[Dr Mayhem]

Doubting and asking for proof is not paranoia, it is science.

Believing everything you read in a book is exactly what religious guys tell you.

I found the info page 620, 606 in the pdf.

copy / paste.

Read the bold part now. Doesn't it strike you as odd that something tells you it not justs restricts fuel, but it prevents the engine from revving doing so ? Because if that was true, the engine would well, not rev higher than 6000. and yet it does.


Which made me think there is an error in that book - and I know there are tons, like that chapter that tells to top up oil level with brake fluid. But since it is an unordinary claim, i searched for proof ...

And I found it, with a google search. That section is a copy/paste of euro4 single cylinders engines from royal enfield.

 pdf page 178, the very same text. Which makes sense, on a single 500cc engine ...

http://www.royalenfieldlesite.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/manuel-entretien-roayl-enfield-500.pdf

Aren't there forums strictly dedicated to arguing, one upmanship and related obnoxiousness?

Tell me how you would get 58-60 HP from this engine naturally aspirated while using the stock cams AND without taking any torque from the bottom. Tell me and you can prove to everyone what you do and do not know.

So far I'm thinking just another one who isn't aware of what he doesn't know.

[mwmosser]

 pdf page 178, the very same text. Which makes sense, on a single 500cc engine ...

http://www.royalenfieldlesite.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/manuel-entretien-roayl-enfield-500.pdf

There is a slight change though:
My bet is whoever copied this forgot this part in bold.

ECU fuel restrictions in neutral - we had that on our 2008 Acura TSX 6-speed (European Honda Accord). Could not rev past 7000 in neutral. Absolutely could rev to 8100 in gear.
Not at all surprised that there are errors in the manual.

[cyril31]

Aren't there forums strictly dedicated to arguing, one upmanship and related obnoxiousness?

Tell me how you would get 58-60 HP from this engine naturally aspirated while using the stock cams AND without taking any torque from the bottom. Tell me and you can prove to everyone what you do and do not know.

So far I'm thinking just another one who isn't aware of what he doesn't know.

There are places where believers meet, wank together, and band against anyone that would contradict them, yes. If your alpha ego cannot fathom getting contradicted or proven wrong, i suggest either joining one of these, or taking the time to check if whatever you are writing is not wrong. Avoid calling people paranoid when they ask for said proofs, and you will probably not be met with obnoxious answers when you get your errors pointed.

As for your question, why should I answer ? I never made such a claim. I have a couple of answers, but the quantity of work or the lack of reliability involved makes it a moot point. And if any of us need to provide proof of whatever he writes, that would be you, since you never did so far. Unlike me.

[Dr Mayhem]

This is what i think too.

I do not know the characteristics of the OEM cams, but you can easily see the difference in cam profile in the pic:
http://www.ss119.id/shop/high-compression-111-piston-kit-royal-enfield-650-twins/

The shape show a much faster and longer valve opening. I am a bit surprised by the duration though, 216/222 still feels a bit short for a race cam on a bike... but since the stock cam allows for 50ish HP, even a "short-ish" cam should net quite the improvement without sacrificing too much low/middle range. I would not be suprised to see 60HP from that cam and a remap alone.

You look at the dyno curves of that cam and you say "I do not know the characteristics of the OEM cams"... LoL... I was giving you way much more credit than you deserve! You know absolutely nothing about building Hi-Po naturally aspirated engines 

[cyril31]

You look at the dyno curves of that cam and you say "I do not know the characteristics of the OEM cams"... LoL... I was giving you way much more credit than you deserve! You know absolutely nothing about building Hi-Po naturally aspirated engines 

Yes, i cannot guess the lift and duration of a set of cams by looking at a dyno. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.

Do you realize you are making a fool of yourself, after i took the time to explain where you made a mistake and you called me paranoid and obnoxious ? Do we need to get a moderator involved so we can have a civil discussion without your ego getting in the way ?

[Dr Mayhem]

Yes, i cannot guess the lift and duration of a set of cams by looking at a dyno. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.

Do you realize you are making a fool of yourself, after i took the time to explain where you made a mistake and you called me paranoid and obnoxious ? Do we need to get a moderator involved so we can have a civil discussion without your ego getting in the way ?

Get hold of yourself eh!.. You're sounding much more than a LITTLE like a dim-whit 12 year old girl

[Bilgemaster]

Let's please keep the tone civil and productive, OK? I don't see myself as here to officiate over schoolyard quarrels, but other members ARE beginning to complain. What started out as a nice solid topic with fat juicy metrics is starting to devolve into something resembling one of those Siberian Slap Fight contests, but maybe not so "butch."

Keep it nice, folks.

[Dr Mayhem]

Let's please keep the tone civil and productive, OK? I don't see myself as here to officiate over schoolyard quarrels, but other members ARE beginning to complain. What started out as a nice solid topic with fat juicy metrics is starting to devolve into something resembling one of those Siberian Slap Fight contests, but maybe not so "butch."

Keep it nice, folks.

fine by me. well taken! 

[Starpeve]

LS1's love a tune because they were tuned so sloppily from new. They run too rich and ignition curves are choppy and all over the place. Who you ask depends on whether it was on purpose or by mistake. Here's a good read. It's old now but LS motors are no spring chickens, either. Note the part where they mention the power gain with a failing fuel pump dropping pressure and leaning the AFR. (Disclaimer: I've never owned an LS, this is just what I've learned from reading and chatting with owners. My own carb fed SBC and I6 motors gained power/economy after cam, head, displacement, exhaust and carb changes).

https://www.oztrack.com.au/2013-09-27-06-14-12/ls1-tuning-explained

I think you're both right. A well tuned from factory engine needs more than a tune to make big power gains. But one hamstrung from the factory, there's room for improvement.

My point. But the sloppy LS 1 tunes (  I’ve spent a fair bit of time on Oztrack, etc also) were probably by intent, as they already knew how to squeeze them through the Corvettes . Same engines, same hardware, more power.
Cheers mate, Steve

[Starpeve]

There are places where believers meet, wank together, and band against anyone that would contradict them, yes. If your alpha ego cannot fathom getting contradicted or proven wrong, i suggest either joining one of these, or taking the time to check if whatever you are writing is not wrong. Avoid calling people paranoid when they ask for said proofs, and you will probably not be met with obnoxious answers when you get your errors pointed.

As for your question, why should I answer ? I never made such a claim. I have a couple of answers, but the quantity of work or the lack of reliability involved makes it a moot point. And if any of us need to provide proof of whatever he writes, that would be you, since you never did so far. Unlike me.

I’m not sure if that post was aimed at you or me or both of us Cyril! BTW , not doubting your knowledge or skills at all. Just cogitating on possibilities!👍
Cheers Steve
PS I totally agree with the comments posted about nastiness- civility is everything.

[Haggisman]

I used to own a Dnepr 650 (Russian) motorbike with a 7 to 1 compression ratio,  the manual suggested to use good quality 72 to 74 octane petrol for best performance. I can't remember its power or torque figures (not much)

[twocoolgliders]

I'm with Cyril on this one....everything he says, he backs up.

BTW  ran my bike between 5000 and 6000 a few times today....she really pulls hard in that range!  (wouldn't do that without fuel!)

Cookie

[Starpeve]

I'm with Cyril on this one....everything he says, he backs up.

BTW  ran my bike between 5000 and 6000 a few times today....she really pulls hard in that range!  (wouldn't do that without fuel!)

Cookie
Only quoting the beloved tech manual my friend!
Steve

[Haggisman]

I used to own a Dnepr 650 (Russian) motorbike with a 7 to 1 compression ratio,  the manual suggested to use good quality 72 to 74 octane petrol for best performance. I can't remember its power or torque figures (not much)

Looked it up, apparently the Dnepr made 45HP on better octane fuel!

[Starpeve]

To quote Btitney-“oops Idid it again.“ !