speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted December 20, 2005 10:38 PM
Would I be wasting my time if I......
...removed the Pre-Throttle Plates? I don't even know the term for these, but looks like you will have to wait for the computer to open the rear throttle plate before you get the response you thought you were just about to enjoy?
I'd like to remove these, plug up the holes and see if this thing will respond uncontrollably (like I want it), or am I stuck with what looks like a computerized "vacuum assist" carburetor?
Sorry, I've been out of the (motorcycle) loop for years, and see this on the new ZX14. Were they used in the 12 as well? Has this been done already with (???) results?
Input from all would be appreciated. TYVM
____________
E-tard
  
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted December 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Retard eliminators & PCIII will help you
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 20, 2005 10:52 PM
I think it is very unlikely to help you and very likely to be a mistake.
There's no evidence that the added plates cost any power remotely worth mentioning. None. When they are wide open, really they're "in the draft" of the other butterflies so the net effect is probably about zero, and certainly about zero compared to all other soruces of restriction in the intake tract.
In contrast, they actually do add a driveability benefit, at least comparing for example the 2003 vs 2005 ZX-12R.
It's really the other way around from what you're assuming: throttle response is BETTER with these, not worse. "Outsmarting" the factory by removing them would actually really not be outsmarting.
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted December 20, 2005 11:37 PM
VPN, thank you. I'll let the 14 crowd diode-up on the 5-5 boxes, and see how that works out in a few months.
trenance, "Outsmarting" the engineering is 'always' a bad move. What was I thinking? I agree 100%. That right there just stopped me from doing any kind of mods. Thanks trenance. Some days, my head is just not thinking clear.
OK, back to the Bong.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 20, 2005 11:48 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 00:05
Whatever, boy you've really solved it by playing a word game -- since it's NEVER the case (in your mind) that a part the engineers spent considerable time to improve the bike actually improves it, then it's ALWAYS smart to rip it right out. As soon as anyone implies the opposite is often the case, implies as I did that the engineers knew what they were doing with a given thing, you know right away that you need to do the opposite. Brilliant.
Go right ahead. We'll enjoy seeing your massive hp improvements and learning of your no-doubt greatly improved throttle response.
BTW, since you already know the answer that your idea is so good, why did you bother asking? To get applause?
Seriously -- do a dyno run, remove it, repeat the run, and see what your hp difference is, also see what your throttle response difference is in actuality. This is not too hard to do. You'll no doubt, having the facts, be able to post how stupid I was, and how clever and right you were to rip the throttle-response-improving part out for the sake of, you think, improving throttle response. Just do it.
Likewise, I'm sure all of us that own 2004 or 2005 ZX-12R's will follow your lead and rip 'em out of our bikes, yielding throttle response just like our 2002 or 2003 bikes that we long for -- man, those secondaries really fucked it up, reduced the power and worsened the throttle. Smart to remove.
That's probably going to get named Mod of the Year, for not only the ZX-12R and the ZX-14 but all the recent secondary-butterflies-sportsbikes.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted December 21, 2005 12:35 AM
Easy now - too much sugar makes the coffee undrinkable
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:12 AM
trenace, thanks for the follow-up. I know Jack Sheet when it comes to this kind of stuff. And no, you reminded me how messing with well thought out engineering sometimes does make it wise to leave well enough alone. I'm not smart enough to play word games. That wasn't my intent by any means.
While we're on the subject, I'm leery of those valves pitting from carbon build-up.
"Would I be wasting my time if I....." set water injector nozzles inside the intake housing (after the air cleaner) ...and shot a little steam to blow off the carbon?
Again, It's all theory.....one more thing.....
"Would I be wasting my time if I..." installed ceramic bearings in the transmission shaft housings, in the wheels, and sprocket carrier?
I haven't owned a bike in 10 years. These are things that I'm thinking of doing. At this point, I really don't know what I'm doing?You out there are experienced and probably did these, or have tried (some of these) things already? OK, maybe one of you, or none of you... I don't know?
I'm just wondering in theory about these 3 things. I am open to critical ridicule, subjective, or objective guidance by any and all. TY
|
CrotchRocket
Moderator
Bracket Racing with Betsy
Posts: 8038
|
posted December 21, 2005 06:40 AM
Edited By: CrotchRocket on 21 Dec 2005 06:41
Speed, sure you can remove them...The manufacturers have been using the dual butterflys lately to make the fuel injection supersmooth which makes the bikes perform smoother!!!
