I agree with conclusion, seems both lidless and my snorkel are safe with stock ECU. And that's amazing news as intake upgrade offers most most of the power gains on our bike.
Also glad to see independent analysis that 3d printed snorkel offers at least the same amount of airflow as lidless.
Next time I go dyno I will measure lidless against my snorkel again. Weird to see my snorkel has shown significantly more power than lidless last time. Should be about the same.

 

First of all header glows only on 300R.
And I don't believe this hypothesis for simple reason. Adding more fuel on 300R solves header glowing, which means combustion chamber cools down with more fuel evaporating.
If you hypothesis hold the adding fuel would make things worse.

 

The long pull does show exactly that.
It shows that at exactly 75% it goes open loop.
It will hang there for a bit if it goes no lower than 70% if lower than that it will return to closed loop. RPM doesn't seem to matter.
Open loop map is progressively richer as the rpm rises.
When you take a minute to download the app and file you can analyze every moment.
It's very hard to have a steady TPS.

 

With practise, you should be able to create a chart with a smooth TPS progression. Such a smooth, increasing, TPS line will definitively show the ECM's fueling and allow detailed analysis.

You guys need to be able to reach accurate conclusions from these "charts". How is it that anyone could declare a open airbox or 3d lid as being "safe" when the actual data-to-date above clearly indicates that WOT cannot be used unless rpm is at or above 7000 - and that use of WOT when engine speed is below 7000 rpm results in AFR's that go as high as the 14's. This is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact based on the above charts. Only subjective point on this subject is how one "feels" about operating their engine at WOT with fueling that ranges into the 14's.

 

It just touches 14. The least fuel is 13.5-14 within a range 4000-6000 rpm. Looks safe to me.
@Klxster what makes you call it lean and unsafe? Any references to read why 14:1 at wot is bad?

 

Thanks for looking close enough at this to see what I was trying to show.
I agree that the printed snorkel is safe.
And the 14.4 is tip in at 74% throttle and I marked that in the graph to point that out.
I'm a half second at 76% it is back to 13.2 and stays there until TPS either goes up and lowers the AFR, or TPS guess down and returns to stoich.
I will continue the project.
Stay tuned😉

 

Between my red lines is too lean for WOT operation. Not only is such fueling too lean for power production, Adding into this unfortunate situation is the fact that 14:1 is waay leaner than the stock fueling is suppose to be - the ignition system is designed to ignite a much richer AFR @ WOT . Therefore, the stock ignition system will be igniting the slower burning 14:1 much too late on each combustion event. Both the above combine to cause excessive heating of the combustion chamber ( rings, valves, ect) at the exact worst point in time - during the heavy loading of WOT.

Since the yellow line is at 6128 rpm, the leanness seems to range from somewhere around 4k to 7k rpm. . Apparently, this area hovers up to and around 14:1 AFR.
Performance fueling does not begin to occur until way further (into very high RPM) where the blue line makes contact with the apparent 13:1 dotted line.

Posting erroneous opinions that such fueling - during wide open throttle operation - is "safe" will cause owners, world-wide, to wonder if they should "go for it". Some, in colder climates and with conservative riding habits, probably can "get away with it" - but others won't.

The long-term membership knows that I will NEVER let questionable opinions/conclusions stand, in here.
And I have fought some real "whoppers" in our history - such as putting coat hanger wire on KACR's - hunks of wire that see well over 5000 rpm at redline !

 

Please show the whole screenshot that you marked up. We can't see the TPS.
I believe that is the lidless, long full throttle pull.
If that is the case, i agree and to lean for my tastes. I will keep my opinions to myself and just share the results.
If one person gets something for my research, my research is worthwhile.


Success isn't about the end result, it's about what you learn along the way.” - Vera ****

 

I hope to see the rest of these this weekend.
I will be able to mock up the IMS fuel tank and take pictures a well.

 

@Olsen29 the work you are doing is very important and very much needed.

While I haven't seen pics of your WB O2 install, I read your description of it.
Based on what you wrote, I think you've NOT changed the exhaust tuning (with your WBO2 install) to any significant degree. As such, your data should be valid.

You've produced 100% TPS runs that look good - the charts match from one run to the others, supporting data validity. Those runs produce useable data.

You are in a position to provide verification and validation of every single mod and mod combo - and that is HUGE !
You are able to develop performance tunes, and verify others' tunes, on various tuners.

Hopefully, peeps will be sending (loaning) their ECM's, slipons, full exhaust systems, tuners etc, in order to get the data you can provide.

In fact, you have the makings of a business.

If you were to decide to develop tunes, for various mod combos, on various tuners, I would be happy to help.