moto
-
Posts
133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Community Map
Posts posted by moto
-
-
I noticed that there don't seem to be separate left and right fuel tables. Is it possible that "offset" is to correct left/right stagger problems? I'm wondering if this might be the case because in Tunedit for Triumph and Aprilia, the preferred table for tweaking fuel is called a "trim" table and then there is a function under "tools" called "commit trims to main tables" (except when in realtime mode).
Regards,
Derek
-
If you are going to do that, one side of the nut should have a radius matching to the pipe's O.D. machined on it. There should be no gaps to fill or bridge with rod. The thickness should be such that if you take the sensor out and install a plug, the plug's inside face sits tangent to the inside of the pipe. It's a good idea to use stainless steel so the bung and weld seam do not corrode.I don't think any sensors will fit the 10mm thread. It may only be for attaching diagnostic equipment.I took the header down to an exhaust shop with a nut. Only cost about $20 bucks to get the nut welded.
Make sure you have any flanges that need to be on, on!! You won't get them on after the nut is welded.
Regards,
Derek
-
-
Why would you want to go and louse up a perfectly good map with closed loop?Yah, Cliff's closed loop is not perfect, but I suspect with a $2000 4 gas anal-ysis to create a near perfect base map and then with the closed loop and wideband sensor to keep it near perfect, the bike will ride with the perfection of a Lexus and the soul of a Guzzi!
...albeit nearly US$3000 over stock price.
Of course one could just do what Frank did, and get better than 90% improvement toward perfection for less than the cost TechnoResearch's Motorbike Diagnostic, a PCIII and a dyno tune.
Either way, a great improvement to a great bike.
Regards,
Derek
-
I disagree with Cliff that you can rely on closed loop operation via an O2 sensor to properly tune the maps. Rather than buying another ECU which still ultimately needs optimization on a proper eddy current brake equipped with a 4 gas EGA, I recommend tuning the existing ECU via TuneBoy or TechnoResearch software.
Regards,
Derek
-
I charge $150 for a TechnoResearch hardware key (which I stock), and $17 to load a pre-existing map. The tuning cost depends on how many throttle positions are tuned, whether the left and right are tuned individually, whether I tune the spark advance, whether I tune to best HP or to a CO target, and to what resolution I tune/how many iterations I am allowed.
Regards,
Derek
-
-
Im am happy to announce that I am now able to tune MM-IAW15M ECUs via Direct-Link and have keys for Moto Guzzis in stock at $150.00 each.
Regards,
Derek
-
Why would you go back if they won't even deign to communicate with you?I had it dyno'd well over a year ago, and they were not responsive to my email, so I am not going to ask them unless I go back for another run.
Except that I'm not convinced that the amount of time required for a stable reading is the same at every throttle position/rpm.If you shifted most of the numbers up 1000 RPM it kind of matches the A:F graph, so maybe it has something to do with a delay or the effect of an inertia run.
Not by merits of being an inertia run per se, but certainly by merits of being a DynoJet inertia run.Would an inertia run give higher HP numbers? -
Sorry it took me until now to respond. If we assume the "A/F ratio" graph actually shows mixture strength, as well as that the graph should be relatively uniform for proper running, then, at first glance, the mixture strength in the graph appears to be "all over the place". Contrary to my earlier speculation, the DynoJet patents for "Autotuning" imply that all tuning is done in steady state and that the computer either hunts around until the correct "A/F ratio" is achieved at a given throttle position/rpm, or, it records the "A/F ratio" and performs a calculation that will yield the theoretical offset required to hit the desired "A/F ratio" target. The chart you posted looks like an inertia run. The first thing I wonder is why, if the tuning is done steady state, is the graph you have not from a steady state run? Is it possible that a steady state run would show the desired "A/F ratio" across the board, and that we are simply looking at some type of response time related issue? Or maybe the "Autotuning" was done by the latter method, and that offset the computer calculated simply didn't translate to the real world? Maybe the operator knew that the engine runs better at what , in places, seems to be an unreasonable "A/F ratio"? Can you asked him/her about any of this? I would be curious...Moto, any insight about the tuning link map that I posted? The WOT section is most interesting as it has the A:F ratios. I suppose if you had more data it would be more meaningful. -
Fine by me. I don't have any control over where these points are in the map (I'm certain Wayne does though, as he's provided me with base maps where these points are in different places), so all I can talk about is how the ECU behaves. However, I have not yet seen a Sagem ECU that is set up to adress more than two cells at a time at full throttle.This is not strictly correct. Full throttle is a mechanical limit and would provide a certain signal ( say 4.7V ).Where this sits in the map depends purely on where the breakpoints are set.
