In all fairness to the module manufacturers, one would think the best place to test the modules would be at a local track on asphalt with timing lights, timing slips and using a wheelie bar. Using a wheelie bar would allow you to pin the throttle from dead stop, thus assessing true performance of the module. The timing slips would be documented proof of reaction time, 60ft time and top speeds.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]

 

Valid point - to a degree ;-) The goal is to have comparative data even if it’s not necessarily absolute. If you can get consistent data (comparative) from an accelerometer like the Tazzo, you can use it for comparison. While it may or may not produce the exact same numbers that come off of a dyno or drag strip (absolute).

I agree that it would be great to have the slips, but I don’t think using the accelerometer for comparing the modules is unfair. I would love to find a dyno in my area to run my 766 with both the stock and Dynatek CDI. For now I’ll have to use my Tazzo though.

Peace,
Sgt_Rock

 

SgtRock
The big problem in the test is putting the horsepower to the ground whether wheelie bar and asphalt or on a DYNO. Without a controlled environment it is difficult to asertain what module is performing best and what the rate of acceleration is due to spinning the tires, getting off the gas before it flips, or feathering the gas to keep it from flipping. I brought one of the HL Modules due to the manufactures advertized "IMPROVEMENTS" to see if it actually has more midrange than the DG module but have yet to install it or read post of other 2002 prairrie owners that have had both modules.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

I agree. My only point was that if you can produce consistant results, both modules have the same disadvantage of reduced traction or feathering to keeping the front end down. It's an equal comparision in that neither module has an advantage due to test conditions.

Ideally we'd have some track and dyno results to get a view of the maximum potential of each module, but the comparative results wouldn't be significantly different. Both modules would have the same advantage of track conditions and wheelie bars. There won't be a significant change in one module being significantly better than the other because of a change in the test conditions.

Peace,
Sgt_Rock

 

Sgt Rock

There won't be a significant change in one module being significantly better than the other because of a change in the test conditions

While I respect your opinion, Introducing traction is a significant varible to the testing environment. Going full throttle from a standing start would show each module's potential. If the results were a dead heats after you eliminated the reaction times, one would then assume the modules were the same. Until then I guess We'll wait on the CDI and then have more debates on Whos' faster......I can see NHRA ATV Class on the horizon.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

With my winch, bumper, and non-stock tires on the front, I can keep the front end no more than 6 inches off the ground if I lay over the handlebars. Sometimes wheelspin becomes a problem, though.

 

a bundle or two of shingles, or a 50 lb bag of dog food, etc. on the front rack may help... while the quad would be heavier, it would eliminate alot of the skyward motion, when taking off on pavement...

I thought about going to the local ( still 100 miles away ) drag strip, this summer, when they are racing bikes, to do a few burn outs, & test my 1/8 & or 1/4 mile times & speeds...

it is very easy for me to lower ( compress ) the suspension, for the strip ( doing this will control the skyward thing ), as I made a few mods for ice racing this winter...

 

Sometime this winter I'm makeing my swing arm longer. stay tuned.

I think it could easily be done.

 

Im not familar with this "Tazzo" measureing instrument. Where can I find it at? Sorry for getting off subject.

 

http://www.tazzo.com