The effects of AFV on open loop areas

[blusmbl]

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.

Using O2 sensor feedback is the most fundamental aspect of EFI.  Steve is stuck here having to defend the use of O2's when everyone else in the industry has embraced the technology for the last 20 years.  It's not just defense of the TTS, it's trying to teach contemporary EFI theory to a group that doesn't trust them and is still stuck in the carburetion days.  Bottom line is everyone can tune their bikes however they'd like, but using some sort of feedback control via O2 sensors will do a much better job of maintaining the commanded air/fuel ratio across all operating conditions.  I'm still shocked people are trying to argue this.  How accurate you want to be is up to you, but that little sensor in the exhaust acts as a better calibrator than anyone here!

[Hobe]

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.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory. 

[hrdtail78]

"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."

I'll agree with that statement.  It's the slant people put on things for their own reasoning's.  Makes things hard to keep up with for somebody that might know some things as well.


"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."

"2500-300 at 70 KPA is a prime area for CL."

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

So, which one is it.  Many numbers and conditions been thrown out there.  All different.  To really discuss this we need to all be talking about apples.

"14.6 isn't too bad in the right area.
80-85 mph two up loaded 3000-3250  rpms."

" my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up ."

Is this tuned with SE, MT7 or MT8?  What cam is in there this week?  What's the idle kpa?  What happens if you load a MT8 file, with cam tune data performed.  Would you CL the thing if you were cruising 2 up if 80-85 mph 3000-3250 was 67kpa?

"what are the AFR swings, closed loop, when lambda or the afr CLB is set to 14.45? 70 kpa 2500-3000 rpms?"

" A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean."

Now we have the swing.  14.15- 14.75, but we don't use 14.45, we go back to 14.7.  Apples to oranges again.

We have exhausted all the arguments and SC has probably said more than he wants about the inner workings.  Rider comfort is brought up.  Question I have is:

1. What is the change in EGT and engine temp comparing 14.7 to 14.2. 

2. How much cooling affect does fuel have? 

3. Does cam and compression control this more than fuel?

I have used EGT in a practical application.  Controlable mixture knob on a carbed engine.  Steady state of 3000rpms.  You can pull fuel until you get a rise in EGT.  If you keep pulling fuel you will hit peak EGT.  If you keep pulling fuel.  EGT will start to fall again.  Another bit of info I learned by doing this is.  CHT can inversely affect EGT.

[Steve Cole]

There are plenty of arguments around the most basic principles of an EFI system and basic engine operation going on here that's for sure. Some want to say it doesn't work for whatever reason. It sure seems funny to me that for the past 20 years + all of us have been using it without complaints in our daily lives. You have a few who are old school and do not want to learn but then they want to say that they can use that very same technology on a dyno and it's OK. Same thing happened in the auto industry back in the late 70's when it was first introduced there but I guess I thought that people would have learned it works just fine and we would not be seeing it all over again. It took about 10 years in the auto industry back then so maybe that's what it going to take in the HD motorcycle industry.

The truth is that it works and the old school people just need to learn how to work with it instead of against it. Follow the rules of basic engine operation along with the basic rules of EFI and it works fine. You can bring up extreme cases one way or the other but if you follow the rules it's all accounted for and there will not be any problems. It's when those basic rules are broken that things go wrong. AFR readings or 5 gas readings are not the answer here folks, it an understanding of the basic principles and following them. To just blindly say it needs to be this or it needs to be that is BS. It's a combination of all these things that make an engine perform properly. If your going to pay a tuner then they should know and understand these things.

If you talk to most owners there only heat complaint is at low speeds in town, and most of those when you really starting talking to them are in traffic. Once the bike is moving above 25 mph they have no problems. So that area is what one needs to really look at. Trikes are a whole other issue. Since an HD engine will overheat all by itself when sitting, regardless of fuel mixture, it is a challenge. That is what EITMS was developed for, but most old school tuners just turn that function OFF. We spent a lot of time with that and changed how things operate in our calibrations to help that area and there is no need to run the engine down in the 13.8 or lower range at normal temperatures with our product. That's just a waste of fuel. HD and all the others do not work as our calibrations do in this area so No you cannot lump them all together.

If you do not want to learn and understand the system your never going to get it working as it should, it's just that simple.

[1FSTRK]

 I follow that AFV will work most of the time but as you have stated you tailor each and every Base cal to make the AFV work as best you can before it is released. If we run a different motor combination it does not get the fine tune to the base cal that you enjoy. I will agree that it is usually going to work OK and that most of the time the trouble is caused by something mechanical that should be addressed anyway but it doesn’t mean that’s always the case. It also doesn’t have to be old school to be different. You are currently developing base cals for your 120r and I’m sure with your equipment and knowledge that you will make it work fine on your motor combination but does the fact that you had to change things in the base cal mean that there is something wrong or old school in your new 120 motor? I do now better understand the AFV concept and will make some changes to my motor and exhaust to insure that the data collected is good but the more you talk the more you sound like the Steve that told us that our bikes were wrong right up to the point you improved your software to allow tuning for cam timing.
Computers and EFI do not drive motor design forward. It fact history has shown that we have the motor designs and wait for the computers and software to catch up so that we can adjust for the needs of the advances in motor design. If we build every motor so that it is compatible with your old cals and EFI rules we will just have more old school motors.

It's just that simple.

[Steve Cole]

Sorry you took it that way as that's not the case. Yes, we make changes based around the builds that you cannot do. Now if the tuners would be willing to spend around 4 -5 days of 8 - 10 hours a day and about $250,000 on base test equipment you could do it too. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon we have to work with what we can. We will continue to add to our products as we see things we can do and that's not going to change.

The advances come from us finding away to do things we could not or did not do before. Many of the ideas have come from customers and we have figured out away to make it work. The AFV's are never a cause of a problem and that is a big misconception out there. If there was no problem to start with, then the AFV would not do a thing. Now as far as old school and today's engines I think you trying to twist things way off base there. There are plenty of people that have been able to start with our base calibrations and tune just fine without issue in closed loop. Engines ranging from the mild 88 cu in to 131 cu in with blowers and turbo's! Then there are those who say it's no good and cannot be done you have to run rich or the engines will not live, that's old school and that's the problem. There is no one set answer to every possible combination and that is why we try to have several base calibration for one to choose from. I have not seen anything in the HD engine world that is new cutting edge at all. As a matter of fact the design is older than fuel injection and hasn't changed much over the past 20 years. Sure heads have been ported a little different and camshafts have various specifications but there is nothing that has driven HD engine design forward for a long time! So EFI is about the only thing that has changed on a HD Big Twin engine in along time. The addition of it has allowed HD to stay in business and the fuel economy to go from the low to mid 30's to the mid to high 40's while the engine size and bike size both increased!

That is just the long hard truth of it

[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.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory. 

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

[BVHOG]

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.

Using O2 sensor feedback is the most fundamental aspect of EFI.  Steve is stuck here having to defend the use of O2's when everyone else in the industry has embraced the technology for the last 20 years.  It's not just defense of the TTS, it's trying to teach contemporary EFI theory to a group that doesn't trust them and is still stuck in the carburetion days.  Bottom line is everyone can tune their bikes however they'd like, but using some sort of feedback control via O2 sensors will do a much better job of maintaining the commanded air/fuel ratio across all operating conditions.  I'm still shocked people are trying to argue this.  How accurate you want to be is up to you, but that little sensor in the exhaust acts as a better calibrator than anyone here!

I somewhat agree with your reply, however the ecm can only make corrections based on data recieved, you know, the old garbage in garbage out thing.  If I thought the uneven firing V-twin with a ridiculously open exhaust with  proper function hampered by design and a shared intake manifold would give accurate 02 feedback at all times I would consider using it. Your take on this still does not give account for the afv's making corrections to un sampled areas. Believe me or not, I really could care less but do what I did and purchase a dyno and see what I have seen, then come back and talk to me again.  And that little sensor in the exhaust is 100% useless without someone to take the data is gives out and put it into practical use.
No doubt Steve has developed a great product and has given us views to the inner working we would likely have never been privy to otherwise. However, he is still in this business for one thing, to make a living so don't expect to get wide array of information on alternative methods from him as the information will be highly biased on what he knows but importantly what he sells.
You all have the choice to be a blind follower or to keep your eyes open to what is really going on and keep an open mind.

[whittlebeast]

So if the normal swing in AFR  is +/- .3 AFR,  what would that work out to in change in pulse width to get that 2% change in the amount of fuel out of the injectors?  Just for fun, lets say the pulse width is running about 4 MS and you are running along at 55 MPH.

If the o2s switch from lean to rich,  how long should it be till the fuel switches back the other way?

Beast

[hrdtail78]

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.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory. 

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

We don't have to qualify ourselves before posting do we?  Does FBBR own a dyno, does Glens, Truk, 1FSTRK, Mayor.........  Maybe Hobe trims trees for a living, and fills his spare time with Vtwin engines??  That's the nice thing about open forums.

[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.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory. 

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

We don't have to qualify ourselves before posting do we?  Does FBBR own a dyno, does Glens, Truk, 1FSTRK, Mayor.........  Maybe Hobe trims trees for a living, and fills his spare time with Vtwin engines??  That's the nice thing about open forums.

No one should have to qualify themselves but they should at least be able to come up with something genuinely their own based on experience and not just theory or repeating what they have only read or heard.

[Steve Cole]

Whittlebeast

You are not going to be able to make those measurements with using the stock data information, to much is missing. So unless you get a real datalogger that accurately measures and stores measurements. and uses external equipment to make those measurements directly first, then write software to reconstruct the undersampled data as we've done, you not going to get there.

BVhog

As for highly biased information that's not true. The information I've given is real and true for the HD engines and the way the ECM works today. Any issues that have been pointed out have been backed up with cold hard facts, but that has not stopped you from trying to twist things around. Yes, I will point out what we have done and where its better than the rest but that information is still valid none the less. Who of the others has brought up the facts of O2 sensors, Broad Bands and Wide Bands? You and most others did not even know there was a difference, let alone how they worked or there accuracy under what conditions until I brought it up. Who located the issues with sensor mounting and the resulting problems it's caused. You want to blame the ECM when nothing is futher from the truth.

So if finding, pointing out and fixing the cause of the problems is being biased I guess I am.

[Steve Cole]

Whittlebeast

You are not going to be able to make those measurements with using the stock data information, to much is missing. So unless you get a real datalogger that accurately measures and stores measurements. and uses external equipment to make those measurements directly first, then write software to reconstruct the undersampled data as we've done, you not going to get there.

So you don't have any idea how this stuff works?  It is a fairly simple, straight forward question.

Beast

And you were given a straight forward answer, you just do not like it. If you feel it's wrong please by all means go out and do the work and show us the results. Just make sure that you use equipment capable of making the measurements. A PV with Broad Bands or DataMaster isn't going to cut it. An injector is NOT a linear device so you do not get to add "X" amount of pulse width for a fixed gain in AFR. Intake manifold pressure, Fuel pressure and last but not least is a none linear injector are the reasons why. Then there is fuel sharing that goes on in the HD intake you need to add in too. So yes, I understand the how's and why's very well and the answer you want is not going to be the answer you get if you really go and do the testing with the proper equipment.

So now go back to the first answer I gave you.

[whittlebeast]

See if this page helps you think thru this..

http://www.injectordynamics.com/ID1000.html#Dynamic%20Flow%20Characteristics%20-%203%20Bar%20%2843.5%20psi%29

[Steve Cole]

It only goes to prove my point better! Did you bother to read that page yourself? The injector is non linear in the lower pulse widths, it changes shapes with voltage changes and fuel pressure. They left out that it also changes with intake manifold pressure and that in a HD application there is fuel sharing in the intake manifold. So as I said before you are hoping for some BS answer and it's not going to happen. You need to go to the people who make injectors, Bosch or Magnetti Marrelli that are used in HD application not people who buy and repackage them. About as good as they get for production injectors are +/- 4% and get worse from there and that's what you have to deal with. But thanks for proving my point for me anyways with your link.

So now go back to the first and second answer I gave you. As the answer is still the same!

[wurk_truk]

Cymbalta may help!

[HV]

    Andy is    again and im getting sick of this

[hrdtail78]

Cymbalta may help!

Had to look it up. But that's funny.

[Steve Cole]

One I forgot to answer was BVhog's comment to blusmbl. Do you have any idea who your talking too here? This guy has more hours on a dyno and doing calibration work than you, strokerjlk and whittlebeast all put together. This is what he does for a living day in and day out. If he wants to talk about it that's up to him but rest assured the old saying of been there done that applies.

As for the uneven firing the O2 could care less. Each O2 is read every firing cycle of the engine on a HD. So provided you install it correctly the O2 is going to give accurate readings each and every firing cycle up to 6000 RPM. You can really go to about 6250 as I recall but 6000 leaves an error of margin. As for the AFV's changing the tune it all goes back to the same old thing. FIX THE PROBLEM UP FRONT AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

[whittlebeast]

To get a 6% increase in fuel flow, the formula is

(new pulse width) = ( ( (existing pulse width) - (the injector opening time) )  * (1 + (percentage change desired/100) ) ) + (the injector opening time)

If we start with a BPW of 4 and want 6% for fuel to see if the 02s go fat...  6% would be about a .7 AFR swing

((4-1)*1.06)+1=4.18ms

In the referenced example posted a few posts back the opening time (or dead time per those guys) at 14 volts would be right at 1 ms.  That is very typical for high impedance injectors.  They are all a little non linear below about 2 ms and above about 90% duty cycle.  None of this is news for the tuners that work closely with the programmers.  Most of the programmers that I know have flow benches at home for testing this stuff.

Beast

[BVHOG]

One I forgot to answer was BVhog's comment to blusmbl. Do you have any idea who your talking too here? This guy has more hours on a dyno and doing calibration work than you, strokerjlk and whittlebeast all put together. This is what he does for a living day in and day out. If he wants to talk about it that's up to him but rest assured the old saying of been there done that applies.

As for the uneven firing the O2 could care less. Each O2 is read every firing cycle of the engine on a HD. So provided you install it correctly the O2 is going to give accurate readings each and every firing cycle up to 6000 RPM. You can really go to about 6250 as I recall but 6000 leaves an error of margin. As for the AFV's changing the tune it all goes back to the same old thing. FIX THE PROBLEM UP FRONT AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

That's why I was asking, didn't know who he was and why the personal attack from a stranger, thanks for the info.
As for the test equipment used, you state you have the latest and greatest, exactly what do you have in your shop?  Do you have all the equipment you speak of, are you using an outside source?  You mention it frequently but it would be interesting to hear of the specific test equipment you own and use for cal development. With all this test equipment you have access to you surely know there are much better ways than 02 alone to test the exhaust sample.
Also, It would be interesting to know just how much sharing goes on with an injection system that basically sprays at the valve in an opposite direction of the opposing cylinder. Of course the carbs have that problem but I would assume it to be much less of a problem on an injected bike.
As for the original question in this thread I have to ask why you don't have the option of turning off the afv like the Power Vision does?

[Hobe]

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.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory. 

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

I am not a tuner, have tuned a few without a dyno and do not claim any expertise in such,  actually my comments are not directly related to tuning, it just happens to be the topic being discussed. Now I do deal with managing a number of personalities in my work, and recognize the "don't confuse me with facts cause I know it all" arguments. Typically it doesn't matter how many FACTS are provided there will be a reason why they are inaccurate or don't apply, sort of a conspiracy.

Watching your post over the long term it just struck me that you sure seem to lean that way, but I apologize for the comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but it best to leave it at opinions unless you can support them with the technical data to back it up.

I will just keep following the thread and wait for you to present your facts.

[Sporty 48]

Hobe,
i thought you captured the spirit here quite well.
Some help others without charging any fees, some are pro's, some like me are just do it yourself-ers, quite a mix of tuning egos.
Harley is at least 10 years behind cars and ricers, the endearing "'cause we have always done it this way" attitude is pervasive, still, this is the best all around Harley tuning site I've found. Defending your position sharpens the understanding even if you are correct.

[strokerjlk]

if you are good at deciphering double talk? in between the slander,and name calling , steve actually gives  some very good open loop points 

[yositime]

As for the original question in this thread I have to ask why you don't have the option of turning off the afv like the Power Vision does?

I've seen posts back a year or so ago where Steve listed the kinds of tools he has in his shop. Although he may have added a few more toys since then.

I think the point was that there is a lot of marketing and eye candy out there, and you should check/measure  the results before assuming a feature actually results in what you expect. I hear the PV provides user option to turn off AFV but does then perhaps ignores the user...  or it may be a useless feature because of the way the ECU works...    or that no one here has proven that turning the AFV via the PV makes any difference (perhaps I missed it).  Someting like the well known (current) Harley Brand tuner that gives the user the option to chose an AFR CLB offset but then ignores it regardless.  I wouldn't know if dynojet would do the same kind of thing, we already know they have convinced some here that the PV collects more data because it has a higher data rate, where the extra data in fact is useless and confuses analysis.

So Steve is telling us that he doesn't want to provide a feature in that he is not sure will provide the result the user wants, or makes any difference.  At least thats the drift I'm getting....   but I can be mislead...  and individuals can be mistaken.