Narrow Band Then Wide Band Tuning -Dynojet Power Vision

[Sporty 48]

Have been following on the XL Forum the Dynojet Power Vision development with Andy.
Jamie at Fuel Moto is a sponsor here but I do not hear much from them, wonder why?
This is a pretty fine development . Use the narrow bands to tune for economy, near stoich 14.68, then switch to wide bands for WFO stuff.
They are working to incorporate all this into the display so in the future no PC will be required.
Have been hoping TTS would step up to the plate with something to take it to the next level of tuning.
Whatever, BT guys are going to that forum too.
I have a feeling there will be some Dynojet Power Vision people here before too long, seems a shame that Andy, is getting all that attention, unmonitored by all the expert talent here...

[yositime]

Jamie was real active here about 6 months ago. He may still be active in the exhaust section. He seems to get challenged on a technical question he can't answer (or finds an answer he don't like) and then moves off to places his knowledge is not questioned so much. I dunno, just my perception perhaps.  Same thing happened over on one of the Australian forums I think.

I'm not so sure the DPV is the next best for the DIY unless loaded with cash. Lots of money for what you get. Besides the marketing flash (dynojet at their best), I think they are on the wrong track, stepping back in time... and will disappear in about two years.  But what do I know, I past up a deal on Apple stock 15 years ago...   But  how can you beat the laptop power plus a nice large iPad remote display for for your part time tuning, and then reuse the hardware for everyday life, like reading this forum

[FSG]

Jamie at Fuel Moto is a sponsor here but I do not hear much from them, wonder why?

I guess that should read "Jamie at Fuel Moto is a sponsor there" as here = HTT and there are no sponsors here.

[HogBag]

Ain't it great there's no sponsors here. Just supporters trying to keep HTT sponsor free.

[mayor]

Have been following on the XL Forum the Dynojet Power Vision development with Andy.
This is a pretty fine development .

forgive me for not following along to closely, what exactly is the fine development? 

so for about $550 list per flashed bike you get the Power Vision, then if you want to use the wide band feature you have to pay around $370 list for the AT-100 unit with wide bands.  Forgive me for being less than enthusiastic, but that's a pile of money to do a DIY tune. 

[whittlebeast]

Have been following on the XL Forum the Dynojet Power Vision development with Andy.
This is a pretty fine development .

forgive me for not following along to closely, what exactly is the fine development? 

so for about $550 list per flashed bike you get the Power Vision, then if you want to use the wide band feature you have to pay around $370 list for the AT-100 unit with wide bands.  Forgive me for being less than enthusiastic, but that's a pile of money to do a DIY tune.

But you get to fire your tuner....  Priceless

[glens]

Have been following on the XL Forum the Dynojet Power Vision development with Andy.

That would be http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1199290

This is a pretty fine development .

forgive me for not following along to closely, what exactly is the fine development? 

so for about $550 list per flashed bike you get the Power Vision, then if you want to use the wide band feature you have to pay around $370 list for the AT-100 unit with wide bands.  Forgive me for being less than enthusiastic, but that's a pile of money to do a DIY tune. 

It's almost as much fun as, like, going to hdforums or some of the others, and "listening" to the local gurus extol the virtues of, say, the Terminal Velocity, or XIED, or Cobra2000.  You know, the blacker the box the better it must be.

Well, the PowerVision ain't quite in that league, granted.

I took a while today and read through that thread.  Most of what Andy says there he has also said here.  Often cut and paste.  At least there it's mostly in context and makes a little better sense, in that respect.

It sounds like (or at least did at one point in the thread) DJ will be making it so that for $~200 per, you'll be able to use a PV unit to program other bikes as well.  Of course, the AT stuff is transferable in any event.

The PV has some interesting qualities, to be sure.  I suppose if I were given one I'd try it, but it doesn't interest me much beyond that.

[Sporty 48]

Special, this forum has a way of putting things into perspective. Interesting points of view here.
Does the TTS use wide band as well? Looking forward to trying it out.
I would welcome a gratis unit to explore as well, having a bit more confidence in the future of the gadget, but not quite willing to buy yet.

[mayor]

But you get to fire your tuner....  Priceless

you're right, it is priceless.....or at least that argument has no value to me, since my tuner already works for free.  

I'm not sold on this being the next great thing. I think it's a nice system, with a few benefits....but that's a pile of money.  If someone wants to send me one to try, I'd be all for that though....heck, I would even right a real nice report on the system. 

Glen, I read a thread earlier this evening on HDforums that looked current regarding this product .  Last I saw Jamie was saying that a cheaper multiple flash option was still be discussed....but I was only skimming over the thread, so maybe I missed the formal announcement.   I have to say, I'm not a big fan of their format over there.....way too many ads. 

[whittlebeast]

The PV programmers are still typing on the cool stuff.

Beast

[glens]

You were going to ask them for me how they're getting/deriving their "AFF" channel, remember?

I hope they're working on a way to do away with faux high-speed data collection when it's not available from the host.  That data replication they're currently doing is rather troubling.

[1FSTRK]

Have been following on the XL Forum the Dynojet Power Vision development with Andy.
Jamie at Fuel Moto is a sponsor here but I do not hear much from them, wonder why?
This is a pretty fine development . Use the narrow bands to tune for economy, near stoich 14.68, then switch to wide bands for WFO stuff.
They are working to incorporate all this into the display so in the future no PC will be required.
Have been hoping TTS would step up to the plate with something to take it to the next level of tuning.Whatever, BT guys are going to that forum too.
I have a feeling there will be some Dynojet Power Vision people here before too long, seems a shame that Andy, is getting all that attention, unmonitored by all the expert talent here...

I would be careful when defining “next level of tuning”. There is a difference between adding more tuning power and adding more gadgets. When one brand gave us the ability to view different maps on a screen but not alter their tune content, the other brand gave us adjustable cam/injector timing, and EGR trim tables. If it is a “bells and whistles” contest you may be right but if you are looking at the ability to access and alter the tables that allow you to retune the ecm to match the needs of the engine there is only one brand that says get it right the first time and you won’t need to be switching maps in the middle of a ride.

[Sporty 48]

No one jumped on this, not sure, does TTS, my tuning current provider, have wide band sensor capability?

Does the TTS use wide band as well? Looking forward to trying it out.

[mayor]

no, TTS does not have wide band capability at this time.  The thing that you must realize is TTS is only a software tool that allows you to access the tuning tables of the Delphi ECM.  TTS is not a tune provider, it's a tune enabler.  It gives you access to adjust the tables that you already have in your Delphi ECM.  What you do with that access is up to you, the tuner.  It appears that the Power Vision tuning table capabilities is very similar to TTS (minus some extra features that TTS has), and the PV is only able to add wide bands to it's tuning capabilities by using a secondary system (AT-100). 

[hpulven]

FWIW: Some thoughts about the price of Power Vision:

If you have a HD bike without a tachometer, in my country the tach alone would cost me about the same as a PV.

So, even if it couldn't be used for tuning, the gauges themselves are worth the price for me.
(Perhaps not for others.)
I can set up gauges for everything which can be logged or calculated (htt-speach: "fake" data  ),
for example speed, gear, rpm, fuel used accumulated, fuel used just now, with color-coding.
Even if some of this is based on "fake" data, the speed is calibrated to be the same as my gps,
the fuel consumption is the same as what I have read on the pump divided with distance travelled
and so on.
So, for me, it was worth the money only for the gauges and the ability to read and clear fault codes.
(Code readers are not cheap either...)

It is a new product, so the jury is still out on how it compares with other products in producing a good tune.
if it should turn oout to be a good tuner, many people, like me, would have to calculate in the price of a small laptop when comparing tuners.
(I got a big one, and I am never going to risk bringing a $2500 laptop along on a vibrating HD with antique suspension...)


On the other hand, I just got myself a free laptop, so now I have got TTS  as well. In spring I might post on comparing the tunes I will get from each system on the same bike, might be interesting ...

[Sporty 48]

Yes, I  enjoy the scrutiny of this site. Am learning so much.
Learned the difference between site supporter and sponsor, tuning deevice, tuning enabler, tune provider and tuning helper as opposed to Dyno tuner.
Now a deevice that allows the use of wide band sensors as well as narrow band sensors is not a step to the next level of tuning, hmmm.
Ok so as a TTS dongle owner and a proud member of HTT the goal is to explore the limits of tuning a Sportster.
Looks to me like Dynojet Power Vision is a step in that direction but I know (hope) TTS is working on the next level as well.

[brunothedog]

i have gotten a great running motor using tts and those damn stupid good for nothing nb sensors, some make it sound like with those other sensors i will get a better running bike, how, its already perfect, why, bragging rights? i gave up on the t-max with their wb sensors because on our revolution motors they sucked. never could get it to "auto tune", and it was mostly my fault for, the problems it gave me when i talked to the james.
with this "Potty mouth"ty out-dated only nb sensor tuning tts, the motor purrs like a kitten, and when throttled, will rip in your guts like a lion.

I've drinken to much kool-aid from to many "auto, better, most advanced, etc.." businesses.

my bike is at its best and touché to Mr. Cole

[mayor]

Now a deevice that allows the use of wide band sensors as well as narrow band sensors is not a step to the next level of tuning, hmmm.

the wide bands (broad bands ats SC puts it) have been available for tuning systems for a while.  The Tmax and DTT efi systems use these, as does the PC5 system.  I'm not sure why anyone would find it necassary to have the capability to use both types of sensors.  Why do you think it is necassary to have both? does the wide bands not have the ability to accurately report the leaner afr conditions?

If I was looking for an ideal system it would be one that incorporates the use of wide band sensors in the fuel control side, but keeps the timing portion of the Delphi system. I can't help but think this could be done, but the flash nature of the Delphi ecm is likely the issue.  It seems the RevPer product is the closest to doing this, but they don't seem to let the operator have access to tweaking the calibration.  I thought at one time Steve said that the Delphi ECM has the capabiity to run wide bands....so it may be as simple as adding the appropriate hardware to support the wide bands and adjusting CLB's to a fixed desired afr level....but since the current software does not allow closed loop in the 90-100 kpa ranges, it may not even be possible in current form. What I do not know is if this is a limit to the Delphi system, or the TTS package.     

i have gotten a great running motor using tts and those damn stupid good for nothing nb sensors, some make it sound like with those other sensors i will get a better running bike, how, its already perfect, why, bragging rights? 

mostly, I agree...but the main benefit of adding broad/wide band capability is to be able to run richer or to be able to extend the tuning range out further in the higher TPS/MAP ranges.  The one area that I see a weakness with the TTS tuning system is the inability to the DIY'er to tune heavy throttle/high MAP areas. 

i gave up on the t-max with their wb sensors because on our revolution motors they sucked. never could get it to "auto tune", and it was mostly my fault for, the problems it gave me when i talked to the james.

I think that up until recently the Tmax system didn't do a good job of addressing the actual fuel needs of the higher rpm's associated with the revolution engines.  I think they wrongly took for granted that the higher rpm's could be handled with a limited number of fuel flow charts.  I'm pretty sure that's what the software update earlier this year was to address.  I don't know anyone who's using the Tmax on a vrod, so I'm not real sure how that change has worked out. 

I use both systems on my bikes (TTS and Tmax), and both of them are capable of producing nice results...but both require some work from the operator to make sure that the tuning devices are getting the data they need for best results.  I think this is the part some people miss with most tuning devices.  There really is no device on the market that has the ability to be intuitive to the engines needs, they all only have the ability to react to the data that they see. 

[whittlebeast]

The advantage to running widebands is that you can tune to a floating AFR target as opposed to a relatively fixed target AFR with the stock NB's.  I tune using the exact same procedure either way.

The advantage to having both NB's and WB's on the same bike is you can use the NB's in closed loop to do what they are normally good at,  holding the bike at stoich when that is in your best interest.  My Sporty was totally tuned on widebands but runs NBs in closed loop at near 0 throttle or below about 50 KPA.

I have a set of spare test pipes coming for the Sporty to be able to watch the narrow bands doing what they do at a fairly fast data rate.   I plan to log RPM, MAP, pulse width, narrow band and wide band front and rear.  This will be fun....

We do this sort of thing all the time in the Megasquirt world.

Beast

[Sporty 48]

We all want every bit of power we can get out of Ol' Beulah.
This is the first device to my knowledge to use both narrow and broad band sensors.
The question is does it work?
Sure would like to do a side by side using TTS and Power Vision.
That is what is so good about competing manufacturers, products tend to get better.

[glens]

Whoa, wait a minute here.  I think people are thinking you can run closed-loop using broadband sensors, either singly or in combination with the stock sensors, when you use a Powervision.  That's not the case.  You can only tune using them.  Nothing different than using a Twinscan II+, which has been around for quite a while.

I'm thinking that if the switching speed of the NBs limits practical use to ~6000 RPM, the BBs would then have a practical use of no more than half that unless the fuel and sensor closed-loop controllers are tied together process-wise.  ("Practical use" being "the way we do what we do now".)  Either that or a different scheme would be required on the fueling side of things, keeping the injectors constant-rate for any given situation (not oscillating them hi/low) and always just looking at things from an historical perspective.  Maybe I'm not conveying my thoughts on that in a clear-enough manner...

Andy, it surprises me that you haven't yet pulled the Delphi off your wife's sportster and used a Megasquirt instead.  Ought to be able to do that without any permanent (irreversible) ramifications, right?

[mayor]

We all want every bit of power we can get out of Ol' Beulah.

Essentially, we are only discussing the difference in the fuel delivery side of the equation when we're comparing the use of this product to TTS.  In reference to the use of narrow to broad band sensors in tuning.  How little variance in AFR off of the target AFR do you think that there can be before there's a perceptible difference in the power output of the bike to the operator?   like, do you feel that an AFR change of as little as .1:1 afr makes a difference in perceptible power?  if not .1:1, at what point?

Whoa, wait a minute here.  I think people are thinking you can run closed-loop using broadband sensors, either singly or in combination with the stock sensors, when you use a Powervision.  That's not the case.  You can only tune using them.  Nothing different than using a Twinscan II+, which has been around for quite a while.

yea.... my first thought when the notion of the attributes of PV were being explained was....I have TTS and a WEGO, so what's the advantage of this "new" system.    


I'm not familar with the Power Commander products, but I thought that the AT-100 system was used as a permanent addition to PC5 for continuous closed loop operation?  From what I'm reading this is not the case with the Power Vision system.  so, the AT-100 system comes off after the "tuning" is done using the PV, and then bike runs limited closed loop with narrow band sensors providing the feedback just like a TTS tuned bike?  I'm really not seeing the advantage of this system for the average person then.  It just seems like a lot of marketing fluff.   

[Sporty 48]

Mayor,
Power is in the eyes of the engine builder, tuner and then the rider has to be able to use it.
Some builders get 10-20 extra hp just the way they put the same parts together. I would guess a tuner could make the same or a greater difference.
Since my rev limiter is set at 6250 for this bike maybe a narrow band is all i need. That is why I'm here to learn the differences. So to answer your question, do not know how close the AFR would have to be before there is less power for me to abuse. So many variables to chase down and I am still not satisfied with my VE tables, the first step in a decent tune, the way I understand it.

On the Twinscan and WEGO, never heard of them. Do they do Sportsters? If i look them up and they do not do Sportys I just ignore them.

Went for a 2 hour ride today. Sunny, temps in the low 40's (F). Needed some high speed blasts to cure the blues, it worked great. Did I care that the tune is rich, no. This tune is so far ahead of what I started from and I know there is more to be had. Going to keep on right here until, well, cams this winter??? Know what I mean?
Was thinking today wheelies in every gear like my old motocross bikes did would be nice.

We all want every bit of power we can get out of Ol' Beulah.

Essentially, we are only discussing the difference in the fuel delivery side of the equation when we're comparing the use of this product to TTS.  In reference to the use of narrow to broad band sensors in tuning.  How little variance in AFR off of the target AFR do you think that there can be before there's a perceptible difference in the power output of the bike to the operator?   like, do you feel that an AFR change of as little as .1:1 afr makes a difference in perceptible power?  if not .1:1, at what point?

Whoa, wait a minute here.  I think people are thinking you can run closed-loop using broadband sensors, either singly or in combination with the stock sensors, when you use a Powervision.  That's not the case.  You can only tune using them.  Nothing different than using a Twinscan II+, which has been around for quite a while.

yea.... my first thought when the notion of the attributes of PV were being explained was....I have TTS and a WEGO, so what's the advantage of this "new" system.    


I'm not familar with the Power Commander products, but I thought that the AT-100 system was used as a permanent addition to PC5 for continuous closed loop operation?  From what I'm reading this is not the case with the Power Vision system.  so, the AT-100 system comes off after the "tuning" is done using the PV, and then bike runs limited closed loop with narrow band sensors providing the feedback just like a TTS tuned bike?  I'm really not seeing the advantage of this system for the average person then.  It just seems like a lot of marketing fluff.   

[mayor]

So to answer your question, do not know how close the AFR would have to be before there is less power for me to abuse. So many variables to chase down and I am still not satisfied with my VE tables, the first step in a decent tune, the way I understand it.

I don't mean to be frank about this, but you should really know the answer to that question before making tuning assumptions.  I think you are trying to move to advanced calculus... before mastering simple algebra. 

Power is in the eyes of the engine builder, tuner and then the rider has to be able to use it.
Some builders get 10-20 extra hp just the way they put the same parts together. I would guess a tuner could make the same or a greater difference.

generally the difference isn't in how the parts go together, but how the selcted parts work together.  Furthermore, I think that you are giving micro adjusting the ve's too much credit.   

 

Since my rev limiter is set at 6250 for this bike maybe a narrow band is all i need.

I think you missed Glen's point.  He wasn't suggesting that any other type of o2 sensor was better once you got to that point, but rather the contary...meaning that any other style of o2 sensor was much more limited in switching speed so thereby even less affective in the upper rpm's (although, I somewhat disagree). 

On the Twinscan and WEGO, never heard of them. Do they do Sportsters? If i look them up and they do not do Sportys I just ignore them.

WEGO is just an AFR meter, and it can be seen here:
here WEGO: Sunday CV44 carb tuning with an AFR meter

[cts1950]

Before the MT7 software and the 2007 touring set up wasn't the Wego II considered one of the best ways for the home tuner to get close to a proper tune? If it was, why not use the broad band sensor in conjunction to the factory NB sensors. Would that not give more info to tune from realising, the strengths and weakness of either system? All this talk has me interested in putting a second set of bungs on the headers to double check the tts tune with my Wego II.

[mayor]

Before the MT7 software and the 2007 touring set up wasn't the Wego II considered one of the best ways for the home tuner to get close to a proper tune? If it was, why not use the broad band sensor in conjunction to the factory NB sensors. Would that not give more info to tune from realising, the strengths and weakness of either system?

sure, but the key is the data that you are seeing from the WEGO does not control the fuel control of the ecm.  You simply use that to set the open loop ve's using an independent measurement, which allows the closed loop system to function without being in conflict with the ECM system limitations.  From what I understand, the PowerVision is acting in much the same way.  Meaning that the wideband controller is not directly giving feedback to the ECM, but rather indirectly through a supplemental creation of a new calibration that gets flashed to the ecm (much like the way the vtune system works).  Maybe Andy can comment on if I'm reading the PV process correct. 

[1FSTRK]

After the thread on AFV I believe that the problem with these broad band sensor systems is not a question of sensor accuracy. It seem to me the devil is in the details. Because all of the AFRs that we request in the AFR table are calculated from the values in the VE tables we need consistency in the way we calculate VE. With out any discussion of sensor accuracy, by switching between the two different systems when filling in the VE tables we create an inconsistency in the data gathering unless we have a way to calibrate and synchronize the two different sensors and there by create an offset in the VE tables we calculate from them. Because the VE is at the root of all fuel calculations the Delphi system will use this offset in all later real time adjustments and it does not stay a 1 to 1 ratio.

[whittlebeast]

After the thread on AFV I believe that the problem with these broad band sensor systems is not a question of sensor accuracy. It seem to me the devil is in the details. Because all of the AFRs that we request in the AFR table are calculated from the values in the VE tables we need consistency in the way we calculate VE. With out any discussion of sensor accuracy, by switching between the two different systems when filling in the VE tables we create an inconsistency in the data gathering unless we have a way to calibrate and synchronize the two different sensors and there by create an offset in the VE tables we calculate from them. Because the VE is at the root of all fuel calculations the Delphi system will use this offset in all later real time adjustments and it does not stay a 1 to 1 ratio.

It has not been an issue with my PowerVision.  I simply tune to 14.7 AFR when tuning in areas that I know that later  I will be running closed loop on the narrow bands.  The Sportys are so challenged at holding AFR at idle, you would never notice anyway.  I was seeing the mixture at idle swing a full AFR from early in a ride compared to the end of a ride.

On the final tune, I turn off adaptive learning and set the VEs to get the AFRs at idle to be correct early in the ride.  Later in the ride, I watch the closed loop integrators have slowly marched their way from close to 100 right down to 93 45 min later.

Here is the trace  http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB.jpg

Here it is on the widebands

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

Beast

[mayor]

Andy,
are you saying that you are using the broad bands are feedback active in the closed loop system? as in, hooked directly to the Delphi ECM?  how did you account for the difference in the narrow band sensor calibration that written in the Delphi closed loop control compared to values of the wide band sensors? how did you know what values to use to calibrate the ECM to the wide bands?  how are you keeping the fuel pulse rates from being driven the wrong direction from the different O2 sensor signal rates?

[glens]

No, he's not using the "widebands" for active fuel control.

Andy, all sporties are challenged, just a few you've seen, or just yours?  BTW, it occurred to me while reading through the XLforums thread that when you'd spurred discussion here regarding your "reloaded stock map" datalogged with the PV, you were then running the stock calibration with a heavy breather.  It's not fair to judge the stock calibration that way, is it?

1FSTRK, a person could always tune the SERT way, setting all the AFR cells to a fixed open-loop value and use the http://www.daytona-twintec.com/Twin_Scan2.html + kit to set VEs.  Going back to closed-loop and vtuning afterward would be a good way to adjust things open-loop depending on what got changed near there by the vtune.  Just for kicks I'd got my Fullsac X pipe with both sets of bungs, though I've done nothing further than vtuning a few times yet.

Mayor, what I was getting at is the closed-loop controller for the broadband sensors is using "switches" of its own to come up with its output, so it wouldn't be suitable for direct closed-loop fuel control.  Assuming it'd take at least two switches of the sensor per controller output, you'd not get the resolution with it that you would with the stock sensor.  If you were to use it for direct control with the Delphi, it seems to me the scheme the Delphi uses would either have to be altered or the upper RPM limit would have to be halved.  That's contemplating keeping things the way the Delphi currently does it.  I'm certainly open for suggestions...

[whittlebeast]

Andy,
are you saying that you are using the broad bands are feedback active in the closed loop system? as in, hooked directly to the Delphi ECM?  how did you account for the difference in the narrow band sensor calibration that written in the Delphi closed loop control compared to values of the wide band sensors? how did you know what values to use to calibrate the ECM to the wide bands?  how are you keeping the fuel pulse rates from being driven the wrong direction from the different O2 sensor signal rates?

There is no way right now to drive the narrow band logic in the ECU with the wideband sensors.  You can however add two more bungs and run both sets at the same time.

Beast

[whittlebeast]

regarding your "reloaded stock map" datalogged with the PV, you were then running the stock calibration with a heavy breather.  It's not fair to judge the stock calibration that way, is it?

It all depends what you are looking for.

Beast

[glens]

What could you be looking for that would be considered "fair" that way?

[whittlebeast]

At the time I was figuring out how VE, VE New, CLI and AFF all relate.

I was also trying to refresh my memory as to how bad these bikes run in closed loop.

Beast

[mayor]

There is no way right now to drive the narrow band logic in the ECU with the wideband sensors.  You can however add two more bungs and run both sets at the same time.

did you explain this to Sporty48?  he's been posting as if he thinks the PV is controlling fuel.  In reality it's only monitoring the afr. 

So, what do the lambda guys have to do, add a set of 18mm bungs to get this PV thing to work with the wide bands? 

Does the PV save the information and allow you to recalibrate based on combining the data with the calibration like the Vtune software? or do you have to review data and make manual changes?

Mayor, what I was getting at is the closed-loop controller for the broadband sensors is using "switches" of its own to come up with its output, so it wouldn't be suitable for direct closed-loop fuel control.  Assuming it'd take at least two switches of the sensor per controller output, you'd not get the resolution with it that you would with the stock sensor.  If you were to use it for direct control with the Delphi, it seems to me the scheme the Delphi uses would either have to be altered or the upper RPM limit would have to be halved.  That's contemplating keeping things the way the Delphi currently does it.  I'm certainly open for suggestions...

I understood what you were saying.  I just don't think Sporty did, since it appeared he was thinking that the narrow bands were RPM limited much more than the other "bands". 

[whittlebeast]

Does the PV save the information and allow you to recalibrate based on combining the data with the calibration like the Vtune software? or do you have to review data and make manual changes?

They have a program that works a lot like TTS Vtune.  I personally tune by hand using MLV HD it see what is going on.

Beast

[akjeff]

So, what do the lambda guys have to do, add a set of 18mm bungs to get this PV thing to work with the wide bands?

No. There are wide band sensors that fit the lambda bungs.

Jeff

[mayor]

there's a heated wide band in a small enough size to fit in the touring bike lambda location? 

[akjeff]

My bad. I thought you were referring to the large diameter bungs of the '09 headers(which is what I have). Sorry.

Jeff

[mayor]

no worries, I wasn't sure myself.     I was referring to the 12mm bung bikes. 

[hrdtail78]

there's a heated wide band in a small enough size to fit in the touring bike lambda location?

No.

[whittlebeast]

no worries, I wasn't sure myself.     I was referring to the 12mm bung bikes.

I heard from a reliable source that the only widebands available for the small bungs are made for the formula 1 cars and way too expensive right now.

I personally would just install a second set of bungs for tuning and then put the narrow bands back online once the tune was done.

Beast

[glens]

Those would probably be real widebands.

Does the PV save the information and allow you to recalibrate based on combining the data with the calibration like the Vtune software? or do you have to review data and make manual changes?

http://www.fuelmotousa.com/PVlogtuner.htm gives an overview of the process.  It's somewhat similar to the way vtune operates but a bit less automatic.  It's a bit more automatic than with the TwinscanII+.  They all address VE only.  I'd bet the TTS system typically produces the best, most comprehensive results.

[edit: I just reviewed that page.  I sounds like they're suggesting the PV auto-tune software might pull timing where it was pulled by the Delphi during the log(s) recorded for the "tune".]

[akjeff]

no worries, I wasn't sure myself.     I was referring to the 12mm bung bikes.

Gotcha. On an unrelated note, I just wanted to add that I don't believe folks can have the "best of both worlds" setup with a PV by running both WB and NB sensors at the same time. I have both sets of bungs in my headers(Jackpot 2/1/2), and posed the question to Fuel Moto. No dice. One would have to use the WB and the AT-100 to develop the tune. Then, if you would like to restore the closed loop function, you remove the WB's and pop your factory NB's in, and enable closed loop in the PV.

Seems to be a rivalry of sorts as far as TTS vs PV vs TM etc.....I'm just not educated enough to really give a rip one way or another. I already had a PC-V w/AT-100 in my bike, so when I decided to give a flash tuner a try, I went with the PV, and kept the AT-100. Definitely enjoying the education in tuning my bike. Perhaps if I were more advanced, I'd prefer the TTS. Don't know. The PV works fine for me, and I'm learning a lot. Some great info on this forum, and I'm grateful that folks like you share your knowledge!

Jeff

[whittlebeast]

I just wanted to add that I don't believe folks can have the "best of both worlds" setup with a PV by running both WB and NB sensors at the same time. I have both sets of bungs in my headers(Jackpot 2/1/2), and posed the question to Fuel Moto. No dice. One would have to use the WB and the AT-100 to develop the tune. Then, if you would like to restore the closed loop function, you remove the WB's and pop your factory NB's in, and enable closed loop in the PV.

I am almost sure that you can log the o2s as reported thru the stock port from the ECU as well as the wide band feed off the PowerVison can network.

Beast

[mayor]

Seems to be a rivalry of sorts as far as TTS vs PV vs TM etc.....

don't read too much into that....there's some of us here that are dual sport players.    I think the discusions regarding comparing benefits can sometimes be seen as downtalking the other side, but most of the time it's not meant in malice. 

I'm just not educated enough to really give a rip one way or another. I already had a PC-V w/AT-100 in my bike, so when I decided to give a flash tuner a try, I went with the PV, and kept the AT-100. Definitely enjoying the education in tuning my bike. Perhaps if I were more advanced, I'd prefer the TTS. Don't know. The PV works fine for me, and I'm learning a lot.

From what I've been reading, you have a good system....so you should have no regrets. 

[akjeff]

I just wanted to add that I don't believe folks can have the "best of both worlds" setup with a PV by running both WB and NB sensors at the same time. I have both sets of bungs in my headers(Jackpot 2/1/2), and posed the question to Fuel Moto. No dice. One would have to use the WB and the AT-100 to develop the tune. Then, if you would like to restore the closed loop function, you remove the WB's and pop your factory NB's in, and enable closed loop in the PV.

I am almost sure that you can log the o2s as reported thru the stock port from the ECU as well as the wide band feed off the PowerVison can network.

Beast

Probably depends on what vintage bike you have. My 09 bagger's NB sensors are the larger diameter type. So, only they, or the AT-100's WB Bosch's can occupy the bungs immediately after the exhaust flanges. On a later model bike, that has the new style, smaller diameter NB sensors that are located down near the collector, you could at least physically have them both mounted in your header. In my case, I have no choice but to swap them out.

Jeff

[akjeff]

Seems to be a rivalry of sorts as far as TTS vs PV vs TM etc.....

don't read too much into that....there's some of us here that are dual sport players.    I think the discusions regarding comparing benefits can sometimes be seen as downtalking the other side, but most of the time it's not meant in malice.

Understood.

I'm just not educated enough to really give a rip one way or another. I already had a PC-V w/AT-100 in my bike, so when I decided to give a flash tuner a try, I went with the PV, and kept the AT-100. Definitely enjoying the education in tuning my bike. Perhaps if I were more advanced, I'd prefer the TTS. Don't know. The PV works fine for me, and I'm learning a lot.

From what I've been reading, you have a good system....so you should have no regrets.

Thanks. Definitely no regrets. I'm having a blast with it!

[Sporty 48]

Some intellectual types can be rather intimidating, that they do not understand why you do not understand their superior logic.
No malice at all, actually very stimulating, have gained a lot more respect for the posters here.
But that is why we are here, to learn.

Yes the slower wide bands confuse me a bit. Changing them out is a pain, for just how much gain?

As far as I am concerned TTS with MegaLogViewer HD is my favorite, simple, like me.

[mayor]

Yes the slower wide bands confuse me a bit. Changing them out is a pain, for just how much gain?

that's the point I was trying to make.  Not that I don't like the wide bands, but the fact that making the switch from the narrow bands in your case is not likely going to give you much of a measurable difference....but the mind can easily play tricks on a fellow so seat of pants might try to tell otherwise. 

[hrdtail78]

Those would probably be real widebands.

Does the PV save the information and allow you to recalibrate based on combining the data with the calibration like the Vtune software? or do you have to review data and make manual changes?

http://www.fuelmotousa.com/PVlogtuner.htm gives an overview of the process.  It's somewhat similar to the way vtune operates but a bit less automatic.  It's a bit more automatic than with the TwinscanII+.  They all address VE only.  I'd bet the TTS system typically produces the best, most comprehensive results.

[edit: I just reviewed that page.  I sounds like they're suggesting the PV auto-tune software might pull timing where it was pulled by the Delphi during the log(s) recorded for the "tune".]

That is my understanding with timing as well from my conversations with Jamie.  MyTune also has a feature like that.  I believe you have to accept it, so it gives you a choice not to let it pull timing.

[Sporty 48]

Measurable difference? Yes, that is what we are looking for.
However, the "smoothing" done by fine tuning the VE's is something that might not show up on a dyno trace. The difference in the way the bike feels is very real.
And i know we got a big dip (called pipe inversion) out from the original dyno tune around 2500 rpm by increasing VE's there.

Yes the slower wide bands confuse me a bit. Changing them out is a pain, for just how much gain?

that's the point I was trying to make.  Not that I don't like the wide bands, but the fact that making the switch from the narrow bands in your case is not likely going to give you much of a measurable difference....but the mind can easily play tricks on a fellow so seat of pants might try to tell otherwise.

[mayor]

Measurable difference? Yes, that is what we are looking for.
However, the "smoothing" done by fine tuning the VE's is something that might not show up on a dyno trace. The difference in the way the bike feels is very real.
And i know we got a big dip (called pipe inversion) out from the original dyno tune around 2500 rpm by increasing VE's there.

ok, let's get back into the algebra/calculus talk then.  here's some very specific questions I would like you to answer:

1. what is it that you think the ve's represent? and how are they derived?

2. how many ve's to an afr?  meaning, how much off of your fixed ve do you have to move to represent .5:1 afr change?

3. do you think that more fuel means more power? if so, is that an indefinite gain or does it reach a point of diminished gains? if you do believe there is a point of diminished gains, at what point does that happen?

4. what afr do you think produces maximum power?

5. what afr do you consider to be ideal lighter throttle/cruising afr?

6. do you think that by introducing more fuel, that more air naturally will follow?

7. at what point off of variance off of a desired afr does the operator notice that they are no longer at the desired afr?

8. how transferable to the overall engine performance does the dyno trace represent? meaning, the dip you see on the chart- does it transfer to every throttle position through out the affected Rom's?

9. what columns of ve's do you think correspond with the trace seen on a dyno sheet?

10. what is pipe inversion? (I believe you actually mean reversion).

11. what is it that you think that you are accomplishing by increasing the VE's were there was a dip in the dyno trace?



also: can you post the open loop cal that Bean did for you, your dyno sheet, and your current cal?  is your current cal based on Bean's cal? or did you develop one from vtuning?

[whittlebeast]

Those would be fun to answer....

Who wants to go first?

Beast

[mayor]

I figured Sporty can go first, besides I have a feeling you already know most of the answers....or at least pretty good arguments favoring your opinion (since some questions might not have best fit answers that are agreeable to all). I'm pretty sure my opinion on a few of them would raise some eyebrows.   

[Blackcherry Low]

I figured Sporty can go first, besides I have a feeling you already know most of the answers....or at least pretty good arguments favoring your opinion (since some questions might not have best fit answers that are agreeable to all). I'm pretty sure my opinion on a few of them would raise some eyebrows.   

Alright!!  Now we're getting to the meat and potatos.  I wanna hear the answers to these questions myself. 

I guess my understanding was to get a good cal on the VEs so that we know exactly how much air is really flowing through this engine. 

Changing the VEs to compensate for something else down the road after being tuned seems counter productive to me.

[glens]

Although I understand that in this case the tune originally obtained wasn't done the "standard" way of correctly dialling in the VE tables alone.  Instead, it was done all open-loop and both VEs and AFR tables were juggled to get the results desired by the tuner.  It isn't something that can be just thrown back into closed-loop and work properly.

