lc remap

[CPJS]

Why do people that have not been to see Geoff at Hill top or spend any money there seen to get so upset with work they ( or their mates) have not had done.
YET
Those that have seem happy.

 

[Yonkyo]

YET
Those that have seem happy.

And that's all that matters really is suppose. If the seat of your pants are confirming what the graph is saying.

 

[RedRick Esq.]

Why do people that have not been to see Geoff at Hill top or spend any money there seen to get so upset with work they ( or their mates) have not had done.
YET
Those that have seem happy.

It's to justify why they haven't spent the money

 

[(RIP) Miff]

Iirc if you aren't happy with your remap then Geoff will refund your money. He will also return your bike's map back to standard.

 

[pistole]

and I tend to take things at face value - i.e. I see a dyno print out produced in front of me and I would tend to believe it

no. 1 : all dyno readings are an approximation of engine power output since the dyno (by definition) can only read the power from the wheels and not the engine itself.

no. 2 : therefore , the engine output as displayed by the dyno is extrapolated from at-wheel readings using variables which the dyno operator can change/modify.

no. 3 : therefore , a dyno operator can theoretically "produce" any kinds of numbers he likes.

no. 4 : the same bike will produce different numbers on different dynos , at different times of the day.

 

[CPJS]

Rolling road dynos only show rear wheel power figures.
The hp/torque graphs shown and numbers quoted are all r/w numbers, it is only manufacturers that quote crank figures because they appear more impressive.

 

[Toddmeister]

no. 1 : all dyno readings are an approximation of engine power output since the dyno (by definition) can only read the power from the wheels and not the engine itself.

no. 2 : therefore , the engine output as displayed by the dyno is extrapolated from at-wheel readings using variables which the dyno operator can change/modify.

no. 3 : therefore , a dyno operator can theoretically "produce" any kinds of numbers he likes.

no. 4 : the same bike will produce different numbers on different dynos , at different times of the day.

Thanks for this Pistole - I guess CPJS has already commented on points 1 and 2. The figures I have after my Hilltop experience were at the rear wheel (which is why the baseline run was around 100hp, as opposed to the 125hp at the crank quoted by BMW without drive train losses)

So regarding points 3 and 4!
How much would be "common cause variation" simply due to the accuracy of the measuring system? I have no idea how accurate a dyno is but let's assume there is an inherent innaccuracy of 1% (or about 1hp in this example). A very small amount then compared to the gains you see on the graph.

So how about "special cause variation", i.e. some important factor which has changed between the two dyno runs on the same machine on the same day I guess here if could be air temperature and air pressure. On my printouts these are noted and so presumably are corrected for in the calculations? Would that be a reasonable assumption?

So the only other "special cause" variation I can think of is hinted at in your point 3 - i.e. there is a black magic button which Geoff presses to exaggerate the numbers!

.........Or the other option is that it is exactly as measured, the increases are real and we all go home happy that we now have bikes which not only have an increase in power and torque but are also much nicer to ride!

Given that so far no-one's really managed to produce any hard evidence to suggest the 20% increases are artificially fabricated, I think I know which I believe right now and will continue on in my blissful ignorance enjoying the difference that a Hilltop remap has made to the bike!

 

[DC]

interesting debate…I dont really need more horsepower , those days are gone , Ive ridden S1000rrs, Blades etc, so need real world power like these GS LCs, that produce around 125 BHP . I also find the fuelling is smooth enough at present , Thats why I'm not investing so I'm out !

 

[JimVonBaden]

People claim a lot of things, like how much faster their GS is with a new $1500 pipe and muffler, or a $500 tune, or some different brand of plugs or air filter. But the truth is almost always filtered through rose colored glasses when it come to the facts.

No doubt the tune smooths out the power delivery, and possibly increases the top end (at the cost of low end), but these changes only take advantage of removing some of the restrictions placed on the factory tune by environmental demands of the government, and often are illegal depending on local regulations.

In other words, if you like it, great, but there is almost always an element of smoke and mirrors to the HP claims made by those selling "performance" parts, especially miracle tunes and aftermarket exhausts.

Jim

 

[patzx12]

BMW remit for the LC was not to increase power, customer feedback told them that the buyer didn't want more power.
The difference in power \ speed over the TC engine is negligible.
If fact the TC engine is nicer low down or chugging, the LC doesn't like chugging.
The big change for me was high speed smoothness and a bit more top end power.
I put a Akro + powercommander on my 10 GSA, it sounded great and went a bit better but you get used to it in an hour and don't notice it after that.
I wouldn't bother with dyno runs and charts for a GS boxer, if it feels a bit better for £300 well and good, its only beer money.

 

[WindyChuffer]

Does the remap improve bottom end chugging?

From a standstill the LC struggles and if you are not careful, stalls easily. Whereas the Hexhead digs real deep and is in contrast difficult to stall.

This is a real pain when off road on the LC in the mud and ruts when engine dies as result of lack of bottom end chuggability.

 

[RedRick Esq.]

Does the remap improve bottom end chugging?

From a standstill the LC struggles and if you are not careful, stalls easily. Whereas the Hexhead digs real deep and is in contrast difficult to stall.

This is a real pain when off road on the LC in the mud and ruts when engine dies as result of lack of bottom end chuggability.

I could be wrong here but the heavier fly wheel of the ADV and now standard LCs alleviate the problem you mention but my old GS was certainly much better in town for the remap as previously it would hunt for power or be in too low a gear and too twitchy if you know what i mean, the remap sorted that

 

[WindyChuffer]

I am talking about the LC GSA with heavier flywheel. Sadly.

 

[Engineer]

It's in everybody's interest for the graphs to show a big improvement, especially if one is paying good money

 

[bradders94]

I've replied to a similar thread before but once again! I took my K1200R Sport to Geoff on recommendation. Base line run was 100bhp, Geoff said possibly a French map? Anyway a couple of hours later it's making 140bhp and loads of torque everywhere. I still have the graphs somewhere, although I sold the bike long ago. Whatever the figures say, I was after better rideability and the difference was immediately apparent and made the whole riding experience far better, particularly touring two up when smoothness and being able to roll the throttle on from virtually any revs and get seamless acceleration made all the difference. Rose tinted glasses or not, money well spent in my view.
The bike went in for service sometime later and I rode a K1300s while it was in, supposedly smoother and more powerful. Back to back it felt decidedly lacking in both camps. Could still be my rose tinted glasses I know, but after test riding mine the BMW technician, who had no idea that anything had been done to it absolutely raved about how fast and smooth it was and said it was the best K he'd ever ridden, so there must be something in it.
Whatever, you pays your money! Don't knock it though til you've tried it.

Chris

 

[Godzilla]

Didnt BMW claim 163hp from a K1200R?

 

[bradders94]

Probably, at the flywheel.

 

[Godzilla]

Probably, at the flywheel.

You are quoting figures at the flywheel.

And anyway if the standard is 163 at the flywheel then 140 RWHP is no big shakes.

 

[Engineer]

Does the remap improve bottom end chugging?

From a standstill the LC struggles and if you are not careful, stalls easily. Whereas the Hexhead digs real deep and is in contrast difficult to stall.

This is a real pain when off road on the LC in the mud and ruts when engine dies as result of lack of bottom end chuggability.

The LC does not stall easily and has far more grunt than the TC, far more pull two up too - you must have ridden a broken LC.

 

[JimVonBaden]

I've replied to a similar thread before but once again! I took my K1200R Sport to Geoff on recommendation. Base line run was 100bhp, Geoff said possibly a French map? Anyway a couple of hours later it's making 140bhp and loads of torque everywhere. I still have the graphs somewhere, although I sold the bike long ago. Whatever the figures say, I was after better rideability and the difference was immediately apparent and made the whole riding experience far better, particularly touring two up when smoothness and being able to roll the throttle on from virtually any revs and get seamless acceleration made all the difference. Rose tinted glasses or not, money well spent in my view.
The bike went in for service sometime later and I rode a K1300s while it was in, supposedly smoother and more powerful. Back to back it felt decidedly lacking in both camps. Could still be my rose tinted glasses I know, but after test riding mine the BMW technician, who had no idea that anything had been done to it absolutely raved about how fast and smooth it was and said it was the best K he'd ever ridden, so there must be something in it.
Whatever, you pays your money! Don't knock it though til you've tried it.

Chris

Sure, because an inline four is just like an opposed twin!

Jim