Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60
  1. #21
    same setup on my 2020 GP

    sea level, even colder temps.... turning 9000-9150 rpm and max speed was GPS 86

  2. #22
    Click avatar for tech links/info K447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    45,836
    +1
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by FAMT View Post
    same setup on my 2020 GP

    Using the AGR tune and 93 octane fuel?


  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    495
    +1
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by FAMT View Post
    same setup on my 2020 GP

    sea level, even colder temps.... turning 9000-9150 rpm and max speed was GPS 86
    A friend of mine ran 86mph on his 2017 at 8600rpm. Riva S2 setup and tune. 1,150ft above sea level, so 89mph at 8900-9000rpm is possible.

    Questions I'd ask are... How much fuel? What was trim at? How were you positioned on the ski? I can get a 3mph difference out of my ski between a full tank sitting up on the seat with neutral trim versus under 1/4 tank, trim 1 click up and me crouched positioned back on the ski.

    Other item that cost me 2-3mph was an incorrectly shimmed ride plate. It cannot be flush or lower than the transom. Needs to be stepped up some.
    Last edited by pwc4life; 11-27-2021 at 05:13 PM.

  4. #24
    Site Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Morgan City, La
    Posts
    46
    +1
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by pwc4life View Post
    A friend of mine ran 86mph on his 2017 at 8600rpm. Riva S2 setup and tune. 1,150ft above sea level, so 89mph at 8900-9000rpm is possible.

    Questions I'd ask are... How much fuel? What was trim at? How were you positioned on the ski? I can get a 3mph difference out of my ski between a full tank sitting up on the seat with neutral trim versus under 1/4 tank, trim 1 click up and me crouched positioned back on the ski.

    Other item that cost me 2-3mph was an incorrectly shimmed ride plate. It cannot be flush or lower than the transom. Needs to be stepped up some.
    The GP had 3/4 tank of fuel according to the dash, trim was all the way up, and I was stretched out on the seat tucked beneath the handlebars.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by K447 View Post
    Using the AGR tune and 93 octane fuel?
    yes AGR ATR and running 102 octane Fuel

  6. #26
    Well trim up, light person, cold weather, not seating in the seat and running with out the back seat will give the best results but is this real world testing ?

  7. #27
    Site Admin
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Morgan City, La
    Posts
    46
    +1
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by FAMT View Post
    Well trim up, light person, cold weather, not seating in the seat and running with out the back seat will give the best results but is this real world testing ?
    considering that I ran over 89 mph in nearly 80 degree weather (not cold), 3/4 tank of fuel, trim up (takes a split second), tucking below the handle bars is extremely realistic for a top speed run with a single person(I don’t recommend trying to run high speeds with multiple people on a ski for safety reasons), and that I don’t plan to personally gain 20 or more pounds every time I ride, then yes this is real world testing.

    ”real world testing” will vary from rider to rider. A 250 pound rider that rides with 12 gallons of extra fuel strapped to the rear deck and an ice chest in the front hatch at 5000ft of elevation isn’t going to achieve the same speeds as a 150 pound rider that rides with nothing more than a full tank a fuel and a rope in the front hatch at sea level. Both of these scenarios and everything in between can be considered “real world”

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenHulk Jr View Post
    considering that I ran over 89 mph in nearly 80 degree weather (not cold), 3/4 tank of fuel, trim up (takes a split second), tucking below the handle bars is extremely realistic for a top speed run with a single person(I don’t recommend trying to run high speeds with multiple people on a ski for safety reasons), and that I don’t plan to personally gain 20 or more pounds every time I ride, then yes this is real world testing.

    ”real world testing” will vary from rider to rider. A 250 pound rider that rides with 12 gallons of extra fuel strapped to the rear deck and an ice chest in the front hatch at 5000ft of elevation isn’t going to achieve the same speeds as a 150 pound rider that rides with nothing more than a full tank a fuel and a rope in the front hatch at sea level. Both of these scenarios and everything in between can be considered “real world”
    Ok, as you and your father will have understood, I try to be objective, I do not take up the argument of the 250 hp Yamaha against the 300 of Seadoo.I've been modifying skis for years, and the speeds claimed by all racing parts manufacturers have never been real.I have many stage 2 modified 18/19 gps with different parts, and we have never seen 9000 rpm with 13/17 or 18 and OEM compressor,yes as you tell it will widen the nozzle and then adjust 9000 rpm with luky, but what is the use of widening the nozzle to Reduce this? I repeat with us with 13/18 to produce 9000 rpm you have to use 24 psi, and of course if you widen the nozzle you will do 9000 rpm but reduce pressure and speed. We run the ski at sea level with perfect temperature 20 Celsius. In any case I am happy for your results, one day I will pay by plane to come and touch. In addition, your performance will totally change the world of skiing, no one will buy Seadoo anymore because with the same modifications Seadoo will be very far away, and you will also revolutionize the world of racing.

  9. #29
    Click avatar for tech links/info K447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    45,836
    +1
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by K447 View Post
    Using the AGR tune and 93 octane fuel?
    Quote Originally Posted by FAMT View Post
    AGR ATR and running 102 octane Fuel
    Some differences there. Any other differences?

    Why use the 102 octane fuel? Is that race gas or an aviation fuel mixture?

  10. #30
    89 mph is %100 possible with those mods but not at those rpms and temps.Speedos, GPS modules, and Phone apps are not accurate IMO.Use a handheld GPS next time and you will have alot less doubters

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FS 2009 yamaha fzr riva stage 3 fully built
    By snipe243 in forum Yamaha 4 Stroke Skis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2019, 11:32 AM
  2. F/s Riva stage 2 ported 63m motor. Built by Tim judge
    By waverider1200 in forum Yamaha Old School Skis
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-09-2013, 03:53 PM
  3. Riva stage III built finally here!!!
    By abracadabra in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 300
    Last Post: 09-23-2011, 04:43 PM
  4. FS 2009 RIVA Stage 3 FZR + + + Fully built motor
    By stangbang in forum Yamaha 4 Stroke Skis
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 01:32 PM
  5. Riva built Stage III+ FZR
    By 1 FAST VE in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 01:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •