Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Redlinems]

Hey all, we finally got the video of the dyno done.

Sorry, it's a bit skinny on information but I had to edit out all of the performance discussion because the fellow that appeared in the first two videos got cold feet and wanted to wait (indefinitely) to release this one so I edited him out to get a pre X-mas release. He apparently fears Kawasaki. They are just a company trying to sell their products and our video is just an honest test of their products.

We do not add fluff to our numbers so what you see is what the bike made as it was when we tested it. The BMW numbers and the 2010 ZX10r numbers are within the range what we always get so it stands to reason that the 2011 ZX10r numbers are reflective of the power that the bike makes. They are disappointing, however the bike still really impressed us and I will probably line up to buy one. There is more power in that engine but it appears to be limited by electonics. It's just too bad that Kawasaki, with their rep for making crazy engines, dropped the ball on this one.

We've seen some other dyno's posting much higher numbers for both the ZX10r and the BMW and well, that's too bad as we could also post higher numbers by tricking or manipulating the dyno (which is very easy to do) but we prefer to just post what the bikes actually make. Our dyno is also not affected by artificial air pressures so what you get is a real representation of the power the engine makes. That said, here is the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peft3Y7TzRQ

[Andy J]

doesn't the 10R demand ram air for full power too 

I'd like to see the outputs for the 1st and 2nd gen on your Dyno too 

[Redlinems]

Gen 1 makes 149-ish stock and 153-ish (not all bikes run exactly the same)  with a slip-on and Gen 2 is pretty much the same although Gen 2 feels like a fat pig to ride.  Up to this last version, I think Gen 1 was the most fun to ride.

[Andy J]

Not much difference between them all then really, well in top line power at least 

I suppose that in the end it's unlikely that we use any where near all of that for more than a couple of seconds a ride realistically anyhow so it's all more about bragging rights in the pub really 

[HammyUK]

Gen 1 makes 149-ish stock and 153-ish (not all bikes run exactly the same)  with a slip-on and Gen 2 is pretty much the same although Gen 2 feels like a fat pig to ride.  Up to this last version, I think Gen 1 was the most fun to ride.

Have to call bollocks on that - then Gen 2's make far more than that.
Only got to look at the figures around on here to see that.
Every gen 2 I've seen on a dyno has been over 160 with most towards 170.
Several are considerably over that mark.
I don't know your history but just appearing on here with some vids from nowhere and presuming everyone is going to take what you say on spec is wide of the mark bud.
Remember we are running UK spec bikes here not the crap that gets shipped elsewhere.

[r1ninja]

Gen 1 makes 149-ish stock and 153-ish (not all bikes run exactly the same)  with a slip-on and Gen 2 is pretty much the same although Gen 2 feels like a fat pig to ride.  Up to this last version, I think Gen 1 was the most fun to ride.

Have to call bollocks on that - then Gen 2's make far more than that.
Only got to look at the figures around on here to see that.
Every gen 2 I've seen on a dyno has been over 160 with most towards 170.
Several are considerably over that mark.

Hmm never trust absolute figures on a dyno, they are great for referencing pre/post mod figures or bike to bike comparisons for same dyno same day

[HammyUK]

I've seen same day same dyno results plenty of times Andy and they are still higher than 150's for Gen 2's everytime by 10 - 15bhp at least.
As for not "being affected by artificial air pressure" - utter bollocks again.
The whole point of Ramair is that it increases internal air pressure, leading to a colder, denser charge and as such more power. Do you really think the manufacturers would spend the moeny they do on design and research if it didn't have an effect?
Any bike designed to run with it and then tested without it might as well have a sparkplug removed. It will overfuel without a PCIII or similar to compensate for the lack of air that the ecu thinks should be there at that rev range/speed.
I've personally seen the difference having that fan makes to the power curve and ultimate reading first hand sitting on my own bike whilst its run up - dropped from 174 to around 165 simply by hitting the off button. The fuel curve went crazy and it was ridiculously rich by around 20% over 8k.
Anyone who doubts it works or doesn't make a difference needs a lesson in flow dynamics.
Get Rob to do a demo on the next meet at Mallory on the difference - the need for that fan to simulate the increase in air pressure is the reason that his workshop is always full of race bikes and why the race teams that have their own dyno's use high pressure fans. I have watched the Vivaldi teams dyno in action and they have one fan for cooling and another for causing a high pressure area at the front of the bike.

[r1ninja]

half right, sure they wont show max power without ram air but they wont overfuel either, the f.i. uses airbox pressure sensors not the bikes speed to fuel it. Proper dynos with ram-air like Crescent's are often ridiculed on forums for their "optimistic" power figures. The usual fan that all dynos have is for cooling air through the rad, to get proper ram air pressure you need a very specialised dyno. A lot of normal dynos fiddle air correction factors to get higher peak numbers. I'd say their dyno is bang on, 170 odd for a bee emm with no ram air is about right

[HammyUK]

Andy - I'm not on about the "usual fan" for cooling. I'm on about the high pressure fans that RJS, Vivaldi, etc have specifically for the ramair and setting up the fuelling to take it into account.
I'm aware of the air pressure sensors, but  stating 150ish on Gen 2's is utter shite.
Ultimately though the fuelling wil be out at top revs without ramair as the ecu can only cope with so much outside of its generic mapping.

[r1ninja]

Nope i reckon their figures are spot on. kawasaki claim 181 bhp for the 2006. take away the usual 12% transmission loss and you get 160 bhp. Without ram air you'll be in the one fifties 

[Sjyp]

Over here good dyno figures seem to be published on foras whilst bad ones seem to be forgotten about

[Redlinems]

That's right, dyno numbers can be all over the place and misleading.  We have seen really no difference between gen 1 and gen 2 engines and we've run enough of them to know.  Gen 3 is when the difference came.  It so easy to manipulate the numbers that it's done all the time for one reason or another.  Some dyno's just read higher, ours is a little stingy but that is why results off of the same dyno are so important.  It's not the total power that counts, it's the spread and where it happens.

[kit-parts]

And how it makes it....

[ZX10R-RACER]

Cant be arsed reading all the post but.....

kawasaki`s figures are 209.9 bhp with ram air and 200 ish without
i have seen myself a stock zx10 2011 make 200 on a dyno (crank figures)

most d6/7`s make over 170 ..i`v dyno`d these my self and first gen`s slightly less on average but only talk 2-3 bhp

[r1ninja]

Here's what Tim Radley of Race Deevolpments has to say about Rolling Road Dynos

Many people have the dynojet and just do inertia tests. This is why they can see up to 15bhp variation on a superbike just changing a rear wheel/rubber combo. Its to do with the bhp calculations having to make an inertia assumption which if you vary either side of this mass it skews the numbers.