Which dynojet for '04 V11?

[dlaing]

I thought free trade agreements had prohibitions against subsidies, but I guess they consider it ok if the subsidies go to some other country

Those rules on being a net supplier are ridiculous

[Ryland3210]

I thought free trade agreements had prohibitions against subsidies, but I guess they consider it ok if the subsidies go to some other country

Those rules on being a net supplier are ridiculous

Under Clinton's "free trade" agreement with China and granting them most favored nation trade status, they are allowed to subsidize their manufacturers (as if they needed it), and to manipulate the exchange rate to keep their prices low (as if they needed it). Bush hasn't done anything to stop the bleeding either.

[Skeeve]

Huh!?! Where do you get this information?

I suppose it depends on how you define lifetime polluter.

 

That would be counting all the pollution of the production of the vehicle along with the pollution caused by running it, and the costs of cleaning it up [recycling it] at the end of its useful lifespan [economic lifecycle.]

 

Electric vehicles are HUGE polluters because of the significantly greater energy costs in production, the huge inefficiencies in daily use, and the gigantic cleanup costs at the end of the day. Batteries suck, that's why so many people are working on the fuel cell approach [which has its problems too, as in "no real net change in carbon footprint" but let's shelve that for now...]

 

Solar cells aren't an improvement, since they typically require more energy to manufacture than you get out of them [ie, they're an energy sink.] They're special purpose energy answers, not a panacea. [This bit of news really hit me hard when I 1st learned about it: I had always thought solar cells were the Final Solution myself... :-( ]

 

Believe or not, the one hybrid vehicle concept which seems to have almost nobody working on it [flywheel energy storage] is the only serious short-term pollution-reduction solution we've got. Oh well, wouldn't be the 1st time everyone ignored the obvious & went off to tilt at windmills...

 

I've been a pretty avid alternative energy supporter since I was a kid, and have literally spent a lifetime examining the options. The only things that really work are windpower, geothermal, & solar thermal generation[1]. There are other potential big hits, but they require such a large infrastructure investment to reach sustainability that they really only fit as govt. projects, which in turn means that they'll never happen because of lobbying by vested interests & the inability of the govt. to run a show that big w/o screwing up the details. C'est la vie...

 

[1] And of course, these all have pretty severe geographic limitations.

[Ryland3210]

That would be counting all the pollution of the production of the vehicle along with the pollution caused by running it, and the costs of cleaning it up [recycling it] at the end of its useful lifespan [economic lifecycle.]

 

Electric vehicles are HUGE polluters because of the significantly greater energy costs in production, the huge inefficiencies in daily use, and the gigantic cleanup costs at the end of the day. Batteries suck, that's why so many people are working on the fuel cell approach [which has its problems too, as in "no real net change in carbon footprint" but let's shelve that for now...]

 

Solar cells aren't an improvement, since they typically require more energy to manufacture than you get out of them [ie, they're an energy sink.] They're special purpose energy answers, not a panacea. [This bit of news really hit me hard when I 1st learned about it: I had always thought solar cells were the Final Solution myself... :-( ]

 

Believe or not, the one hybrid vehicle concept which seems to have almost nobody working on it [flywheel energy storage] is the only serious short-term pollution-reduction solution we've got. Oh well, wouldn't be the 1st time everyone ignored the obvious & went off to tilt at windmills...

 

I've been a pretty avid alternative energy supporter since I was a kid, and have literally spent a lifetime examining the options. The only things that really work are windpower, geothermal, & solar thermal generation[1]. There are other potential big hits, but they require such a large infrastructure investment to reach sustainability that they really only fit as govt. projects, which in turn means that they'll never happen because of lobbying by vested interests & the inability of the govt. to run a show that big w/o screwing up the details. C'est la vie...

 

[1] And of course, these all have pretty severe geographic limitations.

 

Quite a bit of research and testing was done on the flywheel concept in decades past. If you have been looking into this for some time, you know that the amount of energy stored is a function of the mass and the maximum rotary inertia, which is limited by the strength of the materials withstanding the centrifugal forces at high RPM. It was tried in England on a bus with some success, because of the frequent stops. It does nothing to decrease fuel consumption when cruising at constant speed, and in fact adds weight, so it has quite limited usefulness.

 

My analysis also concludes that geothermal and solar thermal are cost effective. Wind energy is not, and still requires heavy government subsidies. Sunshine and wind are not available 24/7, so either the power grid or massive energy storage reservoirs of one form or another are required. Heat pumps using the earth or large volumes of water can be very efficient and cost effective on a small scale, for example single and multi family homes, individual office buildings, apartments and the like.

 

The really big problem is the exponential growth of greenhouse gas emissions by India and China. Combined, they emit far more than the U.S. In a few short years, each of them will surpass the U.S. In my opinion, joined by my informed science and engineering friends in the technology area, it is extremely unlikely that will slow down, AND no combination of the above alternatives to burning fossil fuels has the potential capacity to put a dent into that growth. France is at over 70% nuclear powered, and unless China, India, Russia, Europe, and the U.S. start catching up to France, the global warming issue is likely to reach catastrophic proportions. The Kyoto protocol is ineffectual as long as China and India are exempt. The U.S. should withhold its signature to that document until that exemption is eliminated. Any criticism of the U.S. position is either uninformed or misdirected. China and India are the appropriate targets to eliminate this impasse and take effective action.

[Skeeve]

Quite a bit of research and testing was done on the flywheel concept in decades past. If you have been looking into this for some time, you know that the amount of energy stored is a function of the mass and the maximum rotary inertia, which is limited by the strength of the materials withstanding the centrifugal forces at high RPM. It was tried in England on a bus with some success, because of the frequent stops. It does nothing to decrease fuel consumption when cruising at constant speed, and in fact adds weight, so it has quite limited usefulness.

 

My analysis also concludes that geothermal and solar thermal are cost effective. Wind energy is not, and still requires heavy government subsidies. Sunshine and wind are not available 24/7, so either the power grid or massive energy storage reservoirs of one form or another are required. Heat pumps using the earth or large volumes of water can be very efficient and cost effective on a small scale, for example single and multi family homes, individual office buildings, apartments and the like.

 

The really big problem is the exponential growth of greenhouse gas emissions by India and China. Combined, they emit far more than the U.S. In a few short years, each of them will surpass the U.S. In my opinion, joined by my informed science and engineering friends in the technology area, it is extremely unlikely that will slow down, AND no combination of the above alternatives to burning fossil fuels has the potential capacity to put a dent into that growth. France is at over 70% nuclear powered, and unless China, India, Russia, Europe, and the U.S. start catching up to France, the global warming issue is likely to reach catastrophic proportions. The Kyoto protocol is ineffectual as long as China and India are exempt. The U.S. should withhold its signature to that document until that exemption is eliminated. Any criticism of the U.S. position is either uninformed or misdirected. China and India are the appropriate targets to eliminate this impasse and take effective action.

 

We're on the same page my friend. The key w/ the flywheels is that they're only part of the solution; as you state, in an of themselves, they can't store enough energy. And like you say, the 800# gorillas in the greenhouse gas issue are China & India. Think about all the methane emitted by the sacred cows alone! Wind power is very economical, but does require plugging into the grid to make it effective. Unfortunately, massive wind farms [which the utilities like] kind of work against themselves: when they're big enough to suit the desires of the energy utilities, they start to affect the local microclimate. Not ideal.

 

The reason France has gone so heavily nuclear is that they're using a reactor design dreamed up here in the States that the utilities have turned their back(s) on because it's unsuited to massive central generation & distribution. The reactor design is inherently safe, but not effectively scalable beyond 2MW iirc. France is a country of open countryside w/ lots of small villages, which is ideally suited to this small, mass-produced reactor design, 1 per village. Plus, as a socialist country, it takes a long-term infrastructure POV to such an energy policy, that just doesn't happen here in the U.S. w/ it's competing regulated-monopoly utilities.

