jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted December 28, 2005 09:08 AM
Didn't know tachs are normally off eh?
  
|
NinjaNick
Needs a job
'08 ZX14 (Blue)
Posts: 4558
|
posted December 28, 2005 03:11 PM
I love my 636! The 636 is a form of perfection. 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 29, 2005 09:39 AM
 Edited By: trenace on 29 Dec 2005 09:49
Of course tachs have normally been a little off. But not by OVER TWO THOUSAND RPM.
And the off-by-a-few-hundred figures were not used as major if even any sales points, whereas Yamaha is screaming these phony figures with all the volume they
can possibly bellow.
For example the ZX-10R is a few hundred rpm off, which I don't condone either, but where were the magazing covers screaming its rpm capabilities as a reason to buy?
Where were the ads doing it? Did the articles make four, five, six mentions of it, swooning in wonder? Focal point of the article? Even any point at all really? No.
Basically, while I don't agree with any digital tachs being off by more than the error associated with whatever chip clocks used, my guess of what happened is that analog tachs
naturally have a plus or minus, and for safety the manufacturers chose to have the tachs average a value such that the low-reading tachs would still not be
underestimating the rpm and therefore not putting the engines at risk from their reading too low. So the average tach read a little high.
And when the digital tachs came out, the manufacturers IMO should have said, well, true, our new bike is going to LOOK like it has a lower redline than before even
though it doesn't or actually is a touch higher, and that could turn people off, but let's educate the public." However they didn't, they decided to make the digital tachs read
about the same as average analogue tachs did.
But not by 2100 fucking rpm!!!
That is just deliberate lying and gross falsification.
Why the fuck don't they just claim 20,000 rpm next?
This Yamaha 17,500/18,000 rpm crap is just pure lying.
And did they deceive people? Absolutely. For example, Beans believed that the bike really did do it. Apparently he genuinely was perceiving an enhanced value to this
machine that in fact didn't exist, or rather fell 2100 rpm short of what he had thought to exist, which to say the least is a lot. And why shouldn't he have perceived it?
Is Yamaha supposed to be thought of as a company whose technical claims on simple objective facts should be expected to be massively false? I hadn't known that...
Were we supposed to know it, that if Yamaha's lips are moving they are lying? Well, whether we should or shouldn't have, we didn't know that and therefore most tended to
believe these claims, may even have put down deposits or full price based on them, or based on expectation that if off, they would be off by no more than tachs normally are.
Which is not by 2100 rpm or anything remotely like.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 31, 2005 12:30 PM
I've thought about it some more and I bet it will rev clear beyond the 17.5k mark. Manufactures often have a buffer of 2-3k beyond redline just to play it safe. No manufacturer in their right mind would set the redline right at the point of *KABOOM!*
I believe that the R6 will safely spin to the 17,500 rpm redline. When the r6 first came out it was the first bike to have a 15,000 redline. Back then a lot was said about how it had its' power peak at 13,200 or there abouts. The race tuners seemed to be able to take advantage of the extra r's though. The same thing will happen with the new R6 as well.
The amazing thing about this new bike is that it can be safely spun to the higher redline. As others have said, the advantage is that you can stay in a gear longer if you need to without shifting. On the track this makes it easier to pick gearing. I feel that this will also make street riding easier as well.
By the way, this phenomenon has been long accepted in the dirtbike world. The term they use is over-rev and it has proven to be beneficial in that application.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 31, 2005 12:42 PM
Edited By: trenace on 31 Dec 2005 13:09
Wow, Beans, you are just determined to believe this lie no matter how much evidence is presented to you that it's a lie.
Here's some more:
Whether you want to believe it or not, the Yamaha indeed has a false tach and false by around 2100 rpm, or even 2200 rpm according to the below article, which incidentally also appears to be the source of the dynograph YOU posted. Translation from Robstar at the R6-forum site;
quote:
Here's a translation from that Dutch website, a few typo's, but overall pretty clear:
It's well known the World SS championship is one of the most interesting championships of all. Since a few years Ten Kate Honda dominates this class. Manufacturers dindn't like that so the came up with something new. The sporty K5 R6 and gsx-r600 where turned in to complete racebikes for 2006. These machines are the basis for suzuki and yamaha to knock honda of their top position.
Accept at the track, normal streets are still a place of competition. All manufactures want to rule the 600-class. In early days it was the 1000-class wich was battlefied for the most HP's and so, 600-class had now been the biggest class of interest.
At the Paris motorshow both yamaha and suzuki claimed to have the best and strongest 600-cc bike. Suzuki claimed to have 133 hp and the most torque on its new 600-R. This could only be proven in a test so we decided to do that test.
De krachtmeting ---> The competition
Here are the new two bikes. Several dealers were approched for this test. Both bikes were only run for 120 km's on a dyno, so still fresh! The test was completed at Safe Motors in Apeldoorn under the supervision of several Suzuki-chiefs. We (Moto73) rather have the bikes on the excact Jaros dyno, but it was tested on a ***hs dyno.
De metingen -----> Results
Enough information for now. The R6 is the first to go. It delivers 111 hp at 14374 rpm. That's not bad at all but the only thing that pops out is the low rpm. Yamaha claimed to run the R6 at a maximum of 17.500 rpm. It stopped at 15.800 so Yamaha can't deliver what they promised after all. The R6 has a optimistic rpm-needle.
GSX-R600 is up, this is the moment we are all waiting for. Gixxer gives 108.2 hp at 13000 rpm. It has to let the R6 pass but there is one thing that is very good about the Gixxer, the power curve is much higher then the one of the R6. So we actually have two winners in the end.
We also brought an 05 ZX-6R to compare. It was used in our magazine's long-ride-test. The kawa brings up 113 hp. In overall i'ts al little bit stronger than the Gixxer, only because of the extra 36cc.
Nieuw uit de krat -----> New from the crate
We don't belive the results completely so we give it another try with a completely new bike. Suzuki gives us the new GSX-R600, the insist we run that one too. Time for coffee because it takes time to take the bike out of the box and prepare it for a dyno-run. After the mechanics are done with prepping, they start the run. What about breaking in the motor? Just hit it!
After the blue smokes cleares up we look at the results. It has just 0.4 hp less than the other GSX-R600 we ran today. But the power curve is the same as the other one!! So we conclude the gixxer is the best bike, with the best amount of torque. Let's wait an d find out at Philip Island what it's all about.
De uitdraaien ----> resluts
The differences could't be bigger. Yamaha concentrated on top end power and the gsx-r is the strongest bike overall with much torque. It's the same conclusion after the introduction in Qatar, you have to keep the R6 above 11k rpm.
If we look closer we can see that gsx is much stronger @ 7000 rpm: 6 HP! @ 9000 rpm that difference grows to 8 HP. @ 10.000 rpm the difference is huge: 83 vs 71 hp. After the gixxer hits max power, the R6 can pass this power.
The green frog should be the strongest of all. that was expected. The bike had ran 39.000 km in out test. It has 36 cc more so you can't really compare the three bikes in a right way. Compliments for Suzuki to have build a bike that seems as more than a 600 cc bike!
Comparing the two gixxers you would suggest it was the same bike. Luckily we where there to see it were two bikes, otherwise we would'nt believe it all.
MCN also reported that the tach reading was false by about this amount.
This is a sub-16,000 rpm bike at the point the tach is reading 18,000.
That has already been presented to you. Why you refuse to believe it I just don't know. What is the slightest objective fact whatsoever that you have of the limiter on that bike actually being at 18,000 rpm as Yamaha claims, or the redline actually at 17,500 as Yamaha claims? Besides Yamaha's claims?
How many dynographs that show nothing past 16,000 rpm will it take -- with rider reports saying the tach needle goes to 18,000 while riding -- before you acknowledge that Yamaha's 17,500/18,000 rpm claims are false?
Three dynographs? Four?
Or is there any objective standard by which you'd ever agree the claims are false, way false, false by over 2000 rpm?
The two tests that have both been done, have found Yamaha's rpm claims false by over 2000 rpm, yet you believe Yamaha not them. Why? How does that make sense?
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 31, 2005 02:14 PM
graves slip on
graves full set up
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 31, 2005 02:20 PM
Cool!
That is a nice power increase indeed for slip-on! And, throughout the top half of the rpm range rather than just on the very top.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 31, 2005 02:49 PM
Edited By: trenace on 31 Dec 2005 14:59
Beans, why are you taking my posts, not just one (which would be wrong enough) but numerous of them and reposting them on another board, putting them there with
your name on them as if you were the author?
http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6208
You did not write those, you copied them from me, stuck your name on them, and made those people think you wrote them. That is the very definition of plagiarism.
For that matter, one of "your" posts above, this one:
quote:
I've thought about it some more and I bet it will rev clear beyond the 17.5k mark. Manufactures often have a buffer of 2-3k beyond redline just to play it safe. No manufacturer in their right mind would set the redline right at the point of *KABOOM!*
I believe that the R6 will safely spin to the 17,500 rpm redline. When the r6 first came out it was the first bike to have a 15,000 redline. Back then a lot was said about how it had its' power peak at 13,200 or there abouts. The race tuners seemed to be able to take advantage of the extra r's though. The same thing will happen with the new R6 as well.
The amazing thing about this new bike is that it can be safely spun to the higher redline. As others have said, the advantage is that you can stay in a gear longer if you need to without shifting. On the track this makes it easier to pick gearing. I feel that this will also make street riding easier as well.
By the way, this phenomenon has been long accepted in the dirtbike world. The term they use is over-rev and it has proven to be beneficial in that application.
turns out actually to have been written by "late apex" at that same site... not by you though you present it here as if it were your own post.
In cases where you want to repost what others have said, don't present yourself as the author but say who it is that did write it. I can't even believe that you did this. That thread
on that board put me into shock, seeing you pass my posts off as being your own and then learning that what I'd thought was your own work above was also likewise
just ripped off from yet another person and passed off as your own. Not cool.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 31, 2005 03:03 PM
Edited By: beansbaxter on 31 Dec 2005 15:04
I was just facilitating conversation. See the pm I sent ya.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 31, 2005 03:11 PM
Edited By: trenace on 31 Dec 2005 21:07
Well, what you call "facilitating conversation" is generally understood as plagiarism.
It also didn't really facilitate conversation. I had thought I was having an exchange of ideas, a discussion, with you, and was puzzled how apparently it was as if I was
talking to a wall. Well now I know why. The responses you posted, or at least some of them, were not even responses to my posts at all, but just posts by other people
with you presenting yourself as if you were the author. And not even necessarily being something you think true, since the positions you presented on the two boards were
complete opposites of each other. At least one side, you couldn't have believed.
In any case, two different boards were thinking -- had to be thinking as you gave no reason to think otherwise -- these posts were your creations and thoughts, what
you were saying yourself: but they were really the copied words of other people with your name put to them, not just one post but many, with no attribution or credit to
the real authors.
All one has to do, if wanting to present other people's words, is say something like, "Interesting post from the such-and-such board by so-and-so" and then quote it. It avoids
making one falsely appear the author of things when one is not, and it gives credit where it belongs.
It was just a big surprise to see this as I am sure it was not your intent to misrepresent anything.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC