MyECU installed on my 2003 V11

[Cliff]

Thats like asking how many inches I keep the the inside wheel from the edge of the road when all I'm doing is keeping the car near the centre of the lane.

 

I just generate 7 voltage targets to span the range I see the sensor producing. I then decide which parts of the map I want to be richer or leaner by selecting one of those voltages. If there are problem areas, I make a change to that area of the map (richer or leaner target or change the voltage ) untill there is no problems.

 

 

If that didn't work well enough I'd try something else but doing the above, produces results that are good enough for me and others.

 

I'm not after telling people I get xxx hp. I just like to tell them it runs great. For those who know the type of bike (16M based), they know just getting them smooth, particularly around town, is an achievement.

[pete roper]

Cliff, I've got a Daytona RS in at the moment, the one I told you about, it's got it's heads off at the moment, (It bust a belt and the people who replaced it didn't think to do a leak down test ) 4 bent and leaking valves on that side but it still put out 94RWBHP on the dyno ) Anyway, it's still a bit of a pig around town so the bloke is interested in one of your units. We'll see how it goes once the valves are right and I've dialed the cams in as we tend to think they're out as well.

 

Pete

[luhbo]

It's always the same question: how do you measure AFR! You can not measure AFR, it's just a mathematical expression, maybe. Insisting in this is one thing.

 

I have the opinion that one should keep in mind that it's normaly very hard to measure current for instance. Of course you can count the electrons and measure the time and calculate how many of them went through a certain cross section and so on. Or you can just measure the temperature of the wire, or use electromagnetic effects caused by these electrons. No one will say using a simple Ohm meter is useless, you have to count the electrons. Or think about measuring influenza. You can count anti-cells or anti-bodies (however you call them), or you just shove a thermometer into your sons mouth. In 99.9 out of 100 cases this will be accurate enough to decide wether he will go to school or not this particular day.

 

Hubert

[dlaing]

But look at the chart that I posted of Derek's work.

When power is optimized, O2 can be 0.1 or 1.0.....that is a HUGE difference.

Assuming that is typical, and that his more expensive than a WBO2 equiptment is accurate, I am not sure O2 is all that useful as measuring indicator as used on a tuning link or closed loop.

Cliff argues that a WBO2 set to control the ECU results in a consistent burn.

I am not sure who is more correct or even if one is more correct.

A tuning link operator can still tune for power, but I am not sure if they can do it as quickly as just pursuing a theoretical A/F ratio.

People say bad things about Color Tune devices, but I am pondering giving them a shot.

Flame color makes a lot more sense to me than gas numbers as read by electronic devices at varying temperatures.

[Guest Nogbad]

But look at the chart that I posted of Derek's work.

When power is optimized, O2 can be 0.1 or 1.0.....that is a HUGE difference.

63161[/snapback]

 

What you mustn't do is confuse an instantaneous oxygen reading with a statistically processed trend. This kind of measurement is subject to a lot of noise, as there will be substantial peaks and troughs as conditions change, especially during acceleration and deceleration.

 

The combustion control systems I design for power stations and incinerators need to do a statistical analysis to make decisions on fuel and air flow, and never use a raw sensor reading for anything. These are big installations and respond relatively slowly to input changes.

 

The time constants for IC engine control are measured in microseconds, and Cliff's closed loop for sure isn't trying to reactively correct fuel based on the probe's instantaneous output. For one thing, the probe sees the results of that attempt at fuelling after it's all over! Hence what you use the probe for is to update a damped average value of O2 which is then used to update a correction trajectory for the next combustion cycle, having regard to all the other inputs in there. The effect is that the system gradually tunes its own response, optimising the map for that particular journey. The advantage of all this is that unreliable assumptions from altitude sensors and temperature readings are less important. They still need to be there, but the software corrects it all based on O2 averages. The really skilful part (Cliff ) is to get all this in a workable form into the ECU such that it happens fast enough and with stable, predictable effect.

 

(Hope I explained that ok Cliff!)

[callison]

What you mustn't do is confuse an instantaneous oxygen reading with a statistically processed trend. This kind of measurement is subject to a lot of noise, as there will be substantial peaks and troughs as conditions change, especially during acceleration and deceleration.

 

The combustion control systems I design for power stations and incinerators need to do a statistical analysis to make decisions on fuel and air flow, and never use a raw sensor reading for anything. These are big installations and respond relatively slowly to input changes.

 

The time constants for IC engine control are measured in microseconds, and Cliff's closed loop for sure isn't trying to reactively correct fuel based on the probe's instantaneous output. For one thing, the probe sees the results of that attempt at fuelling after it's all over! Hence what you use the probe for is to update a damped average value of O2 which is then used to update a correction trajectory for the next combustion cycle, having regard to all the other inputs in there. The effect is that the system gradually tunes its own response, optimising the map for that particular journey. The advantage of all this is that unreliable assumptions from altitude sensors and temperature readings are less important. They still need to be there, but the software corrects it all based on O2 averages. The really skilful part (Cliff  ) is to get all this in a workable form into the ECU such that it happens fast enough and with stable, predictable effect.

 

(Hope I explained that ok Cliff!)

63183[/snapback]

 

I think you explained it better than anyone.

[dlaing]

I am still dubious of the value of four gas analysis, the Tuning Link, and the WBO2.

If you look at Derek's chart, the oxygen data is pretty close to being absolutely useless.

For all I thought I understood about stoichiometry and ideal power and efficiency, the chart puts holes in the theory everywhere. It looks like power output is the only reliable measurement.

Why even bother with the exhaust gas analysis?

I thought graphs like this were the proven and not theory meant to be broken.

I am still curious how a WBO2 would read against Derek's analysis.

Perhaps it would show him the chart with a nice consistent 12.5-13.5 to one Air to Fuel ratio.

I am also dubious of the consistency of maps that have large changes across the cells.

I am thinking about completely smoothing out my map, as it was probably designed for a Guzzi made on a Tuesday, not a Thursday, with OEM mufflers and airbox and a brand new air filter and every little spike and dip on the map possibly magnifying the inaccuracy of optimal.

Perhaps sound analysis is a better indicator, to determine proper burning.

I can sometimes hear the difference between too rich and too lean of a burn.

Perhaps I'll just train my ears.

[moto]

Thats like asking how many inches I keep the the inside wheel from the edge of the road when all I'm doing is keeping the car near the centre of the lane.

It sounds more like you are assuming that you are in the center of the lane because you have not crashed into anything yet.

I just generate 7 voltage targets to span the range I see the sensor producing.

How do you know how the voltages relate to mixture? If you assume they relate to mixture at one table position in a certain way, do you then assume they relate in the same way at another?

I then decide which parts of the map I want to be richer or leaner by selecting one of those voltages.

Why choose between 7 voltages instead of the choosing the exact one needed?

If there are problem areas, I make a change to that area of the map (richer or leaner target or change the voltage ) untill there is no problems.

You don't need an O2 sensor to do this, as you can experiment in the same way by just changing the pulsewidth for a given intersection of throttle position and rpm.

I just like to tell them it runs great.

Sure, that's a great thing to be able to say, but once again it has to be able top be quantified and qualified, or else there is no substance to saying it. Such a statement needs to be able to be backed by data of some type. Sure it's great to not have stumbles or hesitations and have good economy. But that's a pretty low standard for determining that an engine is running well, and you can easily achieve that without an O2 sensor.

For those who know the type of bike (16M based), they know just getting them smooth, particularly around town, is an achievement.

The fact that you are providing a programmable ECU to replace the 16M is certainly a boon. It can be run open loop, can it not?

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[moto]

But look at the chart that I posted of Derek's work.When power is optimized, O2 can be 0.1 or 1.0.....that is a HUGE difference.

Assuming that is typical, and that his more expensive than a WBO2 equiptment is accurate, I am not sure O2 is all that useful as measuring indicator as used on a tuning link or closed loop.

Tuning link has some advantages over closed loop. Steady state testing and the fact that the sensor is remote mean there are no instanteneous pressure or temperature variations. A regulated power supply means no variation in sensor input voltage.

Cliff argues that a WBO2 set to control the ECU results in a consistent burn.

I'm not sure he's actually argued that.

A tuning link operator can still tune for power, but I am not sure if they can do it as quickly as just pursuing a theoretical A/F ratio.

He could do it if he had the patience. However, it would take him much longer than if he had 4 gasses to look at.

People say bad things about Color Tune devices, but I am pondering giving them a shot.

Oh dear.

Flame color makes a lot more sense to me than gas numbers as read by electronic devices at varying temperatures.

Why?

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[moto]

The effect is that the system gradually tunes its own response, optimising the map for that particular journey.

How gradually are we talking about?

The advantage of all this is that unreliable assumptions from altitude sensors and temperature readings are less important.

But you still need an appropriate sensor voltage target for each cell, and how do you come up with that? Even then, the ECU can gradually correct until it sees that voltage and that is no guarantee of anything, as the voltage can exist at different mixtures, staggers and timing.

They still need to be there, but the software corrects it all based on O2 averages. The really skilful part (Cliff  ) is to get all this in a workable form into the ECU such that it happens fast enough and with stable, predictable effect.

My hat's definitely off to him for producing a programmable ECU. I even respect him for having the ability to build a closed loop system, even if its usefulness is a bit dubious .

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[moto]

It looks like power output is the only reliable measurement.

As a final arbiter, I agree that power or BSFC are the only reliable measurements.

Why even bother with the exhaust gas analysis?

Because you can get to best power so much faster with EGA data to point the way.

I thought graphs like this were the proven and not theory meant to be broken.

They are proven to be trends, but that's it.

I am still curious how a WBO2 would read against Derek's analysis.

Me too. I'm also curious how much I could change a cell value for the worse before the WBO2 sensor would notice. We could find out. Burlingame is not too far from here...

Perhaps it would show him the chart with a nice consistent 12.5-13.5 to one Air to Fuel ratio.

Maybe. I think it might show leaner.

I am also dubious of the consistency of maps that have large changes across the cells.

Again, horsepower speaks for itself. You cannot ignore how various tuning effects come into and out of phase with each other at various throttle position/rpm combinations, nor can you ignore reversionary effects. (BTW, see the latest Futura map here. It's a bit smoother looking than the last).

I am thinking about completely smoothing out my map, as it was probably designed for a Guzzi made on a Tuesday, not a Thursday, with OEM mufflers and airbox and a brand new air filter and every little spike and dip on the map possibly magnifying the inaccuracy of optimal.

I wouldn't do that. That the map should be smooth looking is an invalid assumption.

 

Regards,

 

Derek

 

[big J]

Anyone for carbs and points?

[guzzi323]

Anyone for carbs and points?

63250[/snapback]

 

POINTS!!!?? That's ridiculous.

Big, fat honking carbs? Hell yes!

 

 

johnk

[Martin Barrett]

Anyone for carbs and pints? 

63250[/snapback]

 

Now you're talking

[Ballacraine]

I loved the old PHM40s

 

Nige.