 

But we've wandered FAR off-topic, so until further notice, I'm suggesting that the best solution for modifying the V11 ECU still isn't available, but if I could afford it, I'd be going for a My15M, just because of the flexibility it offers.

 

I'd really prefer a system doesn't require any of the lame-o hardware or software keys. Quite frankly, the vendors are on the far side of the Laffer curve: if they'd lower the price of additional keys to say 10-20% of the original system cost, they'd sell a few less complete systems, but mountains more of the additional keys, as right now many owners balk at the price of entry to dialing in their EFI.

 

I'm really looking forward to Todd Eagan's news on the updated PCIV? or whatever: if Dynojet finally supplies the ignition module they've said was forthcoming for so long, then that might finally be worth the $300+ cost to join in.

 

Personally, I'm kinda surprised that no hacker on the car side has instructions for how to do a data dump of the WM15 and reflash using the diagnostic port. Wasn't that same EFI system used in some Fiats & others? It sure would be more satisfying to just buy a $15 cable, hook it up to the laptop, and go to town w/ hex offsets & bit twiddling. Oh well, I guess as the systems get more & more complicated, there's just less & less the individual can do to improve the running of their engine. Thus passes the great American tinkering way...

[Ryland3210]

Junk science, uninformed paranoia, and bureaucratic paralysis of analysis are the big, and formidable, obstacles to nuclear power in the U.S. The approval process in New Jersey takes 7 years. It should take 7 months, if not less. It's not as if we've never done this before. Right after a $6 billion reactor was run through test and was ready to go on line, Governor Cuomo of New York forced Long Island Lighting to sell it to the State of New York for $1, and then completely dismantled it. Later, New Yorkers complained bitterly at the increasing cost of electricity. The least he could have done is donate it to a needy developing country. Egos can be powerful, and among those holding high office, at times they are unbounded. Today the cost is ten times that.

 

Back on track: Here's my take on it:

 

"High performance" EPROMS were available not long ago for $75, and could replace the "command" computer EPROM in my '98 Camaro. I think a product that did not require additional hardware, such as a MY15M, or a pure software based system using a laptop that sold in the $300 range would sell in high volume. Personally I would find a solution that did not require a PCXXX more attractive.

[dlaing]

I am getting closer and closer to getting a BMW F-Series for their fine fuel efficiency.

I still don't buy what Skeeve says about electric engines.

From what I have read, they should be cheaper than hybrids to produce, and much cheaper than hybrids or gasoline engines to maintain over, oh say a 300,000 mile lifetime.

Depending on the cost of electricity in your neighborhood, they are an excellent option for short trips. If the freeways had third rails, then they could be even cheaper.

Because nobody seems to make one that does what I want, I may just get an electric bicycle, and get a little excercise

 

Tuneboy and some elbow grease is the cheapest solution, and thus my preference.

Still I have been too lazy and cautious to experiment.

My primary goal is fuel efficiency, with smooth running and decent power being critical.

Does anyone have a clue as to do determine which way to go with timing at cruising throttles?

Supposing your fuel ratio is reading 13:1(using a WBO2 sensor) while cruising at highway speeds.

To save fuel, would one want to go leaner with fuel, or more advanced with timing?

I suppose it would depend....

What are some of the clues?

I would think too much advance might produce pinging, while too lean might produce surging.

Of course too lean can also cause pinging and popping.

[Skeeve]

Back on track: Here's my take on it:

 

"High performance" EPROMS were available not long ago for $75, and could replace the "command" computer EPROM in my '98 Camaro. I think a product that did not require additional hardware, such as a MY15M, or a pure software based system using a laptop that sold in the $300 range would sell in high volume. Personally I would find a solution that did not require a PCXXX more attractive.

 

My sentiments exactly!

[Skeeve]

I am getting closer and closer to getting a BMW F-Series for their fine fuel efficiency.

I still don't buy what Skeeve says about electric engines.

From what I have read, they should be cheaper than hybrids to produce, and much cheaper than hybrids or gasoline engines to maintain over, oh say a 300,000 mile lifetime.

 

Electric motors are much cheaper to make & more reliable than any kind of mechanically-powered engine: it's the batteries that are screwin' you up!

