Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 18, 2004 04:43 AM
Dynos Eat Motors part 2
As all know, I lastly presented the observation that Dynos have unnatural loads that CAUSE premature engine failure. Everyone here knows of someone that has lost a motor on a dyno in less than 500 passes (large number but less than 75miles) Naturally, we have examples that fall outside of the bell curve, but the average number of runs to kill a motor is less than 50 and most have died on their first or second dyno session for simple "tuning".
Many of you disagree with what I am saying in the name of business or dyno love preservation, however, everytime that I have put my bike on a dyno, the operator INSIST that anything that happens especially engine failure, he is not responsible. What does he already know about a perfectly good motor and a dyno?? A few years back that always confused me why the operators we afraid of engine failure for something supposedly "equal" to a roll-on on the highway.
Yesterday while reading Sport Rider article on slip-on testing it states on page 46 under the picture of the guy standing, Quote: "Miracuoously, the little Yamaha survived 129 dyno pulls without dropping any horsepower." end quote.
Why would they have a surprised reaction to NO horsepower loss or engine failure?? What are they implying that they know (and other dyno operators)to be a truth about bikes and dyno runs??
  
|
floyd
Novice Class
Posts: 70
|
posted August 18, 2004 06:40 AM
They were probably implying that 129 runs on the dyno to REDLINE didnt hurt the motor.
My ZX9 has over 120 pulls on the dyno with no problems
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 18, 2004 12:39 PM
I have a LOT over 129 runs to redline -- on the road -- on my 12R and I'd think everyone does pretty shortly after getting the bike... I have no idea how many but it's many many many times that. (Yes, they are quick sweeps to redline which can be a difference, but still more total time.)
You don't expect power loss from 129 runs to redline on the road. Or the track.
Ra12R has a good point IMO.
|
1bad12r
Zone Head
Posts: 567
|
posted August 19, 2004 01:30 AM
Everyone here knows of my engine failure on the dyno. Don't know if my engine builder screwed me, or if the dyno operater screwed me. I do know the bike ran fine til it hit the dyno. I also know I'll never mess with a stroked crank of any kind again.
I guess its not that bad on those of you who build your own motors. But for me I'm just sht out of $4k. Atleast when you build your own you save on all the labor, and when your talking splitting tha cases thats a good bit of $.
And yes I know this kind of thing doesn't happen to everyone. But it happened to me, and has left a very bad impression on me of strokers and dyno's.
Not gonna stop riding or, racing because of all this. But as soon as I get my zx12 back together and running I'm selling it. Gonna take a long break and come back with a fresh start.
Ra12r's point is somthing to think about for those of us who don't build our own motors, or have a best friend to hook us up on labor.
____________
768 Ryderz
------------
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 19, 2004 02:34 AM
as was previously beat to death before: a dynoe will not cause the engine to create magically ANY MORE power than it could before
a dyno does not add magically 10% power output (and as such, more stresses) to the engine
an engine run on the highway at top speeds, or on the dyno at top speeds, will make the same amount of power...it CAN NOT create MORE power (and therefore, more stress) than it is possible for it to make, PERIOD.
i don't get the idea that an engine MAGICALLY makes more power on the dyno and destroys itself because of the extra newfound stress.
WTF? any of hte other causes provided, overheating and the like, could be the cause.
if you can come up with a sound and logical reason why an engine on a dyno would create more power then PLEASE tell us the miracle, so we can apply that same magic to our engines in real life for that big power gain.
   
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 19, 2004 04:52 AM
Slug, the issue is not the creation of MORE power to destroy the motor. The issue is the resistance or stress created while obtaining information during a dyno run. The only resistance an engine has while running on the road is the innertia of the weight of the bike, friction of the bearings and other parts, and WIND. A rollon on the highway to redline does not include the resistance present from a dyno pull or max mph run.
That stress on the dyno "challenges" the clearances of the bearings which only is maintain by a thin layer of oil. With enough stress the clearances will decrease and the oiling will decrease. The dyno determines engine HP by the "lack" of being able to turn this rotating mass that is NOT free wheeling. Have you ever tried to turn a dyno wheel with your hand? There is MAJOR resistance NOT FOUND while driving the bike. This resistance travels backward up the drive train tightening all clearances till finally it reaches the bearings.........bearing clearances sustained by oil are now challenged. This challenge can quickly or slowly wear down the bearings but it ALWAYS puts premature wear on the bearings.
There is nothing magic about this degenerative process. I just feel that the information about the effects of a motorcycle trying to pull a dump truck in disquise should be made common knowledge. So, I now also see that the sport rider writer also KNOWS this and was surprised that the test bike survived with no loss in HP.
|
BA
Pro
Posts: 1592
|
posted August 19, 2004 05:32 AM
I don't think that anyone is focusing on an engine making "more power" slug.
The focus is purely about load, not power. I can't really tell why you're on the power thing, but, I think you're in left field there.
You did mention "new found stress" and overheating. That is the culprit.
Think of it like this.
Just like working out with weights, if you ever have,...it's about "time under tension".
When you nail the gas in 4th gear on the highway, from a 3000 roll, the "time under tension" (think of this as the time until it hits redline, just for the sake of the comparison)
It will take the bike longer to get to redline on the dyno vs on the open road. Perhaps people are wondering if the oiling system is able to keep up with that load at the lower RPM.
Engines work "harder" at lower RPM than they do at upper-rpm. It's more stressful.
It's just something to think about.....(I haven't been sold either way on the dyno failures yet....)
|
Tearinitup
Expert Class
VP Code Monkey
Posts: 298
|
posted August 19, 2004 09:03 AM
I love this thread.
Bike dyno's simulate about 500 lbs of linear inertia during a inertia run. How much does your bike weigh with you on it, not to mention wind drag? When you nail the gas on your 12 it will take less time to get to redline on the dyno than on the road. Time it if you like but the physics isn't even close. "Time under tension" way is less on an inertia dyno.
If you are loading the bike with the brake then you are at the mercy of the dyno operator. Without proper cooling the bike can overheat. Heat thins the oil, stresses metals, causes detonation and any number of other things. Top speed runs... Steady state WTFO for an extended time now that is load. With the proper setup a loaded run is no worse than a top speed run.
Should start a poll for "Number of dyno runs on my bike". Just make sure that you have an option for "Thousands" cause that is where my 12 is and still running strong.
|
entropy
Moderator
Posts: 8671
|
posted August 19, 2004 09:55 AM
quote:
...Steady state WTFO for an extended time now that is load...quote]
110% agreed: WFO in 6th when geared for max mph seems like the highest stress you can put on the motor. When air resistance = max hp and you hold it there trying for 1 more mph 
My bike has cratered on the dyno AND cratered on a top end race. I wouldn't think of doing hard core top end without doing inertial dyno test/tune 1st; its a 1st level safety check.
I can't do steady state dyno tuning at hi rpm, it simply breaks loose over about 9000. Think how much down force is being exerted on the bike at WFO at 200mph. Whoa!
____________
This moderator uses moderation in moderation
|
Five 0
Expert Class
Posts: 215
|
posted August 19, 2004 12:22 PM
OK
Why you are thinking about weight!! Think of this. We run these engines in 1300 pound race cars. I hit the rev limiter approx 20 times a night at times in 3rd or 4th gear. My 2001 engine came out of my car and I sold it to a guy that is still running it. ( 3 years of racing ) My point is, I think our cars put just as much or more stress on these engines and we dont see very many problems.
5-0
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 19, 2004 12:28 PM
Inertia = the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
I posted the definition of the word so that a mixup in terminology is avoided. I do not agree that the inertia of a motorcycle is the same as the dyno drum. The inertia of a motorcycle can be found with the bike in neutral on a level surface. Uh,,,,my personal bike will roll with VERY little effort due to work on the bearings... Most drag racers and curvers also have easy rolling bikes. The only increase in resistance is wind and other bike frictions.
I personally know of ZERO bikes posting about a motor blowing up on a rollon no matter how many they make....
|
spencercyclecom
Zone Head
Posts: 535
|
posted August 19, 2004 03:53 PM
 Edited By: spencercyclecom on 19 Aug 2004 16:54
500 passes (large number but less than 75miles)
LMFAO! Dude...stop while you are ahead. PLEASE!!!!!!
For the last time.....it is NOT the dyno. Dyno owners give the warning....becasue we DONT know what condition you engine is in. We are not going to be responsible for a piece of shiat blowing up on the dyno and the owner claiming it was a brand new engine and wanting it fixed...OR that same bike owner just put his engine together and forgot to tight the rod,cam,head bolts down to specs...... comes to dyno it and it blows.
IT IS NOT THE DYNO!!!!
oh yteah....500 pulls equals more thn...way more than 75 miles.
____________
Thanks
Doug Ray
SpencerCycle.com
SpencerCycle Center Inc.
Spencer Performance Group Inc.
Toll Free 1-800-510-1945 ext #10
International 1-800-510-1945 ext #11
Local/Tech 1-704-642-0987 ext #12
Fax 1-704-642-0987
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 19, 2004 04:12 PM
you MUST not understand
you can NOT load an engine beyond the capability of that engine to actually OVERCOME that load. If you overload the engine, the engine will slow down and stop running.
this is true on the road, on the dyno or ANYWHERE
if the load is too much for the engine, it will slow down UNTIL it makes enough torque to overcome that load, and/or fails to maintain rotation and sputters and quits.
the engines that fail on dynos are NOT in that condition, (unless i am sorely mistaken) they were making peak horsepower, or getting there, and MAINTAINING that power when they let go. If i am wrong on that point then please let me know.
the engine can NOT overcome (and be stressed more by) extra loading than it can handle. it can NOT do that. it will NOT do that. to do so would violate PHYSICS and the engine's ability to make power.
what is so bloody hard to understand about this?
here, case in point
i rented a truck to move. at 70 MPH on flat road the engine was at max speed, and max power.
i added load to the truck (started ascending a hill)
the engine speed dropped, the truck speed dropped, and eventually the TORQUE output was enough to overcome the resistance to going up the hill. the engine and truck (for same throttle opening, WFO) reached new equilibrium engine and road speed. If the hill was too steep, it would continue to slow down until i downshifted or the engine quit.
was there more stress on the engine? no it was still making maximum power it was capable of making. it was doing so at a lower RPM, and was STILL not making any more power. (and arguable it was making less horsepower)
the same goes for the bike. on the dyno, or on the street.
open throttle WFO on street, and you go until aerodynamic resistance and rolling resistance are too great for engine to overcome, and you stop accelerating, and hold steady. at no point will there be more stress applied to the engine than it is capable of MAKING. the power input here IS the engine. it is the SOURCE of its own stress. IT alone determines how much FORCE any particular part of the engine is put under. If there is more load added, it will slow down. but the internal forces will be a maximum of what that particular engine can apply to itself.
on the dyno, SAME deal, you open throttle WFO, and the rolling resistance of the drum has to be overcome. or the brake unit,whichever type. at NO point will that engine be stressed ANY harder than it is capable of producing the POWER to stress itself. if the inertial load on the drum EXCEEDS the output capability of hte engine, then it will slow until its torque production is enough to overcome. if not, it will slowly stop running, and sputter and cough and die when it no longer is going fast enough to sustain rotation. at NO point (unless the dyno drum DRIVES the engine) will there be ANY other power introduced in to the system, besides what THAT engine can provide. there is no other energy source. NONE. the dyno can NOT inflict more inergy on the engine than the engine PROVIDES because the ENGINE is the power source here. (again unless the dyno becomes the prime mover somehow and pushes the engine to higher RPM)
engines failing on dynos are due to the inability of whatever component in that engine that failed to handle the power that engine was capable of producing. most cases failures occur more readily on dyno runs because they are used to TEST an engine that is unknown, or has been modified. it only follows that at some point a modification, or the 'unknown' aspect makes itself known on the dyno. if you ran that same engine with same parameters on the road to max speed and power, it would fail just as badly on the street. BUT the large percentage of streetbikes on street NEVER see 100% power output, which is why if you take a 'perfectly running' streetbike and dyno it, there is the chance that it WILL fail, because you make it work to 100%, and there is always the possibility that there is a component that is NOT at 100%
the dyno did not do it, the failed component caused it. the dyno did not cause the component to be faulty, it just WAS. and you found it with the testing.
DYNOs do NOT kill perfectly good engines. a dyno WILL kill a flawed engine.
|
spencercyclecom
Zone Head
Posts: 535
|
posted August 19, 2004 04:14 PM
DYNOs do NOT kill perfectly good engines. a dyno WILL kill a flawed engine
EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
____________
Thanks
Doug Ray
SpencerCycle.com
SpencerCycle Center Inc.
Spencer Performance Group Inc.
Toll Free 1-800-510-1945 ext #10
International 1-800-510-1945 ext #11
Local/Tech 1-704-642-0987 ext #12
Fax 1-704-642-0987
|
Tearinitup
Expert Class
VP Code Monkey
Posts: 298
|
posted August 19, 2004 07:10 PM
quote:
Inertia = the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
I posted the definition of the word so that a mixup in terminology is avoided. I do not agree that the inertia of a motorcycle is the same as the dyno drum. The inertia of a motorcycle can be found with the bike in neutral on a level surface. Uh,,,,my personal bike will roll with VERY little effort due to work on the bearings... Most drag racers and curvers also have easy rolling bikes. The only increase in resistance is wind and other bike frictions.
I personally know of ZERO bikes posting about a motor blowing up on a rollon no matter how many they make....
Just so you know... I already did all the rotational inertia to linear for everyone when I said the dyno only approximates a 500 lb load. And truthfully they are MUCH lower than that. My point after all the math... kicking the drum of a dynojet dyno is easier than kicking your bike. 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 19, 2004 09:35 PM
I agree (IMO) that all the theoretical arguments on load disagree with Ra12's argument. To every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the force exerted back by the road, the track, or the dyno is the same as the force exerted by the engine, and vice versa. No increase there.
Are there issues such as cooling problems? Don't know (obviously sometimes there are but how common this is and whether it accounts for all of any "dyno effect" if there is any dyno effect, I can't say.
Anything else like say vibration? Doesn't seem to make sense.
Being held on the brake for long periods of time? That could be a different stress than normally experienced on the road. But Ra12r didn't seem to excluding inertial dynos from his observations or comments.
Do the statistics back up what he says? I don't have any. Anecdotally it would seem that way.
Are there sorts of things that happen, that for some number of years are mysterious and we even deny they happen because they make no sense, and eventually they are understood and we by then have proven they happen? Yes.
Are most such things actually illusions, and eventually proven not to happen? Also yes.
It seems a good question -- except, for any that have enough data to have real basis to say engines don't fail any more on their dynos than on the track or equally hard road usage, it may be a silly question for them, if that is so for any. But is that the case?
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 20, 2004 08:31 AM
Edited By: slug on 20 Aug 2004 09:35
BA as a reply to your assertion that the bike takes longer to spin the dyno than it does to do a roll on, all the dyno runs mine has ever done were done in 4th gear, and it took approximately 3-5 seconds per pass to get to rev limit. (i could hear it in the waiting room)
i'm not sure how that is longer than 4th gear roll-on onthe highway, it takes MUCH longer in 4th to do that same RPM range on the road
regardless, no matter what, the energy that 'destroys' the engine was not there from anywhere BUT the engine. the engine provides every ounce of stress it sees, (unless of course, the dyno drum pulls the engine) and if it fails, it has NOTHING to do with the dyno, with the exception of it being on the dyno when it did it. (this is ignoring operator errors like allowing it to oeverheat etc, which we all i think agree are NOT the fault of the dyno itself)
if a component fails, it did so because it was NOT perfect. the engine was not a perfectly good running engine. it may have seemed fine, but it WASN'T. the dyno did not kill the engine, the part failed withuse, and THAT is the cause of hte engine failure. not the dyno.
it's like saying guns cause murder, yes if you get shot you may die, but the gun didn't cause it. it just happened to be the middle-man, the tool. the instrument.
