Flash vs altitude

[sixpack577]

...the QS was built to be used.
Some gen3's have issues, most don't.
The gsxr1k I ride with the factory QS is flawless.
If you want a cvt...just use the QS.
The QS works fine at low rpms, but the higher the rpms, the quicker and smoother the shifts.
You're missing out.

 

[dcnblues]

Nah, I like using the clutch to shift smoothly while GT cruising in twisties.
Maybe you're right, and the transmission is beefy enough to take the slam from clutchless shifting, but I just don't need that small bump in performance enough to feel like I am stressing the metal in the cogs, chain, Etc.
It sort of baffles me that the whole Automotive / motorcycle Industries seem to have this ass backwards. Shifting is slower performance. Yeah you can dedicate tons of factory resources to combine hardware and software for rapid clutchless up and down shifting (God knows how many millions Ferrari has dumped into this alone), but why bother if everybody likes rowing gears with a manually controlled clutch? Otherwise both Industries would have gone to automatics years ago.
CVT's were banned by F1 in the 90s because they offered too much of a performance advantage. You accelerate faster if you don't have to shift. You can even design your engine differently and better with such a transmission.
Having a clutch and manually using gears appeals to me and I understand that.
Eliminating the gearbox from performance vehicles with a CVT appeals to me and I understand that. I think a Hayabusa would be more competitive in the contest for quickest accelerating production vehicle on the planet if it didn't have to shift.
But this is just my personal opinion, which is the stuff in the middle, paddle shifters and quick shifters and really expensive software and transmissions don't make much sense or appeal much to me.
*Edit: actually, what really appeals is a CVT that would be manually adjustable. It would give your left hand something to do, and you could use the engine characteristics the way you wanted to in performance riding. I'm not aware of anyone that's actually built such a transmission though.

 

[sixpack577]

Clutchless motorcycle shifting is Better for the drivetrain, as the gears slip right into place without shocking the system with sudden changes from clutch engagement.
You can shift any motorcycle with no clutch, so long as you let off the throttle and don't jam the shifter, just apply light pressure to it.
Now add in momentary spark kill and a transmission designed to shift under throttle.
The cost of a performance cvt transmission(like in F1) would be very high...as well as bland and boring.
The QS offers the opportunity to blast through gears just as quickly, while also letting you manually shift if you like.
Honda offers a Goldwing and Africa-Twin with automatic transmissions, for those who want it, but neither are 'performance' by any means.
I originally hated the QS on the gsxr1k, as I thought it was pointless.
I Quickly ate my words.
Once I realized the gain in acceleration, and the overall fun and lazy factor, I'de hate to have bike without it now.

 

[Bumblebee]

Clutchless motorcycle shifting is Better for the drivetrain, as the gears slip right into place without shocking the system with sudden changes from clutch engagement.
You can shift any motorcycle with no clutch, so long as you let off the throttle and don't jam the shifter, just apply light pressure to it.
Now add in momentary spark kill and a transmission designed to shift under throttle.
The cost of a performance cvt transmission(like in F1) would be very high...as well as bland and boring.
The QS offers the opportunity to blast through gears just as quickly, while also letting you manually shift if you like.
Honda offers a Goldwing and Africa-Twin with automatic transmissions, for those who want it, but neither are 'performance' by any means.
I originally hated the QS on the gsxr1k, as I thought it was pointless.
I Quickly ate my words.
Once I realized the gain in acceleration, and the overall fun and lazy factor, I'de hate to have bike without it now.

I sure like my aftermarket unit, it shifts seamless and precise...
And just like you mentioned, it seems to reel in acceleration much quicker.

 

[Got-Busa?]

@dcnblues the QS makes shifting butter smooth and seamless like a CVT and far better than without.

 

[dcnblues]

Clutchless motorcycle shifting is Better for the drivetrain, as the gears slip right into place without shocking the system with sudden changes from clutch engagement.
You can shift any motorcycle with no clutch, so long as you let off the throttle and don't jam the shifter, just apply light pressure to it.

Yes I am aware of how to shift without using the clutch. You have to be careful and easy on the bike to do so which is what I am all about. But butter smooth to me is unstressed daily riding with a clutch. I also understand the smoothness of the quick shifter under Max acceleration.

Now add in momentary spark kill and a transmission designed to shift under throttle.

This is the part not enough people are talking about. I suspect you're right and that I think the transmission is more delicate than it is. I don't know why they don't stress this more in marketing and for reviewers. Essentially regular drag racing used to kill a stock clutch, but not these days.

The cost of a performance cvt transmission(like in F1) would be very high...as well as bland and boring.

F1 banned the CVT in the early 90s because they knew that taking out the shifting would be a huge performance advantage. And the industry didn't want to spend the money to change the way transmissions have always been done. And humans are monkeys who like controlling the machine. I'm just saying if the money that was spent on developing computer-controlled paddle shifting that can do so in thousandths of a second were spent on cvts, they might be more widespread, sorted, and available.
And a quick scan of YouTube videos on the Lucid Air and Tesla insane mode or whatever they call it on their triple engine sedans hardly seem to complain about the performance being bland or boring.

The QS offers the opportunity to blast through gears just as quickly, while also letting you manually shift if you like.

It's not 'just as quickly,' it's quicker, right? I thought that was the whole point.

Honda offers a Goldwing and Africa-Twin with automatic transmissions, for those who want it, but neither are 'performance' by any means.

Good. Let's keep it that way is what I'm saying. The last year you could buy a Ferrari with a clutch pedal was 2009. Does anybody really want the same for sport bikes?

I originally hated the QS on the gsxr1k, as I thought it was pointless.
I Quickly ate my words.
Once I realized the gain in acceleration, and the overall fun and lazy factor, I'de hate to have bike without it now.

I will play with my QS more, I promise. But I still think a CVT that took the shifts out of the picture might let sport bikes back onto the top of the quarter mile podium.

 

[dcnblues]

Okay, crap, now I'm worried the bike only adjusts to altitude based on the IAP value at engine start. So if you have climbed up into the mountains, do you need to stop and start the bike to reset the fuel map?
My impression is that there are open and closed loops in the ECU, and I probably don't need to worry. Thanks to anyone that can verify this.

sportbikeryder said:
Those ports are where you will want to plumb a MAP sensor. The OEM "IAP" sensor is essentially the same thing. It uses a baro pressure sensor in conjunction to give "realtime" MAP. Many standalone ECU's dont use a separate baro sensor and instead measure and store rge MAP sensor value as a baro reference at power on.

If you are street riding and have lots of elevation change, adding an actual baro sensor isnt a bad idea, but most do not use one.

John

 

[smithabusa]

Okay, crap, now I'm worried the bike only adjusts to altitude based on the IAP value at engine start. So if you have climbed up into the mountains, do you need to stop and start the bike to reset the fuel map?
My impression is that there are open and closed loops in the ECU, and I probably don't need to worry. Thanks to anyone that can verify this.

Assuming you are on a standalone? If not the stock ecu accounts for this. If on a standalone band you do huge altitude changes while riding, wire a baro sensor in

 

[dcnblues]

Stock flashed ECU. Thank you, I love not having to worry about this stuff.