I do have the charts, but the dyno they use is very precise (excellent for fine tuning) machine, but is not in line with industry (dynojet) values. So, although the peak hp/torque provided to me is in line with the industry/dynojet, the values per/rpm are not. And this is the only reason that I didn't show them in the video. I'm sure they'll be loads available to Google shortly, but I would say that the only difference between an R and TFC is that the (street legal) Arrow flows a little more air, providing 6 hp and no extra torque. The curves themselves are basically identical. I.e. Even the 6 hp difference is the sort of difference you might find from one bike to another. I think the TFC power might be closer to the Triumph crank claim if it was running a full free-flow race exhaust with a power-commander/bespoke map. I've had a lot of feedback from some TFC owners who are disappointed. But the majority of the price difference is due to cosmetics (carbon everything), finished parts (machined clamps, etc), and limited edition (residuals). If I could have afforded one I'd of had the TFC. But I'm more than happy to be getting a korosi red R. It has ample go.
I think the problem of Triumph's own making, was that the claim they made for the standard bike probably wasn't enough! Reciprocating losses from crank to the rear tire on a shaft drive bike is typically 15% - which is bang on what the TFC is, at the higher HP figure for the TFC that Triumph claim. But the R is only 10% - more akin to a 'good' chain drive. I.e. Maybe they've underplayed it, to make the 'difference' look better? Now the TFC's have not only been sold, but collected too. What's the betting that next year's claim for the standard bike is slightly higher? Closer to the TFC's calm in actual fact? But no different at the rear wheel once people run them? Hhhmmm, smoke a mirrors - maybe, maybe not!