Correction

Correction

If I were you readers, I'd really have to start wondering about me. Because for the second time in recent months, I have to issue a correction and an apology for providing misinformation. When responding to a July Service letter, titled “Dyno numbers game,” from a reader named Rod Havens,

I stated that “if a motorcycle develops 100 hp at the rear wheel and the overall gear ratio is 3:1, the engine is indeed producing 33.3 hp—not counting frictional losses between crank and rear wheel.” That is incorrect. What I meant to say was if a motorcycle develops 100 foot-pounds of torque at the rear wheel and the overall gear ratio is 3:1, the engine is producing 33.3 ft.-lb. of torque, not counting frictional losses between crank and rear wheel.

This mistake was the result of a typing error on my part, not due to a lack of knowledge regarding horsepower and torque. I have correctly answered this same question literally hundreds of times over the years and even written stories

on the subject. When composing Service that month, the first draft of my reply to Mr. Havens was much too long to fit in the allotted space, so I had to shorten it. In the process of moving words around to accomplish this, I inadvertently left “hp” where “torque” should have appeared, then failed to notice my error in subsequent proofreading.

I’ve received dozens of letters from readers informing me of my miscue, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find that most of them have been very supportive—perhaps even more so than I deserve. Some readers have said that although they thought this was a stupid mistake (terming it everything from a “brain fart” to a “word-processing gremlin”), they still had faith in the information I provide and would continue to read Service every month.

I wholeheartedly thank those readers for that vote of confidence and sincerely apologize for my error. I will make every effort to prevent such an occurrence in the future.