Honda CBR 1000RR Forums banner

61 - 80 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
Rated 189bhp at the engine, which is not that much down on power compared to 17-19 contemporary 1000s (6hp to 11hp diff.), even stock 165rwhp would mean 13% drive train loss to friction - a rather high number for a motorcycle.

Restore the ETV tables to EU stock and remove the intake tube restrictions and you have restored the bikes to Honda advertised power levels.
Add a full exhaust and decent tune and these bikes are 180rwhp+ bikes.
:LOL: Stuck at step 1 I see.

In this example your own ECU flash only made 164hp compared to 156hp stock, a +8hp improvement. A simple derestriction should add more than that. And that is with the "stage 2" tune, what does the stage 1 tune do?
261907


A full exhaust is not going to add another 16+ horsepower.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
The engine is rated from Honda at 189bhp in stock EU ETV form. This is fact,not speculation.
IOW, a 100% stock bike with EU spec ECU is 189bhp. The engine is still rated and will still produce that power.
Or are we to believe that Honda has misrepresented the bikes power output to the German TUV and the US EPA?

In the above example the US bike rated at 168bhp posted 156rwhp. An apparent drive train power loss to friction of 12hp - roughly 7%.
If that 1st is to be taken at face value then the 164rwhp measurement is demonstrably not correct, as there is a significant difference between the power made available by the ETV tables of a stock US ECU and even a stock EU ECU.
Enough that Honda themselves claim a 21hp difference between the the 2 bikes when using the 2 different ECUs.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
Do you have an explanation for why the 164hp is not correct? The rest of the curve matches up nicely so it doesn't look like an environmental, calibration, or correction issue.

Can you provide counter examples that demonstrate the above example is an outlier?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
Do you have an explanation for why the 164hp is not correct? The rest of the curve matches up nicely so it doesn't look like an environmental, calibration, or correction issue.

Can you provide counter examples that demonstrate the above example is an outlier?
Yes - put the bike on the dyno, roll the throttle on 4 different ways and you will get 4 different readings.
The way you roll the Honda throttle on, influences the power delivered.
Lazy throttle roll-on will deliver lazy numbers.

And again, Honda themselves have rated the 2 setups at 168bhp and 189bhp.

edit
And just go run a full power SC77 setup on the road. You will feel the 20hp difference and be able to demonstrate it in time to MPH tests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Yes - put the bike on the dyno, roll the throttle on 4 different ways and you will get 4 different readings.
The way you roll the Honda throttle on, influences the power delivered.
Lazy throttle roll-on will deliver lazy numbers.

And again, Honda themselves have rated the 2 setups at 168bhp and 189bhp.

edit
And just go run a full power SC77 setup on the road. You will feel the 20hp difference and be able to demonstrate it in time to MPH tests.
Sorry but your explanation makes no sense when looking at the facts of the matter, that being the dyno chart I posted.
The plots match each other perfectly up until 10k+ rpms, then they diverge. The dyno operators at Lee's cycles are not stupid and they would not roll off the throttle mid-run.:rolleyes:
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
Sorry but your explanation makes no sense when looking at the facts of the matter, that being the dyno chart I posted.
The plots match each other perfectly up until 10k+ rpms, then they diverge. The dyno operators at Lee's cycles are not stupid and they would not roll off the throttle mid-run.:rolleyes:
I never said roll off the throttle mid run. I clearly stated "the way you roll on the throttle influences the power delivery".

You are of course free to your opinion. But again, Honda has rated the US nerfed ETV table bike at 168bhp and the open EU ETV table bike at 189bhp through the stock exhaust and cats. It sounds like you are not really willing to accept Honda at their face value either.

