ECU

[moto]

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.

As far as I know, the FIM software has been able to do this just fine.

[moto]

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

I don't recommend it.

I did not and still do not have the ability to do that. But with the advent of Tuneboy and DirectLink, if I spend the money, I can change the ignition map. EDIT Yah, like what Cliff said above^

You could do it before with the FIM software. There is also nothing you stop you from doing it mechanically by either moving the pickup or the rotor.

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

Yeah, they've supposedly been working on it for some time.

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

If you had other throttle positions tuned, you should have been provided with the graphs to go with them. They should certainly be available upon request.

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.

Understood. I would be interested in seeing that.

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

They should give you the files from the runs if you ask for them and there is a downloadable run viewer available here:http://www.powercommander.com/viewer.shtml

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

There should be no special hoops to jump through to get that.

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

Right. See above.

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.

It may just be that he wasn't thinking about how to solve the pinging problem outside of the PC paradigm.

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!

Wow! Does it come with a free Ginsu knife set? Does it slice, dice, and puree?

It is an excellent value for the money, if it works.

"If" is the operative word.

Although the Tuning Link should be idiot proof to use, it does seem like people occassionally get bad results.

The owner of the Futura I keep mentioning had a pretty bad experience with the PC thing. He installed one and took the bike to an "Authorized Tuning Center". He got the bike back in what he describes as "unridable" condition. He took the bike back and on the second try there was an improvement, but not enough to be acceptable. They did not offer him his money back, nor did they offer to try anything further. The theory we have is that they used the Tuning Link for the first try and that when that didn't work as planned, they had neither the skill nor the patience to be able to figure out what else to do or how to do it. The customer then took the bike to a DynoJet facility that was not "authorized". He said that they took a little longer and that allthough the bike was not up to the performance he expected, he was willing to settle for what he got. Within a short while after that the PC failed, leaving him stranded on the side of the road. He was a few days out if warranty, and DynoJet refused to help him in any way. He then investigated other alternatives and found out about the TuneBoy software. His search for someone willing and able to tune with it led him to me. After I completed the tuning, I was interested in his stamp of approval before paying me, so I sent him out for a testride. When he came back, he could not wipe the smile off of his face, saying that the bike was performing better than he had ever dreamed possible. He called me later to report increased gas mileage and the cessation of an oil consumtion problem he had had (I think we finally got the rings to seat properly on the dyno).

Maybe the failures are due to the operator not paying attention to operating temperature, engine pinging, or exhaust leakage or other potential problems

It's likely so be all, some, or none of the above (depending on dependencies of course).

[dlaing]

There should be no special hoops to jump through to get that.

41730[/snapback]

Just to be clear, Todd was not affiliated with the dyno tuner, he just did me a favor because at that time the 'viewer' was not available to the consumer.

 

regarding the FIM, it would have gotten too expensive to tune it that way. But you are correct, it is available.

 

regarding the TPS, I have been procrastinating on setting it to the recommended setting, which would have been a good starting point, and I should have set it before doing the dyno tune. My mistake.

 

The muffler is gone now, and the bike runs ok with the mistrals and the downloaded map. When I did have the muffler that the bike was dyno'd for, the pinging nearly only occurred on the freeway for some reason....magnetic resonance from the rebar??? Or more likely it was because the freeway is closer to the Ocean. But I did not have to go far inland to give it gas and not have it ping.

I have BIG plans for an under the gearbox muffler like what Frank posted and a ram air setup, and I will probably need a valve and porting job soon, so the dyno can wait.

Despite my being in a procrasintated state of bike evolution, Moto, thanks for the tips.

 

regarding the mechanical adjustability of the timing, I am not sure if it is doable. I think there was thread about that???under twin plugging???

In any case, it is better to change it in the map where needed,rather than across the board.

 

I like the ginzu comment

[moto]

Just to be clear, Todd was not affiliated with the dyno tuner, he just did me a favor because at that time the 'viewer' was not available to the consumer.

Right, but whoever did do the tuning should have provided you with printouts that include "A/F ratio" traces for all throttle positions that were tuned and for both cylinders if they were tuned individually. If not, they should certainly be available on request.

regarding the FIM, it would have gotten too expensive to tune it that way.

