Kawasaki ZX-10R Forum banner

41 - 60 of 79 Posts

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
Now that we know the original values were 1868mm and 1967mm, does my new set of tires at 1880mm and 2032 keep the same percentage/delta?
No. That's what I posted about before. The original values are 5.3% different than the 8% you measured.

And to clarify what you stated above, you are suggesting to only lower the rear wheel mm value, not the front, in order to dial-in/correct the speedometer to GPS discrepancy?

So if I lowered my front and rear values together (keeping same percwntage/delta), the speedometer margin of error technically will never change because I am still keeping the percentage/delta between front and rear tires regardless how much I lower or raise the mm values. Is that correct?
The rear value will affect the speed that is calculated and displayed. The front and rear values together can affect how the traction control intervenes. Only the rear affects the speed and will only be accurate when upright. The curved tire profile has a lower circumference on the sidewalls so leaned over, the speed will slow down. The margin of error will change as the tires wear down or you change to a different tire. The settings you're changing only apply to that specific tire.

Lastly, the bike hesitates between shifts not due to the foot shifter, but most likely based on the Quickshifter ms values. Do you suspect "Disable Acceleration Fuel Compensation" has something to do with that? Right now, it is 'checked' in Race Tools (meaning it is disabled).
No, that has nothing to do with the QS. That's to enrichen the full slightly while the throttle is open to compensate for the added incoming air.
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
I think I am understanding you now. I used an online tool to identify the 8.09% differences from front minus 8.09% and rear minus 8.09% and got those new numbers to input the mm values, which retain an 8.09% difference between front and rear. And you are saying downward adjust from there while keeping 8.09% ratio until the speedometer mph gets dialed in to match GPS mph?

And these lower mm numbers won't effect traction control or anything?
Yes, those ending numbers for both are closer to what you should be shooting for as that keeps the 8% difference between them. But an 8% drop in the values is irrelevent. Don't get confused by that since your starting value affects that. If you end up with 1868mm on the rear, but started with 1967mm, that's a 5% difference. If you end up with 1868mm and started with 2032mm, that's an 8% reduction overall. The end is still 1868mm in both of those. You want to try and keep 8% difference between the front and rear, not how much lower you want to go. So you calculate the front value by starting with 1868mm you put in for the rear.

(1868 * 0.08 = 144.5 reduction for the front. 1868 - 144.5 = 1719mm for the front). 1719mm is 8% lower than 1868mm.

That's close to the numbers you got, but the 8.09 and 8.07 show the difference you're getting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Yes, those ending numbers for both are closer to what you should be shooting for as that keeps the 8% difference between them. But an 8% drop in the values is irrelevent. Don't get confused by that since your starting value affects that. If you end up with 1868mm on the rear, but started with 1967mm, that's a 5% difference. If you end up with 1868mm and started with 2032mm, that's an 8% reduction overall. The end is still 1868mm in both of those. You want to try and keep 8% difference between the front and rear, not how much lower you want to go. So you calculate the front value by starting with 1868mm you put in for the rear.

(1868 * 0.08 = 144.5 reduction for the front. 1868 - 144.5 = 1719mm for the front). 1719mm is 8% lower than 1868mm.

That's close to the numbers you got, but the 8.09 and 8.07 show the difference you're getting.
Hey brother. I am in no way sharpshooting you here. But to understand your math, I have to plug it in and see for myself. When I do 1868 x 0.08, I get a different number; 149.44, not 144.5. Am I doing the math wrong?

446389
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
.....and not to add to my own confusion, your valued input had me continue the quest to find the exact percentage between 1880 and 2032. My percentage difference seems to be incorrect. One calculator I used has a different value when I put 1880 before 2032 or 1880 after 2032. This stuff drives me crazy. But I think the true percentage between 1880 and 2032 'or' 2032 and 1880 is the same as seen below.

See in these two images, the percentage difference is different

446390


446391


But in the next two images, the percentage difference is the same regardless of order the value is entered:

446392

446393


As verified by a second tool

446394


So the true percentage difference between front and resr tire is 7.7096%; or for simplified math, 8%.

When finding my values in mm, do you recommend to use 7.7% or 8%?

My head hurts. Hahaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
All i know that long ago put the correcto tire size in the normal places for a s22 and tc was engaging all the time si i left ir ar stock

Enviado desde mi POCO F2 Pro mediante Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
All i know that long ago put the correcto tire size in the normal places for a s22 and tc was engaging all the time si i left ir ar stock

Enviado desde mi POCO F2 Pro mediante Tapatalk
So far, so good with the S22s and the correct S22 tire values added into Race Tool Advanced Settings.
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
Hey brother. I am in no way sharpshooting you here. But to understand your math, I have to plug it in and see for myself. When I do 1868 x 0.08, I get a different number; 149.44, not 144.5. Am I doing the math wrong?
LOL! Yeah, that was a typo I entered into that. The end result I had was correct, but I hit the wrong key and then cut-n-pasted it again. Good catch!

