OK, so I did not buy my 696 for the HP rating...

But, most of the advertised specs have been 80HP for this bike.  I picked up a Cycle World mag yesterday where they compare the 696 to the KTM Duke 690.  In there they have the 696 Dyno'd at 65HP.  I know the advertised numbers often vary a bit from the actual dyno'd values...but this seems like a very large difference?

Who's right?

-Craig

 a manufacturer usually rates the hp at the crank shaft. when a magazine does a review, they dyno test at the rear wheel, as this is what you feel in the seat of your pants  & this # will be lower, as there is a loss of power downstream of the transmission & the final drive. i have heard from 10-15%  depending on sprocket ratio / shaft drive /  belt.   [moto]

Quote from: slowrider on June 27, 2008, 05:40:04 AM
OK, so I did not buy my 696 for the HP rating...

But, most of the advertised specs have been 80HP for this bike.  I picked up a Cycle World mag yesterday where they compare the 696 to the KTM Duke 690.  In there they have the 696 Dyno'd at 65HP.  I know the advertised numbers often vary a bit from the actual dyno'd values...but this seems like a very large difference?

Who's right?

-Craig

Typically the manufacturers rate BHP at the crank. The dyno measures at the rear wheel. There is energy loss throughout the drive train. Also, unless the dyno is adjusted for temp, humidity and pressure, there can be a loss there as well. Density altitude (the altitude adjusted for variables has a great effect on available combustion oxygen) can rob power as well. Example: Abq (Denver altitude) on a hot day can have a density altitude of 9500 feet. I figure about 4%loss per 1000 feet.  So, 100 HP here on a non-standard temp/pressure will be off about 38 HP in a normally aspirated engine. My S2R1K with full exhaust, ect, dyno'ed pressure/temp adjusted at about 83 HP at the rear wheel with a 95 BHP rating from the manufacturer... Your mileage may vary.

And ducati measured before from rear wheel. But what year they chanced to crank?

Quote from: oppet on June 27, 2008, 06:35:11 AM
And ducati measured before from rear wheel. But what year they chanced to crank?

I think it was 2005, you can check at ducati.com, you'll see all the Monsters gain big HP from one year to the next.

THX... 

In the same Cycle World article, the author notes that a turbo Volvo outran the 696.  Anyone with a 696 or even a 695 comment on the hwy speeds/power?  Maybe a drop to 14t in the front would help?  I know the 696 is not a superslabber, but I am considering the 696 and if I commute it would include about 10 minutes on the interstate.  My previous bike was a vfr750 and I know there is a step down in power, but I still want to have some get up and go to get around all the cages that are out there to get you.  I personally like the styling on the 696 which is why I am not considering a larger Monster.

Quote from: NWapex on July 02, 2008, 08:51:31 AM
In the same Cycle World article, the author notes that a turbo Volvo outran the 696. 
--------snip--------------

Outran how?
1/4 mile, 0-60, etc?

outran on a twisty road up a mountain.   very odd article.

Quote from: NWapex on July 02, 2008, 08:51:31 AM
Anyone with a 696 or even a 695 comment on the hwy speeds/power? 

i've had no problem getting above 70 while following break in procedure; i.e., i can get to highway speeds without exceeding 5500 RPM

Quote from: cmorgan47 on July 02, 2008, 09:49:09 AM
i've had no problem getting above 70 while following break in procedure; i.e., i can get to highway speeds without exceeding 5500 RPM

1+

I can get my 696 up to 70s -80s quickly while staying under 5500 RPM

Quick enough to merge easily into highway traffic

Quote from: NWapex on July 02, 2008, 08:51:31 AM
In the same Cycle World article, the author notes that a turbo Volvo outran the 696.  Anyone with a 696 or even a 695 comment on the hwy speeds/power?  Maybe a drop to 14t in the front would help?  I know the 696 is not a superslabber, but I am considering the 696 and if I commute it would include about 10 minutes on the interstate.  My previous bike was a vfr750 and I know there is a step down in power, but I still want to have some get up and go to get around all the cages that are out there to get you.  I personally like the styling on the 696 which is why I am not considering a larger Monster.

I think it's really peppy from 70-95 mph, no problem with a quick pass on the highway.  Not so much from 95-116 mph which is as fast as I've taken her.  I've got a 14-tooth front sprocket installed btw.

sidenote:

is this the same cycleworld where they compare it to the KTM?

Quote from: cmorgan47 on July 02, 2008, 10:45:21 AM
sidenote:

is this the same cycleworld where they compare it to the KTM?

Yes, it is the recent article in Cycle World comparing the 696 to the KTM 690.

Quote from: NWapex on July 02, 2008, 08:51:31 AM
In the same Cycle World article, the author notes that a turbo Volvo outran the 696.

there are freakishly fast(sleeper?) volvos scattered about california,oregon,washington and AZ.

as a matter of fact, i am a member of a volvo board and someone posted the same exact thing... we were trying to figure out whose car it was