How much would it have been, what would have been done, and by what technique?

regarding the TPS, I have been procrastinating on setting it to the recommended setting, which would have been a good starting point, and I should have set it before doing the dyno tune.

Agreed.

When I did have the muffler that the bike was dyno'd for, the pinging nearly only occurred on the freeway for some reason....magnetic resonance from the rebar??? Or more likely  it was because the freeway is closer to the Ocean. But I did not have to go far inland to give it gas and not have it ping.

Do you think it has to do with a reduction in air density away from the Ocean?

I have BIG plans for an under the gearbox muffler like what Frank posted and a ram air setup, and I will probably need a valve and porting job soon, so the dyno can wait.

I imagine that shortening the headpipes will yield reduced bottom end and midrange performance while not doing very much for and possibly hurting the top end as well. For valve jobs and porting, I reccommend Kinetic Analysis in San Rafael, CA.

Despite my being in a procrasintated state of bike evolution, Moto, thanks for the tips.

You're very welcome.

regarding the mechanical adjustability of the timing, I am not sure if it is doable.

Why not? I'm sure the pickup could be moved slightly, or the rotor could be moved on the shaft.

I think there was thread about that???under twin plugging???

I did find some threads having to do with ignition timing, but none with regard to changing it mechanically.

In any case, it is better to change it in the map where needed,rather than across the board.

Agreed!

[callison]

I have BIG plans for an under the gearbox muffler like what Frank posted and a ram air setup, and I will probably need a valve and porting job soon, so the dyno can wait.

 

Despite the added expense, you might want to get the dyno stuff done before any modifications so that you have a real baseline to evaluate your modifications effectiveness from and a point to back up to if they don't prove to be in line with your desired results. This is very much like upgrading an operating system on a production computer system. The professional makes certain that he can back up to the previous known good running point in the event of an unknown that renders the upgrade unuseable. I'm sitting here with a bike with Mike Rich heads, dual plugged etc and I'm not going to put the dual plugs into operation until I resolve what the hell is wrong with the bike to begin with. Too many variables makes it nearly impossible to sort out the original problem. I really regret not putting more effort into the initial trouble shooting than to throw money at hardware upgrades in the pursuit of a better running engine. I may need to return to stock just to get back to the initial condition. I think even Moto would suggest making only one major change at a time, small steps do seem to make better progress in this arena than wholesale parts swapouts. I don't know how much Moto would charge for a completely optimized mapping on a dyno, but he evidently is very much on top of this sort of thing. That might be a better use for your initial performance monetary outlay and then start adding hardware at a later date.

 

Just a thought... and a question.

 

Hey Moto! Can a Dyno effectively optimise for ram air induction?

[dlaing]

Thanks guys.

Life is a bitch, when you are cheap and lazy.

I am so impressed with the folks on the list who just get things done.

2000 miles on the bike, and then its off to Mike Rich for porting, meanwhile back at the ranch the luggage racks, heated handlebars, Rich Maund seat, carbon fiber bits, billet bits, ceramic coated headers, carbon fiber/ magnesium wheels, fog lamps, brake lights, GPS, and LCD rearview camera mirror substitute go on the bike. All just in time for Mike Rich to finish his work, and get it back to you where you a waiting to throw it on the dyno for tuning.

Good grief, I can't even find time to go riding.

Thank you Moto for the post about Kinetic Analysis.

I have been looking for a recommendation for someone in Southern California, but that may be close enough.

I may just have to compare prices with Mike Rich and Ferracci.

Regarding the FIM, I was more drawn to the PCIII as it gave ME control of the map.

For $500 dyno tuned it seemed reasonable. The FIM would not give me the flexibiltiy that I wanted. It would have left me at the mercy of the tuner.

The time to tune the FIM on a dyno would have gotten expensive, but hey, I may have then kept the QuatD muffler, maybe it just needed more advance to boost top end power. and less advance to kill the midrange ping.

Along time ago, I posted about shiming the engine position sensor to adjust timing when going to twin plugging, but nobody paid attention to my post

I think Al, who twin plugged, sent his ECU to Teo Lamers for ignition remapping for $250euros.

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/lofiversio...p/t320-150.html

He said that only a place in Chicago would remap the timing, and he had talked to Evoluzione, who I guess could not remap the timing at that time, otherwise Al would have gone there, I Ass-u-me.

Carl, getting a baseline may be an excellent idea.

When I went to the QuatD muffler I had no baseline and Comparing it to another bike's stock graph, I lost Peak HP, which I expected, but it showed that I did not gain below 4000 RPMs, where I swear I gained power. A baseline of my bike would have given a more accurate comparison.

But I am not gonna waste money on Tuning Link for mufflers that I am not going to keep, again.

So maybe just a $40 dyno run with the stock headers, or the mistrals???

Moto, so a shorter exhaust system may lose power, hmmmmm?

I really miss the QuatD muffler, but I want something with a little more power potential.

I was going to try to do what Frank did, and even bought St. Augustine's scratched up carbon fiber stock Scura Lafranconi cans. Hower what might make them work is that they effectively increase tuning length three times the length of the can. They just may be too restrictive without a crossover.

Moto, any opinions on going crossoverless?

I think it could work if the mufflers flow well enough, but the common consensus is that crossovers and two into ones are a good idea. From my inexperienced mind, I believe crossovers on V twins are a bad idea, or atleast the crossover should be subdued.

Sorry, did mean to stray from the ECU topic.

[moto]

Despite the added expense, you might want to get the dyno stuff done before any modifications so that you have a real baseline to evaluate your modifications effectiveness from and a point to back up to if they don't prove to be in line with your desired results.

Agreed!

The professional makes certain that he can back up to the previous known good running point in the event of an unknown that renders the upgrade unuseable.

Right. Ideally, you would optimize the fuel and timing maps on the dyno to establish a baseline, and subsequent to every change. If you didn't do that, you couldn't tell whether all of the changes were actually beneficial. The large benefits of one change could be masking the small loss from another, or a large loss could be masked by the cumulative effects of many small gains. You might also think that parts you installed make more power, when the power really comes from the fact that the existing pulsewidths/timing are suddenly more appropriate. Or... Well, you get the picture. In any case it allows you to zero in on the combo that gives the best result, rather than just guessing.

I think even Moto would suggest making only one major change at a time, small steps do seem to make better progress in this arena than wholesale parts swapouts.

What do you mean, "even"?

Can a Dyno effectively optimise for ram air induction?

Are we talking about an existing system, or adding one?

[dlaing]

I wrote: something about adding ram air.

Carl wrote: "Can a Dyno effectively optimise for ram air induction?"

Moto asked: "Are we talking about an existing system, or adding one?"

 

We are talking about adding one.

I know, all the experts say you don't get any gain until well over 100MPH...blah, bhah, blah...

Regardless, I like the idea. I think it could help especially when fighting headwinds at high speeds....not an uncommon practice in the South Western US.

Also, it would act as a cold air induction system.

From what I understand some dynos act as wind tunnels and most do not.

But all, must have fans to keep the engine from overheating, or at least slow down the overheating.

[dlaing]

Oh, and more evidence of the success of Tuning Link Dyno tuning was just posted here:

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...t=0entry41736

"The great Italian tractor pull"

[moto]

A wide band sensor cannot use oxygen in the rich end. What it does provide, by whatever means, is an indication of Lambda.

Imagine we equip a vehicle with a fuel flow meter and a mass air flow sensor. We then add or subtract fuel so that we have a stoiciometric mixture (as evidenced by the fuel flow and air mass measurements) at a particular chosen throttle position/rpm. We then screw a wideband "lambda sensor" into the exhaust. Do you think it will show a lambda value of 1.0? We then taylor the amount of fuel to yield some desired BSFC or HP. Do you think the A/F ratio as measured by our fuel flow meter/mass air flow sensor combo and our "lambda sensor" will match, or even be offset by the same amount? Say we try this experiment at a different throttle position/rpm. Do you think the results will match, or the offset from the previous comparison will be predictable, and therefore transferrable to other throttle positions/rpm? Say we map this all out so that we know what these values are at all table positions. Will it carry over to another engine of the same model? What if there have been modifications?

What we are tuning for by setting a  target voltage is setting a target lamba.

As the above example illustrates, we are not.

There may be some error.

True. Here are some links that point toward where the errors with wideband sensors can come from:http://www.megasquirt2.com/PWC/LSU4.htm, http://www.techedge.com.au/vehicle/wbo2/wblambda.htm (scroll to the bottom) and especially http://www.bgsoflex.com/pwb/0.95/PWBV0.95_QandA.pdf. These people seem to have done their homework and have/are poised to release a controller that adresses many, if not all of the common wideband sensor problems (besides proper targets, obviously). If anyone still has doubts about the problems with narrow band O2 sensors, see http://vehicle.me.berkeley.edu/~markw/efi/SAE920289/. The first little graph is very telling.

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.

I suppose one could do that, but I don't generally believe in that sort of thing. What comes around, goes around, ya know...

[Skeeve]

...I really miss the QuatD muffler, but I want something with a little more power potential.

I was going to try to do what Frank did, and even bought St. Augustine's scratched up carbon fiber  stock Scura Lafranconi cans. Hower what might make them work is that they effectively increase tuning length three times the length of the can. They just may be too restrictive without a crossover.

...

I think it could work if the mufflers flow well enough, but the common consensus is that crossovers and two into ones are a good idea.  From my inexperienced mind, I believe crossovers on V twins are a bad idea, or atleast the crossover should be subdued.

41757[/snapback]

 

The crossover is necessary because of the restriction of the cans; by having the crossover, each header effectively "sees" 2x the volume, ie: 1/2 the flow restrictions. [Please note: these are simplifications: the real world isn't "perfect."] A properly designed 2->1->2 system wouldn't merely decrease the backpressure from doubling the available muffler volume/cylinder, but would help scavenging on the trailing cylinder [mmmm, free power! Not much, but every little bit helps, esp. near redline when it's "a little bit" x 8000rpm...] The current v11 series do not have this ideal design, altho' if you look at the Griso pix & Enzo's pipes, you can get an idea of what one would look like: Headers merging into one larger pipe, leading to a muffler with capacious volume [in Enzo's case, the "muffler" is the atmosphere, since he seems to be running a megaphone exhaust in the latest iteration... Oh, my bleeding ears! ]

 

BTW, if the CF Scura cans you bought are the same as the stock steel cans internally, then how do you figure they triple the tuning length? You have a pipe that leads to the back of the can, a partition with a couple of little straws stuck thru a barrier leading to the front of the can, then a long tube allowing the exhaust gases to wander out the back of the muffler when they build up enough pressure to force their way out. It's an effective muffler, but the only length of it that allows "tuning" is the initial length of pipe leading from the front to the "soundbox" rear chamber. The only reason for this choice is pursuit of minimum noise in the bands that engine noise peaks, so that the total sound envelope of the vehicle will make it under the EPA/CE noise limits at xxxx rpm... There are *much* better performing designs to be had that are still reasonably quiet, but which may not pass the noise regs. The stock cans absolutely require a crossover to provide any hope of performance. Look at the hit to the low end they imposed until Guzzi added the front balance pipe in '03? Damnit Jim, even a simple country doctor can see that there's got to be a better way!

[JuhaV]

Here are some links that point toward where the errors with wideband sensors can come from ...  These people seem to have done their homework and have/are poised to release a controller that adresses many, if not all of the common wideband sensor problems (besides proper targets, obviously) ...

41766[/snapback]

 

Well, the above mentioned controller should not be taken to present an ECU, because it is only the electronic "drive unit" that is needed with all modern wideband lambda sensors. The output of this controller goes then to an ECU, and, at least according to some people here can be used succesfully for closed-loop control

 

Among other sources, Bosch Wideband Oxygen Sensors discloses how these devices basically work.

 

In short :

 

A wideband sensor combines an oxygen-sensing "Nernst" cell with a "pump cell". The Nernst cell senses oxygen in the same way than a conventional narrow-band O2 sensor does. Let's simply think that it is a narrow-band sensor. As we know, this can only give a gross rich-lean indication of the air/fuel mixture, but it measures very accurately stoichiometric situation (where sensor signal switches rapidly from low to high voltage).

The trick of the wide-band sensor is in the combination of the traditional narrow-band sensor and the pump cell. The pump cell can either consume oxygen or consume hydrocarbon fuel in the pump cell cavity, depending on the direction of the current fed into the pump cell.

 

Now, a small sample of the exhaust gas passes into the pump cell, where the "traditional" Nerst cell narrow-band sensor is located. That exhaust gas is either rich or lean and both conditions can be indicated by the "switching" type narrow-band sensor.

 

Based on the narrow-band sensor indication, the pump cell is fed with positive or negative current to either consume free fuel or free oxygen from the pump cell. When the free oxygen or free fuel has been neutralised, the narrow-band reference cell will indicate stoichiometric situation.

 

The pump cell current (which is a measure of the number of electrons used in the chemical reaction) required to produce this equilibrium is a measure of the Lambda or Air Fuel Ratio.

 

The controller mentioned in the above articles is simply the electronic drive unit to provide this current, and the same controller provides an output determined on the basis of this current and that output (voltage) relates to the lambda value.

 

In other words, the pump cell consumes either fuel or oxygen to "hit" the stoichiometric situation that a narrow-band sensor situated inside that cell is able to accurately indicate. The amount of current needed in consuming fuel or oxygen, tells what the original A/F ratio was. The modern probes are able to perform this measurement in 100 ms.

 

I hope this helps to see why wide-band lambda probes are taken to have at least certain capabilities to measure beyond stoichiometric situation.

 

- JuhaV

[dlaing]

Thanks Skeeve.

But which would perform better, our stock exhaust with its (2) ~one inch outlets, or a crossoverless design with half the restriction, for example hanging four mufflers on our bike, two on each side with no crossover, so you would have (4) ~one inch outlets.

(No I am not gonna mount 4 mufflers)

I am concerned about airflow contamination from one cylinder to the next via the crossover.

I would rather lose a little power if it helped the bike run better.

Enzo's design is so free flowing that I don't think he is getting much cross talk between the cylinders.

Franks' has no crossover, and his mufflers may be too constricting, but he has no crosstalk issues(except on the intake side, but he will be getting pod filters)

If Frank added a crossover, the mufflers would not be too constricting, but he might get cross talk issues.

Sorry, I made up the term "cross talk" is there a better term?

Or is the issue just overblown in my head and I should use a crossover.

[moto]

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

It follows then, that the engine needed more fuel (at least in some areas), and that the use of the "tuning link" provided more fuel. How much it provided, where it provided it, and whether the amounts it provided are optimal is unknown.

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

Without looking at dyno runs that include EGA data and/or changing pulsewidths, stagger and timing to see if there is an improvement, I would say that's unknown. It would certainly also depend on the definition of "messing up".

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

Apparently it's not.

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.

You would have to define "crucial". Even so, I can't comment right now, as I would want to tune natively and Wayne has not yet released TuneBoy for Guzzi. I would need to see how many table positions there are, and whether there are individual tables for the two cylinders.

[moto]

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

Exactly!

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

I do it, and I get finished.

In context with the ignition duration though, it doesn't mean squat. Same goes for comparing all of this data.

Your spark plug wire thing may not, but comparing hp and EGA data does.

Unless you have a standard reference point that they're all compared against, the data will not have a great deal of absolute merit.

The standard reference point is how well the engine performs on the dyno as compared to previous runs. If you are trying to say that we can't compare readings from different dynos against each other, I agree to a point. In testing the same machine on my dyno vs. Wheelsmith Racing's (a subsidiary of Factory) I found the numbers to be repeatable within better than .5 hp. However, trying to compare hp numbers from a DynoJet dyno to Factory Pro numbers is mostly useless.

What it will have is a lot of comparitive value.

Are you suggesting we can compare percentages of gains across various platforms?

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.

I agree that it's silly to strive for a specific horsepower number, but I also think that under ideal circumstances one should add/subtract fuel or advance/retard the ingition until no more hp or mileage can be found by these methods.

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.

I don't recall anyone talking about aiming at a specific horsepower, only about achieving the maximum possible at all throttle positions/rpm. Also the differences in performance between premium fuels is minimal my experience. I often use up what is in the customers tank (various brands) and then finish tuning with Chevron, which is what I keep around. I have not been able to detect a difference that would lead me to believe that the tuning I did for one pumpgas would somehow be invalid for another with the same octane rating. Maybe this varies more seasonally, and certainly this becomes much more of a factor when we start to get away from pump gas.

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.

Where did you get the idea that I would not want to "optimize the FI system to accomodate all the myriad things it deals with and handle them well" or that I would be interested in "skewing the system to acheive some specific result at the cost of reducing overall useability"? Though, I do have to admit that I'm not sure what is meant by"skewing the system".

41693[/snapback]