I meant to put in the right number there for 8% of the 1868 value. That's 149.44, rounded up to 149.5 to make it a bit easier as the decimal values aren't useful. !868 - 149.5 is the 1718.56, or 1719 rounded to the nearest whole number. I typed the equation I was using wrong! Hahaha! Oops! Your values are right at the 8% too, if you round them. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
LOL! Yeah, that was a typo I entered into that. The end result I had was correct, but I hit the wrong key and then cut-n-pasted it again. Good catch!

I meant to put in the right number there for 8% of the 1868 value. That's 149.44, rounded up to 149.5 to make it a bit easier as the decimal values aren't useful. !868 - 149.5 is the 1718.56, or 1719 rounded to the nearest whole number. I typed the equation I was using wrong! Hahaha! Oops! Your values are right at the 8% too, if you round them. ;)
Good morning brother. And to capitalize on my knowledge gained, I spent a few hours crunching numbers last night. Will play with the tire value settings in small increments and see where it gets me. Did my best to keep it closest to the 7.7709% as possible. If all else fails, I can just go back to the last know safe tire values in mm (like mpp12 said above); stock 2017 ZX-10RR values of 1868/1967 or S22 values of 1880/2032.
446401
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
You're doing a lot of number crunching! That's good and all, but that 65mm increment doesn't do much for you. That the difference between the stock values and what you measured, but that doesn't translate directly into a speed value. I think you're over thinking it all! You're trying to correct 3mph form the original numbers.

To speed things along, just put in a value for the rear tire and forget about the front for now. Turn off the traction control and go ride. Measure your actual speed against what's shown on the instrument cluster. Just pick a random whole number to see what you get out of it. It will be less than the original 1967 value, so start with the 1900 and see how close it is. If it's still low, try 1800. If it's now high, try 1850. You can find the exact number this way, it just takes time. It easier, but time consuming. Just cage the value down until you're happy with the outcome. Once you have that number, calculate an 8% difference for the front vlaue. Enter that into the software, turn the traction control back on, and go ride with your new speedometer accuracy!

If you like doing the math, then you can figure out the exact values based on the tires you want. Since the rear circumference is 80 inches, that's 6.6667 feet. It will require 791.6 rotations to move you one mile down the road. That's 13.19 revolutions for minute at a speed of 1 mile per hour. You can keep going from there to figure out what size you need to change it 3 mph! :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
You're doing a lot of number crunching! That's good and all, but that 65mm increment doesn't do much for you. That the difference between the stock values and what you measured, but that doesn't translate directly into a speed value. I think you're over thinking it all! You're trying to correct 3mph form the original numbers.

To speed things along, just put in a value for the rear tire and forget about the front for now. Turn off the traction control and go ride. Measure your actual speed against what's shown on the instrument cluster. Just pick a random whole number to see what you get out of it. It will be less than the original 1967 value, so start with the 1900 and see how close it is. If it's still low, try 1800. If it's now high, try 1850. You can find the exact number this way, it just takes time. It easier, but time consuming. Just cage the value down until you're happy with the outcome. Once you have that number, calculate an 8% difference for the front vlaue. Enter that into the software, turn the traction control back on, and go ride with your new speedometer accuracy!

If you like doing the math, then you can figure out the exact values based on the tires you want. Since the rear circumference is 80 inches, that's 6.6667 feet. It will require 791.6 rotations to move you one mile down the road. That's 13.19 revolutions for minute at a speed of 1 mile per hour. You can keep going from there to figure out what size you need to change it 3 mph! :ROFLMAO:
Sometimes, I learn better the hard way. :p At least this way, I alresdy know the 7.7% offsets. Hahaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Sky, I think it's dialed in and only took four ECU flashes and four short rides.

S22s are set at 1730mm Front and 1870mm Rear in Race Tools and achieved a 50 Mph Speedometer reading and 50 Mph GPS reading, with GPS being a consistent two second lag. When the Speedometer hits 50, GPS goes from 49 to 50 two seconds after. Verified like 10 times with 24/24 Satellites. Slower lag with 22/24 Satellites.

The next step is to validate if there is a traction control issue, 2nd Gear, 60 Mph, WOT hit!!

Thank you for all your assistance and patience along the way to my CDO madness!!

Next question: Will a 16T Sprocket change all this? Hahahaha
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
Sky, I think it's dialed in and only took four ECU flashes and four short rides.

