motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 11/4/13 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
Superb figures, well in excess of the 130 BHP output from my 5VY.
As for RPM, the DL1 in my car happily records 16,000 if you don't change a gear. The ECU won't let it go higher in any gear...
Bringing me to a question. The fact that there is a Nikko G-Pack available for the 5VY implies that the ECU does require a knowledge of speed (and
hence an implication of gear position). Obviously ECU knowledge of RPM is mandatory(!), but does the ECU require speed info. (or not) to be happy???
My car doesn't have the R1 clocks, the engines don't have the speed sensor in place, so like many others I haven't bothered to
connect them.
It's an easy question to answer for the GSXR, since it has an electrically resistive selector drum that lets the ECU know exactly what gear
it's in. Simple then for the TRE to function. The 5VY has no such sensored drum, which lead me to presume that the ECU wasn't too bothered
about the gear it's in or the speed it's doing.... so am I wrong?????????
|
|
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 11/4/13 at 09:13 PM |
|
|
Sounds strong, whats it making at the wheels? What are you revving it to?
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 11/4/13 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
Calculated at the crank (190 at the wheels would be impressive). To be fair they're all ballpark figures and no two dyno's are the same. I
was more interested in getting the fueling and ignition right and getting it as drivable as possible low down. The torque was expected to be up as
(allegedly) the cams are a profile they dismissed as too torquey (I guess they test a lot) but I didn't expect that much. The porting is
impressive seen side by side with a standard one.
Sorry just read back... typo on the RPM. Should read 17000 and thats what they ran them up to to see if the bottom end would hold, not what the ran
them at racing (have you seen the vid of the F1 bottom end being spun so fast you can't see the piston coming up and down then the guy signs the
(invisable) piston crown with a felt tip).
I'm running standard ECU and limit at 13750 with a PowerCommander and PC ignition module.
There must be some speed data used by the ECU. If you interrupt the speedo feed to the ECU it effects the power. It's not a lot but after
running with it disconnected for a couple of days it was noticeably smoother when I reconnected. Others who interupted it between ECU and clocks
didn't notice a difference.
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
welderman
|
| posted on 11/4/13 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
Very nice figures there Ady. Well done
Thank's, Joe 
I don't stalk people
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/23/viewthread.php?tid=172301
Back on with the Fisher Fury R1
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 06:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Calculated at the crank (190 at the wheels would be impressive). To be fair they're all ballpark figures and no two dyno's are the same. I
was more interested in getting the fueling and ignition right and getting it as drivable as possible low down. The torque was expected to be up as
(allegedly) the cams are a profile they dismissed as too torquey (I guess they test a lot) but I didn't expect that much. The porting is
impressive seen side by side with a standard one.
Sorry just read back... typo on the RPM. Should read 17000 and thats what they ran them up to to see if the bottom end would hold, not what the ran
them at racing (have you seen the vid of the F1 bottom end being spun so fast you can't see the piston coming up and down then the guy signs the
(invisable) piston crown with a felt tip).
I'm running standard ECU and limit at 13750 with a PowerCommander and PC ignition module.
There must be some speed data used by the ECU. If you interrupt the speedo feed to the ECU it effects the power. It's not a lot but after
running with it disconnected for a couple of days it was noticeably smoother when I reconnected. Others who interupted it between ECU and clocks
didn't notice a difference.
Sounds like a worthwhile change then
What does it make at the wheels?
|
|
|
unijacko67
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
Sounds good, what did it have at wheels just out of interest as I was wondering how much the drive train would absorb.
http://www.kittenkitcar.co.uk
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
165 @ wheels on the best run. From memory the best we ever got from the old engine was 152/171.
...but we all know the numbers are just for bragging, so I'll stick with the rounded up 190 ...and I'll quote any power/weight numbers
with the car being empty of driver and fuel and rounded down 
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
165 @ wheels on the best run. From memory the best we ever got from the old engine was 152/171.
...but we all know the numbers are just for bragging, so I'll stick with the rounded up 190 ...and I'll quote any power/weight numbers
with the car being empty of driver and fuel and rounded down
you should work for westfield or caterham
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 09:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
165 @ wheels on the best run. From memory the best we ever got from the old engine was 152/171.
...but we all know the numbers are just for bragging, so I'll stick with the rounded up 190 ...and I'll quote any power/weight numbers
with the car being empty of driver and fuel and rounded down
you should work for westfield or caterham
Or Yamaha. So that'll be 190+ 10 ram air + random 10 to out do Suzuki/Honda (though maybe they do achieve it using special fuel and O2 rich air
fed from a freezer). So with all that, the tyres filled with helium, all fluids at min', etc, I recon I've got over 500bhp/ton !
I'm starting to like this way of thinking... Now if I remove the wipers, roll bar and mirrors, tape up the grill and inflate the tyres to max
presure, I put a special economy map in the ECU... it does 60mpg as well!
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
Adi - thanks for the evidence (however gutfelt) that the 5VY ECU might be using the speed information.
Assume this is the case, then the ECU is probadefinitely calculating gear position. Shame this calculated information isn't available :-(
If you believe Nikko and some others, the 5VY ECU does do the GSXR-TRE type retard based upon on (clearly) this
calculated gear position. Not only in the lower gears to avoid rider death, but also in 6th as the 'speed limiter' at full chat. I would
argue that an R1 is unlikely to get near the speed limiter 'TRE', drag will limit it well before this. My car is geared per circuit, so
assumption must be the R1 ECU will be applying the TRE in 6th at the top end? (OK, so no, mine isn't at the moment because it has no speed
sensor to the ECU, I guess it's probably using a suboptimal fix-all).
http://www.nikkoracing.com/gpack_yam_detail_R1.htm
Very difficult to look at the DL1 data to obtain any info. In 6th and WOT, the car is at it's aerodynamic limit, the ECU is looking at 15-16,000
RPM coming up, and I'm looking for a braking point. My gutfelt thing is that there is often no appreciable difference between whats happening in
5th or 6th when you want more... something's starting to gel here.
I'm happy to buzz you an awful lot of data from the DL1 if you'd be good enough to compare it with yours (if you have one?).
What then does the Nikko do that's incompatible with the PCIII, I can only guess. The GSXR case is an easy one, the signal is a resistance from
a drum, no problems. For the Nikko to make sense on *only* the 5VY speed info., then it must be telling the ECU that the output sprocket is rotating
slower than it is at the top end, and faster than it is at the bottom end??, therefore the ECU can apply it's unretarded ignition/fuel mapping
(make sense to you?). As long as it does this consistently, why then would a PCIII be regarded as incompatible with the Nikko?
Answers on a postcard Adi?
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 12/4/13 at 11:44 AM |
|
|
Sorry not got any data logging.
History behind the speedo info. A group of us tour in our cars every year. Several of us have disconnected the speedo feed on our R1's
(I'll let you imagine why we might not want milage registering). 2 are 5pw R1 and my 5VY. One of the 5pw's noticed a difference, the other
didn't. I didn't notice any difference at first, as it was steady m/way miles, untill I reconnected and it just felt sharper, mostly mid
range pick-up, like exiting hairpins. The ones where the difference was felt both had SpeedoHealer fitted between sensor and ECU and that's
where we interupted it, the other (no difference felt) interupted the feed between ECU and dash.
If the bikes v-max is limited @198 (as claimed) then it must use speed info ...and how does it effect the performance when the speed it recieves is
3/4 of that via the healer?
I suspect on the 5VY it alters the secondary throttle operation at least and adopts a safe setting (so as not to launch the rider).
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
