Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C-14, aka Kawasaki Concours-14, the new one :) => Accessories and modifications - C14/GTR 1400 => Topic started by: poopster2009 on January 01, 2014, 11:33:18 AM
-
I bit the bullet and installed a power commander and removed the secondary flies. Best thing I have done to it. The bike pulls like crazy now from bottom to top. No "soft" lower end. Dam it even shifts better or smoother, because of the mixture I think. Removing the flies was easy. I heated each screw with a 30 watt wood burning pen for about 2 minutes a screw. Put it in contact with screw head and let it heat. I did get the long handle JIS #2 screwdriver and it fit the screws perfect. Just use a steady down turning pressure and they will come right out. When each screw was almost ready to come out I put a telescopic magnet next to the screw and didn't lose one. The plate you will have to use a long finger needle nose pliers for them to pull them out. At the same time I changed the Anti-freeze. Love this bike. It now performs beautifully. My first Kaw was a 73 750 smoker. Lucky I am still around. Had all cruisers after that of different brands. Rode my son's suzuki 1000. That is a fast bike all modded up.
-
I bit the bullet and installed a power commander and removed the secondary flies. Best thing I have done to it. The bike pulls like crazy now from bottom to top. No "soft" lower end. Dam it even shifts better or smoother, because of the mixture I think. Removing the flies was easy. I heated each screw with a 30 watt wood burning pen for about 2 minutes a screw. Put it in contact with screw head and let it heat. I did get the long handle JIS #2 screwdriver and it fit the screws perfect. Just use a steady down turning pressure and they will come right out. When each screw was almost ready to come out I put a telescopic magnet next to the screw and didn't lose one. The plate you will have to use a long finger needle nose pliers for them to pull them out. At the same time I changed the Anti-freeze. Love this bike. It now performs beautifully. My first Kaw was a 73 750 smoker. Lucky I am still around. Had all cruisers after that of different brands. Rode my son's suzuki 1000. That is a fast bike all modded up.
-
It has began!! Next up is a set of ZX14 Throttle Bodies and a full exhaust from AreaP ;D
-
Reading this is like deja vu all over again.
-
Refreshing isn't it, when someone sees the light?
poopster (something disturbing about typing that), what map are running?
-
...What SOP said...
I have been riding "Silverdammit", the 2008 C14 modded by SOP with ZX14 TBs, Power Commander, and full Area P system the last few weeks. Winter seems to be delayed on her way to the SoCal mountains, and I have been taking advantage of the warm-ness. O...M...G...
just sayin.
saxman
-
Not sure why this identical thread has to be posted in two places:
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16147.0 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16147.0)
http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16142 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=16142)
-
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...Hence my comment in the other post.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :chugbeer: :chugbeer:
-
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...Hence my comment in the other post.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :chugbeer: :chugbeer:
:) I just woke up from a nap and your other post flew over my head
-
Yeah, in all the years this modification has been being done to the C-14, I think there was only one guy who said he did not notice a difference other than fuel consumption. Otherwise, this is the best, easiest bang- for- the- buck performance mod. that I think can be done to a C-14. It does not really change the bike's overall max. performance because at high engine speeds and loads, the 'flies are open anyway but at low and mid- range engine speeds this mod. makes a huge difference, especially when the bike is loaded with a lot of weight.
Brian
I bit the bullet and installed a power commander and removed the secondary flies. Best thing I have done to it. The bike pulls like crazy now from bottom to top. No "soft" lower end. Dam it even shifts better or smoother, because of the mixture I think. Removing the flies was easy. I heated each screw with a 30 watt wood burning pen for about 2 minutes a screw. Put it in contact with screw head and let it heat. I did get the long handle JIS #2 screwdriver and it fit the screws perfect. Just use a steady down turning pressure and they will come right out. When each screw was almost ready to come out I put a telescopic magnet next to the screw and didn't lose one. The plate you will have to use a long finger needle nose pliers for them to pull them out. At the same time I changed the Anti-freeze. Love this bike. It now performs beautifully. My first Kaw was a 73 750 smoker. Lucky I am still around. Had all cruisers after that of different brands. Rode my son's suzuki 1000. That is a fast bike all modded up.
-
We entertain all types of members here, Gary. You know that, even the ones that poop...as long as it's discreet of course.
-
I've locked the other thread. When I get sober, which will be tomorrow, I'll try merge most of it with this one.
-
Is tomorrow a special day? The day after New Year's.... is it the day the English don't drink or something?
:rotflmao:
Brian
I've locked the other thread. When I get sober, which will be tomorrow, I'll try merge most of it with this one.
-
I've locked the other thread. When I get sober, which will be tomorrow, I'll try merge most of it with this one.
Yeah, you might want to wait. On forums I run, I ended up totally hosing everything when I tried to merge two into one. I think I have the hang of it now, but you will want all your faculties :)
-
you will want all your faculties :)
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
-
Is tomorrow a special day? The day after New Year's.... is it the day the English don't drink or something?
:rotflmao:
Brian
I've resolved to not drink anymore this new year. I've also resolved to not drink any less. Today is a holiday so drink I must. Tomorrow is work. There's always the evening to drink. You see, today I've had some Christmas pudding (a little late, I fear), however I've dabbled with some hard sauce and it is quite good. Methinks I put too much apple brandy in it so I'll calm it down with a bit of wine...
Yeah, you might want to wait. On forums I run, I ended up totally hosing everything when I tried to merge two into one. I think I have the hang of it now, but you will want all your faculties :)
You got that right...that's why I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Quite..
-
I quit drinking last year, seriously, around 10ish.
Gonna start again, tonight, around 730ish, gotta wash the flies out ya know!!
-
Refreshing isn't it, when someone sees the light?
poopster (something disturbing about typing that), what map are running?
The 004 map from power commander direct site. Muzzy slipon exhaust, stock air cleaner and no flies.
-
I just like your forum name. ;D
-
Of course you do..you can't help yourself.
-
If I just remove the flies will it hurt anything, or do I need a reflash or powercammder.
-
I'm learning soooooo much on this forum... :-*
-
If I just remove the flies will it hurt anything,
Yes, it will reduce the effectiveness of the traction control system. Does that matter? Maybe
or do I need a reflash or powercammder.
That depends on your objectives.
-
I don't think anyone knows, or at least they have not reported the longer term effects.
It will absolutely work for the short term and apparently the bike will run very well that way. It might be a bit lean in some engine speed / RPM combinations but again, it has not been actually measured and those who did remove the 'flies and do nothing else never came back and gave any reports after the bike had a bunch of miles on it. ??
Brian
If I just remove the flies will it hurt anything, or do I need a reflash or powercammder.
-
Only way to tell for sure would be dyno time or installing an O2 sensor and a/f meter. As Brian said, no one has reported any burnt valves from a too lean mixture.
-
It's a 2008 no traction control.
-
It's a 2008 no traction control.
In that case, I would say you have little to lose (except time) and a lot to gain. Most of us seriously doubt it will affect anything else negatively. Presumably the main purpose of the secondary butterflies was to "tame" the bike, making it less aggressive at lower RPM's... I suppose because Kawasaki believed touring types would be scared of 1400cc's. It probably also helps some with emissions and mileage (by forcing a lighter initial throttle). Using it for traction control came later.... and that function is in additional to ignition control (which is probably just as or perhaps more important).
-
I suppose because Kawasaki believed touring types would be scared of 1400cc's.
Don't forget, the ZX14 rocketship also has secondary butterflies.
-
Yep, and the come out the exact same way- but they are bigger. This is a set of those pesky ZX flies caught on flypaper....
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/PeskyZX14flies.jpg) (http://s45.photobucket.com/user/BDF08012008/media/PeskyZX14flies.jpg.html)
The bike ran OK without them but throttle response fell off quite a bit and low and mid- range power were lacking. The bike's owner had a custom PC III map made for the bike on a dyno and that brought it to life.
Brian
Don't forget, the ZX14 rocketship also has secondary butterflies.
-
Don't forget, the ZX14 rocketship also has secondary butterflies.
Yes, probably for similar reasons, but they are also programmed differently; I suspect with more power in mind. Lots of bikes have secondary butterflies. It is the pre-cursor to throttle-by wire. Truly modern tech won't need them, because when you disconnect the throttle from the [primary] butterflies, the computer then has full control.
-
If I just remove the flies will it hurt anything, or do I need a reflash or powercammder.
I removed the flies on mine and rode it that way with just a slip on exhaust for almost 2 years,about 40K km's before going the PCV route with dyno time,full exhaust and ZX throttle bodies. No hassles whatsoever!! :)
-
Thanks to all the info that I gain on this forum ,I finally pulled my flies. Wow , it pulls from get go and even feels more responsive at higher crusing RPM.
[removed info duplicated into a new thread]
-
Thanks to all the info that I gain on this forum ,I finally pulled my flies. Wow , it pulls from get go and even feels more responsive at higher crusing RPM.
Congratulations!
Amazing isn't it? It is the single best performance mod you can make (removing secondary butterflies or zapping them with an ECU reflash)- nothing else will even come close.
-
Congratulations!
Amazing isn't it? It is the single best performance mod you can make (removing secondary butterflies or zapping them with an ECU reflash)- nothing else will even come close.
Kawa might disagree. The single best performance mod is bolting on a supercharger ;D
-
Kawa might disagree. The single best performance mod is bolting on a supercharger ;D
Well, it would be hard to compete with that. Oh, and DO let us know when they make that mod available for our bike :)
-
I thing someone did do that in the past.
-
wasn't it a Turbo? I think it was that guy with the dog, quite a character. Not like the rest of us ;)
-
There's been three turbos here that I can think of. Two of which didn't end well.
-
wasn't it a Turbo? I think it was that guy with the dog, quite a character. Not like the rest of us ;)
Could have been..I get the two confused.
-
News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.
Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.
Ivan tuned my 2013 ZX14-R. . .fastest bike on the planet
-
Which is why, of course, we see secondary butterflies in the induction side of race cars, funny cars, etc., etc. :rotflmao:
I cannot tell if you are making a joke or not here Alex. Well, you are making a joke but I cannot tell if it is on purpose or not.... :-)
I know the camp out there that sells ecu- reflashes proports that leaving the 'flies in the bike somehow produces more power, and that is all fine and well, but not only does it not withstand the test of science (partially blocking a tube will not yield MORE fluid flowing in a that tube) but it also does not pass the simple test of logic.... if closing down the intake passages yields more power, why does the re- flash open them further / sooner in the first place? Sorry, it is just the usual sales speak about how an inferior [product / method] is really better than the superior product / method.
In the end, power is derived from how much air flows through an internal combustion engine. Things that allow or cause more airflow, such as less restrictive air filters, more free- flowing exhausts, etc., as well as changes in valve timing and opening, all combine to increase horsepower. All except for the magical 'flies of course, which increase horsepower by restricting airflow.
Re- flashing an ECU on a C-14 can have a positive effect on performance, and it certainly is easy for a C-14 owner to do this but in the end it will not equal removal of the 'flies and compensatory fuel adjustment (re- flash the ECU or add a separate fuel management device such as a Power Commander, etc.). But hey, whatever it takes to sell something has always been fair game.... back in the 50's, there were doctors (bona fide M.D.'s) hawking the best cigarette for health too.
Brian
News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.
Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.
Ivan tuned my 2013 ZX14-R. . .fastest bike on the planet
-
News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.
Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.
I don't believe it. Not for a second. That runs contrary to every testimonial I have read from those [many people] who did it [flash-disabling or removing them] on this forum, is absolutely not true based on my *personal* experience with disabling them, and doesn't even jive with my [limited] understanding of physics.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting what is meant? I will be happy to examine quantitative dyno printouts before and after fly removal and/or disabling on the same C14 that supports the claim that, to me, has no face validity.
-
I am not in a position to question the experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications to get the most HP & Torque they can.
There is no logical reason they would leave the flies in if it would produce more power to take them out
-
Sure there is- they are trying to sell ECU re-flashes rather than pulling the 'flies and adding a Power Commander. It would not be good marketing to say that re-flashing the ECU is an improvement and yields performance somewhere between stock and actually removing the 'flies. Take a look at any margarine commercial, do they ever say 'nearly as good as butter' or anything similar? Nope, they say they are equal or better than butter. It is a lie but it is how margarine is sold....
A re-flash could simply open the 'flies all the way and leave them there except that would engage the high speed idle cam and the bike would no longer idle. So they have the physical limitation in the way that removing the 'flies overcomes.
By the way, the 'experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications' used the data collected by a 2010 C-14 owner, and he collected the data with a Power Commander data logger. Ironic, huh? :-)
At any rate, whatever anyone wants to do to his / her C-14 is of course fine by me, I am merely responding to the advertising hype that is simply incorrect. I think everyone should put a bit of time into researching this and thinking about it before blindly following the thoughts of others with very questionable motives (read: they are trying to sell you something and will tell you whatever you want to hear so that you will purchase it).
Brian
I am not in a position to question the experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications to get the most HP & Torque they can.
There is no logical reason they would leave the flies in if it would produce more power to take them out
-
:deadhorse:
Lets do it some more, shall we? KHI has seen fit to equip some of it's vehicles with secondary "flies" for a reason. While I can't speak for KHI, I know why American Honda sees fit to use them in their automobiles. Pray, tell, you say. ok, I will.
Under certain operating conditions the velocity of the air flowing into the head needs to be increased. This is accomplished by a controllable "restriction" in the intake tract. The higher velocity air helps to atomize the fuel, resulting in lower emissions for all of our tree hugging friends of nature.
Does anyone actually think that motor vehicle manufacturers "dumb down" their products for no good reason? Does anyone think that motor vehicle manufacturers put "extra" parts on a vehicle for no reason? Perhaps their profit margin is too high and the engineers are tasked with creating innovative new ways to complicate things and add expense? EMISSIONS is one of, if not the largest, hurdles that manufacturers have to overcome.
Go ahead and "modify" your vehicle so it "runs the way it should from the factory" and attempt to get it to pass the emissions testing required to sell that vehicle here in the EPA ridden US of A. Tinker, modify, remap, and reflash your little brains out, I certainly will. Just don't ask why it "didn't come this way from the factory?"
-
I see your logic- the factory knows best so your vehicles are bone- stock?
Under what conditions does the velocity of the air flowing into the heads need to be increased? Go ahead and explain it in as much detail as you like using partial derivatives, I will try to keep up. And of course as the velocity is increased, the volume is decreased so on what planet is that desirable? Perhaps this all helps break up the gasoline molecules from the Carter carburetor of 1930? How does the increase in velocity and resultant decrease in volume prove beneficial?
Yep, I think manufacturers dumb down things every single day. Done it myself. Lots of stickers saying 'no user serviceable components inside and yet, there are often lots of user serviceable components inside. Want a specific example.... the tire pressure sensors on a C-14 are not serviceable and must be replaced as a unit. This coming Saturday I will solder in several sets of batteries in various C-14 tire pressure sensor senders and no, I do not think the mfg. knows best regarding changing those batteries.
In France, motorcycles are limited to 100 Hp; bikes such as the C-14 are restricted in power output by being fitted with an induction restriction. Now tell me who is wrong, Kawasaki or the gov't of France.
With all due respect, I will ask any questions I care to, and I think the C-14 should have come from the factory without the secondary 'flies.
Brian
:deadhorse:
Lets do it some more, shall we? KHI has seen fit to equip some of it's vehicles with secondary "flies" for a reason. While I can't speak for KHI, I know why American Honda sees fit to use them in their automobiles. Pray, tell, you say. ok, I will.
Under certain operating conditions the velocity of the air flowing into the head needs to be increased. This is accomplished by a controllable "restriction" in the intake tract. The higher velocity air helps to atomize the fuel, resulting in lower emissions for all of our tree hugging friends of nature.
Does anyone actually think that motor vehicle manufacturers "dumb down" their products for no good reason? Does anyone think that motor vehicle manufacturers put "extra" parts on a vehicle for no reason? Perhaps their profit margin is too high and the engineers are tasked with creating innovative new ways to complicate things and add expense? EMISSIONS is one of, if not the largest, hurdles that manufacturers have to overcome.
Go ahead and "modify" your vehicle so it "runs the way it should from the factory" and attempt to get it to pass the emissions testing required to sell that vehicle here in the EPA ridden US of A. Tinker, modify, remap, and reflash your little brains out, I certainly will. Just don't ask why it "didn't come this way from the factory?"
-
Well the engineers I work with on occasion really have to dumb things down for me so I'll do what I can. Way back when, or even now, depending on your social circles, many thought that tunnel ram intakes and other racing oriented parts were hung on street cars. It is common knowledge that larger intake runners are not better in all circumstance. If the air/fuel mixture is flowing too slowly, the combustion chamber will not fill properly. Huge volume is not always the answer. If that were the case, why not hang 100mm throttle bodies on vehicles along with 6 inch exhaust systems. Big picture, it's all about volumetric efficiency. Exhaust design has a large role in how the air fills the combustion chamber, along with the intake system.
I work with engineers that have to deal with CARB certification on a very regular basis. They have no reason to tell me anything but the truth. Is the emissions testing as stringent where you live and do you have to keep current with the constantly changing controls and government standards? I am just another dumb azz that will never be a genius like some, but I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything about everything.
In closing, no, all of my vehicles are not stock. I never stated or implied that they were. Read the last 2 lines of my previous post.
-
Aha! There is the problem right there! Stay away from dem guize, dey is no gud!
;) ;D
And remember, "The multitude of fools is a protection to the wise."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Written more than two thousand years ago and still as fresh a thought as any.
Brian
<snip>
I work with engineers....
<snip>
-
I'm not a smart man. I just ask questions sometimes. Isn't the thinking that a larger intake is always better kinda like disconnecting your garden hose from your home's spigot, attaching a fire hose in its place and expecting water to come out the end of the fire hose stronger / farther?
There must be a sweet spot ... ?
-
^^^ Very good analogy!!!
-
the K1600 beemer does exactly that: it has a long intake that does fill the cylinders very well, hence the fantastic torque delivery and similar peak power output than the C14 at 1300 rpm less.
Drawback: you twist the throttle, text a couple of messages in you phone, and just then comes the response from the engine. And don't hurry texting... :o
-
Aha! There is the problem right there! Stay away from dem guize, dey is no gud!
;) ;D
And remember, "The multitude of fools is a protection to the wise."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Written more than two thousand years ago and still as fresh a thought as any.
Brian
That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog
-
Well the engineers I work with on occasion really have to dumb things down for me so I'll do what I can. Way back when, or even now, depending on your social circles, many thought that tunnel ram intakes and other racing oriented parts were hung on street cars. It is common knowledge that larger intake runners are not better in all circumstance. If the air/fuel mixture is flowing too slowly, the combustion chamber will not fill properly. Huge volume is not always the answer. If that were the case, why not hang 100mm throttle bodies on vehicles along with 6 inch exhaust systems. Big picture, it's all about volumetric efficiency. Exhaust design has a large role in how the air fills the combustion chamber, along with the intake system.
I work with engineers that have to deal with CARB certification on a very regular basis. They have no reason to tell me anything but the truth. Is the emissions testing as stringent where you live and do you have to keep current with the constantly changing controls and government standards? I am just another dumb azz that will never be a genius like some, but I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything about everything.
In closing, no, all of my vehicles are not stock. I never stated or implied that they were. Read the last 2 lines of my previous post.
That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog!
-
My bike is more fun to ride with the secondary throttle plates on the shelf than with them in the factory location.
Disclaimer: I am not an engineer or professional 'tuner'.
-
Nor did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express...most likely.
-
:rotflmao:
-
^^^ Very good analogy!!!
And yet that is not really what this is about. It is about greatly restricting airflow with secondaries. They do not allow the intake to increase beyond what is optimal or beyond what the engine can use or the exhaust can expel.
The engineers have MANY factors they need to meet- most of them are NOT performance. Fuel economy, noise restrictions, emissions control, speed laws, engine control, cost, safety, longevity, repairability, user friendliness... most of those factors usually run contrary to performance, and many of them are probably factors for secondary butterflies.
There is *no question* in the minds of almost everyone who has removed or disabled the "flies"- the bike performs much, much better. It might suffer in fuel economy, much louder intake, break emissions standards, or other factors, but we don't care about those when it comes to performance...
-
You're absolutely right, Max. That was my point in this discussion. The consumer doesn't have to concern himself with the regulations that the manufacturer does. Period.
I won't cast aspersions here but dyno results are not the final word on how a vehicle perorms in the real world. Depending on the operator, of course. Results on paper can be manipulated. ::)
-
One of the biggest surprises after removing the 'flies was the amount of noise coming from the top of the engine. It is really impressive how loud the bike is even at low RPM and low loads; the secondaries do damp down a lot of noise, and I suspect (but I do not know) that is one of the reasons they are there in the first place. Same reason Honda uses variable blocking plates in the exhaust of the VFR1200.
Brian
<snip>
The engineers have MANY factors they need to meet- most of them are NOT performance. Fuel economy, noise restrictions, emissions control, speed laws, engine control, cost, safety, longevity, repairability, user friendliness... most of those factors usually run contrary to performance, and many of them are probably factors for secondary butterflies.
<snip>
-
Which tuners keep the 'flies in? I have never seen or heard of a bike on a dyno that still had the 'flies in it.
This whole idea that the secondary 'flies are somehow beneficial began after an person selling ECU re-flashs started shilling his product. The only other thing to compare the re- flash to was removing the 'flies and adding a Power Commander, so the natural course of advertising somehow made the 'flies beneficial..... if the ECU were re- flashed. Notice how the advertizing very carefully and cleverly has the guy re- flashing the ECU altering the behavior of the 'flies, clearly opening them earlier and farther is good but removing them entirely is bad.
There is not one shred of data or any plausible theory (based on facts, not anecdotes) that shows leaving the 'flies in a C-14 is in any way better than removing them. I do not sell anything or have any vested interest in any part of this debate, my only interest here is to shine a little light on the darkness and hopefully get people to think about this rather than swallow and repeat some of the nonsense being shoveled around.
Brian
That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog!
-
So many variables.......
As far as I can tell, there are only 2 good ways to actually quantify the results of a "reflash" vs "flyectomy" test. First of all both bikes would have to be equipped with the same exhaust system, tires, air filter, windshield, etc. The only difference being the fuel management modifications. Same weight riders. Apples to apples.
1. Have a professional rider (who has no skin in the game) do 3 quarter mile runs on each bike. Calculate the average for each bike, declare a winner.
2. Do a 20 mph roll on, side by side, and go to 100 mph or more. Declare a winner. (A professional rider is not absolutely necessary in this case since all of the "launch variables" have been removed.)
Until some testing of this variety is conducted, it's all opinion and chest thumping. No, dyno sheets don't matter. They can be manipulated. Seat of the pants dyno testing is subjective and serves only to fuel the debate without real world data.
-
News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.
Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.
Ivan tuned my 2013 ZX14-R. . .fastest bike on the planet
That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog!
I often regretted my speech, but never my silence.
One of these is not like the others.
Sorry big guy, in the logic area I think you and the referenced "tuners" are losing the debate.
..but that's just my opinion (and, it would seem, a few others).
-
Do a 20 mph roll on, side by side, and go to 100 mph or more.
OH OH! did someone just summon the "you're LUGGING the ENGINE!" trolls from their hidden lair?? ;D
-
I hope not. I may have, however, antagonized the Life Members of the NBRA. :rotflmao: (National Bench Racing Association)
-
Which tuners keep the 'flies in?
Brian
Brian,
Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also
Joe
-
An odd quirk about the secondaries in a C-14 is that they have no effect in a full- on acceleration test if done competently. They simply do not come into play. The C-14 is typically launched with partial throttle around 4K RPM but the engine passes 7K RPM so quickly that the 'flies are fully open for the large power requirement of the launch. All other gears are entered at 7K RPM or above and so the 'flies remain fully open for the duration of the run.
On a dyno, removing the 'flies shows absolutely no increase in power on the same bike under the same conditions.
The secondaries only serve to alter the bike's performance under normal riding conditions, especially between, say, 2K RPM and 5K RPM, which is where most street riding is done. Removing the 'flies is not what I consider a performance increasing thing, it does greatly increase drive-ability though, especially when the bike is loaded (two- up, luggage, animal parts, etc.). My take on the whole thing has always been that a C-14 with the 'flies removed simply performs like the 1,400 cc bike we all thought we purchased rather than the cobbled, neutered bike that is sold.
Brian
<snip>
1. Have a professional rider (who has no skin in the game) do 3 quarter mile runs on each bike. Calculate the average for each bike, declare a winner.
<snip>
-
Yes, Ivan's reputation is very widely known and I will leave it at that.
I am not sure what those graphs look like but if you are speaking about max. power at high RPM then I would consider that data fictional. The usual argument for leaving the 'flies in is to increase mid- range torque. As the 'flies are fully open by 7K RPM (under high engine loading, such as full throttle of course) then removing them simply cannot increase the engine's power, and this has been shown many times with private dyno tests.
Then again, independent dyno tests show little to no power gains from changing the exhaust either although various exhaust manufacturers often show up to 20 Hp gains and sometimes more.
As always, I encourage everyone to look around, gain as much knowledge and <valid> information as possible and make their own decisions. Knowledge is power, especially when purchasing things such as performance and ability. Learn and decide rather than follow anyone or any 'pack', and that of course includes me- please do not follow anything I say blindly, but if anyone wishes to consider anything from threads like these, start off by running the info. through your own B.S. meter and that will filter a lot of it out. Then as I said, learn a bit about these systems and how they work and logic and the physical rules will be made clear. We have spent thousands of years 'killing the virgin to grow the corn' because the crowd said it was necessary. A bit of agricultural study has resulted in my better crop yields as well as being far easier on virgins.... ;)
Brian
Brian,
Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also
Joe
-
We usually do that in Rostra threads where some evil, evil person suggests running a C-14 at 25 MPH in 5th or 6th (GASP!) gear to damp the CC oscillations. That is when the pitchforks and torches usually come out....
:rotflmao:
Brian
OH OH! did someone just summon the "you're LUGGING the ENGINE!" trolls from their hidden lair?? ;D
-
"Discussions" much like this are brewing on every forum relating to motor vehicles. S&S v. Kehin v. Mikuni v. SU, Thunderheader v. V&H v. Sampson, etc. I modify my motorcycles to suit ME. Period.
I currently have no plans to further alter the runability of me C14. I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise and recently averaged 40.1 mpg on a 800+ mile weekend that had a significant amount of "play" time. The rideability, on the other hand, is decidedly in need of addressing.......
-
...
I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise ...
+1
My bikes are MUCH more skilled than I am... and when I forget that fact, they remind me. So, I don't push it much anymore. A leisurely (but still mildly spirited) ride on a winding mountain or coast road is good enough for me.
Tho the evil voices in my head would like to try a fly-out bike for a few miles.
-
I currently have no plans to further alter the runability of me C14. I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise and recently averaged 40.1 mpg on a 800+ mile weekend that had a significant amount of "play" time.
+2 but here lately I've been averaging 45+
-
Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also
I do want to point out that I wasn't primarily comparing pulling the flies with reflashing, I was defending that removing OR reflashing (to open them very soon and fully) results in considerable/noticiable performance gains. Deductively, I see very little difference between the two (removal or disabling via flashing). And I see nothing wrong with doing either.
Nowhere on the Concours forums have I seen anything saying that Ghul, for example, would recommend flashing over fly removal. He is just offering an option for those (like me) who want a quick and easy solution to the secondary butterfly performance drain. And what he offers does exactly that- with roll-on and normal riding, it feels like a very different bike. No hesitation area, no lag, no having to drop to a gear lower when wanting to pass quickly (which is what I didn't like before). From what I understand, it is pretty much the same effect as removing the flies (although I have no experience riding the latter). In any case, I highly recommend it. It works, and it couldn't be much easier (although the convenience comes at a cost.... but much of life is like that).
Will it matter in FOT (full open throttle) launches when going like a bat out of hell or on a dyno- I have no idea. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter, since I never drive that way. I want the 1400 to feel like a 1400 the way *I* drive, and the secondary butterflies do interfere with that.
Now, it absolutely increases intake noise, which is the only negative effect I have experienced. But using my stock muffler (which looks and sounds just fine), my bike is STILL quieter than those who have not removed or disabled (flashed away) the flies and replaced the muffler with something louder. I don't like that it is louder, but it isn't a huge burden on me and isn't annoying everyone around me, so I am OK with it.
-
+1
-
It's easier to sell a map or "tune" without touching a bike, than it is to remove someone's flies for them. At least if you sell said "tunes."
That's why they leave them in. They don't have to get their patty cakes dirty. ;)
-
There has been a lot of pushing a re- flash over removing the 'flies from some quarters. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I usually like to point out that the two methods (an ECU re-flash and physically removing the 'flies and adding a P.C.) are not equivalent and opinions vary on which is better. Just because someone is a fanboi of a particular mod., that does not make the particular mod. better than other, similar mods.
Reflashing the ECU does not open the 'flies as far or as quickly as removing them. It is an in- between solution, somewhere between stock and actually removing the 'flies. As I said earlier, it is not possible to code the ECU to simply open the 'flies and hold them there because that would engage the fast idle cam and the bike would no longer idle. Put simply, these are not equal modifications and they behave substantially differently.
Just as an example, let us say the C-14 as sold acts more like a 500 cc bike on the low end due to the restrictive secondary butterflies. Removing them simply leaves an absolutely stock 1400 cc bike behind. Having the ECU re- flashed will result in a point somewhere in- between those two situations; perhaps acting more like a 1,000 cc engine in a very heavy bike, improved performance at low to mid- range engine speeds but not as much as actually removing the 'flies. I have ridden these bikes in both conditions and very much prefer the 'flies removed. And this is the basis of my entire point- somewhere along the line, due to advertising and hucksterism, leaving the 'flies in somehow became represented as actually beneficial rather than the lesser performing but easier mod. that it really is. Sort of like saying the nosebleed seats are really better than the ones below because you can see more of the whole field of play or some such similar nonsense.
Again, I do not have a stake in either method but do have a preference as well as the firm belief that one is better than the other. And I really think everyone should make their own informed decision; pick any mod. you want, as well as no mod. at all but understand what you are getting and how it compares with what else is available.
Brian
I do want to point out that I wasn't primarily comparing pulling the flies with reflashing, I was defending that removing OR reflashing (to open them very soon and fully) results in considerable/noticiable performance gains. Deductively, I see very little difference between the two (removal or disabling via flashing). And I see nothing wrong with doing either.
Nowhere on the Concours forums have I seen anything saying that Ghul, for example, would recommend flashing over fly removal. He is just offering an option for those (like me) who want a quick and easy solution to the secondary butterfly performance drain. And what he offers does exactly that- with roll-on and normal riding, it feels like a very different bike. No hesitation area, no lag, no having to drop to a gear lower when wanting to pass quickly (which is what I didn't like before). From what I understand, it is pretty much the same effect as removing the flies (although I have no experience riding the latter). In any case, I highly recommend it. It works, and it couldn't be much easier (although the convenience comes at a cost.... but much of life is like that).
Will it matter in FOT (full open throttle) launches when going like a bat out of hell or on a dyno- I have no idea. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter, since I never drive that way. I want the 1400 to feel like a 1400 the way *I* drive, and the secondary butterflies do interfere with that.
Now, it absolutely increases intake noise, which is the only negative effect I have experienced. But using my stock muffler (which looks and sounds just fine), my bike is STILL quieter than those who have not removed or disabled (flashed away) the flies and replaced the muffler with something louder. I don't like that it is louder, but it isn't a huge burden on me and isn't annoying everyone around me, so I am OK with it.
-
Absolutely. And the re- flash is easier to do and accessible for more people than removing the 'flies is IMO. But no need to stretch the truth to the point of representing the easier/ faster / less complicated modification as actually being better.
Brian
It's easier to sell a map or "tune" without touching a bike, than it is to remove someone's flies for them. At least if you sell said "tunes."
That's why they leave them in. They don't have to get their patty cakes dirty. ;)
-
Just as an example, let us say the C-14 as sold acts more like a modern 500 cc sport bike on the low end due to the restrictive secondary butterflies...
FIFY I had a 1981 GL500 Honda SilverWing as my first bike and believe me, there is no comparison to the C14 in any respect.
-
The primary reason I went for the re-flash rather than the remove is because of I didn't want to compromise the traction control.
-
The primary reason I went for the re-flash rather than the remove is because of I didn't want to compromise the traction control.
Well, as we have tossed around before, we know the traction control system works with the secondary butterflies removed. And there seems to be a wide belief now that secondary butterflies removal may not affect the traction control at all. It seems to go against earlier info that indicated the flies did play some role in traction control, but now who knows how much of a role, if any. The concern is certainly greatly diminished.
I would point to the re-flash advantages as the following: 1) the fastest route 2) the easiest route 3) it does tweak the fuel map a little 4) allows the user to keep the 2nd gen FEAM (fuel economy assistance mode) feature FULLY intact (reverts to the standard [untweaked] map AND standard flies usage when activated). But it is certainly not the cheapest route and I would also NOT recommend it if one were thinking about possibly later replacing the exhaust system, since at that point it is likely one would want to install a PC (which means you don't need the map tweaking, will have the bike more fully apart, will be spending considerable time on the conversion, and could use that money for those mods instead).
-
I may chip in here, since I have actual experience and hard data about the role of the secondary flies on the traction control of the C14. What I can say is that they do not do much regarding stopping the wheel from spinning when applying too much throttle, but their task is instead to ensure that the re-applying of the power is not too abrupt once the slippery bit of road has been cleared. Keep in mind that the column of gas (air) coming into the engine takes a while to stop, compared to the short instant that it takes to cut ignition or the injection.
-
I have read various threads on fly removal, and I have to say I'm surprised at the myopic take on this from the various engineer types.
One thing constantly bantered about is the issue of air speed, comparisons with the zx14, what Kawasaki had in mind, etc etc.
Nobody has, to my reading, even raised the issue of cam timing, and more to the point, variable valve timing. Maybe because this is even voodoo to engineers not skilled with the effects of cam timing.
I could make various foolish comparisons like "flow from a garden hose and flow from a fire engine hose" but that's not realistic tuning. Nothing varies that much.
Instead, lets look at reality... the effects of cam overlap at lower engine rpms, in this case appx 5000 rpm and down.
The c-14 has shorter duration cams than the zx14, which mandates less overlap given consistent lobe centerlines between the two engines. VVT at low rpm is capable of removing, by my measurement, 20* of cam overlap at low rpm. This has a HUGE effect on intake dynamics. Passive egr / reversion is lessened or non existent. Higher intake air speed encountering an early closing intake valve helps build pressure in the intake track. Trapping that intake charge with computer controlled secondaries could potentially help create a stronger pressure wave upon the next intake stroke.
The zx14 has no vvt, and longer intake and exhaust cam timing. Much greater overlap, which any tuner knows is detrimental to low rpm power due to passive egr / reversion issues. With larger throttle bodies, it would be easy to see intake velocity could not overcome reversion effects, and volumetric efficiency would drop at lower engine rpms. In this case I think secondaries are the only reasonable response to gaining the most power potential at lower rpms.
Of course, the c-14 TB's are smaller than the zx's. Given this, and the velocity this alone would help create, the need for secondaries in the c-14 is lessened as compared to the zx14.
Couple that with the effects of shorter cam timing / vvt / decreased or non existent overlap, I could see a point where the c-14 could actually gain power by a very carefully tuned secondary fly, opening as much as possible to create ultimate volumetric efficiency but no more than that.
IMO, since there obviously power to be made by removing flies or reflashing the ecm, I think the obvious correct tuning procedure would be to have the flies controlled by the ECM, but with optimized opening to create the best cylinder filling at lower rpms. With this in mind, I feel this negates the argument that reflashes are only so someone can have "something to sell". Unless those proposing fly removal can support it's superiority over a proper secondary tune from the ECM, they are only GUESSING.
Think about it.
steve
-
I have read various threads on fly removal, and I have to say I'm surprised at the myopic take on this from the various engineer types.
One thing constantly bantered about is the issue of air speed, comparisons with the zx14, what Kawasaki had in mind, etc etc.
Nobody has, to my reading, even raised the issue of cam timing, and more to the point, variable valve timing. Maybe because this is even voodoo to engineers not skilled with the effects of cam timing.
I could make various foolish comparisons like "flow from a garden hose and flow from a fire engine hose" but that's not realistic tuning. Nothing varies that much.
Instead, lets look at reality... the effects of cam overlap at lower engine rpms, in this case appx 5000 rpm and down.
The c-14 has shorter duration cams than the zx14, which mandates less overlap given consistent lobe centerlines between the two engines. VVT at low rpm is capable of removing, by my measurement, 20* of cam overlap at low rpm. This has a HUGE effect on intake dynamics. Passive egr / reversion is lessened or non existent. Higher intake air speed encountering an early closing intake valve helps build pressure in the intake track. Trapping that intake charge with computer controlled secondaries could potentially help create a stronger pressure wave upon the next intake stroke.
The zx14 has no vvt, and longer intake and exhaust cam timing. Much greater overlap, which any tuner knows is detrimental to low rpm power due to passive egr / reversion issues. With larger throttle bodies, it would be easy to see intake velocity could not overcome reversion effects, and volumetric efficiency would drop at lower engine rpms. In this case I think secondaries are the only reasonable response to gaining the most power potential at lower rpms.
Of course, the c-14 TB's are smaller than the zx's. Given this, and the velocity this alone would help create, the need for secondaries in the c-14 is lessened as compared to the zx14.
Couple that with the effects of shorter cam timing / vvt / decreased or non existent overlap, I could see a point where the c-14 could actually gain power by a very carefully tuned secondary fly, opening as much as possible to create ultimate volumetric efficiency but no more than that.
IMO, since there obviously power to be made by removing flies or reflashing the ecm, I think the obvious correct tuning procedure would be to have the flies controlled by the ECM, but with optimized opening to create the best cylinder filling at lower rpms. With this in mind, I feel this negates the argument that reflashes are only so someone can have "something to sell". Unless those proposing fly removal can support it's superiority over a proper secondary tune from the ECM, they are only GUESSING.
Think about it.
steve
-
I think the obvious correct tuning procedure would be to have the flies controlled by the ECM, but with optimized opening to create the best cylinder filling at lower rpms.
I agree, but acknowledge that Steve is way more knowledgeable on this subject than I. ;D
-
How can having an obstruction in the intake tract increase air flow. It seems counter-intuitive.
-
How can having an obstruction in the intake tract increase air flow. It seems counter-intuitive.
I touched on that in my original post " Trapping that intake charge with computer controlled secondaries could potentially help create a stronger pressure wave upon the next intake stroke"
Alot of things about engine tuning seem counter intuitive. Look at my 2 minute mod jet kit; counterintuitive, blocking the intake track... and it works.
The hardest part about tuning is to know something doesn't seem to make sense on the surface, but you explore it anyway. Steve
-
Steve, not trying to be contrary...just trying to learn... How could the butterflies trap an intake charge when they are basically open past a defined throttle position and rpm?
-
How can having an obstruction in the intake tract increase air flow. It seems counter-intuitive.
Would it increase velocity?
-
Would it increase velocity?
EXACTLY! Higher velocity is the key.
-
EXACTLY! Higher velocity is the key.
to a point - the concept of creating torque is to fill the cylinder as much as possible, and retain as much as possible for compression. If the restriction reduces cylinder filling, it reduces power. If the velocity is lower because available volume is greater, it may also result in stalled air movement, less cylinder filling, and a reduction of power. Think of the bog associated with large bore carburetors. the effect of this is lessened with EFI, but it still won't help when encountering reversion pulses. steve
-
Would it increase velocity?
What is the air speed velocity of an un-ladden butterfly?
-
There is WAY too much science in this thread.
-
At least you guys can reinstall the secondaries for more power and oem reliability!
-
Then I'd have to spend more money on reflashing the ecu. ::) It never ends does it?
-
What is the air speed velocity of an un-ladden butterfly?
I don't know that... aaahhhhhhhh....
-
Steve, not trying to be contrary...just trying to learn... How could the butterflies trap an intake charge when they are basically open past a defined throttle position and rpm?
They're not open any more than they need to be, given rpm and throttle position. The throttle could be wot and the secondary is only open 1/4 of the way, if rpm and gear / load demand that. The effect is to overide the inputs from the operator, and keep the intake velocity higher than the operator would have been able to manage.
i think this could be managed with a MAP sensors, one port side of the throttle, and one on the airbox side, or better yet measuring venturii negative pressure. Steve
-
Putting your thumb over the end of your garden hose makes the water spray farther but in a narrower stream.
This my contribution.
Oh, wait, one more: It is 'farther', not 'further', in my usage above.
-
Exactly correct- the water moves faster but there is less of it. If you are interested in filling a container quickly, putting your thumb over the end of the hose is the wrong approach and will slow down the water delivery. Exactly the same way closing throttle plates will may well increase fluid (and gas IS a fluid) flow velocity at the expense of volume flow, and will fill the bucket (cylinder) more slowly.
Excellent analogy.
Brian
Putting your thumb over the end of your garden hose makes the water spray farther but in a narrower stream.
This my contribution.
Oh, wait, one more: It is 'farther', not 'further', in my usage above.
-
Yes, and that thought is further backed up by those who claim the fluid (air) velocity increases.... because an increase in velocity must result in a decrease in volume per unit time.
But be careful as we do not want to clutter up this issue with a lot of pertinent facts. Better to insult people, beat one's chest and lay down the law.
"What an ugly beast the ape, and how like us."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
;) ;D
Brian
How can having an obstruction in the intake tract increase air flow. It seems counter-intuitive.
-
yes, why clutter the conversation with realities, like the effects of cam timing. Tsk Tsk, silly me. :o
The American way... bigger is better. lets have bigger cams, bigger throttle bodies, no flies... and go slower in the lower rpms. Yeah, that's it.
These over simplified analogies are foolish, since a thumb and a garden hose has nothing to do with effectively filling a cylinder. Those who understand tuning know this... those that don't - don't.
Maybe someone will explain egr effect and reversion. Let's see how reversion affects the garden hose filling the container. Oh, it' doesn't ... sorry. That's reserved for an actual cylinder dealing with the opening and closing points from the cams. I agree, we wouldn't want to mess up this conversation with facts.
Steve
-
:rotflmao: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Barely able to understand what you all are describing, but I see the issue somewhat differently. Forget the water hose, water isn't compressable but air is.
my simple mind is seeing the effect the engine feels (with proper tuning of the software) similar to stacking and compressing the air above the secondary flys like to supercharger vs no supercharger.
This all runs into the voodoo around can design/intake manifold tuning/engine volum in automobiles.
My first exposure to this was the old nail head (small valves) Buicks which ran like hell.
-
Well, I am not quite seeing the relationship. This whole issue is about putting a valve in a circuit that flows a fluid (air) due to low cylinder pressure. A supercharger is a pump that compresses air and quite literally forces more fluid (air) through an engine that it could pump given no restriction whatsoever. A valve can only restrict flow where a pump can only cause more fluid to flow.
But hey, should someone's house catch fire, and the firefighters come to put it out, ask them to close the valves on the truck 1/2 to increase the amount of water they are putting on the house.
:rotflmao:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope 1709
Brian
Barely able to understand what you all are describing, but I see the issue somewhat differently. Forget the water hose, water isn't compressable but air is.
my simple mind is seeing the effect the engine feels (with proper tuning of the software) similar to stacking and compressing the air above the secondary flys like to supercharger vs no supercharger.
This all runs into the voodoo around can design/intake manifold tuning/engine volum in automobiles.
My first exposure to this was the old nail head (small valves) Buicks which ran like hell.
-
Relationships are now the question?
Ok, let's see... how about the relationship between throttle body sizing to fill a 300cc cylinder at 100% efficiency at 9000 rpm, and what's needed to fill the same cylinder at 100% in 4500 rpm. Are they the exact same? could there be a relationship there?
How about the relationship between not just one isolated cylinder, but 4 cylinders, all drawing from the same airbox. Could there he a relationship there?
Could there be a relationship between the incoming charge being impeded by a reverse, back flowing charge, because there was enough TIME for that back flow to occur?
Perhaps there may be relationships going on that aren't quite explained away by the hose / bucket theory.
And since quotes apparently validate posts, this one comes to mind:
"everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"... George Foreman
Steve
-
Forget the water hose, water isn't compressable but air is.
my simple mind is seeing the effect the engine feels (with proper tuning of the software) similar to stacking and compressing the air
This is getting at the meat of it. Steve
-
IMO, since there obviously power to be made by removing flies or reflashing the ecm, I think the obvious correct tuning procedure would be to have the flies controlled by the ECM, but with optimized opening to create the best cylinder filling at lower rpms. With this in mind, I feel this negates the argument that reflashes are only so someone can have "something to sell". Unless those proposing fly removal can support it's superiority over a proper secondary tune from the ECM, they are only GUESSING.
Think about it.
steve
Steve,
I realize you're only posting your opinion here, but there are a lot of people on these forums (like the "engineer types") that do a lot more than just "think about it" and "guess".
The performance differences between a flashed ECU and a PC5 with flies removed is an old discussion now. I had to check the date stamp on this thread as it initially looked like it was from 2011. I think the dyno charts have long proven the power gains of PC5/flies out over a flashed ECM. The fact that the bikes with PC5's and flies out make a significant amount more HP/TQ than a bike with a flashed ECU tell the story all on their own...with no guessing what so ever. Somebody would have to present some pretty impressive data to prove to me that a bike making 145HP has better "volumetric efficiency" than a bike making 160HP.
An off-the-shelf flashed ECU is considered to be a mild power upgrade. Always has been. They're convenient, low fuss, and easy to do for the end user. They're not "the correct" tuning option as you put it....they're just a different tuning option for those looking for a mild upgrade. No more, no less.
You know what a lot of people guess about? They guess about what is being done, or what has been done inside their ECU. People think that there is all kinds of "careful tuning of the secondary flies" going on, and thorough scientific work to create a very specialized map for the flies that optimizes performance. The truth is, the flies are just programmed to open as early as possible...there's really no "tuning" as people typically perceive.
I wish I could show people the inside of their ECU...stock or tuned, so that they could see just how simple it really is. No voodoo...nothing scientific, just graphs and numbers. A highschool kid with good math skills could create a "carefully tuned" secondary fly map in about an hour....likely less. I'm not saying that flashed ECU's are "just something to sell", but if you saw what was in them, you might be just a little bit disappointed in what you're getting for your money.
The people I feel bad for are the guys that had their ECU's flashed an then felt little or no difference at all in performance. To add insult to injury, when they inquire on these forums, they're usually told that there is obviously something seriously wrong with their C14, or they're just a village idiot and they don't "feel" the gains. Meanwhile, the next guy with a freshly flashed ECU comes along and he's doing power wheelies and breaking the back tire loose all the time. Now that's something to think about IMO.
Rem :o
-
The people I feel bad for are the guys that had their ECU's flashed an then felt little or no difference at all in performance. To add insult to injury, when they inquire on these forums, they're usually told that there is obviously something seriously wrong with their C14, or they're just a village idiot and they don't "feel" the gains.
I don't feel bad for those VERY few, I just wonder what is wrong with the way they ride that they can't tell the obvious difference.
Meanwhile, the next guy with a freshly flashed ECU comes along and he's doing power wheelies and breaking the back tire loose all the time.
And although the difference is obvious and nice, it is not that different.
-
I like motorcycles. I like to talk to people who like motorcycles. I like to listen to and learn things from people who I believe know more about motorcycles than I do. People who know more than me consists of a very big group of people. I like hearing opposing ideas, theories and opinions. It contributes to my knowledge base.
What I don't like is when egos get in the way. It is detrimental to the discussion and diminishes all involved. I find it takes the fun out of the very reason I like these discussions.
So to all...carry on in the way you believe best.
Gary
-
I don't feel bad for those VERY few, I just wonder what is wrong with the way they ride that they can't tell the obvious difference.
If they ride the bike over 4000 RPM often, and use their gearbox to stay in the power range, they likely won't feel any difference. It's simple. The flies opening early gives a boost in power in the 1500-3500 RPM range, which is fine for the guys that usually cruise in the lower rev range. It is often said that high RPM or peak power increases are useless on a sport-touring bike....and that nobody will use that power. I couldn't disagree more. When I'm riding along the highway at 3800 RPM with my wife on the back and the bike loaded with gear, I want my bike to pull hard above that 4000 RPM range when I pull out to pass. At this point and time, the fact that ECU flashed flies were opened early at 2500 RPM make zero difference.
And although the difference is obvious and nice, it is not that different.
That's a different song than you used to sing Max. You used to even use all caps when mentioning the HUGE and MASSIVE power gains you found with your flashed ECU. Now, the difference isn't that much? C'mon Max, at least be consistent...lol.
Rem :o
-
"I don't feel bad for those VERY few, I just wonder what is wrong with the way they ride that they can't tell the obvious difference."
Thought the same thing Max
-
What I don't like is when egos get in the way. It is detrimental to the discussion and diminishes all involved. I find it takes the fun out of the very reason I like these discussions.
So to all...carry on in the way you believe best.
Point taken Gary, you're right.
Rem
-
If they ride the bike over 4000 RPM often, and use their gearbox to stay in the power range, they likely won't feel any difference. It's simple. The flies opening early gives a boost in power in the 1500-3500 RPM range, which is fine for the guys that usually cruise in the lower rev range.
I do notice it most there, but I also notice it all the way through about 4500... although it is diminishing. And like I said before in the other thread, if you throw it in a low gear and instantly wind up for aggressive driving, I don't think the flies stuff matters much. But for normal and spirited driving (the words I have used several times now), it makes a huge difference.
That's a different song than you used to sing Max. You used to even use all caps when mentioning the HUGE and MASSIVE power gains you found with your flashed ECU. Now, the difference isn't that much? C'mon Max, at least be consistent...lol.
It *is* a huge difference, in the range that matters, like I explained. It is not a wheelie making machine, and never implied it was. It doesn't increase peak horsepower, it lifts a limp area. I originally described it as removing the wet rag stuck in the intake during the lower to mid RPM.
-
Rem, I get your point BUT you may have missed the subtleties of mine. I never suggested the reflash, as it is now known, is "properly tuned". My point is that I believe a careful adjustment to the fly map, taking gear selection into consideration, could offer advantages in power vs flies out at 5k and down.
I would like you to clarify one thing for me though - everything I have read would indicate that flies in or out has zero effect at WOT, as the flies are WOT too. You point out a 15hp difference is achievable. do you know anyone who has used the same bike and the same dyno, and done back to back testing, flies vs no flies? I place no faith in different bikes / different dyno's as a tuning constant.
A last point, you mention what's inside the ECM. IMO, it's like the guy who got 10,000.00 to fix the printing press, and he only turned one screw to fix it. Why did he charge so much? Because he's the only guy who knew which screw to turn. I think you get my point.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on cam timing issues I've raised. I've not seen that discussed in consideration of advantages / disadvantages of fly removal. Steve
-
I would like you to clarify one thing for me though - everything I have read would indicate that flies in or out has zero effect at WOT, as the flies are WOT too. You point out a 15hp difference is achievable. do you know anyone who has used the same bike and the same dyno, and done back to back testing, flies vs no flies? I place no faith in different bikes / different dyno's as a tuning constant.
No, I don't know anybody that has done this back to back testing. I was merely comparing the data we have been seeing for years with these bikes. Flies out, PC5, exhaust, and dyno tuned, the C14 will usually hit 160HP with relative ease. The same bike, with flies in and off-the-shelf flashed ECU will usually dyno around 145HP. So, that's comparing not just the flies...but fueling also. Originally, a PC3/5 and flies out was THE mod to do to the C14...and they work very well like that. These days, it is common opinion that flies out is an "outdated mod" or more of a hack, and I don't really agree.
I've done lots of testing...not on a dyno, but road testing. Flies in, flies out, PC3 (on my 08) and PC5 (on my 2010), and I've done the ECU flashes with secondary fly mods as well. It is still my own opinion that these bikes work the best with the flies out. I just find that the throttle action, and low RPM acceleration is smoother with nothing but the throttle plates in there. The off-the-shelf ECU flashes are just fine...but I feel that they leave some power on the table that I personally would like to have. The power gains above 4-5000 RPM maybe be useless to some, but they're not to me.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on cam timing issues I've raised. I've not seen that discussed in consideration of advantages / disadvantages of fly removal. Steve
I don't know anything abut cam timing. My experience is mostly outside the engine...with controls. I have no experience with the flow of air into an engine...motorcycle or otherwise. (speaking specifically about the camshaft and valves).
Rem
-
Rem, so your experience is comparing flies out and refueled to the currently available reflash. i appreciate that. It still doesn't change my opinion, I still think a different reflash . carefully made, could outperform flies out. But that may not be the case, because I don't know, either, just suggesting there are other considerations that have been overlooked. Steve
-
It still doesn't change my opinion, I still think a different reflash . carefully made, could outperform flies out. But that may not be the case, because I don't know, either, just suggesting there are other considerations that have been overlooked. Steve
Steve,
I think a big issue is that there is a pretty small window where the secondary flies can be adjusted for optimization.
Since the secondary fly mechanism is used for the high idle, it can only be opened so early. If you try programming them to open too far below approximately 3000 RPM, you will run into problems with the linkage hitting the throttle. I've done it, and it was a bit unsettling at first. While the ramp open may be ok that low, it was the closing that was causing me trouble. If I closed my throttle too quickly, the secondary fly linkage was popping the throttle back open.
So, what you're left with is a window between approximately 2500 RPM and 4500 RPM. Above 4500 RPM, you're going to want the flies wide open, so there's really no tuning there.
What you're left with is a area of secondary fly action where you will want to adjust the opening "ramp". Closed is closed, and open is open, but what you can tune is how smoothly the transition is from one to another. As you know, when you twist the throttle on the C14, the big 1400 blows through that 2500-4500 RPM range like passing a fence post at 100 MPH. This is why I say it's a small window for tuning. When you're looking at the ECU's secondary fly map, there's approximately 14 columns for the entire 90 degrees of plate travel. When you break the graph down to show only the columns you can adjust between 3000-4500 RPM, you're not left with much adjustability.
In looking at a stock secondary fly map, you can see that Kawasaki has already provided the ramp...they just started it later. The tuners really just have to take the ramp, and bump it ahead in the RPM range. You can certainly try to improve upon it, like making the ramp steeper...so the secondary flies open faster, but in my experience opening them faster just makes the throttle action too choppy.
I think if the flies are left in place, you can more or less tune them so that they parallel the throttle plates in action up to approximately 4500 RPM, then program the flies to whack wide open to 100%. Once the throttle is beyond this point in the rev range, there's no worries of the secondary fly mechanism hitting the throttle linkage.
I'm not saying there are no improvements to be made in the secondary fly action...but I believe you'd struggle to make it better than the current aftermarket offering is. Just my 2 cents worth...anybody is more than welcome to correct me here.
Rem
-
I just ride my bike and not worry about it.
-
I just ride my bike and not worry about it.
stop being peaceful >:(
;D
seriously, Steve has a point regarding erg and valve crossing. I wish my brain was able to take a pick at such subjects without getting dizzy.
-
:banana Is this better?
-
The nanny throttle plates just soften and delay the motor hit, kind of protecting you from your own ham fisted self. ;D
-
let me offer another thought. Even BDF has stated many times that he noticed a notable increase in intake noise since removing the secondary flies. As far as I understand it, sound waves are pressure waves, and in this case coming back toward the rider or they wouldn't be noticeable. I think this clearly proves reversion waves are occuring in the intake track, and are stalled by the secondaries. Steve
-
Agreed but this forum is generally quite free from such.... behavior. The 'other' forum seems to attract "those people" and hang onto them although, of course, that is a generality and this particular case is an exception.
Then again, this forum does have a blocking function which is handy- you will not even see the posts made by anyone you choose to block.
"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, but the pig likes it."
-Unknown ;)
Brian
I like motorcycles. I like to talk to people who like motorcycles. I like to listen to and learn things from people who I believe know more about motorcycles than I do. People who know more than me consists of a very big group of people. I like hearing opposing ideas, theories and opinions. It contributes to my knowledge base.
What I don't like is when egos get in the way. It is detrimental to the discussion and diminishes all involved. I find it takes the fun out of the very reason I like these discussions.
So to all...carry on in the way you believe best.
Gary
-
An interesting thread. Personally I like the ease and smoothness of the stock set up, ECM, flies, etc, as so much of my riding is done in rather heavy traffic in urban locations, ie, commuting. I can easily pull away from any traffic and still shift at 4K, throughout the gears. If I need on-ramp acceleration, up shifting a thou or two higher gets me into or ahead of traffic quickly and smoothly. Truly believe that KHI designed the C14 more for riders like me, and the ZX14(R) for those that want excitement at a quicker throttle twist. Like has been mentioned so often, the C14 will never be a ZX, no matter what you do to it.
My old ZZR1200 was much more radical than the 14 at legal speeds, and to me much less fun around town, or even steady highway riding. I will happily ride the 14 as is, and enjoy the learning and fun of threads like this. Thanks all for sharing... tomp
-
I have a question. I may be simply not be understanding what I think I understand. Isn't a CV carburetor basically doing the same thing as the secondary flies? As far as I can tell, CV (Constant Velocity) carbs restrict airflow to keep the velocity of the incoming air constant. Many bike builders prefer "re-worked" CV carbs to the High Performance more simple design. Their claim is better overall runability. Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
-
I was always led to believe that CV carbs worked like pumper carbs, in that they gave an initial fuel boost upon throttle opening, since the slide open momentarily later than the initial addition of fuel, enriching the initial fuel intake. Isn't this being done by mapping in FI systems? Remember, I'm old skool and really don't understand much about FI and maps, but did enjoy playing with jets and needle settings. tp
-
The slide opens independently of the throttle plate which is down stream of the slide. The slide opens according to the volume of air demanded by the engine. That's how it was explained to me. What do I know?
The air flowing in also slams to a stop when the intake valve closes and bounces back at the speed of sound. While I'm reading the explanation, I can pretty much follow along. I don't know enough about it to explain it though. A Google search for "intake runner tuning" or size, or length, etc. and there is a wealth of information available.
I have so much CRAP floating around in my brain that, at times, it's difficult to add more. Add my advancing years to the mix and it gets crazy in there. Especially with technical stuff I don't choose to, or have to, use every day.
-
It's funny how a thread goes... throw a few clues out there, and open minded guys get to really thinking about it and coming up with some brilliant ideas!
Yes Deziner, there is a strong comparison to be made betwen cv carb operation and secondary butterflies. in fact, it's my experience with CV's that has me in this mindset. I developed a system of changing the slide action on the fly with CV's 26 years ago. I currently have it operating on Shoodaben. the simple fact is that I can completely overide my own throttle inputs based on how quickly the diaphrams are able to lift. I can do this for performance of fuel economy.
With EFI, I think a reasonable argument could be made that secondary butterflies with appropriate mapping could be considered a primary fly by wire system, in which case the primary throttles are redundant. In my present thoughts, I'm not thinking of having the secondaries overide the primaries, but rather to have them enhance the primaries.
Here would be an example - you're in a higher gear at to low of an rpm for good acceleration, yet failing to do a couple downshifts you twist the throttle open and call for power. since you wanted good accelleration, you naturally opened the throttle to much (more than the engine could use at that rpm / load) but the secondary trimmed that back to an appropriate point that kept intake airflow moving primarily toward the valve and damped reversion pulses that are actually creating pulses that alternate between flowing to and away from the cylinder.
While I have idea's, I don't have the electronics background to support making this happen. i do see a simple method that requires a little modification to the system, but still it's not a perfect answer. All I'm doing here is exploring "what if's" ... I am not proposing that there is only one solution to the butterfly. I do think it's clear that I don't agree with those that have determined the only solution is "the final solution". Steve
-
:banana Is this better?
Much!
-
How can having an obstruction in the intake tract increase air flow. It seems counter-intuitive.
There's no 'obstruction' unless you're at WOT. And then, the question becomes how much. Is it really worth removing them? At least on my 2015 bike, my answer is NO. The system works flawlessly, and most of us are below WOT over 99% of the time we ride the bike. Most riders would gain much more from professional rider training, than trying to get a few more HP out of the engine IMO. I like fast cars and bikes, but I'm of the mind set that if you want speed, buy a sport-bike, not a sport-tourer. But to each his own, of course ;D. I buy the right vehicle, and only do cosmetic stuff. Mechanically I only do catback stuff if at all, so no messing with the ECU or anything else. And nowadays, you don't need to, like when FI started, with serious rideability issues. And even if I wanted to modify my vehicles, I'd never do it during warranty, especially the ECU; it's an automatic warranty denial if push comes to shove (and a federal offense to tamper with it, so no jury would side with you). Just my opinion 8). Have a good one folks.
-
"There's no 'obstruction' unless you're at WOT."
Please explain.
-
"There's no 'obstruction' unless you're at WOT."
Please explain.
He also doesn't believe my ZX14R weighs about 150 pounds less and about 45 HP more than a Connie. He'll call you names even. 8)
-
YOUR ZX14 may weigh 150 less than a C14, but according to motorcycle specifications site, the R's wet weight is 584.3 lbs. A Gen I w/o abs and tc weighs 670 lbs wet. A Gen II with abs and tc weighs 690 wet. Unless you have stripped 50 or more LB's off your bike, that 150 difference seems a little steep.
