If you re-read my post, you'll see that I never claim to be 100% correct with the results of any one particular run of conditions through the simulation. Only that the simulation is good enough that when two different scenarios are simulated to have significantly different results, that the relative difference must be a pretty good indicator of a relative difference you'd see in the real world. Simulation says that 2nd gear launch is 0.5s slower than 1st gear launch? That's definitely enough to be confident in the results.AS I said, REAL WORLD is very different to sitting there pasting formula's into Excel chump. If you were 100% correct, why do MotoGP, WSBK, F1, NASCAR and on and on and on, do REAL WORLD testing to PROVE their theories? please riddle me that?
Except that "science" can't agree on precisely how weather/climate works yet, because we just don't know yet, so of course models are going to be inaccurate. The ideas that I'm modelling have been pretty well understood for quite a long time (mechanical advantage of gearing, friction, acceleration caused by force, aerodynamic drag) and the formulas modelling it have been proven to be accurate by "science" at the scales we care about for this purpose.The climate change comment was quite a good one actually, its data modelling based on "science". In essence, its exactly the same as what you have been doing throughout this.
Because they're not testing for simple things like "should I launch in 1st or 2nd gear with this engine?". They are testing things like "does this newly designed engine stay within operating parameters while racing and stay in one piece", "do these suspension adjustments give me better handling through the varying surface conditions and corners on this track": very complicated things that they need to confirm in the real world before going to a race.If simply sitting there and punching drag coefficent's into a pre determined forumla was the winning formula why would anyone waste money doing the expensive real world testing?
Going to the drag strip by myself will only prove what I know to be true to myself, but won't convince anyone else. My capabilities, consistency, the track conditions, etc. would all be called into question. I would need someone who claims to have real-world capabilities of disproving my results to meet up with me to be involved in the real-world testing. But even then, someone could always call into question difference in rider capabilities, track conditions, etc.So why dont you go to the drag strip your eagerly awaiting for, and prove your numbers? Scared they may not stack up the same? Do it...you know you want to.
Actually, no.Are you not, by definition, shooting someone else's opinion down showing that you believe in your own exaggertaed abilities? lol.
That's a lot of subjective stuff in there: A "couple teeth", "quick", "worth your time", "real difference". Only you can decidewould dropping a couple teeth off of my front sprocket benefit me on quick takeoff, or is it really not worth my time? If not, then how many teeth on the front/back would need to be adjusted for a real difference to be made?
A custom dyno tune is the only way to guarantee you have a proper fuel map for *your* bike. I won't get into aftermarket air filters. There's plenty of arguments online about whether high-flow air filters (like K&N) are good, or whether they let too much stuff into the engine, among other issues. Either way, changing an air filter is not the correct way to solve a fueling problem. The correct solution is to tune the fueling properly. If a different air filter will allow more air to flow through the engine, and you want it, then go head and get it, but only a custom tune afterward will truly get you proper fueling. You might be "close enough" though without a tune, but it's still just an approximate band-aid fix to the fueling problem. All of this is really off-topic for this thread and should be discussed elsewhere.I'm deciding between sprocket change and a high flow air filter as my "next" upgrade. I've had it dynoed before and it showed to be running quite rich, and while I'm told tweaking with the map would help, a new filter would be a better choice because the stock filter can't keep up with the lack of backpressure from the aftermarket exhaust. Wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations?
I don't think that works for me because I shift more by ear than watching RPMs and thinking about what gear I am in. If I am someone that typically cruises at 5K rpm changing my sprocket is not going to change that. With different sprockets it would change the gear I am in at a given speed so that I am at the 5K RPM that my ear is used to. If I want better acceleration in cruising I just need to adapt my shifting to keep my cruising RPMs at 6K or 7K instead of 4-5K. As you said the 10% quicker comes in first gear but I don't see it making any difference beyond that if you shift by ear....Things are different when you ride "normally" at lower RPMs significantly below horsepower.
In these "normal" daily driving situations you will actually get close to that 10% gain in acceleration from a 10% shorter gearing. Example: cruising at 40mph in 4th gear. With 10% shorter gearing, you'd be at 10% higher RPMs and have 10% higher torque multiplication, so cracking the throttle open will be somewhere close to 10% quicker. So for "normal" riding, it will be quicker, but if you were to race someone at high RPMs, you wouldn't be as much quicker as you would expect, and you might not be quicker at all if you did a rolling start in 2nd gear.
Not "going at it" still. I just noticed his E = mc^2 comment and found it quite amusing.Dang! You guys are still going at it??? Getting just as bad as oil and gas thread!
Bring it to the drag strip! Because as technical as it might be... it's all about the stop watch!
To add on, starting in 2nd or 3rd is smooth but completely useless in racinglmfao at the 2nd gear start thing. I've raced for years too in a variety of cars, and that's just hilarious. The only time starting in 2nd has been beneficial has been when NOT racing (easier to not slip in shitty winter conditions, sometimes). aside from the exceptions already mentioned (first is just unusable), starting in first gear is always faster. it should be pretty obvious ...
as for bikes, well this is my first one so i don't have immense experience to draw on there, but I have started in 2nd a couple of times and so far it doesn't seem like there's any way that could be faster than 1st... 1st is quite nice. :-D
Thanks for taking all the time to put all this together pickles. Been a great read!