If your a hardcore racer, then removing said parts which is all those little SECRET TRICKS, to get all the extra HorsePower you can then do it...The bike wont be as smooth, but if your Rickey Gadson then it wont matter how hard the bike is to ride!!!
Your on the right track though speed, all the Hardcore Pro DragRacers and RoadRacers mechanics do those said tricks 
____________
Jason Miller StreetBike Seminars
*****DragRacers do it better, because they dont cut Corners*****
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted December 21, 2005 08:56 AM
I like a sprint car throttle. I can handle the response. If I wanted to have smooth, I would of bought an Aspencade (if that is still being made?).
Thanks Crotch. I'm just looking for any kind of input (pro or con) to these mods.
____________
E-tard
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 10:07 AM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 10:12
quote:
trenace, thanks for the follow-up. I know Jack Sheet when it comes to this kind of stuff. And no, you reminded me how messing with well thought out engineering sometimes does make it wise to leave well enough alone. I'm not smart enough to play word games. That wasn't my intent by any means.
While we're on the subject, I'm leery of those valves pitting from carbon build-up.
"Would I be wasting my time if I....." set water injector nozzles inside the intake housing (after the air cleaner) ...and shot a little steam to blow off the carbon?
Again, It's all theory.....one more thing.....
"Would I be wasting my time if I..." installed ceramic bearings in the transmission shaft housings, in the wheels, and sprocket carrier?
I haven't owned a bike in 10 years. These are things that I'm thinking of doing. At this point, I really don't know what I'm doing?You out there are experienced and probably did these, or have tried (some of these) things already? OK, maybe one of you, or none of you... I don't know?
I'm just wondering in theory about these 3 things. I am open to critical ridicule, subjective, or objective guidance by any and all. TY
Well, back to the butterflies, if you are going to bore the throttle bodies (which can give a gain in some instances) and this is doable with single butterfly but no one is offering it for dual, then that's a reason to do it. There are guys doing that. If there are guys that both have only -- no other change between runs -- removed the secondaries and then actually found an improvement, I was unaware of it. It seems extremely unlikely to give improvement due to two butterflies directly in a row rationally not giving significantly more drag than a single one, and no production bike including the ZX-12R that added them, with no other significant changes being made between the model years, lost power from it.
On the carbon build up, I have the same paranoia. I run Chevron almost all the time for that reason, run Techron at the label-recommended strength every 1000 miles, and when it's convenient to do so I run it at 1/5 strength on an ongoing basis. This alone may be very sufficient, it will be interesting to see when I tear this motor down.
I have also started doing something that probably some guys are going to laugh at me for. My reason for doing it is, Blitz provided a link to a forum specializing in oil that has a good number of genuine experts on it and plenty of intelligent discussion. To my surprise, I found them seriously discussing Marvel Mystery Oil.
Now, I'd used this stuff in air tools (just what we did at a shop I was in.) But I was always leery of the claimed use in engines for several reasons:
1) The stupid name
2) You indeed don't know what it is, the label just says "petroleum distillates" which is very broad
3) Because the label claims BOTH use in the gas AND use as an oil additive, and these are radically different functions -- something optimized for one cannot be for the other
4) I had no evidence whatsoever that it did any good. So I figured it was a high risk of being snake oil.
However, that site had a lot of testimony for its efficacy in cleaning combustion chambers, including pics a guy took of his something-like-170,000-mile pistons after just ONE tank with the MMO and they were spotless, which isn't conceivable without something having cleaned them.
So I've started using it -- not proud of it, people will think I'm stupid, but I'm using 1 oz per gallon.
What you're talking about, using water mist to generate steam while the engine is running, indeed can do a great cleaning job too. That's not theory (well, it is as applied to the 12 as I haven't done it and don't know who has) but for engines in general, that's well-established practice as being effective in cleaning carbon deposits.
The ceramic bearings is an interesting question.
The theoretical claimed advantage of ceramic bearings makes absolutely no sense in these applications, though it does make sense in some applications. Namely, the lighter weight of the ceramic vs metal resulting in less centrifugal force pushing the bearing against the races. At the rotation speeds and diameters we're talking about that force is insignificant either way.
Yet, in fact ceramic bearings can significantly reduce drag with measurable performance improvement.
So I don't believe it's the ceramic per se. I would expect a quality metal bearing with the right antifrtiction treatment and running a light enough oil and also not running dust seals should do the same as the no-dust-seals ceramic. Just absolutely no logical reason why not.
I think it's a fine-French-wine vs Ripple comparison, instead of a fine-French-wine vs fine-American-wine comparison. The stock bearings are cheap, have heavy grease, and have the dust seals.
