dlaing

I think the ECU is measuring voltage (0-5V), not Ohms. What would that chart look like in Volts? As I understand it it will follow evenly, so for known accuracy we are left with how the ECU will interpret the Voltage. I know my volt meter's resolution increases at lower voltages, which would be at colder temps. The PDF I have specs 5% accuracy between -40C and +125C, which seems accurate enough. While I agree it would be nice to see greater accuracy at 100C, I don't see the chart above as proof of that. The percentage change in Ohms is greater at temperature changes other than 100-110. But percentage change might not imply accuracy. We may be getting 5% accuracy at -40C and 1% accuracy at 100C, but this chart is not evidence of that, and it only seems to be evidence that the ECU will get a more accurate reading at lower temps, unless I am missing something. I'll go back and re-read your posts, but I am not getting it.

Weber Marelli makes a WTS05 and WTS09 I think ours is the 05 and the 09 has a shorter probe. I don't know why you would want the shorter probe unless you got a shorter holder, or maybe went with NO holder I can email someone the PDF if they want to see it. It has physical dimensions. Thread is M12 x 1.5 The Resistance per Temp numbers are essentially identical to Cliff's numbers. They give the tightening torque spec as 24Nm max! But whatever you do don't use that spec with the plastic adapter ROTFLMAO! Accuracy is claimed 5% (W/°C) @ -40>+125C

It looks like most of the variation is in the lower temps. The early V11 map has more variation around 100C. The later V11 and especially the MGS01 do not need great accuracy at about 100C

Good stuff Ratchet! You must have been going to fast for me to see you up on Mt. Palomar today. I measured 37.5MPG today, based on one tank, which was maybe 1 MPG better than expected. So, are you now using the brass adapter or the plastic? How did you use the resistor? Was the resistor dialed to about 500 ohms the whole trip, or just when needed? Got any photos of the heat sink mounted? Is it simply mounted between adapter and sensor?

True, but tweeking the TPS messes with the fuel and the ignition at the same time, so results are not as simple as if it was simply enriching. Tweeking the resistance value of the engine temp sensor can be more predictable. One dial might not be enough. As Guzzi2go suggested, automagically is good. You could design it with three knobs, one to lean low temps, one to enrichen high temps, and one to effect how automagical it is. You could also design it with one knob that would just effect either the low temp leaning or high temp enrichening degree of automagicness. Many possibilities! You could even get a wide band oxygen sensor to have a closed loop effect by modifying the current flow from the temperature or altitude sensors.

Yah, I have enough trouble remembering to turn off my turn signal....

I think it would make more sense to not put the resistor in series, but have it as a complete bypass. For example, once warmed up one could hit the bypass using maybe a 500 ohm resistor and the engine would always assume to be 70°C. This could help with fuel efficiency during warm up, and reduce over leaning when hot. Flip the bypass off to get fuel efficiency crossing the Mojave in 120°F weather as RH does. A variable resistor would have more possibilities. I'd suggest using a Harley TPS with a fixable adjuster knob. I'd have to check, but I think the TPS is the same resistance range as the engine temperature sensor. Then you would always have a spare TPS with you, too!!! Get an onboard wide band O2 meter and you could have manual closed loop.

I really miss my V65SP. It was light weight, got about 50MPG US, and so easy to ride compared to my beastly V11. But it was a bit of lemon The V50's are known to be more reliable than the V65, so I'd like to get one someday.... But what are part availability for these bikes???? Are the 700cc Breva as durable and reliable as the V11? If so, a Breva converted to Monza trim would be very appealing.

The second sentence is nonsense. First of all, while heat radiates in all directions, it only "flows" or transfers in the direction of high temperature to low temperature. Under all riding conditions and when cooling the engine off, the heat at the probe will ALWAYS be higher than at the sensor body, and thus the heat will ALWAYS flow from sensor tip to sensor body. The engine is a much bigger heat sink than the sensor. No doubt, adding your heat sink will reduce the temperature at the probe tip and more so at the sensor body, and that is why you are seeing some benefits, but not without the trade off of increased weather induced cooling of the sensor reading. When the Guzzi engineers specified the brass adapter with cooling fins, they were thinking somewhat along the same lines as you, and you have possibly improved upon it by moving the radiator fins to more greatly effect the sensor body temperature, more so than the sensor probe tip. The only problem I see with your modification is the weather/speed induced variation. Of course running a little rich is the least of your worries when blasting down the interstate at 70MPH in the rain. I think your design could be improved on if the cooling fins were in direct contact with the sensor body, but not the brass adapter, possibly by use of a fiber washer, and shielding the cooling fins from the wind, or maybe getting rid of the cooling fins on adapter. All just ideas, not absolute truths like the heat transfer direction. I'll stick to the idea of teflon tape between sensor and brass adapter, possibly insulating the adapter as Greg suggests, continuing to add conductive grease between probe tip and adapter, AND modifying the map.

This law was signed by George Bush The measure — officially known as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 — passed the House on July 30, 2008 by a vote of 424-1 and the Senate on July 31, 2008 by a vote of 89-3. In an effort to stimulate the economy, lets hope they postpone and revamp the Act.

The ECU enrichens after startup for specific RPM count. Tuneboy has no control over this RPM count, and I don't think there is any software available to us that can control this feature of the ECU. But there is a map field labeled "startup" or something like that. Not sure if it is related. Tuneboy and Direct Link can modify the enrichment maps that are used with the Engine temp, Air temp, and Air pressure sensors. I think the exact temperature reaching the engine temperature sensor does make a difference. The observations of people like Ratchet and I who have tried the brass sensor with negative results backs up theory. Also, looking at the maps backs up the theory, but without reading the sensor output at various riding conditions we can't be 100% sure.

It is the answer I am going to shoot for, but there are many possible answers. Personally, I'd like to switch back to the plastic sensor, put conductive at the probe, rather than an air gap and map it more like the MGS01. Not sure what you mean exactly, but yah, the environmentor weather plays a major factor here. My bike runs great below 60°F The hotter it gets the more low speed crap running I get. This was not a problem before I switched to the brass sensor adapter.

For the heat to "flow" in the two directions with no heat sink and one direction without, you seem to be speculating that the probe temperature will be LOWER than sensor body's temperature. I absolutely positively disagree with that theory. Adding the heat sink is going to do one thing, lower the temperature, period. How much it lowers it will depend on weather and riding velocity. Look for greater cooling in colder, wetter weather, at higher speeds. Look for less greater cooling in the dreaded conditions of hot dry weather at low speeds, which are conditions more likely to cause the problem we are trying to avoid. The heat sink is working for you, because it is making your bike run richer, which at 40+MPG, it probably benefits greatly from. insulating the sensor threads with teflon tape rather than adding a heat sink, should have a similar effect of lowering the temperature reading, but with less temperature reading variability induced by various weather and velocities. Blocking the wind flow to the sensor might also help keep it from running too rich. Heck, if you put a wind shield in front of your heat sink, you may have a great solution! Best of luck to you.

FWIW I'll bet most of the people with vapor lock were running the plastic engine temperature sensor holder dry with no solder or other conductive. Also FWIW, the weather in San Diego was cool today, and my bike ran very well today. Five degrees warmer and I would have been running lousy at low RPMs. I do agree that the brass body is susceptible to heat soak, quite likely increasing the risk of restarting problems when hot. Also FWIW, Unlike RH, I have never had the vapor lock issue and my fuel consumption is much worse, even when going back to the stock map. It would be interesting to swap ECU's with RH, although the difference could be the break in method's that we used. RH used something like the MOTOman method and I babied mine, following the manual's RPM vs. mileage guidelines and making a conscientious effort to load the engine lightly (no lugging or heavy throttle) and varying the RPMs as much as possible as traffic permits. And lastly FWIW, I appreciate RH's efforts here. While the results won't provide the ultimate solution, they provide a clue to what a better than stock solution can be.

I agree with the first paragraph, but I don't understand how the other maps would negate that concern. Without an O2 sensor the only other map that could get close to negating is the air temp map but it looks more like it would aggravate the situation.

I got bored enough... http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=154689 Also, I updated that post to include MGS01 that does not need to meet emissions, and the 2002 V11, both compared with the 2000 model. What the heck, I'll post it here, too. From top to bottom: MGS01 2002 2000 I don't know whether the MGS01 and the 2002 are modified or not, but I am guessing the temperature maps are stock.

Here is a thread on stock V-Rods HP rating 96 to 110HP at the rear wheel. http://www.1130cc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-432.html Maybe your friend was testing it with various intakes, etc. In any case that engine has a lot of potential to increase HP over stock. Why did Buell never use one of those engines? I'd guess they are too heavy for a sport bike.

There be Dragons!

Measuring at the tip will give a truer reading of the temperature in the engine, and the insulation will reduce the effect of weather throwing off the temperature at the sensor. Seems intelligent to me, and I have not seen anyone prove there is a cheap FIAT cross ref part. I am going to go back to wadding up teflon tape on the sensor thread to insulate against the brass holder. Or maybe the part to replace my broken plastic piece will get her after 2 years or so of back order.

There is an answer. Countering AGW is affordable because it conserves energy and energy costs money. AGW is real and all but a few scientists don't believe in it. Ratchet is about the only person on Earth that believes humans cause absolutely no warming, not even a trillionth of a degree over the past hundred years. Even the author of that piece says of the NAS study, "It did say that man was probably warming the climate some (which folks like myself do not deny)." Not one experienced professional climatologist agrees with Ratchet belief that humans cause absolutely no warming, and yet Ratchet accuses me of being the unscientific one. He must be desperate, since he has no concrete scientific argument. Only Ratchet believes that AGW does exist in reality. A few believe the AGW is insignificant, a few more that it is probably insignificant, and lot more believe it is probably significant, and possibly more than that believe that human activity not only significantly increasing climate change, but probably the primary reason for the climate change. Even from the Bush administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change From that site, you can see it is not just two scientific organizations, but many more: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) Intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee European Academy of Sciences and Arts InterAcademy Council (IAC) and about a hundred other organizations listed at that site have made statements confirming the likelihood that AGW is happening.

I forgot to accentuate the importance of number 3. If you are TRULY concerned about the crippling of the economy, and you aren't just part of the give it to me NOW generation, reason to conserve dino fuel number 3 is extremely important, and only the most selfish should not agree.

Maybe nobody is taxing the water in Oregon, but in California I pay over $50 per month for water. Maybe it is not a "tax", but it is something I pay the bloody government that allows the over-development of California. I am arguing the world is getting warmer. Was that a typo you wrote above and you meant to say nobody is arguing that the world is NOT getting warmer? If you look at the PCIII map for my bike you will see that in many parts of the map the fuel is leaned out to bring it to proper richness. My goal with the Tuneboy is to make it run lean and happy, which is a bit of a balancing act of which I have not been successful, averaging worse than 35MPG, the bike has been a disappointment in that area. I really thought I was going to average over 40MPG. A BMW F800 may be in my future, or an electric bike, but for now I can't afford one as the economy sucks and I have be prepared to help out my unemployed family members. I think there is more than one reason to tax Petroleum and Coal with the hope of reducing consumption. 1. reduce pollution for the sake of the environment 2. for the sake of our lungs and bodies. 3. We will always need Petroleum and Coal so, burning most of it up now will have a great negative effect on future generations ( I guess that makes me a conservative) 4. AGW ( Anthropogenic Global Warming ) is happening, and if it is happening enough to cause a significant rise in sea level, we should certainly do something about it. If we are uncertain whether or not a significant rise in sea level will occur, we should still do something, just in case. If we don't think human activity significantly increases global warming, we should still take action because of reasons 1, 2, and 3. I know I would rather pay $1000 in energy tax than income tax. Heck I already pay more to the government for water than I do to big corporations and the government for Gasoline. What did you think of the last IPCC report? Hysterical fear mongering???? It is really a very sensible document. Don't buy into the right wing hysteria of tyranny knocking at the door. Hopefully a book like "Climate of Extremes" will bring a more sensible argument to the table than the propaganda that Ratchet loves to quote. The reviews look good. I hope it is good science, but it does seem to be trying to sensationalize argument for purpose of selling books, rather than present good science.

Looks like a good book! Ratchet should read it and come to terms with the FACT that AGW exists.

To those that walk in on you.

Fact Check. He was not fired. The "State Climatologist" position was dissolved in 1989, but Taylor proclaimed himself to be the State Climatologist. When challenged about it he resigned http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/george-taylor-t.html