Quoting member syscrush from the CBX forums who put it perfectly:

Sorry to derail the thread:

"I don't want to derail this thread, but I do want to push back against this idea a bit because it's a bit of "common knowledge" that's just not correct. You can calculate torque from power and rotational speed or you can calculate power from torque and rotational speed. You could even calculate rotational speed from power and torque but I don't think that there are real applications to that.

Here's an example: if you measure the coefficient of drag of a motorcycle then run it wide-open on the salt flats until it reaches its terminal velocity, you can come up with a pretty good calculation of its power. If you note the engine speed at that terminal velocity, you have the rotational speed and can calculate the torque of the engine at that speed.

On a drum-type dyno, you're measuring the acceleration of a mass with a known moment of inertia - the calculation of torque from that acceleration is exactly equivalent to the calculation of power from the increased kinetic energy - there's no difference. One is not more intrinsic or primal to how engines work, or what power and torque are.

On an old brake-type dyno where there was an arm of a known length actuated through a clutch and pushing on a load cell (or spring/dial), you could certainly claim that you were measuring torque and calculating hp, but on a modern dyno, you'd be more correct to say that you're measuring voltages from a number of sources and taking a bunch of known quantities to calculate time, speed, torque, and hp all together.

Note that you can run a bike or a car on a dyno without hooking up the tach signal and get an engine hp vs wheel mph graph, but you can't get an engine torque vs wheel mph graph - this should demonstrate that hp does not have to be calculated from torque."

Hope this clears it up.

Oh the 1200...It's fully sick mate!

lol yes its on methanol