Evidence of Performance Gains

[UselessPickles]

I've ridden my bike a few hundred miles since I completed my mods and have some acceleration times to report. Quick re-cap: I added Holeshot headers and Remus Hexacones to my bike, modded my air box beyond recognition like Wicked Webby, and installed a Motty AFR Tuner to automatically tune my fuel injection to specified air/fuel ratios. I'm currently running an AFR of 13.2:1 in most areas for power.

Using the Motty AFR Tuner's built-in data logger, I can measure acceleration times quite accurately (data recorded every 0.064 seconds). I have the speed multiplier for the Motty configured so that it agrees with my GPS, rather than the speedometer, so these are all based on actual speeds.

The following are with side cases on and removable baffles out of the Hexacones (can't remember if the windshield was up or down). This also wasn't a great launch; there's probably a bit of room for improvement:

• 0-60: 2.88s (magazines report between 3.02s and 3.2s for stock Gen II FJRs)
• 0-100: 6.7s
• 0-120: 10.7s (compare to my best 1/4 mile run on my previous '07 FJR: 11.36 @ 120mph)

The following are in 5th gear with side cases on and VStream windshield fully up and removable baffles in the Hexacones:

• 60-80: 3.14s (reported as 3.73s for a stock Gen II FJR)
• 80-100: 3.52s (reported as 4.36s for a stock Gen II FJR)

The 60-80 test covers roughly 3300 RPMs to 4200 RPMs, so this may disprove the theory that the Holeshot header will cause a loss of low/mid-range torque (due to larger diameter primary pipes and lack of cross-over pipe). According to Dale Walker, there may be a very small loss of torque very low in the RPM range. My guess is that "very low" would be around 2000 RPMs? On the other hand, it's impossible to pin-point how each mod affected the torque, so it's possible that the Holeshot headers did cause a small loss of torque here, but other mods like the air box mod had a much larger positive effect.

Well, this was a fun way to confirm that I got some significant gains from my mods (~10% gain on 0-60, ~16% gain on 60-80, ~19% gain for 80-100). I can't wait to get my bike on a dyno to get some actual numbers and to determine the effects of the Hexacones' removable baffles on the torque curve.

 

[wfooshee]

Bunk!

Bunk, I say!!!!!!

Not really. But your comparisons are to "published" test results, not to your own pre-mod bike. So while impressive, we don't really know if it's better, do we???? Just better than another bike somebody else ran.

Just yankin' yer chain. 'Specially since my shorter-geared '03 is still quicker. . . . . (Maybe. I think. Actually, don't know or care, it's just damn quick enough, isn't it?) B)

 

[Wicked Webby]

I've ridden my bike a few hundred miles since I completed my mods and have some acceleration times to report. Quick re-cap: I added Holeshot headers and Remus Hexacones to my bike, modded my air box beyond recognition like Wicked Webby, and installed a Motty AFR Tuner to automatically tune my fuel injection to specified air/fuel ratios. I'm currently running an AFR of 13.2:1 in most areas for power.
Using the Motty AFR Tuner's built-in data logger, I can measure acceleration times quite accurately (data recorded every 0.064 seconds). I have the speed multiplier for the Motty configured so that it agrees with my GPS, rather than the speedometer, so these are all based on actual speeds.

The following are with side cases on and removable baffles out of the Hexacones (can't remember if the windshield was up or down). This also wasn't a great launch; there's probably a bit of room for improvement:

• 0-60: 2.88s (magazines report between 3.02s and 3.2s for stock Gen II FJRs)
• 0-100: 6.7s
• 0-120: 10.7s (compare to my best 1/4 mile run on my previous '07 FJR: 11.36 @ 120mph)

The following are in 5th gear with side cases on and VStream windshield fully up and removable baffles in the Hexacones:

• 60-80: 3.14s (reported as 3.73s for a stock Gen II FJR)
• 80-100: 3.52s (reported as 4.36s for a stock Gen II FJR)

The 60-80 test covers roughly 3300 RPMs to 4200 RPMs, so this may disprove the theory that the Holeshot header will cause a loss of low/mid-range torque (due to larger diameter primary pipes and lack of cross-over pipe). According to Dale Walker, there may be a very small loss of torque very low in the RPM range. My guess is that "very low" would be around 2000 RPMs? On the other hand, it's impossible to pin-point how each mod affected the torque, so it's possible that the Holeshot headers did cause a small loss of torque here, but other mods like the air box mod had a much larger positive effect.

Well, this was a fun way to confirm that I got some significant gains from my mods (~10% gain on 0-60, ~16% gain on 60-80, ~19% gain for 80-100). I can't wait to get my bike on a dyno to get some actual numbers and to determine the effects of the Hexacones' removable baffles on the torque curve.

Pickles,

I am very, very, certain you gained plenty of performance from the mods.

You know I am a big fan of these mods, my air intake design and all......

Though, your arrival of percentage determinations are not really scientific.

First, you really need your own baseline to compare to...(Before and after with your motty timer tests, same dyno ect, ect, ect).

Second, time index checks need to be done using real time (your data is recorded every 0.064 seconds).

Either way, I know you made huge improvements over your stock configuration.

WW

 

[UselessPickles]

Though, your arrival of percentage determinations are not really scientific.

Hence the "~" for "approximately"

First, you really need your own baseline to compare to...(Before and after with your motty timer tests, same dyno ect, ect, ect).

Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical for me to get a baseline measurement on my own bike. The acceleration from 0 would be most likely to have significant variance between myself and magazine reports due to the skill required to launch well (even variance between my own runs on the same bike without changes). I can only assume that the magazine riders are more skilled than I because I didn't come close to their 0-60 or 1/4 mile times on my kinda-nearly-stock '07. Now I was able to beat the magazine number by quite a bit with my heavily modified '09. I think that makes my approximate % gains conservative.

However, the 60-80 and 80-100 5th gear accelerations would have very little variance between bikes and riders. It doesn't take much skill to snap the throttle wide open while already in motion in top gear. Wind speed and direction relative to the bike will probably have more of an impact on the time than different riders or bikes. Again, for these tests I had a disadvantage compared to the magazines (a fully extended VStream windshield) that most likely makes my approximate % gains conservative. I think those are the most valid and significant comparisons I've shown. That's all mid-range torque that we like to use all the time because we're too lazy to downshift.

Second, time index checks need to be done using real time (your data is recorded every 0.064 seconds).

That 0.064 seconds would only introduce up to ~2% error on the 0-60 acceleration time. I think that's good enough. That's probably less error than I would have between back-to-back 0-60 runs on my bike just due to my lack of skill in consistent launching.

 

[jjsC6]

You have to correct for weather though. If you don't know the weather conditions of the before and after, you really don't know what you have. A 30 degree ambient temperature difference is a lot - that's why most magazines correct for weather.

 

[UselessPickles]

You're all party poopers :****:

Ok; who's gonna install a Motty AFR Tuner on their stock FJR and meet up with me to get some more acceptable comparisons? I'll help you install the Motty

 

[Fairlaner]

Whats the MPG now 25?

R

 

[UselessPickles]

Whats the MPG now 25?
R

Still working on that part. I got 37mpg on my last tank, but part of that was running with 13:1 AFR everywhere. I've now leaned out my cruising areas to 14.2:1. Throttle response is still good; just waiting on the MPG result.

 

[Wicked Webby]

Pickless,

No party pooping here Bro! I know you got some great gains.

Just saying that the only way to really produce valid results is to compare

them against baseline test results. I know how much the FJR wakes up

from these simple mods. Without the proper baseline, all the comparisions

are just a bit of speculation. Thats all.... Doesn't mean you didn't get great results..

Just ain't gonna be able to put pen to paper on it... and really show what you got.

But you can sure prove it on the road!!

WW

 

[2WheelTiger]

Pickles,

One way to get relatively reliable performance indication is to run the bike back at the 1/4 mile track. Don't pay attention to the ET, just the top speed. Top speed is a function of horsepower and ET is a function of the rider.

A change from 11.36 @ 120mph to 11.45 at 126mph would indicate that you hosed the run (slower ET), but that the bike was making a bunch more power (higher TS).

 

[PA1195]

Fun deal all around and bunch of interesting mods. Congrats on the hard work. I'd be curious to see back to back runs with the Motty programmed to dupe the Factory A/F ratios as sensed by the pipe probe, and at your 13.2 as currently set up. Same day/same air density. Let's get the Motty out of the picture, and any remaining assumed benefits would then be from the other experiments. The real sell for me at least would be an improved fuel controller, which the Motty appears to be.

Gary in Fairbanks

 

[ionbeam]

It sounds like you have improved your power. Certainly you have done the basic things that should increase performance. I use a G-Tech in my car and on my FJR, the G-Tech is another fast sampling performance analyzer. It works fairly well in my car but not so repeatable or accurate on the motorcycle. I'm with 2WTigger, show me a time slip or two. If you can show a 1/4 mile slip with an ET of 10.7 or mph over 125 and I will

to you! That would be a really, really stout performance increase. A real, true 5% performance increase with just bolt-ons is major. A 0.5 second improvement at the drags would be huge and beyond most typical results -- 15% with just bolt-ons is approaching the Twilight Zone.

So, get thy butt to a strip and let's see what the real world serves up. And BTW, you will enjoy the shit out of the drag racing experience too. Call the track first and find out what kind of gear you are required to wear and what, if any modifications you need to have installed on your bike. My local IHRA track requires that I have a kill lanyard and certain types of riding gear. Awaiting results...

 

[mmonroe]

Either way, I know you made huge improvements over your stock configuration.

The term "huge" isnt exactly a technical term. Are we talking 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%? "Huge" to me would be at least a 10-15% improvement.

Truthfully, to honestly know if there are any horsepower changes - you need to put the bike on a dyno and do corrected before/after testing. Heck, I can ride my bike on a cold day versus a hot day with *no changes to the bike* and feel a performance difference.

This thread isnt much more than internet benchracing..

 

[Wicked Webby]

Either way, I know you made huge improvements over your stock configuration.

The term "huge" isnt exactly a technical term. Are we talking 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%? "Huge" to me would be at least a 10-15% improvement.

Truthfully, to honestly know if there are any horsepower changes - you need to put the bike on a dyno and do corrected before/after testing. Heck, I can ride my bike on a cold day versus a hot day with *no changes to the bike* and feel a performance difference.

This thread isnt much more than internet benchracing..

Monroe,

I agree that the "evidence" is not really scientific proof of his gains....

However.....

I can safely say that he made "huge" gains over his stock configuration because Pickles used my

recipe for power improvements on his FJR. Despite the fact that he is experimenting with a new

fuel tuner.

Here is my scientific proof of "huge" gains:

https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//index.php?s...=102302&hl=

:clapping:

WW

 

[Gramps]

Great job Pickles!! :clapping:

Hope to cya on the road sometime.

 

[UselessPickles]

Fun deal all around and bunch of interesting mods. Congrats on the hard work. I'd be curious to see back to back runs with the Motty programmed to dupe the Factory A/F ratios as sensed by the pipe probe, and at your 13.2 as currently set up. Same day/same air density. Let's get the Motty out of the picture, and any remaining assumed benefits would then be from the other experiments. The real sell for me at least would be an improved fuel controller, which the Motty appears to be.
Gary in Fairbanks

I'm not sure what that would prove. The mods change airflow and require changes in fueling to be fully effective (and sometimes to prevent damage to the engine). Differences between with and without the Motty's adjustments to fueling wouldn't prove anything about the Motty itself. A PCIII could be tuned to the exact same AFR targets and get the same resulting power. The Motty being better than other fuel tuning systems doesn't necessarily give more power; it just continuously maintains the AFR targets that you set regardless of seasonal changes, exhaust/intake changes, etc. Something like a PCIII would require dyno tuning to account for these changes.

 

[palerider]

I'm not sure what that would prove. The mods change airflow and require changes in fueling to be fully effective (and sometimes to prevent damage to the engine). Differences between with and without the Motty's adjustments to fueling wouldn't prove anything about the Motty itself. A PCIII could be tuned to the exact same AFR targets and get the same resulting power. The Motty being better than other fuel tuning systems doesn't necessarily give more power; it just continuously maintains the AFR targets that you set regardless of seasonal changes, exhaust/intake changes, etc. Something like a PCIII would require dyno tuning to account for these changes.

Next time there's a big fire, all you wet blankets need to volunteer. You'll put it out in minutes.

Good on ya, UP.

 

[UselessPickles]

It sounds like you have improved your power. Certainly you have done the basic things that should increase performance. I use a G-Tech in my car and on my FJR, the G-Tech is another fast sampling performance analyzer. It works fairly well in my car but not so repeatable or accurate on the motorcycle. I'm with 2WTigger, show me a time slip or two. If you can show a 1/4 mile slip with an ET of 10.7 or mph over 125 and I will

to you! That would be a really, really stout performance increase. A real, true 5% performance increase with just bolt-ons is major. A 0.5 second improvement at the drags would be huge and beyond most typical results -- 15% with just bolt-ons is approaching the Twilight Zone.
So, get thy butt to a strip and let's see what the real world serves up. And BTW, you will enjoy the shit out of the drag racing experience too. Call the track first and find out what kind of gear you are required to wear and what, if any modifications you need to have installed on your bike. My local IHRA track requires that I have a kill lanyard and certain types of riding gear. Awaiting results...

I've been to the strip with my '07 FJR. It had Holeshot headers with stock slip-ons, a slightly modified air box, and a PCIII that probably wasn't optimally tuned. My best time was 11.36s @ 120mph. It definitely is a lot of fun and I plan to continue going a few times a year .

Considering that I got 0-120mph in 10.7s with a bad launch on my new bike, I might have a chance at meeting your requirements to

to me

 

[UselessPickles]

I'd also like to point out that the title of this thread is "Evidence of Performance Gains". It's not "Absolute Indisputable Proof of Performance Gains with Perfect Data to Back It Up".

The comparisons may not be completely valid, but the differences in acceleration times are pretty significant. How much of that 0.8s gain in top gear 80-100 acceleration (I'd call that "huge", btw) do you really think could be attributed to different riders and temperature differences? And remember that I had a larger-than-stock windshield fully extended when I got those numbers. I'd be willing to bet that the magazines left their stock windshields in the full-down position for their performance tests.