Guest ratchethack Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Unfortunately you can't use Cliff's MyECU maps for drawing conclusions about how Guzzi developed the stock V11 sensor & map, regardless of how much snow is outside your window Good point, Raz. But I'll bet there's at least a few significant similarities. I've decided to experiment along the lines of John A (post #51) -- with a tiwst. I'll be loading up the plastic holder with thermo goop again, using the fender washer as a heat sink again, but this time wiring a 500K variable RESISTOR in series with the sensor. John A used a DPDT switch so he could toggle in and out of OE vs. added resistance, but I see no need for a switch under my scenario. Interestingly enough, he refers to both a POTENTIOMETER as well as a RESISTOR, though I b'lieve a potentiometer, which is a voltage divider last I knew, would not fit the bill. I'm in search of a source for a linear gain (no audio taper) 500k variable resistor along the lines of this: 0-500k ohm variable resistor I checked today, and Radio Shack hasn't got anything but garden-variety trim pots. But I'll bet one o' you Electronics Whizzes knows exactly where I can find one o' these -- preferably of the ruggedized "vibration, oil and water-resistant" variety? Many TIA
Guest ratchethack Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 I remain somewhat baffled by Ratch's 'Bouble Blind' argument. The reason I have taken to packing the temperature sensor is quite simply that my tool for reading the live data, (The Axone.) tells me that the information that the ECU is recieving from the sensor is manifestly wrong. Manifestly and consistently wrong, in many cases. Surely if you take the 'Double Blind' argument you could add a 'Triple Blind' in getting the tool to compensate for the compensation caused by the inaccuracy of the signal sent by the sender??? Look, I'm not saying I'm right. Simply that it makes sense to me to believe that the tool is supposed to tell me what is actually happening. Pete Agreed in full, Pete. I don't b'lieve I've posted anyting a-tall inconsistent with your read. As I've posted previously, I b'lieve the only way to do this properly is to make the most direct thermal connection between sensor and holder possible (add the thermo paste per your noted Axone observations), THEN create a NEW MAP with this installed, and Bob's Y'er Uncle. And yet, to my knowledge, no one hereabouts has reported doing this. I'm not saying my read is necessarily correct on this either -- Like you, I'm just saying that it makes sense to me based on my observations. Lacking a motor that exhibits anything close to undesirable running characteristics from the jump, with the OE sensor/holder exactly as pristine and unsullied by thermo-smegma as it was boated across the blue from Como, and noting that adding the stuff to the plastic holder makes it run abominably when up to operating temp at idle (same with the brass holder with a gradient of 3 degrees of direct-to-indirect filling with lead, and no lead with ~6+mm air gap) I'm not inclined to fix wot I figure ain't broke with my "off the shelf" PC III map. For wotever reason, my PC III map appears to be quite a bit leaner down low at operating temp than others, or it wouldn't go over-lean with the thermo-goop in there like it does. I reckon the dyno guy who did my map must've had his cooling fan(s) perfectly lined up with the constellation Guzziopeia that day. It's also my contention that FAN ALIGNMENT, AIR FLOW OVER THE MOTOR, and AMBIENT TEMP at time of dyno map tune are no small matters with this motor, and at least a potential source of significant ERROR compounded by the inherently wonky sensor/holder setup. Getting the heat off the motor correctly (comparable to the way it would dump heat on the road) while dyno tuning is certainly a world of importance greater with an air cooled motor than with a water-cooled motor, whether the guy doing the dyno tuning fully comprehends this or not. Getting an accurate heat read between head and sensor would seem fraught with the same sources of error -- yep, in both directions -- error in making the map in the first place, and error in reading the sensor output using that particular map. But o' course, that's just me, this is just my map I'm working with, and others will, and do differ. It's winter, it's been raining like the clappers, and I'm inclined to fiddle with stuff like this that I'd never even think about in good weather, and if I can gain some enlightenment hereabouts, I'm welcoming it with open arms. I b'lieve the "double blind" (I prefer to think of it as "double astigmatism") argument holds water, and therein lies the source of this here little mystery. NOTE: I reckon it's merely another chapter from the mystery book wot gave us such wonders as no lube on driveshaft splines, wheel hub splines, cush drive collar/bearing carrier joint, shift lever shaft, brake lever shaft, etc. Somehow over the years, I picked up the general idea that many bikes left the works (with a few notorious exceptions ) with top drawer components, but questionable assembly and setup of varying degrees. Seems they skipped various "secret sauces" on lots of V11's, whilst putting other dubious concoctions in inexplicable places. Were any 2 Guzzi's ever assembled and/or set up the same?? Enquiring minds. . . (well, you know). . .
Greg Field Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 I remain somewhat baffled by Ratch's 'Bouble Blind' argument. The reason I have taken to packing the temperature sensor is quite simply that my tool for reading the live data, (The Axone.) tells me that the information that the ECU is recieving from the sensor is manifestly wrong. Manifestly and consistently wrong, in many cases. Surely if you take the 'Double Blind' argument you could add a 'Triple Blind' in getting the tool to compensate for the compensation caused by the inaccuracy of the signal sent by the sender??? Look, I'm not saying I'm right. Simply that it makes sense to me to believe that the tool is supposed to tell me what is actually happening. Pete Do you pack it with yak fat, or something better?
pete roper Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Do you pack it with yak fat, or something better? Walrus semen. Works a treat My Walrus milking instructions are available on DVD for not a lot of money if required Pete
Greg Field Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Walrus semen. Works a treat My Walrus milking instructions are available on DVD for not a lot of money if required Pete I would pay to see you try to "milk" a bull walrus . . . please sign over your Griso to me before the attempt . . .
gstallons Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 I am a voyeur. I prefer watching them do a "manual job" and save it.
Guest ratchethack Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Unfortunately you can't use Cliff's MyECU maps for drawing conclusions about how Guzzi developed the stock V11 sensor & map, regardless of how much snow is outside your window Hey Raz I've been putting more study into Cliff's earlier remarks in this thread than I had first time around. (It's lots colder outside now). Early on (see post #22), he made a reference to this data table of the output of the sensor: http://www.cajinnovations.com/MyECU/temperature.htm It's is the same data as the TempR line here: # TempR gives the value in ohms of the NTC temperature sensor #Temp C -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 125 TempR 51466 28618 16571 9712 5956 3742 2991 2408 1597 1077 746 524 375 274 203 152 102 # Crank is the % boost of the map injection times right after start # this boost decays to 0 over about 20s #Temp C -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 125 Crank 80 70 65 60 60 60 55 50 35 25 20 15 15 15 15 0 # OilT is the permanent choking boost #Temp C -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 125 OilT% +64.1 +53.1 +43.8 +35.2 +29.7 +18.8 +10.2 +9.4 +5.5 +0.0 This has ZERO to do with Cliff's map. Again, it's simply the output of the sensor. So where do we seem to have a disagreement?
Guzzi2Go Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Raz is talking about OilT and AirT lines, not TempR. The RELEVANT lines. I used Cliff's map, since this is the one I found. Weber-Marelli is obviously different, and goes throughout the entire temperature range and that actually causes the engine to run leaner as it heats up. Cliff's just ignores events past 50°C, however, chance is that this is not the "latest and greatest", and that Cliff has fiddled quite a lot with it since he posted it. Not sure how environmental homologation process looks like, but @TüV they measure emissions at idle and higher (like 3500) RPMs and motor temperature between 60-80°C. So there is no "ecological need" to adjust mixture past 80°C.
Guest ratchethack Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Raz is talking about OilT and AirT lines, not TempR. The RELEVANT lines. G2G, I believe Raz is capable of responding for himself. But for your benefit, even though I've already repeated this many times, I'll give it another go. If you can't get it this time, I won't be bothered again. It isn't all that difficult if you pay attention. No attention = no comprehension. I have not mentioned the AirT line, only OilT, Crank, and TempR data, which I've re-quoted twice above from you. Apparently my situation is DIFFERENT than others, but mine is not a unique case, according to some of the early posts in this thread, and several later posts as well. I make no attempt to post observations about anyone's SPECIFIC situation other than my own, as I have repeated many times. My map is a PC III map. Unlike many other maps, apparently, this particular map runs perfectly acceptably under all conditions of startup and operation on the road with the plastic holder/sensor -- WITHOUT any thermo-paste and a OE air gap of ~.015". When I DO add thermo-conductive paste, my Guzzi runs horribly at idle and low RPMs at operating temperature. Similarly, it runs just as poorly with the brass holder through a gradient of air gaps from solid lead (direct interference contact) to empty (6+ mm air gap). Unlike others, apparently, I have NO startup problems whatsoever with my map, regardless of sensor/holder, and NO mileage problems, regularly returning ~40 mpg. I have NOT been focused on the OilT and Crank lines, because THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO ME, since I never experience startup difficulties. NOW HERE COMES 'THE TRICKY PART' -- (this is the most important time to pay very close attention): At operating temperature and after 20 seconds of running, the OilT and Crank lines (respectively) have ZERO resistance input to the ECU. So unless you have temp-related problems at startup and/or below 40°C, the OilT and Crank lines are 100% IRRELEVANT to you ALSO. The ONLY line that is relevant to me is the TempR line, which becomes most relevant from 40°C to 125°C -- and ONLY when I have thermo-paste installed in the plastic holder for direct thermo heat flow to the sensor. At the high end of this temperature range, a direct thermo connection between holder and sensor tip produces an over-lean condition and unacceptably bad low-RPM driveability. Now if you have a Guzzi that runs BETTER with thermo paste in the plastic holder/sensor than without, regardless of whatever map you may be running, and particularly if you have cold startup problems, I suspect that the more RELEVANT LINES will indeed be the OilT and Crank lines, and that the TempR line will NOT be AS RELEVANT to you -- unless you have mileage problems. In this case, the TempR line will still -- and AGAIN -- be THE MOST RELEVANT LINE to you, because with the thermo paste in there, you are now likely to get better mileage due to a leaner A/F at operating temperatures as a direct result of adding the thermo-paste, as widely reported on this thread and others. Again, the ONLY RELEVANT LINE to you when considering mileage is the TempR line. Please help yourself by understanding this^ and the following before you address a post to me on this again: My objective in my upcoming experiment with added variable resistance to the sensor is to be able to ENRICH the A/F AT OPERATING TEMPERATURES -- "on the fly", as needed -- so I can make the direct thermo connection between sensor holder and sensor tip and achieve more consistent, less variable, and more accurate fuel control over a wider range of conditions on the road, without suffering the low RPM and idle problems noted above -- and without re-mapping. Others here are going in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION, attempting to LEAN the A/F OUT at operating temps by making the direct thermo connection, and apparently having positive results with their maps. I intend to further experiment with my sensor/holder by wiring a 0-500k variable resistor in series with the sensor and run it with the OE plastic holder fully loaded with thermo paste. In this way, I hope to richen up the mixture at operating temp and low RPMs as needed, enabling the use of the thermo-paste to provide a more accurate read by the ECU at all conditions of operation. I hope to achieve better hot weather running at idle and low RPM, but if this is offset by significantly worse mileage, I'll disconnect it and go back to the OE setup without thermo-goop, and be as happy as a clam, carrying the knowledge that I need neither a new map, NOR any more futzing with the sensor holder. I hope I've made myself clear. If you don't understand this by now, sorry. I can't help you any further.
GuzziMoto Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 If that's the case, the TempR lines you refer to do nothing but give the actual temp as interpreted by the ECU for the given resistence in Ohms. It does not show what the ECU does with it.
Guest ratchethack Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 If that's the case, the TempR lines you refer to do nothing but give the actual temp as interpreted by the ECU for the given resistence in Ohms. It does not show what the ECU does with it. Of course it doesn't show what the ECU does with the signal. As I pointed out in post #202 above, the TempR line is the same data from the sensor output data table that Cliff provided nearly 2 years ago in post #22 that I linked above.
raz Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 So where do we seem to have a disagreement? I was only refering to the OilT line since Guzzi2Go and others were drawing conclusions from it. I'm not sure if you did and I don't care, it was just a friendly remark. I do disagree that an air gap or an added resistor in series will ever be an optimal solution, but I don't object to your experiments. To each his own
Guest ratchethack Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I do disagree that an air gap or an added resistor in series will ever be an optimal solution, but I don't object to your experiments. To each his own Raz, I don't know who you're disagreeing with. Is everyone around here suffering from reading comprehension deficit disorder?? You aren't disagreeing with me, since I've not as much as hinted that an air gap with or without a resistor would ever be an optimal solution. In fact, I've said exactly the opposite multiple times. I've gone out of my way to describe what I'm doing as "experimenting" and "trial-by-error", and have noted multiple times that the more optimal solution would be to make a direct thermal contact between the holder and sensor and THEN make a new map based on a more accurate temp sensor read. Again, (Part "too numerous to count"), I don't recall reading an account on this Forum of anyone who's done this. Why d'you suppose that is?
GuzziMoto Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 If your asking if anyones improved the response of the sensor (with thermal paste, brass holder, whatever), I'm sure a few have. I know I have, but I've been trying to stay out of this as much as possible. I know I haven't been entirely sucessful. Improving the response of your head temp sensor as Pete suggested and then tuning the bike to get maximum benefit out of it is the best solution in my opinion. Anyone who wants to do otherwise is welcome to, and I will even enjoy reading about it. But it makes no sense to me unless you are just doing it for the sake of learning.
Guest ratchethack Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 If your asking if anyones improved the response of the sensor (with thermal paste, brass holder, whatever), I'm sure a few have. That's not what I've asked at all, though several have posted positive results throughout this thread, as I've acknowledged many times. Is everyone around here suffering from reading comprehension deficit disorder?? Again, what I've asked multiple times is if anyone has done this: I've . . .noted multiple times that the more optimal solution would be to make a direct thermal contact between the holder and sensor and THEN make a new map based on a more accurate temp sensor read. Again, (Part "too numerous to count"), I don't recall reading an account on this Forum of anyone who's done this.
Recommended Posts