As a side note: my bike has almost 50K on it, and i have had dyno charts made 5 times for it. each time the did a minimum of 5 pulls, sometimes more, to get the data to be consistant.
so this puts my bike at 30 pulls or so. all the way to rev limiter (14500 rpm)
the 'little yamaha that could'
next time i get it dynoed, could it fail? sure. there is always the chance that i have a conrod that is weakened over time due to hard riding, or a clearance in a bearing that isn't quite right. or an oil pump ready to fail. but then again it could do it when i am on the track wound out in 5th, shifting to 6th.....
regular street riding, i never see that kind of power output, so maybe i am running on 'borrowed' time...
but if the engine fails on dyno, does that mean the dyno did it?
|
Outlaw1
Zone Head
Posts: 803
|
posted August 20, 2004 08:35 AM
Ra12r Your an idiot.
____________
Lead, Follow, Or get the hell outta the way.
|
Outlaw1
Zone Head
Posts: 803
|
posted August 20, 2004 08:37 AM
I could'nt see wasting valuable time on an idiot.
Short and to the point, Cause he cant understand since he is an idiot. No use explaining.
____________
Lead, Follow, Or get the hell outta the way.
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21895
|
posted August 20, 2004 08:43 AM
first off.... I'd say tearnitup is the one to listen to in this thread...
second.... outlaw... are you "breaking your vow"?
____________
What business is it of yours where I'm from, Friendo?
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 20, 2004 10:36 AM
Outlaw, thank you for demonstrating a repetitive pattern of derogatory name calling, know a tree by the fruit it bears.
I need to reply to Tearin and Slug, but this is just to Tearin first as my current time is limited.
Enerygy required to increase acceleration of an object with mass is NOT linear.
This would be hypothetically possible is a vaccume without friction or resistance. So the drum of a dyno requires more energy to increase the rate of rotation, because an object in motion is always seeking to be at rest in the presence of opposite forces.
Slug I will respond to you perspectives later. Let me add though that from your point of view you are correct. However there are 359@ degrees of seperation between your perspective and further truth.
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
Ra12r
Zone Head
Posts: 919
|
posted August 20, 2004 11:05 AM
Slug: 1)you can NOT load an engine beyond the capability of that engine to actually OVERCOME that load.
Reply: 1)that very action is why things break!!!
Slug: 2)the engine can NOT overcome (and be stressed more by) extra loading than it can handle.
Reply: 2) I will give you a chance to read your own writings again, as I don't assume you really meant that....!? Extra loading is called "OVERLOAD", anything (i repeat) anything in great PERFECT CONDITION can be overloaded.
Slug: 3)the internal forces will be a maximum of what that particular engine can apply to itself.
Reply: 3) I agree! However, we are not discussing internal resistance against the motor's ability to create power. I am NOT and have NEVER been discussing an engines power output ability. I am discussing an "EXTERNAL"....ARTIFICIAL RESISTANCE called a dyno. Dyno's are NOT NATURAL and thusly have different qualities that they return to the engine.
In response to HP produced by a motor, hear this clearly! The amount of HP a motor produces is also produced while the bike is on a rear wheel stand during a test with NO resistance. So power is not the issue, Slug can you see this?! That same power will not hurt the motor. I am saying what you say a little later, that the dyno is able to produce a 100% resistance stress on a motor, that 100% stress creates conditions favorable for engine failure. Those stress conditions are not found naturally!!! (unless at maxton or Utah salt flats or somewhere in Texas.....smile) The power of the motor alone does not destroy. The dyno creates conditions by "design" that will ALWAYS destroy engines.....ie: 100% maximal stress! In these conditions something must give in....tire spin, bearing clearances, engine rpms.
____________
All must bow to the "Ra Supremecy"...
|
Y2KZX12R
Needs a job
CompetitionCNC.com
Posts: 3762
|
posted August 20, 2004 11:30 AM
Dynos dont hurt engines. The operator can hurt the engine if he does the wrong thing to the bike/engine during the testing.
Engines are run on dynos for hours,days,months at a time. As long as you can remove the heat with the cooling system, and this includes the engine oil, the engine can run indefinately untill it wears out
____________
Y2KZX12R
CompetitionCNC.com
|
canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:02 PM
Ra12r,
So a dyno loading a faulty engine to it's maximum potential horsepower output, and causing it to fail is somehow a bad thing? Would you rather ride around with an engine that works fine at cruising and highway rpm's, but has the potential to fail as soon as you pull out to pass someone, whack the throttle open and run it to the limiter? I would much rather the engine scatter when the bike is sitting on a dyno, rather than when I'm cooking along at 150 MPH. It has been said here repeatedly "DYNOs do NOT kill perfectly good engines. a dyno WILL kill a flawed engine". How is it possible to overload the engine? The engine CANNOT produce more than 100% output in any circumstance, and even eddy current dyno's add just enough load during step tests to keep the engine at the required steady rpm. The steady rpm is the qualifier for 100% output. On the street (Maxton, Bonneville, etc) the steady rpm comes in (5th or) 6th gear WOT, when the bike just can't go any faster. Equilibrium has been reached.....thrust and drag are balanced...the horsepower output at the rear tire has matched the resistance forces (aerodynanamic, and other sources of friction). On a dyno these forces are simulated by the resistance of the drum.....especially an Eddy current dyno. Another thing to think about: if the drum weight (and therefore mass and inertia) is a cause of engine failures, then companies that use lighter drums in their dyno's should have lower numbers of engine failures. From what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong), Dynojet dyno's use among the heaviest of drums......why would they do that knowing that this causes a higher# of failures. The answer is: because it doesn't happen.
It is unlikely that the "Unnatural" load of a dyno is going to squish the oil from between the bearings and their respective bearing journals UNLESS there is an abnormal circumstance...such as low oil pressure or excessive bearing clearance (keep in mind that we are talking about a liquid that for all intents and purposes is non compressible). Any failure of that engine is not the fault of the dyno. That rules out bearing related failures. Ok, what about lean mixtures melting the engine down? That is possible, but it's more likely that the lean condition will be discovered on a dyno rather (especailly with a tailpipe sniffer) than on the street, and even if the engine melts down on the dyno as a result of the tuning, that is not the fault of the dyno, that is tuning related failure.
The previous post about the analogy of the loaded truck is a good one...but it needs to go further. The truck climbing the hill has the engine reach equilibrium with the drag of the uphill climb. Let's assume that for this example the hill is endless. The engine produces heat, which is conducted to the coolant and then convected to the outside air via the radiator. Suppose it is a very hot day, and the radiator is partially plugged. The ability of the radiator to dump heat is reduced by the ambient temperatures and the reduction of effective surface area of the radiator. Very soon, the engine will warm up and continue to get hotter and hotter (well beyond operating temperature). While this is happening the engine oil is changing it's properties. It is getting thinner and thinner and depending on how hot the engine is, the chemical compostion can change as well. This is the "Thermal and viscosity breakdown" that the Castrol commercials love to harp about. The oil can break down and turn into clumps and thick sludge. Even when the oil thins to a certain point, it does not have the ability to maintain the column of oil molecules between the bearings and journals(despite being non comressible), and the potential of metal-to-metal contact is there. Even if this doesn't happen, the oil, thickened from the heat (coking), and now too hard to suck up the pickup tube....causes a loss of oil pressure, and metal-to-metal contact. Keeping the oil at optimum temperatures is the whole reason for oil coolers.
Now let's suppose this truck with the plugged radiator is run on the dyno and the operator fails to see the temperature climb, and the engine fails. Is it the dyno's fault? This to me is operator error, combined with a vehicle related issue...not a dyno problem.
|
Tearinitup
Expert Class
VP Code Monkey
Posts: 298
|
posted August 20, 2004 12:09 PM
Edited By: Tearinitup on 20 Aug 2004 13:09
quote:
Enerygy required to increase acceleration of an object with mass is NOT linear.
I agree with everything you just said. I haven't said anything that would imply otherwise. My "linear" statement was to clarify the difference between linear inertia and rotational inertia.
quote:
This would be hypothetically possible is a vaccume without friction or resistance. So the drum of a dyno requires more energy to increase the rate of rotation, because an object in motion is always seeking to be at rest in the presence of opposite forces.
True... Wouldn't that also apply to your bike. That has has more bearing resistance, more weight, and more WIND?
I must be missing it your point. If you are implying that the dyno loads the bike "artificially" because it actually provides LESS resistance than normally seen on the street, then your statement is correct. The dyno does load the bike differently.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC