Holeshot Stage 2 Kit vs Ivan's Jet Kit

[-Dash-]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

Regarding "turning up the idle". Uhhh. Well I like to idle at 1000 RPM or maybe 1200, I don't want to have to set my idle to 2000 RPM just because of a butchered set of carbs due to a bad mod suggestion.

Im not surprised you missed the point. I should say, avoided the point.

Lets face it guys, he isnt for an instant going to entertain any thought that doesnt agree with his erroneous theory. He is locked in. He is the worst kind of engineer, the kind that wont accept alternate possibilities. All we can do when he tries to give an unsuspecting person this bad advice is jump in and make sure he doesnt screw anyone over.

[capitanoinsano]

My XS11 will do a little one. I had a 78 that would do it better, neither was great for it. I was thinking of selling the FJ1200 (89) sometime and getting an FJR1300. Do you think that is a bad move? My FJ is not as quick as the FZ1 when you get the RPM high, but better midrange, and purrs nicer than any FZ I have listened to. I left the air box in, but cut the sides out and went stage 1 Factory Pro. WOW! Unleashed 5-10 hp, and pulls like a train. The FZ1's carbs were not tuned to perfection from the factory, and Ivan's site describes some of the mistakes (including the engine flooder/choke). A 15 pilot???? WTF? Yeah, I feel sorry for the carb kit makers trying to get those tuned to perfection. But overall I love my 2003 and have no plans to sell.

[capitanoinsano]

Originally Posted by DashRiprock

Im not surprised you missed the point. I should say, avoided the point.

Lets face it guys, he isnt for an instant going to entertain any thought that doesnt agree with his erroneous theory. He is locked in. He is the worst kind of engineer, the kind that wont accept alternate possibilities. All we can do when he tries to give an unsuspecting person this bad advice is jump in and make sure he doesnt screw anyone over.

Uhhh.. My advice is the same advice that 2 of the 3 carb kit makers give. That is not to enlarge the holes. Actually I will hop on the fence and say enlarge the middle hole. In fact when I get the other 2 bikes done, I will do it, just not on the top of my priority list, neither is arguing. Ciao

[Blue Flash]

Originally Posted by DashRiprock

Im not surprised you missed the point. I should say, avoided the point.

Lets face it guys, he isnt for an instant going to entertain any thought that doesnt agree with his erroneous theory. He is locked in. He is the worst kind of engineer, the kind that wont accept alternate possibilities. All we can do when he tries to give an unsuspecting person this bad advice is jump in and make sure he doesnt screw anyone over.

I asked my dog what he thought, and he said that you just have to understand bernoulli and newtonian fluid flow... I think he's got a good point... He also asked me if we needed Sir Lancelot to get the holy hand-grenade of Antioch... I told him not yet...

I apologize to my FZ1OA brethren for feeding the troll...

Now does anybody out there besides Capitan have a preference on jet kits?

[capitanoinsano]

Excuse me Blue Flash, but your bike is fuel injected isn't it? How much carburetor tuning did you do on that one?

[gotfz1]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

Uhhh.. My advice is the same advice that 2 of the 3 carb kit makers give

You said earlier THE reason was potential damage. So which is it? Damage or performance?

If you're going to keep referring to Factory Pro you should know they recommend drilling/enlarging non-replaceable carb parts for some of their other kits.

[Blue Flash]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

Excuse me Blue Flash, but your bike is fuel injected isn't it? How much carburetor tuning did you do on that one?

None, and I've had it for 3 months. The 2004 Gen 1, however, I had for 8 years... had no problems doing my carbs on it. The Holeshot kit worked great.

Nice try, though.

Do a search for "jetting party" on the site, and you'll find a thread about how a bunch of us got together in Marietta, GA and did 6 (6... that's more than 4) Ivan kits and all of the guys that installed them were very pleased with the results. learned a lot from those guys, and then I did my holeshot kit later. However, 6 kits in one day with zero failures. Cool data points, eh?

[Fireballsocal]

I'm not an engineer, nor a physicist. I work in a warehouse yet my Ivanized FZ1 seems to run much better than the 4 you worked on. On my first try no less. Might I suggest a career change?

[Desmo]

"One, two, FIVE!"

[-Dash-]

Hey Cap'n, can you explain again how you measured air pressure downstream of a flowing venturi to be the same as atmospheric? That would be great.

[Blue Flash]

Originally Posted by Desmo

"One, two, FIVE!"

Scooby agrees!

[Ivan Krashn]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

Uhhh.. My advice is the same advice that 2 of the 3 carb kit makers give. That is not to enlarge the holes. Actually I will hop on the fence and say enlarge the middle hole. In fact when I get the other 2 bikes done, I will do it, just not on the top of my priority list, neither is arguing. Ciao

Well, it's a damn good thing arguing isn't a priority for you!

[hooligan998]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

When the rear transition port is on the fresh air side the pilot circuit has 2 parallel air paths from fresh air. One starts at the idle air jet, the other starts at the rear transition port (while its on the fresh air side of the butterfly). So if we think of air flow like water flow or electricity the flow resistances will dictate the ratio of flows between the two paths. One path carries emulsified fuel, the other does not. The rear trans port is the bad one, as it bypasses the pilot jet, carrying no emulsified fuel. The problem can be simplified at first by not considering the flow resistance in the pilot circuit. Then we could just consider the ratio of the areas of the two dominant orifices, the idle air jet, and the rear trans port. They are competing restrictions which will dominantly dictate relative flow. So one could measure the diameter of the rear trans port (enlarged vs non enlarged) and compare it to the diameter of the idle air jet. I haven't done that, but as I remember they do not differ in size by a factor of 10, probably more like 2. And remember there are other flow restrictions in the pilot circuit path (mixture screw area, resistance in passages etc). Without modelling this with CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software we can't say for sure, but we can get an estimate of the effect of enlarging the rear trans port.

You got how many engineering degrees? Yeah, you may need to get a refund. I have no engineering degree and I can shoot about a dozen holes in the above paragraph, but I know it will do no good and Dash will admonish me again for giving you answers.

[hooligan998]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

My XS11 will do a little one.

No way. I call BS. (That should be enough smilies I think.)

[Blue Flash]

The guy I mentioned with 6 MIT degrees we referred to as "educated beyond his intelligence"... nothing implied here of course.... just saying....

[hooligan998]

I'm telling you all, this guy is gonna go down in FZ1OA history as the greatest troll ever.

[-Dash-]

Originally Posted by hooligan998

... but I know it will do no good and Dash will admonish me again for giving you answers.

Naaahhh, not anymore. Its pretty clear that we could feed him the answers on a silver platter and he would just ignore them and write 6 more paragraphs on the mixture screws...

[Falcon 269]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

Why do FZ1's start without choke:

When the butterfly is "shut" (not really shut, it is slightly cracked), the ratio of flow from fresh air vs emulsified air/fuel mix from pilot circuit is lower due to the more heavily restricted fresh air path because the opening for air at the butterflies is smaller (less cracked/rotated open). As you start to take off (rotate the throttle) the pilot circuit begins to lose dominance. The transition ports are to assist the pilot circuit in flowing better during this transition. But there is a certain amount of angle required (rotation of butterfly) before the rear hole is on the vacuum side of the butterfly. Before that angle is reached the rear port leans out (some) the idle mixture. This transition is clearly a tricky thing to design.

The question was simple and yet you still managed to avoid the crux in your answer. Since you love writing, I'll try again.

According to your theory, standard non-modified pilot bypass holes provide acceptable idle mixture but 'Ivanised' carbs with modified pilot bypass holes do result in leaner idle mixture, a condition that only improves as the throttle plates are opened sufficient to negate the supposed air flow through the rear pilot bypass hole.

So, if that's right - concentrate now - how come 'Ivanised' bikes start better and idle immediately without choke? That's with throttle plates 'closed' ie, in the worst position for rear pilot bypass air induction according to your theory.

Could it be in fact that the mixture supplied by the modified pilot circuit is richer than it was in standard form?

Nah, that's impossible, isn't it?

[Falcon 269]

Originally Posted by capitanoinsano

If you are happy with how yours runs at 5 or more turns out, I wouldn't mess with it. But I would definitely NOT recommend anyone in the future to enlarge the rear holes. Again, why lean out your idle mixture unnecessarily, when the other 2 kit manufacturers say not to mess with them at all????

I'm happy with mine. Have been since I fitted it in 2002, some 40k miles ago.

Five hundred plus other owners are happy with theirs, too ... and that's just the ones I've personally installed.

See my previous post. The fact is that the idle mixture is demonstrably (not theoretically ) richer post-Ivanising.

I've never read anything from other jet kit suppliers to say categorically that you should not modify the pilot circuit bypass holes. They say they don't think it's necessary which is an entirely different statement. For some, the simplicity of the other kits is a selling point. These kit makers pitch successfully to that market.

[capitanoinsano]

falcon
My 2003 (Ivanized but no transition port holes drilled) starts right up with no choke also. At idle you are NOT using any of the transition port hole enlargement whatsoever. At idle a fraction of the first trans port (which Ivan says not to mod) is on the vacuum side of the butterfly. Neither of the enlarged holes is really contributing. Therefore, there is no relationship between between enlarged transition ports and starting well without choke applied. But yes the choke circuit seems to be too rich on these bikes and I barely use it at all.