dlaing
Members-
Posts
7,096 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Community Map
Everything posted by dlaing
-
Nonsense! It absolutely causes the temperature to be hotter. Now you are talking! You are admitting that the goo causes the temperature to deviate from the engineers intended, right? Or are you saying the engineers intended to add goo?
-
Yes, I had a pair of Avon Azaro II, the rear wore out, replaced with Conti, and then later replaced the front Avon with a Metzeler Sportec, thinking that would cure the problem, but the problem went away after adding the rear Sportec. I mix and match all the time going through maybe 4 rears for every 3 FRONT. I suppose the Conti not matching with either front could have been the reason....perhaps a good reason to avoid the tire for those that mix and match. Lately I have been switching between Metzeler and Pirelli, which cross match probably better than any two other brands.
-
At first I saw some value to insulating the brass adapter, because it increases the ratio of engine temperature to ambient air temperature, and I liked the idea of shielding it from cold rain and high wind speeds. I was assuming that because the sensor and housing are smaller, the weather would more quickly effect the sensor temperature than the engine temperature, but the cooling fins on the engine are comparatively much more massive then on the brass sensor adapter, and the nature of aluminum vs. brass helps make the brass cool off and heat up more slowly. Putting the brass adapter on a lathe to shave off the cooling fins would do wonders for the thermal diffusivity, and making the adapter out of billet alloy aluminum would be even better! I have had issues that show the sensor is getting too hot, (of course it could be solar flares) so insulating is the last thing I would do, unless I lived in Seattle, and even then, I would probably only insulate the base of the adapter, near where the sensor tip is located, and not the sensor body that needs to stay cool. Of course some voltage readings on my bike showing it never getting over 100C with Goo added would certainly convince me of the value of insulating. And FWIW, Huberts readings show otherwise. Pete Roper's readings weren't detailed enough.
-
What is AGW? German Auto Workers union??? I think Ratchet blamed his inability to test under ideal test conditions on a lack of AGW!
-
The sensor and plastic housing does not have more thermal inertia than the cylinder head, but it lacks enough thermal diffusivity that it SIGNIFICANTLY delays following the temperature of the cylinder head, which does in fact vary enough to cause significant changes in running characteristics of the bike. The most drastic changes occur during startup and shutdown, and that is where we see the greatest lag time for the sensor trying to keep up with the cylinder temperature. The ETS does not "heat up more the engine" but the engine could conceivably cool down to a lower temperature than the sensor, when you shut the engine off, and maybe even during some operating conditions, such as coasting down a mountain. Whether or not it does, is not really relevant, but what is important, is how much the sensor temperature is lagging behind the changes in cylinder temperature.
-
My earlier comments in Grey, new comments in black, and GuzziMoto's comments in blue I think we now have two definitions of accuracy. There is the accuracy of the sensor following the engine temperature, and there is the accuracy of the sensor output matching the table in the ECU. Adding goo helps the sensor follow the engine, but we really aren't sure about how it matches the table in the ECU. It appears that adding goo makes it better match the table at cold temps and at hot temps it is a worse match. There is only matching the sensor temp (and therefore it reading) to the temp of the engine. The table in the ECU is what the ECU does with the information the sensors send it. There is no "sensor output matching the table in the ECU". Again, causing the sensor to read low will trick the ECU into giving the motor more fuel at all rpms, and that may seem to correct an issue with the bike being lean at low revs and throttle openings. But it will also add more fuel at higher revs and throttle openings that the motor does not need, not to mention it does not address what was causing the lean condition to begin with. It is a band-aid fix that treats the symptom, not the problem. The table in the ECU represents temperature and voltage. The temperature and voltage numbers were matched at the factory with a stock setup. Anything that changes the temperature reading from stock deviates it from the temperature in the ECU's table. Saying that goo increases the accuracy is only true because it increases the engine temperature to ambient air temperature ratio. But the accuracy that the engineers intended is compromised, for better and/or worse. Guzzi engineers may have figured on making it nice and rich at temperatures that won't be tested for emissions. As for it being too rich at higher RPMs and throttle openings, I don't think that is true, except for a couple of cells on the map. As evidence, look at the PCIII map for a stock Guzzi, where almost all changes are to make it run richer indicating it was too lean to begin with. Emissions testing is not done at full throttle and high rpms so Guzzi and most others (especially with air cooled motors) set the bike up either with correct fueling or rich fueling in those areas. It is only in the lower revs and throttle openings that the motor is lean, and there it should not be so lean that it runs as you describe having issues with unless something is not right with the bike. This is not something unique to Guzzi but most if not all the manufacters do this. But that raises another point about what the temperature was when the bike was dyno'd. How do the tuning link dyno? I seem to recall they hold it one throttle position and let it go through the revs, and then move to the next throttle position getting more and more open as they go, so probably the engine is probably coolest under low throttles and hottest at high throttles, throwing off the values. Any decent dyno operator will keep an eye on engine temp to prevent that from happening. Depending on your definition of keeping an eye on engine temp, that could be scathing remark to dyno operators. To be a decent dyno operator do you have to be a cyborg with an infrared eye? Another problem is that many dealers may be doing the "favor" of setting the trim (or TPS) richer than EPA mandated spec. Adding goo may be seen to have a positive effect because of that. Adding goo has a positive effect because it gets the bike off of the rich warmup mode quicker then it does without the goo, thus reducing fuel consumption and in most cases improving warmup time (a rich motor will warmup a little slower then on with correct fueling, plus over rich fueling can wash oil off the cylinder walls). The purpose of the ETS is to tell the ECU when the motor is cold so it will add more fuel. That is what it does. Anything you do to improve it accuracy will give the ECU better more acurate info on the temp of the engine. Screwing with that in a way that feeds the ECU inaccurate info is not or will it ever be defined as improving the accuracy of the sensor. It will alter the fueling but it is not improving the accuracy. You cannot put a heatsink on the sensor and then say it is improving the heat flow to the sensor by drawing heat into the sensor. It is doing one thing and one thing only, it is cooling off the sensor causing it to read lower then it should. Call it what you like but it is doing what it does. Heatsinks shed heat cooling off the device they are attached to. But adding goo screws "with that in a way that feeds the ECU inaccurate info"!!! Yes it will increase fuel efficiency, especially during warm-up, but it also causes the temperature to deviate from the engineers intended and it causes the ECU to lean the bike out too much at high temperatures, especially during cool-down (something Ratchet is addressing!)
-
If Ratchet and I actually agree on something, you guys really need to question your understanding of thermal dynamics. Everyone is fine with Greg's duct tape???? Is everyone living on the North Pole riding in the snow with square wheels????
-
Maybe. I think out of balance would create vibration, not wobble. I remember watching that tire get installed and balanced. I am pretty sure the tire was defective. I tried various tire pressures to make it stable, but nothing worked, accept for replacing it. It was probably a one of a kind lemon, possibly crushed while in storage or transit?????
-
I tried a ContiForce at the rear wheel many years ago. It gave me Speed wobble at about 80MPH. No other tire I have tried did such a thing. It must have been a defective tire, but I would not try them again. But yeah, grip, wear, and price were all excellent. Maybe I should be more forgiving and give them a second chance?
-
How's that duct tape holding up on the sensor? What are we wasting time on? Reducing thermal diffusivity? A resistor that helps reduce overly lean conditions, and gives feedback to the running condition? Criticism of recommending the brass adapter? Criticism of the advice of adding goo? Criticism of the advice of adding duct tape? I think someone else is barking up the wrong tree.
-
I think we now have two definitions of accuracy. There is the accuracy of the sensor following the engine temperature, and there is the accuracy of the sensor output matching the table in the ECU. Adding goo helps the sensor follow the engine, but we really aren't sure about how it matches the table in the ECU. It appears that adding goo makes it better match the table at cold temps and at hot temps it is a worse match. Theoretically the stock set up should have matched it best. Guzzi engineers may have figured on making it nice and rich at temperatures that won't be tested for emissions. As for it being too rich at higher RPMs and throttle openings, I don't think that is true, except for a couple of cells on the map. As evidence, look at the PCIII map for a stock Guzzi, where almost all changes are to make it run richer indicating it was too lean to begin with. But that raises another point about what the temperature was when the bike was dyno'd. How do the tuning link dyno? I seem to recall they hold it one throttle position and let it go through the revs, and then move to the next throttle position getting more and more open as they go, so probably the engine is probably coolest under low throttles and hottest at high throttles, throwing off the values. Another problem is that many dealers may be doing the "favor" of setting the trim (or TPS) richer than EPA mandated spec. Adding goo may be seen to have a positive effect because of that.
-
There have been various schools of thought here. Hubert's 125C reading suggests that the ETS is approaching a range of inaccuracy when hot. What exactly happens if the sensor reaches 150C? How about 200C? I guess it just reads 125C????? Does the plastic part of the sensor degrade? Pete Roper suggests the ETS often reads to cold and the answer is yak fat. Greg says to add goo and insulate. Most seem to agree with making it run hotter, but Ratchet and I have found that adding goo makes it run too lean. It is certainly possible something is wrong with the bike, or maybe San Diego's gas, but it is also a certainty that adding solder or goo to increase the conductivity in the brass adapter makes it run like crap in hot conditions. Ratchet also tried the brass adapter and did not have luck with it, despite what Guzziology says. Is your wife running the brass adapter with goo in it? If so, why? Why do you think the brass adapter increases accuracy? Adding goo does, but it also can make it run too hot. Bodging with a resistor can help reduce lean running at all RPMs, which would be a benefit to a V11 tuned to EPA spec.
-
If this was a BMW forum we would have had the sensor bench tested for voltage output and temperature ten different ways by now. Unless I missed some posts, here is what we have got on temperature readings: So, I assume Hubert has seen 125C in 10C weather, with plastic adapter and no goo. And nobody is criticizing the people who are adding goo and wrapping the stuff in duct tape, but they are criticizing Ratchet for adding cooling fins and a switch to make the ECU run richer when it gets hot enough to pop and miss, which is quite likely when it is getting over 125C. But then we have the claimed master of thermodynamic science, Ratchet seeing no value in knowing the measured temperature. "Who needs a farkin' voltage reading" --Ratchet misquoted cause I am too lazy to look up the real quote So far the only thing that makes sense is for everyone to rush out and buy TuneBoy and VDSTS or Cliff's My15, but we don't have that money to burn. How hot is metal when spit bounces off of it? Either really cold or well above 100C. I know the exhaust gets that hot, but what about the sensor adapter. My spitting aim isn't like it used to be.
-
I disagree and think it is of value. Kinda sad though that it took 35 pages to get this far. Potentially the sensor MIGHT get hotter than the engine when the engine is off, possibly creating symptoms similar to vapor lock. My sensor got too hot when I added solder as a conductor within the brass adapter, but I don't know if it was too hot for the map, or too hot for the sensor. The sensor's accuracy range is spec'd to 125C. If it goes above that, and I suspect it does, then it is Too Hot. Making it run cooler has side-effects. We have barely even touched on what the real operating temperature is. Where is Docc with his infrared temp reading gun? When is ratchet gonna create his own bakelite mold?
-
I am half way to digging it! Everything so far seems to be a half-assed solution. Cooling fins get too cool at high speeds or wet weather. Adding goo can make it too hot, when hot. Not adding goo can make it to cold, when cold. Brass adapter makes it too hot when hot, but improves it in some conditions. Duct tape is major bodgy and could make it too hot in some conditions, but blocking the wind will make it run more consistently at varying speeds and in varying weather. An adjustable variable voltage input is a great idea, but if you forget to use it properly, it is a lousy solution.... Increased Thermal DIFFUSIVITY will only make a slight difference, but combined with conductive goo and insulation it could add up to a fairly substantial improvement. I still suspect the sensor is getting too hot. I know for sure it is too cool much of the time. I can change the map, but that does not help others, and there are still consistency issues. A volt meter or AxeOne could provide a better clue. I'd love to see how hot Pete Roper could get one and show the temp with Axe One. I guess I could try a meat thermometer...
-
So what have you been chasing? You lost the scent of the coon as soon as you wrapped the crap in duct tape. Which is better, your method or Guzziology's?
-
from wikipedia "Thermistors differ from resistance temperature detectors (RTD) in that the material used in a thermistor is generally a ceramic or polymer, while RTDs use pure metals." Since yours is metal, maybe it is an RTD???? But I think both the thermistors and RTDs are covered in a heat resistant plastic or a ceramic. Thermocouples are also made of metal!!! PS, no need to horsewhip you over a typo or any other mistake you willing to fess up to. Maybe you mean the sensor tip is metal, and you can't actually see the thermistor, like with our OEM sensor???? How do you know it is metal?
-
Thanks for replying. "The thermal inertia of a material is defined as a the square root of the product of the material's bulk thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity" -- http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Vo...c_heat_capacity Your Aluminum conductivity number is wrong. It should be 136 According to this site http://www.ibrt.ch/electronics/cooling.html copper has a conductivity that is 1.7 times that of aluminum Copper has a thermal conductivity of 400W / m*K Aluminum has a thermal conductivity of 235W / m*K Which is a very different ratio than what you posted. And furthermore, copper has 1.4 times the Volumetric Heat Capacity of Aluminum. copper has a heat capacity of 3.37 J / K*cm^3 aluminum has a heat capacity of 2.40 J / K*cm^3 So if I understand it correctly, we multiply and square to find thermal inertia we get: Copper (400 * 3.37)*(400 * 3.37)=1,817,104 Aluminum (235 * 2.40)*(235 * 2.40)=318,096 So the Copper has far more thermal inertia, But is low thermal inertia what we want in our sensor and adapter? We want high thermal inertia from the engine (which we have) and we want high conductivity to the sensor tip and low VHC Volumetric Heat Capacity from the sensor and adapter so that it reacts quickly to the change in head temperature. We want high thermal diffusivity! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity Aluminium 8.418 × 10-5 Copper 1.1234 × 10-4 Which makes Aluminum the more favorable for the material between head and sensor tip!!! Aluminum will heat up faster and cool faster, closely following the thermal inertia of the cylinder head. I don't know the Thermal Diffusivity for brass, but I'll bet it ain't what we want, excluding properties of weather resistance. Aluminum may have some other advantages, like no dissimilar metal issues of differing heat contraction or oxidation. Fascinating stuff! But I still do have concerns about the sensor getting too hot A longer probe and a ceramic or bakelite insulator would do the trick! Or if your thermistor has a high enough temperature rating and the volts could be brought down so it never reads over 125C, you might be in business. Would you care if are getting 200C readings that are likely off the ECU charts and out of the thermistor's recommended operating range. Might be a good reason to take voltage readings... If your thermistor is metal, are you sure it is a thermistor and not a thermocouple?
-
Cool! Less thermal inertia!!! Now you are talking! Speaking of thermal inertia, I think if your custom composite holder had an aluminum base to better match the thermal qualities of the engine, it would heat up and cool down faster than brass, more closely following the groovin' dancin' moves of the massive inertiaful cylinder head. Thermistors don't have much mass. Do you mean the sensor is low mass. Are you sourcing an aluminum sensor?
-
Thanks! (and I do need to get some high quality bits)
-
That is one complicated frame! (that looks much more rigid than our V11 frame)
-
Or maybe an Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor! I'll bet I could get my WBO2's five volt output would be ideal, but I'd have to figure out how to smooth the signal out more.
-
All very funny, but on a serious note, how do you drill out pop rivets? My Mistrals need re-conditioning.
-
Thanks for the update. How much of the riding was with the resistor activated? I'd guess that because it was cooler today, you did not need to enrich the mixture by activating the resistor, but you did get behind long line of traffic, so maybe you needed it then in order to run flawlessly.
-
Anyone want to take a gander on what specs would be needed for a potentiometer that was would let the sensor signal through in a neutral position, and override up to maybe 30°C in both rich and lean directions? Could we use a HD pf4c TPS? That would be dumb luck if it worked. If so, how would we wire it. I suppose it be easier to just use switches and fixed resistors, but it might not be automatic enough. One position bypassing sensor with a 100? ohm sensor for touring fuel efficiency. One position bypassing sensor with a 1000? ohm sensor for road racer or hot weather stop light mode. One position direct from sensor. Or a bypass to a variable resistor. Or have a switch to switch between: Sensor only Sensor and parallel resistor or rheostat Sensor and series resistor or rheostat Put it in a $50 kit and put Power Commander out of business!