Techlusion chip
- Thread starter THE PICT
- Start date
bandit
Guest
yes
I have the techlusion fitted.
It adds in more fuel.
£200 ish notes fitted and dynoed. Superb marvelous etc.
Bike makes 86bhp better response through.
Speak to the Brad at dynospeed, they know what they are talking about.
02085005770
Dave
I have the techlusion fitted.
It adds in more fuel.
£200 ish notes fitted and dynoed. Superb marvelous etc.
Bike makes 86bhp better response through.
Speak to the Brad at dynospeed, they know what they are talking about.
02085005770
Dave
TFI Unit
Had TFI box fitted and dynoed yesterday.
1150GS with Y piece , standard can, K&N Filter and Lambda sensor disconnected.
Not sure how to read data but obvious increase in top end and CO improved also feels much smoother with no hesitation in mid range. Need to fine tune unit after more test miles but Recommended.
£150 plus vat from TTS Engineering, Silverstone. 01327 858212
Special Offer £200 inc Fitting and Dyno at their workshop.
Bandit can you let me know your dial settings for comparison, ie 3oclock 6oclock etc.
Cheers
Gerry
Had TFI box fitted and dynoed yesterday.
1150GS with Y piece , standard can, K&N Filter and Lambda sensor disconnected.
Not sure how to read data but obvious increase in top end and CO improved also feels much smoother with no hesitation in mid range. Need to fine tune unit after more test miles but Recommended.
£150 plus vat from TTS Engineering, Silverstone. 01327 858212
Special Offer £200 inc Fitting and Dyno at their workshop.
Bandit can you let me know your dial settings for comparison, ie 3oclock 6oclock etc.
Cheers
Gerry
bandit
Guest
bandit
Guest
why
the full pic is not shown !!
the full pic is not shown !!
Gerry,
I don't want to put a downer on your new chip, which you are clearly very pleased with, I've been looking at your dyno outputs and trying to make sense of them.
I'm pressuming that the bike was only put on a roller and didn't have the gearbox removed to measure the crank power. The only real world figure is plot 3 (the green line). The other values are projected using standard losses through the transmissions.
Looking at graphs 1a and 1b: plot 3, the green line, is the actual roller power produced this was 66.5Hp at 6324rpm. The after graph 1b shows max power of 69.2 at 6456rpm. This is an increase of 2.7hp, but if you look at the midrange, between 4k and 5k, you are actually down by a couple of bhp.
Graphs 2a and 2b: the only difference between these two graphs is the time plot for peak crankshaft power on 2a this has a different time stamp to the other plots, 15:26 instead of 16:20, it is obviously the plot from 1a overlaid onto 2a. Since this peak bhp figure is projected it needs to be ignored.
Graphs 3a and 3b: again identical graphs but with that plot from 1a again to show a lower value.
So if you ignore plot 1 on graphs 2a-2b and 3a-3b then these four graphs are identical as they only show data from the 16:20 run.
It looks as though you did a dyno run at 15:26 then fitted the chip and did another run at 16:20. but without knowing what they were trying to convey with the graphs it looks like they have thrown in a thorectical crank value from the first run into the rest of the graphs to compare the results. which appear to be:-
An increase of 2.7bhp at 6456 but a slight drop in power at the midrange (between 4k and 5k).
I don't want to put a downer on your new chip, which you are clearly very pleased with, I've been looking at your dyno outputs and trying to make sense of them.
I'm pressuming that the bike was only put on a roller and didn't have the gearbox removed to measure the crank power. The only real world figure is plot 3 (the green line). The other values are projected using standard losses through the transmissions.
Looking at graphs 1a and 1b: plot 3, the green line, is the actual roller power produced this was 66.5Hp at 6324rpm. The after graph 1b shows max power of 69.2 at 6456rpm. This is an increase of 2.7hp, but if you look at the midrange, between 4k and 5k, you are actually down by a couple of bhp.
Graphs 2a and 2b: the only difference between these two graphs is the time plot for peak crankshaft power on 2a this has a different time stamp to the other plots, 15:26 instead of 16:20, it is obviously the plot from 1a overlaid onto 2a. Since this peak bhp figure is projected it needs to be ignored.
Graphs 3a and 3b: again identical graphs but with that plot from 1a again to show a lower value.
So if you ignore plot 1 on graphs 2a-2b and 3a-3b then these four graphs are identical as they only show data from the 16:20 run.
It looks as though you did a dyno run at 15:26 then fitted the chip and did another run at 16:20. but without knowing what they were trying to convey with the graphs it looks like they have thrown in a thorectical crank value from the first run into the rest of the graphs to compare the results. which appear to be:-
An increase of 2.7bhp at 6456 but a slight drop in power at the midrange (between 4k and 5k).
Similar threads
