Loads of people have Blue!
MORE! WE NEED MORE!!!!
I'm split on the issue Tim, there is an increasing amount of Qualitative information mounting in contradiction to Roger's extensive Quantitative data....and I'm not sure why.
You're usually in good shape after a few hundred miles but I have received reports of subtle improvements for much longer than that.
I can get the Long Term Trims for idle to converge in about a half hour, even for a shift of 15% by riding with a certain style.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly....if I fitted an aftermarket chip within a few hundred miles the closed loop adaption based on lambda setting could negate the increased fuelling of the chip within as little as a few hundred miles...
from what I understand of basic general steady state combustion...the basic principles of mixture adaption make sense...especially with the fitting of a cat....else with a bunged up filter or other factor, such as a drop in airflow/oxygen concentration would cause the engine to run too rich with unburnt fuel trashing the CAT....so it makes sense that there is a function to modify injection values in operation to allow for engines operaing in all sorts of conditions all over the world.
Taking what you say as being correct for a minute due to your extensive testing...
Is there some other 'factor' here that is confusing the issue as to why users of Johns Chip are claiming improvements over prolonged periods despite your methodical conclusions.
Do the newer chips (than you tested) have "other changes" made to say ignition timing for example that create lasting improvements that you are not measuring?
Does the act of installing the chip purge all the "learned data" over 1000's miles that is effectively "restricting the bike" and it feel's "new" again because some values have been reset to "factory fresh"?
Could there be other changes that the John's chip is making that your equipment hasn't measured, as if I've understood you correctly your only measuring the proportion of oxygen or "free air" in the exhaust - In my view, this is not the complete picture.....
There appears to me to be no measure of the proportion of CO to CO2 for that you would need the full exhaust gas analyser? I would argue, that ratio is truely a measure of combustion completeness.
If memory serves, to achieve "complete combustion" of gasoline (in simple terms) i.e. 2 C8H18 + 25 O2(g) → 16 CO2(g) + 18 H2O(g) (c/o wikipedia) you in fact need to add more oxygen than is necessary than the ideal chemical equation states is necessary.
Obviously any engine in the real world will produce some Carbon Monoxide (i.e. incomplete combusion = inefficient combustion) therefore if you reduce the amount of carbon monoxide produced you release more energy from the fuel.
So if the combustion efficiency is improved (without adding more fuel for example) and more CO is converted to CO2 then extra oxygen is taken from the free air = a drop in "free air" coming past the Lambda...that effect the lambda value even though no extra fuel was input.
I need to read my books on fuel injection to get my head around this stuff again....
Post edit..
One final point...If you add more fuel through a chip but have also reduced the restrictions in the combustion tract then more fuel and more air can still give the same AFR, however there is more fuel and more air going through the engine...more power. Whilst the chip may correct the AFR back to a default value for a an overly rich adjustment....If I'm not mistaken there is no mass or volumetric measurement of fuel and air in your evaluation...
Thus it appears to me Roger, you could be entriely correct about triming/adaption to a factory set Lambda value but have reached the wrong conclusion...however I suspect that the lambda correction does have some reducing affect on the chip but if fitted with other mods would still achieve an overall HP improvement.