Max HP is listed with ram air, 200 for the R, 161 for the C14. Close to the 45. Have heard the R dyno at 195HP and the C at 144, much more than the 45, but dynos vary too much to accept most of what we have as evidence to outputs.
http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/ (http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/) great site for lots of info...tp
-
Iassume he means there's no obstruction if he's thinking the secondaries are open the same or more than the throttle at all but WOT, but that's not the case. the fact that either a reflash or fly removal yields more power than the stock setup clearly points out that the stock flies are an obstruction at other than wot.
I've said for years you can tell what a person is comfortable with when you look at thier bike. If he's comfy with electronics, it has gps, xm radio, etc. . Comfy with electrical... more lights. Uncomfy with anything - stock. I'm comfy with engine and drivetrain mods. Steve
-
There's no 'obstruction' unless you're at WOT. And then, the question becomes how much. Is it really worth removing them? At least on my 2015 bike, my answer is NO. The system works flawlessly, and most of us are below WOT over 99% of the time we ride the bike.
Actually, it is for times you are going WOT when I believe it doesn't matters much less if the flies are there are not, since they are probably mostly wide open (in the mid and higher RPM's, which is where you would want to keep the bike during extreme acceleration). For the other 99% of the time of normal riding, they are mostly likely acting as an obstruction... by design (and for a variety of reasons mention prior). Removing or "flashing away" the flies *ARE* extremely helpful for that 99%... it is when you will most notice and appreciate the change and where we spend most of our non-static time riding. No question about that, since I know how the bike feels before and after (and I rode the bike for years unflashed).
Based on my understanding of the way it works: Removing or "flashing" the flies will not affect top speed. It will not yield a higher peak horsepower. It will not really help WOT acceleration. It will not net much in 1/4 mile times. But for normal and spirited driving, it is amazing and one of the best mods you can do to the C14. It brings the bike alive in the low and midrange, makes it far more responsive, and just overall more pleasing to drive (at the expense of being louder).
[edit: added qualifiers and to make it clear this is only my understanding]
-
Maxtog, are you sure about that? are you sure that if the throttle is WOT the flies are also? based on what i've seen, I would strongly disagree. Steve
-
Maxtog, are you sure about that? are you sure that if the throttle is WOT the flies are also? based on what i've seen, I would strongly disagree. Steve
No, I am not sure about that, and I am sorry if it sounded too authoritative (I just now edited the post to add qualifiers as such) and it certainly depends on RPM. Based on information I have read and the way it seems to behave, I believe that after at least 5K RPM (if not sooner) the stock flies are virtually wide open with WOT. I also suspect that regardless of throttle position, if the throttle is not wide open, the flies are probably not either.
I really do wish we had access to a Kawasaki engineer who could give us not only all the exact data, but also the reasoning behind everything. :(
All I know for SURE is what the bike feels like before and after a Ghul flash. I have zero experience with flies totally removed. And probably very few people know what it feels like comparing a Ghul flash to files totally removed.
-
the fact that the engine makes more with the flies removed or reflashed, from 5k on down, proves that the flies are indeed restricting the intake flow, and perhaps even to much. Steve
-
the fact that the engine makes more with the flies removed or reflashed, from 5k on down, proves that the flies are indeed restricting the intake flow, and perhaps even to much. Steve
Oh, I agree. Stock, I don't think WOT will open the flies completely at lower RPM. But for things like maximum acceleration from stop to 100 or 1/4 mile times and things, you spend so little time at 1-3K RPM, I am not sure it matters much. And as Brian pointed out, the reflashes are still programmed so the flies can't open all the way but so quickly when way down low, due to idle control and start-off drivability (my take on it, anyway).
I can say, even as low as 3K RPM, there is a definite difference in bike behavior before and after the Ghul flash in most gears... the reprogram might not be getting the flies largely out of the way, but it helps enough to matter. When you start getting lower RPM than that, it is hard for me to tell (and I am talking about cruising perhaps in 5th then significantly opening the throttle or slamming it WOT; in gear 6, that is very rarely something I would do, since it makes FAR more sense to drop down to 5th.).
-
Interesting article from Brock's Performance concerning the secondary throttle plates in a 2006 zx14.....
http://www.brocksperformance.com/brocknm/templates/bpp1.aspx?articleid=124&zoneid=11 (http://www.brocksperformance.com/brocknm/templates/bpp1.aspx?articleid=124&zoneid=11)
-
This probably has nothing to do with the subject in question but when has that stopped anything. Some of ya'll really weren't in on this bike from the beginning so you may not be aware of this document from Kwackers... Thought I would just add it into the mix on why the bike is what it is..
-
Maxtog, you did partially answer a question I was starting to post. It was, are the secondaries there to control acceleration/smoothness at lower RPM's are to satisfy folks like the EPA, lessening the intake volume (db) and their stupid requirements? I took a ride this afternoon, specifically to see in what RPM range I ride, Found I hardly ever exceed 3.5K before shifting, and acceleration is very smooth and linear. Considering my required riding style (due to traffic and LEO's) what benefit, if any, would a Guhl flash or removal of plates be for me?
My phone rang while typing above. I will read the articles since posted, but still wonder what you think... tp
-
Maxtog, you did partially answer a question I was starting to post. It was, are the secondaries there to control acceleration/smoothness at lower RPM's are to satisfy folks like the EPA, lessening the intake volume (db) and their stupid requirements?
I don't know for sure. My theory is that they serve several purposes and that emissions is probably the primary reason, followed closely by emissions, then drivability is another, and perhaps fuel economy is probably another.
I took a ride this afternoon, specifically to see in what RPM range I ride, Found I hardly ever exceed 3.5K before shifting, and acceleration is very smooth and linear. Considering my required riding style (due to traffic and LEO's) what benefit, if any, would a Guhl flash or removal of plates be for me?
I can't answer your question exactly, because it depends on how much throttle you are using when you shift. You can lazily shift with little throttle at 3.5K and in those cases, you would probably not notice any difference. But if you pile on the throttle at that same RPM, yes, you would notice a difference. It would be more responsive and feel considerably more powerful. Stock, the bike feels almost laggy in such situations, like it is ignoring a chunk of the throttle input and delaying the power delivery over time. Post-flash, it is much more responsive. But it is not abrupt, and quite easy to get spoiled and used to rather quickly. Flip the bike to the FEAM map and it is an instant "deja vu" of how bad it was before and you wonder why you hadn't done this sooner.
-
Interesting article from Brock's Performance concerning the secondary throttle plates in a 2006 zx14.....
http://www.brocksperformance.com/brocknm/templates/bpp1.aspx?articleid=124&zoneid=11 (http://www.brocksperformance.com/brocknm/templates/bpp1.aspx?articleid=124&zoneid=11)
It is interesting, indeed. This is a third type of mod I had not heard of (not flies removal, and not ECU reflash) that simply tricks the bike into thinking it is in 6th gear all the time [or most of the time], so it opens the flies sooner and greater. (Each gear has a different flies map, and the higher the gear, the less the flies are used- the sooner and more they open) Obviously effective. Seems simple, but also makes me wonder how that would affect engine in any other ways, since I believe the fuel maps are tweaked by not just RPM, but also gear (but maybe not... I can't remember now). Plus you end up with a gear indicator that always says "6" and a no-longer working neutral indicator.
-
I've read all of brocks c-14 diaries in the past. As I recall, he really didn't like the flies out til he tried the bike on street gas.
The other link provided by Virginia Jim confirms some thing, one being that the 40mm TB's were selected to increase air velocity. I'm not the brightest bulb, but I'm thinking there might be something to that velocity idea, particularly in how it relates to drivability and throttle response. Steve
-
The 6th gear map is different for opening the 'flies and opens them sooner. The 'trick' is to make the ECU sense that the bike is in 6th gear all the time. This is done with nothing more than a resistor hard- wired (Easy Boys!) in the gear position sensor. As you mention, the bike will always display that it is in OD or 6th gear. There used to be a TRE (timing retard eliminator) that came with a separate digital readout of the actual gear being used that one would stick on the dash but I do not know if it is made currently.
I believe the neutral indicator still works as that is a separate circuit than the gear position indicator.
Performance gains are modest but it is absolutely the easiest / cheapest of any ECU based mod. available for the C-14. If one does the wiring him / herself, the cost is only a few cents for the resistor.
Brian
It is interesting, indeed. This is a third type of mod I had not heard of (not flies removal, and not ECU reflash) that simply tricks the bike into thinking it is in 6th gear all the time [or most of the time], so it opens the flies sooner and greater. (Each gear has a different flies map, and the higher the gear, the less the flies are used- the sooner and more they open) Obviously effective. Seems simple, but also makes me wonder how that would affect engine in any other ways, since I believe the fuel maps are tweaked by not just RPM, but also gear (but maybe not... I can't remember now). Plus you end up with a gear indicator that always says "6" and a no-longer working neutral indicator.
-
There used to be a TRE (timing retard eliminator) that came with a separate digital readout of the actual gear being used that one would stick on the dash but I do not know if it is made currently.
It is still available Brian...at least for bikes other than the C14. I installed one on a Kawi ZX10R last year. The problem with the C14 is the Canbus? between the ECU and the instrument panel. One many other bike, the gear indicator signal between the ECU and Dash is simply a single 18 or 20ga wire. The Healtech TRE kits modify the signal between the gear indicator and the ECU, but also tie into the line between the ECU and the dash so that the dash still receives the correct signal for the correct gear. No can do on the C14 as you know.
A "TRE" on a C14 is really just a secondary fly modifier...
I've posted these stock secondary fly maps before from my 2010 C14. There are four different maps....neutral, one for 1-2, another for 3-4,and another for 5-6. So, you can clearly see what a TRE kit does for you...you're using either the 3-4 map, or the 5-6 map in place of the 1-2 map. Clear as mud yet?...lol. In the Healtech kits, you can select individual gears, which doesn't really work as intended with the C14 as you can see below...since gear 5 and 6 maps are the same, etc.
As you can see below, the stock secondary fly maps don't hit 100% open until quite a ways up there in TPS and RPM.
(http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx159/rubyred90/C14%20STP%20Map%201-2_zpsgrmyugsy.jpg) (http://s751.photobucket.com/user/rubyred90/media/C14%20STP%20Map%201-2_zpsgrmyugsy.jpg.html)
(http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx159/rubyred90/C14%20STP%20Map%203-4_zpscv9isfd7.jpg) (http://s751.photobucket.com/user/rubyred90/media/C14%20STP%20Map%203-4_zpscv9isfd7.jpg.html)
(http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx159/rubyred90/C14%20STP%20Map%205-6_zpsbtsdi9nx.jpg) (http://s751.photobucket.com/user/rubyred90/media/C14%20STP%20Map%205-6_zpsbtsdi9nx.jpg.html)
-
I think you may be mixing up a TRE and a SpeedoHealer....?
CAN bus is not involved in the gear position indicator. There are six different resistors arrayed around the gear shift shaft and a current is passed through each one, depending on the gear the transmission is in at the moment. What the TRE does is to simply interrupt that signal, place the sixth gear value resistor in place, and the ECU senses the bike is in sixth gear all the time. No involvement with CAN bus or any other circuitry on the bike.
The TRE that was available for a C-14 had a long cable with a stick- on LED numeral readout with it; that was stuck to the dash to indicate the 'real' gear the bike was actually in while the dash would always show 'OD'. But that was one specific brand and I cannot remember the brand name :-( A very quick Google search did not turn it up so I think it may be out of production. ??
Brian
It is still available Brian...at least for bikes other than the C14. I installed one on a Kawi ZX10R last year. The problem with the C14 is the Canbus? between the ECU and the instrument panel. One many other bike, the gear indicator signal between the ECU and Dash is simply a single 18 or 20ga wire. The Healtech TRE kits modify the signal between the gear indicator and the ECU, but also tie into the line between the ECU and the dash so that the dash still receives the correct signal for the correct gear. No can do on the C14 as you know.
A "TRE" on a C14 is really just a secondary fly modifier...
I've posted these stock secondary fly maps before from my 2010 C14. There are four different maps....neutral, one for 1-2, another for 3-4,and another for 5-6. So, you can clearly see what a TRE kit does for you...you're using either the 3-4 map, or the 5-6 map in place of the 1-2 map. Clear as mud yet?...lol. In the Healtech kits, you can select individual gears, which doesn't really work as intended with the C14 as you can see below...since gear 5 and 6 maps are the same, etc.
As you can see below, the stock secondary fly maps don't hit 100% open until quite a ways up there in TPS and RPM.
-
I think you may be mixing up a TRE and a SpeedoHealer....?
CAN bus is not involved in the gear position indicator. There are six different resistors arrayed around the gear shift shaft and a current is passed through each one, depending on the gear the transmission is in at the moment. What the TRE does is to simply interrupt that signal, place the sixth gear value resistor in place, and the ECU senses the bike is in sixth gear all the time. No involvement with CAN bus or any other circuitry on the bike.
No no...I realize that CAN bus is not involved in the gear position indicator (on the transmission), but it IS involved to tell the dash what gear to display. That is how the signal gets from the ECU to the dash isn't it? I mean, the gear indicator was traditionally for just the ECU...they were in use by Kawasaki long before there were ever gear position indicators on the dash. Before CAN bus, the ECU simply relayed the same signal (resistance) directly to the dash, and the dash displayed the gear you were in. This was always done on one wire.
On other Kawi's with a gear position indicator, you can install a TRE, but maintain the gear indicator on the dash. You just have to tap into the wire that goes between the ECU and the dash. This way, the gear position signal gets modified for the ECU, but the TRE still sends the correct signal to the dash. Since you can't just stick a posi-tap into the CAN bus, this isn't possible on the C14.
Did I get that wording right yet?...LOL.
-
But that was one specific brand and I cannot remember the brand name :-( A very quick Google search did not turn it up so I think it may be out of production. ??
This it? http://calsportbike.com/gipro/ (http://calsportbike.com/gipro/) specifically the GiPro K03
Fred Harmon's review: http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html (http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html)
-
This it? http://calsportbike.com/gipro/ (http://calsportbike.com/gipro/) specifically the GiPro K03
Fred Harmon's review: http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html (http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html)
"Squirt-ability"?...lol. That's the first time I've ever heard an engineer use that term to describe something.
-
Engineer?
;)
Brian
"Squirt-ability"?...lol. That's the first time I've ever heard an engineer use that term to describe something.
-
Yep, that is the brand- thanks Marty.
Brian
This it? http://calsportbike.com/gipro/ (http://calsportbike.com/gipro/) specifically the GiPro K03
Fred Harmon's review: http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html (http://www.angelridevideos.com/reviews/GiProATRE.html)
-
Well, it really does not matter- the signal is interrupted before it gets to any part of the bike wiring so CAN bus is not dealt with by the TRE anyway. It would be the same as taking a second gear position indicator, setting it to sixth gear, and plugging that into the bike's harness. CAN bus to the dash or not, the entire bike will only sense it is in sixth gear.
I think the words are getting in the way here- regardless of how the ECU communicates to the dash display, it is beyond a generic hack to 'outsmart' it anyway, CAN bus or not. And there is no way to seperate the signal to the dash from the one from the G.P.I. (neutral switch is what Kawasaki calls it) on the C-14.
