moto
-
Posts
133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Community Map
Posts posted by moto
-
-
That's all fine and good, but he himself stated that he had not read nor understood all of the posts.I think Juha is one of the more technically literate folks here and I to suggest that he has not read all the artiicles or does not understand is a disservice to him and others here.
Huh? Why would you want to skew the facts? And then to announce it so brazenly? Tsk, tsk. Well, on the other hand you are being honest, which I commend!This is where the skewing of facts comes in. In a rich mixture there is no oxygen. It is a zero quantity. All you measure is noise. This is the same for CO in a lean mixture. Its a noise that is measure.
Certainly in a rich mixture, there is little to no oxygen. But I can't recall anyone advocating the use of an O2 sensor in a rich mixture. There is definitely measurable CO during a lean condition. As stated before, you can get meaningful CO numbers all the way down to lean misfire.
No, they can't measure mixture, but they might measure oxygen content.fact 2 ) Wide band sensors can measure mixture at rich mixtures
Then what is it measuring?Conclusion - a wide band sensor is not measuring oxygen when rich.
Quite true!I don't think anyone here has claimed that a closed loop can produce better results than what can be manually tweaked on a dyno. Even a dynolinked tuned dyno sessionwill fall short.
True.There are those that will want the absolute maximum power and for them an expensive dyno session is the only option.
That depends on how many throttle positions are tuned, how many rpm steps are tuned, whether ignition timing is tuned, if the table positions are overlapping for timing and pulsewidth, whether cylinders are tuned individually, if any interpolation is used (if so, how much), and whether the tuning is CO or HP; if to CO, how the target is derived; if to HP, to what resolution (1 HP? .5 HP? .2 HP? Some other number?).How much does your tweaking cost?
True.Most have stock bikes that do not run anywhere like they should or they have made a few common modifications and want to get there bike close to optimal.
Maybe we have widely disparate ideas of what the word optimal means in this context. Can you define what it means to you?For them a dynolink session is all they require.
Really? Where? What is this happiness based upon? I would like to see this quantified and qualified.Yes there are quite a few that are happy with the results.
Agreed.A closed loop ECU will give the same result.
I think that if folks had a better undertanding of what they were really getting, didn't just buy DynoJet's "A/F ratio" related marketing hype hook, line and sinker, and knew that there was a better alternative, it would not be.No it wont give the the absolute maximum available but it will be close enough for most. -
-
-
Just to clarify, the stated 3-4% range referred to CO.Based on your data, how can you say " it can be usefully interpreted"?What does a high or low O2 reading indicate, when at 3.5%
Once again, if CO looked ideal to slightly high and O2 looked high, and blanket changes to pulsewidth made little difference to HP, a stagger issue would be highly probable. If that was not the case or solved, and O2 was still high, the ignition timing would likely need to be advanced. O2 will not tell anything about overadvanced ignition.
-
Well, Cliff has been touting the benefits of his ECU mainly upon the supposed merits of O2 sensor driven full closed loop operation, but, as far as I can tell, so far things have not progressed/deteriorated enough for anyone to threaten anyone else...I can't say that I have read and understood everything in this threat, but is/was there actually someone here who has really been promoting FULL closed loop adjustment based purely on lambda sensors ?
I think you might not if you had actually at least read all of the posts, even if you did not understand all of it. In any case, the usefulness of sensors depends entirely upon the relevance of their outputs. How can O2 sensor output be relevant when it can be the same for a 1.9% to 11.4% CO with 1% CO approaching lean misfire, 11% approaching rich misfire and 3-4% being ideal for power, and when it can also read all the way from .2% to 4% O2 at best power.I still have the opinion that any kind of sensor in your exhaust is better than having no sensor at all.
Right, but how do you "interpret" a signal that, at best, bears a loose relationship to mixture stength? Don't get me wrong, as stated before, it can be usefully interpreted, but not by an ECU, which can't monitor other gas contents, stagger, or HP.The info that your sensor gives just needs to be interpreted correctly by the ECU and used for finetuning the fuel injection.
What knowlege would that be?Some of that knowledge may be written permanentyl into the maps or not.
As mentioned before, ECUs correct just fine by monitoring throttle position, rpm, pressures, temperatures, etc., certainly better than they could based on O2 sensor voltages.I cannot see any other way to ensure that your engine performs correctly despite of the changing day-to-day, weather-to-weather, gas-to-gas situations. -
"Elite performance engines" could be construed by someone to mean "racing". To clarify, I actually have reservations against any O2 sensor controlled full closed loop application. What I meant to imply is that in instances where the O2 sensor is used to optimize cat efficiency/longevity (as in most) the sensor is either not a player or only an incidental player in controlling pulsewidth for the purpose of producing HP or mileage (or "performance"). If that means you would like to withdraw your withdrawal, I will humbly apologize for the confusion...
-
If the customer's previous run was corrected, and the one presented by the tuner was not, because he realized that he lost the customer some power and wanted to cover that up, I think that's scandalous. The customer deserves to be able to compare apples to apples. If both runs are corrected he can do that. As a matter of fact, for both the tuner and the customer that's about the only way to reasonably compare data. What else can you do? To expect that somehow all runs and tuning can or should be complete before any changes in ambient conditions occur is a bit of a stretch.But my point is/was that this monsieur claimed aggressively that a dyno operator should not have presented real measured values to the customer, because they were incorrect. He claims that SAE correcter figures are somehow better, more correct. That is bullshit.
Not quite, as the correction factors work pretty darned well on carbureted engines as well. Once again I can provide as much data as is required from as many bikes as you like, and you can see for yourself.SAE "corrected" figures are estimations. If they correspond to the results you have had it's fine, it means that the intake temperature/compression compensation maps in that bike's ECU were ok, but not much else.
Well, on an injected engine, that depends on the ECUs temp compensation, which seems to be quite good nowadays. On a carbureted engine you can certainly tune to a particular temp, say the average you might encounter. That doesn't mean that tuning a carbureted engine is not useful. It just means that under some of the conditions the tuning will be suboptimal. Does that mean one should not tune?Another point, that I would like to raise:Temperature plays a very important role in SAE formula - so the question is: what temperature? Answer: intake air temperature. How well this temp during the dyno run corresponds to the road driving situation? My answer: very badly. Value of dyno optimization: not much.
-
The answer to all of this is catalytic converters. They need the O2 content to be in a particular range to function. Most closed loop ECUs only change the pulsewidth from the basemap based on O2 sensor input when the O2 content begins to go out of the range of where the cat will work efficiently as well as survive. The rest of the time, the ECU is just working off of the basemap with pulsewidth corrections based on TP, rpm, temps, pressures, etc. The map is never permanently modified by O2 sensor input, nor is the ECU ever running in a full closed loop mode, where pulsewidth is fully controlled by O2 sensor voltage. O2 sensors have to be reasonable accurate to do this job. That's why I am, aside fom the anomalies Cliff and I have uncovered, not essentially challenging the accuracy of O2 sensors. Once again, I am challenging the validity of the use of O2 sensor output-voltage in being sufficiently related to mixture strength to warrant using it to control pulsewidth in a full closed loop ECU for a high performance application, or in "Autotuning".One might also wonder why the whole internal combustion controller industry remains based on O2 sensors... wide-band or not, if they are so valueless, especially if there are some other better source(s) of information. After all, the ECU wouldn't know what the source of the data was, so there's not much room for a "EFI manufacturer's conspiracy" theory there.I might not argue with the assertion that there are "other" sources of real-time "combustion status" data, but I can't see that the whole industry remains captive to erroneous technology. Sub-optimal, perhaps, but wrong?? I can't see it.
-
What's FUD? I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't know what that is.It seems that FUD is becoming an acceptable practise of corporations.
I think in the case of DynoJet you would be correct. In the case of Factory, I would say less so, especially on this particular topic.They always seem to provide skewed information to support their product rather than a balanced view.
If you are referring to Factory, they do not make the bench used in their gas analyzer. As mentioned before, that is manufactured by Andros. However, Factory's pump, filtration, sample cooling and water separation make it superior to anything else I've seen so far. I think gaining a "competitive advantage" is a byproduct of Marc's trying to solve some of the problems he encountered as a tuner. I see nothing wrong with producing a superior product equating a "competitive advantage". I think it should be that way, although it certainly isn't always. It seems that hype and repetition give the best "competitive advantage" in this day and age.Now we have a corporation that in addition to making dynos make their own 4 gas analyser to gain a competitive advantage.
Good! This is astep in the right direction. However, I don't recall anyone saying that O2 readings (or O2 sensors) are useless. I did say, and I think Marc is saying, that it's not nearly as effective to tune pulsewidth to an O2 content as it is to tune to HP or CO content.I have no issue with believing their gas sensor is superior to a wideband sensor but I find the hard to believe their line about wideband sensors being useless.
Could be true, but the readings I and everyone else who is using an EGA is getting are not "anomalies". The so far most effective tuning methodology would simply not work if all or most of the O2 data was anomolous. Once again the methodology, as follows: You can use CO to rough in. You tune pulsewidth to best power. If the gas readings are for more than one cylinder at once, you look at CO and O2 content next. If the CO and O2 look high, you might have a stagger issue. You then fix that by whatever method you have available. Once that is fixed, CO and O2 will have dropped, while HP will have gone up. If O2 is then still high, then you likely need more advance. If you had one EGA takeoff per cylinder you can go straight to looking at timing, as (obviously) O2 will not tell you about stagger in this instance. If HC is high, you might need less. Once again, HP is the arbiter. Once you've actually got fuel and ignition right, CO2 will look good. At this stage, you are done, no matter what the O2 readings are. Of course this all assumes an engine in mechanically good order with no ignition problems, etc. As you can see, there would be a problem if you went straight to O2 content. I am firmly convinced that the readings I am getting are the actual O2 content. I'm also conviced that the readings most people are getting with their wideband, control box equipped, 5-wire O2 sensors are accurate as well. What I am arguing is not the accuracy of these devices (although the anomalies are disturbing), but whether or not O2 content is a proper indicator of mixture strength, to the extent that it has a place controlling an ECU in a performance application.Sure they have documented some anomilies with the sensors but there is no investigation as to what has caused them.
Again, is something untrue until everyone and their mother is talking about it?So far I've spent a few hours googling for any evidence to support their claims and so far I have found none.
Very cool. There was some interesting reading here.I have even posted a question on the Megaquirt forum http://www.msefi.com/viewtopic.php?p=33486 . There is some interesting information surfacing. There is even an account of a lean reading anomoly from an o2 sensor and an explaination. -
I can say from my own experience that SAE correction factors work quite well. I have many different runs taken on different days on the same motorcycle with the only change being in atmospheric conditions, and the corrected graphs are nearly indistinguishable (I'm willing to post as needed). Atmospheric conditions can easily change from one run to the next, and if there were no correction factors you could not tell at all what you were doing. You would be hard pressed to tell whether or not the horsepower you gained or lost was due to the parts you just bolted on or due to the change in atmospheric conditions. I used to do a fresh run in the morning to get a new baseline whenever I had to stop tuning on a previous day and I usually still do, but how well runs repeat with the correction factors has made it something I do because I'm persnickety, not because I have to.
-
The author of those links is not hiding anywhere and has no desire to remain anonymous. I simply don't know how to get the pages to come up within the context of the website, as it uses frames. I first looked at the page properties and copied the URLs. Just now I tried to use the main page adress in front of the extensions instead and it works just fine, although the pages are still not brought up in context: http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/dyno_error.html, http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/4gasEGAvso2sensor.html, and http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/dyno_locs.html. To say that Marc Salvisberg doesn't know what he's talking about and/or has an agenda to mislead is a bit of a stretch. Sure his writing style sounds agressive. I don't agree with it either, but that does not make what he is saying here untrue. Think about the magnitude of what he is up against. People tend to believe the falsehood that is repeated most frequently and with the most marketing glitz. Think about how difficult it is to change people's minds about anything, no matter how wrong it might be. I can undertstand Marc's frustration coming out in the written word and I can forgive him for that.I have to admit that I'm replying to this thread partly because I'm a bit drunk and in that state I know everything better than anyone else
. Forgive me.I made an error and had a look on these links. For an unknown reason the author seems to have a lot of aggression and he either does not know what he is talking about or he wants to mislead readers into the direction that is suitable for his personal commercial mission. Most probably both. Another odd thing is that he doesn't have a decent domain name, but is hiding behind an anonymoys IP address.
