It's like a disease

[raz]

 

 

 

[Dan M]

Nope... See ...

"more accurate readings "

Of course there is one minor flaw in the testing Dan M did later, You used them to Measure AIR TEMP.

Since that is not what they are measuring in use it does not mean much. But atleast it is an effort and I applaude it. But a more useful test might be to mount the sensors on the motor as intended and then see what the difference is between the actual temp of the head, easily checked with a infra-red temp gun, and the signal being interpreted by the ECU, which would require interface software. I doubt these kinds of things will ever be done, I certainly don't care enough to put the effort in. Nothing in what was done indicates that it would be worth while. If your bike runs better then you should be happy about that. The fact that certain peoples bikes ran worse when they added paste to improve heat transfer but then when they experimented with heat sinks, air gaps, and air temp sensors, their bike ran better so they concluded that they must be improving the accuracy of the sensor since their bike ran better, tells me that the is no testing required as non would likely ever both give them the results they want and satisfy the other side who thinks that what they accomplished is about the same as what all these BMW people have done. That is, trick their bikes ECU into adding more fuel so that their bike runs better. It is a low buck and simple way of adjusting the bikes fueling, which tends to be too lean in the bottom and middle ranges stock. I personally prefer better methods to achieve this as it lets me richen up the parts that need it and lean out the parts that don't.

 

First off, I don't even understand what you were trying to convey in the highlighted words. Yes the BMW device is there to trick the computer. Beyond that, there are a couple of errors here. I am not tricking the computer. I am suppling it with a faster to respond sensor mounted the way the factory did. That is all. No resistors. No heat sinks. No altering of the signal. No adding paste. Mounting it the way it was designed.

What you are overlooking is this: No matter what the head temp is, if you look at the data, the brass sensor is a about 2 minutes slower to respond. This has been the idea from the beginning.

 

In the last, now closed thread, you said you wanted to see data. Well, I provided it.

 

It was not my intention to restart this debate. I just started this thread because I found it interesting how much fur is ruffled by this subject regardless of brand loyalty or country of origin.

Bye now.

[GuzziMoto]

First off, I don't even understand what you were trying to convey in the highlighted words. Yes the BMW device is there to trick the computer. Beyond that, there are a couple of errors here. I am not tricking the computer. I am suppling it with a faster to respond sensor mounted the way the factory did. That is all. No resistors. No heat sinks. No altering of the signal. No adding paste. Mounting it the way it was designed.

What you are overlooking is this: No matter what the head temp is, if you look at the data, the brass sensor is a about 2 minutes slower to respond. This has been the idea from the beginning.

 

In the last, now closed thread, you said you wanted to see data. Well, I provided it.

 

It was not my intention to restart this debate. I just started this thread because I found it interesting how much fur is ruffled by this subject regardless of brand loyalty or country of origin.

Bye now.

I know you don't understand... and I am sorry I even tried.

You have provided data that shows that your air temp sensor senses the output of a hair dryer better and faster then the OE sensor. But since I do not use my engine temp sensor to measure air temp I don't see how that is helpful. But if it makes you happy then great.

I do think it is funny that you posted a link to a thread where BMW people argue back and forth about modifying a temp sensor signal to richen up the mixture and maybe adjust the timing and compared it to our thread on temp sensors, yet you do not see the connection between the two. Both threads were about modifying the stock sensor output to a value that caused the engine to run better. Only you and a few others on this board seem to think that this new value that causes the engine to run better is the more accurate value and the original value was inaccurate. Yet you are laughing at them....

Glad your bike runs better now. All three of my Guzzi's are running great with the OE temp sensor.

[Dan M]

I know you don't understand... and I am sorry I even tried.

You have provided data that shows that your air temp sensor senses the output of a hair dryer better and faster then the OE sensor. But since I do not use my engine temp sensor to measure air temp I don't see how that is helpful. But if it makes you happy then great.

I do think it is funny that you posted a link to a thread where BMW people argue back and forth about modifying a temp sensor signal to richen up the mixture and maybe adjust the timing and compared it to our thread on temp sensors, yet you do not see the connection between the two. Both threads were about modifying the stock sensor output to a value that caused the engine to run better. Only you and a few others on this board seem to think that this new value that causes the engine to run better is the more accurate value and the original value was inaccurate. Yet you are laughing at them....

Glad your bike runs better now. All three of my Guzzi's are running great with the OE temp sensor.

 

 

 

What I couldn't understand was your fragmented, poorly constructed run on sentences that make little sense. I'm kind of sorry you even tried too. It was indeed a sorry attempt.

If you have a Guzzi sensor with a Guzzi holder you are certainly measuring air temp unless you added something to the mix.

If you are addressing me, you will need to show me where I modified output value on any sensor in any thread. The new sensor has the same range as the old.

When was I laughing at them? Can you show me? If you didn't get the reason for the thread, I stated why I started it in my last post.

Evidently your reading skills match your writing.

[belfastguzzi]

It was not my intention to restart this debate. I just started this thread because I found it interesting how much fur is ruffled by this subject regardless of brand loyalty or country of origin.

Exactly. I thought that you were just making a joke / a funny reference because of what you had seen about the BMW stuff.

Plain and simple – it was funny – nice observation, Dan.

As for all the tech observations, by everybody, they are fine stuff too, but I reckoned that if you had actually meant to start another tech discussion, you would have done it in the proper place, i.e. the gold mine that is Tech Topics.

[Greg Field]

To truly know which sensor reacts closest to the rate of change of the cylinder head, you'd need to test while the head and the holder are in the breeze, IMO. Ideal is a sensor that's mounted so it reacts at the same rate the head reacts. A sensor set-up that reacts faster than the head would be of no advantage.

 

I applaud you for doing the testing, though.

[DeBenGuzzi]

WHY IN THE F ARE WE EVEN GETTING INTO THIS? we're better than the BMW guys com'on now.

[Greg Field]

WHY IN THE F ARE WE EVEN GETTING INTO THIS? we're better than the BMW guys com'on now.

 

We're just trying to relieve your boredom, Ben.

[GuzziMoto]

What I couldn't understand was your fragmented, poorly constructed run on sentences that make little sense. I'm kind of sorry you even tried too. It was indeed a sorry attempt.

If you have a Guzzi sensor with a Guzzi holder you are certainly measuring air temp unless you added something to the mix.

If you are addressing me, you will need to show me where I modified output value on any sensor in any thread. The new sensor has the same range as the old.

When was I laughing at them? Can you show me? If you didn't get the reason for the thread, I stated why I started it in my last post.

Evidently your reading skills match your writing.

Sorry, my mechanical skills are better then my grammatical skills. I didn't know I would be graded on grammer.

You never understood after pages of posts in the old thread, so I don't expect you to suddenly understand now.

My OE sensors have a tiny gap between them and the head that is filled with heat transfer paste. That way I have no insulation between the sensor and the head. That will give me the most accurate temp reading possible using the stock sensor. If you have an air gap between your sensor, what ever type it is short of infra-red, and your head then you have insulation between the sensor and the head that will give you a lower reading then if you had no gap. A direct contact reading with most sensors is going to be more accurate then a reading of the air next to the head. So if you have a gap larger then stock, as Hatchet Wacker does, you have a lower reading then stock. That I consider to be a "modified sensor reading". Any decent dyno operator can show you how where you put the air temp sensor can effect the results of the dyno run. It is the same thing here. Closer to the head will produce a higher number and further from the head will produce a lower number. As far as your statement about the sensor you are using having the same range, it is in fact close to the same range. But it is not the same range.

But there is no point in going on about this. You brought it up with a post poking fun at BMW people for having a similar arguement with similar ranting and insults. Or maybe you weren't poking fun at them but instead were impressed with their mad skills. Whatever. I see no point in carrying on again about this. The fact that you feel your bike runs better now is a good thing, whether it is because of one thing or another is not important to me.

Enjoy your ride....

[belfastguzzi]

We're just trying to relieve your boredom, Ben.

Oh yeah, let's! What's your address? We'll send Dr Ratchet around for a 'chat'.

[Greg Field]

Yes, pleae take him, Ben.

[Guzzirider]

 

 

 

 

 

Mmmmmmm I do appreciate a nice pie

[dlaing]

If you have a Guzzi sensor with a Guzzi holder you are certainly measuring air temp unless you added something to the mix.

That is just it, all the contrarians to Ratchet and you, have eliminated the air gap.

You and Ratchet have certainly improved on the stock setup. I just disagree with your methodology and Ratchet's misuse of physics terminology, and I see room for improvement by increasing conduction and compensating for the increased heat reading being sent to the ECU.

 

 

To truly know which sensor reacts closest to the rate of change of the cylinder head, you'd need to test while the head and the holder are in the breeze, IMO. Ideal is a sensor that's mounted so it reacts at the same rate the head reacts. A sensor set-up that reacts faster than the head would be of no advantage.

 

I applaud you for doing the testing, though.

 

Excellent point! sorry I ever brought up the criticism about your use of duct tape, or do you use goose tape

But I still have trouble with the idea that your reading will be too hot if you do that, but different tuning methods probably compensate for that

 

 

My OE sensors have a tiny gap between them and the head that is filled with heat transfer paste. That way I have no insulation between the sensor and the head. That will give me the most accurate temp reading possible using the stock sensor.

 

While that arrangement should more accurately follow the changes in head temperature, it generally results in a higher reading resulting in the engine running too lean, unless of course you were too rich before the modification, or you remap the ECU, set TPS to make it run richer, use a power commander, etc.

At least Ratchet, Myself and others (Dan???) experienced overly lean conditions when eliminating the air gap.

I chose to eliminate the air gap and remap the ECU using TuneBoy. I still have some fine tuning to do to the map. (should have done this past Summer...oh well)

 

BTW, why did you use BMW thread?

I'd use cheaper Chinese polyester thread, but that's just me.

Mercerized?

 

[belfastguzzi]

Mercerized?

 

Mercy!

[GuzziMoto]

While that arrangement should more accurately follow the changes in head temperature, it generally results in a higher reading resulting in the engine running too lean, unless of course you were too rich before the modification, or you remap the ECU, set TPS to make it run richer, use a power commander, etc.

At least Ratchet, Myself and others (Dan???) experienced overly lean conditions when eliminating the air gap.

I chose to eliminate the air gap and remap the ECU using TuneBoy. I still have some fine tuning to do to the map. (should have done this past Summer...oh well)

One bike, the Daytona, has a chip. The V11 has a PClll. And the Griso has a PCV with AutoTune.

And yes, Gregs point about having a sensor that is capable of reacting faster then the head can change is of little value. As long as the sensor can measure as fast as the head changes temp then accuracy of temp reading is more important then speed.