# Burned what do you think

## Recommended Posts

I'll like to know what do you think of this:

I've just done a dyno test in my bike and i think it sucks....

The guy that did it put a DRZ SM instead of a DRZ E because of my wheels.

I told him that it was an 2K "E" and he said that it was the wheels that count and not the model...

I have a 16/43 setup and every thing is stock , of course the wheels are 17''.

I know i have to do something to that engine but i just don't know what, the money is short at the moment. I'm not trying to be cheap, i just want to know how much do i have to save and what for.

Thanks in advance, and excuse my English.

##### Share on other sites

no idea how to read those graphs.they have no corelation to the dynojet dyno i use.

##### Share on other sites

burned,

Cv (Graph DRZ1, second link, verticle scale) is metric horsepower, defined to be the power required to raise a mass of 75 kilograms at a velocity of 1 meter per second.

1Cv = ~735.5 watts or 0.986 HP.

Edited to add: 1 "mkg" is TORQUE or = 7.233 lb ft

##### Share on other sites
no idea how to read those graphs.they have no corelation to the dynojet dyno i use.

That makes two of us...

##### Share on other sites

If that equation is correct then it reads 50.286 HP at 10,000 RPM

##### Share on other sites

thats way high if thats correct.

##### Share on other sites

I get 47.34334593 @ 10k (RED trace), just doing the math. Remember one Cv unit is less numerically when equal to one HP. The graph maxes at 50Cv. 50Cv=49.3HP probably less variance then the measurement error in the Dyno.

Not sure what the different color traces indicate.........broad difference between the three.

##### Share on other sites

Kinda strange. Typically in metric power is measured in Watts. I found a conversion for metric horsepower never seen nor heard of it being used anywhere. 1hp (SAE) is 746 watts. If you use that you get 64.8 hp.

Torque in Metric is Nm. Often the common reference is kgm (mkg) which is a misnomer just like torque in ftlbs is (lbs force which is actually supposed to be slugs) again but if you use the ftlbs to kNm conversion (7.38) you get 31.7 ftlbs

I do not know the typical correction factors used for dynos so any other guesses. The one posted by Burned tonight the graph does not match the bottom text🤣

##### Share on other sites

The guy that did the test told me that:

The green trace is measured at the wheel

The blue is at the clutch

And the red is at the engine.

Here in Portugal all the bikes have the factory specifications marked with CV (That´s what we call horse power) and the "E" model comes with 51CV from factory, i believe that they measure it at the engine.

(Portuguese Specifications)

In that case the graph shows a loss of 2.6 CV.

How many C.V have you got in the American "E" model?

##### Share on other sites

Well if that is the case the green line is 43.5 cv x .986 = 42.891 at the rear wheel

##### Share on other sites
I do not know the typical correction factors used for dynos so any other guesses. The one posted by Burned tonight the graph does not match the bottom text

which graph? if your talking about the trx576,it does match.there are 2 different scales.look at both sides of the graph.

this is a way old dynojet program,so it doesnt have "force scaling".thats why the graphs do not cross at 5250 rpm.

##### Share on other sites
no idea how to read those graphs.they have no corelation to the dynojet dyno i use.

...

That makes two of us...
I've just done a dyno test in my bike and i think it sucks....

You cant interpret any information from your dyno but you think it sucks?

Why?

##### Share on other sites
You cant interpret any information from your dyno but you think it sucks?

Why?

Because the guy that made the test told me that a stock DRZ "E" as 51 C.V. from factory...

Mine only shows 48... I think it sucks pretty much.

##### Share on other sites

I think the numbers are irrelevant: the graph is going to shift up and down depending on elevation, temp, dyno variation, production tolerances... You state that the reason you were interested in the first place was to see what to do next. I would say that the early drop off in torque which leads to the stagger and fall in the power curve at high rpm is an indication that your engine is tuned for a mid range power bias-if you don't like it, that would be the thing to change. For an sm application, you are probably not as concerned with a broad spread of power as if you were off-road so have room to work: cams, pipe, cdi... to pump up the top at the expense of the bottom -cams will be the most cost effective method of doing this.

##### Share on other sites
Well if that is the case the green line is 43.5 cv x .986 = 42.891 at the rear wheel

Ah ha, someone that can do maths.

Looks like everyone else divided by 0.986, giving an incorrect figure.

I cane up with 47.821 at the crank, which i thought seemed normal.

##### Share on other sites
Ah ha, someone that can do maths.

Looks like everyone else divided by 0.986, giving an incorrect figure.

Hardly,

Not all were using the same trace.