ECU

[Cliff]

This is certainly a fast thread.

 

Again you are quoting o2 values.

 

We have already agreed they are meaningless. What you are describing by trying to tune to a particular o2 value is what would happen if you used a narrow band sensor. This is a probe that measures o2. We both agree this will not work.

 

A wide band sensor cannot use oxygen in the rich end. What it does provide, by whatever means, is an indication of Lambda. What we are tuning for by setting a target voltage is setting a target lamba. There may be some error. My expection is if I set a mixture of 13.5/1 it will keep it between 13 and 14.

My observations though are that my deviation is less than .25. ( based on the fact that my injector duration deviates less than 1%)

 

If a wideband probe does not measure lambda, perhaps we should take a class action against Bosch and NGK. They claim to measure lambda. You have proof that this is not the case.

 

PS:

Reread the Megasuirt forum and found this info on what a wideband sensor measures in the rich range.

Actually scanning the forum link his point was that measuring 02 was pointless when rich, as CO is a much better measure. As a wideband does effectively measure ion concentration when rich and by inference CO for the fuel it has been calibrated for his argument is pants.

[moto]

Here are the results of my one Tuning Link experience.The bike rode much more nicely after the tuning. But I still got some pinging around 5000to 6000 rpms.

What throttle position was this run for? Does the pinging happen at this paricular throttle position? Can you post the runs for the other throttle positions?

Also, how did I get more power at 5800-5900 when the A:F is the same???

Well first off, A/F ratio is not measurable by an exhaust sensor. We can speculate about how DynoJet attemptes to relate "A/F ratio", by simply looking at their readings as O2 sensor readings on an unknown scale. Second, we have already established that various mixture strengths can exist at a given O2 content. Third, a delay of some inconsistent duration always occurs between the time a sample is produced and when sensor readings are recorded. Whether or not the amount of delay that DynoJet applies within their software is appropriate at any given time is unknown.

[callison]

Carl wrote: " ...and to keep harping on the imperfections of O2 sensors and quantified output is a bit off of the point."

I believe I disagree, but what do you mean by "off of the point"?

I think the validity of O2 sensors is right on the point.

I know my bike felt better after the Tuning Link, but just simply making it run richer made it feel better, too.

I want to know if the O2 sensors on a tuning link are messing up my map.

I want to know if Moto's Oxygen data is the same as WBO2.

These are important points.

I want to know what Moto would charge to optimize the crucial parts of the fuel map to within 1HP and to get the entire loaded throttle map to within the 2-4%CO range.

41676[/snapback]

 

You just said it yourself. "I know my bike felt better after the Tuning Link, but just simply making it run richer made it feel better, too."

 

That's the whole point, you want the bike to run better.

 

If you start nit-picking over the last couple of tenths of a percent of something, you'll never get finished. Not too long ago, some manufacturer started making noises about "faster spark plug wires". Certainly you can make faster spark plug wires. You might even shave a whole nanosecond or two off of the electrical lead length for a typical spark plug wire. In context with the ignition duration though, it doesn't mean squat. Same goes for comparing all of this data. Unless you have a standard reference point that they're all compared against, the data will not have a great deal of absolute merit. What it will have is a lot of comparitive value. It's important to understand how it all works together and try to optimize it, it's of less importance to strive for some specific goal such as a specific horsepower. Considering the variations in the grades of gasoline here in California, some with alcohol and some without, it would be pointless indeed to aim at a specific horsepower since the variation from tank to tank could be significant. It would be a better expenditure of time and finances to optimize the FI system to accomodate all the myriad things it deals with and handle them well than to skew the system to acheive some specific result at the cost of reducing overall useability.

[dlaing]

What throttle position was this run for? Does the pinging happen at this paricular throttle position? Can you post the runs for the other throttle positions?

41686[/snapback]

FWIW this dyno run was to tune my bike when I had the QuatD muffler, which I no longer have.

I believe it was WOT.

The pinging happened probably at about 80% throttle, and sometimes earlier. mostly in the 5-6000 range.

They did enrichen it in the area that it pinged.

I could post the map, but it does not show the O2 results. Also the map is not readilly available....I thought it was on my mac, but I guess it is only on my PC that is temporarilly in storage....

Anyway the tuning link did make it richer where it was pinging, and it still pinged. It also made it leaner in a few places.

I don't remember what lambda they aimed for but it was something like maximize HP at WOT, maybe 13.0:1 above 40% throttle and 13.4:1 below 40%.

I had the idea that this would help with fuel mileage, I am not sure if it helped, as fuel mileage stayed about the same.

I think RacerX recommends richer than what I shot for.

In any case I was very happy, but left feeling, maybe it could be even better.

[moto]

Actually scanning the forum link his point was that measuring 02 was pointless when rich, as CO is a much better measure. As a wideband does effectively measure ion concentration when rich and by inference CO for the fuel it has been calibrated for his argument is pants.

That's not quite correct according to the well written article toward the bottom of this page:http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/news3.php. It does however make clear that, as Cliff says, in certain ranges the sensor is not really measuring O2 content, even though it is called a "wide band O2 sensor". They claim it is measuring "A/F ratio", even though this is not possible, aside from measuring and comparing the mass of air being consumed to the mass of fuel that is being consumed. Regardless of what the thing is actually measuring, this still leaves the problem of supposed "A/F ratio" having a tenuous relationship to how an engine runs, the repeatibility errors Cliff and I have uncovered, as well as the O2 measurements in the areas where it does measure O2 being semi-useful for direct pulsewidth tuning. I can't totally get my head around the latter, as I don't know how broad of an area this would be in relationship to CO numbers.

[dlaing]

You just said it yourself. "I know my bike felt better after the Tuning Link, but just simply making it run richer made it feel better, too."

 

That's the whole point, you want the bike to run better.

 

If you start nit-picking over the last couple of tenths of a percent of something, you'll never get finished.

snip

41693[/snapback]

Agreed, but Moto's data is not nit-picking, it slam dunks serious doubts about whether or not O2 measured levels are helpful.

I am still not convinced one way or the other.

 

I suspect Moto's work with tuneboy key, or whatever he uses, would cost more than $1000 to get half way to perfection and $2000 to get to 99% perfection for that day.

While the PCIII and tuning link will PROBABLY get you half way to perfection for about $500.

I don't know Cliff's pricing, but I suspect you are also half way to perfection from the stock ECU for about $800 with closed loop. Cliff's advantage is that changes in conditions will probably be adjusted to a little better.

 

I have heard of many successes with tuning link, and a couple tuning link runs where the bike actually ran worse after the tune.

It also seems like most tuning link tunes do more enrichening than leaning, and end up with more power and less fuel efficiency.

But this is all based on hearsay and a couple of dyno runs.

 

I also fully believe that Cliff's setup works better than stock, but like Moto's work, it is more expensive than a PCIII.

[moto]

Quit paying attention to optimized power figures and bewilderingly small numerical differences and start paying attention to optimum system behavior.

What is a "bewilderingly small numerical difference" to you? 5 hp, 3 hp, 1 hp? Something else? It is impotant to note that many minute differences add up to make large gains. By paying attention to the small stuff, a good tuner can make considerable gains where someone less rigorous would not get anything. This is what distinguishes a good tuner from a mediocre one. Some of the most difficult to tune engines have the most potential for hp, and I sometimes make progress by 1/2 or less hp at a time. Sometimes it's the only way to massage things into place, but when I am done I look at the baseline and realize that the gains I made are massive. If I had simply ignored the small gains, I never would have gotten there. This is especially pertinent on engines that I am tuning individual cylinders and/or timing on, trying different parts combos on, or on carbureted engines. There are also sometimes areas on maps that are terrible in terms of hp and it seems that nothing will fix it. Sometimes those spots just need something really, really specific to work. The pulsewidth sometimes literally can't be off by more than a half of a percent or less of CO or there's this massive loss in HP. How would you figure that out and fix it without paying attention to the small stuff? Or other times when the CO just climbs and climbs because of reversion to a point where hp starts dropping. I then have to make a judgement call about where during that climb I am going to tune. How do you think "autotuning" or full closed loop deals with that?

 

I would generally say that optimum system behaviour is when the most possible horsepower is available at every throttle position/rpm combination. I could also see someone wanting the best mileage at every throttle position/rpm combination, but to me that has little to do with why most people ride in the first place. I could also see someone wanting to strike some type of balance between most hp/best fuel economy at all throttle positions/rpm. However the latter two are quite a bit more difficult to achieve accurately and consitently throughout a map, regardless of the methodology used.

The bike with the best performance characteristics is far more enjoyable than the bike with the most characterized performance.

If this means that the best performance at all throttle positions/rpm is not a useful goal, then I disagree. If you are saying that high peak numbers at full throttle/redline have little to do with the real world, then I agree.

[moto]

John T's before and after tuning link

41670[/snapback]

Cool! I'd like to see the before and after runs for the other throttle positions on this one as well. Just curious, why aren't there "A/F ratio" traces for this one?

[moto]

If it's a whack the throttle open to redline and then shut it off, then the energy of the rotating masses in the drivetrain can affect the system.

I think that you could more properly say "will".

Doug Lofgren has made note of the considerable affects large rear wheels on Harley Davidsons can make on the system at specific rpm's.

Steady state testing with a low inertia roller solves this problem handily.

Just having your engine better cooled down for the second run can make a significant difference as well.

A good tuner will initiate every throttle position/rpm step while the engine temp is falling and within ±.5°F or so of each other.

41671[/snapback]

[callison]

Ah, but Moto, you're doing this in a professional sense and the rest of us (except RacerX, Cliff and Will Creedon - on this board at least) are "guesstimating" what can be accomplished via specmanship. It's to that end I consider the small differences bewildering. If you're exposed to that kind of experience, you can make sense of it and understand the relationship. Those of us that are not experienced in that regard are trying to make predictions based on what is probably a less than complete understanding of what those differences really mean.

[moto]

I'm not particularly interested in what the wideband sensors are actually measuring or how. They claim to measure lambda and all of the independant evidence supports that they do a reasonable job under most conditions.

I think "all" is a bit overstated.

A precise definition for optimal?

Only those you are in very competitive racing environments would require the optimal as you would define it and justify the expense.

If you will recall, I asked you for your definition of optimal. I did not ask you to tell me what you thought mine was, to give your interpretation of it, and then your opinion of your interpretation of it.

Those people for one would not be riding Moto Guzzi.

How can you or I know what person would or would not be riding a Guzzi? I think that what is important in terms of performance is a very personal thing and that stereotyping, regardless of the arena, should be avoided as much as possible.

If I can be with 5% of the peak I'm happy.

You must mean within 5% of best power at every throttle position/rpm. Is that correct?

That could be an A/F ratio anwhere from 12 to 13.5 for power and anywhere from 13.5 to 15 for cruise. That may seem imprecise to you but for me the results are good enough to keep me pleased with the results.

It's absolutely none of my business to meddle in what will or will not make you happy!

For me efficiency is a higher priority than raw power.

I do think that you could raise efficiency by getting away from using this "A/F ratio" thing as an arbiter.

The bar for milage used to be 5l/100km. Currently its 4.5, I don't do this by trying to go super lean.

Good. I don't think that peak efficiency can be achieved through super lean mixtures alone.

My next project is to go closed loop for spark advance. I'll be hoping to get milage close to 4.

I don't think you need closed loop spark advance to get it.

[moto]

The pinging happened probably at about 80% throttle, and sometimes earlier. mostly in the 5-6000 range.

They did enrichen it in the area that it pinged.

Why not try pulling the timing back?

I could post the map, but it does not show the O2 results. Also the map is not readilly available....I thought it was on my mac, but I guess it is only on my PC that is temporarilly in storage....

Do you mean the graph?

Anyway the tuning link did make it richer where it was pinging, and it still pinged.

Again, why not try pulling the timing back?

I don't remember what lambda they aimed for but it was something like maximize HP at WOT, maybe 13.0:1 above 40% throttle and 13.4:1 below 40%.

I had the idea that this would help with fuel mileage, I am not sure if it helped, as fuel mileage stayed about the same.

Hard to say what happened with using blanket targets and with tuning to "A/F ratio" in the first place.

I think RacerX recommends richer than what I shot for.

Where and on what basis does he recommend this?

In any case I was very happy, but left feeling, maybe it could be even better.

Understood...

[moto]

Most ECUs have an enrichment for acceleration. If you maximise the static case, how much do you lose on the road due to the now over rich mixture.

I'm not aware of any such thing and I don't see any use for it. Even so, you can't make assumptions about the original mixture strength nor the appropriateness of the theoretical additional amount of fuel that would have been delivered at various table positions/manifold pressures/airbox pressures. To that comes that optimized settings for, say, a pipe and filter might end up at or near the same mixture strength (not pulsewidth) as was used with the original parts. It would also depend on whether or not the theoretical additional fuel that was delivered was a percentage of the main table position, or some absolute.

[Cliff]

Why not try pulling the timing back?

This has only become an option the last couple of weeks with the Tuneboy and the Technoresearch tool. Prior to that there was no practical way of remapping the OEM ECU.

[dlaing]

Why not try pulling the timing back?

41713[/snapback]

I did not and still do not have the ability to do that.

I contemplated playing with the TPS settings, but that could have unpredicatable results.

My TPS has always been a little on the low side(as measured at idle, which is not an accurate way to measure it)...I am not sure how the TPS effects timing.

But with the advent of Tuneboy and DirectLink, if I spend the money, I can change the ignition map.

Apparently they are working on that feature for PCIII, too.

EDIT Yah, like what Cliff said above^

 

Do you mean the graph?

41713[/snapback]

The graph I posted earlier is the only graph I have.

I also have a map of fuel changes, which is what was loaded into the PCIII.

For purpose of this conversation, it would give an idea of what the typical tuning link tune modifies and nothing more, as there is no HP, O2, CO, or any other type of data.

I suppose they generated a file with more data, but I did not have access to it.

Todd Eagan, did me a favor and got the air/fuel ratio graph for me.

I guess Dynojet has more user software available now, so I should look at my output file with the new tools.

 

Where and on what basis does he recommend this?

41713[/snapback]

I am not sure. He was trained by DynoJet, has tuning link tuned a few Guzzis, and has gotten experience through people on and off race tracks. The pre-chosen air/fuel ratios are not going to result in the best power, but they will greatly improve it from a stock ECU with non-stock mufflers, for only $200! It is an excellent value for the money, if it works.

Although the Tuning Link should be idiot proof to use, it does seem like people occassionally get bad results. Maybe the failures are due to the operator not paying attention to operating temperature, engine pinging, or exhaust leakage or other potential problems