Because manufacturer stated numbers are sometimes grossly inaccurate, either under or over-rating an engine. We have plenty of data regarding what these bikes actually put out. That is what I am concerned with, not what Honda claims.
I didn't unload anything. Still not sure why the aggressive responses?
I am not confusing anything. I have a very good handle on setting up this bike.
Yes it often does. Full throttle is a range of throttle movement available from idle to red line. It is possible to have full throttler at 2,000rpm or 13,800rpm. And the amount of power on hand will depend on the throttle blade position not the throttle grip position. A relationship managed by the infinitely configurable ETV tables.
For a specific task at hand. Under normal circumstances Map 1 is dialed up. The most aggressive one.
Actually this is why even the HRC bike still allows preset Mode1/2/3 and User1/2 selection so that an appropriate preset setup can be selected when needed.
Only if you need a softer map, for the rest of the time there will always be a super aggressive map on hand available to be selected.
The new 600 Honda also comes with the same Multi Mode selectable map setup we have in the SC77 (and SC82)
You designed a great mid range, softer map.
What incentive does Honda have to lie to the Feds?
Ya show how is my map which as 100% blade at 100% throttle slower than the other map that has 100% blade at 100% throttle?
Data from engine dynos?
Only power 8 & 9 are power capped.
This isn't a dyno chart, its a EVT table. Just because the line is lower doesn't mean the bike is slower.
ETV table.
Why are you telling me this? I think everyone can quickly see that its capped by looking at the line graph.
Also quit playing the victim card over and over. I'm not here cursing or being racist.
I don't know all the incentives they have to skew a number, and I did not claim that they lie.
😂You should listen to him. He's a pro with hundreds of dyno runs and access to charts us idiots couldn't even comprehend.I don't know all the incentives they have to skew a number, and I did not claim that they lie.
All I'm saying is that comparing wheel horsepower (especially when performed on the same dyno under similar conditions) figures is much more useful than comparing stat sheets.
Let's assume the Honda numbers are 100% correct as you claim, and again let's look at actual data of a stock bike vs a stock bike with your tune. Same dyno, similar conditions.
Stock it made 156.31 hp. That equals 7% drivetrain loss if we assume the 168 hp # to be correct, as you do.
In that case after yor tune, assuming the 189 hp # is correct, as you do, the bike should have made at least 175.77 hp.
But it didn't. It only made 164.39 hp. Your argument is that all 11+ hp are missing because the dyno operator did not roll on the throttle correctly at 3k rpms.
And you supposedly have hundreds of dyno runs that provide evidence of said phenomena, but you have yet to share one dyno run
View attachment 261933
At the lean angles RC45 runs, that strategy probably works for him
Yes this is the most likely scenario.I don't know all the incentives they have to skew a number, and I did not claim that they lie.
All I'm saying is that comparing wheel horsepower (especially when performed on the same dyno under similar conditions) figures is much more useful than comparing stat sheets.
Let's assume the Honda numbers are 100% correct as you claim, and again let's look at actual data of a stock bike vs a stock bike with your tune. Same dyno, similar conditions.
Stock it made 156.31 hp. That equals 7% drivetrain loss if we assume the 168 hp # to be correct, as you do.
In that case after yor tune, assuming the 189 hp # is correct, as you do, the bike should have made at least 175.77 hp.
But it didn't. It only made 164.39 hp. Your argument is that all 11+ hp are missing because the dyno operator did not roll on the throttle correctly at 3k rpms.
And you supposedly have hundreds of dyno runs that provide evidence of said phenomena, but you have yet to share one dyno run
Lots of vinegar in your post - you seem bitter about something?At the lean angles RC45 runs, that strategy probably works for him
(Pic is from How to remove Chicken Strips (and fries) without the track? post #12)
In your own words "Maybe learn to read. Read it again. And after that, read it once more."
In your own words again in regards to the tome of your own posts "Maybe learn to read. Read it again. And after that, read it once more." - would you take on the mealy mouthed attitude and tone in person with people, or is it just reserved for online interactions?
Ya, that's a car/truck with an automatic transmission. Rate sensors are useful the so the car can downshift if you floor it; among other things.
I did a little more than just read graphs. I made my own map and tested it, and modified it over many iterations. I also did make assumptions/hypothesis and tried them out in my map. Some were wrong, some were right. That's how the scientific process works.
Indeed, welcome to the 21st century where we use the scientific method and don't just blindly listen to "experts."
Funny how you say there's nothing new here, the proceed to add nothing new to the debate.
Yes, I'm lazy for doing my own map, sharing, and then using logic, graphs and charts to explain my reasoning.
Not true. I want him explain and prove his statement. He's the one who posted it, he CHOSE to join this conversation. Notice how when some other people made comments about the stuff I CHOSE to share I didn't call them lazy fucks and instead explained my reasoning.
pretty much.....
Your friend HP17 pointed out your map, while logically and intelligently constructed, would slow things down, even compared to a base EU map.
Your responses are stark proof of just how ignorant you are of the real world.
So your response to me saying "you didn't add anything to the conversation except name call" is to continue to name call.
