ESE's works engine tuner

[Condyn]

Question regarding ignitech model.
I have 3 ignitech boxes. Two have 5_smd_7 stamped in the plastic, and the third has nothing anywhere. It is the exact same shape and the connectors are the same. With that minimal info, is anyone able to tell me if it is the same box? I have a brand new harness and basically want to know if the schematic is the same between the two.

[wobbly]

If you have a loom then all you need to do is connect Power and Gnd and the RS232 cable to a computer.
You can download any and all of the various versions of the software , it will tell you immediately if the hardware and software dont match.
All of the various versions have the same pinouts , within the same type ie a P2 or P2 Race etc , even if the software version is different.

[Condyn]

Ok thank you. Ignitech is becoming very popular in the snowmobile racing niche. Mostly privately labeled and sold as a special ignition for $1100 usd. Ripoff.
Almost everyone uses them without a charging system, and use 12v Milwaukee/Dewalt drill batteries etc. There have been numerous comments made of guys hovering over the mag with a timing light and the ignition fades away retarded and does not hold throughout the run. I ran an ignitech in this form last season, however I used a Milwaukee 18v battery with a step down regulator to 13.8v. I did this as a potential solution to my GUESS as to why racers were struggling with the ignitions not holding to the programmed curve. I did not stand over my engine with a timing light, so I am not sure if this solved the problem or not.

Anyone experienced this in other ignitech applications, and is it voltage drop related or something totally different?

[Storbeck]

Since we are kind of on the topic of ignitech and ignitions.

Ignitech vs zeeltronic?

I am into watercraft and zeeltronic ignitions are gaining some popularity for them. I've got a few and have been very happy with them.

I'm about to start a vintage dirt bike project, motor will be based on a 1973 yamaha rt3 360.

My current plan is to convert it to use stator and flywheel from a modern yz250 so that I can use the programable zeeltronic that is compatible, only because that is what I'm familiar with because I use them on watercraft. (different model for the yz than what I use on watercraft, but still it's a zeeltronic so there is some familiarity).

But I see on here the ignitech seems to be the more popular ignition which looks to be basically a competitor with zeel.

Is there a good reason to choose one over the other?

[wobbly]

As the Ignitech is a DC to DC converter system the output is very sensitive to the primary resistance and secondary inductance of the ignition coil.
The perfect example is that an Ignitech will run really badly on an RS125 Honda using the stock coil.
Fit an Ignitech coil or simpler/cheaper, one off a RS125/250 Aprilia or RGV Suzuki and its works perfectly.

This is also part of the reason they work better when using a battery charging system at 14.2V.
They work real well when upping the battery voltage to around 15V using Lithium Ion lightweight batteries.
In real high power setups running rich Methanol mixtures you can simply double up the outputs in parralel , into a big Crane coil designed for NASCAR CDI use.
This way more than doubles the power at the plug
There is no real advantage of a Zeel over the Ignitech , apart from the Zeel can be programmed from a hand held button box , at a cost of course.

[TZ350]

.
NITRO METHANE
.
To days dyno experiments were with my Suzuki RG50 powered Bucket Racer and raw Nitro.

I have always theorized that with a correctly jetted two stroke running properly on race gas or similar one can just squirt raw Nitro Methane into the bell mouth and you will see a power increase with out any air fuel mixture issues. The reason is, that raw Nitro carries just a little more fuel than oxygen so as well as adding oxygen for more power it effectively richens the ingested mixture too.

Attachment 346359 Attachment 346358 Attachment 346357

The experiment was a bit crude. Just squirted the Nitro in. Blue line is Av Gas only and correctly jetted for max power. The red line is with Av Gas and Nitro squirt. The red line shuts of early as it goes over rich. For Nitro to be useful you would need ignition and mixture control. So the conclusion is that with a digital ignition and power jet control Nitro could be a very viable option, pity Nitro is illegal in our racing class.

But anyway if you have ever wondered if Nitro could be a good thing with two strokes then this experiment suggests there are real possibilities there.

If I was thinking about running 50% Nitro-methane and a Carburetor on a two stroke. I would keep the carburetor as original, correctly jetted for petrol (or whatever fuel you have been using) and drop raw Nitro (100%) in through a solenoid power jet. Or better yet pump it into the inlet with a small peristaltic pump. We tried this on the dyno. Pumped raw nitro into the carb bell-mouth. Some changes to the ignition at peak torque required but it worked great. It means two tanks, one for petrol the other for nitro.

This works because Nitro carries slightly more fuel than oxygen. Nitro by itself as a fuel, very rich mixtures are required for the small amount of surplus fuel in the Nitro to be at the correct air/fuel ratio with the inducted air other wise it runs lean. And you don't want to know Nitro when its lean.

But if you already have a correct air/fuel ratio running the original carb on petrol (or whatever) then all the extra Nitro does, is add oxygen and its own fuel at the perfectly correct air/fuel ratio for itself with a little bit of its own fuel left over to add some enriching of the original base petrol air/fuel ratio.

My suggestion is that Nitro is way, way more effective if used as am additive to a fuel system and engine tune that has been optimized for Methanol already.
This primarily involves a big jump in compression and a pipe tuned to the much lower Exhaust gas temp/wave speed that will be created by a rich (+ 20 % over stochiometric ) fuel curve.
The two are very much synergistic in action , whereas petrol/ Nitro is just a simplistic approach with nowhere near the possible capabilities.
Its like sticking nitros in a stock Avenger Vs a stock Aventador.

Nitromethane testing .... Can i reach 100whp in my old Yamaha TZ250? (1kt/2ma engine)

What to expect? Will the pipes still tune? As i have watched twostroke stuffing(Alex Degnes) i got curios, can it be done better? (not more power per cc, but with some more control)

Yes, I think it can be done better.

Start with a correctly jetted Methanol setup and Ignition map (1). Then introduce Nitro into the inlet via a peristaltic pump and switch to Ignition map (2) as different timing may be required at peak torque.

Using the Solenoid Power Jet options an Ignitec ignition can be signaled by a thumb switch to turn on the Nitro peristaltic pump and swap to the second ignition map over a pre selected RPM range. No doubt other digital ignitions may be able to do this too but DC-DC Race2 Ignitecs are what I am familiar with.

[Storbeck]

As the Ignitech is a DC to DC converter system the output is very sensitive to the primary resistance and secondary inductance of the ignition coil.
The perfect example is that an Ignitech will run really badly on an RS125 Honda using the stock coil.
Fit an Ignitech coil or simpler/cheaper, one off a RS125/250 Aprilia or RGV Suzuki and its works perfectly.

This is also part of the reason they work better when using a battery charging system at 14.2V.
They work real well when upping the battery voltage to around 15V using Lithium Ion lightweight batteries.
In real high power setups running rich Methanol mixtures you can simply double up the outputs in parralel , into a big Crane coil designed for NASCAR CDI use.
This way more than doubles the power at the plug
There is no real advantage of a Zeel over the Ignitech , apart from the Zeel can be programmed from a hand held button box , at a cost of course.

How does one identify a coil that will work well with their cdi?

Is it as simple as the lower the primary resistance and the higher the secondary inductance the better? Would different cdis want something different? Like would a weaker stock cdi work better with something different than a higher powered modern/better cdi?

I know that zeel publishes spark energy specs and some people have a bigger is better mentality but I'm not so sure it's that simple.

[wobbly]

Yes it is as simple as described, the lower the resistance and the higher the inductive reactance , a DC-DC voltage converter circuit will produce more spark energy.
In the example I gave an Ignitech P2 driving two RGV coils will pull about 1.75A @ 14.2V, running as a twin cylinder system
When the outputs are paralleled into the Crane single coil, the CDI pulls around 4A as the coils primary impedance is very low, and the secondary inductance is huge.

With the Honda example the DC-DC converter circuit was optimized for that coils specific characteristics, but the coil is simply not suited at all to the Ignitech output circuit.
A similar effect occurred I believe at Aprilia with the RSA, when they changed to a " bigger " coil, power increased.
That I believe was simply down to the fact that the new coils winding characteristics better suited the CDI , thus increasing the spark energy available.

But you are right in that bigger is not always better.
Many Honda and Yamaha Kit ignitions used a " power reduction" circuit , that dropped the spark energy at high rpm.
This gave much better peak and overev power - that function is available in some Zeel CDI.

Edit - Condyn , one of the very few reasons an Ignitech will not produce accurate ignition curves , is EMI. You MUST use resistor plugs and caps. The other issue is the proximity of the trigger or any other input/output
wiring to the coil charge wires.
They are on opposite ends of the loom plug for a reason.
I always run the coil wires on one side of the bike ( or whatever ) frame, and the triggers etc on the other side.
These simple things remove 99% of issues.
Also depin any unused loom wires, DONT coil them up to operate as very good antennae.

[Storbeck]

This is all very interesting and super appreciated to share the info.

I'm trying to squint my imagination as much as I can to figure out why less spark energy would give more power and I've got nothin. I can see how increasing spark energy beyond what is needed to "light the fire" would not get you any more but why on earth would less be better?

Maybe they don't retard the curve enough at high rpm so with less spark energy the ignition is slightly delayed??? (even that sketchy theory doesn't really make sense because honda and Aprillia would figure that out I would think).

Any idea why physically less spark energy was a benefit?

Yes it is as simple as described, the lower the resistance and the higher the inductive reactance , a DC-DC voltage converter circuit will produce more spark energy.
In the example I gave an Ignitech P2 driving two RGV coils will pull about 1.75A @ 14.2V, running as a twin cylinder system
When the outputs are paralleled into the Crane single coil, the CDI pulls around 4A as the coils primary impedance is very low, and the secondary inductance is huge.

With the Honda example the DC-DC converter circuit was optimized for that coils specific characteristics, but the coil is simply not suited at all to the Ignitech output circuit.
A similar effect occurred I believe at Aprilia with the RSA, when they changed to a " bigger " coil, power increased.
That I believe was simply down to the fact that the new coils winding characteristics better suited the CDI , thus increasing the spark energy available.

But you are right in that bigger is not always better.
Many Honda and Yamaha Kit ignitions used a " power reduction" circuit , that dropped the spark energy at high rpm.
This gave much better peak and overev power - that function is available in some Zeel CDI.

Edit - Condyn , one of the very few reasons an Ignitech will not produce accurate ignition curves , is EMI. You MUST use resistor plugs and caps. The other issue is the proximity of the trigger or any other input/output
wiring to the coil charge wires.
They are on opposite ends of the loom plug for a reason.
I always run the coil wires on one side of the bike ( or whatever ) frame, and the triggers etc on the other side.
These simple things remove 99% of issues.
Also depin any unused loom wires, DONT coil them up to operate as very good antennae.

[Condyn]

Wobbly, thanks for the tip. It makes perfect sense. The owner of the eddy current dyno that I test at has seen this before with MSD systems on his dyno. He has wrapped foil around everything to diminish noise. Again, thanks:

[Wos]

Question to the specialists in ignition Questions 😉

If you reduce spark energy at a point after peak power for more overrev...

Isn t it the same effect as setting ignition point later?

Both will shift complete burning thru into later point...???

Both will raising egt temperature???

Thanks to help my understanding 😉

Wolfgang

[wobbly]

The effect of spark energy reduction can be explained by understanding the dynamics of the system at each end of the powerband.
One end is defined as peak torque , the other end is from peak power and into the overev.
There are a large number of factors we can manipulate to achieve the best peak torque figures.
We have high MSV, high compression, high spark energy and large spark size in the ionized gap, fastest burn speed across the chamber combined with the highest mixture homogeneity
and purity.

At lower rpm we do not have many of these variables anywhere near optimum , thus the ignition timing has to be advanced to achieve the mechanically optimal peak cylinder pressure
point of near 15* ATDC.
Under best case conditions it has been found that at peak power the spark advance occurs near 15* BTDC , to achieve that optimum peak cylinder pressure at 15* ATDC.
But at peak Hp rpm we are already seeing the effects of sub optimal cylinder filling.
The method we use to counteract this reducing efficiency is to retard the spark to enable more energy ( heat ) to be released into the pipe, making it appear
shorter and thus the return wave arrives back at a more suitable time ( between TPC and EPC ) for the rising rpm.

Of course there is never a free lunch, and this retarded spark initiation point , then moves the point of peak cylinder pressure well past the optimal mechanical peak
cylinder pressure point of 15* ATDC.
The retarded spark is a Catch 22 of increasing stuffing efficiency by extending the peak cylinder pressure point later and later, at the expense of reducing the mechanical efficiency of the combustion system.

Another way to achieve the same effect as retarding the spark , without its inevitable downside , is to extend the combustion duration by firing it at a more optimal time , but reducing
the spark energy down to 50% of what was needed at peak torque.
This means the spark initiation can be retained sooner than 15* BTDC , but the duration of combustion is extended, once peak cylinder pressure has occurred at 15* ATDC.
The effect has been proven in GP racing , and although I would usually distance myself from anything to be said by Luc F , he has published a dyno ( real, I believe ) sheet showing this very thing.

This trickery can increase peak power as well as the desired overev , depending upon the optimization of the ignition timing to suit each rpm, and the combustion duration
achieved by the amount of spark energy reduction - this depends somewhat on how well the pipe length is already optimized for the desired speed range.

[Storbeck]

Holy cow this is blowing my mind. So 30 degrees after the spark event, the rate of burn and therefore the shape of the pv curve is still affected by the amount of spark energy.

[wobbly]

Thats what my wife said.
I first got an inkling into this years ago when first tuning a 3YL Yamaha 250. It had been moded to hell with new pipes and everything we understood about go fast shit
at the time. It would misfire like hell at peak torque , and as I didnt know about the trick fine wire NGK sparkplugs , my initial reaction was to drop the spark gap from 0.65mm to 0.35mm.
That cured the misfire , and then later on the dyno we discovered the absolutely weird relationship between the spark gap and the overev capability.
Finally settled on 0.45mm as this was just short of misfiring, but gave the best compromise in the overev.
Recently everything is completely different on a very similar engine , using the Ignitech @ 15.4V and the shorty fine wire plugs we run 1mm , and can manipulate the overev at will with
the ignition curve.
Im now seriously looking into setting up a rpm controlled regulator, that can reduce the voltage seen by the ECU and thus the mJoules generated at the plug.

[husaberg]

Thats what my wife said.
I first got an inkling into this years ago when first tuning a 3YL Yamaha 250. It had been moded to hell with new pipes and everything we understood about go fast shit
at the time. It would misfire like hell at peak torque , and as I didnt know about the trick fine wire NGK sparkplugs , my initial reaction was to drop the spark gap from 0.65mm to 0.35mm.
That cured the misfire , and then later on the dyno we discovered the absolutely weird relationship between the spark gap and the overev capability.
Finally settled on 0.45mm as this was just short of misfiring, but gave the best compromise in the overev.
Recently everything is completely different on a very similar engine , using the Ignitech @ 15.4V and the shorty fine wire plugs we run 1mm , and can manipulate the overev at will with
the ignition curve.
Im now seriously looking into setting up a rpm controlled regulator, that can reduce the voltage seen by the ECU and thus the mJoules generated at the plug.

This reminds me of something Honda found with ultra high rpm not needing decent octane at stratospheric revs this was in the days pre CDi and wide valve angles little squish horrible Piston domes that screamed I need really high octane. I cant remember where I read it but it was from I think Shoichiro Irimajiri.

found...
So as long as we keep it over 25,000 rpm we only need 35 octane.
https://www.cycleworld.com/story/blo...w-octane-fuel/
Not where I seen it originally but it might have been in one of his books?