V85TT Dyno by Cycle World

[oldbike54]

 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

[Kev m]

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  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 

 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.

[JohninVT]

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.

[oldbike54]

 Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this 

 Dusty

[bad Chad]

Good one Dusty!!

[Huzo]

Is it time to play..?

[Huzo]

Good one Dusty!!

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.. 
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...?
A touch of the RBW throttle and I didn’t care if it was 32.5 hp..
It felt like 100..!  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)

[oldbike54]

Good one Dusty!!

 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 ? "Everyone does it" seems kinda silly .

 Dusty

[JohninVT]

Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this 

 Dusty

Not even a little but I do appreciate physics.  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.

[bad Chad]

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?

[bad Chad]

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 ? "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.

[oldbike54]

Not even a little but I do appreciate physics.  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

[pebra]

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?

[bad Chad]

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?

[beetle]

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.

[oldbike54]

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

[bad Chad]

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]

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.

[Tusayan]

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.

[bad Chad]

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 roper]

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

[bad Chad]

I get all that Pete, and it all makes sense.  I just don't get what Huzo was speaking too.

[Kev m]

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.

[lucian]

I'm confused, am I watching WG or Jerry Springer?

[oldbike54]

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.



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 

 Dusty

[kingoffleece]

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................ ......

[80CX100]

Apparently some of us are emotionally invested in this 

 Dusty

        ZZZZZzzzzzziiiinnnn nggggg    omfg it's going to be a long winter I see 

        Who needs cable TV         

         Carry on men 

        Tks for the giggles after a riding season far too short & ending far too soon

        Kelly

[80CX100]

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.

     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,  fwiw ymmv
   
     Kelly

     

     

[fossil]

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!

[blu guzz]

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.