TTS --copy & paste between base maps

[jabarr]

If I copy all tables from one base map to another base map,(including constants), the tune up is vastly different.  What's going on that we don't see?  Injector timing??

[VDeuce]

If I copy all tables from one base map to another base map,(including constants), the tune up is vastly different.  What's going on that we don't see?  Injector timing??

There are many things that are hidden behind the curtain, so to speak. We as tuners don't have access to all the settings that the base maps have. From what I understand, there are many parameters that are set in the base map, so that just copying tables from one to the other is not equivalent.

[nc-renegade]

There are many things that are hidden behind the curtain, so to speak. We as tuners don't have access to all the settings that the base maps have. From what I understand, there are many parameters that are set in the base map, so that just copying tables from one to the other is not equivalent.

I think this veil of secrecy is one of the major drawbacks to the Delphi ECM.  It is not the most appealing system when all the "witchcraft" is occurring behind the scenes.  When two maps appear the same, yet perform 180 degree apart..makes you wonder.

Don't want to make this a T-Max thread, but I certainly remember criticism over the advance versus the user version of software and I appreciated the exposure when I got the advance version.  But also, it behaves consistently between maps.

I have heard that earlier versions of TTS had more settings, but they took them them out, supposedly because users were getting into trouble.  That I do not doubt, it's just a shame you cannot fully appreciate or understand what the ECU is really doing behind the scenes.

I still don't understand why I have to fandango the CID and injector size to get the VE tables into alignment with the stars.  You would think there could be an easier way to size up the VE tables for your actual engine VE.  But hey, as long as you can get the silly thing tuned.....it must be okay.

[FLTRI]

All I can add to this discussion is the TTS tuner, IMO is the best tuning device on the market.....at least based on my experience having worked with all of them....including T-Max and DTT w/auto tune.
I have yet to need to modify anything the TTS doesn't allow us to see.

And yes there have been many who have "fiddled" with the system to the point of the engine running like crap, but that applies to all tuning devices, including auto-tune systems.
I do realize there are few members here as well as other forums who have "reverse engineered" the ECM software and found a way to simulate the TTS V-tune feature. Those are also the folks who feel they need some of the behind the scene data so they can make their products a little more accurate.

I also keep in mind there is nothing "perfect" but I must say I find the TTS tuners the best of the options.
As always, JMHO, Bob
PS - Have yet to see where auto-tune systems make more power or run better or smoother, including mileage, than a properly tuned system with the SERT/TTS Mastertune.

[Doc 1]

All I can add to this discussion is the TTS tuner, IMO is the best tuning device on the market.....at least based on my experience having worked with all of them....including T-Max and DTT w/auto tune.
I have yet to need to modify anything the TTS doesn't allow us to see.

And yes there have been many who have "fiddled" with the system to the point of the engine running like crap, but that applies to all tuning devices, including auto-tune systems.
I do realize there are few members here as well as other forums who have "reverse engineered" the ECM software and found a way to simulate the TTS V-tune feature. Those are also the folks who feel they need some of the behind the scene data so they can make their products a little more accurate.

I also keep in mind there is nothing "perfect" but I must say I find the TTS tuners the best of the options.
As always, JMHO, Bob
PS - Have yet to see where auto-tune systems make more power or run better or smoother, including mileage, than a properly tuned system with the SERT/TTS Mastertune.

Very Well Written....I agree ....

[ToBeFrank]

I do realize there are few members here as well as other forums who have "reverse engineered" the ECM software and found a way to simulate the TTS V-tune feature. Those are also the folks who feel they need some of the behind the scene data so they can make their products a little more accurate.

Bob, your conjecturing is always amusing.

[jabarr]

I agree that the TTS is by far the best tuner available today as I too have used most all that are on the market.  
I'm not trying to fool the system and I am not trying to compare or argue about auto-tuning systems, and I never said anything about trying to reverse engineer the program, and I'm certainly not criticizing the TTS.  
What I have observed is--I had a bike that I tuned completely and the results were just slightly off from what we were expecting.  I copied and pasted all tables to another base map and the tune up was not even close.  After retuning the different base map, the final results were more in line with what we expected the engine to do.  Obviously there are things going on behind the scenes that we cannot see or do anything about.  I'm just trying to get some insight on what the hidden differences between base maps could possibly be that would skew the final results of an engine that was tuned the same way with two different base maps and the final results were measurably different.

[nc-renegade]

All I can add to this discussion is the TTS tuner, IMO is the best tuning device on the market.....at least based on my experience having worked with all of them....including T-Max and DTT w/auto tune.

Hi Bob,
I am getting there myself.  I finished another VTune session, this time with a monitor mounted on the bike, while paying close attention to the tune.  My bike runs damn good now, very please with it.

I still think it is all in the timing.  If the T-Max functioned as the Delphi on timing, then I believe it would be the cat's meow.

The thought that started this thread though is the mysteries things going on in the background in the Delphi with some of these maps.  Just the VE tables and other visible tables do not explain the big differences that folks see between maps; that one would think would be close.

Regards,
NC

[FLTRI]

I do realize there are few members here as well as other forums who have "reverse engineered" the ECM software and found a way to simulate the TTS V-tune feature. Those are also the folks who feel they need some of the behind the scene data so they can make their products a little more accurate.

Bob, your conjecturing is always amusing.

You call it conjecturing, I call it postulating.

[Steve Cole]

There is a lot that goes on in the back round and if we were to put more of it in the tuner 99.9999% of the users would be lost. We've tried to do the base calibrations for various packages so that we could get the back round setup for you and yes there are differences between them. To do a full calibration on a fresh engine combination takes us the better part of 80 hours of work. Not many tuners or end users that would ever spend the time to get there let alone be able to do it as fast as we can. I say that as we've been doing this for a long time and have in the neighborhood of $500,000 of test equipment that allows us to get there quicker.

People talk about using different base calibrations and coming out with differences and that is true but most that I have talked too are only talking 3-4 Hp maximum! For all out racing that's one thing but for most they would never know the difference! If we see the need we can and do upgrades in both the tuner and the calibrations so we really do watch and listen to what people are seeing and saying.

[nc-renegade]

People talk about using different base calibrations and coming out with differences and that is true but most that I have talked too are only talking 3-4 Hp maximum! For all out racing that's one thing but for most they would never know the difference! If we see the need we can and do upgrades in both the tuner and the calibrations so we really do watch and listen to what people are seeing and saying.

That's interesting comments, thanks for sharing this! 

I don't like is the changing of the CID and injector size to make the VE tables work out.  It would seem logical to represent these values as percentages of some standard configuration...88 CID and 4.22 for instance than enter a percent increase or decrease to get the VE tables within range.

Another area that I'm trying to improve my understanding is the bias tables.  It would be nice instead of entering mV to instead enter the AFR you want added or subtracted from the 14.6.  Then in the AFR tables, make a selection for close loop and have the software display the actual AFR.  This would make the user interface easier to interpret when setting up the tune.  I would think it is up to you to design the tables and just because the Delphi HD version makes 14.6 put it into close-loop does not mean the user interface has to show this.  Actuals are always better.

Just my 2 cents as a user.

Regards,
NC

[Steve Cole]

So what are you going to do when everything switch to Lambda? We have Lambda calibrations that we are about to release and AFR goes out the window and it's my guess this is what we are going to see for the 2010 bikes as well. The 2008 and 2009 Drive By Wire bikes were Lambda based from the factory and we were able to switch them to AFR based but I'm not so sure we will be able to do it again for 2010. It's always a learning curve but we try to keep it as simple as we can but you are required to do some learning.

Now as for the Bias tables those will not change as that is what they are. An O2 sensors does not measure AFR it measures free oxygen in the exhaust and to convert to AFR one must know the Stoich point of the base fuel being used. If you look under "tools" in our software you can find a conversion chart for AFR, Lambda and O2 Mv based on a Stoich value for the fuel. Change the base fuel value then hit the calculate button and you can see how it changes. This may help you understand a little better what is going on.

[nc-renegade]

So what are you going to do when everything switch to Lambda?

I prefer Lambda.

Now as for the Bias tables those will not change as that is what they are. An O2 sensors does not measure AFR it measures free oxygen in the exhaust and to convert to AFR one must know the Stoich point of the base fuel being used.

Make them in Lambda too!  Why not, if the other tables are going there too?

If you look under "tools" in our software you can find a conversion chart for AFR, Lambda and O2 Mv based on a Stoich value for the fuel. Change the base fuel value then hit the calculate button and you can see how it changes.

Yep, I use it...but you do have to make assumption on the Stoich value for the fuel being used; at least that's been my experence when trying to research this value.  As you pointed out, all those values are calculated IF you know the Stoich value of the fuel.  Should be able to calc. the other tables and pick what you want to look at.

[Steve Cole]

Closed Loop Bias is not there in the Lambda based calibrations, so it kind of hard to have it when it's not there. Everything is handled different in a Lambda based calibrations. We should be finishing up the Lambda manuals late this week for it and if the testing gets completed they will be released shortly. Then everyone gets to learn a different method. You cannot calculate for what is not there and the fuel issue is a real thing that we all have to live with. Currently across the US the fuel Stoich value varies between 14.28 and 14.68 for the various fuel at the pump.

[nc-renegade]

Closed Loop Bias is not there in the Lambda based calibrations, so it kind of hard to have it when it's not there. Everything is handled different in a Lambda based calibrations. We should be finishing up the Lambda manuals late this week for it and if the testing gets completed they will be released shortly. Then everyone gets to learn a different method. You cannot calculate for what is not there and the fuel issue is a real thing that we all have to live with. Currently across the US the fuel Stoich value varies between 14.28 and 14.68 for the various fuel at the pump.

Hi Steve, thanks for the response...all just trying to learn more.  Yes, that is what I've found as well with the Stoich values (even more extremes with some blends).  What I'm saying is if you tune in terms of Lambda, then is this not the value that the o2 sensors switch at?  Are they not measuring Lambda?  A better way to ask is, for any given Stoich value, does the o2 sensor behave the same?  If it is 14.68, does the o2 sensor start to switch and provide the same mV output as it does with a value of 12.7? (Always Lambda at 450mV?) If so, then it certainly could be expressed in Lambda, or am I still missing something?

And does it really matter while in close loop?  If the Stoich value requires a richer AFR and you are set for a Lambda, then why is this a bad thing?  Lambda never changes with fuel composition, AFR does.  AFR= Lambda * Stoich.  So if you tune completely with Lambda (assuming this is being directly measured by the o2 sensor), then it should make a lot more sense understanding or setting up the engine tune.

As far as the CLB table, to me visually, a simple chart like the AFR, but in Lambda and a check mark for close loop would be easier to understand than trying to subtract the CLB table from the AFR table.  So instead of mV offset CLB table you would have Lambda offset in the range of .8 to 1.2 directly in the AFR table, which would now display a Lambda table.

Maybe I'm over simplifying or simply do not understand.

[Steve Cole]

With Lambda the system still measures the O2 sensors. O2 sensors do not measure Lambda or AFR, they measure free oxygen in the exhaust only. It's just that the math is handled differently, so there is no CLB table anymore. Without knowing what the fuel is for sure it just someones best guess as to what the Stoich point is. Since AFR had to be 14.6 for the HD closed loop system to work we had a CLB table to work with. Lambda does not have to be at 1 to be in closed loop, it has a range that things will remain in closed loop. So rather than try to convert things into meanly values of AFR we are just displaying Lambda. If you want you can make the guess at what that AFR might be by using the calculator.

Now as far as converting the CLB table to AFR values, your back to guessing what the average voltage might be and what the Stoich value might be to do what you ask, to many guesses for us to try and make into a table that means anything. You just have to live within the problem and make the best of it until you can find what the fuel really is and once that's done we would still have trouble with trying the average switching voltage as that's not output from the current ECM.

Maybe now people will get away from saying XX.x is the one and only AFR if you want peak power. What each engine combination wants may well be different from build to build.

[Ram]

When the lambda system is the only way to tune, will it be better for tuning? Or is it better for EPA compliance? I find it hard to conceptualize just how things can be improved by switching over to the lambda based system.

[Steve Cole]

It's just a different way to look at things. It changes the way the math is handled behind the scenes and the user interface will be different. People will need to learn to forget that some AFR value is supposed to be the magic number and work with what is best for the engine build your working with. The OEM automobile people switched over back in 2000 time line but it's taken HD awhile to get there.

[nc-renegade]

The OEM automobile people switched over back in 2000 time line but it's taken HD awhile to get there.

Yes,  most of the performance info out there now talks in terms of Lambda (automotive folks).  To me, I find it easier to follow and i like it not being tied down to the Stoich value of the fuel.

[Herko]

"...and i like it not being tied down to the Stoich value of the fuel."

NCR, curious about this statement.
What would L = 1.00 be?

[nc-renegade]

"...and i like it not being tied down to the Stoich value of the fuel."

NCR, curious about this statement.
What would L = 1.00 be?

LOL, yes...I was trying to convey not needing to know what the Stoich value of the fuel is to know what my AFR is; with Lambda, I simply do not care about AFR or Stoich values.

Lambda 1.00 is always Lambda 1.00 (at Stoich).  Don't need to know what the actual Stoich value is.  To me, that is attractive, so you can tune for say .83 Lambda and not worry about the fuel you are running.

[Steve Cole]

In theory that idea is great but it doesn't work that way. If the base fuel changes the .83 Lambda result will be different, so you still need to know what the base fuel is if your looking for real numbers. All this means is there is no magic number to set for and that is the way it's always been.

[nc-renegade]

In theory that idea is great but it doesn't work that way. If the base fuel changes the .83 Lambda result will be different, so you still need to know what the base fuel is if your looking for real numbers. All this means is there is no magic number to set for and that is the way it's always been.

Well darn, that really sucks.  A lot of mis-conceptions out there.