Continuing ignition timing debate from the 416 thread.

Mean416 said
So, realistically how much power are we talking about for the investment? 1% 2% ?

I'm not saying it's not worth it but it definitely feels like "the little things" chasing a fully optimized timing curve.

I do understand the idea behind achieving a steady state before a result is realized, but how does that translate to real world, where steady state is purely academic?

I do have some experience dyno testing. Back in the day I was on a formula SAE student team, and we flogged the hell out of a cbr600 engine, "optimizing" all these things. That engine would sit pinned at 10,000 rpm while we tinkered with timing and AF.

You know what? We ended up having to make massive changes to the map to make the thing drivable. It didn't make as much power in the dyno, but it sure was easier to drive.

Im not arguing against the general theme here. It is interesting. But I can't help thinking it's all a bit academic.

Don't all the serious race teams tune based on load profiles that mimic specific tracks?

If I’m following what your saying, you only did steady state testing at 10k and nowhere else?

If so, that would explain why the engine suffered drivability issues.

That’s why I use multiple rpm to test.

The reason why I say you can’t do that with a sweep test is how do you decide where to put the timing at what rpm?

You have no reference.

So you do steady state testing at multiple rpm and then sweep test it to verify the curve.

I make multiple sweep tests at different locked out timing numbers before I even start my steady state testing.

That gives me a very basic idea of what both ends of the curve should look like. And that’s not etched in stone.

It can change some.