V9 engine?

[Dogwalker]

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.

[Kev m]

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.

[pikipiki]

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.

[rocker59]

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.

[Kev m]

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.

[Unkept]

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?

[Kev m]

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]

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. ;)

[Sasquatch Jim]

  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.

[Kev m]

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.

[Dogwalker]

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.

[canuck750]

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.

[Unkept]

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.

 

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? :)

[canuck750]

V7 Sport is still fast enough right? :)

For 40+ year old technology with drum brakes it's definitely fast enough. 

[pikipiki]

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

[jas67]

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.

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.

[Kev m]

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%  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.

[Kev m]

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!

 

[pyoungbl]

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.

[Vasco DG]

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

[Dogwalker]

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.

[huub]

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

[Chuck in Indiana]

Well, I'm afraid we are missing out by forgetting

an inertia calibrated crankshaft for liveliness

That alone should really make it perform. 
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.

[Kev m]

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.

[guzzisteve]

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!!

[Guzzistaracing]

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!!

[Aaron D.]

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.

[Chuck in Indiana]

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? 

well, not really...<looking over shoulder>

[Guzzistaracing]

I do, all the time!!!

[jas67]

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.   
But, only for a few seconds at a time.