S22s are set at 1730mm Front and 1870mm Rear in Race Tools and achieved a 50 Mph Speedometer reading and 50 Mph GPS reading, with GPS being a consistent two second lag. When the Speedometer hits 50, GPS goes from 49 to 50 two seconds after. Verified like 10 times with 24/24 Satellites. Slower lag with 22/24 Satellites.

The next step is to validate if there is a traction control issue, 2nd Gear, 60 Mph, WOT hit!!

Thank you for all your assistance and patience along the way to my CDO madness!!

Next question: Will a 16T Sprocket change all this? Hahahaha
That is good to hear! Especially since I had initially come up with a value of being in the 1860mm range on the rear which is very close to your end result! Nice!

Um, the traction control has nothing to due with WOT in 2nd gear or anything. That's wheelie control. The traction control will intervene if you're leaned over in a turn and start to get too hard on the throttle. You hear and feel the engine cutout slightly and the indicator bars on the instrument cluster will start to show. Good luck testing that. Be careful out there!

FYI - The Global Positioning System is nothing more than a bunch of atomic clocks orbiting around the earth. They send precise time signals to the receiver on the ground that knows where each satellite should be from their own database on the receiver. The time that is received from one clock will be slightly different than the time received from another clock and which one is sending the signal being received. Your position is triangulated from that based on where they should be at that time it is received. You need at least 3 satellites in view of the receiver to get a latitude/longitude position, and a minimum of 4 to get altitude with that. The signal is line-of-sight and there are 24 satellites in orbit. You can never get the signal from all of them at once. Two of those satellites are a back up if one of the other 22 fail. Any lag you're seeing is likely due to the processing of the receiver trying to switch between signals from different satellites in view at that moment and lock onto them. It's not from the signal itself.

This thread has been fun! And it re-enforced my initial thought on how much of a nerd I really am! :unsure::rolleyes::geek: Thanks for that.

And no, the sprocket change won't change that. ;):ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Sky, is there anything you don't know? Hahaha. The amount of knowledge you display is impressive. Yes, this thread has been fun and I learned a lot along the way thanks to you.

Now I learned about the effective use of Satellites.

And your prediction of the rear tire being so close is awesome. But for my level of learning, sometimes, harder, is smarter for me. Just how I learn some things. Your next response may be written in crayons. Hahaha

Traction control: Can that make a bike heavily bog down at a 60 mph WOT launch?

As for the Race Tools Quickshifter times, Woolich Racing sent me this response, but I suspect they got something wrong where it says Subtract in the first paragraph and Subtract again in the second paragraph.

"If the value is too high (longer time), the bike will dive a little bit when the next gear engages. You need to subtract 5ms and check."

"If the value is too small (short time), the bike jumps forward when the gear engages, so you would subtract 5ms."
(I suspect this should say ADD 5ms?)

"You shouldn't need to go below 40ms, and anything over 110ms will be too slow."

I read many posts and 60ms seems to be a safe zone.

Woolich was talking about setting the response time in ms can damage the gearbox. But what is "too fast? 35ms? 40ms? 50ms? 55ms?

Of course, I value your expertise.
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
Ha. You don't need to be too impressed with anything I describe here. I stay at Holiday Inn Express a lot and ask Alexa a lot of stuff. I just seem smart on the Interweb sometimes. o_O

Yes, I'd agree with you that the second part of their response would be to add time to it. You figured that out already though!

The times should be somewhere in the 50 to 80ms timeframe. Remember, the 1st to 2nd gear jump is the longest since it's the longest throw on the gear pairs, Neutral is in between those and the gear ratio spacing is more dramatic. As the gears climb, the response time can be shortened due to the closer ratios between them. So your longest (highest value) kill time will be from 1->2. Then the times come down a bit from 2->3 and beyond that, they should be shortened slightly but will typically stay at that value.

I've rebuilt enough transmissions in my time to not use a quickshifter for the 1->2 gear change. If you're racing, that's one thing. If not, then do the normal clutch shift from 1->2 and quickshift up from there. So I'd expect to see something in the 80-90ms range from 1->2 to be safe and then 2->3 in the 60-70ms range, followed by 50->60ms for the rest. The 60ms does seem accurate and you can start there for the upper gears. I'd be on the higher side for the lower gears. You'll need to play with them somewhat to get it adjusted for your liking and technique. Once you get it feeling good, you can tweak the numbers by incrementing up or down in 5ms. They won't all be the same. When I had the Bazzaz QS4 on my last bike, I had it dialed in at 85ms 70ms, 55ms, 55ms, 55ms. Those don't cross-over directly here, but it might be a good starting point to try. I've been happy with the stock settings on my Gen 5 so I haven't changed anything on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
"Alexa, send a Thank you card to SkyDork." "Sending now."

