I finally had the chance to record the data. Here are the test conditions

1. All of the runs were done on pavement, using a completely stock Prairie 700 (32 hours total time).
2. The pavement was slightly declined over the total test run distance.
3. The exact same starting point was used in each run.
4. All runs were done in the span of 3 hours at a temp of about 50 F.
5. The data was measured using a Tazzo 2-axis accelerometer.
6. All posted data was averaged from three total test runs per category.

Here it is:

STK=Stock Prairie 700, HL=Stock Prairie 700 with Highlifter Power Pak, DG=Stock Prairie 700 with DG Holeshot

Acceleration tests from 10 to 30 MPH----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elasped Times: STK=2.73s, HL=2.09s, DG=2.07s

Calculated distances: STK=80.1ft, HL=61.3ft, DG=60.7ft

Average acceleration: STK=7.3MPH/s, HL=9.6MPH/s, DG=9.7MPH/s

Time advantage over stock: HL=0.64s, DG=0.66s

Distance advantage over stock at 30 MPH: HL=7.2ft, DG=7.3ft

Acceleration tests from 30 to 50 MPH----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elasped Times: STK=4.74s, HL=4.45s, DG=4.42s

Calculated distances: STK=278.1ft, HL=261.1ft, DG=259.3ft

Average acceleration: STK=4.2MPH/s, HL=4.5MPH/s, DG=4.5MPH/s

Time advantage over stock: HL=0.29s, DG=0.32s

Distance advantage over stock at 30 MPH: HL=4.0ft, DG=4.4ft

Calculated totals for 10 to 50 MPH--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elasped Times: STK=7.47s, HL=6.54s, DG=6.49s

Calculated distances: STK=358.2ft, HL=322.4ft, DG=320.0ft

Average acceleration: STK=5.4MPH/s, HL=6.1MPH/s, DG=6.2MPH/s

Time advantage over stock: HL=0.93s, DG=0.98s

Distance advantage over stock at 30 MPH: HL=11.2ft, DG=11.7ft

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:

1. The four modules tested had a frequency range from 200Hz to over 10kHz. All of the measured runs were within 3% of each other from the lowest to the highest frequencies, and none of them had any effect on the top speed. Then two of them were tested over the two timed intevals. The other data is omitted here because it is repetitive.

2. 0 to xxMPH runs were attempted but different launch techniques caused deviations in the times, and after setting the Prairie on it's back rack twice, 10 MPH was chosen as the start point of timing. In every run, full throttle was applied before 10 MPH.

3. None of the modules tested measured any difference from stock, when started from a sustained roll of 10 MPH.

4. The added power for all of the modules falls back to stock in the 35-40 MPH range, with 2/3's of it's advantage under 30 MPH.

5. After adding in the advantage from 0 to 10 MPH, the modules seem to be good for about a 15ft lead over a stock Prairie 700 if raced from 0 to 50 MPH.

6. A 10 to 50 MPH run was tested with the engine braked disabled. It was rumored to have better acceleration in this mode. The 10 to 50 MPH time increased to 7.56s. The cause of this is unknown at this time.

If I get the chance, I will repeat these tests using a (module + timming key) and the aftermarket cdi without the key.

If anyone has comments, please post them.

 

PRAIRIE633... thanks for taking the time to do these tests, compile the data, & post the results... I'd be interested in the results of the tests you mentioned when you get time... thanks again...

 

Great post! Thanx for all of your effort to test these modules with the Tazzo. I've done several timed runs to test different mods and then posted them here, so I realize how much effort it can be to do this.

3 questions for you:

1) Is it correct to say that you hit WOT from a dead stop in all of these tests, but that you only began to record the times/distances at a higher speed (i.e., 10mph, 30mph, etc.)?

2) I've never used a Tazzo before, so I have to ask if you think its possible that the minor differences in the times between DG and HL modules might be attributable to human error (like when a stop watch is used to measure times)?

3) Did you do only 1 test run to see the difference in acceleration with the KEBC stock vs. KEBC disabled? If not, was the 10 to 50mph test run the only one that showed that acceleration slowed down when you disabled the KEBC? Also, how did you disable it(i.e., cut the wires or removed the actuator fork inside the CVT cover)???

Happy trails...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

I think I made a post on here a few weeks ago about how my brother would beat me by 5 or 6 quad lengths over about 300 feet. But mine was modified with the mods shown below and before I installed a module. But I have recently installed a module and had the carbs adjusted. They were way out of adjustment. After installing the module and before adjusting the carbs, I could wheelie in high gear from a dead stop, but it would only lift the tires a foot or so off of the ground. Now it will flip over on me if I don't let off. To race my brother after getting the carbs adjusted and the module installed, I had to practice taking off. I can stand up on it and lean over the handlebars with my head over the front rack and go WOT from a dead stop and not flip over. It still picks the front wheels up, but my weight (255 lbs) is enough to bring it back down. Now I get a big jump on him and get to about a 3 quad length lead and it stays about there or he slowly gains on me. We run the same size tires, but mine are 589's and his are Mudlites. Also, he is 170 and I am 255. I thought it was interesting to see how bad I beat him from 0-10 and wish there was a way for you to try it and be consistent with the launches. As of right now, I'm like Nyroc, mine is too dangerous for someone inexperienced to ride. Now I'm kicking myself for not having my carbs adjusted sooner. It made a world of difference, but I had to take it to someone who knew how to do it right. At this point, I'm going to wait a while before buying the new CDI, at least a few months after it comes out. I very rarely need top end speed and right now it has all the power it needs on the bottom end. If it's uncontrollable on asphalt now, I'm pretty satisfied for the time being.

I did find it interesting that the DG beat the HL and that's after HL claimed theirs did a little more than others!

 

Mikeyboyesq,

3 answers for you:

1) Yes. The test rider started from a dead stop and went to full throttle as fast as possible without pulling the front end off the ground. When he slammed the throttle, the abrupt clutch engagement sent the 700 on it's back rack. By going to full throttle more smoothly, he was able to be at full throttle by 10 MPH. All of the times and distances are from the 10 MPH and 30 MPH starting points, not from zero.

2) Yes. The module times were close enough that their was no marginal advantage of one over another. They seem to all operate in the same way. The Tazzo is very accurate and consistent as long as you set it up from a dead stop.

3) We did three 10 to 50 MPH runs with the braking disabled. We didn't try any split runs because any low end gain was lost in the mid range or vice versa. We disabled the brake by unplugging the controller (with power off only). The theory I've heard is that the added pressure effects the CVT ratio's? I don't know enough about CVT's to say either way.

RebelDS,

The times were so close, there is no clear winner. The main thing I wanted to test was if the HL device works from a roll, or helps in the mid RPM range, more than the others which it did not. It seems to be the same old trick with some new smoke to market it. The real test will be to compare these to the real cdi. I want to know how much the timing advance will help a stock machine, and then for various levels of modding.

 

I've only used the HL module, but never could really tell a difference other than bottom end. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to and something was wrong the way some people were claiming it would.

 

Prairie633,
Thanx for the answers to my 3 questions above...here are a few replies and 1 additional question for you:

1) From what I understand about the DG holeshot, I think your tests were probably accurate so long as you WOT before you hit 4 mph. The way I understand the DG holeshot module is that you have to hit WOT from 0 to 3 mph for it to have any effect on the cdi. If you hit WOT from 4 mph or greater, the DG holeshot should not affect acceleration...at least that is what I understand. Judging from your avg timed runs, it appears there was a benefit to the DG holeshot and HL module so that I'm guessing that you always hit WOT before you hit 4 mph (assuming my understanding above is correct).

2) Judging from your description of the take-off method used, it sounds to me like a tiny amount of human error could come into play in your tests since the tests were not performed by slamming the throttle into WOT from a dead stop...in other words, its conceivable that the rider might hit WOT by 1 mph on one test run and then hit WOT by 3 mph on another test run...which may affect the total times/distances recorded on those two runs. Of course, a little human error in testing is no big deal...and I realize that my own timed test runs are definitely subject to some human error b/c I use a stop watch to time my runs (which I hold in my left hand while I simultaneiously hit WOT with my right hand). My goal during my testing was to be consistent with the stop watch button so that the human error would not impact my end results too much.


ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION:
I like the fact that you used a Tazzo to record the times/distances...Did the Tazzo display max. horsepower/torque numbers too? If so, what were they???

Happy trails...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

I believe the module does affect it after 3 mph, but only accelerating. If I'm not mistaken, the timing doesn't advance instantly, but in 3 seconds. Therefore, once you pass 3 mph at WOT without a module, the timing starts advancing at 3 mph and won't be fully advanced to 28 degrees until 3 seconds later when you should be already going more than 30 mph. But with a module, your timing is already advanced at 3 mph and you aren't waiting for it to advance as you accelerating. Now if you are rolling along at 4 mph for about 5 seconds or so and went WOT, it should have no affect because both will be advanced the same since the stock timing wouldn't be retarded.

 

Prairie633,
Your comment #5 above seems consistent with my DG holeshot testing last summer using my P650. Without the DG holeshot, I recorded avg 300' times of 6.70 sec at 50 mph. With the DG holeshot, I recorded avg 300' times of 6.52 sec at 50 mph. The DG holeshot advantage in this test was 0.18 seconds or approx. 2 quad lengths ahead using the DG holeshot module.

Happy trails...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Wow, I had previously almost been suckered into believing that the HL module made your Prairie go faster than the DG module. I still wasnt sure. I hated to be rude to HL and not call them when they asked. I just was too skeptical to call. I wanted more data.

I read every post here, but I have to ask these questions for it to sink in completely.

Prairie633, please answer this.

1. If I buy an HL module, I will not get any more acceleration than with my DG module? That is what I get from the data from your first post.

2. All the claims about frequency hokus pokus and overclocking are false? All modules basically just prevent the reverse map so they are pretty much equal?

3. Why do so many people say the HL module is better in the HL forum? Are they just jumping on the bandwagon? I really don't understand.