NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

Nitrous Oxide ( NOS / N20 ) Forum
 
It is currently Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:03 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:49 pm 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
This has been a very long road - but we finally got to run the FJ1100 in a land speed event - the 2016 Colorado Mile.
Thanks to WON horsepower we made 198.2 mph out first time out!
On the last run we were very likely to to hit the 200 mph mark when a combination of rider error and some setup
issues caused a blown head gasket.
I am hugely impressed with the results - especially with an engine in such a mild state of tune.

Thanks to Trevor and everyone on the forum that have shared their knowledge and experience!
Also thanks to Ransom Holbrook for sharing his experience and knowledge on working with progressive dry nitrous.

The setup:
1985 FJ1100
1350 big bore engine
Mildly ported head, STOCK VALVES, and mild cams
WON X-10 150 HP pulsoid
Stock body work


Attachments:
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 43.59 KiB | Viewed 3461 times ]
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 104.88 KiB | Viewed 3467 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Advertisement

Wizards of NOS Conact US
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 pm 
Offline
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 927
Location: Orlando, Fl in 'Merrrrica!
Congratulations on your results! I'm certain that you will do much better the next time out after sorting out your setup issues! Trev would be very happy! :yes:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 18688
Location: Doncaster
Excellent result and yes I'm very happy about your result.

Might I also point out that it sounds like you are ONLY using a WON Pulsoid and are probably using US brand parts for the rest of the system. If that is the case, I can GUARANTEE that you would run faster speeds and your engine would be far more reliable (I'm not saying that it would have prevented the headgasket failure as I don't have enough info about that), regardless of how reliable or unreliable it is now, if you upgraded ALL your parts (especially your front end parts (nozzles, etc.) to ALL WON components.

_________________
Regards

Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

30 years of nitrous experience and counting!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:01 am 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Guilty as charged Trevor! Upgrading everything from bottle valves to discharge tubes and everything in between is a priority this year! We've proven the potential - now is time to push up to the next level.

Except for the engine (and tires!) - EVERYTHING is (was) second hand on this bike.

I forgot to add in the bike description - it is converted to EFI using FJR throttle bodies and microsquirt ECU. The issue that came up was a missed shift. Using similar ideas used by Random Holbrook I "trick" the ECU into providing a crude progression for the fuel. A basic nitrous controller progressed the solenoid (I'm sure very crudely compared to how a Max Extreme would perform!). On the missed shift the RPMs exceeded the max for the nitrous so the ECU shut off the nitrous. When the RPMs dropped, the nitrous was reactivated - the ECU started at the beginning of the "progression", the nitrous controller resumed where it had left off - resulting in a severe lean out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 18688
Location: Doncaster
fj1289 wrote:
Guilty as charged Trevor! Upgrading everything from bottle valves to discharge tubes and everything in between is a priority this year! We've proven the potential - now is time to push up to the next level.
Glad to hear it.

Except for the engine (and tires!) - EVERYTHING is (was) second hand on this bike.
Exceptional result in that case.

I forgot to add in the bike description - it is converted to EFI using FJR throttle bodies and microsquirt ECU. The issue that came up was a missed shift. Using similar ideas used by Random Holbrook I "trick" the ECU into providing a crude progression for the fuel. A basic nitrous controller progressed the solenoid (I'm sure very crudely compared to how a Max Extreme would perform!). On the missed shift the RPMs exceeded the max for the nitrous so the ECU shut off the nitrous. When the RPMs dropped, the nitrous was reactivated - the ECU started at the beginning of the "progression", the nitrous controller resumed where it had left off - resulting in a severe lean out.
Extremely unfortunate and keeping the nitrous delivery matched to the fuel delivery is one of the negative aspects of a dry nitrous system when compared to a wet system, which obviously needs to be mastered to achieve maximum reliability. That's why I advise customers use our Max Extreme to run a dry progressive system, as the Max has the ability to tell the ECU how much nitrous is being delivered (assuming the ECU has the ability to accept a 0 to 5 volt analogue signal), and then the ECU can be set to deliver the appropriate amount of fuel. This arrangement would have prevent you from suffering this failure but I'm not sure if your ECU has the ability to accept the input required.


_________________
Regards

Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

30 years of nitrous experience and counting!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:59 am 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Trevor, you did warn me about the challenges of matching the fuel flow to the nitrous in a dry system and how critical it is!

Right now I'm pretty sure the megasquirt series of ECUs would not be able to add fuel based on a 0-5 volt signal, BUT I'd have to think it would not be that difficult for one of the developers to incorporate that ability. I'll ask...

I'm told the developers are refining the progressive nitrous routines to be able to progress fuel to match the nitrous progression using either time based or VSS based progression. It is currently lacking in those two areas.

So, the big question is -- what performance difference do you see in an application like this between a wet system and a dry system? I'd like to see how far into adding 250 nitrous horsepower we can get with the next version of this engine.

How much advantage have you seen in the by gear progression used by the Max Extreme compared to a "simpler" time based progression? I wonder if it becomes more critical for a prepped track like a drag strip or an unprepared surface like an airport runway?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 18688
Location: Doncaster
fj1289 wrote:
Trevor, you did warn me about the challenges of matching the fuel flow to the nitrous in a dry system and how critical it is!
Glad to hear I wasn't neglectful in my duty in that regard.

Right now I'm pretty sure the megasquirt series of ECUs would not be able to add fuel based on a 0-5 volt signal, BUT I'd have to think it would not be that difficult for one of the developers to incorporate that ability. I'll ask...
I would have thought it could as I would GUESS that they are capable of working on turbo vehicles and turbo vehicles use a 0 to 5 Volt signal to match boost to fuel delivery.

I'm told the developers are refining the progressive nitrous routines to be able to progress fuel to match the nitrous progression using either time based or VSS based progression. It is currently lacking in those two areas.
Whatever ANYONE does with an ECU or nitrous controller, they will NEVER even get close to the Max Extreme, as without wishing to be boastful, I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD with such a comprehensive combination of UNIQUE knowledge and first hand experience of use of nitrous systems on both bikes and cars. ALL that anyone else can do is THEORISE on what is the best way to get the job done or at best can add only a couple of years experience to that.

So, the big question is -- what performance difference do you see in an application like this between a wet system and a dry system? I'd like to see how far into adding 250 nitrous horsepower we can get with the next version of this engine.
Until recently there were advantages and disadvantages to both wet and dry but since we launched our Pro Series WET systems, that is no longer the case, as we can offer ALL the advantages of a dry system in our wet system.
The main advantages are splitting the injection points of the fuel and nitrous
Delivering the fuel at high pressure/speed
Achieving optimum atomisation without needing the nitrous to blast the fuel to bits
Relatively unlimited fuel delivery
All these features and more are an integral part of our Pro Series system designs.
As we can now offer a system that has ALL the benefits of dry WITHOUT ANY of the disadvantages, the Pro Series system HAS TO BE THE WAY TO GO.
:yes:

How much advantage have you seen in the by gear progression used by the Max Extreme compared to a "simpler" time based progression?
HUGE, MASSIVE, INCREDIBLE just about sums up the difference. Each gear can only handle so much nitrous due to traction limitations, vehicle stability limitations and engine load limitations, so having the ability to tailor the amount of power being added PER GEAR as well as PER RPM (either via our virtual RPM link [Time based] or actual RPM link), is the way to achieve the ULTIMATE performance from ANY vehicle.

I wonder if it becomes more critical for a prepped track like a drag strip or an unprepared surface like an airport runway?
That's the advantage of a CORRECTLY designed progressive controller, WHATEVER surface you run on you can achieve OPTIMUM results. Anything other than a Max Extreme will NOT produce the same level of performance.

Thanks

_________________
Regards

Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

30 years of nitrous experience and counting!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:58 am 
Offline
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 927
Location: Orlando, Fl in 'Merrrrica!
Snap 8)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:37 am 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Can I tee off the existing fuel injection fuel pump? (Assuming the pump is capable of supplying the required volume of fuel). Or is a separate fuel system required on the nitrous side?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:06 pm 
Offline
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 927
Location: Orlando, Fl in 'Merrrrica!
fj1289 wrote:
Can I tee off the existing fuel injection fuel pump? (Assuming the pump is capable of supplying the required volume of fuel). Or is a separate fuel system required on the nitrous side?

The tee will be adequate and more reliable because of fewer parts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:05 am 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Sounds like a plan! Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:39 am 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Next question - with tapping off the 43psi fuel system, am I better off with venoms or with the atomizing nozzles? I think the only place to install either would be in the aluminum manifold adaptors (they replace the traditional rubber manifolds). They would have to be drilled perpendicular to the airflow - so I assume venoms would work best?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:59 am 
Offline
Wizard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:13 pm
Posts: 927
Location: Orlando, Fl in 'Merrrrica!
The venoms will work just fine for your 250 hp goal. The atomizing nozzles are more for extreme nitrous applications where there is a higher risk of fuel freezing.
Also fuel nozzles work installed perpendicular to the airflow as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline
Learner

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:10 am
Posts: 52
Location: Colorado
Noswizard wrote:
fj1289 wrote:
Trevor, you did warn me about the challenges of matching the fuel flow to the nitrous in a dry system and how critical it is!
Glad to hear I wasn't neglectful in my duty in that regard.

Right now I'm pretty sure the megasquirt series of ECUs would not be able to add fuel based on a 0-5 volt signal, BUT I'd have to think it would not be that difficult for one of the developers to incorporate that ability. I'll ask...
I would have thought it could as I would GUESS that they are capable of working on turbo vehicles and turbo vehicles use a 0 to 5 Volt signal to match boost to fuel delivery.
Digging up an old thread. I’ve posted a couple times on the msextra forums this question. Crickets. Really surprised since there is always some kind of a non-standard application that is being worked through on there.
Well, think I found a way ahead. The meagasquirt line of ecu’s allow for multiple fuel tables. I use their ITB mode which is a blend of MAP down low and tps up high. There are inputs for MAF that expect a 0-5 volt signal. I can set that fuel table as additive to the normal table. Then it’s a matter of translating the desired added fuel to MAF g/sec airflow.
Approximation: HP added x .8 = MAF g/sec to add the desired amount of fuel. Each engine and install will vary a bit — so start safely rich and work to your desired mixture thru testing.
I have not actually tested this - but gives me a way ahead to integrate a max race controller in the future.
I don’t know if this type solution is exclusive to megasquirt type ecu’s or is applicable to other stand alone units.


I'm told the developers are refining the progressive nitrous routines to be able to progress fuel to match the nitrous progression using either time based or VSS based progression. It is currently lacking in those two areas.
Whatever ANYONE does with an ECU or nitrous controller, they will NEVER even get close to the Max Extreme, as without wishing to be boastful, I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD with such a comprehensive combination of UNIQUE knowledge and first hand experience of use of nitrous systems on both bikes and cars. ALL that anyone else can do is THEORISE on what is the best way to get the job done or at best can add only a couple of years experience to that.

So, the big question is -- what performance difference do you see in an application like this between a wet system and a dry system? I'd like to see how far into adding 250 nitrous horsepower we can get with the next version of this engine.
Until recently there were advantages and disadvantages to both wet and dry but since we launched our Pro Series WET systems, that is no longer the case, as we can offer ALL the advantages of a dry system in our wet system.
The main advantages are splitting the injection points of the fuel and nitrous
Delivering the fuel at high pressure/speed
Achieving optimum atomisation without needing the nitrous to blast the fuel to bits
Relatively unlimited fuel delivery
All these features and more are an integral part of our Pro Series system designs.
As we can now offer a system that has ALL the benefits of dry WITHOUT ANY of the disadvantages, the Pro Series system HAS TO BE THE WAY TO GO.
:yes:

How much advantage have you seen in the by gear progression used by the Max Extreme compared to a "simpler" time based progression?
HUGE, MASSIVE, INCREDIBLE just about sums up the difference. Each gear can only handle so much nitrous due to traction limitations, vehicle stability limitations and engine load limitations, so having the ability to tailor the amount of power being added PER GEAR as well as PER RPM (either via our virtual RPM link [Time based] or actual RPM link), is the way to achieve the ULTIMATE performance from ANY vehicle.

I wonder if it becomes more critical for a prepped track like a drag strip or an unprepared surface like an airport runway?
That's the advantage of a CORRECTLY designed progressive controller, WHATEVER surface you run on you can achieve OPTIMUM results. Anything other than a Max Extreme will NOT produce the same level of performance.

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: It Took a Long Time ...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 18688
Location: Doncaster
fj1289 wrote:
Digging up an old thread. I’ve posted a couple times on the msextra forums this question. Crickets. Really surprised since there is always some kind of a non-standard application that is being worked through on there.
Well, think I found a way ahead. The meagasquirt line of ecu’s allow for multiple fuel tables. I use their ITB mode which is a blend of MAP down low and tps up high. There are inputs for MAF that expect a 0-5 volt signal. I can set that fuel table as additive to the normal table. Then it’s a matter of translating the desired added fuel to MAF g/sec airflow.
Approximation: HP added x .8 = MAF g/sec to add the desired amount of fuel. Each engine and install will vary a bit — so start safely rich and work to your desired mixture thru testing.
I have not actually tested this - but gives me a way ahead to integrate a max race controller in the future.
I don’t know if this type solution is exclusive to megasquirt type ecu’s or is applicable to other stand alone units.


This is the only area, that I have absolutely NO experience of but if that formula was applicable to all ECU's (as I'd guess it would be), knowing it could be useful to me at some time, so many thanks for sharing that with us.

_________________
Regards

Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

30 years of nitrous experience and counting!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  • Advertisement
Wizards of NOS Sparkplugs
Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits