I will do one run with no module & one with each module on the paved road this week... traffic & law inforcement willing, just to see a no ( or less anyway ), wheel spin time comparison...I'll post these when complete... I need to borrow back Dan's take off Dunflats to test the DGR module 1/2 mile runs anyway ...WAM

 

The thing that get's me is as you admited the Nabor mod gave a better time in the 1/2 mile run I think is where it performed best, but the shorter runs it actually was "slower" than the dg, My question...Was the nabor mod actually "more" powerful than the dg in that was it spinning the tires worse? making for a slower time, or is there really no difference in the performance of the Nabor and DG????? and also guys since we have confirmed these modules don't do squat unless we hammer down from a dead stop, where does the "unlimiter' come into play at? when and if it comes out, that "explosion" of power we get from a dead stop with the modules...I want that when i gas it at 15 mph or 30 mph or when the heck ever I nail the gas I want the "kick"....is this unlimiter going to do that? or are we just getting our hopes up??????

 

Danny

if they get the timing to 32 dregrees, then the kick should be there, up to top speed.

I don't think they'll get much more top speed. The clutch are already shifted out in stock form.

After the clutch is shifted out, you would need a lot of RPM's to gain much extra speed. You could gain the same RPM's in other ways.

 

the only reason that the 700 spring, or the Naber module, could have made any difference in top speed, is that our quads reach the soft wall, then very slowly accerate to max speed... if the module, or spring ( 700, Pink, Blue, etc. ) helps the quad accerate more quickly to the wall... if for instance the stock spring took 3/4 of a know distance to hit the wall, the quad would only have 1/4 of that distance to slowly accerate towards top speed... if a spring, or module, allows the quad to reach that point at 1/2 of the known distance it allows the quad twice as far to slowly move towards top speed... I think this is what happened concerning both the Naber module & the 700 spring in our 1/2 mile timings??? WAM

 

I may have come off wrong earlier. What I'm trying to see is the benefits of a module and the actual comparisons against stock. It's hard for me to tell the difference based on those times because I don't know if there was just a lot more wheel spin with the module. Those aren't a lot of differences in those times, but if it just doesn't show the true difference because of increased wheel spin, then I'd like to see what it would be without wheel spin. Say, 4.2 seconds stock and 3.5 seconds with a module on pavement would demonstrate a very nice difference. I'm just trying to read as much as I can to determine if I should buy a module and which one. I do understand it makes a difference, but I'm just trying to determine if the difference is enough for what I would have to pay.

 

RebelDS
Personally I think you hit dead on the head. Lets try something else to get perspective. You can take say a 300 HP car and a 5,500 HP dragster race them on gravel see who would make it to the 1/4 mile gate. My money is on the 300 HP car, why, maybe because of traction. I think the Naber module had more bottom end torque not much more but slightly more, could this contribute to more wheel spin compared to DG's, why not.

My findings on the cdi are like Nyroc has said there is a timeing lag up to 1500 rpm, from that point it goes up gradually to 28* at 5000 rpm. I know that Scott has said 4000 rpm but my findings are 5000 rpm. This is with 3 cdi's that I have tested all are about the same but they do fluctuate. Timeing drops off gradually from 6500 as it approaches 7700 timeing drops off drasticly loses mostly 18* of timeing where it has a soft rpm wall. Dirty White Boy, when you changed spring I would think the spring is not fighting the weights so more rpm is produced. With all my gains in the clutch, trany, motor runing a stock cdi I can go no further than 7700 but my clutch will give me another 15mph. The modules are about the same and will produce approximately the same result on a stock machine. With my quad I found there to be a greater amount of difference obtained I did run on mostly clay base with little gravel and I mean little scattered here and there.

You can have all the horsepower in the world and if you can't put it to the ground it has as much effect as passing gas in a Hurricane.

BBertram,
How many times have you had your quad to the rev limiter on a trail? I'll bet next to none. The modulators will give a host of extra power right of the start just like if you were in mid range around the 5000 rpm mark this is the best power rpm range. The modulators give that timeing starved motor the advance it needs to give the punch down low and they will stay there till it hits 6500 rpm from then on up the cdi takes over and retards the timeing. At this point stock machines will die off where as a more modded machine will take advantage of any timeing left over from the module.

Enough about the cdi and the modules we can go crazy with what is not there. We need 32* or more for some real fun. As Nyroc has said I have been useing a Electromotive system it works very well but there is some modifying involved not many can do this but there is no comparison. I can run my quad to 9500rpm to valve float plus it runs cooler than it has done. I am not going to say how high I run my timeing but is a lot higher than 28*. In less than 350 feet I can hit valve float and do it all day if I want. With the Vforce I have in my toyshop I can also hit 9500rpm in less than 350 feet with the new ignition. I am very interested to see what the new topend module can do when it does come especially coupled with any frequency modulator. I'll go one further, even with a low end module hooked up to an upper end module it won't come close to a tuneable igintion, period.

 

Due to stagnation pressures that result from standing in high velocity winds, passing gas in a hurricane can be difficult depending on the direction you are facing.

I hate to ask those guys for a retrial on pavement. I would have a great deal of trouble doing a pavement test. Pavement is everywhere, but so are people that think ATV's are bad and would call the police (I think they are possessed by satan).

 

Nyroc,
Really it doesn't matter any module will only give what the cdi already has so it is pointless. Although a timed run with lights at a local track would have been the right thing to do in my opinion! That is far as I am going to go with this subject it is dead. Mind you I wish the modules had as much effect as you with a tunafish and cabage sandwich LOL.

 

We'll see what we can do.

I know Mike is planning on doing a top speed run or two (with and without the modules) by his place.

Maybe we can find a remote location where no one will be bothered or bother us.

Alltoys,

The ramp weights have to be able to overcome the spring pressure to reach full upshift correct? If the primary spring pressure is higher (like the P/V700 spring is) then what you said is the opposite. I originally thought a lower pressure primary spring would have allowed a faster and more complete upshift; and hence a higher top end. What the test showed was the opposite. The higher pressure spring created more top end.

I had to adjust my thinking to make sense of it. As the engine revs up, the weights fly out and the moveable sheave rolls on the ramp weight curves. With the higher spring tension the engine rpm has to go higher to get to full upshift. Why can the RPM's go up though? It has to be something with the ramp curve.

What surprises me is that the weights still have the ability to overcome the added tension. I am guessing that we can get away with a considerable amount less weight on the ramp weights and still acheive full upshift without excess belt slip. The stock V700 weights are 54G while the P650 are 58 or 60G. I have no idea why 58 or 60. Maybe that is the answer to why some are faster stock. Maybe the slow P650's have 60G weights and the "fast" stock P650's have 58G weights? Possibly Kawi retuned the clutch mid production to slow them down a bit. Or it was just a supply issue or FUBAR. Who knows.

I am out to understand this clutch system as much as possible. Maybe we will get lucky and find out that considerable detuning simply lies in the clutches and not just the CDI. I am hoping anyway.... I am sure you know better than any of us though.

Anyone please correct me where my thinking is wrong.

WAM, sorry, I can't help but keep replying in here. I know you created that other clutch thread.

 

DWB,

Your right, we could use lighter weights and still get full shift out, I have had as light as 46 grams weights to turn my big tires and still keep 6500 RPM's while pulling 10,000 lbs.

Remember that the weights and the helix are the two things that make our clutches shift. The helix we have can't be easliy changed, although I have. That leaves only the weights to do all the shifting, they probuce about 2,000 lb pressure on the belt, in stock form, they easily overcome the added pressure of a stiffer spring. They also have to squeeze the belt enough to turn it and pull it down into the rear clutch, therefore over coming the pressure produced by the rear spring also, plus turn the trans, tires and carry about 900lbs down the trails. All this hinges on the work of the weights.

Most people have lost RPM's by adding heavier tires or rims, by adding lighter weights, they can get their RPM's back up, 6500 stock is what your looking for, and they would get some of the lost speed back. They might now only have 1500 lb pressure on the belt to do all the work.

If we could get our RPM's up, with CDI or lightened clutch or more power, then we could use heavier weights. these heavier weights would now produce, lets say 3,000 lbs pressure on the belt. The work that we said they did above, would be much easier and you would up shift much quicker.

I know you and most others already understand all this, but I wanted to try to explain it so the ones that don't might see what I mean. Sorry for being so long winded.

As far as testing on tar or dirt. Real world for an ATV is dirt, look at the tests done with 4 wheel drive. All of those test have better times than 2 wheel drives, so yes there were wheel spin (traction) issues in 2 wheel drive. There shouldn't be much wheel spin difference in the 4 wheel drive test, those test are what we should look at.

Wambam