dyno at local bike night vs S1000RR

The bimmer made 170Rwhp





















Mine too.

TC off and rear wheel Sensor taken off.

The end.

The evidence is rampant in this thread.

No. Total equality.

Too bad the dyno wasn't also equipped with a scale.

And a voting for appearance and acoustics

I might get my bike dynoed tomorrow at a Cycle Gear Bike Night. A ton of S1Ks will be there. Is there a quick way to disable the rear wheel speed sensor? What happens if I don't? How far off will it be?

Also, was that with your OEM exhaust or with your "modded" version?

Stock air filter? What sprocket?

Took the rear wheel sensor off with my 8mm socket of the pocket tool. Make sure not to lose the plates...

Stock exhaust (welder is taking too long), MWR filter, 14t sprocket, no ethanol gas (thanks SPINX)

Phil said:

Took the rear wheel sensor off with my 8mm socket of the pocket tool. Make sure not to lose the plates...

Stock exhaust (welder is taking too long), MWR filter, 14t sprocket, no ethanol gas (thanks SPINX)

Click to expand...

Thanks Phil. I'll do the same if I can get it dyno'd tonight. I have the same setup as you with the exception of the Termi slips added and up-map enabled (and 10% ethanol gas ). I'm most curious to see what my AFR is. Do you have a graph showing yours?

I will get it sent and will post it here

I would be interested in the AFR as well. I keep hearing even with the Termi slip on and new up map (as my Tri has installed), it is still quite lean down low for EPA reasons. JeffD, please let us know what you discover. Thanks in advance.

Phil said:

Click to expand...

Phil, I can't expand the picture of your dyno, can you re-post? The bike night didn't have the dyno as was scheduled, so I have to wait for next months to see my AFR. The bike is running at the exact same temps so I don't think its running lean with the MWR filter, which was my main concern. I'll know for sure once I finally get a good dyno run.

JeffD said:

Phil, I can't expand the picture of your dyno, can you re-post? The bike night didn't have the dyno as was scheduled, so I have to wait for next months to see my AFR. The bike is running at the exact same temps so I don't think its running lean with the MWR filter, which was my main concern. I'll know for sure once I finally get a good dyno run.

Click to expand...

was a crappy mobile upload, will try again.

AF ain't too bad from what i've been told! i don't know why the red line is where it is, i always guessed it would be at 14.7 ???

BTW , dyno wasn't hooked up to the bikes
electronics, so rpm aren't displayed!!! as far as i can tell, they ran it in 4th gear. (that would match the speed on the x-axis)

cheers!

Phil said:

was a crappy mobile upload, will try again.

AF ain't too bad from what i've been told! i don't know why the red line is where it is, i always guessed it would be at 14.7 ???

BTW , dyno wasn't hooked up to the bikes
electronics, so rpm aren't displayed!!! as far as i can tell, they ran it in 4th gear. (that would match the speed on the x-axis)

cheers!

Click to expand...

I've never heard of a dyno run without the rpms.

14.7 A/F would be lean. That may be what some would set up a fuel economy map for, but hard to imagine a normal map. BTW, I understand Stoichiometric, but in the real world that is not used for a variety of reasons. Low to mid 13's is more real world. And given the Panigale's fuel economy (lack of) I suspect it to be set up a little rich.

I have a Ninja 1000 with a PowerCommander. I set it up at around 13.2 and my gas mileage went up 15%, so I can only imagine how rich it was from the factory. I admit that I'm no expert on the subject, but those are my thoughts based upon what I have been able to learn. I'd be curious as to whether anyone has some good information showing the actual A/F ratio on the Panigale.

Why is everyone on this forum so caught up on Dyno figures and what exhaust they are using .
The bikes for riding maybe more effort should be put into that .

The red line on the AF chart is clearly high 12s or right at 13, which is generally fine. However, don't forget a dyno like the one above is only giving you full throttle AF ratio....The issue with this (and most bikes) with "down low" fueling is part throttle, not full throttle, which is not shown with a "power test" type of dyno run.

Simply changing your AF ratio to 13.2 doesn't really give the whole story. WHERE in the throttle position(s) did you make the change?

An engine runs most efficiently (burns the most molecules) at the fuel in the tank's stoichiometric ratio. Air:fuel ratio.... parts of air vs parts of fuel, so a higher number is leaner or "more air biased."

ethanol free gasoline is 14.7:1
10% ethanol is 14.1
E85 is 9.76 - super rich
C12 VP Race Fuel is 15:1

Now with that said, an engine can make more power at full throttle or heavy load situations with a richer mix (lower af number) for a few reasons like more RPMs means more airflow and more fuel means more power potential, more fuel means the combustion process will run a bit cooler, which also means you can run more timing vs a leaner mix (engine load is also a major factor in timing numbers, more throttle and more RPMs also means LESS timing so part throttle can run more timing overall than full throttle, but I digress).

The issue at lighter throttle positions on bikes is that running even at stoich will cause the bike to be very sensitive so many people are running them rich to smooth out the throttle. Every tiny movement of your right hand will exacerbate the throttle function and the bike gets jumpy.

To do this the closed loop system (narrowband O2 sensors) must be disabled because they ONLY read stoich (and that stoich value always equals whatever is in the tank, NOT 14.7). The system always tries to keep the mixture at stoich until preprogrammed criteria in the ECU are met to enable a rich mixture, usually with load and RPM.

A wideband O2 sensor can read.....a wide range of mixtures thereby making them great for tuning an open loop (no corrections from the ECU) tune at all throttle positions and af ratios to get a good base map for the ECU to work off for fueling. However, tuning in open loop to a richer number and re-enabling the closed loop function will only cause the bike to again run at stoich (at part throttle) but with higher fuel trims (corrections) and most likely make it run worse.

Personally, I LIKE closed loop. I want to keep it because it helps the bike maintain a consistent fueling under different weather and altitude conditions. I don't want the bike to be too rich one day and too lean the next because the weather changed.

What I would like to do is retune the fuel maps so they are perfect for the fuel in the pump I use and the air in my neighborhood and then let the closed loop system work off that with tiny fuel corrections. With a generic worldwide use fuel map the closed loop system could be swinging wildly in all directions to keep fueling in line making the bike run like ..... Then I want to look at and adjust the low throttle spark timing map because that also has a huge impact on smoothness and no one is working with it at all, which is surprising....

I really don't think it is necessary to run super rich all the time. That is a bandaid.

One thing to add is everyone looks at AF ratio when they should be looking at Lambda. Lambda of 1:1 is stoich. AF ratios are a calculation based off lambda, like horsepower is simply a number derived from torque over time.
The reason lambda is the way to go is because it removes the guessing game of "What is the stoich for the fuel in my tank." It doesn't matter, it is lambda 1. You make the map off lambda and it will always be right.

wilkson said:

Why is everyone on this forum so caught up on Dyno figures and what exhaust they are using .
The bikes for riding maybe more effort should be put into that .

Click to expand...

the bike gets ridden "quite often" and there is less rubber left on the shoulders of the tires than in the center.

^^^^^ this was a fun comparison at a bike night vs. a S1000RR and i don't expect it to be highly academic...

but thanks to everyone for their insight!

Phil said:

the bike gets ridden "quite often" and there is less rubber left on the shoulders of the tires than in the center.

^^^^^ this was a fun comparison at a bike night vs. a S1000RR and i don't expect it to be highly academic...

but thanks to everyone for their insight!

Click to expand...

Indeed this is a fun comparison. I asked about AFR very simply because I don't want to run dangerously lean if the MWR filter I added to my Termi slip-on-equipped and up-mapped 1199 really added a lot more air flow, more than what the closed-loop system is capable of adjusting for.

I like Higgs' post of the closed-loop system being best and the idea of a worldwide base-map being not good enough makes sense. Especially as I am now at (or below) sea-level and in jungle-like humidity.

My local tuner has an eddy-current dyno that is best for across-the-board throttle position tuning, but I don't want to invest in the piggy-back fuel controller and a custom map if I don't need to.

wilkson said:

Why is everyone on this forum so caught up on Dyno figures and what exhaust they are using .
The bikes for riding maybe more effort should be put into that .

Click to expand...

+1 Just ride the ....... thing.