 

Depending on the cost of electricity in your neighborhood, they are an excellent option for short trips. If the freeways had third rails, then they could be even cheaper.

 

Electricity has to get produced somehow: PE (pure electric) cars aren't as green as the Greenies make them out to be. [Not that they're intentionally misleading anyone, they're just not good at thinking things through...]

 

Tuneboy and some elbow grease is the cheapest solution, and thus my preference.

Still I have been too lazy and cautious to experiment.

My primary goal is fuel efficiency, with smooth running and decent power being critical.

Does anyone have a clue as to do determine which way to go with timing at cruising throttles?

Supposing your fuel ratio is reading 13:1(using a WBO2 sensor) while cruising at highway speeds.

To save fuel, would one want to go leaner with fuel, or more advanced with timing?

I suppose it would depend....

What are some of the clues?

I would think too much advance might produce pinging, while too lean might produce surging.

Of course too lean can also cause pinging and popping.

 

I've got a site bookmarked somewhere about how to make your own dyno. That's the real bugbear in this experimentation: most of the changes require instrumentation to be able to track their results, and dyno time is ridiculously ex$pen$ive for what is for the most part, an old barrel, a laptop, & some cheap transducers. It would make more sense for a club to buy their own dyno & rent time on it to a shop than the current method of everyone having to pay a shop for a mechanic's time whether they want it or not.

 

Timing at part throttle is going to be a function of rpm, volumetric efficiency & charge turbulence. Did you ever read The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine by Sir Harry Ricardo like I suggested? I'm working on a couple of OOPs by P.E. Irving right now, too; on p. 49 of _Automobile Engine Tuning_ he states: "the ignition timing is very critical at high compression ratios, but varies considerably from engine to engine, even if of the same make, after considerable modifications have been made. As a general rule, around 20-24deg will be correct for ratios of 12:1 or higher; the best schem is to start off with too little advance and increase it a degree at a time if the engine feels "flat". Too much advance will inevitably mean a damaged piston; relevant detail of various systems are given in Ch. 13." Seems he never got around to editing, 'cause Ch13 is about balancing... In Ch.10 on tuning, in the "1st stage" section he writes only that "two or three degrees less advance will be required, depending upon the increase in c.r. and effectiveness of porting." Here we go! Chapter 9 has this on p.101:

"Most car timings are quoted in so many degrees before t.d.c. w/ the ignition fully retarded, which has the merit of simplicity but is almost meaningless form the competition P.O.V. What matters for maximum power is the timing at full advance, and though this may be deduce by adding to the quoted angle the amount of advance built into the distributor, it is at best a chancy system and likely to introduce errors because the advance range may not be precisely what you think. [emphasis added]

How Much Advance?

The answer to this question is that it all depends upon the type of engine, the c.r. and the fuel, and in the last resort the correct figure can only be determined by testing under full load. The maker's standard recommendation will be a good jumping-off place for any engine which has had little modification beyond cleaning up the ports, but greater mods may demand quite large differences.... Broadly speaking, anything which increases the compression pressure (such as increasing c.r., improving porting or using a hotter cam), or gives a cleaner mixture (such as improving the exhaust system) will decrease the advance, though a change from low- to high-octane petrol may offset this a trifle. Alcohol fuels, however, have a slower flame-rate than petrol and therefore need more advance."

 

He goes on to warn about air-cooled engines running beyond their max advance being prone to meltdown, etc., but the upshot is that "final test under power is the only reliable guide."

 

[Please note, these quotes aren't verbatim, I saved myself typing by extensive editing & abbreviations...]

 

Ride on!

[dlaing]

Thanks Skeeve!

Reading that book would be a good idea.

I really only understand the basics.

Understanding in greater depth may help me clue in on whether to change ignition or fuel.

Still better equipment would help, too.

[Skeeve]

Thanks Skeeve!

Reading that book would be a good idea.

I really only understand the basics.

Understanding in greater depth may help me clue in on whether to change ignition or fuel.

Still better equipment would help, too.

