments in RED):
Sorry, but in your comments in red you jump from loss from spec to loss from measured crank.
All the above data are collected by the test bench of the magazine Motociclismo in the same year, for maximum comparability. So it's difficult to conclude that "certainly" "some" of the results sound like hero dynos. Statistical fluctuations around the average, and some particularly fortunate/unfortunate drivetrain are what can be expected.
The problem with that statement is it uses an assumption that your test bench is more accurate than any other source.
No, until there isn't another source.
The fact that the test bench of MCN gives other datas, at the RW, than that of Motociclismo (other than to be expected even in the best possible conditions. First cause the test bench of Motociclismo measures PS and that of MCN HP. Second, cause there is a natural variability between two samples of the same bike) has no meaning until it gives no estimates of the power at the crank.
It also, I think, is drawing a conclusion from it's own programming. You're telling me it estimates crank hp BASED on the results it measures, but that assumption must be based on a set formula and you can't actually tell variance from manufacturer spec hp to actual crank hp this way.
The test bench is a measuring instruments like another. His measurements can only be refuted by a more accurate instrument.
You are telling me that you don't believe it, cause you and prefer to believe to your personal guess of 15% - 20% - 35%.
Your choice.
I think I've answered to your question (Norm for what/according to who?) enough. I'm not responsible of your preferences.
-
After a couple hundred miles the rings fitted in and the compression is an equal 165 +/- per side, running on the lean side it makes 50 ~ 51 hp on the dyno. I think I need to fiddle a bit with the timing (Dyna) it's running too hot, and too lean, if I get 45 hp out of the back tire I am going to call it done!
I have a B10 cam in the 750 S3 I am finishing and want to see what the Dyno results will show.
Surprised that the new technology is not producing more hp.
i had two different V7sports on the dyno , both had around the 48-50 rwhp
the b10 cam is pretty similar to the v7sport cam, so 50 rwhp should be just possible
i am not amazed a modern v7 doesnt get the same hp as a v7sport,
the v7sport needs to be revved hard to get anywhere, not what guzzi wants for a retro bike like the v7
-
Well, I'm afraid we are missing out by forgetting
an inertia calibrated crankshaft for liveliness
That alone should really make it perform. :smiley:
This kind of worries me, though..I really hope they have done their math.
and a new low flow oil pump that absorbs less power.
For sure, the oil pump does eat some power, but.....
Just the same, if it puts out around 50 hp at the rear wheel, and doesn't weigh significantly more than the Lario, performance should be fine.
-
Sorry, but in your comments in red you jump from loss from spec to loss from measured crank.
I'm pretty sure all my calculations were rwhp losses from spec only. But I've got a sick 1.5 and 4 year old constantly distracting me today so I may have missed one.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand why you like that source. It's like how I tend to use MCN when available.
And I'll add that now often than not the results were close enough to assume slight differences in particular unit or testing is the explanation.
But I don't see where even your days proved your point of 10%. Especially from "calculated crank".
No matter, this possibly means little or nothing in the scheme of things.
I do continue to appreciate all the info you so readily provide.
Thank you.
-
Comparing BB to SB, my 850LM3 used to eat Lario's for lunch let alone a 2V SB. No comparison.
Maybe they'll produce the updated 66mm BB 850 Griso motor in 4V head, that would be a motor!!
-
I do not even vare to read all the postings om this tjene ås I am deeply dissapointrd. Even my old 850 Griso hadde 75 hp. I'm not getting å new Guzzi with this engine!!
-
I'm sitting here wondering who uses 50 hp during their average ride, and for how long, on a bike that weighs in the 400 lb range.
-
I'm sitting here wondering who uses 50 hp during their average ride, and for how long, on a bike that weighs in the 400 lb range.
<dancing around in seat with hand in the air> Me, me. Can I have more? :smiley:
well, not really...<looking over shoulder>
-
I do, all the time!!!
-
I'm sitting here wondering who uses 50 hp during their average ride, and for how long, on a bike that weighs in the 400 lb range.
<raises hand>
I do, on my Monster 796. :evil:
But, only for a few seconds at a time. :grin:
-
But I don't see where even your days proved your point of 10%. Especially from "calculated crank".
The average loss from (measured) crank to RW of the 20 samples reported is 9.64%
I do continue to appreciate all the info you so readily provide.
My pleasure.
Thanks. :grin:
-
The average loss from (measured) crank to RW of the 20 samples reported is 9.64%
But Motoclismo DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEASURE THE CRANK hp.
You said they calculated it based on their dyno runs no?
That means using some formula that is sounding very close to 10%.
Do you know HOW THEY go about it?
What tells us their calculations are accurate?
Unless you're ALSO telling me they removed each motor and performed a test at the crank???
That's why I was basing my loss numbers on the spec.
-
But Motoclismo DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEASURE THE CRANK hp.
It did.
The test bench is a measuring instruments like another. It estimates the loss from crank to RW from the drag of the transmission when driven in neutral. It's an estimate, like is an estimate the distance, direction and speed measured by a radar equipment.
It's measurements can only be refuted by a more accurate instrument. Not by someone saying that the measurement can be wrong.
To not like the instrument is your personal choice. But has not an objective value.
The measure of the instrument has.
That's why I was basing my loss numbers on the spec.
That's surely worse, since, that way, you are mixing the measures of many different test bench, even in the case the specs are effectively measured, and not written as they are for other reasons.
-
It did.
The test bench is a measuring instruments like another. It estimates the loss from crank to RW from the drag of the transmission when driven in neutral. It's an estimate, like is an estimate the distance, direction and speed measured by a radar equipment.
It's measurements can only be refuted by a more accurate instrument. Not by someone saying that the measurement can be wrong.
To not like the instrument is your personal choice. But has not an objective value.
The measure of the instrument has.
That's surely worse, since, that way, you are mixing the measures of many different test bench, even in the case the specs are effectively measured, and not written as they are for other reasons.
Ahhhhhhhh, ok, I'm sorry. I missed the explanation on the crank estimation.
So the difference in my estimations and yours is that mine don't take into account the variance in individual builds from OEM spec. And it is THAT variation that is allowing the loss calculation to vary from 10-18% which is an error in my data.
I see your point and have to concede then that I'm wrong.
Assuming the Motoclismo crank estimation is accurate (and I can accept that), then I can't argue anymore.
Thanks for the patience. I get it.
-
We need a lightbulb emo :laugh:
Dusty
-
We need a lightbulb emo :laugh:
Dusty
A BIG ONE! :embarrassed:
-
We need a lightbulb emo :laugh:
Dusty
He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family.. :smiley: <running and ducking>
-
He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family.. :smiley: <running and ducking>
Wait, you talking about ME or my BIKE?
... WAIT... BOTH???? :thewife:
-
He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family.. :smiley: <running and ducking>
Fortunately for me that "family" thing is true :rolleyes:
A BIG ONE! :embarrassed:
It was a very productive conversation , and not bad to admit we don't know it all :thumb:
Dusty
-
Assuming the Motoclismo crank estimation is accurate (and I can accept that), then I can't argue anymore.
Obviously it will be even better to remove each motor and perform a test at the crank. That will be a "more accuate instrument".
But, by the fact that, in many cases, the bench of the magazine obtained results that are very similar to the specs, so two different instruments indipendently obtained the same result, I can think is pretty accurate.
Thanks for the patience. I get it.
Nothing! :grin: