Acceleration Enrichment Map-2004 Rosso Corsa

[Lucky Phil]

4 hours ago, audiomick said:

Yes, that matches what I have read regarding various different models. It seems it doesn't matter in which bike the ECU was origionally installed, as long as it is the same type as the one in the bike in question, it can be re-programmed and made to work. Using a different type of ECU than the original is far more complicated, as a map has to be created "from scratch".

I believe Lucky Phil had to do with that issue with his V10 Motor in his V11 Sport, i.e the retaining the ECU from the V11 and making it work with the V10 motor that origionally had a different ECU.

This is true. 15M running a Daytona engine with my own map.

 

Phil

[ScuRoo]

For those wondering whether you have a 15M or a 15RC ECU - it’s very simple to identify. Don't bother looking at the ECU & unpeeling labels under labels & scratching your head or arse.

a) Look in the mirror instead. If you’re a Yank (& don’t possess a passport) you have a 15M ECU USA imported V11. And simply move along nothing to see here same with owners of the earlier V11 sans O2 models.

Don’t forget this is still an international forum fella’s… it was only the later model European V11’s (& other exported to countries) which had the upgraded 15RC ECU which had additional Closed Loop adaptability.

b) If not sure you’re a Yank - get on your knees & look for a O2 sensor as I’ve circled in docc’s diagram above. If your V11 comes equipped with an O2 sensor inserted - you can be 99% confident your ECU is the 15RC closed loop adaptive version. (The 15RC was not exclusively for the V11 but was also utilised on other Guzzi O2 sensor equipped models. The base map was just tailored to suit those other models).

c) There’s plenty of opinions from those that don’t own V11’s with O2 sensor closed loop adaptability - these opinions seem to veer towards disabling the O2 sensor as they are only simple narrow band sensors designed for fuel economy or emissions only &/or add unnecessary complexity etc etc.

I disagree completely with these notions. The 15RC closed loop adaptability with STFT & LTFT trimming isn’t a backwards step in design. It’s a lovely plus plus on top of the base map - when the throttle is whacked open it operates just the same as the 15M base map as it’s now in open loop mode - but has the added closed loop constant throttle closed loop fine tuning.

There is zero problem with the 15RC ECU it’s lightening fast in response times - the original root cause problemo was “the LSH15 probe has such a slow response time to the variation of the exhaust gases”

…“the LSH24 instead has a very good sensitivity and a response time equivalent to the reading interval of the ECU.” The 15RC ECU.

Don't disable in trying to cure any hiccup stumble or poor running problems.

Just simply change the bloody O2 sensor to the improved LSH24 and you’ll have all the open loop 15M provides plus more with closed loop adaptability - which auto tunes out… any hiccup stumble or poor running problems!

If this doesn’t make perfect sense folks then go & rip out all your O2 sensors from every other vehicle you own - even butcher the V100 Mandello with its closed loop adaptability O2 sensors. It’s clearly too complex - which is probably a bad thing.

[Rob NZ]

Hello all.  Thank you for your various replies.  By way of an update I have tracked down a Bosch LSH-24 Lamba sensor and I will try that when it arrives.  In the meantime I have carried on tuning the maps with the Lamba Sensor off.  In this regard I have observed Lucky Phil's comments and I am leaving the acceleration map alone and focusing on the fuel map.  I have put a mark on the throttle and some masking tape on the throttle body.  Using Guzzi Diag I have put lines on the masking tape corresponding with a number of throttle opening points with reference to the fuel map so I know where I am on the map when I am riding.  I have been increasing the fueling particularly at the smaller throttle openings.  The improvement is dramatic.  The bike was running lean (probably exacerbated by the air box mods). The motor now pulls smoother and is more eager to accelerate.  It is particularly noticeable when you blip the throttle for gearchanges.  So will report again but thank you all again in the meantime.     

[Lucky Phil]

18 hours ago, Rob NZ said:

Hello all.  Thank you for your various replies.  By way of an update I have tracked down a Bosch LSH-24 Lamba sensor and I will try that when it arrives.  In the meantime I have carried on tuning the maps with the Lamba Sensor off.  In this regard I have observed Lucky Phil's comments and I am leaving the acceleration map alone and focusing on the fuel map.  I have put a mark on the throttle and some masking tape on the throttle body.  Using Guzzi Diag I have put lines on the masking tape corresponding with a number of throttle opening points with reference to the fuel map so I know where I am on the map when I am riding.  I have been increasing the fueling particularly at the smaller throttle openings.  The improvement is dramatic.  The bike was running lean (probably exacerbated by the air box mods). The motor now pulls smoother and is more eager to accelerate.  It is particularly noticeable when you blip the throttle for gearchanges.  So will report again but thank you all again in the meantime.     

Don't forget to calibrate your throttle closed position to the angle guzzidiag reads out as a closed position. It's not perfectly accurate but it's not zero either remember. Zero out the Co setting as well.

 

Phil

[Rob NZ]

Thank you Phil.  Good points. Co is zeroed but I should check/calibrate the throttle closed position.    

[Lucky Phil]

14 hours ago, Rob NZ said:

Thank you Phil.  Good points. Co is zeroed but I should check/calibrate the throttle closed position.    

Just see what Guzzidiag indicates as closed throttle degrees. The fuel map has throttle position break points below the actual throttle blade degrees at the set idle position. So your bike will probably have a throttle angle of 4 degrees or so at idle. Dont assume that the lower throttle break points like 2, 2.4 2.9 etc are a factor when you are estimating your throttle percentage from fully closed when riding. Your base line closed angle is probably around 4 degrees not zero. Just sayin.   

[audiomick]

I seem to recall reading (from Beard) that the ECU can only read a minimum value of 3.9 degrees. To set the throttle bodies manually, a multi-meter is recommended. The voltage at fully closed should be about 150 mV. .

 

[docc]

Just now, audiomick said:

I seem to recall reading (from Beard) that the ECU can only read a minimum value of 3.9 degrees. To set the throttle bodies manually, a multi-meter is recommended. The voltage at fully closed should be about 150 mV. .

 

Or, as Meinolf would tell us, precisely 157 mV.

[Lucky Phil]

2 hours ago, audiomick said:

I seem to recall reading (from Beard) that the ECU can only read a minimum value of 3.9 degrees. To set the throttle bodies manually, a multi-meter is recommended. The voltage at fully closed should be about 150 mV. .

 

My point is when you mark the throttle housing to give you a rough indication of the throttle position don't mark the fully closed position as zero or you'll be even further out in your already rough and ready attempt to indicate throttle opening.

Yes a multimeter is required because GD isn't accurate enough.

 

Phil

[audiomick]

9 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

Yes a multimeter is required because GD isn't accurate enough.

Nitpicking, but...

@Lucky Phil : I know you already know this, but not everyone does.

It is not true that Guzzidiag is not accurate enough. All that it does is show you the values being delivered by the ECU, and it does that precisely.

The ECU sees values for the TPS in largish steps, which is to be expected from a fairly low resolution analogue-to-digital convertor.

For those who don't know what one of those is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog-to-digital_converter

they are in a lot of digital devices. I've had to learn about them because they are used to digitalise the analogue signal from microphones and deliver it to digital audio devices. For the sake of completeness, the other end of the chain is a digital-to-analogue convertor. It turns the numbers back into a voltage, but that is not relevant to the subject at hand. Having said that, the voltage outputs from the ECU for the various things that it supplies a voltage to will most likely have D-A convertors in them.

The TPS delivers an analogue signal (a voltage) to the A-D convertor, which turns the voltage into a number for the computer (the ECU). An A-D convertor always produces a series of values that increase in steps. The higher the resolution (the number of bits in the number it delivers...), the smaller the steps. The one in our ECU is fairly low resolution. I believe it is 8 bits, but that is a bit by-the-by to what I am getting at.

The resolution is low, but it is nonetheless sufficient to adequately track the throttle movements.

The smallest number the ECU receives and can deliver to Guzzidiag, i.e. the lowest step the the A-D convertor can deliver, is the aforementioned 3.9 ° . This first step equates to "nothing is happening yet". Over and above that, the numbers tell the ECU how far open the throttle is. By comparing to previous numbers, the ECU can caculate if the throttle is closing or opening, and how fast it is doing so.

Below 3.9°, i.e. when the voltage delivered by the TPS is too low to register above that first step, the throttle is closed as far as the ECU is concerned. The bike is "running at idle".

Setting the TPS accurately requires reading the real voltage that is being delivered when the TPS is (really) fully closed. Because the ECU sees everything below 3.9° as closed, one must use a multi-meter to measure the voltage directly on the TPS.

As mentioned at the outset, Guzzidiag shows you the numbers that the ECU is seeing. The ECU can't see anything below 3.9°, so that is the lowest value that Guzzidiag can report.

[Meinolf]

On 10/17/2023 at 6:08 AM, Rob NZ said:

The only issue is the underlying stock acceleration enrichment map which of course cuts in when you switch the Lamba sensor off.          

 

Hi Rob,

the accel enrichment map is used also in closed loop operation if the opening/closing speed of the TPS exceeds threshold values.

Cheers
Meinolf

[Meinolf]

On 10/26/2023 at 7:58 AM, Lucky Phil said:

I suggest you leave it alone. So all the V11 maps I've looked at, Meinolfs custom map, the std v11 from 2000, the Rosso Mandello, the factory map for the Titanium exhaust all use the exact same acceleration map numbers. I've never touched my accel map which is the same as the std V11 2000 map and all the others running a Daytona engine. The std 16M Daytona and Centauro maps dont even have an accel map. 

Hi,

indeed the accel fuel map doesn't make a lot of sense. Consider the following. The accel function is only used if a TPS opening/closing treshold speed is exceeded. Quickly opening the throttle will lead to an main fuel value from the main fuel table which is larger than the one beginning with while the rpm remains unchanged for a a relatively long time. Which in turn means that the air mass (and its speed) moving to the combustion chamber will not change as rapidly.

The result is an increased fuel injection time while the air mass remains largely unchanged. Ipso, the mixture will enrich w/o any support from the accel enrichment map. And the accel enrichment tapers out with increasing rpm anyway.

Instead of meddling with the accel fuel enrichment changing the ignition values makes much more sense. A richer mixture needs less time to ignite, hence reducing the ignition advance while accelerating to move (or keep) the max. combustion pressure closer to TDC + ~12-15° is the way to go.

Cheers
Meinolf

[Meinolf]

On 11/2/2023 at 12:51 PM, audiomick said:

As mentioned at the outset, Guzzidiag shows you the numbers that the ECU is seeing. The ECU can't see anything below 3.9°, so that is the lowest value that Guzzidiag can report.

Hi,

Ok, some nitpicking from my side. The ADC does read smaller values. The way the correlation between TPS ADC values and TPS degree values works is that the ADC value is used to select a corresponding TPS degree value in the TPS Lookup Table, TPS ADC -> TPS degree.

I assume that the lowest ADC values are not used in the TPS Lookup table (0 values) as they are reserved for the error detection of the TPS signal.

Cheers
Meinolf

[Meinolf]

On 10/28/2023 at 12:02 AM, ScuRoo said:

I disagree completely with these notions. The 15RC closed loop adaptability with STFT & LTFT trimming isn’t a backwards step in design. It’s a lovely plus plus on top of the base map - when the throttle is whacked open it operates just the same as the 15M base map as it’s now in open loop mode - but has the added closed loop constant throttle closed loop fine tuning.

There is zero problem with the 15RC ECU it’s lightening fast in response times - the original root cause problemo was “the LSH15 probe has such a slow response time to the variation of the exhaust gases”

…“the LSH24 instead has a very good sensitivity and a response time equivalent to the reading interval of the ECU.” The 15RC ECU.

Don't disable in trying to cure any hiccup stumble or poor running problems.

Just simply change the bloody O2 sensor to the improved LSH24 and you’ll have all the open loop 15M provides plus more with closed loop adaptability - which auto tunes out… any hiccup stumble or poor running problems!

Hi,

I fully agree with above. The main issue with the OEM BINs and their fuel values is the lacking synchronisation of the lambda (AFR) values between the 2 cylinders. If lambda is different between the cylinders at a given operating point the engine will not run as smoothly and efficient as it could in non-closed loop mode. If it's in closed loop the slow OEM lambda probe excerbates the discontent as differing lambda values are reported to the ECU from one combustion cycle to the next. It goes crazy trying to cancel out countermanding values.

Evening out the lambda values between the cylinders at any given breakpoints will achieve 95% of what can reasonably be achieved. Everything else is cream on top. And as the time needed for either is inverse (5% getting the lambda synchronity right/95% to for the rest),

Plus, this approach fits best to the OEM ignition values. I have no means of checking them, but guess/hope that Mandello knew better/had the required setup, to get these right.

Cheers
Meinolf

[ScuRoo]

On 11/17/2023 at 12:57 AM, Meinolf said:

Hi,

I fully agree with above. The main issue with the OEM BINs and their fuel values is the lacking synchronisation of the lambda (AFR) values between the 2 cylinders. If lambda is different between the cylinders at a given operating point the engine will not run as smoothly and efficient as it could in non-closed loop mode. If it's in closed loop the slow OEM lambda probe excerbates the discontent as differing lambda values are reported to the ECU from one combustion cycle to the next. It goes crazy trying to cancel out countermanding values.

Evening out the lambda values between the cylinders at any given breakpoints will achieve 95% of what can reasonably be achieved. Everything else is cream on top. And as the time needed for either is inverse (5% getting the lambda synchronity right/95% to for the rest),

Plus, this approach fits best to the OEM ignition values. I have no means of checking them, but guess/hope that Mandello knew better/had the required setup, to get these right.

Cheers
Meinolf

Appreciate the endorsement Meinolf.

That settles it. Thank you gentlemen.