Brian
No no...I realize that CAN bus is not involved in the gear position indicator (on the transmission), but it IS involved to tell the dash what gear to display. That is how the signal gets from the ECU to the dash isn't it? I mean, the gear indicator was traditionally for just the ECU...they were in use by Kawasaki long before there were ever gear position indicators on the dash. Before CAN bus, the ECU simply relayed the same signal (resistance) directly to the dash, and the dash displayed the gear you were in. This was always done on one wire.
On other Kawi's with a gear position indicator, you can install a TRE, but maintain the gear indicator on the dash. You just have to tap into the wire that goes between the ECU and the dash. This way, the gear position signal gets modified for the ECU, but the TRE still sends the correct signal to the dash. Since you can't just stick a posi-tap into the CAN bus, this isn't possible on the C14.
Did I get that wording right yet?...LOL.
-
Engineer?
Fred mentioned on the COG forum the other day that he was an engineer. I thought he was an IT guy or an electronics tech or something...but I didn't know he was an engineer.
I think the words are getting in the way here- regardless of how the ECU communicates to the dash display, it is beyond a generic hack to 'outsmart' it anyway, CAN bus or not. And there is no way to seperate the signal to the dash from the one from the G.P.I. (neutral switch is what Kawasaki calls it) on the C-14.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. You can't separate the signal on the C14, but you can on other Kawi's (and other brands) with the same TRE and GiPro products. That's how they're designed. The TRE jobbies can send a modified gear position signal to the ECU, but still send a clean unaltered signal to the dash so that the gear indicator remains intact. It just doesn't work on the C14....the C14 ECU doesn't "speak" to the dash like some of the other bikes do.
Rem
-
I've posted these stock secondary fly maps before from my 2010 C14.
It was good to post them again. Very strange scale they use for the throttle opening %.
As you can see below, the stock secondary fly maps don't hit 100% open until quite a ways up there in TPS and RPM.
You're not kidding... in 1/2 gear 100% flies requires over 76% throttle (although looks like over 53% is almost there) AND over 9500 RPM!! Even in 5/6 gear it is over 9000RPM!
-
It was good to post them again. Very strange scale they use for the throttle opening %.
You're not kidding... in 1/2 gear 100% flies requires over 76% throttle (although looks like over 53% is almost there) AND over 9500 RPM!! Even in 5/6 gear it is over 9000RPM!
It is a strange scale isn't it. You'd have to talk to somebody at Mitsubishi to find out why...lol. Unless somebody on here can tell us?
So, each one of the columns of the this scale correspond to a voltage output from the TPS itself. That part is actually quite simple...there's a voltage input to the TPS as outlined in the FSM, and a TPS output voltage scale between closed throttle and WOT. (This information is important with regards to the throttle calibration discussions...).
As you can see looking at the STP maps, obviously things are more restricted in the lower rev/TPS range. Further on up...the flies are less restricting...they're basically mimicking the action of the throttle position. (Still restrictive, yes...but not as much in the higher revs as the lower revs).
You can open the STP's pretty early...as in starting to ramp them open at 2500, and then having them at 100% open by 5000 RPM, across the whole graph....or there abouts. It may seem kinda complicated...but if you know your way around an Excell spreadsheet...you can dig into this stuff pretty quickly.
The Woolich software allows you to do all kinds of neat things that we're already used to....highlighting areas or groups, copy and paste, adding or subtracting numbers from groups, etc. Next time I fire up the old garage laptop, I'll take a screen shot of one of the STP maps I made last winter.
-
in my mind the secondary maps shown pretty clearly indicate that the flies are to neuter the bike in the lower gears, it has nothing to do with noise emissions. Steve
-
in my mind the secondary maps shown pretty clearly indicate that the flies are to neuter the bike in the lower gears, it has nothing to do with noise emissions. Steve
I don't think one has to exclude the other. Maybe they are killing several birds with one stone.
-
But why neuter the 14 when it was marketed as basically a supersport with bags? The Q&A that Jim posted, stated that it wasn't a ZX14 with bags, but the sportiest ST available. KHI had their reasons to place the secondaries, and have them open as/when they do. Being a considerable expense to engineer and place them on all the bikes, they had to have a justifiable, at least in their consideration, reason to do so. Anyone know that tidbit of info? If the plates don't increase low/mid torque, when used with VVT, what was the reason?
-
When reading this, there are some places that, for a product manager, he's kind of all over the map. Read what he says about "why is the compression ratio lower than the zx14"... his answer doesn't make sense. i think it's the same BS as his explanation of why there are secondaries.
If you are a COG member and have read my most recent tech article, you understand why.
steve
-
If the plates don't increase low/mid torque, when used with VVT, what was the reason?
The main reason for them is smooth acceleration when whacking the throttle open, especially from lower rpm. With throttle-by-wire in most modern vehicles (including motorcycles), they're obsolete. Most powerful bikes still with cable throttles have them... even 600s. Another use for them is traction control: progressively choking the engine is smoother than cutting fuel (once timing retardation is not enough). Again, with throttle-by-wire, you can do all of that, plus ride modes, different throttle maps, cruise-control, etc.
On my previous post I mentioned they don't restrict unless at WOT. What I meant is at WOT, they restrict some, but as Maxtog commented, it's so little that doesn't really matter. They're meant to restrict when needed for smooth acceleration. A sport-touring bike is supposed to have better rideability than a supersport bike, and I agree. Haven't opened up this bike yet, but so far, my 2015 has flawless fueling for such a bike IMO. I'm not going to touch it.
-
What do you find smooth about being hard on the throttle and waiting for power delivery? We're not talking about a 200 hp motogp bike with peaky power spikes that need to be electronically controlled. I found the secondaries unpredictable and sometimes upsetting.
-
I found the secondaries unpredictable and sometimes upsetting.
I believe that is the crux of all this. It's the "I found. . ." A personal expectation vs experience, that varies with every rider. I find the 14's acceleration linear and experience what I expected. You, on the other hand didn't experience what you expected for/from a 1400cc bike. Having never been a supersport rider, I wasn't wanting or expecting that level of response from the 14. As it is, I can out run most vehicles I come in contact with, excluding ZX14's etc, and I'm ok with that. You wanted more, and the Guhl/ plate removals will give you more of what YOU expected. At least mods were available to improve upon what you had. A win-win for all, as I see it...
Conniesaki, it's threads like this that make the interweb interesting. This and possibly sites sometimes labeled XXX...tp
-
On my previous post I mentioned they don't restrict unless at WOT. What I meant is at WOT, they restrict some,
[xxx] It's painfully obvious they restrict power at lower rpms and not even at low rpm WOT . I pointed out the power gains flashes and fly removal make. if the flies weren't restricting flow, there WOULD BE NO GAINS.
And I don't do this often, but I know carburetion better than anyone here, and if you know me you know I'm not a braggart. I can read what's happening by turning the throttle and feeling what happens. I can use widebands for final tuning, but trust me, I get fueling even in old school form. That said, I've tuned carbs with cv's for what, 3 decades, I have developed a control system for the slides that I was warned "would ruin my carbs" just as I outran the naysayers...[xxx]
and still, it's all about just what the secondaries are doing, everyone is still ignoring the other variable...vvt. Steve
-
Looks like this discussion has been around other bike forums for quite a while now. More to add to the confusion. . .
http://www.r3owners.net/threads/secondary-butterfly-questions.221/ (http://www.r3owners.net/threads/secondary-butterfly-questions.221/)
Here's one from Infinity owners. Seems they wonder about them too... Don't we have some Infinity owners here? I used to have one.
http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/ca18det-secondary-butterflies-control-system.html (http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/ca18det-secondary-butterflies-control-system.html)
And here's what the Sport Rider Magazine Geek says about them.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/suzuki-bandit-secondary-butterflies-and-oversized-tires-ask-geek (http://www.sportrider.com/tech/suzuki-bandit-secondary-butterflies-and-oversized-tires-ask-geek)
-
OK, read the last link Tomp provided, what suzuki says about their secondaries. I have never seen that - ever. yet read it, it's the same thing I have already written in this thread. Steve
"The official word from Suzuki is that its SDTV (Suzuki Dual Throttle Valve) system brings superb response feel, smooth power delivery, improved mileage and reduced emissions. The secondary butterflies do this by opening just enough to provide the optimum intake velocity based on throttle position and rpm rather than letting you decide with your throttle inputs. For example, if you were to open the throttle fully at low rpm on a setup without the secondary butterflies, intake velocity would drop and the engine would not pull cleanly. In addition, the secondary butterflies can smooth the off/on response by opening at a set rateagain, no matter how quickly you open the throttle. And as we’re finding out with more bikes in recent years, in some cases the secondary butterflies are used to restrict the engine’s output to meet emissions requirements."
-
and still, it's all about just what the secondaries are doing, everyone is still ignoring the other variable...vvt. Steve
[xxx]funny, nobody, and I mean Nobody... fully understands VVT, and it's co-ordination with Ram-Air induction[xxx]
-
Jim locked the thread for a while, giving some time for people to reflect and for some needed cleanup. Please remember while we might not all agree with each other, keep the postings focused on the topic but without drifting to insults or personal attacks.
This is a great thread with lots of postings containing valuable questions, speculations, theories, links, information, and even some facts too! It is up to you to decide which category each falls into. Hopefully with time and analysis some type of accurate, overall picture will form about the ever mysterious and interesting secondary butterflies and we will all be better for the experience :)
I am unlocking it now.... Stand back... this posting will self-destruct (in a while, anyway)
-
Looks like this discussion has been around other bike forums for quite a while now. More to add to the confusion. . . [links]
That is some good info, especially the last link on Sport Rider providing stuff from Suzuki (which Steve quoted, above)
-
OK, read the last link Tomp provided, what suzuki says about their secondaries. I have never seen that - ever. yet read it, it's the same thing I have already written in this thread. Steve
"The official word from Suzuki is that its SDTV (Suzuki Dual Throttle Valve) system brings superb response feel, smooth power delivery, improved mileage and reduced emissions. The secondary butterflies do this by opening just enough to provide the optimum intake velocity based on throttle position and rpm rather than letting you decide with your throttle inputs. For example, if you were to open the throttle fully at low rpm on a setup without the secondary butterflies, intake velocity would drop and the engine would not pull cleanly. In addition, the secondary butterflies can smooth the off/on response by opening at a set rateagain, no matter how quickly you open the throttle. And as we’re finding out with more bikes in recent years, in some cases the secondary butterflies are used to restrict the engine’s output to meet emissions requirements."
Steve, it may not make any difference to your point, but I think the only words in that paragraph that may have actually came from Suzuki are the ones I highlighted in blue. The rest appears to be the interpretation of same and further input by the author (Andrew Trevitt)? I've only searched for a few minutes, but in that short time I was unable to find any official word from a Suzuki website that associates Suzuki Dual Throttle Valve with reduced emissions. I'll keep searching.
-
Ok, since we're back in business, i do want to give a shout out to Rembrant - I feel he is actually the most knowledgeable on the secondary's action on this thread, and he has personally played with the maps and graciously provided them for us. That's not speculation folks, that's fact, which is what we sorely need. Thanks Rem - Steve
-
Ok, since we're back in business, i do want to give a shout out to Rembrant - I feel he is actually the most knowledgeable on the secondary's action on this thread, and he has personally played with the maps and graciously provided them for us. That's not speculation folks, that's fact, which is what we sorely need. Thanks Rem - Steve
LOL...well, the way I see it, either you're interested in this stuff, or you're not.
It's interesting to me to see what the bike's controls are trying to do.
In discussing what the secondary flies primary purpose is, it is interesting to note that they did do semi-gear specific mapping for them...maps for gears 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6. By comparison, the fueling and ignition are a bit simpler...one fuel map for all gears, and one ignition map for all gears. On the second gen bikes, the ECO mode utilizes slightly different fueling and ignition maps...but the secondary fly maps are all the same if I recall correctly. The ECO mode looks to be about 5% leaner on the fueling and uses about 2 degrees more ignition advance.
In looking at the secondary fly maps, you can clearly see the progression of the flies from closed to open. The map is relatively easy to change...you just have to make sure you keep it smooth and not make massive number jumps imho. The other big thing is not to open them too early...it could be simply unsettling, and it could be downright dangerous. I think this is one area where fly removal is more beneficial than reprogramming them.
It wouldn't hurt to talk to Turbo (Mike) in TN...I believe he bought the Woolich kit for his track built ZX10R, and was going to for the C14 as well...he was going to experiment with a ported and polished C14 cylinder head, and possibly ZX14 pistons to boost compression?...My memory is gettin' fuzzy on the topic now.
-
Each of the maps for the secondaries opens them earlier / farther in the higher gears; first map is conservative (gears 1&2), second map is a bit more aggressive, opening the 'flies sooner (3 &4) and finally the most aggressive of all the maps is for 5&6. Exactly the way you would expect if the goal is to tame the bike's output.
The interesting trial would be to just open the 'flies all the way whenever the bike was running; that would simulate the 'flies being removed. The problem is the fast idle cam comes into play and the engine will not idle.
Brian
LOL...well, the way I see it, either you're interested in this stuff, or you're not.
It's interesting to me to see what the bike's controls are trying to do.
In discussing what the secondary flies primary purpose is, it is interesting to note that they did do semi-gear specific mapping for them...maps for gears 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6. By comparison, the fueling and ignition are a bit simpler...one fuel map for all gears, and one ignition map for all gears. On the second gen bikes, the ECO mode utilizes slightly different fueling and ignition maps...but the secondary fly maps are all the same if I recall correctly. The ECO mode looks to be about 5% leaner on the fueling and uses about 2 degrees more ignition advance.
In looking at the secondary fly maps, you can clearly see the progression of the flies from closed to open. The map is relatively easy to change...you just have to make sure you keep it smooth and not make massive number jumps imho. The other big thing is not to open them too early...it could be simply unsettling, and it could be downright dangerous. I think this is one area where fly removal is more beneficial than reprogramming them.
It wouldn't hurt to talk to Turbo (Mike) in TN...I believe he bought the Woolich kit for his track built ZX10R, and was going to for the C14 as well...he was going to experiment with a ported and polished C14 cylinder head, and possibly ZX14 pistons to boost compression?...My memory is gettin' fuzzy on the topic now.
-
Each of the maps for the secondaries opens them earlier / farther in the higher gears; first map is conservative (gears 1&2), second map is a bit more aggressive, opening the 'flies sooner (3 &4) and finally the most aggressive of all the maps is for 5&6. Exactly the way you would expect if the goal is to tame the bike's output.
The interesting trial would be to just open the 'flies all the way whenever the bike was running; that would simulate the 'flies being removed. The problem is the fast idle cam comes into play and the engine will not idle.
Brian
Yessir, I'm with you on all counts. My involvement in this whole discussion was more with the how, and less with the why. It was always my understanding that the flies were there to tame the bike's output.
Somebody mentioned earlier that the flies were there to smooth the power delivery, and make the 1400 power plant less radical as it were...but I can't say I agree with that myself. I had a PC3 and flies removed on my 08 C14, and that bike was smooth as glass and it ran like a champ.
I'm only here for the technical discussions anyway...my C14 is currently all stock, at least with regards to fuel, air, and exhaust;).
Rem
-
Yessir, I'm with you on all counts. My involvement in this whole discussion was more with the how, and less with the why. It was always my understanding that the flies were there to tame the bike's output.
Somebody mentioned earlier that the flies were there to smooth the power delivery, and make the 1400 power plant less radical as it were...but I can't say I agree with that myself. I had a PC3 and flies removed on my 08 C14, and that bike was smooth as glass and it ran like a champ.
I'm only here for the technical discussions anyway...my C14 is currently all stock, at least with regards to fuel, air, and exhaust;).
Rem
Rem,
Maybe you can tell me why tuners get more power with the secondaries in?
-
Rem,
Maybe you can tell me why tuners get more power with the secondaries in?
Can you tell me what or where the more power is that you're referring to?
I have no idea if I can answer that question or not...
I know that in the case of the ZX14R, they're now leaving the flies in (but reflashed via the ECU) Annnnd adding a piggy-back PC5 for fine tuning...
-
I know that in the case of the ZX14R, they're now leaving the flies in (but reflashed via the ECU) Annnnd adding a piggy-back PC5 for fine tuning...
^^^ Smart! Tunability of the secondaries AND fuel trim! Plus an auto tune :thumbs:
-
The only reason I can see to leave them in would be because they can or will be opened all the way and therefore not relevant.
Again, the secondary throttle plates are just another set of throttle plates, in- line in the induction system, just before the throttle plates the rider controls (with the right twist grip). Closing them will have the same effect as closing the throttle..... which begs the question, how much do I close the throttle to get maximum power. <chuckle> The next question is if restricting the intakes produces more power, why are the throttle bodies on a ZX 14 larger in diameter but otherwise identical to the C-14? Does anyone really believe that smaller intakes result in more power, all else being equal? And finally, if the C-14 gains power by having smaller or restricted intake tract size, why does replacing the smaller throttle bodies on the C-14 with the larger throttle bodies of a ZX 14 increase the power output of a C-14? There is a gentleman here who in fact has an 08' C-14 with ZX (larger) throttle bodies on it, no secondary plates ('flies) and it has been dyno'd at 168 Hp. I know the person who owned the bike, did the swap and tuned it saw the bike 'in the flesh' so to speak.
1) The Earth is not flt.
2) That bright thing in the sky is not Apollo the Sun god riding his fire chariot.
3) Reducing the induction system on an air pump (which is what an I.C. engine is) does not increase its effective displacement, all else being equal.
:popcorn:
Brian
Can you tell me what or where the more power is that you're referring to?
I have no idea if I can answer that question or not...
I know that in the case of the ZX14R, they're now leaving the flies in (but reflashed via the ECU) Annnnd adding a piggy-back PC5 for fine tuning...
-
For those who think they're smarter than a team of dedicated powertrain engineers, the secondary flies are there for a legitimate reason, or manufacturers wouldn't have spent the money and R&D to incorporate them. Same thing if it was safer to add power by advancing timing, and crap like that 'flashing' does. You can do any of that, but ALWAYS AT A COST.
As far as why larger diameter TBs, they increase power up top, but affect mid-range torque and rideability. It's not just about power and/or torque. It's HOW IT'S DELIVERED in the entire rev range. Yes, sometimes higher velocity (restricted) intake air produces smoother and/or higher torque, especially at partial throttle. Without throttle-by-wire, you need a secondary set of ECU-controlled butterflies to achieve that. What's going on here is some folks want to alter the nature of a sport-touring bike by making it a sport one. Nothing wrong with that, but every such change has consequences, even if they don't know which ones ;D. Have a good one.
-
Interesting thread. I find it interesting that those who do not or have not experienced 'flies out' have strong opinions.
Me, I have files out and a full area P. There is not one single detriment in doing so . (I dont have traction control and dont want it either.)
I have ridden many stock C14's and they are ok but do not come close to how well this bike delivers great power when ever and where ever I want it. It will never be a ZX14 that is true but that is it not what I was trying to do.
I dynoed at 161.3 and I have gotten 52 miles to the gallon and top out at 170 indicated. Where is the problem?
If I bought a new C14 the very first thing I would do is do the same thing as I have now. Make the engine run better and get rid of the stock suspension.
Am I smarter than a bunch of engineers? Of course not. I do not have to be. I only have to be smart enough to know what to do thanks to the great folks here on this site. Obviously I now know what to do.
-
Interesting thread. I find it interesting that those who do not or have not experienced 'flies out' have strong opinions.
Bingo.
It is a bit unfortunate that ever since the whole C14 ECU flashing began, that the secondary fly removal somehow became obsolete or "insufficient", archaic, etc.
Originally, the secondary fly removal and the additional of the tried and true PCIII was THE mod, and not once, not ever, did anybody ever complain or comment that it didn't improve the bike immensely. The same cannot be said about the ECU flashes.
I've had an 08 C14 with flies removed, exhaust, and a PCIII with Fuel Moto tune, and I now have a 2010 c14 that I've tried every way possible...PC5 with autotune and flies out, custom autotuned ECU with flies in, etc, etc. I know exactly how they all work, and I've always maintained that my 08 with flies out was the best way the C14 worked, and I rode that bike coast to coast.
I'm not saying that a C14 with a flashed ECU/flies IN doesn't work well...because they do work well, it's just that IMHO, they do work better with a PC and flies out. That's my own view on the matter, and it can be taken with a grain of salt.
Rem
-
any part of this discussion that deals with maximum power over 5000 rpm is pointless. We are not talking about building peak power, we're dealing with lower rpm rideability, and maximimizing power in that range.
Anyone who is posting to this thread and is pointing out peak horsepower gains at peak rpm is simply not in step with the discussion, and is conflating the terms for some unknown purpose.
And yes, factory design is always the best. What was I thinking... apparently i'm :nuts: steve
-
For those who think they're smarter than a team of dedicated powertrain engineers, the secondary flies are there for a legitimate reason, or manufacturers wouldn't have spent the money and R&D to incorporate them.
I don't think any of us are claiming to be smarter than the engineers who designed in the secondary butterflies. The engineers had to play by rules, and those rules are not "give the bike maximum performance", they are more like: "make the bike 'safe', comply with noise, emissions, and power regulations, and be reliable". And am I sure they met those goals admirably, and those are certainly legitimate reasons (and they can't sell a bike that doesn't meet most of those, anyway).
But OUR goals as end-users are often a little different. Perhaps something like "without making the bike too unreliable and without going overboard, how do we reclaim power that was sacrificed for those other goals?" And we know for a fact that power and response was lost. Is anyone actually arguing against that?
What's going on here is some folks want to alter the nature of a sport-touring bike by making it a sport one. Nothing wrong with that, but every such change has consequences, even if they don't know which ones
It is not just the nature of a sports-touring bike, it is the nature of most all bikes now. I had similar problems with my old carburated ZRX-11. A new jet kit instantly recovered considerable power that was sacrificed by the engineers to meet regulations (and whatever other goals they had). My solution to the same problem on the C14 was a reflash... and it exceed my expectations. For others it is a flies removal + PC. Both have different advantages and a little different outcomes. And some people don't care at all and are perfectly happy with the way the bike is, stock. That is fine too, and is certainly the easiest and cheapest option. It is nice to have options/solutions.
-
:battle: Max! How is anyone supposed to argue with that? What were you thinking?
-
It strikes me that some are arguing against exactly that, somehow linking secondary butterflies being present and to some degree (no pun intended) restricting the intakes and actually making more power. And I am not arguing, in fact I am not actually responding to anyone in particular; I have no horse in this race and am not selling any of the products or methods available, my only goal is to provide information that may be useful to some reading through these threads.
We seem to love our urban legends regardless of the fact that they are often wrong, and that they actually make no sense from a casual observation, such as 'hot water freezes faster than cold water', 'higher octane fuel makes more power than low octane fuel' and so forth. More power by restricting the intakes falls into the same category. My only interest here is to point out a bit of logic and science, not cast an opinion on anything anyone wants to do to his / her motorcycle. Absolutely nothing wrong with re-flashing the ECU as far as I know, and a lot of people seem quite happy after having that done to a C-14 but twisting reality until closing the secondary throttle plates ('flies') will produce more power than directly compared to having them wide open or removed is moving into fantasy land.
Brian
I don't think any of us are claiming to be smarter than the engineers who designed in the secondary butterflies. The engineers had to play by rules, and those rules are not "give the bike maximum performance", they are more like: "make the bike 'safe', comply with noise, emissions, and power regulations, and be reliable". And am I sure they met those goals admirably, and those are certainly legitimate reasons (and they can't sell a bike that doesn't meet most of those, anyway).
But OUR goals as end-users are often a little different. Perhaps something like "without making the bike too unreliable and without going overboard, how do we reclaim power that was sacrificed for those other goals?" And we know for a fact that power and response was lost. Is anyone actually arguing against that?
<snip>
-
Many years ago a 'plumber' attached an ice maker for my in-laws. What made it strange for me was that he attached it to a hot water line... I even mentioned that this just didn't seem logical to me but they trusted their 'plumber'.
-
It strikes me that some are arguing against exactly that, somehow linking secondary butterflies being present and to some degree (no pun intended) restricting the intakes and actually making more power. And I am not arguing, in fact I am not actually responding to anyone in particular [...]
[xxx]I ve been above 150 mph so many times on this bike, I can truly say, the induction system, I.e. ram air, in combination with the VVT is actually what Kawasaki attempted to do right.. Come up to ohio [xxx] and I'll run my stone stock 08 on ya.... better practice your launch
-
I understand what you are saying, Brian. To a point. If the entire area of the intake tract is not needed to carry the volume of air required by the engine, reducing the area while flowing the same volume of air will cause the air to flow faster. It's why automobiles use dual plane intake manifolds. At lower rpms the smaller ports create a higher velocity. When the rpms increase, the larger tracts come into play to be able to provide the necessary air flow. A single plane intake will absolutely produce more power at higher rpms but at the cost of lower rpm torque and drivability. Think of your engine needing X number of gallons per minute at any given rpm. Call rpms Y . As Y increases, so does X. As Y decreases, so does X. The volume needed is not constant, but you do want the pressure (velocity) to be constant. The size of pipe required to provide 1 gallon per minute at 30 psi is far smaller than one needing to provide 10 gallons per minute at 30 psi. At 3k rpms, an engine requires far less air than at 10k rpms. At any given rpm, higher velocity is preferred, as long as volume requirements are being met.
I have no idea if this makes sense to anyone but those of us that have put too large of a carburetor on a vehicle only to experience a loss of performance. I've been there, done that.
-
Before some of you rebuke some of what I said, I skipped over the whole part of valve timing and overlap and how it relates to the airflow requirements. None of the high performance vehicles I was involved with had VVT. Ah the variables......
-
Higher velocity results in lower fluid flow. There is no way around that one, and velocity is not the goal, fluid flow is.
The problem with too large a carburetor is that the flow through the carburetor becomes too low to draw adequate fuel and the mixture goes lean, resulting in what feels like bogging and definite power loss. This is why carburators include an acceleration pump, to compensate for a sudden increase in throttle resulting in a lean mixture. None of that applies to fuel injected I.C. engines though as the correct amount of fuel is simply injected, under pressure, on each full cycle of the engine (w/in two rotations the mixture is corrected) into the airstream regardless of flow, velocity or pressure drop. The venturi effect is simply not needed in fuel injection, which is why throttle bodies can be bored larger without any performance loss or hesitation.
Again, track down Son of Pappy's (his name is Chet) posts on this very forum about changing the throttle bodies on a C-14 to ZX 14 T.B.'s; the result was a power increase across the entire range of the engine's power-band without any detrimental effects that he could detect, all due to the far superior behavior of F.I. over carburetion.
Brian
I understand what you are saying, Brian. To a point. If the entire area of the intake tract is not needed to carry the volume of air required by the engine, reducing the area while flowing the same volume of air will cause the air to flow faster. It's why automobiles use dual plane intake manifolds. At lower rpms the smaller ports create a higher velocity. When the rpms increase, the larger tracts come into play to be able to provide the necessary air flow. A single plane intake will absolutely produce more power at higher rpms but at the cost of lower rpm torque and drivability. Think of your engine needing X number of gallons per minute at any given rpm. Call rpms Y . As Y increases, so does X. As Y decreases, so does X. The volume needed is not constant, but you do want the pressure (velocity) to be constant. The size of pipe required to provide 1 gallon per minute at 30 psi is far smaller than one needing to provide 10 gallons per minute at 30 psi. At 3k rpms, an engine requires far less air than at 10k rpms. At any given rpm, higher velocity is preferred, as long as volume requirements are being met.
I have no idea if this makes sense to anyone but those of us that have put too large of a carburetor on a vehicle only to experience a loss of performance. I've been there, done that.
-
...or you could just ask me. I HAVE Chet's old bike (Silverdammit!), along with a less-modified C14.
Silverdammit! has more power EVERYWHERE, right from idle. Period. SO MUCH more midrange. And then there is the mad rush that starts about 5500rpm.
We wonder how I keep my license...40,000 miles last year between the two C14s.
The need to keep air velocity high through the carburetor venturi is not needed with FI, so carb tuning tricks are irrelevant here. With carbs, you are tuning a resonant cavity to keep velocity high. FI is a lot more like diesel, which has no throttle at all (using the word carefully, a restriction in the intake tract) . Wide open all the time, with fuel being metered by the ECU according to demand, engine speed, etc.
Welcome to the present!
-
...or you could just ask me. I HAVE Chet's old bike (Silverdammit!), along with a less-modified C14.
Silverdammit! has more power EVERYWHERE, right from idle. Period. SO MUCH more midrange. And then there is the mad rush that starts about 5500rpm.
We wonder how I keep my license...40,000 miles last year between the two C14s.
The need to keep air velocity high through the carburetor venturi is not needed with FI, so carb tuning tricks are irrelevant here. With carbs, you are tuning a resonant cavity to keep velocity high. FI is a lot more like diesel, which has no throttle at all (using the word carefully, a restriction in the intake tract) . Wide open all the time, with fuel being metered by the ECU according to demand, engine speed, etc.
Welcome to the present!
While higher velocity will reduce volume, the lower volume only matters if the volume is insufficient to meet the requirements of the engine. The same volume isn't required across the rpm spectrum.
And velocity absolutely matters. The higher the velocity, the better the atomization of the fuel and the better to fill the cylinders. X amount of air will flow through an intake tract, add a supercharger and that flow is increased. Why? Because the velocity increased. The intake tract got no larger, yet the volume going into the cylinder increased. The vacuum of a naturally aspirated engine drops drastically when the throttle is snapped open then increases as the rpms increase due to the sudden decrease in the velocity of the air, not due to lack of volume.
-
And unless we are talking about direct injection, which the C14 does not have, diesel is entirely different. There is no fuel in the intake tract of a diesel, only air. The gasoline on a C14 is sprayed into the incoming air charge, not directly into the combustion chamber. Welcome back to the stone age ;)
-
and of course, total lack of comprehension about cam timing issues, just bigger is better. WOOHOO pull the throttle bodies off and run the fuel pump right into the ports, that ought to get us some better low end torque!
:banghead:
Steve
-
Let me take another stab at this.
assume we can develop 1" vacuum at wot on the primary plates at a given rpm, in this case lets say 4000rpm with the flies opened as much as possible, but no more . Brian continues to argue that the secondaries, if causing a restriction would lower the power, so let's use a real number, 3" vacuum. So 1" vacuum will make more power than 3" vacuum. I'm contending that opening the secondaries just enough to get the 1" vacuum achieved by the primary throttles but no more open than that could actually pay off in power gains, depending on back flow issues due to the cam timing. in fact I think there may be points where the secondaries can help trap reversion and actually slighlty pressurize the intake port.
This has been my point all along. somehow we cycled back to the "more is better" theory of tuning without considering any other issues going on in the engine. Steve
-
Yeah, in the end, F.I. gasoline engines do behave more like diesels in behavior if not actual mechanics. Diesels differ in that the flame front propagation is limited by the fuel and therefore cannot be too lean but in practice, adding the proper amount of fuel to the actual airflow through a gasoline engine does have a similar effect.
