tigger
Expert Class
Posts: 199
|
posted August 28, 2006 08:23 AM
Factory Pro vs. Dynojet?
What's everyone's opinion on these Dyno brands. Is there a difference or does it really matter? There's a lot of debate that is going around it. I just want straight unbiased opinion, and if you don't know anything about the subject just say "pass". I'm trying to ejumicate my old brain cells.
  
|
salsa1
Needs a life
Posts: 5971
|
posted August 28, 2006 08:37 AM
 Edited By: salsa1 on 28 Aug 2006 09:39
http://www.factorypro.com/tech_tuning_procedures/tuning_ignition_timing_tech.html
I am convinced Factory pro is far better... also depends how much time dyno tuner is willing to spend on your bike for the money...my dynojet tuner sets the tune for 13:1 unless you tell him otherwise... The guy I talked from Factory pro was willing to spend 4 hours to nit pick for the best ratio.. they use 4 gasses to analyze as well...
Factory pro charges $350.00..Dynojet center $300.00..I did dynojet center and did improve 10 hp but might have gotten more... will never know cause they were not willing to spend more time and their analysis is inferior with only co2 gas if you ask me...
Main thing is how much time is the tuner willing to spend.. I would definetly ask..before I commit to session. Your bike might do good with 13:1 but not it's best; your engine might like 12.8 :1 and if Factory pro tuner is willing to spend the time to find out optimum delivery of your engine then no contest....Factory Pro...
____________
Salsa1
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9659
|
posted August 28, 2006 09:02 AM
as to the dynos themselves, i don't think there is a "better". factory pro claims their numbers are more"real", and that may well be, but all that matters when tuning is relative HP numbers so it is a mute point. more correct HP numbers would be nice of course, but unless the whole world makes the switch (similar to the STD vs SAE question) it is pointless. currently DJ numbers are the standard that everyone knows.
|
tigger
Expert Class
Posts: 199
|
posted August 28, 2006 07:17 PM
I think Dynojet has a monopoly on the dyno business. It seems like anywhere you go is dynojet.
|
zx1kr
Pro
Posts: 1301
|
posted August 28, 2006 08:01 PM
I tune w/ a Dynojet & as frEEK stated, I concur,I don't think there is "a better". I tune w/ an AFR monitor & when I'm trying to optimize the HP the monitor is giving me a guideline. I can adjust to the point where I start to lose power, then back off to bring the power back. At that point adjustments are made for compensating the ram-air & real world road conditions.
A perfect example is the fact that a fellow rider insisted on maxxing out the most HP he could on a Dyno prior to our little Sun. Morning rendevous. I on the other hand chose to do what I believed to be the most effective tune for the real world,on the road power. Well, it ended up being the strongest my 14 had performed to date & I wasn't the only one that noticed this. As for my anonomous friend? His top speed dropped off 5 mph.
____________
|
ricksgsxr
Zone Head
Posts: 511
|
posted August 29, 2006 04:11 AM
Dunno the answer which is better. I have used both types. 3 different dyno's 150/200 and 250 with teh tuning link, FP at Full Spectrum in Sanford, Fl all made improvements.
I did not like the FP method of holding the rpm for some time at each 1000 rpm increment. IE; Go to 3000 rpm hold get a reading, idle back down than up to 4000 hold get a reading, idle back repeat all the way through redline.
Either method are going to help and a great starting platform. My next addition will be a LM-1 or silimar a/f monitor I can tune the upper end to conditions for the best results in real world conditions and compliment the DJ mapping.
Rick
|
salsa1
Needs a life
Posts: 5971
|
posted August 29, 2006 05:24 AM
Edited By: salsa1 on 29 Aug 2006 07:24
"Better" goes hand in hand with tuner and time spent tuning " factor was my main point.. not just the dyno itself being "better" ......still 4 gases to analyse from factory pro dyno session seem better than co2 from dynojet for information to adjust to.... not saying dynojet is a total waste either..
Just straight up tuning for 13:1 as dynojet session gave me may not extract the best possible results from your engine ...if that is important to you?
If you have a wide band monitor (which not every one has) is a good way to verify and work for best results.. again that includes time.. which dynojet tuner may not be willing to give ya for $300.00 as happened to me anyways..
I have a wide band now cause I smartened up....if ya have no wide band or don't wan't to mess with buying or the learning of it then factory pro guy I talked to was willing to spend 4 hours and in comparison is better as a package .. personally I am done paying for dyno time but would prefer factory pro for reasons mentioned
..I will fine tune and play with any mods at my own sweet time from now on ... myself.....
Have a accelerometer to measure changes in acceleration for any mod and adjust accordingly.. in the process of installing system ....
____________
Salsa1
|
marc salvisberg
Parking Attendant
Posts: 21
|
posted March 26, 2008 10:05 AM
Edited By: marc salvisberg on 26 Mar 2008 11:12
is it biased if you actually
quote:
What's everyone's opinion on these Dyno brands. Is there a difference or does it really matter? There's a lot of debate that is going around it. I just want straight unbiased opinion, and if you don't know anything about the subject just say "pass". I'm trying to ejumicate my old brain cells.
Seems like salsa1 has the most firsthand experience, from a consumer's point of view -
Dynojet HP niumbers:
As far as the difference between "hp numbers", the current mess in HP numbers is due to dj's unpublished inflation rate - example: Motorcyclist / Sportrider's use of a Superflow chassis dyno and Superflow's "emulation" of the dynojet "inflation rate": - which, for a high hp bike, is wonderfully optimistic, as compared to an "average reading" dynojet dyno's hp numbers.
The reason for "True" hp - is that EVERY dyno manufacturer CAN supply those numbers - including Superflow. Actually, "natively", the Superflows display "True" hp and the dyno owner can choose to inflate to "something kinda like +/- 10% of a dynojet number (and you can see the dyno brand hp number mess starting.....)
As it goes, if you are using the same dyno, you could use any unit scale, including "cans of cat food", as your torque number scale and "cat chased by dog velocity" as your hp number scale. The HP number scale makes little difference - only the difference (at least as far as the hp change goes).
The problem is that, nobody can absolutely replicate dynojet's numbers (even them).
THAT's the reason for "True HP" - nothing more than what you learned in the first week of science class - "If your experiment can't be duplicated by others, it's invalid.".
No other dyno company can duplicate a dynojet number unless they supply exactly the same engine load and have exactly the unpublished dynojet inflation factors.
...........................................................
Testing Procedures:
As far as there being a difference in tuning on the Factory Pro or a dynojet style dyno, there is a difference -
The biggest difference is that most professional tuners who have Factory Pro EC997's tend to use steady state testing - as compared to the majority of dynojet guys who test HP with a 4th gear, 5 second, inertia load, "wack".
I'm here to tell ya - that there's a potentially GREAT difference in "optimal" hp results "on the dyno" vs. what works in the real world.
What makes "Best Power" in a 4th gear wack on a dynojet - is probably not what works best in the real world (as somebody posted) - the Load on the dj dyno is WAY less than the real world - and all the combustion chamber temps are at least 300f (probably 500f to 600f ) less than what happens in a Steady State test or in the real world - and that skews the tuning and the power results - and throws away hp in the real world.
A Steady State test isn't exactly "natural" for most real world stuff, either, (except when topping out the bike > that's the 180 mph real world Steady State Test), where it's 100% equal and realistic loading - but, if a Steady State test is off, at all, it's a very small amount whereas Best Power on a dynojet vs the real world can be 5 mph "off", as stated above in someone's post.
However, being the veteran user of a dyne system that will easily do steady state with one mouse click or a sweep test (ala dj) with a click of the mouse - and in that sweep test, I can specify any acceleration rate from 1 fpf/s (ridiculously slow) to 50 fps/s (ridiculously quick) - it becomes pretty obvious after a few dyno tuning vs. track testing sessions, that the Steady State tests provide the most reliable results and that anything quicker than about 25fps/s dyno acc. rates are sketchy. And a high hp bike on a dj might be 40fps/s +.
The Factory Pro dyno was designed and built to be flexible in testing methods and quick reacting - and the dj, was built to do inertia hp testing and to automatically "tune to an AFR" and isn't as flexible as the Factory Pro. (only "biased" because I know from experience)
......................................................
The Factory Pro tuning methods are different than the dj systems -
The Factory Pro method is to tune the engine till it makes best power and use the 4 gas EGA to give hints along the pathway (sounds harder than it actually is) and then, when you have Best Power, use the 4 gas EGA information to give more hints as to what you might do to make it even better Llike:
Is the ignition timing "optimal?
Is the cylinder to cylinder fuel "stagger" OK?
Is the combustion chamber very efficient?
Is there reversion at some rpm?
Is there "too much" cam?
(that's all from a tuner's experience - and if that makes me biased in your opinion, well, fell free to draw that conclusion ;-)
It's tuning to Best power, Steady State, not a dj type "4th gear sweep" Best Power (which doesn't work well, as previously posted).
The dj method is to $300 tune it to the "best" AFR and, well, that's about it, unless they want to poke and prod at the pc3 numbers to see if you can make more power in a 4th gear sweep test, that probably won't be the tuning settings that work the best in the real world (as someone here posted).
The Factory Pro method is (or "might be") a bit more expensive, but, gets the same results as Jordan Racing, Vesrah Racing and Larry Pegram Ducati.
I'll answer any technical questions - 415 491 5920.
Best regards -
Marc Salvisberg
(currently pleasantly experientially biased)
Factory Pro Tuning
415 491 5920
marc@factorypro.com
www.factorypro.com
____________
Marc Salvisberg
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 26, 2008 02:29 PM
Man Mark, that took you some digging to find this thread........  Nothing better to do with your time ?  Hope things are going well. Ciao.
|
zx1kr
Pro
Posts: 1301
|
posted March 27, 2008 04:41 PM
quote:
Man Mark, that took you some digging to find this thread........ Nothing better to do with your time ?
Nope!
____________
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 27, 2008 04:53 PM
He's got plenty to do. He's just trying cause trouble. Like when he use to try and harrase me at Sears Point in the 70's on his RD350, when I was riding a Z1 with a hinge in the middle trying to stay on two wheels. Pest then. Pest now...
|
marc salvisberg
Parking Attendant
Posts: 21
|
posted March 27, 2008 05:57 PM
Edited By: marc salvisberg on 27 Mar 2008 22:34
I wasn't the biggest then, and I'm not, now. (well, except for "that").
You made me bend my rd350 forks from breakin' too hard into 7 and 11......... My RD (which I still have), has a cracked frame that I rode with..... and "ns" - they really bent inwards with the wide rims and Goodyear slicks.
You may have noticed (if you were looking behind you in the Open Superstreet races (that YOU won), that I kept crashing behind you.........
I have to thank you for that, as it taught me real world physics, how to tune a 35 hp engine to make it "go", how to trade apex speed for the power I didn't have and how to make a waterpipe framed streetbike handle exquisitely (unless I hit that little bump that was just past the flick point to the left in turn 9........)
Guys these days have no idea how bad bikes used to be.......
We both had funky chassis'........ but, you had the muchos grandes set des huevos- probably 95+ True HP with a funky chassis, what was it, 1400cc??
During a race, my swingarm would bend to the left and Marty and I would bend it back straight between races........
Rich Oliver and I were talking about that a few weeks ago - We were talking about alternators ;-)...... and bad handling.......
So -
At work t2nite
http://70.141.63.105:8080/image1
Marc
____________
Marc Salvisberg
|
salsa1
Needs a life
Posts: 5971
|
posted March 28, 2008 06:17 AM
quote:
Seems like salsa1 has the most firsthand experience, from a consumer's point of view -
I resemble that remark....
take care..
____________
Salsa1
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted March 28, 2008 07:54 AM
Edited By: k bryant on 31 Mar 2008 08:11
Yea that was good fun back then. A real transitional era in the sport. Extremely cool that you still have your RD. Sure wish I still had some of my race bikes; especially the TZ750.... Never ran 1400cc. Started with 903, then 1015 & 1025. Started playing with 2 ring slipper pistons when we got involved with Yoshimura building the engines. Thatz when things started getting seriously expensive with lots of blow-ups, crashes, and chasing the dream.
|
marc salvisberg
Parking Attendant
Posts: 21
|
posted March 28, 2008 08:07 AM
hahaha.... "transitional"....
Just the 5 years before, we were using steam engines, wooden wheels and leather belts instead of chains....... Why, I even remember stuffing leaves into the early tires, as they hadn't invented air pumps, yet......... just before Lindberg flew across the Atlantic......... Tesla was working on an sparking engine that got 3000 mpg, but General Motors bought the patent........
____________
Marc Salvisberg
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC