tomek

How tall are you and how fast typically do you ride ,because ,it depends. I`m 6`01,my cruising speed is 70-90 mph,used to have Givi but eventually I went with Zero Gravity,double bubble. Generous wind protection with Givi but I positively hated all that buffeting. Much nicer,smoother airflow with Zero,but less protection, it is pretty much useless in 100mph +.YMMV.

Then you have nuttingtoworryaboutit,just fuggedaboutit.

It is well known fact chromed wheels accelerate brake pad wear. Seriously,pads are killed,and yes,they don`t wear evenly. It has been a while but Chaparral Motorsports used to have really good prices on EBCs. Make sure those pistons are clean before pushing them back into calipers.Brake parts cleaner and soft brush work very well.

from the Brent motor thread and the open and close numbers were the same as book 40 deg. carb cam spec 3b-r1 exhaust max 1.5135" base 1.1886" lift open @.0040" 40 deg BBDC close @ .040" 13 ATDC duration 233 centerline 103.5 carb cam 3cr2 intake max 1.5227" base 1.1877" lift 18 BTDC 47 ABDC duration 245 centerline 104.5 FI cams ckr2 exhaust max 1.5130" base 1.1865" lift open @ .040" 40 BBDC close @ .0400 10 ATDC duration 230 centerline 105 ckr2 intake max 1.5145" base 1.1865" lift open @ .0400" 17 BTDC close @ .0400" 40ABDC duration 237 centerline 101.5 deans webb cams ner2 casting exhaust max 1.5327" base 1.1754" lift open @ .040" 46 BBDC close @ .0400" 17ATDC duration 232 centerline @ 110 deg intake lcr1 casting max 1.5223" base 1.1750" lift open @ .0400" 21 BTDC close @ .0400" 58 ABDC duration 259 centerline 108.5 ATDC As you can see I have left some places empty, some are just needing some calculations and will fill in later. I need to go and eat and entertain Vic so will finish up latter. Plus I want to see the post and formating. I`ve hepled you with some of those empty spaces.Rather short lift,especially for intakes. ( what are they anyway,32 mm ?)

Everything has been explained in this thread,nothing to add,if interested just read from the beginng ,,,,,,,

True.... sort of. The confusion here is in the communication. I was working on the goal of understanding all of the possible condition changes that would affect MPG increase at altitude. I am open to any and every possibility, and believe it's all of the contents that make up for the difference. The Soup, if you will, has changed and therefore the ingredients must have changed as well. ... Here's another ingredient for you "Fuel", Is low altitude Fuel the same as High altitude Fuel..... No ! ... Tomek.... relax Dude. I'm working with you.... Not against you. Well,it depends,I`ve been known for trailering bikes from Chicago to Cheyenne on more then one occasion,so typically those trips start on Illinoiz fuel. I have rather short fuse in some areas of my character. Here is the last thing missing in this puzzle,engine specific fuel consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption Let`s use my example from above,if you decrease load by 14% for given rpm you`ll move from one BSFC zone to the other one,engine might be more efficient or less efficient,it depends,although realistically in case of XX motor it will be somewhat less efficient, at least in normal speeds range.

After reading your post,honestly WTF ? I though we were discussing here fuel consumption at elevation vs sea level.It has everything to to with aero drag in absolute terms. Whether there is more or less hp relative to relative aero drag has nothing to do with fuel consumption,it matters as far as Vmax ,less aero drag,less hp,but rolling resistance is the same so in the end Vmax at elevation is less. Example,if at see level total drag splits 30% rolling resistance and 70 % aero for given speed ,at 6000 ft aero drag will decrease by 20 %,rolling will be the same, total will decrease to 86% of what it was at the see level.But you`ll have only about 80% of hp,that is why Vmax will be lower and acceleration much weaker. Anyway,that is totally different subject. I don`t need to explore this nonsense any further,I had at least couple of semesters of vehicle dynamics and fluid dynamics back in school many moons ago,,,,,,,,,,

I`ve fixed that for you,since when denser air equals less aero drag ? :icon_duh: C`mon dud, is it easier to run in the water ? Fd =1/2puuCdA where Fd is the force of drag ρ is the mass density of the fluid, u is the velocity of the object relative to the fluid, A is the reference,surface area Cd is drag coefficient

When my factory installed H7s burned out I did go thru number of replacements,they only lasted couple of k miles an average,for some fricking reason I could not find any "plain" H7s ,only blue,red,whatever.( I do consider colored headlight bulbs gay btw).That was number of years ago when H7s where not widely available.

Well,I`m not questioning that your mapping is vastly better then O.E.M. in regard to fuel economy. Humidity only matters in high temperatures,at 80 F deg saturation % of water is 3.3%,90-4.7%,100%-6.5%,etc So, if it is 80 F deg and 100% humidity the engine will run only 3.3% richer vs dry air, it very rarely gets that warm at 10000-11000 ft, in any case it is still 3.3% in worst case scenario. Can`t explain 10-20 mpg % gain. The formula for corrected air pressure CAM=UMP-(SPxRH/100)xinches of Hg, CAP-corrected air pressure UMP-uncorrected baro pressure SP-saturation pressure for given temperature RH-relative humidity in % . You know,never bikes and pretty much all the cars run in closed loop during cruise mode,they are immune to a/f variations vs elevation,somehow still get better mpg at elevation,,,

Good to know, but adds a monkey to the math problem...... danggit! At 3000 feet I have recorded 13:1 afr's @ a given Speed, RPM, & TP. At 6000 feet elevation, under about the same conditions my Datta Logger will record 13.5:1 afr's. Can you get exactly the same TP for given speed at 3000 and 6000 Ft ? Just curious,honestly I`m,I`d say you gotta give more throttle,sure aero drag is decreased as much as power but rolling resistance stays the same,so,,,,,,,,,,more throttle ? All the mileage discussion aside,I`ve never bother to hook up my wideband to XX but my butt confirms your observation,XX does lean out with elevation to some degree.Every time I get to the high mountains I have to give more fuel via buttons on Power Commander or bike is almost unridable .My Chicago`s,600ft, map suddenly becomes too lean for those conditions.Contrary,my FI R1 goes the other way,becomes really rich on 10000-11000 ft passes.Go figure,well, in real engines simple arithmetic calculations regarding air density via BARO,or MAP don`t work very well,engines should really be mapped at elevation.Theoretically,at 10000 ft you would give 30% less fuel and call it a day,but that does not really work that way. Of course ,change from 13.0 to 13.5 A/F fails to explain 15-20% MPG jump.Just like I said it is due to less aero drag.

No they don`t,at least not now.Back in the day when 190/55 or 190/60 were not available 180/55 was preferred over 190/50 for the race track since it has profile that puts more meat to the ground when it counts,at serious lean angle. These days you can get all kinds of sticky tires in 190/55 or even 190/60 ( slicks),it is non issue now.

Correct. Now your getting closer to the answer. Correct..... but the bike does NOT have Closed Loop Oxygen sensor, nor an intake air Temperature sensor. So our bikes adjust for Oxygen content based on a Map that's programmed into the ECU. Basically there's a map that says when the pressure is X the oxygen level is Y, then the FI system delivers the proper amount of fuel based on your TP, and RPM signals. First part... partially correct, I say partially because the Aero drag dose not account for all of the improved Mileage. If that was the Case then the Older Carburetor motorcycles would have gotten better gas mileage at altitude as well... and that didn't happen, in fact they often used a lot more fuel. But then we're talking about venturies and flow velocities, and ... well lets just not go there. Well,typical CV motorcycle carb cannot maintain proper A/F ratio,mixture gets rich at elevation,so decreased aero drag is offset by improper for given elevation carb setting.Properly working FI system does not have this problem. .... The answer to all of the above is the relativity of Specific Fuel content, to Oxygen, to Humidity, to Barometric pressure, to Temperature, to Flow Velocity, to rolling resistance, to aerodynamic drag. Just as a reference, there's 4% more oxygen at 50 degrees than there is at 70 degrees. What that has to do with the above discussion ?,specific weight of gas for given pressure depends on the temperature,it is straight relation to absolute zero or -273 C,50F is about 10C,70Fis about21 C so 294/283=1.039,so yea,it is 4% The bottom line is,if car/bike/truck/airplane can maintain proper A/F ratio MPG improves with elevation gain.

Yep that's it, just move to Colorado and you'll magically get better gas mileage. :icon_duh: ... Yes,you do .The air is simply thinner,less aero drag.Motorcycles have,relatively speaking,barn door`s aerodynamics,that is way MPG improvement is really noticeable,about 15-20% in my case. Even in the car I would typically get 10% MPG improvement in mile high states like Colo,or Wyoming. If look at performance date for the airplanes with turbocharged piston engines that can maintain absolute manifold pressure( and consequently hp) to really high elevation like WW2`s P47 or P38 you would notice that their top speed at,let`s 25000 feet, is about 80-100 mph higher then at sea level.360-370 vs.440-460mph. Same with fuel consumption,planes burn more fuel at lower elevations. That is why comparing MPGs without mentioning elevation is not really accurate,or cheating.

MPG in real city riding sucks when it is cold.In my commute I have a problem getting 30 mpg when temps drop into 30-40 deg range. On the other hand bike gets mid to upper 40s when cheating .( higher elevation,like,cough,Colorado in the summer). Actually, I was thinking about it,Ram Air does not help in this area,fuel mixed with cold air has a problem vaporizing.The other thing is oil cooler,XX has actual cooler unlike most of the bikes that are equipped with coolant/oil heat exchanger .Oil system on XX does not have thermostat,it is safe to assume lubricant does not reach optimum temperature when is cold.That increases parasitic losses.

Anything but N`Ever Start from Walmart. BTW,those Schumacher 1.5 amp chargers from Wally World are incredible POS as well,mine took a dump after year or two.On the other hand, more then 10 years old one from Sears still keeps going.

P/V clearance This info is exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you very much. Wiseco says compression is 11:1 for the kit I have. Removing .032" of total deck height will increase the compression by that much? I was hoping to be able to run 91 octane. I'm pretty sure I will have to deepen the valve pockets anyway so maybe I should take about .010" off the piston tops. What do you think? You really have to close the squish to 0.7mm,0.86 mm won`t give you shit other then compression bump.When you adjust squish to the point that the piston is almost hitting the cylinder head at the peak rpm all the mixture from the squish band gets pushed inside of the combustion chamber improving efficiency and all fuel gets burned.Don`t be surprised if you actually gonna have to pull out some fuel ( lean out the mixture) afterward. 11.0 CR on those Wisecos ? What is the stroke,59 mm IIRC ? In this case removing 1.0 mm would give about 13 CR,I guess there is no need to touch piston tops. You can lay back valve pockets and smooth out all the edges on compression bumps.

You can drop to 0.7 mm on squish (BTW I`m running 0.6mm on 14000rpm R1),that means removing 1.0 mm one way or another.It is gonna increase your C/R to something ridiculous like 14.2:1 ( claimed CR is 12.0 right ?).I`d say it is too high on pump gas,if you decide to go this way some material will have to be removed from piston tops to lower CR. I had similar situation with Wiseco`s kit for YZF1000,it opened squish to something like 1.5mm,I had to machine off compression bumps to bring CR down to about 13.5. 2mm on exhaust and 1.5 mm on intake is safe minimum on stock parts.

There no need to check it every time the wheel is removed,chain adjusted,etc.You just need to figure out the error on the adjustment marks and go from there. Example, if you measure that left side needs to be 3mm further back,it is gonna be always 3mm further back regardless of position of the axle in the swingarm.

That's just stupid engineering. What good is an oil level on a wheelie prone sportbike? It's not oil level that lubricates the bearing, it's PRESSURE! O.K.I disagree.Low oil level may lead to low pressure,when wuz the last time you have experienced oil pump failure ? Oil pressure light is pretty much useless,it just basically tells you gotta drop the engine,split the cases and replace mains and/or the crank. Yamahas IMHO are better engineered then Hondas. :icon_silenced:

What a retard.Squish does not look so bad on intake side and on the sides but there is a loooooots of carbon on exhaust part of the piston.You may have to machine piston crowns in order to get nice 360 deg squish. I`m wonder what valve seats look like on those 2 cylinders.

It is oil level light,rather unreliable and inaccurate.There is no pressure light on R1. Here is the only R1 forum you`ll ever need to know ,if you dig into it there is a wealth of technical info there,,,,,,,,, http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

04 R1.

I`d say it is gonna be electronic nightmare since 07 and up R1s have fly by wire throttle.04-06 R1s engines are identical except for cylinder head (4 valve vs 5 valve),throttle bodies and electronics. Turbo kits for earlier model are available http://www.tobefast.com/turbo-kit-stage-1-...pp-pr-2381.html