Something maybe a little bit different to think about. 
(ok I haven't spotted a 'non-radical' tuning thread - I may just be blind and have missed it, in which case, my apologies, and slap my wrist, hehe)
Back in the early '70's, 10hp per 100cc was considered fairly easy to get, pretty cheap to get, and reliable (to be fair, they were days of high quality easily obtainable 101 octane fuel too - which is why the 'baseline' has been moved to 60bhp, while 'optimum' is still at 65bhp). In 1973, I almost managed it with an Escort 1300 GT (an icky car!), just failing to get 125bhp out of it (secondhand Dellorto's, Stage 2 cam, gas flowing, valve springs, secondhand extractor manifold, basically. Bigger valves and I'd have broken through 125bhp easily, but I couldn't justify the extra expense as that went on bikes).
35'ish years on, how would a water cooled Honda 650cc
carb'd V twin fit in with this equation? Given that those that 'tune', normally do so to extract the last ounces of power available.
Easy to get, cheap to get, and an ultimately reliable setup, that can offer tractable and 'brisk' performance.
As a concept, in my experience 10hp per 100cc, or very near that, has always seemed to produce very 'sweet' motors.
I wouldn't say a Wiseco 663cc piston kit is 'cheating', but utilising it, due to the expense, and it carrying the engine over 650cc, carries a 'penalty' of such an improved engine having to hit an absolute minimum of 66bhp (fair?).
Whilst a 700cc kit is absolutely peaches and cream, I think it would have to be excluded due to going into what would really be a different type of project (fair?).
I won't exclude secondhand parts from fairly common bikes from inclusion if they are available (e.g. suitably modifiable carbs that happen to be much better).
A 60 - 65bhp project, would give better than a 20% improvement in output, and would be 'useful enough' for a broad range of riders (possibly applicable as a concept to other similar machines too?).
Formula for judging to be sensibly estimated $ cost of parts and specialist machining (if necessary) divided by pretty reliable estimate of final horsepower, with the lowest $ per horsepower of the relevant ranges (60 - 65 hp for sub 650cc, 66+ for over 650cc but less than 675cc) being the winner. ETA: any better suggestion for judging willingly adopted by the way.
Labour for disassembly, reassembly, and tuning, not to be included (too variable on workshop), so parts and inescapable machining (if necessary) only.
As a wild guess, I'd estimate a slip on, cams, UniPods, and a Stage 3 jetting kit, might be approaching 'ballpark'? I've got a gut feeling 62-63bhp might be a 'sweet spot'.
So sharpen those pencils, and I'll see if I can sort out a prize (I might still have access to nice sweaters that have a Welsh Flag [green and white stripe background, with a big red dragon in the middle] on the front of them).
Mods if you think the idea sucks, delete it.
(ok I haven't spotted a 'non-radical' tuning thread - I may just be blind and have missed it, in which case, my apologies, and slap my wrist, hehe)
Back in the early '70's, 10hp per 100cc was considered fairly easy to get, pretty cheap to get, and reliable (to be fair, they were days of high quality easily obtainable 101 octane fuel too - which is why the 'baseline' has been moved to 60bhp, while 'optimum' is still at 65bhp). In 1973, I almost managed it with an Escort 1300 GT (an icky car!), just failing to get 125bhp out of it (secondhand Dellorto's, Stage 2 cam, gas flowing, valve springs, secondhand extractor manifold, basically. Bigger valves and I'd have broken through 125bhp easily, but I couldn't justify the extra expense as that went on bikes).
35'ish years on, how would a water cooled Honda 650cc
carb'd V twin fit in with this equation? Given that those that 'tune', normally do so to extract the last ounces of power available.
Easy to get, cheap to get, and an ultimately reliable setup, that can offer tractable and 'brisk' performance.
As a concept, in my experience 10hp per 100cc, or very near that, has always seemed to produce very 'sweet' motors.
I wouldn't say a Wiseco 663cc piston kit is 'cheating', but utilising it, due to the expense, and it carrying the engine over 650cc, carries a 'penalty' of such an improved engine having to hit an absolute minimum of 66bhp (fair?).
Whilst a 700cc kit is absolutely peaches and cream, I think it would have to be excluded due to going into what would really be a different type of project (fair?).
I won't exclude secondhand parts from fairly common bikes from inclusion if they are available (e.g. suitably modifiable carbs that happen to be much better).
A 60 - 65bhp project, would give better than a 20% improvement in output, and would be 'useful enough' for a broad range of riders (possibly applicable as a concept to other similar machines too?).
Formula for judging to be sensibly estimated $ cost of parts and specialist machining (if necessary) divided by pretty reliable estimate of final horsepower, with the lowest $ per horsepower of the relevant ranges (60 - 65 hp for sub 650cc, 66+ for over 650cc but less than 675cc) being the winner. ETA: any better suggestion for judging willingly adopted by the way.
Labour for disassembly, reassembly, and tuning, not to be included (too variable on workshop), so parts and inescapable machining (if necessary) only.
As a wild guess, I'd estimate a slip on, cams, UniPods, and a Stage 3 jetting kit, might be approaching 'ballpark'? I've got a gut feeling 62-63bhp might be a 'sweet spot'.
So sharpen those pencils, and I'll see if I can sort out a prize (I might still have access to nice sweaters that have a Welsh Flag [green and white stripe background, with a big red dragon in the middle] on the front of them).
Mods if you think the idea sucks, delete it.
Comment