Of course even a thin fluid such as aid does have inertia and this leads is the reason to limit the venturi area of the intakes. But for the purposes of this discussion (secondary butterflies partially closed produce more power) this can be dismissed, especially regarding street vehicles. The ram air effect is dubious in a lot of racing vehicles too, and those engines producing great power are always artificially induced anyway, not normally aspirated.
It really is too bad Kawasaki neutered the bike though as it is superb IMO as a stock, 1,400 cc engine without the artificial muting provided by the secondaries.
Brian
...or you could just ask me. I HAVE Chet's old bike (Silverdammit!), along with a less-modified C14.
Silverdammit! has more power EVERYWHERE, right from idle. Period. SO MUCH more midrange. And then there is the mad rush that starts about 5500rpm.
We wonder how I keep my license...40,000 miles last year between the two C14s.
The need to keep air velocity high through the carburetor venturi is not needed with FI, so carb tuning tricks are irrelevant here. With carbs, you are tuning a resonant cavity to keep velocity high. FI is a lot more like diesel, which has no throttle at all (using the word carefully, a restriction in the intake tract) . Wide open all the time, with fuel being metered by the ECU according to demand, engine speed, etc.
Welcome to the present!
-
While higher velocity will reduce volume, the lower volume only matters if the volume is insufficient to meet the requirements of the engine. The same volume isn't required across the rpm spectrum.
And velocity absolutely matters. The higher the velocity, the better the atomization of the fuel and the better to fill the cylinders. X amount of air will flow through an intake tract, add a supercharger and that flow is increased. Why? Because the velocity increased. The intake tract got no larger, yet the volume going into the cylinder increased. The vacuum of a naturally aspirated engine drops drastically when the throttle is snapped open then increases as the rpms increase due to the sudden decrease in the velocity of the air, not due to lack of volume.
I can't follow these statements. How would higher velocity reduce volume? Did I miss a class on Bernoulli's?
And why does velocity matter for the atomization of the fuel? That is critical for carburators, but as far as I understand, the fuel is atomised by the injector, whereas the charge is more homogeneous with the proper design of the intake tract and the combustion chamber/piston shape, which induce swirl and tumble. Velocity helps the distribution and homogenisation of the charge, not its atomisation. And a perfectly homogeneous charge is not always desired, as the flame front starting around the spark is not as fast as people think.
All in all, I read here how speed is important, volume, pressure, etc, but the only important thing you need to put into the cylinder is mass. Molecules of air, which are the ones that are going to combust. How you get it there is the discussion, and for that we make use of compressors, turbos and whatnot.
And I really, really want to know what the secondary flies role is in all this, other than neuter this wonderful 1400 cc beast to make it (perhaps?) more drivable, tree-huggers compliant, etc. But performance? Torque? HP? I still don't see it, and since I don't understand much of it, I keep reading what you guys write.
-
Masochist?
-
Masochist?
Haha...every time I hear that word I think of Lapchink? from the Gumball Rally (1976-ish?).
He was riding the old Kawi 400 triple "2-smoke" and kept crashing...
The two old guys in the Benz said "I do believe that man Lapchink suffers from a severe case of masochism".
LOL.
-
Of everything in that movie he is the one I remember the most and can still see his expression before he runs off the road into a tree. Thanks for that.
-
Well, what if you sold something that altered the behavior of the 'flies.... would it not then be beneficial to state that your modification was better in some way? Perhaps you are using too much science and fact when a little shilling would explain everything? ;)
A while back, the people who wanted better low- to- mid range performance from a C-14 pulled the 'flies and added a Power Commander. Along comes a gentleman who can put new software in the ECU to open the 'flies sooner but he could not open them all the way, all the time (simulating actual removal) because that would engage the fast idle cam on the secondary throttle rod linkage. So he makes a compromise and opens them sooner but of course not all the way until the engine is turning very fast and under heavy load, just like a stock bike. Initially people found this to be a significant improvement, somewhere between the behavior of the bike stock and having the 'flies removed.
Now after a while, the folks selling the re-flash want to sell more of them and they have a shill walk through the town, ringing a bell and stating that leaving the 'flies in and restricting the airflow is actually BETTER than removing them. Why? To increase sales of the re-flash of course.
Now there are new folks looking to enter the C-14 'farkle' market and are trying to find something to sell. Looks like that may be some type of secondary 'flie "twiddle". The end result is that we have another shill stating that closing the 'flies is 'better' than removing them..... and of course he will be happy to sell everyone some of this better method.
Some of you guys are trying to understand what is happening here by using Bernoulli, Boyle, physics, logic and facts while the true explanation lies with Elmer Wheeler.
Brian
<snip>
And I really, really want to know what the secondary flies role is in all this, other than neuter this wonderful 1400 cc beast to make it (perhaps?) more drivable, tree-huggers compliant, etc. But performance? Torque? HP? I still don't see it, and since I don't understand much of it, I keep reading what you guys write.
-
I just know I'm going to regret this. :banghead: :P
So we have basically (I'm probably over simplifying) 3 camps here? I won't attempt to place all the various personalities in the camps. I think, if I'm close to being correct, that they will self populate.
Camp one: The engine is a simple air pump, ANYTHING restrictive in anyway in the intake tract has a negative impact on airflow at all rpms and thus hurts performance at all rpms. Even if camp one were to agree with the some of the theories of camp two in regards to reversion entrapment, it feels that the positives (trapping reversion if any) does not out weigh the negative of having restrictions in the intake in the first place. Camp one thinks that mostly the poor souls in camp two are being bamboozled by tall tale theories propagated by those with financial interests in leaving intake tract restrictions in place.
Camp two: At certain lower rpm ranges and air velocities, a restriction can help trap any reversion in the airflow that might be caused by (I'm way out of my depth here) VVT allowing the intake valve being partially open during the piston up stroke and/or some wave theory type stuff that a reverse wave occurs in the intake tract when the moving air (because of it's inertia) hits the closed intake valve. Thus, because of the restriction (secondary flies) the reversion is at least partially trapped and slightly pressurizes the intact tract so that when the intake valve next opens more air fuel mix will enter the combustion chamber than would have done had the restriction not been in place. This camp two position is only valid at the lower rpms and agrees with what camp one is saying only at higher rpms.
Camp three: HUH? ??? :-\ :o ??? (to start off the self population of camps, I'm in this one, in case it wasn't already obvious.)
Sometimes, those in camp one and camp two feel so strongly about their positions that they appear to not like one another and they say things that might get the thread locked for a bit. When in fact they actually do like one another much much more :-* than they like all those popcorn chompin', fence sittin', dummies in camp three. ::)
-
Well perhaps I can deflect a few arrows headed your way Marty.... :-)
Probably not a bad summation you have there. Of course life is never that simple but for the big picture, all induction and exhaust systems could be tuned for a particular velocity. In reality it is not practical for street vehicles and besides, even if a system were static tuned (meaning a fixed reaction at a given RPM and throttle opening), it could not apply to different bikes at different temperatures, altitudes, humidity levels, etc., etc.
In our very specific example, it is my opinion that the secondary 'flies do not and will not 'tune' the system anyway; while they certainly do restrict the intake area they also add things like von Karman vortices which are impossible to 'tune' as they are a system disturbance and do nothing to enhance flow in any way but in fact greatly disturb flow. The simple version of what those are are the vortices that make a flag flap or a piece of paper flap in a wind. The method of tuning would be to change the length of the intake tract (best way) or possibly a slide- type venturi area changing mechanism (dubious at best) but certainly not a plate in the fluid flow turning to act as a valve- that just makes a mess of the fluid flow as well as presenting a restriction.
Another thing to remember is that in the days of carburation, there had to be a pressure drop in the carburator to draw fuel into the air stream. So getting a lot of flow and still having a pressure drop at the venturi (the narrow throat of the carburator) was important. Fuel Injection eliminates this need as the injectors will place the correct amount of fuel into the cylinder without any need for a venturi.
I would encourage anyone interested in the matter to do a bit of research rather than believing anyone on any forum- take a few minutes and look at fluid flow and I think the answer will make itself clear.
Brian
I just know I'm going to regret this. :banghead: :P
So we have basically (I'm probably over simplifying) 3 camps here? I won't attempt to place all the various personalities in the camps. I think, if I'm close to being correct, that they will self populate.
Camp one: The engine is a simple air pump, ANYTHING restrictive in anyway in the intake tract has a negative impact on airflow at all rpms and thus hurts performance at all rpms. Even if camp one were to agree with the some of the theories of camp two in regards to reversion entrapment, it feels that the positives (trapping reversion if any) does not out weigh the negative of having restrictions in the intake in the first place. Camp one thinks that mostly the poor souls in camp two are being bamboozled by tall tale theories propagated by those with financial interests in leaving intake tract restrictions in place.
Camp two: At certain lower rpm ranges and air velocities, a restriction can help trap any reversion in the airflow that might be caused by (I'm way out of my depth here) VVT allowing the intake valve being partially open during the piston up stroke and/or some wave theory type stuff that a reverse wave occurs in the intake tract when the moving air (because of it's inertia) hits the closed intake valve. Thus, because of the restriction (secondary flies) the reversion is at least partially trapped and slightly pressurizes the intact tract so that when the intake valve next opens more air fuel mix will enter the combustion chamber than would have done had the restriction not been in place. This camp two position is only valid at the lower rpms and agrees with what camp one is saying only at higher rpms.
Camp three: HUH? ??? :-\ :o ??? (to start off the self population of camps, I'm in this one, in case it wasn't already obvious.)
Sometimes, those in camp one and camp two feel so strongly about their positions that they appear to not like one another and they say things that might get the thread locked for a bit. When in fact they actually do like one another much much more :-* than they like all those popcorn chompin', fence sittin', dummies in camp three. ::)
-
i'm in camp 7
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :loco: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
...it is my opinion that the secondary 'flies do not and will not 'tune' the system anyway; while they certainly do restrict the intake area...
OK then, camp one.
i'm in camp 7
:loco:
Of course you are.
-
well.obviously I'm in camp two, but lets keep in mind the cam LC' play into my point.
I'll also point this out - if you have or had a c-10, and have used my 2 minute mod jet kit, you have experienced what controlling reversion through intake restriction can do for the low end power and peak power (more everywhere, dyno proven). I've also experimented with different head flow capacities on my c-10, going from stock, to a high velocity ported head (filled with epoxy for smaller ports) and now I have a more conventionally ported head head on shoodaben. I have run several different cams in shoodaben. To my knowledge I'm the only person who has dialed in and changed the cam timing in a c-14. I do the work - not just the talk, and sometimes things turn out different than what we would expect, but you won't know that until you actually try it and stick it on the dyno.
Let me add something to simplify this... as I've previously stated, my point is that a properly done fly map would be like having fly by wire. the computer would limit opening when the engine doesn't have the capability to injest a WOT gulp even though that's what the operator called for. Steve
-
Steve, I have also heard of exhaust reversion and having anti reversion cones in exhaust manifolds/headers. How is it determined that a reversion condition exists since it is internal and cannot be seen?
-
well, in extreme conditions, it can be seen. Think of a old style dragster with velocity stacks. You could see the fuel puffing back out of the stacks on reversion pulse. virtually all engines do this to some degree. The shorter the overlap, the less reversion there will be, which is why the vvt retards the intake cam, to lessen the intake to exposure to pressure. By trying different tuning, an experienced tuner can descipher what power losses are being caused by reversion, the effects of multiple carburetion ( the phenomenon of the same column of air going back and forth in the intake track) etc. Long tube headers are also a way of suppressing reversion at low rpm, as it takes so long for the pulse to go back up the header pipe it's missed it's chance to create a great deal of passive egr action.
With VVT, the late opening of the intake at low revs suppresses reversion at overlap, but can also expose the late closing point in which cylinder pressure is rising with the piston and gets pushes back out the intake track. This is a delicate tuning balance to achieve, properly timed intake opening and closing points. the same cam can be biased to top end or bottom end power, depending on the lobe center. This is where vvt comes in and speads the power across a much wider rpm range than a fixed position cam does. If fo no other reason the VVT and the base cam duration is the the single most reason comparing what works on a zx14 and what works on a c-14 is an apples to oranges argument. Steve
-
I think what many fail to take in to account when thinking about how an internal combustion engine functions is, the valves don't operate like an electric switch. They are not instantaneously open or closed. Some of the variables include timing, duration, overlap (when both valves are open), and lift. All of these variables have affects on the other parts of the package.
The engine needs to be viewed as a "package" or "system". Changing one aspect can, and often does, have a dramatic affect on other aspects. Especially the cam system. Virtually everything is affected by the cams. They are a very deep well to delve into. It's like the difference between going to the gym (fuel mapping) and actually changing the DNA (cam changes).
I wrote this to try to clarify this stuff for those who are unfamiliar with this stuff, not to correct anyone. Until I have a firm grasp on something, I need big picture view. That's just me. Throw in to the mix the fact that nature doesn't always work the way we think it should, real world experience speaks the truth.
-
Fred Harmon Youtube video about Guhl reflash effect of secondary flies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GBtbFJOJY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GBtbFJOJY)
-
Fred Harmon Youtube video about Guhl reflash effect of secondary flies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GBtbFJOJY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5GBtbFJOJY)
I'm not sure I understand what the video is supposed to be relaying
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLB7aTmnE4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLB7aTmnE4)
And remember, they are far better than these more expensive knives:http://www.williams-sonoma.com/shop/cutlery/zwilling-henckels-knives/
'The new 'Ginsu 'flie tune' cures anti reversion fields at all sub- light speeds.' There is the sound bite for the sales pitch.
;) ::)
Brian
I'm not sure I understand what the video is supposed to be relaying
-
I'm not sure I understand what the video is supposed to be relaying
That little screen Fred has set up is the Dynojet/PC LCD-200. It has some generic analog gauges that you can add your own inputs to. In this case, Fred tapped into the output wires from the secondary fly position sensor. (It is just another sensor the same as the TPS, but on the end of the secondary fly pivot shaft). So, he scaled the voltage of the analog gauge so that it would show the movement of the secondary flies.
He did some runs in ECO mode to show the stock secondary fly action, and then he did runs (like this one I believe) to show the secondary fly action in the Guhl Reflash.
I have no idea how accurate it is...I don't always agree with Fred's tests...but you get the gist of it. I'm not sure if the gauge was scaled for 90 degrees of travel or not...but it probably should be to match the fly movement properly. He also did tests of the traction control system with and without the secondary flies, but they were pretty crude tests imho....not that it matters much, once the rumor was started...
I think if you peruse his Youtube vids, you'll see that they all kind of follow one another, etc. They'll make more sense that way.
I have to give the guy credit for all the stuff he does and the time he puts into it, even if I often don't agree with him.
Rem
-
Anybody ever heard of Woolrich tuners? They have maps for the Connie
http://www.woolichracing.com/products/kawasaki/1400-gtr-zg-1400-concours-14/kawasaki-1400-gtr-zg-1400-concours-14-ecu-flashing.aspx (http://www.woolichracing.com/products/kawasaki/1400-gtr-zg-1400-concours-14/kawasaki-1400-gtr-zg-1400-concours-14-ecu-flashing.aspx)
-
Anybody ever heard of Woolrich tuners? They have maps for the Connie
Yup, sure have. I had the Woolich bench flashing ECU kit and later the Log Box Pro kit for the C14.
They don't have any maps...their kits are the tools/equipment/software to create the maps.