C5, PowerArc, and the mystery of Timing

[AApple]

There are 2 wires that get grounded and ungrounded to select one of the pre-programmed curves

k: :clapping:
Easy Peasy!!

 

[C5Performance]

I am just on my cell phone today, running around. Once you get the 1100 system installed, it is no longer easily accessible for programming (how often did you reprogram your stock ignition?)

I believe 38.5 degrees was the stock advance?
Ours comes with 40 as the most aggresive curve. Three other curves are provided for various situations.

If you want an ignition that can easily accept future custom curves i'd suggest you install GL1000 cams and go with the 1000 kit. Yes, we update programs via USB but the GL1100 is buried where you cant get to it. Darn Honda!!

 

[skiri251]

I was just thinking about the "firmware update" situation.
I guess I will be one of the early adaptors of C5 for 1100.
If for some reason, better curves are developed later on, I would like to have them.
But seemingly it is already pretty much completed so no future revisions to the curves.

 

[mcgovern61]

C5Performance » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:52 pm[/url]":l8egrrrc]
Once you get the 1100 system installed, it is no longer easily accessible for programming (how often did you reprogram your stock ignition?)

:smilie_happy: :yes: :hihihi: :heat: Sorry, I spit out my coffee when I read that!! :smilie_happy:

(Just because we are a funny bunch! I see this C5 as a great upgrade to our 30+ year old electrical systems that have 35+ year old designed tecnology built in and we want more options than we ever had available to us in the past!) :hihihi: :ahem:

I'm just funnin here and not criticising anyone!

 

[PowerArc]

Don't confuse Firmware with the Ignition timing map (curves).
Firmware is not frequently updated and was last updated 1 year ago to improve kick starting and reducing kick back when kick starting.
The timing maps (curves) have been solid for a much longer time than that but can be modified if required.
4 timing maps are supplied with graduated maps, you can further adjust a timing curve across the board by moving the set point of timing.
Advance the TDC set point, I would not make corrections of more than 5° with this method.

Program any of your existing ignitions to fit modifications you make to your engine. Raised compression, blower, cam changes, fuel octane changes, side car all would require changes some just selecting the curve appropriate and some the addition switches or sensors set to change the maps required. i. e. engine temperature, VOES, MAP, Boost sensors, or simple relays as in a dump of NOS to retard the timing.

Most can be achieved with out reprogramming and using the existing timing maps.

But again it can be done if required and can't with what you have stock.

 

[joedrum]

that's good Gerry ....ive only one thing to say on 1100 c5 being on the rear of motor ....now access sucks for sure ... but a huge plus is this system is it is hooked to crank shaft directly .... this means that there is no travel in this setup and c5 has not much travel either ...the 1000 iggy gose from crank to belt ..from belt to cam ... cam to c5 ... and theres also two cylinders on other side timed by what going on elsewhere ...this alone to me makes the c5 1100 package better than 1000 package in possible error factor ... pretty rock solid route ..... something to consider

 

[skiri251]

I am a fairly "stock" person as far as engines go. I still have points in my BSA.
I may try single carb if I hear very good things about it.

Again the only concern was C5 for 1100 is relatively new (as opposed to stock setup established by the factory 30+ years ago) so there may be more chances of revisions to the firmware and/or the curves. But it sounds like that is unlikely.

I guess IF there will be a hugely improved curves in the future, I will remove the swingarm and hook up the USB cable.
Otherwise I should be okay.

 

[PowerArc]

I very much agree that the rear of the engine sucks, to bad it is so inaccessible. Should your stock ignition go bad be it stuck weight, vacuum advance or other you still have to go in. Points are great and so is a dial phone as it is proven but I own a Nexus 4 Android.

 

[C5Performance]

PowerArc » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:24 pm[/url]":3oh7t86k]
I very much agree that the rear of the engine sucks, to bad it is so inaccessible. Should your stock ignition go bad be it stuck weight, vacuum advance or other you still have to go in. Points are great and so is a dial phone as it is proven but I own a Nexus 4 Android.

I don't own any vehicles with power windows or locks, but i'm always drooling over the newest iPhones (sorry Gary). I get your point though...we all love our favorite hunting boots that are 20 years old but want our rifles to have night vision and bullet drop compensation. It must be a guy thing.

If there was a perfect system at the perfect price, I guess I'd still be at the dealership and would never have met all these CRAZY new Wing friends of mine. k:

 

[joedrum]

well I just read the first post ever in my experience on the web ... that brings the belts in the timing path as and error factor except for me posting about it ... done by mike Nixon while still pushing the cam wobble theory as main reason .....calling belt tensioning anal ....sheesh what a strange way to look at it by a so called expert ... simple math ... you don't get the hugest effect of out of wack timing from the smallest difference sheesh ... in this kind of thinking your assuming that bealts runout on pulleys ...crank ...cam ...and the differences in two belts ...run out on tensioner bearing and all this stuff is perfect ... but the cam witch has to be done good to fit cam was somehow done crummy and all these other parts were done perfectly that really don't have crucial fit involved at a level as the cam dose .... I don't know who started that crap so many yrs ago according to mike it was way back in the first yrs but its ridicules thinking as number 1 cause ... and the reason for split timing points .....sheesh its so not the reason the oldwings have running problems ...if this is the case wht do 1100s and 1200s basically run the same way as the 1000s do and mone of this stuff is even in play on 1100s and 1200s but they do the same ... all the after market products like dyna are actually no improvement at all there system is as full of inaccuratecy in its operation .....that dosant make this a bad motor just some what flawed in its design all motors are .....

the c5 takes all this stuff completely to its lowest level ... it cant fix the system the oldwing motor and its belt and cam setup .....but it sure eliminates adding more discounts to the system completely ....dyna is a joke of flaws added in ...and the stock system after points were drop wasn't much of a step forward ......so at least here I want to make it clear that I think people are misled by this flawed theory in 1000 bikes .....how many of you believe that belts are exactly perfect in leanth ....how many of you believe that a 10cent spring as Honda techs setup sould be the method of tensioning up against valve springs ....im not going up against this fool theory of what people think ... but I will speak here on this forum that the best thing that an oldwing owner can do to improve timing as far as motor goes is get belt as even as possible ...this true in all the flat fours 1000-1200 ....past this..... it having this best iggy setup and in my opinion is on my bike hooch ...c5 powerarc...multi fire

 

[ekvh]

The one thing that might better, Joe, is using the 1200 off the crank with C5. It however requires a computer or ECU. Turning the motor over by hand and watching the belts pick up slack and then tighten and you have to wonder quite a bit about ignition and valve timing issues, especially at low rpm. I am going on 6 weeks waiting for Dyna to answer me on two Dynalll's I sent back, and waiting for over a week for an RA to send back a DynaS system. I just haven't got $500 x2 for the C5 system. I might go back to points. Ugh.

 

[AApple]

Anything that can change the relationship between the crank and ignition timing will certainly have an effect on the overall operation, and efficiency of the engine. Don't matter if it's belts, chains, or gear drive. If the ignition signal is based on anything other than crankshaft position...it's not going to be 100% accurate.
On the 1000 engines, the ignition runs from the cam...which runs off a belt from the crank. The cogged gear on the crank, and the cam pulleys automatically add in a margin of error. With belt drive cams, the belt(s) WILL stretch under acceleration, and that will change the relationship of the crank/ignition. May not be much, but it does change, nonetheless.
Chain drives are a little more accurate, but they too stretch over time, and will "flop", which changes the timing.
Gear drives are prolly the most accurate overall over the long haul(age-wise), but then you have the clearances needed between the gears(backlash) adding inaccuracy.
The ONLY "perfect" way to control ignition timing is directly from the crankshaft....which is what 99% of the cars out there now have, as well as most(if not all) non-boxer bike engines. Trigger the igntion right from the crank, and it will never change, mechanically....unless you somehow manage to twist the crank out of whack.... :shock: :mrgreen:

 

[joedrum]

yes eric I know cost is high...... but the pleasure of riding a decent running bike is huge ....the c5 is the best thing ive ever felt in timing issue ....and the first product to ever make things better ... I to used dyna till it was clear to me its not very good ... and your right points are a much better alterrnitive to the dyna runaround trying to get riding time ....

well put im glad someone agrees with me ... joel

 

[C5Performance]

There are so many good threads going on this forum I don't have time to read them all.

One thing I am surprised about when I started this one, is that nobody has asked about multiple sparking.

MSD has always used it as a marketing tool but many people don't even know what it does.

What is multi-spark, how do we differ from MSD, and why don't more companies use multi spark?

Is there really an advantage or is it a gimmick to sell ignitions?

 

[Ansimp]

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[joedrum]

opcorn: opcorn:

 

[C5Performance]

Ansimp » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:48 pm[/url]":1tq24ppb]
opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

multiple sparking has nothing to do with popcorn, although I do enjoy eating it!

 

[joedrum]

I know muilti spsrk is hugely effective when cold and in low rpm with complete burn id say this is the hugest advantage ..though there many others

 

[dan filipi]

What is different about PowerArc's sparking as compared to say, MSD?

 

[Steve83]

With all the talk of coil saturation time, how effective is multi-sparking at higher RPM? A 4-cylinder engine, running at 6,000 RPM (3,000 RPM cam speed) fires it's plugs 12,000 times per minute. With dual coils, each one fires half of those, so each coil fires 6,000 times per minute, or 100 times per second. With multi-spark, that number triples, so your coils are firing 300 times every second! Pretty impressive, but not a lot of saturation time - and even less as you reach red-line...

Just my thoughts...they're probably all wrong! It's been a long day... This is all good stuff, thanks, guys!