Timing Adjustability

[HoneyBadgerRy]

What ways can we retard our cam timing or advance our ignition timing? I am currently under the impression the only way to advance the ignition is to buy a efi kit, and the only way to retard the timing is to have a machine shop make me custom cam gears. Is there a model ecu that has more advanced ignition than the 05?

[Somchai]

Read here http://www.factorypro.com/Prod_Pages/prodk04.html
Scroll down to RTR-KAW-5-05.
I think this should work with your bike also.
Another read is here https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93996
Good luck

[Racer x]

You can buy a thing called a BTR Rtis. This is an ignition module that adjusts the timing and rev limit to what ever you want. It is from Bin Tang Racing. About 300 dollars. If you want to advance the timing seven deg from stock 35 deg to 42 deg then you can use an ignition module from a first gen bike. Just have to wire it in..
Cam timing is a matter of slotted cam pulleys. An couple home made tools to hold a dial indicator and the knowledge of how to change the cam time. There is no data on that. So you are on your own with that part.

[Ghostt]

I have to ask, why?

[Racer x]

Why do it ? . The stock engine has a funny dip in the power band. By adding timing and tuning the carbs you can eliminate most of it and get smooth power from off idle to the limiter.
Around 7500 rpm the power goes flat . Then the rpm climb rapidly to 12000. With a little timing advance and probably some cam timing changes. The engine will make 35 hp. And for the street . It will make torque improvements that make riding more enjoyable.

The added power is across the board. So the original 26 hp is now available 2000 rpm sooner. So at 9000 rpm you have as much power and you used to have at 11000. This allows you to change the gearing .

It is an enjoyable hobby to tune a motorcycle.

[Somchai]

Scott please let me add to that what Eric said, we should learn from the history.
When emissions wasn't the most important thing the engines from motorcycles have been running with up to 45 degrees btdc.
Just take as a small example, the Ninja 250 pre-gen had 34 hp (please correct me when I'm wrong), the ZZR (H-Model) in Canada had 36 hp and the same model in Europe and New-Zealand with its advanced ignition had 40 hp.
The FI-Model of the 250 in Thailand is running with 41 degrees btdc @ 4000 rpm (mine is advanced by 5 degrees and this makes a big difference - no problems so far).
Nowaday the 300 comes with 31 degrees btdc @ 7000 rpm.
But for me the best example for all this going down is the Chevrolet Corvette (ok the new model is powerful again).

[choneofakind]

Only 31 degrees BTDC on the 300??? whaaaaa? Sounds like the first thing I'd do is get that puppy reflashed to run as far advanced as I could without needing premium.

[Racer x]

Originally Posted by Somchai

Scott please let me add to that what Eric said, we should learn from the history.
When emissions wasn't the most important thing the engines from motorcycles have been running with up to 45 degrees btdc.
Just take as a small example, the Ninja 250 pre-gen had 34 hp (please correct me when I'm wrong), the ZZR (H-Model) in Canada had 36 hp and the same model in Europe and New-Zealand with its advanced ignition had 40 hp.
The FI-Model of the 250 in Thailand is running with 41 degrees btdc @ 4000 rpm (mine is advanced by 5 degrees and this makes a big difference - no problems so far).
Nowaday the 300 comes with 31 degrees btdc @ 7000 rpm.
But for me the best example for all this going down is the Chevrolet Corvette (ok the new model is powerful again).

These power figures are from the crank.

The first gen made 28 at the wheel . But at a higher rpm. There was little improvement with exhaust and tuning. The second gen 250 made less power but responded better and had a huge advantage of aftermarket parts. Like Pistons carbs ,ignition box and cams.

[Ghostt]

I understand the benefits of playing with the timing.

Let me rephrase my question, what is the OP goal? What is the end game?

The funny dip that Racer x refers to is a common problem with the CDI itself.


The EX-250's CDI uses a very simple advance curve: 2-dimensions, X and Y, with no compensation for load. It's pre-historic, rudimentary.

At about 4,000 or 4,200 rpm, depending on the year-model of the EX-250, the CDI has the ignition timing at full advance (38 degrees BTDC for the older engines or 42 degrees BTDC for the newer engines).

When you roll-on full throttle at about 4,000 rpm you suddenly make the air/fuel ratio much richer. In a modern car or motorcycle engine the ECU knows when this happens and it retards the ignition a bit because richer air/fuel ratios burn faster than leaner mixtures.

Because the EX-250 CDI has no way to compensate for the sudden rich (faster burning) mixture the ignition advance stays way up there at 38 or 42 degrees and you end up with too much of the burn occurring before the cylinder reaches TDC.

Instead of instantly making a lot more power (as you're anticipating when you open the throttle wide) you make only a little bit more. And the engine slowly lifts itself out of the situation.

[Racer x]

The end game goal is very important. The difference in the way the engine is used is critical to knowing how to approach the tuning.

[HoneyBadgerRy]

The end goal is more HP at 10-12k, throttle responce, having fun modding the engine/ bragging rights, and any smoothness or torque gained at lower rpm is a benefit.

[Ghostt]

Originally Posted by Racer x

The end game goal is very important. The difference in the way the engine is used is critical to knowing how to approach the tuning.

Exactly my point, I hate to see anyone chasing something that can't be done. Looking for unrealistic expectations. Some modifications work great for a track bike, but not for every day street/commuting

Personally when it comes to modifications, I weigh the differences between cost, gains, and reliability. I was taught a very long time ago you have three things, power, reliability, cheap. You only get to pick two out of three.

I have both an Ninjette, and bigger brother the EX500, I love both of them, I've tuning the bikes, carburetors, valve adjustment etc..... But the best bang of the buck is upgrading the suspension, and clutch springs.

Both bikes are nimble in the twisties, and upgrading the suspension will make it absolutely amazing.

I've had big bore bikes in the past, but these little parallel twins are amazing, my first ride on my EX took my breath away, and totally surprised, and even more so once I got the suspension dialed in.

It's fair to say I don't push the bike in the twisties to its full potential. My chicken strips come with honey mustard dip.

[HoneyBadgerRy]

Originally Posted by Ghostt

Exactly my point, I hate to see anyone chasing something that can't be done. Looking for unrealistic expectations. Some modifications work great for a track bike, but not for every day street/commuting

Personally when it comes to modifications, I weigh the differences between cost, gains, and reliability. I was taught a very long time ago you have three things, power, reliability, cheap. You only get to pick two out of three.

I have both an Ninjette, and bigger brother the EX500, I love both of them, I've tuning the bikes, carburetors, valve adjustment etc..... But the best bang of the buck is upgrading the suspension, and clutch springs.

Both bikes are nimble in the twisties, and upgrading the suspension will make it absolutely amazing.

I've had big bore bikes in the past, but these little parallel twins are amazing, my first ride on my EX took my breath away, and totally surprised, and even more so once I got the suspension dialed in.

It's fair to say I don't push the bike in the twisties to its full potential. My chicken strips come with honey mustard dip.

I do not commute on my bike, its is only for twisties and racing. I am ok with losing mid range for the gain of top end. The compression raise and ignition advance should increase power and throttle responce throughout the whole range, the cam timing retard will harm midrange and should increase top end (which I am happy with.)

I am weighing my options and with my friend's machine shop I should be able to do most these mods cheap, and like I said, my bike is for racing, it is a 05 with 4,500 miles.

Look at my list of bikes, if I just wanted a bike with more power I would ride one of the other bikes, but I love the ninjette.

I already push my bike pretty hard, in the twisties I keep the bike bewteen 10 and 12k, this is on stock suspension, I plan on getting a zx6 shock and sliding the forks up 1/2 an inch to mount clip ons above the tripple tree, along with stiffer fork springs and hevier oil, this should greatly improve suspension, but I haven't mentioned any of this, because these are common mods. I don't want a bigger bike, and I plan on keeping my ninja, my fz1000, and my Xc250 for the rest of my life, so I don't mind spending some time and money making them exactly how I like them.

[Ghostt]

Okay, now we know, thanks. Clearly your not a noob.

I'll leave this to the track members then, as they are the best at this sort of stuff.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by Ghostt

Okay, now we know, thanks. Clearly your not a noob.

I'll leave this to the track members then, as they are the best at this sort of stuff.

HoneyBadger doesn't give a ****, he just wants answers!

[Somchai]

Originally Posted by Racer x

These power figures are from the crank.

The first gen made 28 at the wheel . But at a higher rpm. There was little improvement with exhaust and tuning. The second gen 250 made less power but responded better and had a huge advantage of aftermarket parts. Like Pistons carbs ,ignition box and cams.

Eric you know for an 'engine-man' and in reality also, the engine is producing the power and the only purpose from the wheel is to bring the power (produced from the engine) to the street - so like all the engine-engineers I only talk about crank-hp.
RWHP is a new form of powertalk from dyno-used guys, but this in most cases this is in 'merican world, since the main dyno runs in Germany are automatic calculated and showing the crank-hp.
But anyway, everybody should talk about what one thinks and likes.

[Racer x]

all my testing is done on the dyno. I don't know how it's converted. But definilty say what ever you think. That is the beauty of machines. They are not with feelings or opinions. Just metal and math.

[Somchai]

Eric the calculation is quite easy, just convert your dyno-value by dividing it with 0.915 and your done, i.e. 30 rwhp / 0.915 = ~33 engine-hp.
The normal powerloss from engine to rear wheel is around 8.5% which in some cases could be up to 10% less or more.
You can read it in the directives from the EU.

[Racer x]

Thanks . I'll check that out. I am only compairing my previous run to the next run . So for my personal efforts I only use RWHP. But this is good info.

[quarterliter]

Originally Posted by Somchai

Eric the calculation is quite easy, just convert your dyno-value by dividing it with 0.915 and your done, i.e. 30 rwhp / 0.915 = ~33 engine-hp.
The normal powerloss from engine to rear wheel is around 8.5% which in some cases could be up to 10% less or more.
You can read it in the directives from the EU.

By doing this you are making assumptions and in my opinion giving less accurate results. It is a good way to try and visualize what the engine might be making, but by multiplying by an approximate number I think is just meddling with the results. For instance running a non-oring chain has been known to lessen the power loss from the counter-shaft to the rear tire. But by still multiplying by the arbitrary number that you suggested, it would seem to have made the engine make more power. Most engineers use engine dynos or a waterbrake style. That way they can measure accurately what the engine is actually making.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by quarterliter

By doing this you are making assumptions and in my opinion giving less accurate results.

Dear Mr MisplacedNeedForAccuracy,

Please understand that he's just making an estimation. Please note the use of only two significant digits and the "~" symbol. He even mentioned the potential for error in his percentage...

Engineers love approximations; they make quick math and double checks much simpler. Roland is using a rule of thumb here, and while you are correct that there are different kinds of chains, the 8.5% rule here is still close enough for the purpose at hand. We're comparing street bikes. Normal production street bikes have had O-ring chains since what... the 70's? idk, my motorcycle history isn't great.

Sincerely,
chone

[quarterliter]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

Dear Mr MisplacedNeedForAccuracy,

Please understand that he's just making an estimation. Please note the use of only two significant digits and the "~" symbol. He even mentioned the potential for error in his percentage...

Engineers love approximations; they make quick math and double checks much simpler. Roland is using a rule of thumb here, and while you are correct that there are different kinds of chains, the 8.5% rule here is still close enough for the purpose at hand. We're comparing street bikes. Normal production street bikes have had O-ring chains since what... the 70's? idk, my motorcycle history isn't great.

Sincerely,
chone

I wouldn't exactly call RacerX's landspeed bike a streetbike.

Sometimes engineers like approximations a little too much....

But the way I understand dyno use, is for back to back comparisons. Not for the number itself, because they can be much different. My schools mustang dyno is notorious for making our formula car seem like it is making much more power than it really is.

[Somchai]

Originally Posted by quarterliter

By doing this you are making assumptions and in my opinion giving less accurate results. It is a good way to try and visualize what the engine might be making, but by multiplying by an approximate number I think is just meddling with the results. For instance running a non-oring chain has been known to lessen the power loss from the counter-shaft to the rear tire. But by still multiplying by the arbitrary number that you suggested, it would seem to have made the engine make more power. Most engineers use engine dynos or a waterbrake style. That way they can measure accurately what the engine is actually making.

Kevin, is it possible that you didn't read the EU-Directives?
Everything is written there so all question should be clear and if not then please feel free to ask.

[choneofakind]

Originally Posted by quarterliter

Sometimes engineers like approximations a little too much....

Oh boy, an elitist! Every calculation we will ever made is an estimate due to rounding error at the very least. It's an online forum. You really think Eric hasn't spent enough time on the dyno as it is? He even said he only deals with whp, so that crank estimate is just that, an acceptable estimate that has no requirement for 5 digits worth of accuracy past the decimal place.

What year of classes are you in? Just wait.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by Somchai

Eric the calculation is quite easy, just convert your dyno-value by dividing it with 0.915 and your done, i.e. 30 rwhp / 0.915 = ~33 engine-hp.
The normal powerloss from engine to rear wheel is around 8.5% which in some cases could be up to 10% less or more.
You can read it in the directives from the EU.

So this is some really good stuff! A chain drive is 95% efficient?

I have never gotten formal engineering schooling. Is this efficiency rating in addition to the transmission efficiency rating? Are they compounded or averaged? I would think compounded, no?

My interest here is in asking intelligent questions to the dyno guys... Here in CO, they always adjust for air density, but I want to know what their dyno is measuring and this could help with calculating crank HP...

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by spooph

So this is some really good stuff! A chain drive is 95% efficient?

I have never gotten formal engineering schooling. Is this efficiency rating in addition to the transmission efficiency rating? Are they compounded or averaged? I would think compounded, no?

My interest here is in asking intelligent questions to the dyno guys... Here in CO, they always adjust for air density, but I want to know what their dyno is measuring and this could help with calculating crank HP...

Power (HP) is moment times rotational speed.
Some of the power is lost in from of heat, which is produced by friction, shocks and vibrations of the transmission (sprockets + chain).

As a chain allows zero slippage regarding rotational speed, the only thing that can yield is the moment that reaches the rear tire.
The harder to move a chain/sprocket transmission is, the higher the percentage of input moment that becomes useless heat.

Exactly the same happens through the gear mechanisms linking the crankshaft to the output shaft, with the added tax of shaking all that viscous oil.

Deforming the tire at the contact patch and overcoming wind resistance against the rotation of the rear wheel also eats useful energy that becomes heat (rubber + air).

Normally, it is more practical to measure those two parameters: force and rotational speed at the rear tire, being that what dynamometers sense.
As the transmission ratios can vary much: selected gear (first, fourth, etc.) and sprockets sizes, the dyno people convert all those specific reduction factors and calculate, and later provide the information, the rotational speed of the engine and its output torque before entering the clutch.

For calculation of the total wasted energy, the efficiency of each step of the transmission (gears and chain) is multiplied by the next one.
Example: 0.90 x 0.80 = 0.72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ge...er-d_1691.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_e...in_automobiles

That transmission wasted energy is nothing compared to all the heat of the combustion that is wasted and never reaches the transmission: around 70% of the potential energy contained in the burned fuel.

Copied from:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...funds_12_.html

"The efficiency of an internal combustion engine refers to the percentage of the energy resulting from the combustion that actually is applied to moving the car or running the accessories.

The diagram at the right (Click to enlarge) depicts the energy split in a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Of the 100% energy available from combustion, only about 25% actually gets applied to moving the car or running the accessories (+5% for the parasitic and friction losses—hence the 30% figure above). Diesel engines and lean combustion gasoline engines fare somewhat better: 35% of the energy flows to mobility and accessories.)"

[Somchai]

I guess I found a good read from a newspaper which describes the measurement of power and since it is in german I did my best to translate it for yall (hope its to understand).
Please look in the lower boxes at the attached pdf-page from the newspaper.

Power Dissipation
A lossless powertrain that's how we'd like it.
But no matter how well the chain is lubricated, it heats up during operation and so it taps away from power, which we instead rather would have at the rear wheel.
In order to measure this loss, we compare how long a dyno roll needs to come from a specific rpm to a standstill, with the time it needs while the disengaged rear wheel of the motorcycle rotates.
From this time difference, we can calculate how many kW is lost between clutch and rear wheel - in the form of heat, but also deformation and removal of material, etc.
In addition, between clutch and crankshaft, the primary drive, there is also a loss of power, which can not be measured from the dyno and so this can not be calculated.
The EU Directive 95/1/EC sets the crankshaft power of motorcycles with straight-toothed primary drive (the what the most sport bikes have) 2 percent higher than the clutch power: crankshaft power = drive rating • 1.02

Full load Measurement
This means that the measurement is taken at throttle fully open. Partial load measurements, about 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 60 and 75 percent of maximum throttle position, the tuner performs, when they work out new maps for the ignition / injection system.
"What's there to measure? At 50 percent probably half the power will come out, right? "Big mistake! Not only because the surface of the throttle release, nonlinearly grows with the opening angle.
From the completely different flow conditions, produced by half-open throttle in the intake tract, we do not want to start talk about. There goes nothing past it, something must be measured. The company Micron is doing such a thing, for example, with a clamped blade angle to the throttle.
If PS is testing a motorcycle in terms of performance, such partial load considerations are usually secondary. Then it's just about those kW and Nm values ​​which are established when the throttles are full open.

Power at crankshaft: 88.2 kW / 120 hp @ 9500 rpm
Power at the clutch: 86.4 kW / 117.5 hp @ 9500 rpm
Power at rear wheel: 80.9 kW / 110 hp @ 9500 rpm
Power dissipation : 5.5 kW / 7.5 hp @ 9500 rpm (see the bottom line of the dyno, what many other dyno runs nearly never show???)
The complete loss of power from the crankshaft to the rear wheel in this test is 8.33%

The test was made by the German Motorcycle Journal "PS" and published in "PS 9/2007"

[Mohawk]

Not to mention that most dyno's are of the inertia type & thus changing the weight of the rotating components will give a higher or lower power figure, even though the fuel consumption & thus potential power of the engine has NOT changed !

So lighter wheels, reduced fly wheel or crankshaft & gears mass, will produce better numbers. A non O-ring chain will only make a tiny difference, but for racing or LSR that could be all you need to win or set a record. On a road bike I'd rather have the longevity that a sealed chain brings