raz

This chart supports the "lean is dangerous" theory Of course, all these diagrams would fall short of a Guzzi twin diagram showing CHT and EGT vs mixture.

Mm... that don't compile in my head. Too uneducated unfortunately. What is n and alpha? Anyway, I realize that thing won't probably be any real good, but it sure would be real fun.

The shop stand handle made a significant mark in my right head guard since it ended up between that and the tarmac. That's in a wide sense what the guard is made for, and actually nothing much else happened. Maybe that handle saved my brake lever! So I was even more lucky than you! My back hurt for a week though. Panic mode, just grab and lift. Bike weighs like almost four of me... But all is good now.

Never heard of that, googled it now. Looks pretty interesting and not too expensive. More bang for the bucks than my €200 CF hugger anyway...

Been there, got the t-shirt. I did it on the outside in front of all my neighbours (probably noone saw me but it felt like all of them was watching). That situation is a real back-killer too. Good it turned out pretty much OK for you.

Sooner or later the equivalent of todays UEGOs will be 4-gas with ms response time. I want it now! You lot are right of course. I'll stick to not leaner than 14.7 for now. I'm thinking sensors for CHT and EGT should be fairly cheap stuff, commercial or home built. Don't they measure EGT (at least) at dyno centers? Also, accelerometers are dirt cheap now. They should be usable in some way or the other for road dynoing...

Thank you all. I wonder, just as food for thought, if Cliff's dual closed-loop setup could result in a good enough engine sync to run 15,5:1 in selected map areas without much roughness. For a little while I tried cutting injection completely when coasting (zeroed out row 0 at and above 2300 rpm). There was some more or less cool decel popping but I had no issues with on-off-stumbling. I stopped that experiment only due to the massive engine brake that also was a result. It's violent enough as-is. Next project is to put row 0 (except for lowest rpm) on closed loop with a 15,5 target. Why? Er, because I can?

I've always heard that too lean is more dangerous than too rich. Now I happened to find this interesting article linked from Innovate Motorsports' forum. It says that's nonsense. Very short summary: Max EGT (exhaust gas temp) is at stoichometric Max CHT (cylinder head temp) is slightly richer than stoich (as is best power) You really want to avoid high CHT, not EGT, to avoid damage Tuning the mixture to, in this example, 50°F EGT leaner than stoich will result in 25°F lower CHT than tuning equally richer than stoich OK, so you lost power. But now you compensate the power loss by using more throttle (this is for cruising of course, not WOT). After doing that you end up with same power, much less fuel consumption and much lower CHT than using the "best power" way of tuning. In the airplane example, fuel consumption was lowered with 10% and CHT lowered with 35°F with equal power output, compared to when mixture was tuned for max power. The problem is that running this lean won't really turn out smoothly on our twins unless they are extremely well synced. We would get rough running that is "often and wrongly characterized as lean misfire". But it is not misfire and it won't burn valves or make little holes in our pistons. This was new to me but I'm sure it's not to all of you. Any objections? Is there any way this does not apply to our engines? Otherwise, if nothing else it tells me I shouldn't fear experimenting with really lean cruising. Worst case is rough running, not burnt valves.

Great reading, thanks to all contributors! Was that a teaser? Let it out! Don't be shy. Forums are always a lesson in source evaluation anyway.

For what we know about Guzzi, maybe they just forgot them at the factory. When I bought my bike second hand, one of the gaskets was missing (it didn't leak though). When I tried to fit one it turned out to be a welding "drop" in the way that I had to grind off the downpipe. Luigi just skipped the gasket instead FWIW my flanges are very soft and I have to warp them to get it tight, but I don't really have a V11. Various aftermarket flanges are available if you'd like to replace them.

You may be right about the big difference but I think both are important if you want to push it. And I agree with Skeeve the OEM ECU seem to have been put together in a haste.

That's good points. And just another reason to choose MyECU if you really want to tinker with everything. The distribution of rows and columns are completely configurable. I always wanted to confirm this and now I did to a degree. Sporti compared to a V11 LeMans 2002: The heads do have different part numbers. When I was looking for new Sporti heads I was told they are the same. The cylinders and pistons are different part numbers too (but rings are the same) Even the crank shaft is different The valves and stuff are the same And the camshaft is the same The TB's are different part number for complete assembly, but I think they are essentially the same The injectors are the same Also, the exhaust system is different of course. And the airbox, like you said. That was more differences than I thought, but then again some of it could be just minor changes that don't make any difference. I wonder what is the difference, if any, in the combustion chamber. This thread is going all directions. Just like me

I'll gladly compare any and all info we got but I'm not sure what you mean. The post you snip-quoted is a comparison of ignition advance maps between V11 and Sporti, a.k.a timing maps, no?

My guess is that the difference in TPS sensors is more mechanical than electrical. Both are logaritmic. I thought Dave's maps was pulled from one OEM and one Ti ECU. EDIT: it's not logaritmic. It's two-step linear with a break at 30° and apparently the mV-to-degrees formulas are the same from P7/P8 to 1.6M and 15M. I don't even know what year European V11's got a cat. They didn't have it from the start, right?

This is just curious reference for MyECU owners: here is the Sporti base fuel map as pulled from the OEM but in My16M format. The figures are microseconds. Stock Sporti: RPM 1000 1200 1350 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 6000 7500 8000 InjDur 14 9480 10300 11000 9360 9870 10400 9610 9480 10200 11500 11100 11000 10800 13100 12800 12400 InjDur 13 9290 8840 9550 9290 9740 10100 9420 9290 10100 11400 10900 11000 10500 11900 11200 11100 InjDur 12 10100 10100 9810 9030 9420 9810 9230 9030 10100 11200 10600 10500 9550 10300 9680 8900 InjDur 11 9740 9360 9420 8710 9160 9680 9100 8580 9740 10500 9610 9100 7680 8070 7420 6580 InjDur 10 9420 9360 9160 8450 8840 9160 8390 7810 8260 8450 7680 7160 6260 6060 5740 5290 InjDur 09 9100 8840 8580 7940 7740 7740 6710 6320 6450 6650 6190 5740 5100 4770 4770 4390 InjDur 08 8260 8130 8000 6970 6320 6320 5610 5290 5290 5360 5030 4710 4390 4130 4000 3740 InjDur 07 7810 7290 6520 5740 4970 4770 4260 4060 4130 4000 3740 4060 3810 3420 3360 3360 InjDur 06 5550 5100 4900 4520 4130 4000 3680 3610 3420 3420 3360 3290 3030 3030 3030 3030 InjDur 05 4580 4320 4190 4130 3810 3680 3550 3290 3230 2970 2840 2650 2520 2520 2520 2520 InjDur 04 4260 4000 3810 3740 3420 3420 3030 2900 2710 2450 2260 2260 2130 2000 1940 1940 InjDur 03 3610 3550 3420 3420 3100 3030 2710 2580 2320 2130 2000 1940 1870 1810 1740 1740 InjDur 02 3550 3360 3290 3160 2900 2840 2520 2390 2130 2000 1870 1870 1810 1740 1740 1740 InjDur 01 3480 3230 3030 2900 2710 2450 2320 2130 2000 1940 1810 1810 1740 1740 1740 1740 InjDur 00 3230 3160 2970 2710 2520 2190 2000 1940 1810 1810 1680 1680 1680 1680 1680 1680 The indexes 00-14 are the same throttle angles as in the ignition table previously posted. I haven't yet mapped them to My16M TPS readings (10-bit representation of 0-5 volts). The OEM probably adds something in the order of 800-1000 to each figure to account for injector dead time. This makes sense at row 0 but even after adding that the rest of the map seems much leaner than any map I've seen for the Sporti. At least at WOT. To compare the whole map we'll have to figure out 10-bit TPS readings vs. degrees of throttle opening.

It's hand-typed from his post. I just double-checked it and I find no difference. Note that the top map above are from the (pre-V11) Sport 1100 and the lower is stock V11, the latter should be the same as the top one of dlaings

Great, thanks Alex. Now for anyone interested, here is the comparison: Stock Sporti: RPM 1000 1200 1350 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 6000 7500 8000 89.6 12.00 14.50 17.50 20.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 28.00 28.00 27.00 27.50 35.00 38.00 38.00 33.00 30.00 68.2 11.00 13.00 16.00 20.00 23.00 25.00 27.00 28.50 30.00 31.50 33.50 35.50 37.00 38.00 35.00 33.00 53.9 10.00 12.00 15.00 18.50 21.50 24.50 27.00 29.50 31.00 33.50 34.50 36.00 37.50 39.00 36.00 34.00 41.3 10.00 11.50 14.50 18.50 22.00 25.00 27.00 29.50 31.50 34.00 35.50 37.00 39.00 40.00 38.00 37.00 31.4 9.00 10.50 13.00 16.00 19.50 22.50 25.00 28.00 30.50 33.50 36.00 38.50 39.50 41.00 40.00 39.00 24.0 7.00 8.00 10.50 14.00 16.50 20.00 24.00 27.50 30.50 34.50 38.50 40.50 41.00 42.50 42.00 40.50 18.8 5.00 6.00 9.00 13.50 16.00 20.00 23.00 27.00 31.00 36.00 40.50 42.00 43.00 44.00 43.00 42.50 14.0 5.00 5.00 7.50 13.00 17.50 21.50 25.00 28.00 31.50 37.50 41.50 43.50 44.00 45.00 44.00 44.00 10.7 5.00 5.00 6.50 12.50 18.00 22.50 26.50 30.50 34.00 39.00 43.00 44.50 45.00 45.50 44.50 44.50 8.2 5.00 5.00 5.50 12.50 18.50 24.00 28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00 43.50 45.00 46.00 46.00 46.00 45.50 6.3 5.00 5.00 5.00 12.50 19.00 25.00 29.00 32.50 36.00 41.50 44.00 46.00 47.00 47.00 46.50 46.00 4.8 5.00 5.00 5.00 12.00 19.00 26.00 31.50 35.00 39.50 43.50 46.50 48.00 48.50 48.00 48.50 47.50 4.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 12.00 19.00 27.00 33.50 36.00 41.00 45.00 48.00 49.50 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 3.2 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.50 18.50 27.50 38.00 47.00 51.00 52.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 2.6 5.00 5.00 5.00 9.00 16.00 26.50 38.00 47.00 51.00 52.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 2.1 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 22.00 38.00 47.00 51.00 52.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 Stock V11: RPM 700 900 1300 1700 2000 2200 2700 3200 3500 4000 4500 5500 6200 7000 7800 8500 84.56 12.00 13.00 17.00 21.00 22.00 24.00 29.50 32.50 33.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 38.00 39.00 41.00 44.00 60.73 12.00 11.00 14.50 18.50 20.00 21.50 29.50 33.50 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 37.00 39.00 40.00 42.00 47.85 12.00 11.00 13.00 16.50 17.50 21.50 30.50 34.50 35.50 36.50 38.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 40.00 36.73 12.00 11.00 12.00 15.50 17.50 21.50 28.00 32.50 34.00 36.50 37.00 39.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 40.00 27.99 12.00 11.00 11.00 14.00 15.50 21.50 24.00 24.50 27.00 30.50 38.00 41.00 44.00 45.00 43.00 40.00 21.46 12.50 10.50 10.50 12.50 13.50 20.00 23.00 21.00 24.00 32.00 40.00 42.00 45.00 44.50 44.00 40.00 16.87 12.50 10.50 10.50 11.50 12.50 21.50 25.00 22.00 27.00 34.50 42.50 43.50 44.00 46.00 44.00 40.00 11.84 12.50 10.50 10.50 11.50 12.50 21.00 24.50 22.00 27.00 35.00 43.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 42.00 40.00 10.43 12.50 10.50 13.00 12.00 12.50 21.00 24.00 22.00 27.00 35.00 43.50 41.50 42.00 43.00 41.00 40.00 9.72 12.50 9.50 13.00 12.00 12.50 20.00 24.00 22.00 27.00 35.50 44.00 41.50 43.00 43.00 41.00 40.00 8.16 12.50 9.50 13.00 12.00 13.00 21.50 24.00 22.00 27.00 35.50 44.00 43.50 43.00 43.00 41.00 40.00 6.77 12.50 9.00 12.00 12.00 14.00 23.50 24.00 22.00 30.00 37.00 44.00 43.00 43.50 43.50 42.00 41.00 5.18 12.50 9.00 12.00 13.00 14.50 23.50 24.50 23.50 30.00 37.00 43.00 44.00 44.50 44.50 44.00 43.00 4.18 12.50 9.00 9.00 11.50 19.00 28.50 41.00 43.00 43.50 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 44.00 1.99 12.00 9.00 9.00 11.50 18.50 29.00 41.00 43.00 43.50 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 44.00 1.00 11.50 9.00 9.00 11.50 19.00 29.00 41.00 43.00 43.50 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 44.00 I listed both in a format similar to MyECU but with throttle degrees instead of the 0-14 index it uses. Due to different throttle angles and different RPM breakpoints we have to be careful when comparing. The max values are a lot different - note that the engine except for the ECU is, as far as I know, exactly the same.

L L I'm interested in the pristine original map because I'm not sure the one I've got is the original. Actually my My16M with Cliff's map is much better than the OEM ECU except for one situation: WOT through the gears, like going 0-200 km/h. Not that I do that very often but I want to know why. Except from that the OEM runs like crap while My16M is wonderful in casual riding.

So a V11 putting out 260 hp would be half reasonable. Are these numbers for force-fed engines? A Ducati 1098 is just 2.4 hp/qui. Even an YZF-R1 is around 3 I guess. Anyway I know I'd have much less fun tinkering with an R1. I would probably even have less fun riding one, in the long run.

So adding an intake MAP sensor would allow us to be in par with a... 100 year old engine or something. I've been thinking of that since it's cheap and since car ECU's seem to use it. I guess you could use another sensor just like the one used for barometrics, and connect it to the intake manifolds. Then we'll have to come up with a map for that too. On the other hand it seems to me you get a pretty good load estimation from rpm and throttle. At 3500 rpm and WOT an educated guess would be "high load".

Not ideal does not equal to (or even approach) useless, and no combustion engine has ever been built that was remotely close to ideal. I would be much more concerned if he stated his map was ideal. I'm gonna try Phil's map out next spring, open loop first and then closed loop. I'm hoping his ignition timing map is very good.

I read it again and I don't see what you mean. An ECU that does not separate dead time from the fuel map will have the exact same problem. The map value for 10 ms will read 11 ms to include a dead time. A 10% correction (for temp and pressure) applied to that will result in 12.1 ms instead of 12 ms.

Injector dead time is the delay from the moment you powerize the injector until it's actually open. It's in the order of one millisecond. To be really picky you will have a (somewhat shorter) delay on close too. Many ECU's (including MyECU now) have a table that specifies this time at different battery voltages, as it will vary. Here's a table from a car: Volts 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dead Time usec 2080 1760 1440 1270 1100 990 880 795 710 650 590 Here's why it's important to separate it from the map:

So one method of dynoing would be to run closed loop and only care about ignition advance versus max power. I will probably never do any dynoing but it would be interesting. Another approach would be auto ignition. I did some reading on knock sensors, I'm sure I'm years behind Cliff. Apparently the industry solution is still accoustic sensors (more or less a microphone) and they need to be designed for the engine so it may be hard to find one suitable for a Guzzi. They can't say "more" or "less" but rather "this is already too much" so the normal way to do it seems to be slowly advancing ignition until you detect knocks and then retard some. The ECU need to remember (long term) at what advance it knocked. False alarms seems unavoidable and will probably be an ever bigger problem on a Guzzi. The fact any false alarm will be long remembered is not encouraging. Maybe we need to let the industry come up with a better solution. Or maybe I just need a ride.

Absolutely, I just meant it's probably more correct to call it something else. It's not O2 and not AFR. If it results in proper richening when advancing ignition, it's way way better than true AFR! Of course we should probably continue to call it AFR since many others do. Maybe just with another acronym translation, like Abracadabra Feedback Reading I finally got all together and ran closed-loop for just the last 100 km before ending this season. I can't wait to continue tinkering this spring. Despite all good reports I was completely stunned with the smooth operation, even with just some more or less randomly picked target lamda (which didn't even have to be rich at all, Lambda 1.0 worked just fine in terms of smoothness). Anyway I won't let that stop me from trying to push it to its very limits, and I have no problems with remaking all mistakes Cliff, you and others already did. It's great fun anyway. Also, as you probably may have figured out, I really enjoy discussing the theories and trying to understand what is happening and why.