I have run about 100 dyno pulls on SC77s - how you roll the throttle on impacts the number measured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
The downside with forcing the rider to wind the throttle up to get the power down is that they will almost always dial in more wrist than they needed to and you get a "nothing, nothing nothingggg. noooooothing... BAM!!! here is the power you asked for" power delivery
What? That makes no sense. How did you come up with this conclusion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
The engine is rated from Honda at 189bhp in stock EU ETV form. This is fact not speculation.
IOW, a 100% stock bike with EU spec ECU is 189bhp. The engine is still rated and will still produce that power.
Or are we to believe that Honda has misrepresented the bikes power output to the German TUV and the US EPA?

In the above example the US bike rated at 168bhp posted 156rwhp. An apparent drive train power loss to friction of 12hp - roughly 7%.
If that 1st is to be taken at face value then the 164rwhp measurement is demonstrably not correct, as there is a significant difference between the power made available by the ETV tables of a stock US ECU and even a stock EU ECU.
Enough that Honda themselves claim a 21hp difference between the the 2 bikes when using the 2 different ECUs.

What are you even talking about? The reason the US models have lower power is not because of how your roll in the the throttle or the curvature of the EVT. Its because the US map LITTERALLY has the valve go back to 73% at full throttle once you reach 10k RPM. And this will continue to rev limit.
261910


Compare that to the EU EVT.
261911


And this demonstrated perfectly in those dyno comparisons.
Notice how the power in the graph is the same for both bikes until you reach 10500. At which point he US bike starts to make less power, because the EVT map has it go to 73%. This is where the 26 or so HP loss comes from. And this is mainly why people flash their ECU.
This is also true for newer gen ZX10r and (I think GSXRS and R1 but I don't feel like digging around for those.)

I never said roll off the throttle mid run. I clearly stated "the way you roll on the throttle influences the power delivery".
Ya, that just sounds stupid, and I'm my experience, the bike doesn't do that.
It seems to me that you made this misguided conclusion because you didn't understand the things above.


You should also note that the bike doesn't give the save EVT for a specific grip angle. It also changes based on RPM. This is likely why you feel that
I never said roll off the throttle mid run. I clearly stated "the way you roll on the throttle influences the power delivery".
Lets take 2 examples.
-at 4000 rpm no throttle and very quickly turn to 50%.
-at 4000rpm no throttle and slowly turn to 50%.

Case 1.
261913



Or if we very slowly apply the throttle.
261914



This is likely what you're experiencing.

So of course
I clearly stated "the way you roll on the throttle influences the power delivery".
And that's because of how the EVT table is designed.
And then you go and say stupid shit like this.
The throttle is how the power is made available to the bike, so the ETV tables are the power management interface - This map will make the bike effectively much slower than even a stock Euro bike on track.

Honda already paired the system with a very effective TC/WC system to allow the rider to access as much power as they want to get at (ETV tables permitting) and then if too much is on tap and the bike begins to waste energy rotating about the rear axle it gently puts the front wheel down by closing the throttle on you and you just keep holding the throttle open because once the wheel is settled, the bike puts throttle back where you have it.. or if the wheel begins to slip it reduces throttle just enough to mitigate slip then gives you back what you are asking for.

The downside with forcing the rider to wind the throttle up to get the power down is that they will almost always dial in more wrist than they needed to and you get a "nothing, nothing nothingggg. noooooothing... BAM!!! here is the power you asked for" power delivery. And with 180rwhp coming online like that, the chassis might be prone to abruptly spin up/hoist the front wheel and force the TC/WC to abruptly intervene rather than smoothly come online.
Come on man, you're supposed to be an expert, but now it just feels like you're trolling.
 

Attachments

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
What? That makes no sense. How did you come up with this conclusion?
100+ dyno runs with the SC77.

What are you even talking about? The reason the US models have lower power is not because of how your roll in the the throttle or the curvature of the EVT. Its because the US map LITTERALLY has the valve go back to 73% at full throttle once you reach 10k RPM. And this will continue to rev limit.
Perhaps you should read before shooting from the hip.

I have literally spent more time in this ECU since 2018 than most. There is nothing about the makeup of the tables that I don't know. I have posts dating back 4 years covering this in excruciating depth. In fact there are many more tables that Woolich does not even expose I am familiar with.

