3 ms·
Top notch ASCII art there, thanks. Yeah, I'm no combustion engineer or anything, but I just can't see what would motivate a system like that. I suppose the ride
by function_seven 5y ago
Top notch ASCII art there, thanks. Yeah, I'm no combustion engineer or anything, but I just can't see what would motivate a system like that. I suppose the rider has the ability to snap the throttle shut instantly, but you could achieve the same with a limit plate on the same set of butterflies that are servo-controlled. So when you open it up, you're both electonically telling the ECU what you want, and mechanically allowing the range of motion. When you snap the throttle shut, you're forcing the intakes closed. Computer gets to limit the rate of opening and coordinate the fuel, rider still gets to close it as fast as they please.
- pengaru 5y agoWhat you're describing would still suffer from the same "catch-up" problem though, assuming the same control software. It's worth noting later versions of YCC-T are servo-actuated using a single throttle shaft. This early version was probably just something slapped on at the last minute using off-the-shelf components, and they didn't refine the control software enough to do things like at least resync the logical servo position with the cable throttle position when the rider has started closing the throttle from an overshoot position. It was just a very naive rate-limiting filter of sorts where the servo is continuously chasing the actual throttle's instantaneous position. The experience occasionally resembled a laggy high boost turbo car where tq keeps increasing despite a shrinking throttle open %. Kind of amusing in a car, Tesla FSD levels of idiotic on a ~1000hp/ton bike.