The majority of dyno runs show the stock R3 at around 37 rear wheel horsepower.
No one is sure why jbluetooth's dyno run was so low compared to all the others. Something with their set-up or software, maybe.
The majority of dyno runs show the stock R3 at around 37 rear wheel horsepower.Ok, I have been contemplating getting a R3 but I am a bit concerned about the HP ratings being seen in production R25s and from @jbluetooth dyno runs.
http://www.rushlane.com/yamaha-r25-delivery-12126580.html
http://indianautosblog.com/2014/06/yamaha-r25-dyno-test-134765
http://www.yamahar3racing.com/category/dyno-testing-and-tuning/
Each of these is a bit concerning to me being that I want to race it and would be going up against the KTM RC 390. The KTM has consistently posted dyno runs in the 40 hp range.
I know each dyno is different but 20% difference between what Yamaha is claiming and what is being seen is nuts!
Opinions?
I would only be using it for racing so that doesn't matter to me. I try only to have about 1 to 2 gallons in my tank during a race. Any extra is just added weight I don't need. Unless, of course, doing an endurance race.KTM has a very small tank, really not that good for street.
That was a pre production model though destined for R&D, not some random bike purchased off the showroom floor.The very first dyno run results available from North America the R3 put down 38.54 to the wheel
R3 Dyno Sheet Independent Shop
So John Bayliss (name in the snap) is the product manager for motorcycles and scooters at Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd... Big time...
And what exactly do you think would be different between it and a 'random' bike from the production floor?? Just because it says it was for development doesnt mean it was pre-production, could have been the first Canadian model off the production floor and was shipped over with the show models which traveled the country in January. No one knows for sure except the guys at Yamaha.That was a pre production model though destined for R&D, not some random bike purchased off the showroom floor.
If you are looking at racing the 300 class (D Superstock, etc.), you really should talk to some of the guys who have been racing the RC390 before buying. I love the 390 and almost bought one, but it has had some significant durability issues, among other things that figured into me opting for the R3.....I would only be using it for racing so that doesn't matter to me. I try only to have about 1 to 2 gallons in my tank during a race. Any extra is just added weight I don't need. Unless, of course, doing an endurance race.
Not to mention their problem with some of their wheels breaking. It was probably the result of hitting potholes in India but it sure doesn't inspire confidence!If you are looking at racing the 300 class (D Superstock, etc.), you really should talk to some of the guys who have been racing the RC390 before buying. I love the 390 and almost bought one, but it has had some significant durability issues, among other things that figured into me opting for the R3.....
I'd say any large variations on one dyno over several runs are the result of problems with the dyno, not the bike.I understand dyno variations. That doesn't explain a 20% variation! Yes, I would expect a 4-5%, even 10%, variation. What about the "variations" they are seeing in the R25s, even with repeated runs? They are getting a 15% variation.
Where would the difference in fuel mapping come from on a stock bike with no modifications to account for the difference.
No I am not trying to accuse Yamaha of lying. I am just concerned about what is being seen out there right now.
Single cylinder bikes have never really been the best choice for racing. The torque is usually great but the stresses on the engine are greater, in general, than for twins, triples, fours.I know I shouldn't be so concerned about HP. Yamaha reliability is one of the reasons I was leaning towards the R3. Plus it is a twin, better dealer network, cheaper engine parts, cheaper aftermarket parts, etc...
As for the KTM wheels, that is some scary stuff! Also, the KTM engine reliability issues is concerning. But we are also talking about race bikes that are put under huge loads. We don't know how the Yamaha will react under those same conditions yet since there are not a lot out there on the track.
Manufacturers do not specify HP at the real wheel, which is what is measured at dynos. Have you considered this?I should add, the 15% variation for the R25 I am referring to is the difference between what Yamaha is stating and what the testers were getting from their dyno. It sounds like they were getting consistent dyno results, just never up to, or close to, what Yamaha is advertising.
Exactly.Manufacturers do not specify HP at the real wheel, which is what is measured at dynos. Have you considered this?
As for the KTM wheels, that is some scary stuff! Also, the KTM engine reliability issues is concerning. But we are also talking about race bikes that are put under huge loads. We don't know how the Yamaha will react under those same conditions yet since there are not a lot out there on the track.
The thumpers apparently don't like being wound up for very long. I worked one of the KTM cup race weekends - three engine-related failures in the first practice session - not sure what the final count was for the weekend. And these are the de-tuned versions - word is last year's eurocup, 25 or so would grid, 15 or so would finish (very few DNF's due to crashes). Race bikes, yes - typical failure rate for a race bike, no. If I manage to grenade the R3 this year, then I'm covered by warranty - after that, I'll be ticked if I don't get at least two seasons...Single cylinder bikes have never really been the best choice for racing. The torque is usually great but the stresses on the engine are greater, in general, than for twins, triples, fours.
!