V9 engine?

[Dogwalker]

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.

[Kev m]

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.

[Dogwalker]

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.

[Kev m]

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.

[oldbike54]

 We need a lightbulb emo 

  Dusty

[Kev m]

We need a lightbulb emo 

  Dusty

A BIG ONE! 

[Chuck in Indiana]

We need a lightbulb emo 

  Dusty

He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family..  <running and ducking>

[Kev m]

He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family..  <running and ducking>

Wait, you talking about ME or my BIKE?










... WAIT... BOTH???? 

[oldbike54]

He can be a little slow.. but he's part of the family..  <running and ducking>

 Fortunately for me that "family" thing is true 
 
 

A BIG ONE! 

 It was a very productive conversation , and not bad to admit we don't know it all 

  Dusty

[Dogwalker]

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!