[Sporty 48]

Oh, Goody!
Mayor,
Did not look this up, maybe I should have....
1. Volumetric Efficiency, a calibrating factor to adjust fuel levels to meet set Air Fuel Ratio as detected by O2 sensor.
2. No idea of ratio, move VE's up and down 3% at a time, listen to the motor.
3. More fuel, more power? Depends upon where we started. Do an O2 data run, view with MLV HD, chase out the lean spots (motor Killing lean spots) by adding fuel.
4. Do not know, on those posted dyno charts I see 12.8, 13.5, guess it depends upon motor and fuel type.
5. ideal cruise afr 14.3 or 14.2
6. Stoich is 14.7, ideal combustion, everything else is a compromise of sorts I guess, get revving too fast, produce too much heat, add fuel to quench, best to err on rich side of blowing motor.
7. How many AFR's until I feel it? Probably hear it out of my D&D Bobcats first, don't know.
8. Dyno tune was a great start, worlds of improvement over stock tune, fiddling with the tune result is sex on a secluded beach satisfying.
9. On VE chart from top left to bottom right in a downward diagonal curve
10. The exhaust pulses bouncing back at some rpm inhibit exhaust flow as opposed to intake cross talk drawing fuel or air from front or rear cylinder
11. Adding fuel to the fire by increasing VE's at the dip.
Comments?
Mayor, please post your answers so i get the testers feedback.

[Sporty 48]

Interesting, what makes you think an all closed loop performance tune can work properly? I have not seen that evidence yet.
I have only adjusted VE tables. The AFR tables were set by dyno tuner.
Standard way? In my mind what has been done on my bike is very logical and progressing.

Although I understand that in this case the tune originally obtained wasn't done the "standard" way of correctly dialling in the VE tables alone.  Instead, it was done all open-loop and both VEs and AFR tables were juggled to get the results desired by the tuner.  It isn't something that can be just thrown back into closed-loop and work properly.

[glens]

Please quote the things you want to address, and quote them either above your answer or amid your answer.  Replying to something and then quoting it below the reply is counter-intuitive and very time-consuming and tedious to (try to) follow.

Here's your reply formatted for ease of use by others:

Oh, Goody!
Mayor,
Did not look this up, maybe I should have....

1. what is it that you think the ve's represent? and how are they derived?

1. Volumetric Efficiency, a calibrating factor to adjust fuel levels to meet set Air Fuel Ratio as detected by O2 sensor.

2. how many ve's to an afr?  meaning, how much off of your fixed ve do you have to move to represent .5:1 afr change?

2. No idea of ratio, move VE's up and down 3% at a time, listen to the motor.

3. do you think that more fuel means more power? if so, is that an indefinite gain or does it reach a point of diminished gains? if you do believe there is a point of diminished gains, at what point does that happen?

3. More fuel, more power? Depends upon where we started. Do an O2 data run, view with MLV HD, chase out the lean spots (motor Killing lean spots) by adding fuel.

4. what afr do you think produces maximum power?

4. Do not know, on those posted dyno charts I see 12.8, 13.5, guess it depends upon motor and fuel type.

5. what afr do you consider to be ideal lighter throttle/cruising afr?

5. ideal cruise afr 14.3 or 14.2

6. do you think that by introducing more fuel, that more air naturally will follow?

6. Stoich is 14.7, ideal combustion, everything else is a compromise of sorts I guess, get revving too fast, produce too much heat, add fuel to quench, best to err on rich side of blowing motor.

7. at what point off of variance off of a desired afr does the operator notice that they are no longer at the desired afr?

7. How many AFR's until I feel it? Probably hear it out of my D&D Bobcats first, don't know.

8. how transferable to the overall engine performance does the dyno trace represent? meaning, the dip you see on the chart- does it transfer to every throttle position through out the affected Rom's?

8. Dyno tune was a great start, worlds of improvement over stock tune, fiddling with the tune result is sex on a secluded beach satisfying.

9. what columns of ve's do you think correspond with the trace seen on a dyno sheet?

9. On VE chart from top left to bottom right in a downward diagonal curve

10. what is pipe inversion? (I believe you actually mean reversion).

10. The exhaust pulses bouncing back at some rpm inhibit exhaust flow as opposed to intake cross talk drawing fuel or air from front or rear cylinder

11. what is it that you think that you are accomplishing by increasing the VE's were there was a dip in the dyno trace?

11. Adding fuel to the fire by increasing VE's at the dip.

Comments?
Mayor, please post your answers so i get the testers feedback.

In respect to a couple of your answers:

1. what is it that you think the ve's represent? and how are they derived?

1. Volumetric Efficiency, a calibrating factor to adjust fuel levels to meet set Air Fuel Ratio as detected by O2 sensor.

Wow!  Volumetric Efficiency tables have been in use since before O2 sensor closed-loop feedback was put into service.  They don't directly serve to "set Air Fuel Ratio".  The are only a component in the calculation of what it takes.  If we had a sensor to directly measure the air flow into the motor we'd only need them as fall-back for if that sensor failed in service.  Even then, they should be populated to correctly portray the airflow through the motor, not as just some means of developing some arbitrary "AFR" out the pipe when/if a more suitable table were available for that.

2. how many ve's to an afr?  meaning, how much off of your fixed ve do you have to move to represent .5:1 afr change?

2. No idea of ratio, move VE's up and down 3% at a time, listen to the motor.

It's not a set number, it's proportional.  If you need 2% change in AFR to match what's being tried-for in the programming, then it will be a 2% change in VE in the same direction as needed to change the resultant AFR.  This is simple.  A target AFR is specified and the pertinent VE table values are used in the calculation.  If that AFR is not met, the VE tables (most likely) need adjustment, or in other words, they're wrong there.

3. do you think that more fuel means more power? if so, is that an indefinite gain or does it reach a point of diminished gains? if you do believe there is a point of diminished gains, at what point does that happen?

3. More fuel, more power? Depends upon where we started. Do an O2 data run, view with MLV HD, chase out the lean spots (motor Killing lean spots) by adding fuel.

Not an answer to the question.  Not at all.

I'm going to quit there.  It seems to me, especially with your final request that mayor post his answers so you can get feedback from "the testers", that you've decided to present these questions/answers/comments elsewhere and want to hear what someone else has to say about them.  You could've looked this stuff up yourself, or asked those other folks what they'd say in response to them...

It's okay that you want to discuss it and thereby learn, don't get me wrong, but I get just now the distinct feeling that's not your primary concern.

Interesting, what makes you think an all closed loop performance tune can work properly? I have not seen that evidence yet.
I have only adjusted VE tables. The AFR tables were set by dyno tuner.
Standard way? In my mind what has been done on my bike is very logical and progressing.

I know an all closed-loop (within limits of whatever type of O2 sensor is being used) performance tune (especially one at the level you're using!) can, will, and does work properly.  What makes you think it couldn't, wouldn't, or won't?

The AFR tables were set by the tuner, but not in the conventional manner.   Right?   Yes, there is a conventional manner.  That would be ensuring whatever target AFR values are set in the tables are provided out the pipe by appropriately adjusting the VE tables.

I can't bring myself to comment on the logic of what's going on with the process on your bike.

[Sporty 48]

Glens,

Thank you for setting the answers to the questions, shows just how little I know.
This is the place to learn tuning as far as I am concerned.
I frequent the XL Forum because a Sportster is more than tuning and just about everything including Andy's tuning help is there.
Not planning on publishing this in my memoirs or elsewhere. It would end up as a comic book or are they called graphic novels now.
While it is understandable that you would not answer all the questions, your input is welcome.

[whittlebeast]

I realize the this is not the technically correct definition of VE but it is far easier to get your head around and will help you keep  your hair from turning gray.

Use the definition of VE as..

VE is final fudge factor that allows you to get your final AFR to most consistently hit your target AFRs.

Regarding Acceleration Enrichment and Decel Enleanment...

AE and DE is the correction factor that helps you better hold those target AFRs as the MAP or TPS is in transition.

Closed Loop...

In a narrow band application.  This is a way to have the ECU chase the target AFR by adding and subtracting some percent of fuel for some amount of time in a attempt to better follow the intended target AFR over time.  That target can be adjusted from about 14.8 to about 14.5 depending on the target O2 bias at the time.

Have fun tuning

[whittlebeast]

Regarding questions 3 and 6...

It takes more fuel (and air) to make more power.  Adding more fuel (without adding more air) will not necessarily increase power.

Beast

[Sporty 48]

Thanks Andy VE's are where I am at, just about all I think about' cause that is where my tune is at, adjusting VE's to get AFR's right.

Glens, "It's okay that you want to discuss it and thereby learn, don't get me wrong, but I get just now the distinct feeling that's not your primary concern."

This very thread was started because I did not understand why something pretty cool, Dynojet Power Vision, and a site supporter, was not getting any discussion.
This thread has carefully devolved into a discussion of how little I know, which I freely admit.
I am primarily here to learn tuning.

[mayor]

Mayor, please post your answers so i get the testers feedback.

I think you will find that many of my opinions on those questions are well documented through out this site.  The tricky part is, you have to read other posts related to tuning...and even other areas not necessarily tuning specific.  The great part about reading other threads, is you get a variety of opinions from a variety of folks which helps build a greater overall understanding. I think you will also find that most of the other fellows that post here are a deal of a sight smarter than me regarding this efi stuff (and I think that would include GlenS). If you really want to learn more, there's a sticky thread in this section that has a wealth of great information from tuning threads from this section.

In respect to a couple of your answers:

1. what is it that you think the ve's represent? and how are they derived?

1. Volumetric Efficiency, a calibrating factor to adjust fuel levels to meet set Air Fuel Ratio as detected by O2 sensor.

Wow!  Volumetric Efficiency tables have been in use since before O2 sensor closed-loop feedback was put into service.  They don't directly serve to "set Air Fuel Ratio".  The are only a component in the calculation of what it takes.  If we had a sensor to directly measure the air flow into the motor we'd only need them as fall-back for if that sensor failed in service.  Even then, they should be populated to correctly portray the airflow through the motor, not as just some means of developing some arbitrary "AFR" out the pipe when/if a more suitable table were available for that.

Well, I agree with both of you.  I think the key thing to remember is- the VE value is not necessarily a real number.  It's a calculated number based on external feedback (like o2 sampling, whether that be vtuning or afr sampling ). Those VE values are not actual volumetric efficiency values, since there are other tables that factor into the equations to determine actual injector pulsewidths in relation to acieving the desired afr (like the EGR tables).  As Glen eludes too, how relative the actual afr in the engine compared to the desired afr tables is very dependant on how well the two were calibrated to each other.  The VE table values contribute to just about everything related to the fuel delivery portion of the Delphi system.  So having accurate information in the VE tables is key.  That is why it is not advisable to adjust the AFR tables to achieve a sampled AFR that is other than the desired AFR value in the AFR chart.     

2. how many ve's to an afr?  meaning, how much off of your fixed ve do you have to move to represent .5:1 afr change?

2. No idea of ratio, move VE's up and down 3% at a time, listen to the motor.

It's not a set number, it's proportional.  If you need 2% change in AFR to match what's being tried-for in the programming, then it will be a 2% change in VE in the same direction as needed to change the resultant AFR.  This is simple.  A target AFR is specified and the pertinent VE table values are used in the calculation.  If that AFR is not met, the VE tables (most likely) need adjustment, or in other words, they're wrong there.

more over on what Glen posted, just arbitrarily adjusting ve tables based on sound is not a good idea.  You really need to understand how everything ties together before adjusting any one area.  Richening up the fuel by increasing the VE's will likely make the engine have a deeper tone even if the control (the ve's before enrichening) was adjusted to achieve a 14.2-14.4 ratio.  That's mainly due to the fact that cruise afr's are not necessarily at an afr value that creates the most power (so richening up from those values will create more power).  The key to cruise afr's is it creates enough power to propel the bike down the road at an efficient enough manner to keep fuel milage in check without creating engine destroying heat.

3. do you think that more fuel means more power? if so, is that an indefinite gain or does it reach a point of diminished gains? if you do believe there is a point of diminished gains, at what point does that happen?

3. More fuel, more power? Depends upon where we started. Do an O2 data run, view with MLV HD, chase out the lean spots (motor Killing lean spots) by adding fuel.

Not an answer to the question.  Not at all.

I agree with Glen, you skirted the question.  I wasn't asking what you thought specifically regarding how you were adjusting your bike, but rather more general.  Before I answer, I would like you to take another try at the question. 

Interesting, what makes you think an all closed loop performance tune can work properly? I have not seen that evidence yet.
I have only adjusted VE tables. The AFR tables were set by dyno tuner.
Standard way? In my mind what has been done on my bike is very logical and progressing.

The AFR tables were set by the tuner, but not in the conventional manner.   Right?   Yes, there is a conventional manner.  That would be ensuring whatever target AFR values are set in the tables are provided out the pipe by appropriately adjusting the VE tables.

to better understand what Glen is referring too, read the answers he and I gave on question 1. 

by you adjusting the VE tables, the afr tables are no longer relative to what your tuner adjusted.....regardless to how the two compared prior to your adjusting.  The ECM uses the VE tables when it calculates what to do to reach the desired AFR in the AFR tables. 



Glen, I think you took Sporty's response incorrectly regarding the tester's opinion.  I think he was referring to me being the tester....as in the person giving him the test.   

[mayor]

3. do you think that more fuel means more power? if so, is that an indefinite gain or does it reach a point of diminished gains? if you do believe there is a point of diminished gains, at what point does that happen?

6. do you think that by introducing more fuel, that more air naturally will follow?

Regarding questions 3 and 6...

It takes more fuel (and air) to make more power.  Adding more fuel (without adding more air) will not necessarily increase power.

so, how much more fuel can you add to the fixed amount of air that you have and still make more power?  is there a point of deminshed returns?

[mayor]

This very thread was started because I did not understand why something pretty cool, Dynojet Power Vision, and a site supporter, was not getting any discussion.

well, that very well could be due to very few people on this site is using it or that the folks that are using it are happy enough not to share their experiences. It looks like a pretty nice system, but it's relatively new and somewhat expensive compared to competitive products.  The fact that it's "pretty cool" might not be relative to fellows who just want to get the two tuning variables of their bike dialed in.   

I also do not believe that DynoJet is a site supporter, one of their dealers is, but unless I'm mistaken DynoJet is not. We run a slightly different kind of forum here than most though, since our forum is advertisement free we have no obligations perceived or otherwise to discuss the virtues of anything we do not personally use.    

[whittlebeast]

so, how much more fuel can you add to the fixed amount of air that you have and still make more power?  is there a point of deminshed returns?

Most riders would be hard pressed to "feel" the difference from 14.0 to about 12.0

On most naturally aspirated applications, I shoot for about 14.2 AFR in low load areas of the map and about 13.2 in the high load and high RPM sections of the map.

Holding within about .5 AFR of these targets almost all of the time is getting fairly close.

Beast

[glens]

8. Dyno tune was a great start, worlds of improvement over stock tune, fiddling with the tune result is sex on a secluded beach satisfying.

That was not an answer to the question, but it's an interesting starting point for another aspect of the entire discussion.  Well, it's not really pertinent to this thread, but let's pursue it nonetheless.

Taken at face value, that you'd started with a stock closed-loop calibration on a stock-configured motorcycle, your statement makes it sound like the bike ran like total crap that way and that a dyno tune (of any kind?) made it run so much better.

Something we (think) know is that you're actively (still?) pursuing an alternative method of altering that tune manually, not using a dyno but instead reading datalogs taken during normal operation and (arbitrarily?) altering facets of the current calibration based upon things you see in those log files.

Let's back way up and cover some elementary ground.

First, it'd be nice to know whether you'd actually thought the bike ran like crap as it came from the factory.  Do you think it did?

It would stand to reason that you'd altered the breathing apparatus at some point.  Did you?  Assuming "yes", why did you do that?  Was to to obtain greater performance, a better sound, or both?

Were you aware at that time that doing so would require changes be made to the EFI calibration to match your hard-parts changes?  (On a side note, were you aware that changes to the calibration, even with all the stock parts still in place, might prove to be beneficial?  After all, the stock "tune" is created to cover the normal window of tolerances in the assembled packages of parts and is often not absolutely "ideal" for many of the bikes rolling out the door.)

The "conventional" way of deriving, at least the fueling parts, of a calibration is to set the target "AFR" to a safe fixed value across the board, then adjust the VE tables so that that result is obtained everywhere (as much as possible) out the pipe.  Setting different "AFR" values in different areas and attempting to get the VEs optimized this way is problematic because whenever an operational area is in use that doesn't pertain to exactly the middle of a table cell (and not just the "AFR" table; it's that way in all of them), the actual target is derived in proportion to the values in the adjacent cells in the direction the operational area happens to be from that cell center to those cell centers..  If you need an example of how this works, let me know.  I'll pretty much have to sketch it out and scan the image, but I will if you need it.

Suffice it to say for now that the same "AFR" target throughout the "AFR" table makes getting the VEs correct everywhere a much simpler task.

I understand that the dyno tune you'd gotten was not a "conventional" one in at least a couple of ways.  First is that, even though you've got a closed-loop-capable bike, the tune was done to totally exclude that mode of operation.  Furthermore, it was done not using (just?) an O2 sensor, but rather another device to determine the exhaust gas composition.  Lastly, and perhaps the most unconventionally, both the AFR and VE tables were juggled to achieve the desired exhaust composition such that, at least in some cases, those tables don't really reflect what would normally be expected just by looking at them.  Have I got this part right?  How much have you changed anything besides VE values so far?

[glens]

Andy, in that ricer scenario you'd posted and pulled, how do you know the AFR was actually drifting like that, and if it was, how do you know it's not what the Asian engineers wanted to happen?

I think you can get yourself into trouble if/when you try to do things differently than the ECM programming wants to do, agreed?

[whittlebeast]

Andy, in that ricer scenario you'd posted and pulled, how do you know the AFR was actually drifting like that, and if it was, how do you know it's not what the Asian engineers wanted to happen?

I think you can get yourself into trouble if/when you try to do things differently than the ECM programming wants to do, agreed?

I was just watching the pattern of the wideband trace.  I kept seeing that pattern.  That was just an obvious example.

see http://www.ncs-stl.com/pc5wb/SlidingAFR.jpg

I have no idea why they do that?

Beast

[glens]

What I'm getting at in part is how do you know there isn't some sort of pressure stackup in the exhaust or something causing the broadband sensor to drift while the ECM is smart enough to know this (or not care) and actually keep the AFR constant?  Really, it could be any one or a combination of several things.  By trying to address it with the PC you could well be causing problems when there weren't any to begin with.

