Alternator load sheet

[Abe]

Found this on the web (will try and find the original link).

NOTE: not all the "Average Running Load" items are on all the time.

For the 1300, the spec's are:-

2002-2007 models 742W @ 5000rpm = 61.8Amps

2008 till current      675 @ 5000rpm = 56.2Amps

(Tested my 2006 at {idle} 1000rpm & 5000rpm = 14.1V at battery)

At idle with 55W Low beam/55W HID's/20W LED's = 12.9V  (approx 260W divide by 12V = 21.6A)

At idle Low beam/HID's = 13.1V  (approx 220W divide by 12V = 18.3A)

At idle Low beam/LED's = 14V   (approx 150W divide by 12V = 12.5A)

Just 2 bars on the temp. so no fans cutting in.

This is just food for thought and something to toil with, if you wish.

What do you experienced sparky's think

This excludes music/GPS/phone/heated grips/UHF/Cruise control/DRL's/air horn etc etc, you get the drift.

[West Aussie Glen]

Really surprised that later models (which mine is) have a smaller alternator.

[saaz]

The 96 on 40 amp ST1100 actually put out more than 40 amps, based on some testing done by someone in Canada. The actual rating is more like 50 amps.  My ST1100 will put out 14 volts at 1000rpm idle with hi beam and 55W HIDs on. The ST1300 does have the fuel injection system, so it must have a higher power draw right through the rev range. It might explain the lower volts at idle, but even then the battery is receiving more than its resting voltage.

[tj189]

the STwiki has the explanation and spreadsheet

[Abe]

Thats the one, thanks TJ

[tj189]

Here is what adds to everyone's discussion on if it is 742w or 675w
 the part number for a 2004 model = 31100-MCS-003
 the part number for a 2008 model = 31100-MCS-003

Yep they are the same  - my bet is that they have not changed since the early models, make up your own minds

[Brock]

Thats what is known as de-rating.

Maybe there was a problem with alternators failing in the first edition, so theey reduced the rating, so if its overloaded, its the fault of the owner.

[tj189]

That sounds pretty good to me Brock

[Totgas]

 the part number for a 2004 model = 31100-MCS-003
 the part number for a 2008 model = 31100-MCS-003

Same part numbers don't necessarily mean identical part

[alans1100]

Same part numbers don't necessarily mean identical part

Well, yes they do. It's an Automotive industry standard. A change (however small) in any given part requires the need for a new part number. What can however can happen is the same part in a later model might be given a new part number which generally means a new supplier made the part.

More than likely the stated figure by Honda was downgraded rather than a lower output as suggested in this link which is the one Abe was on about.

" Honda may have determined that the 742 figure was unrealistic and backed off it."

http://stwiki.notonthe.net/twiki/bin/view/ST13/ElectricalReference

[tj189]

 the part number for a 2004 model = 31100-MCS-003
 the part number for a 2008 model = 31100-MCS-003

Same part numbers don't necessarily mean identical part

Really??

[Brock]

Same part number = same part.

Imagine what would happen in the aero industry if they werent.