BMWS1000RR Dyno Chart (torque expressed in newton/meters)
Somebody stop the madness! On second thought, don’t.
Used to be 180 hp at the back wheel was the result of tens of thousands of dollars of soup-up work: a turbo or nitrous, or just getting your hands on a megabucks works racebike. Them days are over: Motorcycle News, the weekly U.K. publication, just strapped a BMW S1000RR superbike to its dyno, revealing 183 hp at the rear tire. If you think this was a fluke, another dyno run by exhaust manufacturer Akrapovic (say “Ahh-Crop-Oh-Vitch”) showed 185.5 hp!
BMW claims 193 hp (presumably at the crank) from the S, which means the Bavarians are sandbagging a little: 185 at the wheel would be over 200 hp at the crankshaft, given the 10-15 percent parasitic power loss between the crank and rear wheel. Did they do that to keep a low profile from the authorities, whose collective ears may prick up when a mass-produced streetbike makes over 200 hp? Are the early production models blueprinted cheater bikes to impress the press? We won’t know ’till we get our own bike to test, but two independent dyno runs are hard to argue with.
If you are not impressed by the BMW’s numbers, take a look at this peak horsepower chart of bikes dyno’d by Akrapovic:
Akrapovic Stock Dyno Results
(2009 or 2010 models)
|BMW S1000RR||185.5 @ 13,120|
|Aprilia RSV4||165 @ 12,400|
|Ducati 1198S||157.4 @ 9,800|
|Honda CBR1000RR||170.6 @ 12,290|
|Yamaha YZF-R1||161.6 @ 12,430|
|Kawasaki ZX-10R||163.1 @ 12,150|
|Suzuki GSX-R 1000||168.1 @ 11,900|
|Kawasaki ZX-14||174 @ 9,400|
|Suzuki Hayabusa||179.5 @ 9,300|
MD Readers Respond:
- If BMW is claiming “only” 193hp at the crank, about 10 less (5%) than
you measured at the rear wheel it’s not that they are sandbagging.
Instead its evidence you’ve drunk the cool-aid of the dyno tuners. They
invented the 10-15% number so they could “recalibrate” their dynos high
enough that they don’t have so many dissatisfied customers yelling, “But
it makes a 150hp without your &%)$# tuning. It says so right here in
the owner’s manual.” No modern drive train sucks out that kind of
power. If they did you’d need a separate radiator just for the tranny. Brent
- Hello from Australia!
I’d suggest that the numbers that numbers quoted by BMW are close to accurate at the crank figures, after all I think these figures all have to be certified by the TUV in Germany as accurate.
So why either there’s very little parasitic loss (doubtful) or the or the wheel horsepower figures being quoted are overinflated Dynojet numbers which is probably the case as most magazines and shops use Dynonjets these days.
Factory Pro are obviously biased in their opinion on this but the link below and the links in it I think are a good starting point for information on this subject if you care to research it: http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html
BTW, MC Daily is great! Keep up the good work. Douglas
- Screw the HP…look at the freakin’ torque curve. Insane! A “cruiser” should be blessed w/ such torque. jimbo
- Enjoyed the dyno article on the BMW.
Did you see where a while back Kevin Cameron reported that BMW told him they see getting 250 street hp from that motor but are more interested in developing the chassis and suspension than letting it put out more power now. They think current level is maximum appropriate for the rest of the bike as is.
Keep the good articles coming. Thanks, John