So to clarify what you are saying for the 1-2 and 2-3, etc.

For 1-2, the whole table from 2000 rpms down to 16000 and across from 10 to 100 should all fall within 80-90ms? The whole table?

For 2-3, same concept, but the whole table top to bottom, left to right, 60-70ms?

3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 = 50 to 60ms, the whole table??

Following the stock ECU for my 2017 ZX-10RR, 1-2 was up in the 120s top left and came down to 60s in the lower right.

This image is something I am going to try. It is somewhat in the same concept of the stock ECU but more evenly numbered. More, mythodical. It may work. It may suck. Only one way to know for sure. Next topic will be how to rebuild a transmission. Hahaha

446417
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
"Alexa, send a Thank you card to SkyDork." "Sending now."

So to clarify what you are saying for the 1-2 and 2-3, etc.

For 1-2, the whole table from 2000 rpms down to 16000 and across from 10 to 100 should all fall within 80-90ms? The whole table?

For 2-3, same concept, but the whole table top to bottom, left to right, 60-70ms?

3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 = 50 to 60ms, the whole table??

Following the stock ECU for my 2017 ZX-10RR, 1-2 was up in the 120s top left and came down to 60s in the lower right.

This image is something I am going to try. It is somewhat in the same concept of the stock ECU but more evenly numbered. More, mythodical. It may work. It may suck. Only one way to know for sure. Next topic will be how to rebuild a transmission. Hahaha
Sorry for the late response on this! Hahaha!

The problem with those times are they are a bit more precise than most of the aftermarket stuff. That table is strange. RPM is shown on the left column, but I'm not 100% what the row on the top is showing. That's likely the TPS value, which is really the ETV value. Since it's ride-by-wire, the computer should be using the actual ETV that is commanded by the TPS. It's not real clear what it's using, but you can assume that it's basically the throttle position.

The first cell there shows the 90ms at 10% throttle and 4500RPM. That time goes down a little the more the throttle is opened and the faster it's spinning. That's what is described by those other values I mentioned, but that was just based on gear selection alone and not dependent on TPS or RPM. This is much more sophisticated, so that 60ms that we're referencing shouldn't be used across the board. It would be better if the current values were reduced by the same amount (+- 5.0%) to get rid of the hesitation. That 60ms time reference should let you know around where you want to be or have more to adjust if the lowest value in that table starts to get around that. Even the current table is showing 51ms as the minimum value. I wouldn't be tweaking those values much lower, so you might need to investigate more to figure out exactly want areas of the table need to be modified and go from there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Sky, I am back to Plan A. My oddball mapping values above didn't pan out too well. So I started from ZX-10RR scratch data values, minus 5ms across all Quickshifter gears; 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6.

That didn't work well either, so I subtracted another 3ms.

What I learned in that change is, under 7000 rpms at minimal throttle, the shifts seems to be very acceptable. It's when I ramp it up fast that it hesitates between shifts.

I will relook the maps and decide where to make the changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Sky, if you can take a look at these maps and let me know if you see something that is off. I took stock RR map values and lowered each table by 5ms; tested, then 3ms, tested, then 3ms, tested, then 3ms.

I am still having QS issues and QS Map values for 1-2 are already dipping down into the mid 40s at WOT.

Do my numbers say anything to your trained eye and experience?

1-2

446420


2-3

446421


3-4, 4-5, and 5-6

446422
 

·
REPOST Enforcement Mod
Joined
·
14,756 Posts
At first glance, those values look to be a bit spread out too far. I would think they'd be spaced closer together in terms of the min and max for each of the gears. I wouldn't expect them to be that far apart. It's hard to say if they're valid or not without experiencing them in action. The first thing I'd be trying to figure out is to pick 1 gear (probably 3->4) and try to tune that in by itself. I'd be trying to find a good mix for that one gear based on a few of the points in the table. I wouldn't be changing the whole table either or trying to adjust all the gears right away. If the lower values are already pushing the lower limit at 50ms, leave those where they're at and drop the other values down to try to get the hesitation to go away. You can change the cells in the table individually so those values can be tweaked.

Once you know how the changes are effecting the response and which way you're going and by how much, those changes could be applied to the other gears to test those. Not knowing exactly how much it's hesitating for you, it's hard to figure out how much to change it by. The other problem is that the offset in the software is percentage based instead of time based. It is what it is, but +-5ms would be a bit easier to understand than +-5%. That's just something to keep in mind while changing things.
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Top