That is about what I would have expected. A half a point on the compression would have picked you up few HP/TQ.

 

If you had your bike Dyno tuned at that same elevation of 4715 ft, then you're not going to get high numbers but yet those numbers at that elevation are very good.. So you're at least a 1.0 to total cubic inch ratio for power on that build, which is as expected at 9.65:1@static compression you're not going to get better than that.. if you were to bring that down to sea level and do a Dyno run there, you're going to see better numbers because atmospheric pressure is going to be higher which will help the cylinder fill and will create better dynamic compression which will increase your power to mid 90's... You need to remember that this is a very conservative build..

 

While the OP does not say what the correction factor for HP / TQ was, I would suspect that it's either SAE or STD which correct for pressure. If it were raw actual hp the motor would be making something like 106/107 at sea level.

 

Maybe.. but I doubt that build would make 1.1 : cubic inch...

 

Compression does wonders for cylinder fill...
I'm not sure without looking what his compression would be at sea level, but I'm sure it would still fall short of acceptable imo.
I don't understand the fear of it. Anything will ping if you twist it hard while lugging it...(6th gear roll ons)
Never understood the fascination with that either.
Is downshifting to a proper rpm that difficult?
My corrected compression is somewhere around 9.9.

 

Just picked it up from Harley. Guess my memory's not what it was or my ego just wanted to inflate the numbers. 82hp and 90 tq