Engine tests (RIVAs ballistics)

[RIVA]

i dont know .

i only helped out on the days .

rib int.... will have the figures

[CJL]

I can't believe that so many people have got soooo wound up over such a fundamentally flawed article.

Ok some of the data quoted is wrong but putting the engines on to the boats was where it all went wrong!!!

If you wanted better (not correct as you will never ever get this) then the engines need the same variables and same readings to be taken at the same time, place and using the same method.

The sea state, temp, salinty, weight, wind etc, etc were all different. Some to a large degree some to a tiny degree. Add all the variables up and a large differences in the performance will start to appear.

You cannot get fair results in such a test. Only if a bench set up was available with controlable variables would you get a half decent set of results


Chris

(PS Flowmeters never ever ever ever accurate!)

[Roy Smith]

I agree with CJL big deal.
Big probleam here is that we all want our engines to be the best.
There are a lot of people on here that have Opti,s the tech is not the most modern but hey they love em and most importantly they feel confedent with them. same for me i chose a Yamaha, i have come the the conculion that it my not the ultimate. its just when you have a few people saying that E.tec,s are the best engine every made when in truth they not any better then any of the others.
Are you realy going to buy a 250 engine on the basis of the RIB INT report
i would much rarther ask the guys on here what they think of there engines which are used in the real world every day and stop given poor old RIVA a hard time.I apologise in advance for using Opti,s as an example.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Roy Smith

.......Are you realy going to buy a 250 engine on the basis of the RIB INT report
i would much rarther ask the guys on here what they think of there engines which are used in the real world every day and stop given poor old RIVA a hard time.I apologise in advance for using Opti,s as an example.

The whole point was that it was people who use the engines in the "real world" that questioned the report in RI, only to have their questioning ridiculed. Most people understand that believing what the press say is about as sound as believing in the tooth fairy. It was the way that the questioning was responded to that caused an issue for me.

[Roy Smith]

I agree
I would like to ask a question with out starting a thread
I was at Lymington on Thursday speaking to the engine man from Sal marine
they have just put 3 250 Suzuki on a 10.5 ring, I asked the question would it not have been better to put 3. 250 E-tecs on the back citing the weight savings and the so called fuel savings of this 2.stroke engine.
He said to me and i quote. you dont get the torque with a two stroke that you do with a four stroke.
What did he mean.

[codprawn]

Four strokes can generally swing bigger props than 2 strokes which gives more thrust at lower speeds.

[Ribshop]

This test was designed to get a idea of the overall performance of each of the 250s tested. The engines were rigged on the same hull in the same format with the same seating etc. The tests were carried out with the same flo scan meter with the same persons on board on the same course as close to the same conditions as possible.

The lph test was carried out over a time frame of 120sec running at the different rev intervals. As I agree trying to take an on-off reading from a flo scan whilst trying to hold on and keep your ears warm would not be accurate to make a fare assumption of the fuel being used.

I agree that it is not exactly 100% accurate as this was not laboratory conditions but instead this was how the engines would be used by everybody who ends up buying one. And the test was not only to find out fuel consumption but also to review all other pros and cons of the engines.

However there was quite obviously a misprint in the mag. The Suzuki does not rev to 8000rpm and does burn more fuel then 24lph at 5000rpm. Therefore this boat has been re-tested to make sure the figures that were recorded on the day of the last test are correct. I am sure they will print a correction.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Ribshop

However there was quite obviously a misprint in the mag. The Suzuki does not rev to 8000rpm and does burn more fuel then 24lph at 5000rpm. Therefore this boat has been re-tested to make sure the figures that were recorded on the day of the last test are correct. I am sure they will print a correction.

They have printed a correction and an apology. It still revs to 8,100 but it now burns 44 lph @ 5000 revs.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

They have printed a correction and an apology. It still revs to 8,100 but it now burns 44 lph @ 5000 revs.

...... top quality