white.Busa
Registered
Review: SUZUKI HAYABUSA (2013-2018) The King!
- Thread starter white.Busa
- Start date
white.Busa
Registered
"MCN test rider Bruce Dunn managed to go two better, and take my Busa to 200mph – my goal for the year. And in doing so, we managed to demolish a whole 21-litre tank of fuel in just 60 miles!" 
Long-term Test: Suzuki Hayabusa
Long-term Test: Suzuki Hayabusa
white.Busa
Registered
"As an average bloke, what's the most likely thing that'll land you in prison? That's right, it's the 2012 Suzuki Hayabusa.
After my first half-hour on the bike, I thought I'd be writing this review from a holding cell at a police station somewhere in Buckinghamshire, as it turns out - a week later - I got away with it."
2012 Suzuki Hayabusa review
After my first half-hour on the bike, I thought I'd be writing this review from a holding cell at a police station somewhere in Buckinghamshire, as it turns out - a week later - I got away with it."
2012 Suzuki Hayabusa review
white.Busa
Registered
Yeah, my 06 netted 160.? not quite 161hp when it was on the dyno pure stock.
white.Busa
Registered
That's ok, mine's black on the ownership....it's only hiding as a yellow bike.
white.Busa
Registered
The correct answer is that it depends on the dyno. I've seen horsepower in the rear wheel in stock Busas, from 167 horsepower to 174.
Makes sense, probably air temperature, elevation, tires, etc all contribute to these numbers as well..
white.Busa
Registered
white.Busa
Registered
It was on a SuperFlow dyno that is a "conservative dyno". Most HP numbers are "DynoJet HP". LOL
The DynoJet dynos have a built in fudge factor when compaired to Factory Pro and Superflow.
Cut and paste from;
The Story Behind the Dynojet Chassis Dyno - The Truth Meter
Classic Muscle Cars, Custom Roadsters
Dynojet’s final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the ’85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the ’85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck’s engineering staff was dismayed by the decision, but the Dynojet 100 exclusively measured surplus power available to accelerate the vehicle’s mass-no more, no less-and that was true even if the modification was a low-inertia flywheel or lightweight wheels. As long as the inertial dyno’s numbers were repeatable, the critical question (did a particular modification make the engine accelerate faster or slower?) would be answered correctly.
Long but interesting read here.
cheers
ken
Interesting read...I wonder how Suzuki came up with their original 197 crank hp?It was on a SuperFlow dyno that is a "conservative dyno". Most HP numbers are "DynoJet HP". LOL
The DynoJet dynos have a built in fudge factor when compaired to Factory Pro and Superflow.
Cut and paste from;
The Story Behind the Dynojet Chassis Dyno - The Truth Meter
Classic Muscle Cars, Custom Roadsterswww.hotrod.com
Dynojet’s final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the ’85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the ’85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck’s engineering staff was dismayed by the decision, but the Dynojet 100 exclusively measured surplus power available to accelerate the vehicle’s mass-no more, no less-and that was true even if the modification was a low-inertia flywheel or lightweight wheels. As long as the inertial dyno’s numbers were repeatable, the critical question (did a particular modification make the engine accelerate faster or slower?) would be answered correctly.
Long but interesting read here.
cheers
ken
I know there are many variables which affect the dyno numbers but the base line had to be established somehow.
An old mechanic friend of mine used to say "HP is measured at three places, the rear wheel, the crank and the brochure." LOL
I have no evidence but I'd be willing to bet the manufactures stated crank numbers are a theoretical calculation taking into consideration the energy in the fuel, the air fuel ratio, efficiency of the cylinder filling, number of cylinders, rpm, stroke, frictional loses, the force applied to the crank, ... etc... etc... to give a number while useful in a engineering context are by their nature lower than real word results. It's also looks good in the brochure....
Just my guess... LOL
cheers
ken
Mr Brown
Registered
Not doubting your underlying premise that dynojet numbers are flawed, but the fact that the article is paid for by a competitor is significant.It was on a SuperFlow dyno that is a "conservative dyno". Most HP numbers are "DynoJet HP". LOL
The DynoJet dynos have a built in fudge factor when compaired to Factory Pro and Superflow.
Cut and paste from;
The Story Behind the Dynojet Chassis Dyno - The Truth Meter
Classic Muscle Cars, Custom Roadsters
Dynojet’s final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the ’85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the ’85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck’s engineering staff was dismayed by the decision, but the Dynojet 100 exclusively measured surplus power available to accelerate the vehicle’s mass-no more, no less-and that was true even if the modification was a low-inertia flywheel or lightweight wheels. As long as the inertial dyno’s numbers were repeatable, the critical question (did a particular modification make the engine accelerate faster or slower?) would be answered correctly.
Long but interesting read here.
cheers
ken
I agree.
The facts that Mark Dobeck admits in the linked article that there is a fudge factor and that SuperFlow is arguing for lower numbers gives credence to the SuperFlow paper.
As well as, my bike produced 138 on a superflow and 167 on a DynoJet. LOL..... Admittedly that's almost anecdotal evidence.
I've seen it here and on other forums a bike runs well but produces lower numbers than expected and the difference is the manufacture of the dyno.
Anyhoo, it's an interesting discussion.
regardless if, on the same dyno, on the same day, an improvement is seen in the numbers it matters little what the unit of measurement is. Unless of course, you are bench racing on the internet... LOL
cheers
ken
Similar threads
