Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey guys...so I got it up on the stand and took a look... I started by grabbing the wheel at 9 and 3 and checked for any play. I had to use a decent amount of strength, but there was a tiny amount -- just barely enough to feel and hear, but definitely there. The wheel rotated cleanly with no signs of being bent or obstructed, though... So instead of tearing everything apart, I decided to see just how far off the axle nut was... I set the caliper mounting bracket in its forward-most position, cleaned out the axle threads with WD-40 and gave it a go. Even taking into account how much I loosened it myself by hand earlier, I'd say it took ONE FULL ROTATION before the axle nut hit 76 ft/lbs. Yikes. With that, there's no longer any play in the wheel or the caliper mount. I'd say you guys absolutely called it early on... The hit simply prompted me to do a thorough inspection... which caused the mount to come into question... you guys theorized about the axle nut torque...the play in the wheel supported that theory... and as suspected, the axle nut was WAAYYYY off. Now it's tightened up and all symptoms alleviated. I'm feeling pretty confident it was this way all along. Honestly, I really don't have any reason to suspect it needs a tear-down at this point. I'm thinking I might just be keenly aware that I need to keep an eye on everything for a while and be hyper-sensitive to any signs of trouble -- noise, feel, chain/sprocket wear, etc. Big thanks to @rick and @markstertt. I really appreciate it!
  2. -- Update -- So I'm getting everything situated in the garage here to pull the rear wheel... I grabbed my 27mm socket and put it on the axle nut just to confirm it's the right size. I think for a second, I wonder if I can loosen it by hand... Sure enough, it loosened by hand with light effort... Yep...OBVIOUSLY it was torqued to spec ALL ALONG and I broke the 76 ft/lbs. BAREHANDED...I'll have to dig deeper... Seriously though, I'm guessing the dealership had the responsibility of torquing that nut and they didn't bother breaking out the torque wrench...ugh, don't get me going on that...so many fails if true... Hopefully, I'll have some more updates later today.
  3. @markstertt Hey Mark...thanks for that...can't convey how much I appreciate it. I think we're thinking the same way here -- I want to set my torque wrench low and step it up incrementally as I try and tighten the axle nut. My goal is to figure out what it's currently torqued to without tightening it any further. From there, I'll tear it all down and inspect... I did do a little snooping around last night and the strike point seems to be on the tire only. There's a big smudge in the shape of another tire on my rear tire...so I'd say it was mostly tire-to-tire contact. My rear fender took some of it, too. It wasn't hard enough to loosen its mount under the tail, but it cracked a lot of the cheaper/weaker plastic around the license plate... Of course that necessitated ordering that fender tidy up kit that I wanted -- and a bunch of additional shet for the bike I had told myself would came later in the year, too... oh darn. ;-P It might be a few days before I get it tore down, but it'll happen ASAP. I'll keep the updates coming. Thanks everyone!
  4. @blackout Hey...thanks for the advice...will do.
  5. @rick Dude, that's awesome -- big thanks for checking yours and letting me know. Sadly, I bet you're right about it being this way all along... I'll keep the updates going as I know more...
  6. hey... so the bike probably has around 900 miles now and i got it about 5 months ago... i assume it was torqued to spec from the factory and everything was good. i did check earlier and the hash marks on both sides are aligned. the chain slack seems to be dead on from when i cleaned/checked it a few hundred miles ago, too. I'm going to get it up on the stand and see if there's any play in the wheel itself... but I've already decided I'm going to tear it down and inspect everything...it's nagging at me now. the strike came from the right rear at around 10-15 mph...i don't know exactly where it hit and i want to spend a little more time searching for clues... i have some theories about what's going on and they're dependent on what got hit. I'll keep you guys posted. thanks!
  7. @markstertt Hey man...I appreciate your help. Here's what I should have done from the beginning: Let me know what you think. Thanks!
  8. right on... thanks for the help
  9. hey guys... quick q... how much fore and aft play is acceptable in the entire rear brake assembly? meaning, if you were to grab on to the stout piece of metal that connects the rear caliper to the swingarm, can you move yours a tiny bit forward and backwards? another biker friend hit me the other day and the only visible damage was to the rear fender... I'm just examining everything to be really sure nothing is off. thanks!
  10. @norcal616 Man, thanks for posting that thread. It was really good. I guess it's a little different in that the newer 'unrestricted' Flash Tune ECU images seem to match the TPS MAP Bias instead of the one catfish posted. But the timing is still different between the stock and unrestricted Flash Tune ECU images and that makes me slightly nervous... I did get the bike out today and it ran great (no more unintentional rev-limiter), but I'm curious about running stock+PCV instead of the unrestricted+PCV like I am now. I think your logic is really dead-on about the PCV fuel maps being developed off of the stock ECU image... I did want to reach out to @hordboy to see if he had a Flash Tune ECU image available for purchase for my setup. I'm guessing he did a lot of dyno-based tuning to create his image.
  11. Ahhh, very cool...thanks for the explanation, man.
  12. @cyow5 Hey...just learning about some of this stuff so I went to check it out a bit. From the Flash Tune site (https://ftecu.com/support/kb/faq.php?id=31): Why is there MAP vs RPM and TPS vs RPM fuel maps? The ECU calculates fuel requirements through two methods Speed Density (MAP vs RPM) Under very light load, small part throttle openings, and low RPM the ECU will use the difference in atmospheric and manifold pressure (MAP) to look-up the uncorrected fuel values. Alpha-N (TPS vs RPM) Under mild to high load operating conditions the ECU will use the Throttle Position (TPS) to look-up the uncorrected fuel values. Notes: Fuel values are to be considered arbitrary. The same map value does not always produce the same amount of fuel depending on outside circumstances. The MAP/TPS switchover strategy varies by model but generally MAP vs RPM will be used -Usually a tuner would focus on the TPS vs RPM maps first then possibly move on to tuning the MAP vs RPM maps So let's see what we have... MAP vs. RPM mapping for Cylinder 1: MAP vs.RPM mapping for Cylinder 2: And here's the TPS MAP Bias: So, I kind of put two and two together and come away with the TPS vs. RPM and MAP vs. RPM tables are blended with the TPS MAP Bias percentage value to compensate for varying atmospheric conditions under low-throttle/low-load situations. That's a big guess, though...do you know how that works?
  13. Now for my sanity, I'm going to do the same thing for the 'unrestricted' ECU file provided by Flash Tune and see if there are any differences... Let's start with the unrestricted Flash Tune ECU image: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 1: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 2: Here is the import of the Power Commander fuel table for my upgrades (M22-065-008): They've been applied: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 1 after applying the fuel table changes: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 2 after applying the fuel table changes: CONCLUSION: It seems like the unrestricted ECU image in Flash Tune is actually a little richer out of the gate than the Flash Tune stock image...which is surprising to me because I thought they were essentially identical except one didn't allow certain changes to be made and the other did. Maybe someone can clarify the difference. A bit obvious here, too, but with it being a little richer from the start, the PCV fuel table import brings the TPS vs. RPM values higher in comparison to the Stock+PCV image.
  14. @cyow5 Yeah, my guess is that they either have some protection logic in there that essentially says 'if >199.99, apply 0', or it could be more of an 'if out of range 0.01-199.99, apply null or 0'. Who knows... Totally anecdotal, but it did feel more like it fell flat on its face rather than being too rich to burn completely. But who knows...maybe I had a nice pulse of flames coming out of the exhaust from the unburned fuel in cyl1 as I was bouncing off my fake rev-limiter. :-) The turbo map is an interesting idea because I agree...those map values are waaaaay too linear and high to be accidental. @norcal616 Hey...so short of actually loading these up and running the butt dyno to figure it out, I'm going to document the differences of the various options out there so people can find it later on... I'll start with the stock ECU image from Flash Tune: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 1: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 2: Here is the import of the Power Commander fuel table for my upgrades (M22-065-008): They've been applied: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 1 after applying the fuel table changes: Here are the TPS vs. RPM values for Cylinder 2 after applying the fuel table changes: CONCLUSION: Definitely richer in the 5000-9000 RPM range after applying the Power Commander fuel table. <continue to next post>
  15. Hey...yeah, Step 1 and 2 are correct, but I ended up not reflashing back to stock after all... I was going to reflash back to stock, but in my troubleshooting I found that the flash .ftm file I was running had wildly different TPS vs. RPM values than anything else I compared it to. Once I rebuilt a fresh .ftm file using all my customizations and double-checking all the TPS vs. RPM values, I reflashed the ECU with that. I then did a 'Read ECU' operation just to confirm all my settings matched with what I expected. After firing up the bike in the garage and a quick test, it seems to be good. Still need to get it on the road, but I'm pretty sure all is right in the world now...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.