Triumphrat

Mental Trousers · 01-26-2010, 02:29 AM

I've done a bit of reading around here and it looks to me like the best tune to start with for a TT600 is the '02 tune 10115. Apparently this is now known as the 10165 tune??

Are the 10115 and 10165 exactly the same or are they different? If they're different, where can I get the 10115 tune from as my Tuneboy only has the 10165.

EDIT Looks like I left this question in the wrong forum. Could someone move it to the correct one. Ta.

BombFactory · 01-26-2010, 11:08 AM

The 10165 is the same tune: 2002 TT600 with secondary air injection (SAI). However, I don't think it is the best baseline tune for a TT600, but there are two divided groups when it comes to this. Some people like the 10165, and think its SAI design improves things on SAI equipped and unequipped engines, but I think the 10166 (2002 without SAI) is a better designed tune for equipped and unequipped SAI engines. This is due to 10166's fuel trim and ignition timing gradients. They are both smoother gradients than the 10165, which makes for less surging down low and an evener distribution of power. Also, 10165's ignition timing gradient runs flat for a higher rpm than 10166, and then it's like a brick wall, jumping up in timing. 10166 has a nicely sloped timing gradient that starts lower in the rpms that gives good spark all the way to the powerband, and when the gap in it is filled in via TuneEdit, it really makes things come alive over any factory tune. Check out the 3D view for both maps, and you'll see what I'm referring to.

If you get to the point where the 3 cylinder setup works well, bumping up air/fuel ratios on the 10166 also makes a huge difference. Out of all the maps I've edited, ones with a 10166 baseline seem to run a lot better, while I always find myself needing to design a totally new ignition curve and filling in even more air/fuel ration gaps on the 10165 to the point where they nearly match the 10166.

Mental Trousers · 01-27-2010, 12:52 AM

Excellent. Thanks for that. I'd been assuming that the standard factory maps like the 10165 wouldn't be quite as good a place to start tuning a race bike as their primary goal is emissions and other annoying bollocks that get in the way of efficiency and power.

There seems to be a lot of people saying that the 10165/10115 is the place to start. However, that looks to be for road bikes, not race bikes and hence why I asked.

I had noticed the differences between the maps and definitely prefered the look of those designed for after market pipes. They tend to have a smoother, flatter curve. Although the 10166 has a dip around 2800/3000 which I'm guessing is for emissions?

Lots of fiddling to do

Dogbreath · 01-31-2010, 12:48 PM

Been away from the forum for awhile. I had the 10115 installed by a bike shop since I don't have the necessary equipment to do it myself as I had heard the same thing about upgrading the "tune". Ran pretty good, but I also have a Techlusion box (a poor mans version of a PowerCommander) on my bike that helps me "dial" in settings when I'm on the track and then readjust for cruising and then again for mountain roads. Very cool and helps out a lot on that sluggish low rpm range that the TT is so well known for.

Will · 01-31-2010, 07:26 PM

10115 was the hot setup five years ago, probably because it was the only map available for a 2002 or later bike. Most of the aftermarket maps used it as a starting point, but because they all added fuel, etc. they may have ended up very similar to what is now 10166. I haven't kept up with TT600 maps, unfortunately.

Mental Trousers · 02-01-2010, 05:07 AM

Thanks guys.

I've decided to start with the 10166 tune and go from there and see what happens.

I've also been in contact with clutchnthrottle and what he has to say is very interesting.

Will · 02-01-2010, 01:08 PM

The clutchNthrottle map for 2000 engines and cams was absolutely the hot setup. It was a bit rich for everyday commuting duty, but it made a TT600 as strong or stronger than any other contemporary bike. If you are using 2000 cams and an exhaust with no crossover in the header, his map is an outstanding place to start.

Mental Trousers · 02-01-2010, 09:07 PM

Looks like I'm going to start with the clutchnthrottle setup then. A bit rich sounds spot on as I'd be altering the 10166 full load air/fuel ratios to 12.75 below 10,000 and 12.5 above.

Thanks

workin_ike · 08-13-2010, 01:27 PM

Sorry to dig up old threads, I know carburated cars, but Im new at this computer tuning thing. I have a bunch of tunes to play with, just got my TB working lastnight. It had a 10105 loaded, I tried 10091. But the 10166 is showing for standard exhaust. From what I read here, it sounds like a good tune. But It dont really match my bike. I have '01, stock header, w/ V&H can, and K&N.

Will · 08-14-2010, 08:07 PM

Yep. It's where you want to start. Using TuneEdit, you can fill in the big gulf in timing from (if I remember right) about 2500 to 4000. There's a graphing function if you are more visual than not, and it's how I got rid of the low rev timing problem. It's all an experiment, really.