"33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Yeah right, you've about as much chance of that as YC staying out of a suspension debate!

Shall we start one to find out

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Is it just me, or is this post complete gobbledygook until you add some home-grown punctuation?

Ffs man, if you're going to post something, for the love of whatever deity you worship, make it readable to the masses without them having to reread it 5 times to make any sense of it.

Well done!

Only three goes....

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Yeah right, you've about as much chance of that as YC staying out of a suspension debate!

Or indeed any debate

Another thing, the police must recognise that FB has made a reasonable effort to restrict his bike, is an extra 11% really that much considering the bike has lost 50% of its power anyway.
If you tested 10 sv's with no restrictor fitted i bet you would get 11% variance across them.

Originally Posted by specialone

Another thing, the police must recognise that FB has made a reasonable effort to restrict his bike, is an extra 11% really that much considering the bike has lost 50% of its power anyway.

I'm really not sure of that. I "think" it falls under strict liability for not riding in accordance with the license, but I await somebody more knowledgeable confirming that. Furthermore, I don't know what error the police testing method (or lack of) has; if their result is + or - 10% or whatever.

Fairly academic now anyway I suspect.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by specialone

Another thing, the police must recognise that FB has made a reasonable effort to restrict his bike, is an extra 11% really that much considering the bike has lost 50% of its power anyway.
If you tested 10 sv's with no restrictor fitted i bet you would get 11% variance across them.

I suspect if you tested three different restricted SV's on three different dynos you could quite easily get such a variation. I'm sure that is one of the factors being considered. The important bit is that the test didn't show 60bhp plus so the bike has definitely got a restricted ECU fitted.

[madcockney]

Originally Posted by Flameboy

he's going to be having a chat with the pc and i assume they'll decide weather or not to prosecute. as it's 36.9bhp, and that's 11% over? and the margin is 10%? He's also checking the paper work and calibration of the dyno, but surely that should have been done before the bike was tested...

As Embee says they should really be talking in KW and not BHP, though there is a direct correlation between the two. 25 KW is closer to 33.5 BHP than 33, and with 10% tolerance that gives 27.5 KW and guess what; that equates to 36.878 BHP. What did FB say; that they said it was 36.9 BHP and that is 11% over. Me thinks not. I still don't believe, as Embee has alluded, that they performed the test in accordance with prescribed EU regulations. To be honest they probably don't realise that there is a procedure thinking that a dyno reading is a dyno reading. I don't know exactly what RH has said to them, and he should be congratulated and thanked profusely, if Suzuki had got in touch with the police then the results would have been very interesting.

YC mentioned about nett BHP, and that in his opinion is at the wheel. This is rather interesting as in all the various government documentation that I have read for some test classes it mentions engine power output, but for this class it states maximum power output, or similar words and never mentions the engine. I would therefore think that unless it is defined in UK law to be one or the other then it could be taken as at the wheel.

Originally Posted by Red Herring

I suspect if you tested three different restricted SV's on three different dynos you could quite easily get such a variation. I'm sure that is one of the factors being considered. The important bit is that the test didn't show 60bhp plus so the bike has definitely got a restricted ECU fitted.

Which i presume hasnt been modified, so how the hell would the OP know any different.
What about if they sold bikes with exactly 33bhp, this figure could vary with age and where they are sold, how would the consumer know.

[tigersaw]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Who defines BHP as power at the crank?

SAE J245 and SAE J1995

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by tigersaw

SAE J245 and SAE J1995

Crank dyno right?

Where does it say "you must ride a bike which has 25kW according to SAE standard Jxxxx"? Nowhere I can find... it simply says "net power of no more than 25kW"

They are just 2 ways of measuring power not THE definition of horsepower. Bhp is the definite(well, kinda) value of 33,000 ft lbs per minute.

Right from the ponys trap
http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/J1995_199506

"This SAE Standard has been adopted by SAE to specify: a.) A basis for gross engine power rating"

Net power was clearly stated on the DVLA website.