Originally Posted by Bulldust
I don't understand how running two Hall Effect sensors at the same time would result in no wasted spark? It would certainly result in a distorted signal, no matter how accuratly they are mounted it is impossible to get the signals precisely at 180 degrees to each other.
I see lots of mechanical advance problems, particularly on high mileage bikes the wear is a real problem, the bike still runs and starts but in comparsion to a modern electronic advance the power loss is very significant.
"I hear about tons of mechanical advance issues since they have electronic advance". Not sure about this one?
Advantages of a modern electronic advance over mechanical advance, everone who has tried my system has commented on the many advantages, I guess you would have to try them with an open mind to find out. If mechanical advance was so good why have all manufactures abandoned the system?
Each sensor goes to one coil. No wasted spark. That's how you run a 360 or 180 degree crank with no wasted spark. Or you can have the same setup for dual plugging like some I know have done.
Electronic is better and cheaper but that doesn't change the fact that I almost never see mechanical advance issues despite everyone and their mother on the net suggesting others might have them. Open mind? If I didn't have that I would have jumped on the sticking advance bandwagon decades ago but guess what? I don't see it. It's great when what I hear is what I see but . . . . And then there are the ignition curves available. With one exception so far, they don't empress me. I just dual plugged my bean can bike. It took about five minutes to readjust the curve from 6 to 28 degrees versus 32. I might delay full advance rpm in the future and that will take a bit more time but I can get the curve exactly where I want it. Not so with most electronic advances I have seen.
I still don't know how advance comes into play at starter motor RPM?