The top of the map may be set at 4.5V in which case anything above that is only using 2 points. Or the top of the map may be set to 5V in which case it is still doing 4 points averaging.
I have definitely lamented the fact that I cannot control where these points are. I could trouble Wayne to change them for me, but he is often very busy and the points have seemed close enough together not to bother. To that comes that you can't easily decide where they should be closer together without tuning first. If you then changed where the points are you would have to start tuning all over again. Most people have trouble affording my services as it is...If there is a bit of peaking/dipping in the MAP you would bucnh your break points around the peak to get the most accurate modelling.
Exactly!Then you would not be getting significant averaging errors.
Do you mean which cell I'm in of the four, or which end of the range I'm at for a given lower right cell of the four that are highlighted and therefore active?The ECU is doing a weighted average. This is not a static weighted average but a weighting based on the position in the square.
If there are always four cells active and the ECU only moved by one row or column at a time (rather than two), why would there be discontinuities?This is the only way you can transition a map and not have discontinuities.
Could be. I'm still not sure what you are basing this assumption on. Even so it's fairly inconsequential, as it just means that the ECU is averaging less than I think and that it actually wants pulsewidths that might seem strange. It's an interesting discussion, but really I'm just concerned that the engine runs right. As far as that goes, it's somewhat irrelevant if the ECU is doing weighted or unweighted averaging, or whether the engine has strange seeming pulsewidth requirements because of crossover scavenging effects, or if it's a combination of these effects.If you are near a breakpoint the average would be about 90% from the closest point and 10% from the other 3. -
I am moving along the breakpoint lines.Nope. This is important because to get it correct you need to move along the breakpoint lines when tuning. Breakpoint lines are going vertically and horizontally via the corners of that square those four adjacent cells are forming.
As explained earlier, I'm not tuning the cells in the square at random, but tuning sequentially, always the one of the four I have not tuned beforeand always the cell in the bottom right corner of the square.If you don't do that and you tune somewhere inside that square, then you will change one of the four corner cell values in excess to get the average at your tuning point somewhere inside the cell correct. When you then move within that square in a different location, you will get an incorrect average value.
There could only be an error if I was not tuning strictly sequentially, skipping cells, and/or the ECU was advancing through the table at more than one cell at a time per breakpoint while adressing the four it is averaging. I wish I could explain it so it could be more easily understood. If it still doesn't make sense, maybe some screen shots would help?It depends then on the amount of rpm and throttle breakpoints how big error there will be. -
I think I'm beginning to understand another part of the misunderstanding here. At full throttle, the ECU adresses and averages between two horizontally adjacent cells. If you were tuning from low rpm to high rpm, out of the two, you would always be tuning the one to the right. You would never tune one that did not have an active cell next to it that you had not already tuned (except for the very first one). At any other throttle position besides full, the ECU is always adressing and averaging between four adjacent cells, but this is four in a square, not in a row. If you were tuning from the top down in terms of throttle position and, as before, from the bottom up in terms of rpm, you would always have one active cell above, one to the left, and one diagonally above and to the left that you had already tuned for any cell you were currently tuning. Therefore, whether or not the ECU "weights" any of the cells is irrelevant.Yes, that was my question. I have some difficulty understanding that having those "outrageous " values in the map is really an acceptable thing, because as Cliff has pointed out, the ECU is most propably doing some weighted interpolation whenever defining values between the breakpoints.
It's not so peculiar when one considers that the ECU is adressing and averaging between 2 and 4 cells at any given time. Think about how many different combinations of values in four cells can provide the same pulsewidth. If you started with a slightly different value in the first cell you tuned, the adjacent cells would have to be different in order to end up with the same pulsewidths as before. This would result in a cascading effect throughout the table.Another thing is that you say that you would not achieve "a same looking map tuning on a different occasion". It sounds a bit peculiar to me to see that even if you are claiming to tune with very high accuracy for power, then the actual final outcome, the map, will be different in different tuning occasions. -
I can't help if Sagem do not meet your expectations. I have to tune with what I've got, which I don't mind a bit...I would expect the Sagem to do likewise.
Apparently in this case we cannot logically discuss the map without an understanding of how the ECU adresses the table positions.Anyway we are not talking about the sagem ECU we are talking about a map for the Futura.
Apparently it's not that simple in this case.A map is a function of the engine not the ECU.
If your argument was valid, reversion effects would be constant for a given rpm, regardless of throttle position. This is simply not the case.Because resonance/wave effect are by definition frequency(RPM) dependent.
I'm still completely at a loss as to how you are drawing this conclusion, and my dyno runs prove otherwise.Which is exactly why your zigzag mapping against throttle can't be right.
And we're seeing those, aren't we?At constant throttle one would expect to see peaks and troughs as you vary RPM due to the tuned pipe resonances of inlet and exhaust.
You could be right, except for the erroneous part. You might be able to find a basis to argue that your architecture is in some way superior to the Sagem architecture, but to call the averaging erroneous is problematic. If the ECU adresses four table postions at a given time it has to average. If they did not want it to average, why wouldn't they just have it adress one cell instead of fooling around with four?I can see no reason why at constant RPM you would get dips/peaks as you vary throttle apart from erroneous values caused by averaging.
The throttle positions I use are determined by the the values in the tables.If thats the case the map is not optimal except for the exact throttle points you set. I also doubt you would see this error on dyno because you would check by do runs at the throttle values you set.
There is no error, because there is no time that the ECU is not adressing four table positions at a time, except at full throttle. Actually, I take that back. There is no error that would not be there if the ECU was designed to access one table position instead of four and the values were not averaged by the ECU amongst those four.To see this error you would need to hold the RPM constant and vary the throttle.
I don't generally do sweep tests, because they don't tell me as much as step tests, but I have another Futura in that I could do this with. I see little point in it though...Do you do that for your tests.
Once again, I am tuning at the break points.To illustrate how average can produce invalid results if we don't tune at the breakpoints,
Ok, I think I understand where the problem is. If I were to tune out of sequence, i.e. tune two places and then tune in between, you would be absolutely right. I would then have a mess. But as explained before, I'm tuning sequentially top down in terms of throttle position and bottom up in terms of rpm (or left to right, depending on how you're looking at it), and I can't really go in and "touch up" anything afterwards (not a problem, no need to).lets say we have an array of 10 numbers corresponding to a map and the perfectly tuned values are 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5When you start tuning the map is 4 X X X X X X X X X
Now you start to tune midway between the first two. After your first point you have 4 6 X X X X X X X X because 4 and 6 average to 5
If we tune closer to the first number the 2nd number produced is even worse.
However assuming tuning midway you will get 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6
If you only look at it at the midway you will see 5
-
What does a description of how your ECU works have to do with the Sagem ECU found on the Futura?I have a description it here http://www.jefferies-au.org/My16M/Tuning.htm
Why not?The map was doing this at constant RPM so I would not expect it to be any resonance/wave effect.
I adjusted all points, so no problem.If it is an effect caused by averaging, then the resulting map is not optimal outside of the points you set.
Exactly!The dipping at low throttle/low rpm is quite significant relative to the actual pulse duration. -
It may or may not be, and to me it's immaterial. What is material is that the engine runs right, and I will do with the cells whatever is required to get it to do so.It not a straight average of all 4 points.
You could take that up with Sagem I guess...At least it shouldn't be.
You position the set of four so that the cell you are working on is at the bottom right corner (presupposing that you tune from the top in terms of throttle and from the bottom in terms of rpm).It should be a weighted average with a greater emphasis on the point you're closest to. Thats why you position as close to a point as possible.
Judging from the trend of radical values being required next to cells with radical values in the opposite direction, I must disagree.That way it predominates and the other 3 are insignificant. -
It's not a matter of being at the exact breakpoint. That is no problem. It's that the ECU is adressing four cells at any given time except at full throttle, where it is adressing two at a time. There is nothing I can do to prevent that, short of using a different ECU that isn't designed that way.You have the throttle/rpm breakpoint values from the ECU don't you? What I do is set the RPM/throttle so that you are exactly over a data point. That way there is no averaging issue.
It's likely due to the 4 cell averaging, as well as due to various wave tuning effects, how they vary in amplitude & frequency, and how they come in or out of phase at any given throttle position/rpm. This obviously includes crossover induced scavenging effects.What about the query I had regarding decreasing pulse width and increasing throttle. Any explaination for that or is that a symptom of the 4 point averaging. -
Hmm, I'm not sure how the values stored in the ECU would change from day to day, nor do I have any idea how I would tell, besides copying the tables out of the ECU and having a look at them. If I did that, I assure you they would be the same, as the corrections for ambient conditions do not alter the original values. If you are asking if I would have the same looking map tuning on a different occasion, the answer is very likely no, but not for the reasons you might suspect. Except at full throttle, the ECU is addressing 4 table positions at once at any given time. That means that for a given rpm/throttle position, there is an average of the 4 values taken. You don't tune all 4 values for a given throttle position/rpm though. Instead, you only tune one of the four because the neighboring ones would otherwise be wrong. This means that you sometimes have to use fairly outrageous seeming values for one cell in order to get that average of 4 table positions to add up to the right thing. Since you have to tune from the top down because of this architecture, there is a type of domino effect that can happen in this regard. What triggers it is cells that require weird values in order to counter the effects of reversion, differences in scavenging due to exhaust, etc.Yes, I understood that these are injection pulsewidth values stored into the ECU. What I was after was that if you make tuning runs, lets say, today and again after a couple of days/weeks, would you have those spikes in the same places and with similar magnitude ?If these are somehow related to resonance phenomena in the inlet or exhaust side, different environmental/engine temperature, air humidity/pressure or any other change (fuel quality) in the system could have significant effect especially on those resonance points.
In other words, is it possible that striving towards a very accurate map under some specific circumstances could lead to such a map that it is well suited only to those circumstances. I must add that, at least what comes to Guzzis, I do not really believe that oil/air temp and air pressure sensors together with the original compensation algorithms are doing a perfect job in compensating for the changing situations.
As far as the map only being good for the conditions on that day, I assure you that runs are quite repeatable from one day to another. If you need further convincing, look at the CO numbers again. They are quite reasonable regardless of the ambient conditions they might be measured in and will not change radically from one type of conditions to another. Radically different CO numbers are also not required for varying conditions. Whatever slight variation is required, I'm sure the ECU handles just fine, as otherwise my runs would not be as repeatable as they are.
-
Certainly they are repeatable, as they refer to the pulsewidth at that throttle position/rpm and not to a measured exhaust gas content. However, the resultant upper and lower CO limits throughout the map are ~ 2.5 to 5%.Interestingly large "spikes" in those maps. Are these because of some kind of resonance phenomena in the gas exchange ? Were these really repeatable during the tuning process ? -
One of the problems with two into one systems and most systems with crossovers on uneven firing engines is that you inevitably have to map the two cylinders independently to get good results. If this is not done, it could contribute to the vibration you are noticing. The Futura with its AF1 h-pipe had very different requirements front to rear. Check out the final maps here:front and rear to see what I mean.My bike has a very mild vibration when I let off the throttle. Give it throttle again and the vibration increases dramatically. If the throttle bodies are out of balance, the vibration becomes more apparent.The V11s produced before they added the front balance pipe are known to have a dip in the power curve and more vibration between 4000 and 5000 rpm.
I have long been suspicious that this was related to the stock exhaust.
I still have the stock crossover, but with Mistral mufflers which results in more peak power, less bottom end and the dip between4000 and 5000 still exists, but it seems with less vibration.
When I had the QuatD (a short 2into 1 muffler)It still vibrated between 4000 and 5000 rpm, but also seemed to vibrate more at lower rpms, too.
I am soon going to put stock mufflers back on to see the difference.
Has anybody noticed a difference in vibration when going to aftermarket crossovers?
-
I'm not sure I understand how the Vern's richer chart negates my point. Can you explain further?Yes, that is what I thought at first, but if you go one chart lower, Vern (indicated by the red line) gets a new chip that make him run richer and with more power, albeit only a little more power. and I'll bet his fuel consumption went up! (well maybe not...this is only maximum power per rpm that they are showing. -
Differences in pressures on the tops of the pistons are essentially immaterial when compared to the inertial forces exerted by the reciprocating and rotating masses. With a two into one or a system with a crossover on a v-twin, one cylinder will always be scavenging better than the other at any given time. I should have said not "whether or not", but "how much" in my previous reply.I wrote: "If my belief was correct, then I would rather have had a balanced engine where each cylinder made 40HP, rather than a more powerful engine where one made 39HP and the other 43HP."Moto wrote: "Sometimes this is done deliberately in order to broaden the powerband."
Wouldn't this cause vibration and engine wear?
-
Check the second chart down between 4750 & 5200, 6500 & 6700, and 7200 & 8500 rpm. In these areas, the engines make exactly the same power with fairly divergent "A/F ratios". Then in the first chart, the same HP is shown in the same areas with the same "A/F ratios". This does reinforce the apparent problems with "A/F ratios", unless one were to argue that the one graph in the second chart was lean while the other was rich and by an amount that coincidentally produced the same power.Doug Lofgren also wrote this excellent article describing how one O2 Lambda range is not a good indicator of where to tune for power:http://www.visi.com/~moperfserv/chip_talk.htm
Edit, I am mistaken.
The article does not describe that, but rather how one map will behave differently on two bikes.
If anything it may reinforce the idea that an O2 sensor defined lambda will result in good power.
-
That's not really a mistaken belief, because whether or not an assymetrical flow is created depends on the length, placement, and diameter of the crossover.I said, "I am concerned about airflow contamination from one cylinder to the next via the crossover.I would rather lose a little power if it helped the bike run better."
This was regarding my apparently mistaken belief that crossovers created asymetrical flow between the two cylinders on V twin engine.
Sometimes this is done deliberately in order to broaden the powerband.If my belief was correct, then I would rather have had a balanced engine where each cylinder made 40HP, rather than a more powerful engine where one made 39HP and the other 43HP.
Agreed in general terms, but on a vee twin, secondary pipe diameter is critical with two into ones due to the uneven firing.Everyone seemed to agree that crossovers and two into ones, are good things and that two into twos produce less power.
MyECU installed on my 2003 V11
in Technical Topics
Posted
A couple of points to remember:
A/F ratios are at best only loosely related to O2 content.
If you use either of these as a target for tuning, the target must be decided upon by some method. The result will only be as good as the viability of the target.
You can hit the target while having stagger and/or retarded ignition timing problems. In the case of a stagger problem, the ECU/tuner/autotuning software will add fuel, which will result in one cylinder being sort of in the ballpark and the other one being rich, loosing more power and economy than one cylinder slightly rich and the other one slightly lean would have resulted in. In the case of ignition timing, the O2 will be high, while the mixture could be perfect. The ECU/tuner/autotuning software will add fuel, loosing more power and economy than the retarded timing alone would have resulted in.
You can hit a reasonable looking O2 target with a CO percentage ranging from ~2 to ~11% (without stagger or timing issues).
Regards,
Derek