Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C-14, aka Kawasaki Concours-14, the new one :) => Accessories and modifications - C14/GTR 1400 => Topic started by: Steve in Sunny Fla on September 22, 2015, 06:48:04 AM
-
Some of y'all may know I've been working on a flash for the 14. Well here's a small, almost inconsequential part of the story... the dyno chart. Most folks get really wrapped up in the dyno chart, but remember, this only tells you about WOT power no info on the real rideability of economy. Still, folks like this stuff.
BTW this is a DEAD STOCK 2012.
And a special Thank You to Rembrant, who kinda kicked me into doing this :chugbeer: Steve
-
Steve, give us a little more info on these plots.
Is this; 2 bikes 1 run each, 1 bike 2 runs same flash, or,,, 1 bike 2 runs/ with and without the re-flash?
Both runs seem to be pretty smooth plots with a hiccup around 4500 and 6000 on one of the plots.
Agreed that a WOT doesn't tell us all we need.
As you already know, "Seat of the pants" is the best way to determine how it actually works.
From the reports I've read about your re-flash, you've done it right.
Congrats...
If you had unlimited funds (or your own dyno) you could set a mechanical stop in the throttle and do 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, etc throttle runs. Multiple runs (at different throttle settings) would tell you more.
Unfortunately, all of this takes massive amounts of time and money
Ride safe, Ted!
-
that's my bike, 100% stock, same dyno, runs within minutes of each other. we ran with my flash, then I returned it to stock and did several runs, then returned to my flash. These #'s are real and repeatable. If you look at the beginning of the chart you see the acceleration is almost vertical to where the torque curve becomes flat and constistent; this shows the level of instant throttle response. and remember, this is with the flies in.
Steve
-
Ok, thanx.
that's my bike, 100% stock, same dyno, runs within minutes of each other. this is with the flies in.
Well done!
Ride safe, Ted
-
Some of y'all may know I've been working on a flash for the 14. Well here's a small, almost inconsequential part of the story... the dyno chart. Most folks get really wrapped up in the dyno chart, but remember, this only tells you about WOT power no info on the real rideability of economy. Still, folks like this stuff.
BTW this is a DEAD STOCK 2012.
And a special Thank You to Rembrant, who kinda kicked me into doing this :chugbeer: Steve
Interesting! Now one would want to compare to the Ghul flash....
And yes, you are correct that WOT is useful, but only as a single metric. I can tell a huge difference in engine response before and after the Ghul reflash in "normal" and "spirited" riding at way under 7K rpm (something not explained by a chart like this). Rarely am I ever in WOT (and I would guess most C14 riders would be similar).
-
Interesting! Now one would want to compare to the Ghul flash....
Bam. Reply to self: http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=15297.msg186728#msg186728 (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=15297.msg186728#msg186728)
A few select quotes of mine from that thread:
"At 3K it [torque increase after Ghul flash] is pretty impressive, jumping from about 66ft-lb to 78ft-lb. That is 18% more, something that will certainly be noticed by everyone. At the higher RPMs, like 6K, a 1ft-lb improvement at 88 isn't going to be noticeable by anyone (that is only a 1.1% improvement). At 5K it isn't much whoop either (+2 = 2.3%)"
"The Ghul reflash primarily addresses responsiveness. The secondary butterflies are what causes the lack of responsiveness and the flash essentially "disables" those[...] It DOES increase torque across the board (especially at lower RPM)."
The data on your {Steve FL} dyno chart under 3K is a bit wonkey. Your peak hp is considerably higher than I would have expected.
-
The data on your {Steve FL} dyno chart under 3K is a bit wonkey. Your peak hp is considerably higher than I would have expected.
yup, good observations. I had Chris Jones do the dyno work - Chris built Ricky Gadsons turbo bike, he knows his stuff - he and I discussed that. He said the problem with my flash was that it's strong down low and every time he tried to "creep up" on 3k to start the run it would overspeed the drum, and he'd have to back off the throttle. It even shows on that chart - where he hit it to early, then backed out, then hit it again. Seriously there's piles of low end that the bike didn't have in stock form, but it was hard to capture on the dyno. Steve
-
yup, good observations. I had Chris Jones do the dyno work - Chris built Ricky Gadsons turbo bike, he knows his stuff - he and I discussed that. He said the problem with my flash was that it's strong down low and every time he tried to "creep up" on 3k to start the run it would overspeed the drum, and he'd have to back off the throttle. It even shows on that chart - where he hit it to early, then backed out, then hit it again. Seriously there's piles of low end that the bike didn't have, but it was hard to capture on the dyno. Steve
That's a shame, because the low end torque is probably the most interesting for regular driving, especially on this type of bike. I am wondering how they got such a pretty dyno chart down low on the Ghul flash (well, at least on stock, after the flash there was no data below 2.8K Hmm)
-
That's a shame, because the low end torque is probably the most interesting for regular driving, especially on this type of bike. I am wondering how they got such a pretty dyno chart down low on the Ghul flash (well, at least on stock, after the flash there was no data below 2.8K Hmm)
[/quote
i dunno, but on the comparison with Guhl, which is inevitable, I WELCOME those to compare. I have already, and also with the power commandered / areap'd bikes. There's only so much that can be gotten with tuning; I think I've gotten a pretty big chunk of it. Steve
-
i dunno, but on the comparison with Guhl, which is inevitable, I WELCOME those to compare. I have already, and also with the power commandered / areap'd bikes. There's only so much that can be gotten with tuning; I think I've gotten a pretty big chunk of it. Steve
Even just replicating/matching what Ghul did is a huge accomplishment (and kudos, of course). Topping it would be pretty amazing. Since nobody else has asked.... was this ONLY changing the 'flies mapping?
-
Even just replicating/matching what Ghul did is a huge accomplishment (and kudos, of course). Topping it would be pretty amazing. Since nobody else has asked.... was this ONLY changing the 'flies mapping?
I'm not interested in replicating anyone's work, that's either plagiarism, or a lazy person's lack of inspiration. This is my own work from the get-go. and it's much more comprehensive than just fly mapping. As always, I STILL say that if a person is using a dyno chart to determine "the best" tune, that person is making a mistake. steve
-
I'm not interested in replicating anyone's work, that's either plagiarism, or a lazy person's lack of inspiration. This is my own work from the get-go. and it's much more comprehensive than just fly mapping.
I wasn't implying a copy/reverse engineering or anything of the sort. Just a replication of the methods and results- flashing the ECU to reprogram the 'flies and some A/F tuning to get more power and responsiveness.
As always, I STILL say that if a person is using a dyno chart to determine "the best" tune, that person is making a mistake.
Couldn't agree more. But unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of other objective measurement tools available (or at least not practical). At least, not that I have seen.
-
I guess I'm a little surprised by the lack of input on this thread, especially since there were such rousing conversations in days past regarding the relative pro's and con's of leaving fly's in or removing them. Is it settled now that flies in is superior, or does someone want to prove otherwise? ;D Steve
-
It's your flash, Steve. It can be what ever you want it to be. The proof seems a bit elusive to the unwashed since your work is understandably proprietary. I can only assume my failure to understand the nuances of how closing the intake tract increases performance is due to my own ignorance. Good luck with the project.
-
Ok, I'll stir the discussion a little. :o
But, (for my efforts) you have to answer my final question...
I've always thought the Flies in approach was the better of the 2; as my assumption is they would offer better control for low rpm flow.
I assume they fully open at WOT.
(NOTE: I agree that {at WOT} they slightly decrease airflow, but the air blockage is at a minimum.
I'll guess that removed, the increased airflow can aide the engine in producing more max HP.
But, the loss of control at lower throttle openings would decrease possible torque advantage?
Several times you've made comments about the Slip On Mufflers.
From your posts, apparently you don't like them.
Why don't you like them, and how do they work (or not work) with your flash?
{ie; what is the advantage or disadvantage? [not yes they will work or no they won't]}
Ride safe, Ted
-
Ok, I'll stir the discussion a little. :o
But, (for my efforts) you have to answer my final question...
I've always thought the Flies in approach was the better of the 2; as my assumption is they would offer better control for low rpm flow.
I assume they fully open at WOT.
(NOTE: I agree that {at WOT} they slightly decrease airflow, but the air blockage is at a minimum.
I'll guess that removed, the increased airflow can aide the engine in producing more max HP.
But, the loss of control at lower throttle openings would decrease possible torque advantage?
Several times you've made comments about the Slip On Mufflers.
From your posts, apparently you don't like them.
Why don't you like them, and how do they work (or not work) with your flash?
{ie; what is the advantage or disadvantage? [not yes they will work or no they won't]}
Ride safe, Ted
Loss of control of what?
-
It looks like you achieved 14 more HP, which is good ... and 2 more ft-lbs of torque; I would think the torque figure would matter more, but I ain't no expert 8)
Are you happy with it? Do you feel gains? If so, then you're all set :thumbs:
What kind of input were you looking for?
-
Loss of control of what?
(They put the 2nd butterfly in the throttle body for a reason, as it wasn't an inexpensive addition).
I assumed that the Kawasaki (Supplier) added the 2nd butterfly to control flow thru the throttle body.
So, if the butterfly is removed, that control is lost.
I know Steve adjusted how that butterfly was controlled to gain some of his tune...
NOTE: I'm not an expert. Just trying to stir discussion for learnings...
Ride safe, Ted
-
Loss of control of what?
(They put the 2nd butterfly in the throttle body for a reason, as it wasn't an inexpensive addition).
I assumed that the Kawasaki (Supplier) added the 2nd butterfly to control flow thru the throttle body.
So, if the butterfly is removed, that control is lost.
I know Steve adjusted how that butterfly was controlled to gain some of his tune...
NOTE: I'm not an expert. Just trying to stir discussion for learnings...
Ride safe, Ted
In your opinion what was Kaw's objective in controlling the air flow with the secondary throttle plates?
-
The bike gained more than 2 #'s Tq, more like 5# at 3500 rpm, which is very noticeable.
IMO the flies are to nanny the lower rpm power, but they aren't the impediment to power production that most think. For starters, the flies are a larger diameter than the actual throttle plates, so given any percentage of throttle opening, the flies at the same percentage allow more flow that then actual throttle plates. What folks aren't considering is reaction time from throttle input to achieving the secondary opening. They're fast, but not like the speed of light. also, I have experimented with a lot of early fly opening; flies out, and even cutting the flies. to much opening or flies out leaves a flatness / breathy feeling that slows throttle response. Very noticable if you're a tuner and know what to look for. I actually backed off of the fly opening in my flash to achieve the snappy throttle response it has. Y'all can argue / discuss / haggle it all you want; I'm telling you factually that to much fly opening or removing the flies is NOT the best way to go.
As far as slipons are concerned, I have no issue with them at all, but I am also a realist. The simple fact is that a slip on with a DBkiller / baffle in it probably flows less than the stock muffler, and that kills power. I know guys put on slipons for the weight savings and the look, but be careful and know what you're doing before you drop the coin.
JMO, Steve
-
Hi Steve
The guy who did the reflash on mine said the flies perform an important job, especially at lower revs, and their removal will affect the power delivery and smoothness / drivability of the engine.
He couldn't dino thun mine because he only had a bike dino, which is no good for my trike :-(
-
All's you gots to do is ask the ones that have removed them flies if they've affected the bike negatively... I think that most of them would say not...even the ones with TC..
My bike is bone stock in the fly dept and it has all the power I need when I need it. Have an Area P. Coming up I95 today I kept catching myself doing 90+ and then slowing back down..
-
In your opinion what was Kaw's objective in controlling the air flow with the secondary throttle plates?
In Note #19 Steve explained the result he got by controlling the flies. So, I won't go there.
As I sed I'm not an expert. Only a garage mechanic.
I like to study "why" things work.
And I like to learn by discussing those theories.
That being said, I'll guess at "why" the secondary fly is installed in the throttle body...
Air/Fuel mixture...
I suspect that the opening (rate, timing, and amount) effects the velocity and turbulence of air at/after the fly.
(I think) That air movement helps to "better" atomize and mix the air/fuel. (result being a better A/F mixture at low throttle openings).
Ride safe, Ted
PS: Steve; Thanks for your answer on the Slip-on's.
(I experimented with a baffle in my Area P and definitely lost performance).
Removed it!
-
All's you gots to do is ask the ones that have removed them flies if they've affected the bike negatively... I think that most of them would say not...even the ones with TC..
tTo me, not really the issue... I know the difference now, and flies out might be the best for someone who has never known better, but it's simply not "the best". steve
-
tTo me, not really the issue... I know the difference now, and flies out might be the best for someone who has never known better, but it's simply not "the best". steve
I would word it this way- "flies out is a LOT better than stock, and flies in but flies programmed to open faster/more is a little better than flies out + PC."
-
Several times you've made comments about the Slip On Mufflers.
From your posts, apparently you don't like them.
Why don't you like them, and how do they work (or not work) with your flash?
{ie; what is the advantage or disadvantage? [not yes they will work or no they won't]}
As an addendum to what Steve said (and I say over and over in many threads), changing the muffler is not changing "the exhaust system". On a modern bike like the C14, changing the muffler doesn't affect performance much at all, regardless of what you do with the flies or a PC or air filter or anything else other unless it is part of upgrading THE WHOLE EXHAUST SYSTEM. Changing the muffler [silencer] to something supposedly less restrictive simply moves the pointer to the next restriction in the rest of the system (which is the rest of the pipes and the exhaust manifold... and then there is the intake, intake manifold, and throttle bodies to contend with). It is like cutting off several feet of garden hose- it doesn't change much of anything until you replace the ENTIRE hose with something larger. I also read that on the C14 that the cats (catalytic converters) are not a point of much restriction either.
Replace [just the] the muffler if you want to save weight, change the sound, or for asthetics, but not because you think it will change performance in any meaningful way.
The C14 is not a 1970's bike design. :)
-
(They put the 2nd butterfly in the throttle body for a reason, as it wasn't an inexpensive addition).
I assumed that the Kawasaki (Supplier) added the 2nd butterfly to control flow thru the throttle body.
So, if the butterfly is removed, that control is lost.
Hashed over and over in several threads. Yes, there were most likely several reasons the flies are there (not just one). Based on what I have read, my conclusion has been:
1) As part of emissions control, which sacrifices maximum power and responsiveness for improved emissions
2) As part of fuel economy, for more MPG overall
3) As part of noise control, which helps to mute intake noise
4) As part of the traction control system, which helps to smooth the removal and re-delivery of power during and after an "event"
5) To "tame" (neuter/smooth) low throttle response on a large/powerful engine to help with less experienced or more timid riders
And not necessarily in that order, but I suspect emissions control is king.
-
Maxtog, on the issue of the cats not being very restrictive, I'm not so sure about that. I purposefully built a header with the same tube diameter as the stock header, collecting the pipes in the same manner as stock, but without the cats. That bike really came alive, and from low rpm's on up. It also got loud. It was fitted with a 2 bros slip on before and after the header change; the difference in volume was significant. Based on the power gain alone,I'd have to take exception to any statements that indicate the cats aren't restrictive, or aren'taffecting the power output negatively. steve
-
Maxtog, on the issue of the cats not being very restrictive, I'm not so sure about that. I purposefully built a header with the same tube diameter as the stock header, collecting the pipes in the same manner as stock, but without the cats. That bike really came alive, and from low rpm's on up. It also got loud. It was fitted with a 2 bros slip on before and after the header change; the difference in volume was significant. Based on the power gain alone,I'd have to take exception to any statements that indicate the cats aren't restrictive, or aren'taffecting the power output negatively. steve
Was it faster?
-
yes, obviously so. I've since sold that bike to a fellow Cogger. He's sceduling a trip to the dyno next month to see what the output is. I'll say this, with me on it, if I snap the throttle at 4000 rpm / 2nd gear the front end clears the ground til I shift. the flies are still in, and I haven't flashed that bike, it was all from changing the cam timing and the header. Steve
-
Steve, I saw where you mentioned a possible flies out/PC5 flash. Is that being developed with or without AutoTune?
-
Maxtog, on the issue of the cats not being very restrictive, I'm not so sure about that. I purposefully built a header with the same tube diameter as the stock header, collecting the pipes in the same manner as stock, but without the cats. That bike really came alive, and from low rpm's on up. It also got loud. It was fitted with a 2 bros slip on before and after the header change; the difference in volume was significant. Based on the power gain alone,I'd have to take exception to any statements that indicate the cats aren't restrictive, or aren'taffecting the power output negatively. steve
I should have disclaimed that I have ZERO experience with cat removal that and it was ONLY based on what I read in threads on this board, which seemed to clearly indicate that the flow didn't change much (the diameter is decent, and it is a 2 way/flow-through cat, not a more restrictive 3 way). Just edited that posting now to indicate it is just what I read. Of course, I can't find the thread(s) with the info I was basing my info on now, damnit...
-
Steve, I saw where you mentioned a possible flies out/PC5 flash. Is that being developed with or without AutoTune?
Since it would be used with end users pcv, it would depend on the pcv fuel maps either loaded or developed by the autotune on that individual bike. Steve