MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted February 02, 2006 02:55 PM
Yamaha R6 does NOT rev to originally claimed 17,500rpm
Well it has come out that the unbelievable rev limit of 17,500 red line is actually unbelievable and does not happen, the bike rev's to around 16,200, (which is still crazy high in my opinion) but will not and does not reach the original advertised rev limit of 17.5k.
there is a complete story on motorcycledaily.com but I just wanted to share with you guys...
Mad Mike
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
   
|
jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted February 02, 2006 03:29 PM
Yep...Trenace and I bashed it all along when that first dyno sheet came out.
|
jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted February 02, 2006 03:34 PM
http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=24&TID=20751&set_time=
http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=24&TID=21269&set_time=
somebody get us a cookie.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 02, 2006 05:11 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 2 Feb 2006 17:16
Kudos to Motorcycle Daily for printing the truth -- though even so it got sugarcoated in that article.
The runs that have been printed have been 15.8K, 15.9K, 16.0K, and one 16.2 K. So calling it 16.2 K was giving it the most favorable light possible. 16K even is probably fairest, with note that this could vary by plus or minus 200 rpm according to the particular bike you get.
(I suppose chip clock speeds may vary within ECU's.)
Where the article quotes a Yamaha rep as saying the "error" (fraud) is more than 1000 rpm, the correct figure is about TWO thousand rpm.
Rather than being a giant leap past other 600's for rpm as Yamaha falsely claimed, its only a modest increase, but with gutting of the midrange.
Also by the way Yamaha's claimed rev limit was not 17,500 but 18,000. The 17.5K figure was for the alleged redline.
Thanks for the link, Mike!
I wonder how many glossy mags are going to take Yamaha to task for this fraud. My bet is most won't...
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted February 02, 2006 07:13 PM
yea it is kind of fucked up that they would do this. and be like ummm. uhhhh.... welllll. ummm... originally... ummmm. you know ummmmm... tach's are off some.....
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
nedragr
Zone Head
Posts: 504
|
posted February 02, 2006 07:20 PM
My new Sport Rider (March) still posts 17,500 with no disclaimers anywhere?? They did mention that the bike can't hardly get out of it's way below 12k though??
____________
Real racebikes run premix!!
http://www.bikepics.com/members/nedragr/
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 02, 2006 07:35 PM
Edited By: trenace on 2 Feb 2006 19:37
I guess the difference is Motorcycle Daily doesn't have any advertising revenue from Yamaha, Sport Rider does.
Not that that forces a company to be a mouthpiece, but the weak-willed and weak-principled find those ad dollars too compelling to risk "offending" their source by printing the truth, even if really obligated to on account of having (probably unknowingly on their part at the time) misled their readers with fraud previously.
Interesting test for the credibility of various mags.
MCN and Motorcycle Daily are the only two thus far to tell the truth and point the finger at Yamaha for having given way-wrong "info" on this.
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted February 02, 2006 08:53 PM
from the way they made it sound, Yamaha has removed it from their website and all of their advertising...
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 02, 2006 08:55 PM
Edited By: trenace on 2 Feb 2006 20:58
The question is why they ever claimed it when their engineers had to know it was gross fraud -- by TWO THOUSAND RPM -- all along. This was NO accident.
Well, the answer is $$$$$$$, they thought they would make more of it with the lie.
One of the mags even had an interview with one of their top technical guys, who did not discuss rpm but did discuss piston speed -- and his piston speed figure corresponded with 16,000 rpm.
For a fact their engineering people knew all along that this was a 16K-limited bike, not 18K, and with the "redline" being at about 15.5K. However the marketing people just didn't want to go with those figures, it's quite plain (or if it wasn't them, then someone higher than them) and chose to go with yet higher, to the point of absurdity and gross falseness. They deserve to be reamed for deceiving the public but I doubt the glossies will do so.
|
ninerrider01
Novice Class
Posts: 70
|
posted February 03, 2006 08:51 AM
I can just imagine the Yamaha engineers in the trenches a few months ago thinking the same as in a thousand Dilbert cartoons. Like, "WTF is marketing/management doing?"
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 03, 2006 11:00 PM
Edited By: trenace on 3 Feb 2006 23:03
BTW, while the article says they first heard about this issue on the R6 forum board, actually I wrote to them on it on October 10th, though they may well have paid no attention at that point:
quote:
One aspect that I'd suggest considering is that these days manufacturers sometimes claim falsely high redlines.
For example, the 2004-2005 ZX-10R indicates a 13,000 rpm redline on the tach, but the actual engine speed when indicating that rpm is about 12,500.
13,000 rpm would have been an astounding piston speed for that motor... I was astonished by it, till learning the actual rpm, which is a good piston speed but within the range of believability. Mystery solved.
I would maintain skepticism that the new Yamaha R6 redlines at an actual 17,500 rpm. If the percent error is the same as with for example that Kawasaki, the actual redline would be about 16,800 rpm. The error might also be more than that of the Kawasaki. If for example they felt that 8% error could be gotten away with (and why not -- their speedometers are worse than this) then the true redline might be only 16,100 rpm.
Low 16,000's is hardly unbelievable. Approximately 16,500 ( requiring about 6% tach error) would be remarkable but perhaps possible.
A true 17,500 rpm redline would I think be, as you thought also, highly unexpected, even implausible.
It is, by the way, I think time for a magazine to call the manufacturers on this matter. With digital ECU's and digital tachs these inflations of engine rpm are not honest error but fakery and deception.
The thing about this fraud was that it was obvious from the beginning. It had no chance of being true. So why were any of the magazines ever deceived by it? Just failure to think?
Note, the true redline (as opposed to limiter) is apparently about 15,500 for the R6, so the situation is even worse than I suggested from principle, extending beyond "error" to just out and out deception.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 03, 2006 11:05 PM
Edited By: trenace on 3 Feb 2006 23:08
I had also BTW written them on December 21st, attaching the R6 forum dynograph:
quote:
Motorcycle Daily had previously asked for discussion and thoughts on the new R6's valvesprings and what might be special about them enabling the fabulous "17,500 rpm redline" and "18,000 rpm limiter" figures reported by your magazine and others. I had written to you (below) explaining why it would probably be inadvisable to continue staking your credibility on that by giving so much publicity to obviously-false claims.
However, you've continued to provide this hype to your readers.
Attached is a dynograph exposing the falseness of Yamaha's claims and the "information" you've been providing on this point. The limiter on the bike appears to be at 16,000 rpm not 18,000 (an "error" of TWO THOUSAND RPM.)
This goes far beyond error.
It is also interesting to note that the bike does not achieve 50 hp until 8000 rpm, which is a very high and probably impractical level on an ongoing basis in many situations, particularly urban, and even anywhere most don't prefer to use 8000 as a minimum level. And even at this 8000 rpm level, the new Yamaha is down about 11 hp (20%) compared to the Suzuki and about SEVENTEEN HORSEPOWER down on the Kawasaki (about 25%.)
It also has less peak hp than the Kawasaki, so the Yamaha offers the worse of both worlds.
If you get paid enough I suppose there is merit in some sense to repeating untruth from manufacturers, but the truth is the ultra-premium-priced "super Yamaha" is a super lie. Hopefully your following articles will speak the truth of it, once you put it on a dyno yourselves or see dyno figures you trust.
So I guess one could say that at least one person was yanking their chain towards coming clean on this issue! 
Though that's not to say they might not well have done it regardless.
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted February 04, 2006 02:50 PM
I came clean awhile ago also (though of course I'm not the media...). On mine, 14.5k peak power - 15.9k signs off..........................
|
lizard
Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
|
posted February 05, 2006 01:46 PM
Kinda like a a certain 04 bike making 184hp. 
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 05, 2006 02:04 PM
If you mean the ZX-10R, Lizard, there's no comparison whatsoever.
There, it's a question of you and perhaps others confusing crankshaft hp with Ram Air versus rear wheel hp. There's a giant difference between the two. Nowhere did Kawasaki claim 184 rear wheel hp. That was an error on your part.
|
lizard
Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
|
posted February 05, 2006 02:12 PM
I never said 184 rear wheel hp. You fucked up.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 05, 2006 02:14 PM
Then what is your basis for claiming, if you are, that Kawasaki had a wrong figure?
You deny any example ever made 184 at the crank with Ram Air?
It's a totally consistent claim with observed rear wheel figures.
The only way to make sense of your claim was if you were saying it doesn't make that at the rear wheel... it doesn't. At the crank with Ram Air, I fully expect it has. No reason to doubt that at all. What is your reason?
|
lizard
Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
|
posted February 05, 2006 02:19 PM
My point was that the bike they used was a ringer. I don't think the bike the rest of us got had as much attention to detail to create that kind of power. I think we all fall victim to corporate deception.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 05, 2006 02:59 PM
What in the world are you talking about, criticizing the 184 hp figure for at the crank with Ram Air?
Why do you call that fake??
Ram Air is worth about 4% it seems, and 12% is a fairly common figure for difference between crankshaft power and rear wheel Dynojet.
Subtract 4% to get an approximated "no Ram Air" figure, and that gives 176.6 crank hp (96% of 184.) Subtract another 12% to get an approximation for what you'd figure the Dynojet rear wheel figure should be for that claimed crank hp, and that gives 155.4 hp.
You're claiming 155.4 hp is fraudulent? Well, that's what the claimed 184 figure matches up to, approximately.
So I have no idea -- and I've asked you before -- why you object to that figure and have done so a number of times. It seems to really stick in your craw -- but it's not wrong so far as I can tell.
|
lizard
Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
|
posted February 05, 2006 03:01 PM
I have some land to sell you.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 05, 2006 03:33 PM
Edited By: trenace on 5 Feb 2006 15:41
Well, I'm backing up what I'm saying, and you're not. You're complaining about that particular figure -- and for some reason have done so many times -- but not providing the slightest evidence that it's not correct. In fact, however, that's an entirely reasonable figure for at the crank and with Ram Air. The only thing I can figure is that you're not appreciating that rear wheel numbers will be so much less than crank figures with Ram Air, and therefore had different expectations than you should have, and therefore even two years later are claiming (wrongly) that Kawasaki lied to you on this. Even comparing it to Yamaha's 2000 rpm deceit regarding their redline and limiter values, which are objective fact.
But what you should have figured from that figure was about 155 on a Dynojet, and indeed many stock 10R's that people have purchased have matched or exceeded this on Dynojets.
In contrast, buy an R6, put it on a Dynojet, hook up the ignition so as to read rpm, and you ain't gonna get 18,000 rpm as where the limiter kicks in, and where the tach is reading 17,500, the Dynojet will inform you the true rpm is about 15,500.
Somehow you consider that in the same category as Kawasaki's 184-with-Ram-Air crank hp figure for the ZX-10R, but it's not.
|
lizard
Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
|
posted February 05, 2006 03:54 PM
Where are the ENGINE dyno charts?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted February 05, 2006 04:14 PM
It's not too common for manufacturers to release complete dyno charts. Any of them.
Or if you're talking about the R6, the rpm scale is off of the ignition, which is the engine. There would be no different result so far as the rpm claims being false regardless of whether the power was being taken off of the crank or off of the rear wheel.
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC