Deleted account 181015003
Registered user
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 13,017
- Reaction score
- 4
I wonder if he had his panniers and topbox on ?
Remap by Hilltop Motorcycles
- Thread starter Roberto
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if he had his panniers and topbox on ?
Bendy toy
Registered user
I love the way that guy is caning his sports 600 but cant shake the GS. When he gives up the GS goes even quicker. I wonder if he's chamfered the cylinder head covers.
Dinger
Registered user
If you're on about the first bike..?? its an import CBR 400 ( NC29 )...hardly a fast weapon, about 60 bhp if you're lucky... the other bikes were cruising.
Bendy toy
Registered user
TBH I thought it was a 600 but, Im no expert. Agreed the others were cruising.
I'm sure the 400 could have gone quicker but the rider was not really trying on the bends - other traffic about so I dont blame him TBH.
The GS rider was taking a few risks with traffic going both ways but he showed what these bikes can do in skilled hands.
I'm sure the 400 could have gone quicker but the rider was not really trying on the bends - other traffic about so I dont blame him TBH.
The GS rider was taking a few risks with traffic going both ways but he showed what these bikes can do in skilled hands.
Great job !!
Took my '12 R1200GS to Geoff last week. Fantastic job. It was running so lean that on the base run it barely registered on the Dyno's computer !
Geoff uploaded the new mapping, then did 3 runs on it, making minor adjustments until it was running to its optimum.
On the base run (At the back wheel) it was producing 82.98 BHP and 56.25 ft/lb of torque.
After the remapping and subsequent adjustments it was producing 99.53 BHP
And torque figure increased to 81.24 ft/lb.
Overall that's a 20% increase in BHP and almost 45% increase in torque !!
This is the best money I have ever spent on any of my bikes (and I've had a few) ! I've been riding for 36 years and have never had any modification that makes a bike so much more of a pleasure to ride.
Thanks Geoff !!
Took my '12 R1200GS to Geoff last week. Fantastic job. It was running so lean that on the base run it barely registered on the Dyno's computer !
Geoff uploaded the new mapping, then did 3 runs on it, making minor adjustments until it was running to its optimum.
On the base run (At the back wheel) it was producing 82.98 BHP and 56.25 ft/lb of torque.
After the remapping and subsequent adjustments it was producing 99.53 BHP
And torque figure increased to 81.24 ft/lb.
Overall that's a 20% increase in BHP and almost 45% increase in torque !!
This is the best money I have ever spent on any of my bikes (and I've had a few) ! I've been riding for 36 years and have never had any modification that makes a bike so much more of a pleasure to ride.
Thanks Geoff !!
Hi, I'm surprised that a brand new bike can be down so much on power!
What differences have you noticed? I did mine a few months ago, very happy with the results.
Cheers.
Could you post up the torque map.
I would be interested to see what it looks like.
Karl
Bendy toy
Registered user
Its not uncommon for factory settings to be wrong.
I had a nearly new VW 1.9 TDI Sharan that was always sluggish but hey 90bhp to pull a 7 seat bus isnt much. I decided to have it chipped to 110bhp (back then that was the way to do it). The engine was supposed to be making 90bhp, but the turbo settings were all wrong. When power was called for, it over-boosted and the ECU dropped the manifold pressure so the engine ran flat as fart. The chip engineer, sorted out the turbo issues and did the chip.
The car immediately better use, went from 32.5mpg to 37.5 mpg and was so much quicker even the kids commented it was quieter (I didnt need to rev it as much).
I was getting 15% better economy AND 20+% more power. That fuel saving effectively paid for the chip work.
I had a nearly new VW 1.9 TDI Sharan that was always sluggish but hey 90bhp to pull a 7 seat bus isnt much. I decided to have it chipped to 110bhp (back then that was the way to do it). The engine was supposed to be making 90bhp, but the turbo settings were all wrong. When power was called for, it over-boosted and the ECU dropped the manifold pressure so the engine ran flat as fart. The chip engineer, sorted out the turbo issues and did the chip.
The car immediately better use, went from 32.5mpg to 37.5 mpg and was so much quicker even the kids commented it was quieter (I didnt need to rev it as much).
I was getting 15% better economy AND 20+% more power. That fuel saving effectively paid for the chip work.
Hi, I'm surprised that a brand new bike can be down so much on power!
What differences have you noticed? I did mine a few months ago, very happy with the results.
Cheers.[/QUOTE
A newish tight engine could be expected to be down on power, I'd have thought
.[/QUOTE
A newish tight engine could be expected to be down on power, I'd have thought[/QUOTE]
Too much gentle usage can do the same thing. All motors need a good thrash at least every now and again.
A newish tight engine could be expected to be down on power, I'd have thought
[/QUOTE]Too much gentle usage can do the same thing. All motors need a good thrash at least every now and again.
I can understand a new motor being tight, and not loose enough to push out a bhp figure, but that torque figure just doesnt seem right to me for a 1200 twin, without boring people to death but
my CBR 600 race bike knocks that out almost and its only lightly tuned..Im not sure if its been mentioned, its a long thread....but dyno's can be manipulated !! just saying..
Bendy toy
Registered user
Sports bikes use revs. Revs x Torque =power. The 1200 makes power at lower revs so would have to make double the torque to make the same power.
The difference is the sports bikes have everything crammed into the top rev range. Take a CBR600 over 10,000 and hang on tight! But below that its a pussycat and not especially fuel efficient due to valve overlap losses.
Most folks dont revs their bikes which is why we see so many sports derived 1000s (e.g. Fazer Thou) pootling along in top gear. From there, they need the cubes to do anything useful. If the riders dropped down 3 gears they would scare themselves silly.
The BMW boxer makes power at lower revs with a pretty much linear delivery from 2000 or less. Only an 8 valve four cylinder has a wider useful rev range and they dont rev much higher than a boxer.
The difference is the sports bikes have everything crammed into the top rev range. Take a CBR600 over 10,000 and hang on tight! But below that its a pussycat and not especially fuel efficient due to valve overlap losses.
Most folks dont revs their bikes which is why we see so many sports derived 1000s (e.g. Fazer Thou) pootling along in top gear. From there, they need the cubes to do anything useful. If the riders dropped down 3 gears they would scare themselves silly.
The BMW boxer makes power at lower revs with a pretty much linear delivery from 2000 or less. Only an 8 valve four cylinder has a wider useful rev range and they dont rev much higher than a boxer.
Well, after much thinking, I've decided I'm taking mine to Frank Wrathall at DynoJet UK, he's always done my bikes and I feel more comfortable getting realistic gains of a couple here and there,not that its needed, but every factory set up can be improved on, I've never ever seen any bikes gain so much bhp and torque just from a new map....ever, that includes full race bikes with thousands thrown at them, Please don't in any way take this as a dressing down to Hilltop cos its not, its just my thoughts.......
Power commander and custom map you expect a few bhp/torque if you're lucky, then you throw a full system ( high end like Akrapovic ) and you might squeeze 10 bhp and a few more ft/lbs, then comes the cams and head work which is thousands of pounds worth of parts and labour to build and set up, this might then push you up to 15-20 extra.....
How do we know this???? well it just so happens......
Power commander and custom map you expect a few bhp/torque if you're lucky, then you throw a full system ( high end like Akrapovic ) and you might squeeze 10 bhp and a few more ft/lbs, then comes the cams and head work which is thousands of pounds worth of parts and labour to build and set up, this might then push you up to 15-20 extra.....
How do we know this???? well it just so happens......
I can understand a new motor being tight, and not loose enough to push out a bhp figure, but that torque figure just doesnt seem right to me for a 1200 twin, without boring people to death but
Im not sure if its been mentioned, its a long thread....but dyno's can be manipulated !! just saying..
As someone who has had their bike remapped at Hilltop I am intrigued about the possibility of manipulating the figures. How would they do that?
Like many I am convinced there is a significant difference at the top end and it feels smoother lower down, but am I convinced of a 20% hike - possibly not.
But in the absence of confirmation or otherwise, I have no reason to doubt the numbers - it certainly feels much more lively at the top of the rev range.
Read this
http://www.jkm.org.uk/performance/dynotesting.htm
I have always been interested in the torque curves than the BHP, however BHP is what sells the bikes and is what people talk about down the pub.
Karl
mcinlb
Registered user
I've been following this thread along with a view to getting my 2010 twin cam remapped.
I'm not so impressed with the figures quoted for different bikes, some being large increases in power and torque.
What I'm after is what seems to be universal, is the feel on the road with the increased smoothness and pull in mid range. This is worth the money IMO..
I'm not so impressed with the figures quoted for different bikes, some being large increases in power and torque.
What I'm after is what seems to be universal, is the feel on the road with the increased smoothness and pull in mid range. This is worth the money IMO..
I don't give a monkeys about peak BHP, gains over stock etc. I care about tractability, smoothness, reliability and no reduction in MPG over stock. The GS runs very lean for emissions and has a history on some bikes of valve failure.
I would welcome the improvements that Geoff can provide and if he quoted 150 BHP at the rear tyre as bragging rights I wouldn't care either way, that's not what it's about for me.
I would welcome the improvements that Geoff can provide and if he quoted 150 BHP at the rear tyre as bragging rights I wouldn't care either way, that's not what it's about for me.
Had the GTR done by Geoff on Thursday... it's tractability and torque I was looking for 
It's not giving wildly exaggerated figures either
It's not giving wildly exaggerated figures either
- Status
Similar threads
