Remap by Hilltop Motorcycles

[(RIP) Johno23]

Mmmm this thread seems to have taken on an unpleasant feel to it.
From what I can understand the bike is put on a dyno prior to the remap.Obviously all readings are recorded.
The remap is then done and the bike is then put back on the Dyno. Is this correct?
If this is the case, then any improvements in BHP and Torque recorded between the two dyno readings MUST be correct.
Even if the Dyno is slightly inaccurate the % increase in power/Torque will be roughly the same.The only possible
way these figures shown on the readouts can be wrong is if they have been deliberately manipulated to show the increases
that we are talking about. Now that would be a very serious accusation to make against somebody.Is that what people
on here are saying?The only factual information here seems to be the readouts, all else is personal opinion.I do not happen to believe
a reputable company like Hilltop would manipulate figures just to try to sell more remaps,why would they? they remap all types of bikes etc.
I believe it just seems to be a characteristic of the 2 cylinder GS, that it, on many occasions can show such an increase,and nobody on here, it seems, has the expertise to state otherwise,with only very unscientific experiences to state their disbelief of the figures that have been posted up.
I for one will be taking my 09 GS to Geoff as I believe the bike will be a lot better after it is done.I want the smoothness it will give, but am also interested in the increased torque lower down the rev range which I think will improve the bike greatly.I will doing this based on the experiences of tossers on the previous 50 pages in the thread.
Just my opinion.

 

[Mr Bean]

As stated in earlier posts I am not wholly convinced of the torque/power increase the charts show of my remapped engine. The fact that the correction factors applied (on the print outs) are different doesn't help the increase claims.

In a previous life the company I worked for modified VW/Audi/Porsche (both air and watercooled) engines for fast road/race use. It is because of this I am slightly sceptical of the overall numbers, rather than some who have no experience of fast road/race engines who are pointing/sniping from the sidelines.

However, from the overall feel of the bike I am convinced it is producing more power at higher RPM. It will pull more smoothly from lower RPM - but not necessarily stronger. Incidentally, the low fuel warning on my RT will come on after around 250 miles of motorway cruising between 70-90 where possible. This is less than it was previously but not unexpected as I do make use of the extra performance.

It 'feels' a more fun bike than it was prior to the remap and I am happy.

 

[daesimps]

The thing I found most interesting is that I've had 2 different cars remapped (one Ford and one VW). Both went from around 150 BHP to 170 BHP (around 13%) with similar percentages in torque increase. In both cars this was very noticeable. How come some of us can't notice an even bigger increase (both in absolute figures and in relative percentage terms) in a vehicle that only weighs less than 250Kg?

As I've stated in my 1st post, if all you want is smoothness and low down manageability then by all means go for it as it did make a big difference to my bike. If the headline BHP/torque figures are what you are seeking then I'd seriously consider something else.

 

[Beemerman59]

The only possible way these figures shown on the readouts can be wrong is if they have been deliberately manipulated to show the increases
that we are talking about. Now that would be a very serious accusation to make against somebody.Is that what people
on here are saying?

Nail on head. The inference is that either the initial dyno run figure has been deliberately made to look low or that the remapped figure is higher than reality to show the gains that most of us have on our charts.

 

[Mr Bean]

The printouts on mine use different correction factors DIN vs another - I'll check when I locate the printout.

 

[daesimps]

The printouts on mine use different correction factors DIN vs another - I'll check when I locate the printout.

Mine too. I believe Geoff explained that this was due to a bug in the software in 2011 (although mine was a 2012 bike done in either late 2012 or early 2013 but can't remember when).

Edit: He did, post #605 "in 2011 we did have a bug with the dyno software that's why it went from sae to isa this will make a difference of about 2.3 bhp on top end ,when im doing the live mapping on the dyno i can see the live output on the monitor ,since then you will see all my printouts are in ISA"

 

[Popell]

I have read (I think) all of this thread (in a number of different sittings) and understand the claims made and also appreciate the doubt that exists in the minds of a number of tossers - I should say me included.

My personal view is that an increase in the region of 25% should absolutely be felt - there is , in my mind, no way that if accurate and given all else remaining the same, it would not be obvious.

Looking at some of the graphs, the increase in torque is extraordinary and would imbue quicker 'roll-on' times, the actual peak bhp really may only be felt at WOT and full speed.

I wish I had the wonga to be able to test it for myself and in the absence of personal experience, I am not about to call anyone a fibber.
My 2005 (std)is not far behind my mates fresh Trumpet explorer with it's claimed 128bhp (admittedly its a bit heavier) so the thought that I may be playing with perhaps 60% (around 77bhp - similar to other before figures)of his power seems odd

The only true value is to the owner of each bike, many state that they are happy with the increased smoothness and are not worried about increase in power and that is fantastic - that may be worth the cost alone, I however would have a sense of disappointment if that was all I could detect after being given a before/after showing +25% or whatever.

One observation - do the before/after graphs detail differing correction factors?-my screen is not clear enough to read perfectly.

Sorry last point addressed in posts written during the composition of this one

 

[Wilsdorf]

As stated in earlier posts I am not wholly convinced of the torque/power increase the charts show of my remapped engine. The fact that the correction factors applied (on the print outs) are different doesn't help the increase claims.

In a previous life the company I worked for modified VW/Audi/Porsche (both air and watercooled) engines for fast road/race use. It is because of this I am slightly sceptical of the overall numbers, rather than some who have no experience of fast road/race engines who are pointing/sniping from the sidelines.

However, from the overall feel of the bike I am convinced it is producing more power at higher RPM. It will pull more smoothly from lower RPM - but not necessarily stronger. Incidentally, the low fuel warning on my RT will come on after around 250 miles of motorway cruising between 70-90 where possible. This is less than it was previously but not unexpected as I do make use of the extra performance.

It 'feels' a more fun bike than it was prior to the remap and I am happy.

That is interesting. I didn't know that different correction factors were being used, perhaps I missed that on previous posts, but without knowing exactly how the dyno figures work (I will enquire with a specialist), it may or may not provide some insight.

 

[Mr Bean]

Thanks for the reply.

I had mine done in mid 2012 - took a while to cure.......

I did look at the difference in correction factors and seem to remember coming up with a higher number than 2.3 bhp.

 

[Wilsdorf]

Mmmm this thread seems to have taken on an unpleasant feel to it.
From what I can understand the bike is put on a dyno prior to the remap.Obviously all readings are recorded.
The remap is then done and the bike is then put back on the Dyno. Is this correct?
If this is the case, then any improvements in BHP and Torque recorded between the two dyno readings MUST be correct.
Even if the Dyno is slightly inaccurate the % increase in power/Torque will be roughly the same.The only possible
way these figures shown on the readouts can be wrong is if they have been deliberately manipulated to show the increases
that we are talking about. Now that would be a very serious accusation to make against somebody.Is that what people
on here are saying?The only factual information here seems to be the readouts, all else is personal opinion.I do not happen to believe
a reputable company like Hilltop would manipulate figures just to try to sell more remaps,why would they? they remap all types of bikes etc.
I believe it just seems to be a characteristic of the 2 cylinder GS, that it, on many occasions can show such an increase,and nobody on here, it seems, has the expertise to state otherwise,with only very unscientific experiences to state their disbelief of the figures that have been posted up.
I for one will be taking my 09 GS to Geoff as I believe the bike will be a lot better after it is done.I want the smoothness it will give, but am also interested in the increased torque lower down the rev range which I think will improve the bike greatly.I will doing this based on the experiences of tossers on the previous 50 pages in the thread.
Just my opinion.

Where is the unpleasantness? Certainly not from me or anyone else saying that they believe that 25%-30% increase doesn't seem quite right given the performance gain. Is it wrong to voice these observations to other owners?

What is wrong with a open discussion of the matter - surely it is in the interest of owners?

 

[Mr Bean]

That is interesting. I didn't know that different correction factors were being used, perhaps I missed that on previous posts, but without knowing exactly how the dyno figures work (I will enquire with a specialist), it may or may not provide some insight.

It may be only a few that show it - but mine certainly did.

However, I am convinced it does run better and produces more top end power - but maybe not as much as the dyno print out suggests.

 

[stever1]

So, various people are doubtful as to the overall increase in power. Maybe the judgement should be on usability - IE is it a smoother, better bike ?. Also what are the consequences on fuel usage ?.

 

[(RIP) Miff]

I suppose it matters what other mods you've done to the bike.

Mine has decatted headers (Remus I think) and an accelerator module (the early one). This has made the bike quicker than my last 2005 GS that only had the end can gutted and rewelded up.

Now if I use the Akro can (with baffle) on my bike, it is SO MUCH more urgent and responsive. It wheelies without even trying. If I take the baffle out, it's just TOO loud.

With the OE can (not gutted) it's not quite as responsive and only wheelies with a little more effort.

I'll be going for the remap this year, hopefully.

 

[(RIP) Johno23]

Where is the unpleasantness? Certainly not from me or anyone else saying that they believe that 25%-30% increase doesn't seem quite right given the performance gain. Is it wrong to voice these observations to other owners?

What is wrong with a open discussion of the matter - surely it is in the interest of owners?

Like I said it's a "feeling" of unpleasantness. Nothing wrong with discussion at all.
But also as I said the Dyno readings showing a 20-30% gain CANNOT be wrong if this GAIN IS SHOWN on a dyno(which i'm guessing must be callibrated in some way)straight after the bike has been remapped.
So my question is: How can a bike show such a gain in power/torque after a remap, if that gain hasn't been achieved?
Actual readouts are posted up within this thread.Are you saying they are wrong? If you are, can you explain how possibly they can be wrong.
I know nothing about dynos's etc but if a very expensive (i imagine) bit of equipment gives me some technical information with a readout showing it. Then surely it must be believed. Unless of course you or someone else has another explanation for the results shown.

 

[Phoenix_63]

So, various people are doubtful as to the overall increase in power. Maybe the judgement should be on usability - IE is it a smoother, better bike ?. Also what are the consequences on fuel usage ?.

I think everyone agrees it is smoother and more rideable MPG is down slightly, but I the rideability of the bike means I'm having more, er, fun? So I would expect the slight drop in economy, but it's not huge. About 1 or 2 MPG for me...

Someone commented on the fact we should be able to notice the power difference; well, we should, but a lot of people short-shift and don't use the throttle properly or monitor the clocks; and for example commuting around town you wouldn't necessarily experience the extra power. As I said in my other post, I will probably never see the top power output of mine, but I did notice the throttle response and torque improvements. Having experienced two burnt valves on a K1100 (met with indifference from Bracknell) and knowing that these bikes run lean from standard I was concerned when I fitted the full Akra headers the mixture would run even leaner, so I went for the remap at Hilltop. I am more than satisfied with it and can recommend it. As has been said, you have various options such as other companies and PC, this suited my needs. Good luck, whatever you choose.

 

[Wilsdorf]

So, various people are doubtful as to the overall increase in power. Maybe the judgement should be on usability - IE is it a smoother, better bike ?. Also what are the consequences on fuel usage ?.

That all depends on what an owner wants and expects. The bikes are reportedly smoother, so yes the remap provides that, and as I have stated many many times now - it may be the best option for you. However, other people have posted on the forum other methods of achieving a smoother bike for less money. Other members, myself included were/are looking for a little more power, and in this respect I was disappointed with the end result of the remap stating 103/104bhp and much improved torque. So I'd say if you want a smoother bike then consider it alongside the other options and make a considered choice. But solely as a performance mod, knowing what I know now I wouldn't have bothered.

I have no problem with Hilltop, and I'm sorry if any of my posts have come across that way to some members. I don't have a complete understanding of their dyno and how the software used interprets it, so can't comment in that respect - but I will discuss it and my print outs with a few tuners and take their opinions into account.

 

[Wilsdorf]

I think everyone agrees it is smoother and more rideable MPG is down slightly, but I the rideability of the bike means I'm having more, er, fun? So I would expect the slight drop in economy, but it's not huge. About 1 or 2 MPG for me...

Someone commented on the fact we should be able to notice the power difference; well, we should, but a lot of people short-shift and don't use the throttle properly or monitor the clocks; and for example commuting around town you wouldn't necessarily experience the extra power. As I said in my other post, I will probably never see the top power output of mine, but I did notice the throttle response and torque improvements. Having experienced two burnt valves on a K1100 (met with indifference from Bracknell) and knowing that these bikes run lean from standard I was concerned when I fitted the full Akra headers the mixture would run even leaner, so I went for the remap at Hilltop. I am more than satisfied with it and can recommend it. As has been said, you have various options such as other companies and PC, this suited my needs. Good luck, whatever you choose.

All posts seem to agree that the remap provides a smoother bike, and I would agree with those observations. One other point that may help and to add some balance and also goes in favour of the remap is:

Although our PC'd bike, the single cam, is slightly quicker than the remapped twin cam bike, it does use more fuel - approx. 0.5 litres per tank, as experienced on our 5,000 mile trip round France/Spain in September this year. So this is just one area where the remap is better than the power commander, and may be of interest to some in making a decision.

 

[daesimps]

Like I said it's a "feeling" of unpleasantness. Nothing wrong with discussion at all.
But also as I said the Dyno readings showing a 20-30% gain CANNOT be wrong if this GAIN IS SHOWN on a dyno(which i'm guessing must be callibrated in some way)straight after the bike has been remapped.
So my question is: How can a bike show such a gain in power/torque after a remap, if that gain hasn't been achieved?

First a disclaimer. I personally am not saying that Geoff is in any way manipulating the figures, nor am I having a go at his product. For me, the smoothness was nice but not worth the full £350. I'd have happily paid £150 for the improved smoothness. I have ridden the bike aggressively, including many laps of Cadwell, and can honestly say I couldn't find any notable performance increase even at WOT.

However, in answer to your question there are many ways that figure manipulation can be done. Here is just 1 example, there are many, many more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDwjfZvmPHg

 

[Mr Bean]

First a disclaimer. I personally am not saying that Geoff is in any way manipulating the figures, nor am I having a go at his product. For me, the smoothness was nice but not worth the full £350. I'd have happily paid £150 for the improved smoothness. I have ridden the bike aggressively, including many laps of Cadwell, and can honestly say I couldn't find any notable performance increase even at WOT.

However, in answer to your question there are many ways that figure manipulation can be done. Here is just 1 example, there are many, many more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDwjfZvmPHg

Without doubt I would pay the money again for the improvement - even if it isn't the full amount advertised.

Yes, you may get money back if you buy an Akro system and later sell it - however, for less cost of a louder noise from your rear end I'd rather have a remap.

In my opinion it was £300 or so well spent.

 

[kevmean]

If you don't like it, why keep it? For me a £350 remap Vs a PCV at about £500 plus dyno time was a no brainer; I don't need a selection of maps, I wanted one that worked for all of my riding; I don't track-day this bike so the functionality of a PCV was not needed. I am satisfied that I got excellent value for money from Hilltop as a customer. Calling out someone on accuracy is, as you say, your prerogative; so you have information / figures to back this claim up I presume? Say, your own independent dyno results of a third party remap? And could you please let me know when I have presumed to speak for another in my posts? I am quite willing to clarify if I have caused confusion. I agree people will make their own decisions, and I am also for open discussion and transparency. For someone to whom this stance is alien why not publish YOUR independent dyno results on your remapped machine against the results from the supplier? Then we would see you talking from a Prima facie position of strength rather than someone who has a very strong opinion - to which you are entitled - but no evidence to support it. I have evidence of the power / torque curves of my machine. Can you ACTUALLY disprove them?

The only way to disprove them would be if your bike had been independently dynode immediately prior to the remap and again immediately after then compared the two sets of graphs ............ they will never match exactly as no 2 dyno's are the same BUT given similar conditions the % increase or decrease should be very close together.
You guys that are fooling yourself that you have 25% more power are the only ones that had the chance to do that. If you did get a 25% increase then I suggest there was something more than a bad map wrong with your bike that was also corrected .