I stated that the rear wheel hp measured on the dyno is easily influenced by how you roll the throttle on. I never started that's why the US bike is weaker than the EU bike.

But what I am telling you is that your map will result is a slower bike - period.

I have been friendly and cordial in my replies and actually have held back a lot of "ammunition" so as not to come across as a jerk - I was going to share exactly why you are misguided in the way you are approaching this and are simply going to make your bike slower and slower, but I think I'll just watch you mouth off instead (y)
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
What in the below statement is "stupid shit"?

And then you go and say stupid shit like this.

The throttle is how the power is made available to the bike, so the ETV tables are the power management interface - This map will make the bike effectively much slower than even a stock Euro bike on track.

Honda already paired the system with a very effective TC/WC system to allow the rider to access as much power as they want to get at (ETV tables permitting) and then if too much is on tap and the bike begins to waste energy rotating about the rear axle it gently puts the front wheel down by closing the throttle on you and you just keep holding the throttle open because once the wheel is settled, the bike puts throttle back where you have it.. or if the wheel begins to slip it reduces throttle just enough to mitigate slip then gives you back what you are asking for.

The downside with forcing the rider to wind the throttle up to get the power down is that they will almost always dial in more wrist than they needed to and you get a "nothing, nothing nothingggg. noooooothing... BAM!!! here is the power you asked for" power delivery. And with 180rwhp coming online like that, the chassis might be prone to abruptly spin up/hoist the front wheel and force the TC/WC to abruptly intervene rather than smoothly come online.

BTW: the throttle action, independent of the ETV tables is already non-linear; internally there is not a 1:1 relationship between the throttle grip angle and the throttle position sensor of the throttle blade, so while your logic and math is spot on, in this case the throttle action has been slowed down considerably.

As noted, see the Euro ETV table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I have been friendly and cordial in my replies and actually have held back a lot of "ammunition" so as not to come across as a jerk - I was going to share exactly why you are misguided in the way you are approaching this and are simply going to make your bike slower and slower, but I think I'll just watch you mouth off instead
Ammunition? Lol. Is this some sort of competition to you?

If you're gonna make statements, such as
But what I am telling you is that your map will result is a slower bike - period.
Back them up with data, charts or anything. Not using argument of authority.


I have literally spent more time in this ECU since 2018 than most. There is nothing about the makeup of the tables that I don't know. I have posts dating back 4 years covering this in excruciating depth. In fact there are many more tables that Woolich does not even expose I am familiar with.
Argument of authority again. Show some data.

100+ dyno runs with the SC77.
Argument of authority again. Show some data. You have 100+ dyno runs of data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
What in the below statement is "stupid shit"?
The downside with forcing the rider to wind the throttle up to get the power down is that they will almost always dial in more wrist than they needed to and you get a "nothing, nothing nothingggg. noooooothing... BAM!!! here is the power you asked for" power delivery. And with 180rwhp coming online like that, the chassis might be prone to abruptly spin up/hoist the front wheel and force the TC/WC to abruptly intervene rather than smoothly come online.
That part. Did you even read what you wrote?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I have been friendly and cordial in my replies and actually have held back a lot of "ammunition" so as not to come across as a jerk - I was going to share exactly why you are misguided in the way you are approaching this and are simply going to make your bike slower and slower, but I think I'll just watch you mouth off instead
This statement really shows that you're just here to try flex and show people how much smarter you think you are than everyone else. Tell everyone they're wrong because of data no one else has access to, but not actually provide or explain that data.

Now I'm starting to see why people go off on you throughout the forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
This statement really shows that you're just here to try flex and show people how much smarter you think you are than everyone else. Tell everyone they're wrong because of data no one else has access to, but not actually provide or explain that data.
But what I am telling you is that your map will result is a slower bike - period.
Courter argument.
I will not make the bike slower - period.

Is that how it works? I just make a statement and add "- period."?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Discussion Starter #76
I never said roll off the throttle mid run. I clearly stated "the way you roll on the throttle influences the power delivery".

You are of course free to your opinion. But again, Honda has rated the US nerfed ETV table bike at 168bhp and the open EU ETV table bike at 189bhp through the stock exhaust and cats. It sounds like you are not really willing to accept Honda at their face value either.

I have run about 100 dyno pulls on SC77s - how you roll the throttle on impacts the number measured.
Rolling off the throttle makes a lot more sense than what you are saying. You are seriously saying that how you roll on the throttle at 3k rpms makes a difference in the power output at 11k rpms??? Give me a break.

No I don't take vehicle rated power figures at face value. Wheel horsepower readings are much more reliable. You should know that.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,479 Posts
Rolling off the throttle makes a lot more sense than what you are saying. You are seriously saying that how you roll on the throttle at 3k rpms makes a difference in the power output at 11k rpms??? Give me a break.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Go ahead and put your bike on the dyno and try it out.

No I don't take vehicle rated power figures at face value. Wheel horsepower readings are much more reliable. You should know that.
You should - they are provided to the Feds by the manufacturer for noise mitigation purposes and Honda especially is not about to make false statements to them.

Ammunition? Lol. Is this some sort of competition to you?
No, but it seems to be to you. Why the need for the aggression?

This statement really shows that you're just here to try flex and show people how much smarter you think you are than everyone else. Tell everyone they're wrong because of data no one else has access to, but not actually provide or explain that data.

Now I'm starting to see why people go off on you throughout the forums.
You're lashing out because I am not taking your bait - that is why others lash out as well.

You posted some throttle maps and stated they will make your bike faster.
I waited a while then responded that no, that type of map wont make the bike faster the way you think it will.
And you got all defensive and angry. Posting all your visual aid ammo to defend your attack.

The reality is that when HRC try to soften and slow down the race bike, they use a map profile similar to what you have chosen to use.
When they need the bike to be faster and hit harder they use a map style closer to what HP17 suggested.

Not sure why you find the need to get so angry and defensive and lash out when an opposing opinion is offered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
You posted some throttle maps and stated they will make your bike faster.
Never stated it will make my bike faster. Maybe learn to read before unloading your "ammunition". You're a little trigger happy aren't you.

This is my original statement.
Also I've spend quite a bit of time making my own EVT table. I've used bilinear interpolation methods and python scripts to get something that is smooth on low throttle and still has 100% on full throttle. Let me know if you guys wanna try it out.
Read it again. And after that, read it once more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
The reality is that when HRC try to soften and slow down the race bike, they use a map profile similar to what you have chosen to use.
When they need the bike to be faster and hit harder they use a map style closer to what HP17 suggested.
I think you're confusing the terms faster/aggressive and slower/(less aggressive).

When you say "soften and slow down the race bike", does that mean it looses power at full throttle? I assume not. What is assume is they make the power come online slower and more progressive. It doesn't mean the bike is literally slower at full throttle.

And since you mention that race teams "try to soften and slow down the race bike", have you asked yourself why? Why would a race team that is trying to go as fast a possible "slow down their bike" as you call it?

Could it be that actually riding the bike on a track/road while cornering, and going over bumps and humps, is a very different from just doing dyno pulls?
Could it be that they are choosing a softer/less aggressive map to help the rider maintain stability and consistency?
Could it be that having a bike that is less aggressive allows the rider to more precisely control the power mid corner and coming out of corner?
Could it be that having a less aggressive bike in the low throttle range doesn't actually sacrifice peak power? And and the bike will still go when on the straight?

You inadvertently showed why map actually makes sense with this statement.
The reality is that when HRC try to soften and slow down the race bike, they use a map profile similar to what you have chosen to use.
A lot of people don't have the suspension, tires, geometry, or skill to take a 1000cc bike and map it aggressively and take advantage of that aggressive map. Ever wonder my most people recommend a 600cc as a track bike? Having a less aggressive map will benefit (it think) most people.

Which is why I shared my map.
 
61 - 80 of 128 Posts
Top