-
Are there really people who have had great results with a tuning link?
-
You can't expect much for $200, no matter who the tuner is or what they might claim, unless they are for some reason willing to work for pennies on the dollar...And some of us may interested in using your dyno services!Especially if you are open to TuneBoy, TechnoResearch's Direct Link and or DynoJet's PCIII, and can get anywhere near Tuning Link prices, which start at about $200 for a full map, but higher prices are apparently more typical.
-
Even ignoring what was written there, one only needs to look at the charts provided to come to one's own conclusions.Thanks, that was very interesting even if it was written by people pushing 4 gas analysers.
Excellent! If you spend enough time with a dyno, with either an analyzer or a wideband O2 sensor, you will find them.I'll certainly keep that in the back of my head and be on the lookout for any anomalies.
You may be able to mount a CO meter of some kind on a bike, but it will not end up being very useful, as you need a certain amount of time at a given throttle position/rpm for CO to stabilize.Are there any cheap and simple CO sensors that can be mounted on a bike instead of an O2 sensor?
What you are once again missing is that you can have mixture strengths that vary drastically at the one and the same O2 sensor output voltage, and corrections to the map won't happen until the voltage actually changes.Do we have monotonic and reproducible relationship between pulsewidth and mixture? If we do then what I said is correct. I think what you are saying here is that the relationship between mixture and voltage may vary at different datapoints and what I'm saying it will still be monotonic and reproducible.
That would definitely be a step in the right direction, but will still not solve the problem.So if I wanted to get maximum performance I would need to determine a voltage level for each data point.
You said that your ECU was making only minor changes and that they are directly related to O2 sensor voltage. I'm assuming that this is what you mean by saying that the ECU is producing a stable output. Once again, none of that is in dispute. But say that you determine what output voltages should be present at a particular throttle position/rpm. You then let the ECU look for that voltage at that throttle position/rpm while operating the motorcycle. As soon as that target voltage is reached, the ECU will make no further adjustments there until the voltage changes again. It will be just as you say, "stable". The problem is that the ECU can recieve that voltage at a myriad of mixture strengths (not pulsewidths, which as you say are directly related to sensor voltage). Say the target O2 content as established on a dyno is .4% (I don't know what that is in voltage)with a CO of say 3.2%, and the O2 content is currently .5% which is leaner and the threshold for getting to .4% O2 from the lean end is at 1.9% CO, the ECU will stop adjusting when it gets there. Or, lets say we currently have an O2 content of .3% and the threshold for getting to .4% from the rich end is at 11.4% CO, the ECU will once again stop adjusting once it gets there. It will not adjust again until it recieves some other voltage. Will the pulsewidth be related to voltage? Yes. Will the ECU appear "stable"? Yes. Will we have the mixture we wanted? Not likely.Here you are definitely mistaken. Any closed loop system will drift aimlessly with incorrect feedback. If the o2 sensor was not giving me a signal that was related to mixture, my ECU would not produce a stable output.That you on one hand argue for the use of closed loop systems on the basis that pulsewidth and mixture (or how an engine runs) do not always correlate and therefore need correction, then on the other hand defend the use of O2 sensors by saying that pulsewidth and mixture (or how an engine runs) are 100% correlated is a bit contradictory.
-
My dyno will measure hp and record EGA data at any throttle position/rpm combination the engine will run reasonable well at. I could see there being a problem at very low RPM and large throttle openings. Still, I was able to tune the Futura (for example) down to 1900 rpm at full throttle. What kind of dyno where you using?Thats an interesting point. The dyno I used was an eddy current type with attached PC. At the lower RPMs ( probably 2000 was the first one I tried ) it was impossible to determine what the bikes output was, let alone maximise it. The dyno literally showed the power pulses of the twin. It might of smoothed out at higher revs to be usable but adjusting the mixture for a given A/F ( or voltage ) was the only measure I had. I -
Just a side note:
0.1 hp accuracy sounds incredible, allowing all those error sources in the dyno, the environment, the bike and the operator himself! Are you referring to a single dyno run or to an average of several sequential runs? Look, 0.1 hp in a 100 hp bike would mean an error margin/variance of 0.1%
- not doable IMHO. But I stand corrected.On the Futura I was able to make minor repeatable changes in mixture that produced in the range of ±.1 to ±.2 hp. That's as good as it gets. My dyno will simply not repeat any better than that. Of course this tuning was done in real time. I think if I had to shut down, make changes to the map, reload and then re-test, the repeatability would not be as good.
-
How do you know where the stoiciometric ratio is?
There is measurable CO produced until well below the point where engines start lean misfiring (somewhere around 1%).Similarly the fact that CO is not produced above that ratio means it is not a good indicator for lean mixtures.
Could be, but if anything that just serves to further illustrate my point.The O2 values you quote is just noise around 0.
Does that mean that the earth was not round until everyone agreed upon it? In any case, I'm not the only one who thinks that tuning to an O2 sensor voltage is a bad idea. See http://66.47.68.116/dyno/dyno_error.html and http://66.47.68.116/dyno/4gasEGAvso2sensor.html. For a list of tuners that are likely to agree, see http://66.47.68.116/dyno/dyno_locs.html.Clearly the wideband sensors are not O2 sensors in the same sense as the narrow band sensors. Their construction and chemistry is completely different. These wideband sensors are used in many commercial and open project gas analysers. They give coverage from 11 to 1 to well over 15 - 1. If as you suggest these wide band sensors are unusable anywhere rich of stioc, then this fact would be public knowledge. We would hear all over the place of this deficiency.Please provide some links that say these sensors do not work.
Whether or not the ECU makes accurate and repeatable pulsewidth adjustments based on the O2 sensor voltage is not in dispute, but whether or not these adjustments are appropriate is. You can say that you have a "monotonic and reproducible relationship between voltage and pulsewidth" and I will not argue one bit. But you can't say that you have a "monotonic and reproducible relationship between voltage and mixture" unless you have some way that is independent of O2 sensor voltage to verify that. If it's possible to have CO readings that vary from 1.9% all the way to 11.4% with a 0.4% O2 content, I can certainly see how your ECU would be prone to making infrequent changes confined to within 1% of a mean.I don't know how these sensors work or what these sensors measure. I just know that I can set a target voltage and my ECU will produce a mixture (as measured by injector pulse width) that is stable ( within 1% of a mean). I can reduce that voltage and produce a stable mixture that is leaner. I can increase that voltage and produce a stable mixture that is richer. I have a monotonic and reproducible relationship between voltage and mixture.
I never suggested that there was some other better O2 sensor available that would solve the problem.I'm at a loss to imagine how a "real sensor" would differ from this behaviour or what more it would provide me.
Again, the same voltage can exist at many different mixture strengths.How is you tweaking the mixture for peak power any different to me tweaking the voltage for peak power (a voltage for each data point not one voltage for all ).
I'm not assuming that, but a modern ECU's compensation will be more valid than what can be expected with an O2 sensor driven closed loop system.If you dynoed mid winter, six months later is totally different climate wise. You are assuming that the ECU has perfect compensation curves.
I'm definitely a believer in native tuning and avoid the use of PCs whenever possible.If you are using a power commander, Wayne Mcdonald has already explained how its calculation is going to be in slight error.
You would adjust tappets & TPS and balance throttle bodies prior to tuning. Subsequent service would serve to get the engine to once again run optimally with the existing map, not cause it to run worse.Add to that a service were you adjust tappets, balance throttle bodies and adjust TPS. You've pretty much invalidated that dyno session. Unless you're proposing another dyno session.
Again, if so many different mixture strengths can exist for a given O2 sensor voltage, what good is it?How can I have all those features I mentioned? Because I can specify that any part of my map have any target voltage.
Again, how do you know how lean it really is and how lean is appropriate?I can make my 25% to 50% throttle region track lean.
Why would you want to do that? Won't you loose power? How do you know how rich you've made it?I can make my 75%+ throttle rich.
Now that sounds like a plan!I can even go open loop at any point if I want to.
The fact that closed loop ECUs use O2 sensors is the problem, not how they do it.As I have mentioned before there is not one type of closed loop controller. As far I know they are all based on an open loop controller and hence have a map that should be adjusted to suit the bike. The gas sensor only gives further hints. Now tts quite possible that you have experience with OEM ECUs that are closed loop. It also would not surprise me to hear that that don't work very well.
What are your expectations of an ECU?I however have built my own ECU, if you haven't already picked that up, that has optional closed loop behaviour and it does everything I expect it to do and nothing I don't. Not anymore -
-
The basic question is : How do I optimise the ignition timing for a given rpm & load condition ? What shoud I measure ? How is the A/F going to affect my ignition timing and vice versa ?
The only very basic adjustment that I have done so far is to back of (retard) the ignition timing in those operation points where I experience pinging. Is the optimal setting close to the pinging limit ?
How about knock sensors ? Do you have any experience on those ? It would be nice to have both lambda and knock sensor on the bike to give feedback both the the fuel and ignition map adjustments.
br, JuhaV
First, you tune for best power at the chosen throttle position/rpm step. If you then have a situation with a multicylinder engine with a common muffler and no individual EGA takeoffs where changes in pulsewidth common to all cylinders don't do much of anything to HP while the CO content is a somewhat high and O2 content is unusually high, you have a stagger issue. If you have control over it, you then try adding or subtracting pulsewidth on one cylinder at a time (if you don't have control over the map for each cylinder individually, it's worth flow & pattern testing and matching the injectors). If HP goes up, CO goes down, and O2 goes down, you are going in the right direction. If O2 is still high once you don't get anymore gains from adressing stagger, the engine can use more advance. Conversely, if HC looks high, you might have too much. As with pulsewidth tuning, the EGA readings help to point you in the right direction, but the final arbiter should be HP. You can use CO2 to check your work, as it will only look good when the proper pulsewidth and timing exist on all cylinders. I think it's a bad idea to try to tune advance without getting fuel right first.
-
-
Well those gas charts certainly explain why the common narrow band gas sensor will not work well with A/F below 14/1.
How do they do that?
To dismiss all o2 gas sensors as not workable in the richer range though is to ignore the fact that wide band sensors like the Bosch 0258 104 002, that I use, and the newer 5 wire sensors do exist and work very well in that area. They are the basis of many commercial analysers including RacerX's US$2000 sensor.Define "work well". If they don't provide data about whether the mixture is leaner or richer than it ought to be vs. close to optimal, then what good are they by themselves? If I can have CO readings that vary from 1.9% all the way to 11.4% with a 0.4% O2 content, how can O2 content be useful for the determination of mixture strength?
It may also be true that a single A/F target will not give maximum power across the board. However just as you could tweak each map point to with 1HP by adjusting the mixture, what is to stop one similarly tweaking each points A/F ratio to do likewise.Using the term "A/F ratio" is quite misleading in the first place, as it implies that it's relevant to something and that we can measure it. We can't measure it with an O2 sensor, but we might be able to measure it with a mass airflow sensor in conjunction with a fuel flowmeter. Even though this would be interesting data, how the engine is running is what is relevant, not what "A/F ratio" it supposedly has. Just to clarify, the Futura was tuned to within .1 to .2 hp of best power, not to within 1 hp. Assuming O2 content was actually meaningful, you could certainly tune each table position to max power via pulsewidth adjustments on each cylinder individually, then similarly tweak the ignition maps, and then try to use the final resultant O2 content at each table position as the target for the ECU. The problem is that this defeats the major percieved advantage of a closed loop ECU being able to tune itself without lengthy development on a dyno. Unfortunately it's a "garbage in, garbage out" scenario.
No I don't have that capability today. I could have it tomorrow. One thing I would be sure of though. Which system would still be within 1HP six months down the track.What makes you think that an open loop system will lose 1 hp in six months? In my opinion, just adding an O2 sensor driven closed loop feature to an ECU that has had every fuel and ignition table position tuned to within .2 hp of best power stands to compromise performance more than leaving said ECU untouched for years.
How?Would I be happy with a 2% drop in power for 5% better economy. You bet.Would I be happy with a 5% drop in power for 20% better economy. You bet.Do I care that I get 95HP rather than a 100. No
Do I care that the throttle is responsive and there are no misses at. Yes
The good thing is I can have all of those features above, including the 100HP if I want.
If we want to tune for economy rather than power, how do we do that? I suppose we could tune for power to establish where the engine runs best and then subtract a particular percentage of pulsewidth across the board. Or do we look to reduce the CO by some amount, or perhaps increase CO2? How do we then know that what we did is optimal? Can we do this across the board, or do we once again have to work on each table position individually? Wouldn't we also have to refine the ignition map to match our new fuel map? If we do subtract some fuel, we will certainly be loosing power. The rider has the throttle open commensurate with how much power he needs. So now he has less and opens the throttle further. Is he then still using less fuel than before? How much less? I suppose that could be determined on the dyno with a fuel flow meter. A closed loop ECU will not be able to do that by itself.
-
This would be a more valid question to ask if the engine was never accelerating at or passing through 12% throttle during acceleration.
Spoken like a true dyno operator. You are behind a rock. No one would pay you to tune their motorcycle to be more effecient, and still offer good performance.We as consumers have been brain washed into more power more power more power. Look at the crap they sell "up to 10 more Horsepower, only $19.95!!!" People only want to see a before and a better after dyno run. It's that HP number that matters!!!!!True, but how do you propose to measure fuel economy on a dyno? I suppose a flow meter could be used to measure how much fuel was being used at any given time. Is this akin to what you had in mind?
But what take into account the dirty air my engine breathes when plugging along in rush hour traffic, or the bad gas I filled up with, or the dirty air fliter I should have replaced 3 months ago, or the oil that is slipping past my worn valve guides. It is reactive to its inputs, not to how well the engine is actually running.It will take into account the clogged filter, as the airbox pressure is usually measured on the outlet side of the filter. The Futura ECU monitors the pressure in the airbox on the inlet, or theoretically wrong side of the filter, but also monitors manifold pressure which makes that ok. I think the oil slipping past the guides should mostly be irrelevant unless it's a large quantity, in which case you should be getting it fixed anyway. A closed loop ECU is also reactive to its inputs and not to how well the engine is actually running. You are ignoring the fact that a particular O2 sensor voltage does not automatically equate the best running engine.
I haven't seen this one yet.Sorry, that should have read "barometric".
-
Right, but by what criterion is the CO on the charts high? As far as I am concerned if I am producing the best power I can at that CO, then it is not high. Most motorcycles produce somewhere in the 3% to 5% range when tuned for power.
The avegae of your total run of HC is 464 ppm. Quite high.High by what standard? According to the thousands of runs in my database for every type of motorcycle you can imagine in various states of tune 464ppm is on the low to average end except for when a cat is used.
The only motorcycle I have ever considered sedate at 100% throttle was a JR50 with the restrictors still in it. We are talking about sedate driving because all of us ride under sedate conditions on the street. I have never met anyone that rides at 100% for very long period of time. Even professional racers only average around WOT 20% of the time at most tracks. Drag racing being the obvious exception.Right, that's why I'm wondering why you would talk about the CO shown in a chart for 100% throttle indicating rich mixtures during sedate driving. Also, see the CO for the 12% throttle run. The CO is comparable. I agree with you about most riding happening in the 20% and below throttle range. That's why the Futura's ECU was mapped on the front and rear cylinders individually to within ±.1 to ±.2 hp of best power at 100, 92, 82, 73, 62, 49, 39, 29, 22, 16, 10, 6, 4, 2, and 1% throttle (all throttle positions the ECU interpolates from) at the rpm steps shown in the charts (to where the engine would rev out at the smaller throttle openings). I'm more than happy to post the final runs (and the prior runs) for whatever throttle position anyone is interested in. I do think that at the larger throttle openings are where people have their fun, and that it's anticlimactic for the rider if the engine does not work well there. Plus, you've got to tune 100% throttle for bragging rights, no?
Using a O2 in closed loop can tune for these sedate conditions, where a rich mixture is not desirable, efficiency is. I would think that a Futura owner would like to get better mileage while cruising on the interstate.Again, by what criterion is the mixture you see on the charts rich? And again, what are we tuning for? While it may be possible to improve mileage from best power by tuning specifically for that, in my opinion the increase in mileage will be small enough to make it a waste of time. I think most people ride a motorcycle primarily to have fun, not to achieve a certain fuel economy.
It is a reactive engine control, which can tailor a map for current running conditions.An open loop ECU is certainly a reactive engine control. Modern open loop motorcyle ECUs monitor rpm, throttle position, engine temp, ambient temp, airbox pressure and relative humidity at least. With a proper map to make adjustments from, that's more accurate than using an O2 sensor. One thing that people forget is that O2 sensors were not introduced to help performance. They were introduced to assure the proper amount of oxygen in the exhaust gasses to keep a catalytic converter functioning optimally. Also, if stagger issues and timing have not been adressed in the base map, the ECU will meter the wrong amount of fuel in response to O2 sensor inputs.
Something which no dyno can reproduce.I'm not sure I follow. Can you clarify?
Using O2 sensors do not require steady state conditions.In my opinion the lack of correlation between the proper amount of fuel and O2 sensor output makes this fairly irrelevant.
I have not had a chance to work with one of the newer Factory dyno's. What is the max brake rating (tq) and isn't tire slip a problem?The max brake rating is sort of a soft limit. The problem is heat. The cooler the brake, the more HP it can contain. What ends up happening is that at really high HP, the brake can't get rid of the heat quickly enough and then it will gradually let go. I think mine is probably good for 200 and some without additional cooling. How much more it could contain with extra cooling depends on how much was provided. Factory has models available for various applications and with various HP ratings. I'm sure that if they didn't have exactly what you needed, they would build it for you. For example, BRG's model MD-750 dyno is not listed on the Factory website, but will contain 1000HP. Tire slip has not been a problem for me, as the drive roller is slotted and the geometry of the setup causes the tire to "dig in" proportianately to how much HP is being produced.
-
To my knowledge the tuning link only uses O2 sensor voltage becuase that is the only sensor that has a fast enough response time to be used on a inertial dyno. O2 sensors are chemical in nature and thus respond quickly to changes, CO, CO2, NOx are measured using a IR scanner or laser sampling method on the high end machines. The best response time I have seen for those is
My EGA responds to CO in ~2 seconds. However this relatively unimportant, because the delay is just set appropriately in the software and the particular rpm step is held until the traces level off.
In summary I would believe that on the road tuning using O2 is the better than nothing, which is the only other option. On dyno tuning setting a CO target probably will get you better results quickly as CO is a better indicator of a rich condition. Although I would be careful to also keep an eye on the other gases.Agreed.
CO is a result of incomplete combustion, and can be greatly effected by poor combustion design, which our Guzzi are plauged with. I would expect a Guzzi's CO to always be much higher than an Aprilia's at a given A/F ratio.I might expect that as well, except that some engines that you would not expect it of run best with seemingly high COs and that I find the correlation to "A/F ratio" to be irrelevant.
And actually Moto I would be curious to see the other gas data you have from the Aprilia and what type of dyno was used.Futura data including HC and CO2 for 100% throttle with pulsewidths tuned to within ±.1 to ±.2 hp of best power:
Rpm hp ft/lbs CO HC CO2 O2
1904 15.97 43.91 4.2 668 11.3 0.5
2353 18.76 41.82 4.2 156 11.4 0.3
2655 24.75 48.90 4.2 182 11.5 0.3
3005 31.54 55.09 2.6 427 12.0 0.7
3306 36.13 57.39 3.3 647 11.4 0.7
3606 39.62 57.68 3.6 618 11.3 0.7
4004 44.01 57.68 3.7 596 11.3 0.8
4407 47.01 55.99 4.0 743 10.9 0.8
4906 55.59 59.48 2.7 459 11.7 1.0
5408 63.17 61.28 4.1 599 11.0 0.8
6007 67.56 59.08 4.7 174 11.0 0.2
6406 75.25 61.68 4.2 189 11.5 0.2
6810 85.08 65.66 3.8 596 11.1 0.4
7108 91.18 67.36 4.1 592 11.0 0.3
7408 95.49 67.66 5.1 599 10.6 0.2
7808 98.69 66.36 4.4 469 11.1 0.1
8309 103.29 65.26 3.2 428 11.7 0.2
8809 105.39 62.86 4.3 435 11.0 0.1
9309 107.60 60.70 3.4 306 11.9 0.3
9807 106.40 56.93 4.3 405 11.4 0.4
I use a Factory Pro EC997a.
ECU
in Technical Topics
Posted