The effects of AFV on open loop areas

[1FSTRK]

Steve would you say that some of the aftermarket pipes could be designed so that there is no way to get a proper reading from an O2 sensor no matter where it is placed in the pipe?

[1FSTRK]

Once people around here get to understanding that there is no measurement being done in AFR or anything other than measuring the O2 in the exhaust and comparing it to the O2 outside the exhaust things will never change. A closed loop system only keeps the O2 in the exhaust near the same at all times. It does this by measuring each and every cylinder firing and pushes it a little leaner for a few engine cycles then a little richer for a few engine cycles, over and over again. The AFV is just the amount of offset the ECM has learned over a long period of time for a given area of engine operation. It has to see the offset before the AFV changes and in terms of engine operation it is a slow changing item.

So if the ECM see's too much O2 in the exhaust it will richen the mixture to push it back to the set point. If it see's too little O2 then it will lean the mixture to push it back to the set point. So how are you going to get to little O2 in the exhaust after it had been tuned becomes the question? Answer that question before anything else and I think you will find it takes some sort of mechanical failure to do it, and if that's the case then you need to fix that failure before blaming the closed loop system.

The most common failure is going to be a improperly place O2 sensor and its going to happen more so at low engine speeds where it cannot get a proper reading. That's not an O2 fault or a closed loop fault, it's an exhaust system fault and it needs to be fixed.

Just thinking this part over and this might account for some of the problems with bikes mapped with the dyno’s O2system. The V-tune using the factory O2s will give problems if the exhaust and sensor placement is of bad design and you would have to fix that before you could even complete the tune. Now on the dyno you can get readings from the dyno sensors that allow you to write a proper map and then when you leave and the ECM starts depending on the bikes O2s to dial the AFV it gets bad data. Technically the exhaust design was wrong from the start but because the map was not written from the bike sensors it was not picked up by the dyno operator.

[strokerjlk]

Isn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

you have the closed loop theory down very well glens. in theory it sounds good. and if it always worked as in theory it would be great.
it has worked for you on what? two bikes, a stage one and now a stage two?

here is a couple more things steve has posted.
seems contradicting to me

If your going to do it right you should be measuring EGT's and not exceed 1400 deg max. A those levels an HD air cooled motor can run for about 1 minute and that's it

Cruise is another whole area and I  ............  see many people who firmly believe that a built motor must run at no more than 14.0 and  ............  the truth. To tell you the truth they will run great at 16:1 but you cannot deal with the heat at that 

@ 16.1 AFR it dosent take long to generate 1400 deg EGT.
so I agree with the 1400 deg EGT. but no way in hell you can run 16.1 at cruise,even if you want to live with the heat.
and I have seen 16.0 on tuned closed loop bikes. right wrong or indifferent. it isnt what I want to see.

If you're wanting to feel safe open-loop I'd suggest going with a carb.  At least it's somewhat self-adaptable as opposed to some injectors firing for a fixed time regardless the fuel pressure or what the injectors themselves might be acting like at the moment.

so anything before the 06 dyna and 07 up EFI,would be better running a carb. come on man you are smarter than that.
open loop isnt a set AFR of 13.2 -13.5 across the board ,as you have stated in various threads.
the map is set to the desired AFR you want to run in that area. then the ve's dialed in. (no v tune) 14.0-14.2 cruise. 12.5-13.6 wot. 13.5 -14.2 idle.
you mentioned in another thread that EITMS will kick in no matter what you tune to. in 14,000 miles EITMS has never kicked in on my 120. 13.8 AFR at idle.

[glens]

Just thinking this part over...  Technically the exhaust design was wrong from the start but because the map was not written from the bike sensors it was not picked up by the dyno operator.

That's a good synopsis of every thread ever like this here.

Isn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

But that's immaterial to the argument that they won't survive when running closed-loop.  Might as well say you've got a dollar bill with eight twos in the serial number.

in theory [closed loop] sounds good. and if it always worked as in theory it would be great.
it has worked for you on what? two bikes, a stage one and now a stage two?

So why can't you ever seem to make it work?  Lots of folks can and do.  Yeah, two bikes, a stage one and a stage two; and another stage one before them.  So what?  The first one had the older-style exhaust plumbing which wasn't very amenable to closed-loop with free-flowing mufflers.  But it got made to work well, and I don't even do it for a living!

here is a couple more things steve has posted.
seems contradicting to me

["should not exceed 1400 deg EGT" and "built motors will run great at 16:1 except for the heat"]

@ 16.1 AFR it dosent take long to generate 1400 deg EGT.
so I agree with the 1400 deg EGT. but no way in hell you can run 16.1 at cruise,even if you want to live with the heat.
and I have seen 16.0 on tuned closed loop bikes. right wrong or indifferent. it isnt what I want to see.

He wasn't suggesting you cruise around at 16:1 and you know that.  The statements weren't contradictory; don't portray them in a way you know he didn't mean.

And we both know you've never seen a closed-loop bike running 16:1 in closed-loop, and if they were running 16:1 anywhere, then they obviously weren't tuned despite any claims otherwise.  Please don't tell me where you might've seen 16:1 was anything but a blip that some accel enrichment couldn't take care of, either.

[me saying it'd be better to use a carb than open-loop EFI]

so anything before the 06 dyna and 07 up EFI,would be better running a carb. come on man you are smarter than that.

Am I?  Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to sell myself long

In their days, were the MM systems usually considered to be better than a carb?  Right away?  After a while?

Was fuel typically a bit more consistent back then than nowadays?  Any at all?

Do EFI components hold their operating characteristics so reliably with no feedback that they don't need at least periodic checkups?  Really?

open loop isnt a set AFR of 13.2 -13.5 across the board ,as you have stated in various threads.

I defy you to find any legitimate quotes of me saying that.

you mentioned in another thread that EITMS will kick in no matter what you tune to. in 14,000 miles EITMS has never kicked in on my 120. 13.8 AFR at idle.

That's a bit of a mis-characterization of what I'd said.  I said it would kick in from time to time no matter what you do, and the "what you do" under consideration was leaving the system closed-loop instead of throwing the best part of the EFI away in an effort to rid some running heat.  There was also discussion of exhaust plumbing changes, EFI tuning, and those plastic "heat shields" shrouding the rear cylinder.  Going open-loop across-the-board was never under consideration except to suggest it wasn't the better option.

And why don't you throw back into my face where I've said I typically drop the idle area out of closed-loop?  I know I've said it within the last couple of weeks or so...

How often do you check your tunes over time?  How often do you monitor the injector functionality?  The fuel pump / pressure regulator?  Are you entirely confident things will stay where you'd set them, "set and forget"?

[Steve Cole]

1FSTRK

First off you need to understand that a dyno operator O2 is no different than a factory O2. They are built from the same base technology only one has a broader range, hence the name Broad Band Sensor. So guess what boys and girls they BOTH have the same issues! So if your dyno operator just tosses a sensor in and calls it a day you have no idea how good or bad that reading is. I have watch many a dyno operator running on a out of calibration sensor and they never knew it. So now which is better or worse? You can take a exhaust sample tube and move it in the exhaust pipe and watch the reading change.......... so which one is right and which one is wrong? the truth is 95% of the dyno operators will never know or care. They are more worried about getting it in and out to collect a pay check and that's the real issue.

So if you adjust to the dyno sensors and the factory sensors read different who do you think is going to win if closed loop is used, The ECM with factory sensors or the one that got left back at the dyno?

Strokerjlk

I've got right at 10,000 miles on a 120R with Closed loop and it runs the same today as it did 6 months ago 132/131 ........ so what. All one needs to do is do the job right and it works just fine. 120R, HD heavy breather with a RB Racing LSR 2:1 pipe, you know the one you said could not be run in closed loop, sorry it works great!

As far as measuring EGT to not exceed 1400 degree's I still hold to that , no contradiction at all. When was the last time you even installed a EGT gauge on a customers bike or better yet have you ever. As that would mean you had to weld a bung into the exhaust pipe or at least a mounting hole in the exhaust pipe to mount it and take it out for a ride under all operating conditions.

You statement of 16:1 is not something that I have ever recommended to do so how about we get back to reality and let's run 14.68 at cruise and go test, after all that is Stoichometeric for today's gasoline, if you ever really bother to do so it will not even be close to 1400 degrees and you know it. As I matter of fact testing on a HD air cooled Big Twin engine at 17:1 55 mph cruise flat ground only made 1275! So because you have seen a screwed up tune up I'm supposed to toss out everything we know that works, sorry but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Now let's get to my statement about running an air cooler HD engine and it would overheatand EITMS kick in. You seem to like to take out bits and pieces of what I said how about the other part of it. Like take your bike and start it and walk away from it on a 90 degree day and just let it sit and idle. It will burn itself to the ground at 13.8:1 been there done that, so if the ETIMS never kicked in you have it turned OFF. As a matter of testing we run this test several times a year on new models to see what they take to overheat and a fuel mixture of 12.5:1 will not stop them from over heating when sitting still and idling. They need airflow to keep them from burning up. The richer the mixture to a point will slow the process but it will not solve it.

So let's talk about your 14.0 to 14.2 cruise in open loop based on what? Does your customer ride only on the dyno in the condition you ran it? Does the engine care what you thought you saw based on that day........... NO! Different day, different conditions, different tank of fuel and you have no idea where the mixture really is. Closed loop solves for that whether or not you like it or not and a 120R engine will run just fine all day long at cruise at 14.6 with no over heat problems. All that needs to be done is what your getting paid for when you tuning the bike. If there is a problem then call the customer and tell them. Fix it or not, that is up to the customer but do not blame the ECM or the tools for programming because your not willing or able to do what the customer is paying you for. It's no different than tuning a bike with a bad spark plug in it!

[whittlebeast]

Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Beast

[1FSTRK]

Isn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

This kind of says it all. Some people have closed loop and AFV working fine on all different size motors and other people can't figure out how to make it work. So my options were to start a thread to see if others here could help me to understand it so that I can make it work for me or give up on the new technology and go back to old same old way we used to do things.

1FSTRK

First off you need to understand that a dyno operator O2 is no different than a factory O2. They are built from the same base technology only one has a broader range, hence the name Broad Band Sensor. So guess what boys and girls they BOTH have the same issues! So if your dyno operator just tosses a sensor in and calls it a day you have no idea how good or bad that reading is. I have watch many a dyno operator running on a out of calibration sensor and they never knew it. So now which is better or worse? You can take a exhaust sample tube and move it in the exhaust pipe and watch the reading change.......... so which one is right and which one is wrong? the truth is 95% of the dyno operators will never know or care. They are more worried about getting it in and out to collect a pay check and that's the real issue.

So if you adjust to the dyno sensors and the factory sensors read different who do you think is going to win if closed loop is used, The ECM with factory sensors or the one that got left back at the dyno?

Steve
Steve sometimes you’re just too quick to jump on the defense wagon. Without trying to say one sensor setup is more or less accurate than the other I was merely giving an example of how your theory that the exhaust was the problem would play out when the bike clearly ran good and showed good readings on the dyno’s O2 readout the day I had it tuned. I finally have got a handle on how this system could work the way you say it does but it takes a long time for me because of the defensive manor in which you present the information. Because it works on some bikes and not on others, and you just saying "I think you will find it takes some sort of mechanical failure to do it" rather than giving some explanation of how it could happen, you lost me.
I know nothing on my bike was changed or replaced and I can flash the dyno made map right back in and it runs fine again. You just repeating that the system works and you are right (and you were right) didn’t help me understand how this was happening to my bike and how to fix it. Anyway thanks for posting because somehow mixed with all the defensiveness, attacks and sarcasm you managed to give enough information for me to get it through my thick head what was going on.

[glens]

Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Yes.

Why would anybody want to do that except for testing purposes, Andy?  You do know the implications of that, right?

I meant to ask you in your other recent thread.  There are a couple or three log graphs you'd posted and I have to ask, how is it you get the engine speed to keep increasing after a long hard acceleration and you've closed the throttle?  Are you going down a long steep hill in top gear or something?  Like maybe coming down into Denver out of the tunnel?

[1FSTRK]

Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Beast

You need to check out the numerous posts here by whittlebeast as he has cover that over and over.

[whittlebeast]

Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Yes.

Why would anybody want to do that except for testing purposes, Andy?  You do know the implications of that, right?

I meant to ask you in your other recent thread.  There are a couple or three log graphs you'd posted and I have to ask, how is it you get the engine speed to keep increasing after a long hard acceleration and you've closed the throttle?  Are you going down a long steep hill in top gear or something?  Like maybe coming down into Denver out of the tunnel?

In the cased of the Sporty, the AFR at low RPM changes in a huge way as you run thru a hour ride.  I have the average AFR/VE set correct for the beginning of the ride  As the bike warms up, the O2s pull about 7% fuel.  If I run adaptive learning, that correction would be all wrong.  I also do not want that correction going past where I want it to have an effect.  Whenever I do tuning now, I always ride about 45 min and throw out about the first 15 min of data just to account for this apparent bust in the code.  The guys at Fuelmoto have noticed the same problem on lots of these bikes.  This would be difficult to catch on a dyno but gets really apparent with good logging software.

Re engine speeding up when out of the throttle, where did you see that?  I had not noticed that one.  I only know of one hill that may do that but it may be true in that case.  If I was doing about 30 in second, that is most likely the hill.

Beast

[glens]

I thought it was the adaptive learning which Steve said the other day couldn't be disabled on the Sportsters.  Oh, well, must've been something else.

So you're saying that after a ride, shutdown, and cool-off, the bike will start up with 7% too little fuel?  How long does that typically take to get remedied?

What's the ratio for your "time spent just riding the bike" to "time spent tuning the bike"?
 
Here's the most blatant of the three - http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/WB2edGearPull.jpg

In the other two the same thing happens but you let off the throttle less.

snippet:


[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[whittlebeast]

Here is a screen shot of the Idle and the changing AFR.  The bike at this point was running totally open loop logging duel widebands.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTime.jpg

Beast

[whittlebeast]

I just zoomed into that shift with all of the filters turned off and it took per the data loggers, the shift took about .250 ms.  That is way to close to the data rate of the device/network data rate to be worth coming to too many conclusions.  My guess is that I was fairly close on the shift.  When looking that sort of thing on the race cars we tend to run in the 20 samples per sec or faster range.  On the rice bike and shifter kart, you pull up on the shifter as you blip the throttle and you don't touch the clutch at all.

Beast

[hrdtail78]

Andy,
Your getting boring.  I understand it is only a 2D graph, but will you look at it and answer Glens question straight.

[whittlebeast]

Andy,
Your getting boring.  I understand it is only a 2D graph, but will you look at it and answer Glens question straight.

Here is an example of the narrow bands yanking fuel later in the ride.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB.jpg

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB2.jpg

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB3.jpg

The last trace is a hint as to what may be going on here.  Years ago we found that the V8 motors with water heated/cooled intakes had very different characteristics compared to the ITB motors.  We wound up adding correction tables based on IAT and Engine temp.  I also ran into this with the turbo Mustang when the first gear WOT stuff was very different in first gear when compared to second.  The issue turned out to be the response time of the IAT sensor.  In that case we leaned on the IAT transfer function on only the race tune that was very different than we used on the street tune.  Yep, that was a true work-around.

Sorry if you think this is boring but this is the sort of thing that keeps me interested when we find this sort of thing in other codes.  We identify the pattern and then just fix the code as required to model the issue.  Over here you have to find work-arounds or simply ignore the data.

You may be happy to hear that I moved the widebands to my rice bike.  In the Yamaha liter bike world, the issues are even more involved with different maps as you row up thru the gears.

Beast

[strokerjlk]

So why can't you ever seem to make it work?  Lots of folks can and do.  Yeah, two bikes, a stage one and a stage two; and another stage one before them.  So what?  The first one had the older-style exhaust plumbing which wasn't very amenable to closed-loop with free-flowing mufflers.  But it got made to work well, and I don't even do it for a living!

I have closed loop bikes running around. it works on some builds such as yours.
and I dont do this for a living
and I have seen dyno tuned bikes come in that were 16.0  steady state in areas.
so back to the original post.
everyone has jumped to conclusions, that just because 1 fstrk and wurk truk were talking about AFV's leaning out open loop. that they were talking about WOT.
I think what they are most concerned about is more like the 2500-3000 rpm 70 kpa area that is set to 14.0 14.2 open loop leaning out.
question for you. what are the AFR swings, closed loop, when lambda or the afr CLB is set to 14.45? 70 kpa 2500-3000 rpms?
not what you think, what you know?
what is it you expect them to be ?

Steve Cole
you dont need a bung  to install a thermocouple either,you can do it fine with a riv-nut
I quit welding bungs in a long time ago.

[hrdtail78]

"I have seen dyno tuned bikes come in that were 16.0  steady state in areas"

This is a really open statement.  Mobil trailer down at Hogrock this weekend.  Got to talk with the tuner some.  Told me he doesn't need a brake on his dyno.  Direct link full maps take him about an hour and  TTS or SERT maps 2.  Maybe you are getting some of his overflow?

"I think what they are most concerned about is more like the 2500-3000 rpm 70 kpa area that is set to 14.0 14.2 open loop leaning out."

I thought they were talking about higher RPM and KPA.  Not necessarily WOT, but an area that couldn't be in CL. 90, 95, 100kpa.  2500-300 at 70 KPA is a prime area for CL.

[wurk_truk]

70 kpa at 3500 on a big block wouldn't be where I would put something in CL.

Anyways, Ron Dickey called and I need to fix one thing.

Warranty is warranty.  Covers parts to be correct and in a workmanship like manner.  Those jugs that are twisted?  (was it DB choppers that posted those pix?) Ron WOULD warrant them instantly, right now.  And he says he can tell they are really old, too.  The pistons in them, are NOT his pistons, so no warranty there.

Also...  there is 'help a customer out'.  THAT is where I was going and misspoke.  If a customer fails to send a copy of his tune, and fails to send other data, THEN there will be NO help from Ron.  Ron said that he is highly suspicious of some closed loop tunes, especially in areas of where I am speaking...  70-90 kpa areas, besides possible lean or not lean, Adaptive Timing can be an issue too.  If the bike leans AND pulls spark, look out.

As always, I learn from Ron.  We talked about how the flame front works.  I had it right on detonation, but didn't have a full grasp of timing being pulled until he explained it better.  On a 90* piston [flattops]( as opposed to a 20* dome), late timing will force the flame front to the far side of the cylinder, while the cylinder is moving downwards.  The flame will expand against the cylinder wall as it expands.  Cylinders are taking the brunt of the flame instead of the chamber.  This heat will do rings in in no time.  The latest pix of KB and Harley pistons blown through?  He simply begged the question on HOW someone could possibly say those bikes were running 'decent' and the pistons blew thru.  Kinda obvious that things were NOT decent, right?  I agree.

Steve told me to try a few tests and to please hold off any final opinion, of mine, until I do these.  Fair enough.

Both Steve and Ron have told me that what I DO need to worry about is having a 'happy engine".  I agree.

What I do NOT agree with is my tired old argument on leaning out OL sections.  So, I have the tests from FBRR and now Steve.  It will take me until this winter to get the 120 over to the dyno and see whats up.

And, I don't think I will be breaking any confidences here....  One thing that Stroker and I talked about was that maybe MOCO did have the factory tune not go leaner than the map, but when a tuner is installed... SEPST or TTS, the tuner changes those settings.   After PMing back and forth with Steve...  it could be the other way around, too.  The MOCO's strategy could be to allow the bike to lean up, but a tuner could stop that effect.   I'm curious...., because Steve told me to ONLY use the newer TTS only cals, and not any SERT cal or old MOCO cal.   So, I will try the MT8 that Steve has going on for the 120.  It would be more work for me to set up and monitor the 09 ECM, so I will do this when Steve comes out with a Lambda 10 up cal for the 120.

I can run the twin scan AND have the bike in CL at the same time.  I can monitor things like desired AFR(Lambda) ratios while going down the road, if I take my pipe with 18mm bungs and install a new set of 12mm bungs down low.

So, with the tidbit of what cal I should use, I really am, now, withholding judgment on any of this.

The OP wished to know what goes on with CL tunes and the AFVs.  One thing that got mentioned late was his bike runs like crap after a few hundred miles.  Reset the AFVs, and all is cool.  1FSTRK is correct in his thinking on both the AFVs and EGR, and I would like to suggest to him one further avenue of investigation....  what pipe does he have?  Have you done a check of what the O2s place out in that pipe?  I would see what the depth of the O2s really are, and most likely use the Jason method of cutting the bungs a bit.  Check the running conditions AFTER getting those O2s in the exhaust stream a little better.   There IS a defense against screwy AFVs, regardless of how they work, and that is to try damn hard to get the best data to the ECM.

[Steve Cole]

Let's step back and look at this and wonder why some people can figure it out while others cannot. Forget what you think you know and look at what is there. Stock you get an ECM with O2 sensors and it all works fine. Now you put on an aftermarket exhaust and it doesn't work right, so where does the problem lie? Now let's take a 120R and add it in, does the ECM know or care that the engine was changed....... NO. All this about trying to tune the ECM to get it to do what you want rather than what it wants isn't going to work. So how about you let it do what it wants, then you know what it's going to do and then make the necessary adjustments so the outcome is where it needs to be. The dyno O2's are not what the ECM see's so it doesn't know or care about them.

First you need to find and resolve the problem if you expect it to work, that's the part that many are not willing to or capable of doing. Saying that AFV's are the issue is just wrong, just as saying you need to run 14.0 - 14.2 at cruise in large displacement engines is wrong. What the engine needs is to run just enough fuel to make the power and burn it as complete as possible without over heating. Picking an overly rich mixture just means someone is being to lazy to adjust things properly and is not doing the necessary testing.

We have strokerjlk trying to tell people that 14.6 is too lean yet every OEM car, truck, bus, motorcycle and offroad piece of equipment has been running that very mixture for near 20 years now without issue! So why is it he is not capable of making it work properly when so many others can?

Why do things change after the dyno that seems to run fine. The most simple answer is that the engine really doesn't care to awful much what it is burning at ratio wise unless you get way out of the ball park. Fuel economy will suffer running richer side than necessary and running to the leaner side will produce more heat. It will run pretty well at any ratio between 12.8 and 15.0. So get it in that ball park and most are not going to know any better and this is just what most tuners know and do not want anyone to be told about. This is the very reason these inexpensive Broad Band based units are used, they are not accurate and they are not tested by most so called dyno tuners. So you take the Broad Band sensor and stick it on the side of a pipe and that's all you need to do right? WRONG, it's not that simple and the problems long term that people are seeing is the very proof of that.

What is it that we are to do, be lazy and just set it up rich and forget about it or solve the problem and run it like it should. Let's think about this in terms of burning fuel. Why is it that running at near Stoichometric makes the engine run hotter? Simple, the more completely you burn the fuel the more power it produces, so if you are chasing power why would you want an incomplete burn that cost power and gets less fuel economy. Power is heat it's just that simple so the more power you produce the more heat you are going to generate.

Now we need to handle the heat coming from the combustion process. Does anyone think that the cooling of the engine is better sitting still than it is cruising down the road? Handling the heat has to be done, based on the running conditions of the engine. Sitting still and just running at idle a HD big twin engine will burn itself up when running at 12.5:1 ratio. That right there tells us the cooling system is not good enough and this is just what EITMS was designed for, to aid in keeping the engine cool at idle not moving. That doesn't mean it solves it, it's just another tool to help control heat production. Now everyone here almost increases the displacement of the base engine and since you now understand the heat issue how is going bigger and producing more heat not going to show up? So for each and every revolution of the engine it produces heat and the bigger the engine the more heat it produces, if you run both engines at the same mixture. So now how else can you help cool the engine? Add an oil cooler so that the oil removes some of the heat is a good start provided that they are not so restrictive that it cost oil flow through the engine.

Tuning is a lot more than just making an engine run, if your going to do it right. To do it right you must have the necessary equipment to do the testing with and spend the time to do it. What works for one where the conditions are such that you never see anything above 80 degree's air temperatures is not going to work for one who see's 110 degree's air temperatures. Just as saying stock O2's and stock ECM do not work, it works just fine if you spend the time to understand the system and work with it instead of against it.

The ECM only follows with adjustments if the amount of O2 in the exhaust changes from where things were set at to start with. This means the ECM will change to adapt the O2 level back to it's set point. Make the set point and the ECM happy to start with, then there will be no adjustments made. If your tuner did not set the ECM such that the offsets were taken care of when tuning or if the O2 sensors are not working properly you will see changes. To be able to do that you must have a way to see where things are at and that is just what DataMaster and Vtune allow you to do.

Just remember an old computer saying and maybe it will help, Crap in = Crap out

[strokerjlk]

We have strokerjlk trying to tell people that 14.6 is too lean yet every OEM car, truck, bus, motorcycle and offroad piece of equipment has been running that very mixture for near 20 years now without issue! So why is it he is not capable of making it work properly when so many others can?

we are not talking about a water cooled motor here.
14.6 isn't too bad in the right area.
80-85 mph two up loaded 3000-3250  rpms. 
now factor in your going to see 15.0-15.5 in closed loop.  no way.

[Steve Cole]

Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components. No, you do not factor in 15 - 15.5 because it's in closed loop, that's just flat out wrong.  A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean. A carburated engine will float around about +/- 1.2 AFR so you always had to run them rich to cover it up but you were fine with those moving around. As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all. So now your trying to go to extremes out of the cruise range and argue that cruise mixture should not be used there. As long as the EGT's are in the acceptable range then you can run it as close to Stoichometric as you want, no big deal.

[whittlebeast]

Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components. No, you do not factor in 15 - 15.5 because it's in closed loop, that's just flat out wrong. A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean. A carburated engine will float around about +/- 1.2 AFR so you always had to run them rich to cover it up but you were fine with those moving around. As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all. So now your trying to go to extremes out of the cruise range and argue that cruise mixture should not be used there. As long as the EGT's are in the acceptable range then you can run it as close to Stoichometric as you want, no big deal.

So...  14.7 + .3 = 15.0 AFR

15.0 / 14.7 = 1.02 or about a 2% increase in fueling, give or take a little.

Is that what you are saying?  That all sounds totally reasonable to me  so far.

Beast

[strokerjlk]

As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all.

so about 80 kpa? 

so about could also mean 70 kpa.
my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up .
you might not consider it cruise range,but when I sit there tank to tank all day that is my cruise range.
you got canned maps with closed loop extened to 80 kpa. at 3000 rpm. 

Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components.

exacatly
and EGT will be higher on a air cooled motor vs water cooled. 

[Steve Cole]

As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all.

so about 80 kpa? 

so about could also mean 70 kpa.
my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up .
you might not consider it cruise range,but when I sit there tank to tank all day that is my cruise range.
you got canned maps with closed loop extened to 80 kpa. at 3000 rpm. 

Yep we sure do as the END of closed loop range.  So as I said you take it to the extreme edge and trying to call it normal. Provided the EGT's are in the proper operating range it's fine! 

Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components.

exacatly
and EGT will be higher on a air cooled motor vs water cooled.

EGT's will be the same on a water cooled versus air cool engine(within a few degrees), the engine temperature will be different as the water cooled engine has better cooling capacity. EGT's are the by product of the combustion process not the cooling system. As I have said over and over again you need to be able to handle the heat produced at ANY fuel ratio. If you cannot then you need to change something, it maybe timing, it maybe fuel mixture or it maybe the cooling package needs improving. So if it runs with EGT's in check and the engine temperature in check at 14.6 AFR why run it at 14.0 and suffer the fuel economy hit at $4.00 a gallon these days. After all that what your are being paid for, to TUNE it in the first place, isn't it? 14.6 is not going to bother any engine components provided you follow the rules. This is the same reason PE mode is there on a HD. It richens the engine up over time to help control the cooling of the engine! It's not there for any other reason but it also will not produce peak power as it's working it either. EITMS is the same thing at idle, to help the cooling system.

[BVHOG]

I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.