So do you have a performance advantage relative to stock? Yes. Do you have a performance advantage relative to better bearings (unfortunately I don't know the specific example) running a light oil and no dust seals? I am guessing not. And if you run the dust seals (they're an option) with the ceramic bearings, do you get a big improvement? I am thinking not.
For example, I was assuming that I'd be putting ceramic bearings into my BST wheels. However, when the wheels arrived, the literature warned pretty strongly against changing the bearings as the wheels are readily damaged that way, though it's not impossible to do safely, and it can invalidate the warranty, so I was kind of unhappy -- till I tried spinning the BST wheel.
It spins really freely. It's hard t see how it could be absorbing significant power, but it's not ceramic. So I may be OK with it.
That is an interesting topic for sure.
|
speedgene
Zone Head
Posts: 996
|
posted December 21, 2005 10:49 AM
"Marvel Mystery Oil claims tests" (w/out the parentheses) is what you plug into google's search bar. Click the GS resources. Should be the first one to pop up. Was this the information you were talking about trenace?
My fear on the injector integrity, is the chemical punishment using these additives. The hard coating material they use (to wrap the copper wiring inside) might degrade the material, and render the injector useless is my thinking.
Techroline has been around a long time, and common sense shows that vehicles using Chevron, do not cause harm to the injectors. My concern are things like Marvel, and any anything else you can find at NAPA or AutoZone, should be left on the shelf.
Just making comment about water-injection doing basically the same cleaning job as chemical additives.
____________
E-tard
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:29 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 13:37
No. That page was in reference to use as an oil additive. I don't have any basis to think MMO is or even may be appropriate as an oil additive, but only a gas additive.
MMO doesn't count as "chemical punishment" IMO. It would help if I knew exactly what it is, but no petroleum distillate is likely to count as such in small quantities mixed with gasoline (I am a chemist incidentally.)
I agree with what you say on the Chevron and the Chevron Techron addititve (as well as other points besides that.)
The site that I got the MMO information that I personally considered credible was http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi
The water method can indeed, at least for many engines, do an excellent cleaning job, but the difference is, additives potentially avoid the crap ever building up in the first place. Which it certainly can in the ZX-12R motor (as well as others of course.) Whether it's completely avoided simply with use of Chevron gasoline alone, I don't know. I tend to doubt it but that is only a personal guess.
I have, incidentally, recommended MMO to no one nor am I doing so here. I was just mentioning it for discussion and have no evidence beyond what was on that site. Well, it's also the case that my van is running smoother, perhaps there were deposits on the valve stems that were cleaned off, I don't know. No apparent difference in running with the 12, but potentially the engine might be cleaner internally. Just don't know. I certainly don't believe it's hurting anyway, and there's a chance it's helping with regard to keeping things clean. I actually wish I hadn't mentioned it though, as generally speaking I talk about things that there's better evidence for. There was pretty good evidence presented on that site of it being effective as a fuel additive in car engines though.
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:37 PM
If it's good enough without it, why risk it?
|
tslewisz
Expert Class
Posts: 328
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:39 PM
FWIW, lotsa guys w/ diesel trucks add MMO to the fuel for lubricity for the tank and lift pumps. Fuel nowadays is pretty "dry". Also heard tell that early Gold Wing riders used it in their fuel to prevent the little CV carbs from gumming up, which apparently was a chronic problem. Anecdotal, I know, but that it prevents internal carbon build-up is a new one on me.
I use it in air tools, though!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:40 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 13:40
quote:
If it's good enough without it, why risk it?
#1 I don't remotely think there's a risk
#2 I don't know it's good enough without it. My spare head is a carbonized, crud-ized mess -- other than the one chamber I cleaned by hand -- and I've seen some shitty looking 12 pistons so I have plain evidence of what can happen with a 12 without additives
|
VPN
Zone Head
Posts: 718
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:42 PM
OK, then - what is called in EU and where's the URL
I'll start importing to Finland!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 10:52 PM
If you want to do so, I have no idea of sources in the EU, which obviously would be cheaper for shipping.
If from the US, one inexpensive source seems to be:
$16.99 for one gallon
Case of 6 one gallon jugs for $90
Since one ounce per gallon of gasoline is a healthy dose, a gallon is good for 128 gallons of gas at that rate. So it adds 13 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline at the first price and 12 cents per gallon at the second price, higher than I realized but still not too terrible.
They do say they ship to Finland but I have no idea of the rate.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC