And I appreciate you saying as such, I don't pretend to know much at all, this has been a good learning experience so far and if I am walking down a path that's iffy then I'm grateful someone is pointing that out. So thanks. For me I'm OCD enough to need to know as much as I can before going too far but I am also hindered by expense...I hope you don't mind lots of questions off the back of you're comments, I'm hoping any learning out in the open like this may help others too...
As much as I'd love to go that way I just can't justify cash on a PCV with AT as well as dyno time for such a small change....don't get me wrong I may well go with a PCV if I go all out with full system and ramair but for now I want to keep things simple and cheap....I also have to visit a local dyno shop which can apparently tune directly against the ECU, but £350 for the privilege means I
would want to wait until I have all the performance changes done first....this may be the deciding factor for not going with a PCV in the long term though. Would it make sense to go with direct ECU mapping if the bike setup is unchanging going forwards? Would PCV offer anything more in that situation?
For the low TP stuff I assume the autotune being fitted helps a lot? Without the O2 sensor switched on the ride seemed more "jerky" in town today, could be other factors too as I didn't test with just the one change but it certainly seemed that way...so for now I'm thinking of keeping as close to the tors map as I can until dyno time much later on...even with +12% on the F tables for 0% TP I had lots of decel popping still...
Yes, thats correct, I've done an experimental build with Dave on the cheap, simple link pipe from the header straight to an outlaw pipe on the RHS only. Goes well with the looks of the bike and I've seen other 3 into 1 solutions in photos before now that can't be much different in running. So Nat67 is stock except for the outlaws as well? Some pics:
(http://imgur.com/a%2F35XuNVA)
Nope, from all I had read before now I had assumed it was just F tables that were needed. I've just had a look now at the F/L switch entries, are these defining when an L map is used based on a match with the TP & rev position? Not quite sure how the last entry for 0% TP would work, is that to switch back? Could you explain how they affect switching between the maps or point me to a doc/page that could help?
edit: I've read people are getting on better with ramair fitted as well...might be another option for me...as it's the way I'd go in the longer term anyway...