avc8130 said:
As Tenere owners, we are LUCKY we share so much ECU architecture with the R1/R6. It is that common platform that allowed FT to develop and support the interface. If it was any more complex, I don't think they would have put in the effort given the small market.
Just for some comparison price point:
The "current" recommended setup:
ECU-U Gen 2: $500
PCV5: $300
AT: $250
Total: $1050
Another option:
FT Interface: $400
Innovate LM-2 Kit: $500
Total: $900
Not that "different", except that with option 2 the user has TOTAL control over the bike with more coming.
It has been shown over and over again anecdotally ( ;D ) that controlling the throttle maps has a more profound influence on the bike's rideability than anything done with the fueling to date.
ac
Amen, AVC.
That's always the problem with proponents of PC-V's, AT's, etc.... They've heard over and over - usually from the people trying to sell them the PC-V's, AT's, etc. - that because of those dreaded *emission regulations" that everything on bikes today is lean, lean, *LEAN*, so they think that if they simply add fuel, add *FUEL*, *ADD MORE FUEL* they will get more power. I've seen guys keep adding fuel with Powercommanders until raw gasoline was literally dripping out the exhaust pipes, and they would be telling you the bike was making more power, all while it was burbling, missing, and literally fouling plugs like a two-stroke.
As you have, with your research, pointed out and proven is that this engine set-up, as delivered from Yamaha, is actually too rich in many areas and needs fuel taken *OUT* to get better performance, driveability, and smooth running.
Try getting one of our resident PC-V addict/advocates to tell you that!!!
Nope, for them more fuel is always better. They don't seem to grasp that the only areas the manufacturers usually are forced to make the engines run very lean are in the rev ranges and wheel-speed ranges where the emission testing takes place. Nor do they consider that one of the reason all these bikes suddenly started getting fuel injection in the first place was to clean up their emissions during the warm-up phase, where old carb-engined bikes running on choke were dirtiest. There were many other reasons, to be sure, but the point is that stock FI engines these days are *NOT* always *LEAN* everywhere in the rev range, and simply adding fuel everywhere, willy nilly, does *NOT* increase power, performance, or improve driveability.
Further, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at this engine, its airbox, intakes, exhaust, cam profiles, etc. and see that not a whole lot is there to be gained with things like aftermarket mufflers, different air filters, and adding more and more *FUEL* via a band-aid like a PC-V. Sure, the folks who sell all that stuff will tell you all day long all that stuff is necessary, and that all that stuff will make more, more, *MORE* power... But again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's not necessarily because it works, but instead because it makes you spend more money with them.
From what I can see this engine is operating pretty near its peak BMEP as configured. Sure, very small, incremental gains might be made, but those tiny gains in peak power will most likely come by compromising in other areas. I don't have to try all the aftermarket pipes, air filters, etc. to *KNOW* they are not going to reap any major benefits. Simply seeing the various sizes, measurements, volumes, etc. of things tell me that from the books I have read, the schooling I had, and the actual experiences building real race engines. This engine is not designed or built to make big peak power numbers. It's made to produce a broad, flat, almost featureless torque curve, which is perfect for its intended and designed usage. Looking for anything more than that from it is an exercise in naiveté... That is unless you want to start grinding different cams, casting different pistons, lightening up some valve gear, reducing some reciprocating and flywheel weight, changing some port sizes and profiles, etc.
But you know all that, AVC... I went with the first ECUnleashed re-flash for one simple reason - to get rid of the throttle restrictions in the first three gears, period. I wasn't looking for any performance increase, and that's probably why I wasn't disappointed like some people were. I had looked at the engine and seen there was not much more there to be had, and that it didn't need it anyway for its intended use and target riding profile. As you and I have discussed there is often a lot of people *thinking* they have gained some big performance *increase*, like with the CJM, yet once folks like you dissect the system it's discovered that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as you have shown, the CJM could, actually, have a damaging effect under certain very specific conditions. *POOF*, there goes the air out of the CJM balloon!!!
Now with your work showing exactly what the fuel tables are in the stock ECU suddenly air is rushing headlong out of the PC-V balloon, too. Be interesting to see how the PC-V addicts/advocates deal with that one.
Dallara
~
