wow..........maybe in the near future

 

8)

 

On further thought on the hp:

The 205 hp figure of the "5300" kit is on their dyno 14 hp over the "3300" kit. So that means the "3300" kit is about 191 hp on their dyno.

And in turn, the "3300" kit (with pipe and Power Commander) is on their dyno 24 hp over stock. So that means that stock is about 167 hp on their dyno.

That's a "happy" figure -- perhaps an average figure for the stock 10 is about 155 hp I'd guess, from seeing various reports.

That would make a "Carpenter hp" equal to about 155/167 of a typical SAE hp, or about 0.928 hp. Which in turn would make the 205 Carpenter hp come out to a predicted 190 hp on most dynos. And a relative gain to stock of 35 hp.

Still awesome for such a small and light bike -- and further, the 1/4 mile time and ET speak for themselves. Really, really impressive.

 

Well, at this point I dunno.

Looking at their site it doesn't say that the "3300" kit is 24 hp over stock. What it says first is, "24 horsepower gain with just porting and cams."

That would imply that the porting and cams give the 24 hp. And this is above what you had when you brought the bike in there (or sent the heads in.) For your $3300 bucks, you get 24 hp added from just porting and cams.

However it later says in an afternote, "assumes bike is equipped with aftermarket pipe and PowerCommander."

Now that does not actually say that part of the 24 hp is NOT from their porting and cams but is from the pipe that you bought before ever seeing them.

Rather it could be saying just that to achieve 24 more hp than you have already, the bike needs these as a starting point -- without the Power Commander after all they can't rejet appropriately for the porting and cams, and the cams and porting may not show full benefit with a restrictive exhaust.

BUT, it could be tricky. Maybe that's not it. They could be trying to count for themselves the extra hp you got from a pipe before their doing a thing. Let's say adding an Akra and PCIII adds, I dunno, 14 hp let's say. Maybe Carpenter is going to add only another 10 more (not 24 more as claimed) to your bike for the $3300, and instead of referencing the hp gain of their work to the bike that you brought in -- which would give only a 10 hp claim -- they decide to reference it all the way back to stock, thus calling it "24 horsepower gain with just porting and cams" by counting the gains from your pipe and PCIII too.

So maybe you don't wind up with 24 more hp than when you rode in, but 10 hp more for example.

I wanted to e-mail them to find out which it is, what the numbers mean but no dice -- they "don't answer e-mail" and don't want you to phone them unless it's a "serious inquiry."

Since I do not want them to sit in judgment whether I am "serious" or not by asking them to clarify their claims, and the fact is I am not going to drop a check on it this month though I might in the future, I'm not calling. So we just don't know what they mean, their claims are not clear, and they don't want to talk to me about it obviously.

Particularly with the 12 there's a world of difference -- if their claimed 30 hp gain for it is only relative to the stock bike, in other words they're claiming credit for the pipe too -- it's good but not so outstanding for that cost, but if it's relative to a piped bike it's awesome.

Anyhow, if anyone wants to call them to find out if the 24 hp for the 10R or 30 hp for the 12R is above and beyond what you already have with your piped bike, or whether they're trying to claim credit for your pipe and so the increase you get from their work is much less than stated, I'd be interested if you posted. Thanks.

 

If I was a betting man, I would say they are taking credit for the pipe etc. as well. Law of diminished returns when doing mods. How could they state with any certainty that their mods would add XX horsepower on top of ANY mods already done not knowing what those mods were and how they would interact with their mods? They couldn't, in my opinion.

On top of that, just some conspiracy theory here on my part, what are the chances that the head and intake design is so bad from the factory that these guys have magically found 24 more horsepower hidden in there? They don’t mention about bumping compression on the 3300 package, so 24 horsepower sounds like a lot from just cams and a port job on an already highly tuned engine.

I don’t know any of this to be fact, just trying to use some common sense thought here.

OK, not so much conspiracy theory, I have read that it is possible to calculate the theoretical maximum horsepower a normally aspirated engine can make given XX,XXX redline, XXX displacement, modern materials, and modern design tools (flow models, computer simulation etc.) and still remain reliable. They say that today’s modern sport bikes aren’t too far off of the theoretical maximums.

This is not saying anything bad about these guys or that they are trying to mislead anyone, it just sounds like a lot of horsepower if it is on TOP of the power of a piped and mapped bike. If it is on top of it, I am ready to put my 10 in line for the mods. I can’t imagine what the bike would be like with another 35 or so horsepower. 195hp in a 430lb street package, on motor alone.

 

Yeah, it does sound like a whole lot, which is why at first I figured it was presumably relative to stock on their dyno, not relative to the same bike with the same pipe on their dyno.

Pretty fake way to do it if so: they ought to say clearly it is also counting the benefits the pipe gave if that's it, or alternately give only the power increase that their work provided on top of the pipe. You'd hope that they'd have dynoed the bike with the pipe prior to the headwork and cams so they could have provided only what their work added, only what you were getting for your money.

Incidentally I don't agree with the thought that there's no way they could report what was added by their work to a bike already having a pipe -- true, you might have a different pipe and this in turn might result to a different degree of benefit from cams and headworks, but even if so there's the variation in pipes either way. It would have been easy enough, definitely doable, for them to have dynoed a bike with some suitable pipe and a Power Commander, then done their work and compared the results. Not a guarantee that you'd get the same figure on your bike but still a reasonable report. More valid than including the benefits of the pipe in with the figure, IMO.

One aspect supporting that it is on top of the pipe, rather than the pipe being part of it, is that claiming both a 22 hp increase and 191 hp means that the 22 hp increase is relative to 169 hp. That might be the case with a piped, good-running ZX-10R on some dynos, but shouldn't be the case with a stock 10R unless their dyno is on drugs.

Another aspect supporting it is that 162 mph is damn, damn fast for a 998cc bike in the quarter mile and unless the rider is a real lightweight, really would correspond with about 191 hp on a typical dyno for the stock piston bike. Which tends to support their dyno as being realistic. And hey, the ZX-RR may put out 220+ at the rear wheel, so it is not as if 191 hp on a typical dyno is necessarily impossible from the 10R motor at stock displacement.

So I just dunno.

 

Incidentally I don't agree with the thought that there's no way they could report what was added by their work to a bike already having a pipe -- true, you might have a different pipe and this in turn might result to a different degree of benefit from cams and headworks, but even if so there's the variation in pipes either way. It would have been easy enough, definitely doable, for them to have dynoed a bike with some suitable pipe and a Power Commander, then done their work and compared the results. Not a guarantee that you'd get the same figure on your bike but still a reasonable report. More valid than including the benefits of the pipe in with the figure, IMO.

quote]

What I meant was, if they are reporting the horsepower increase and counting the gains added by the pipe and ECU as part of their gains, which is what I think they are doing, there is no way they should be reporting definitive figures. Pipes are different, tuners doing custom maps are different. They should only be reporting what they know their work adds. If they want to say "here is POTENTIALY what you can get if you bring an already piped and tuned bike, your results may vary because we have not control on what pipe and map you have etc." I think it is a little misleading to post a solid number on mods that they have not done without a bit of a disclaimer. Too many people would take the number as gospel. I know you have read the threads on dyno figures, people place too much emphasis on dyno numbers without knowing the details in how the numbers were developed. That is all.

 

I agree.

 

And hey, the ZX-RR may put out 220+ at the rear wheel, so it is not as if 191 hp on a typical dyno is necessarily impossible from the 10R motor at stock displacement.

I still don't know whether these cited figures for the MotoGP bikes represent crankshaft or rear wheel hp. None of the magazine articles that I've read that toss these figures around have ever said which.

However, on further thought I'm leaning (for what that's worth) much more towards it being crankshaft hp.

One reason for this is that there was a recent SAE paper -- I didn't read it but it was referenced in Roadracing World -- on MotoGP engines and it gave hp figures similar in amount to this, and in an SAE paper, hp means crankshaft hp unless otherwise specified.

And of course the engineers in Japan developing the engine absolutely are going to be testing the mules and individual race engines, before being shipped to be put in the bikes, on crankshaft dynos, not rear wheel dynos.

So, unfortunately, my guess (again FWIW) is that these numbers are crankshaft.

What that would mean if so is even more weight to SITW's point on the production points not being so very far off the maximum possible these days. Because 220 crank for the ZZR would imply perhaps low or mid 190s at the rear wheel.

Of course the figure is 220 plus, but there's no reason to assume the "plus" is a really drastic number.

The highest number I've seen thrown around for the MotoGP bikes is 240 hp -- if crank, that would correspond to I suppose 204-216 at the rear wheel. Awesome for a 990 cc bike for sure. But obviously not so mindboggling as if the 240 figure were at the rear wheel.

 

You are not going to see that much of a loss on a MotoGP bike.

 

Not 10%??

I have no proof but I would think at least 10% is inevitable between having to go through gear sets and via the chain.

I could be wrong. But I have never seen a lower figure reported myself (doesn't mean that it hasn't been.)