 

In further reading of one or the other of the 2 P.E. Irving out of prints I've currently got on loan, he states to adjust timing by turning the distributor -[EDIT] this should be "adjust the mechanical advance" to max advance, and then adjusting [insert "the distributor" here] for max power at 4000 rpm.

 

Things to keep in mind:

 

In any of his books, whether they state "Automobile" in the title or not, most of the contents are dealing w/ motorcycle engines, specifically 1- & 2-cylinder units of British manufacture. Accordingly, you're dealing w/ redlines in the 6k-8k rpm range, and torque peaks right around... (you guessed it) 4k rpm! All timing was done by breaker points w/ mechanical advancers. Just to put things in perspective. Great information, & it all seems dated until you think about it & realize that none of it is dated, it's just referencing dated long-stroke designs made of less advanced materials than today's all aluminum, water-cooled, high tech, short stroke products. But for tuning a Guzzi, this stuff is ideal, 'cause the design is still an ohv 2v, air cooled hemi head... w/ much more advanced fueling & ignition slapped on!

[jihem]

France is a country of open countryside w/ lots of small villages, which is ideally suited to this small, mass-produced reactor design, 1 per village. Plus, as a socialist country, it takes a long-term infrastructure POV to such an energy policy, that just doesn't happen here in the U.S. w/ it's competing regulated-monopoly utilities.

 

[dlaing]

Electricity has to get produced somehow: PE (pure electric) cars aren't as green as the Greenies make them out to be. [Not that they're intentionally misleading anyone, they're just not good at thinking things through...]

A quick google and we find a pdf

http://www.radix.net/~futurev/pwrplnt.pdf

that shows lower emissions for battery powered cars.

Even with the batteries being charged by coal powerplants, the CO2 emissions are lower with battery powered cars.

Of course if the electricity comes from other sources the emissions are even lower.

I did not yet find cost of production and ownership comparisons.

I am sure comparisons will vary. A Toyota Corolla has a low production and ownership cost.

To build a comparable electric car, the major cost difference would be coming from the batteries, but the money saved by buying electricity rather than gas in cheap hydro-electric areas, could easily recoup the cost of the batteries.

Some sacrifices would have to be made, like range on a single charge.

Electricity won't be good for touring cars until an infrastructure is built for it.

But for someone like me with an 8 mile (times two) commute, it is doable.

Unfortunately I don't like the options out there.

Piaggio's hybrids are fine in hybrid mode, but overly complicated, and in battery only mode I believe they are slow with a short range.

Vectrix makes a battery only freeway legal bike, but top speed is only 62MPH. But the range should be good enough to get me to and from work. But the price is $11,000!!!!

Can't they make it for $5500!?!

An electric bicycle is still looking like the only viable option for me to be green on my commutes.

[Tom M]

An electric bicycle is still looking like the only viable option for me to be green on my commutes.

 

Wouldn't a pedal bike make more sense for an 8 mile commute, assuming you can avoid highways? They're better for the environment and your health!

[Skeeve]

A quick google and we find a pdf

http://www.radix.net/~futurev/pwrplnt.pdf

that shows lower emissions for battery powered cars.

 

Just want to point out that the table of efficiency is where the big lie in this inherently biased document [produced by the Washing Electric Vehicle Assn.; this is like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's periodically self-serving "surveys" showing how dangerous motorcycles are, w/ the usual doctored & invalid statistics.] Sorry Dave, but this paper is pretty worthless. Esp. because it doesn't include the generally rather high lifetime energy costs of EVs vs. ICEs [talking cradle to grave here, not just energy consumed.]

 

EVs make a lot of sense for short haul, stop & go (w/ regenerative braking) uses, and should definitely be part of the mix. Public transport esp. [electric urban buses] should be EV as much as possible, and e-bikes make a lot more sense than e-cars where doable. I certainly hope you'll convert to an e-bike for that 8mi each way commute: it sounds like a pretty ideal option! Anything under 5 miles one-way & I'd say stick w/ a push-bike: the exercise is beneficial and the 5 miles will not take too long to pedal for most folks.

 

Ride on!