[whittlebeast]

One of my euro friends called the problem and I just swapped back to the US revision ECU.  Problem solved.  It has to do with the way the Euro interprets the lack of a o2 signal as opposed to the US code.  Testing and looking at the data is everything in this sport.

Beast

[Steve Cole]

I realize the this is not the technically correct definition of VE but it is far easier to get your head around and will help you keep  your hair from turning gray.

Use the definition of VE as..

VE is final fudge factor that allows you to get your final AFR to most consistently hit your target AFRs.

This is not correct at all. VE is the base that the calculations start from. In a world where testers had the equipment they would be adjusted only based on the amount of AIR entering each cylinder. Since the equipment could not be used by most we developed a method to back into the VE values based on what was there to be used. Do not confuse our method of backing into the numbers for anything other than that. In order for people to learn the system they need to understand what it really is, not what it isn't.

Regarding Acceleration Enrichment and Decel Enleanment...

AE and DE is the correction factor that helps you better hold those target AFRs as the MAP or TPS is in transition.

This is correct for AE but incorrect for DE. DE is used to remove fuel when it is not needed. When in decel fuel does no good so you are just wasting it. By cutting back on fuel at the time the decel starts the fuel consumption and emission are improved as well as carbon build up in the cylinder.

Closed Loop...

In a narrow band application.  This is a way to have the ECU chase the target AFR by adding and subtracting some percent of fuel for some amount of time in a attempt to better follow the intended target AFR over time.  That target can be adjusted from about 14.8 to about 14.5 depending on the target O2 bias at the time.

This is true in ALL closed loop applications the ECM looks at the result from the O2 sensor regardless of type and makes necessary fuel adjustments to get the mixture to the desire ratio set in the code. You will always have wander or switching as the system adjust. A narrow band sensor can and does adjust just fine +/- 0.5 AFR around stoichometeric. For gasoline that would be 14.2 - 15.2.

[whittlebeast]

I stand by my VE definition as a great functional definition.  It is not technically correct, but I really do not care.

Beast

[glens]

I just swapped back to the US revision ECU.  Problem solved.  It has to do with the way the Euro interprets the lack of a o2 signal as opposed to the US code.  Testing and looking at the data is everything in this sport.

Might be more along the lines of the way the Euro emissions works.  Does their exhaust plumbing have some active components that ours don't?  Problem was likely solved in this case by removing the cause of the problem: mixing/matching parts ad hoc.

I stand by my VE definition as a great functional definition.  It is not technically correct, but I really do not care.

You might not care about correctness, but it'd behove you to give some consideration to those who are coming to you with questions in a process of trying to learn how things work.  First give them the facts/truth, then once they grok that, maybe only then throw some of your idiosyncratic notions their way once they've got the basics well understood?

[Blackcherry Low]

I've also wondered about the comments the bike runs like crap.  Following all of these Sportster related posts and how poorly some think they run.

My bike is basically the same thing Andy has, 07 1200 Low all stock except I've hogged out the mufflers a bit.  I think Andys is all stock except the air filter.

I've always thought my bike ran very nicely, it gets fair gas mileage and I've never noticed any flat spots anywhere, but then again I don't rod on the bike too much.

I did a TTS dyno pull with it once and followed Steves instructions for best use of that.  3rd gear, 1500 RPM, roll on WOT and go til it hits the rev limiter.   Well it took off and there was no hesitation, and when I hit 95 mph and the rev limiter still did not come in, I backed off the throttle. 

When I got home and looked at the data log and framed the dyno pull around the start of the WOT and the end of it, the vehicle speed was 98 mph and the dyno pull showed 67 HP and 71 Ft Lb TQ.  The time elapsed was 17 seconds, now those numbers might not be quite what a race machine would do, but it did that pull with absolutely no problems.

[whittlebeast]

Blackcherry

Email me a data log of about an hour ride some time.  I would love to snoop around at how you have the tune set up.

Beast

[glens]

Sporty, I've thrown together a small example of how calibration table cells get used.  It should illustrate how changing one value can have ramifications that cover a broader area than you might've considered.  It should also serve to illustrate why it's so important to get the VE tables, especially, populated as accurately as possible since they are the foundation for so many calculations.

Looking at some (Big Twin) datalogs, I see the TPS records values to the tenths of a percent and RPM values are to whole numbers.  VE values are to a tenth as well, so I'll round them for this example:  say you're at 27.2% TPS, 2281 RPM; what is the VE value the ECM uses for that fuel calculation? 

From the table segment attached below, that resultant VE would be "91.9".

Do you see how arbitrarily changing a VE table value can affect other areas?  What if I'd changed one of those four cells by a few digits just because I'd "seen a hole" in a log being viewed in a graph?  What if the data from that timeframe didn't actually all perfectly coincide with what was really going on then?  What are the chances it would actually be the correct thing to do?

Conversely, if you wanted to change just the VE value for 2281 RPM @ 27.2% throttle, you'd have to change four cells appropriately, and that would affect an even wider range of operation!

Take this into consideration when you see an RPM, TPS, VE, and VE-new value.  Both the VE and VE-new values will most every time be the result of proportional averaging, so merely taking the VE-new figure and sticking that somewhere into the VE table just ain't the right thing to do.  What's more, you don't know where the AFV cells are located in relation to the affected VE cells, and those AFV cells, proportioned, along with current corrective values that aren't (yet?) recorded in the AFV tables are what goes to produce that "VE new" figure.

I'm not trying to scare you off, just trying to get you to slow down a bit.

[edit: I removed the first image and attached the updated version.  For some reason I'd started incrementing the RPM by 25 and in the middle switched to 50, so all the numbers apart from the top and bottom rows were incorrect.  All better now...]

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[Blackcherry Low]

Blackcherry

Email me a data log of about an hour ride some time.  I would love to snoop around at how you have the tune set up.

Beast

Andy, I won't get anymore riding in this season, but in the spring I can get a longer run that I can shoot off to you.  The tune I have is something that MOCO created with the SERT back in 08.  I hit them up hard about the cold start stumble and after they (dealer as instructed by MOCO) had reringed the engine and changed all of the EFI components to no avail.  The MOCO took a new ECM and a SERT, tweaked the warmup mode (I'm assuming) and overnighted it to the dealer and the stumble was cured. 

I don't know exactly what they did but I imagine they have the ability to load a basically stock map into the ECM with the SERT and then adjusted the warmup.  One thing they missed was the rev limit, on my dyno pull the data log showed 6591 RPM and the limter had not come in yet.  So this makes me wonder if they maybe used a stage 1 map and readjusted it to a stock configuration or something like that.

[FLTRI]

FWIW, I'd like to thank Glen for offering his knowledge and expertise to this forum.

What folks like Glen do is independently put credability to a few who have spent their free time helping members with EFI running/tuning issues.
Of course most are bias to what they feel work best for them based on their own experiences.
Thanks again!
Bob

[Sporty 48]

Yes FLTRI, a very good thread, great contributors and it is interesting.
You guys have posted so many questions for me it is going to take a while to sort them out and answer them.
With a fair amount of snow on the ground, intermittent power outages, a strong northeast wind and other stuff in life the bike is grounded here for a while.
Glens, when I first got the Sportster it was the biggest disappointment power wise, reminded me of an observed trials bike with a bad tune and a bad suspension. Now, just a whole different ride, but the VE's are not optimized yet, the first step in refining a decent tune.

[Tsani]

I stand by my VE definition as a great functional definition.  It is not technically correct, but I really do not care.

Beast

Shame you really don't care about being technically correct since there has to be a common basis for discussion and exchange of information correctly. So if you are talking about apples and the thread is about oranges, it really shouldn't matter since one could just say it's fruit.

Since it is just fruit:
Volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engine design refers to the efficiency with which the engine can move the charge into and out of the cylinders. More specifically, volumetric efficiency is a ratio (or percentage) of what quantity of fuel and air actually enters the cylinder during induction to the actual capacity of the cylinder under static conditions. Therefore, those engines that can create higher induction manifold pressures - above ambient - will have efficiencies greater than 100%. Volumetric efficiencies can be improved in a number of ways, but most notably the size of the valve openings compared to the volume of the cylinder and streamlining the ports. Engines with higher volumetric efficiency will generally be able to run at higher speeds (commonly measured in RPM) and produce more overall power due to less parasitic power loss moving air in and out of the engine.

Now that is a banana I can understand. And if you ask me it represents a fairly fixed number to which all else is determined around. Doesn't sound like a fudge factor to me. Get the VE's set right and everything else is based off of it. I do understand your point about using it as a "fudge" factor to make up for something else you cannot seem to correct otherwise for what ever reason, but that fact does not change what the VE really represents.

[glens]

FWIW, I'd like to thank Glen for offering his knowledge and expertise to this forum.

Why, shucks Bob, you're more than welcome.  Really, you're the one needing thanks.

What folks like Glen do is independently put credability to a few who have spent their free time helping members with EFI running/tuning issues.

Why does that sound like I'm not doing this on my free time?  Who needs to know where to send the check?  Hahaha!

[mayor]

I stand by my VE definition as a great functional definition.  It is not technically correct, but I really do not care.

You might not care about correctness, but it'd behove you to give some consideration to those who are coming to you with questions in a process of trying to learn how things work.  First give them the facts/truth, then once they grok that, maybe only then throw some of your idiosyncratic notions their way once they've got the basics well understood?

I agree with Glen and Tsani. The problem comes in when folks don't know that they way they are being taught is not by the book correct, then they get this false sense that when others disagree with the tuning tactics it's because those others are not smart enough to see it from a different angle.  You may not care that your definition is technically right, but the Delphi system cares.  By adjusting the wrong tables to achive the desired results, then all other tables become wrong and do not function correctly.   

Glens, when I first got the Sportster it was the biggest disappointment power wise, reminded me of an observed trials bike with a bad tune and a bad suspension. Now, just a whole different ride, but the VE's are not optimized yet, the first step in refining a decent tune.

I think you are missing the point entirely.  What we are trying to tell you is what you think is optimizing the ve's may be nothing more than you tinkering with the numbers and getting a false felling of improvement.  You might even be getting improvement (meaning a feeling of more power), but that could be because you are no longer running in a fuel effecient afr range.   

[whittlebeast]

Here is a screen shot comparison of how I set up a 150 HP rice bike compared to a 70 HP Harley.  These are actual AFRs coming off the same wideband.



Have fun tuning

Beast

[glens]

What follows is an excerpt of the thread on another site, mentioned earlier in this one.  Each post is preceded by a link to that post, so I guess one could merely jump into the thread at the first link, but there are a lot of adverts in the pages, and you'd need to flip through several of them (fun enough in its own right, I guess), so I cut-n-pasted pertinent text and included imagery as "necessary".

Andy, are you happy and proud?

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3596781&postcount=577
KevinJ:
"So I just did a few log runs....
This is what it looks like: horrible!


http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3596789&postcount=579
whittlebeast:
"WOW that thing needs tuning....

Is the intake and exhaust stock?"

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3596790&postcount=580
KevinJ:
"Beast, yes, that is the stock Harley tune... And the whole bike is stock, stock airfilter, stock exhaust (with cat convertor)

edit: I did remove the flapper valve in the airbox. Don't know it that would change much."

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3596797&postcount=582
whittlebeast:
"If you want I can set up your tune to get started..."

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3598346&postcount=589
KevinJ:
"This is where I'm at with the first custom map (Thanks Whittlebeast)

So now I've added 3% to the red dots and removed 3%from the blue dots.
And I also made the rear 4% richer as of 3500rpm from 0 to 10 % TP (Like Whittlebeast did with the front yesterday)"

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3600032&postcount=599
KevinJ:
"This is where I was yesterday

And this is where I'm at today. I'm getting there...
"

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3600050&postcount=600
whittlebeast:
"Just keep picking away at it 3% at a time, It will take a quite few rides before you will get to the point that you are just chasing yourself in circles and it is time to move to step 2. You will get it."

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3601685&postcount=605
KevinJ:
"5th map revision and this is where I'm at:

I do have a strange starting issue since I got to map 4: when the engine is hot and shut off for a few minutes (fuel stop), when I want to start again, it hardly wants to idle and even drops below 500rpm sputtering along before it dies.
I did add fuel to the 0% TP at 1000 and 1250 rpm to get rid of those lean spots. So now I reverted those settings back to the (lean) "map3" settings. Hope it'll work.
Oh, and the plugs are really black now.
But I did drive more than 500km this week, making logs "

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3601719&postcount=606
whittlebeast:
"Plugs should never be black on an EFI bike. Something is messed up."

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showpost.php?p=3601777&postcount=607
KevinJ:
"Half of the map is still messed up, so I guess it might have something to do with the bike being rich at idle and it idles about 5 minutes while I try to get it in the 2nd garage.
And the strange idle behaviour after a short shut-off probably doesn't help (because it really smells like gas then)"

[whittlebeast]

We found what happened to his tune.  He PMed me the logs and I found it in about 30 sec.

I think I missed the point of your post???

Beast

[wurk_truk]

I highly doubt you actually missed the point, Andy.

It's part of a recent trend, here on HTT, to sayy that there is only ONE method to tune by.  All other methods are suspect and not to be used.  I, personally, kind of, take offense at the shots made at a tuner who uses 5 gases and tunes using  both AFR and VEs to dial in his tunes.  That particular tuner advocates open loop only tuning, and states this when going to him for a tune.  99&44/100% of folks that go to that tuner... or ANY tuner for that matter, do NOT attempt to alter their tunes after the fact.

YOU, Andy, have tried to make a member here alter an unalterable tune, and you need the new HTT punishment for that action.  You were NOT correct in your approach to this member and should have INSISTED that member load up a base tune to start from instead of trying to play with a tune, of which NEITHER of you know about.  OK, fine.

YOU, Andy, have corrupted this member's brain to the point he cannot see reality.  Truly, you did.    I feel this member either will or will not get straightened out.  But........  now YOUR punishment is to be shown your total lack of competence by using posts from ANOTHER forum to show a 'tune' that went awry ..............  and obviously...... that MUST be your fault.

Watch closely here.............  you are next for banishment.  Why?  Because you do not toe the party line, is why.

Instead of the free flowing of ideas... some are old arguments, some can be new and novel...  this section has turned from the AFR section to the..............  one MUST think the same as 'us' or you will 'get it for sure' section.

Andy, rest assured that I believe in the 'normal' (around here) way to tune and set up maps....  but it IS beyond me why some folks here think those methods are the ONLY methods, and also that 'dissenters' need to be quieted.
BVBob and Stroker have left the building........  it seems to be ALL about ONE method of tuning and ONE way to use that method.  Open loop by BEAN, etc is thought of as 'dumb' here anymore.  Nothing is equal and there IS no free flow of ideas, etc.  You need to watch yourself.

As much as I love this site...  it is easy to see that we are all NOT equal on here.

[whittlebeast]

In the case of that tune It was traced down to a typo where the owner multiplied a series of cells by 1.3 instead of 1.03

Beast

[glens]

Andy, there's a lot of dark blue in that first log he did using that "starter" calibration you'd evidently provided.  Was the "1.30" vs. "1.03" committed that early?  When was it committed?  Everything up until his "starting/idling" statement looked okay to you, didn't it?  Or did you even look?

My point is that your method isn't bad because it's novel, nor that it departs from the "standard" way.  It's bad because you advocate it to folks who don't have a clue and because you evidently don't do anything to teach them even correct terms.  And because you, as was stated a bit earlier, advocate using it against a non-"conventional" method of tuning which is not readily receptive to such methods.  Furthermore, because in doing it you rely solely on data which is nowhere near complete enough in most cases, because you manipulate that data, and on top of that, it's currently overly replicated when using that other kit.

If a person were able to hold primarily the centers of all the cells in the VE tables, each at steady-state operation, there's not too much to say against the method itself; at least in respect to the limited aspects it addresses.  I haven't noticed any evidence that you advocate that.  Or that you advocate avoiding transient conditions as much as possible.

I'm somewhat confused by your advocating CLBs of 450, too, as well as holding stoich or richer on overrun.  In fact, there are several aspects of what you advocate that confuse me.  But that's all right, because I'm not going to play with things that way so it doesn't matter.

But I think you're flirting with disaster, Andy.  Other people's disaster.  You (evidently) hadn't even asked that poor soul what sort of modifications he'd performed, nor suggested a suitable starting calibration for them.

I hope he didn't wash down his cylinders too much before it'd got caught.

It would also be beneficial to keep such help either totally off the boards or totally on them.  That would keep things a bit safer for others.

Wurk:  I don't much understand your post.  Sorry.  Some of it I think I agree with, but some if it I don't.  What I don't like about what Andy's doing is that he admittedly doesn't care about even using correct terminology, especially with rank neophytes, and that he doesn't bother to (much) enter into any meaningful discussion with those who have at least a clue.  That scares me.  He portrays himself as a vast resource of knowledge and experience but does precious little to back it up.

Since I feel some of your derogatory remarks are pointed towards me, I'd like to ask you: What sort of notion do you have as to what my idea of an ideal tune is, and what method of deriving it?  I think most people who bother to read what I write would see that as a rhetorical question because I don't advocate anything in that regard.  Am I a fan of closed-loop operation?  You betcha!  Do I like to keep it simple by sticking with only the Delphi components for daily operation?  Yes sir!  But that's about as far as I go with it.  I'm pretty sure about that just now, at any rate.

This thread is about doing what Andy does, and more than tangentially, how he does it.  I feel bringing that other information over here is both entirely pertinent and warranted.

As far as those other two guys you mentioned, I guess I've missed where they've discussed in detail why they advocate that which they do.  I'd love to see it.  About all I can think of along those lines are merely statements made on their parts, nothing further.

[Sporty 48]

Whoa Nelly, easy boys.
Wurk Truk, pretty funny, sarcasm is best applied sparingly, but you have pulled it off elegantly with a sledge hammer.
There does seem to be a level of intelectual rigidity and a rather flaccid response to new ideas here at times, therein lies the challenge.
Sharpening the logic requires work and rigirous thought. We have that here.
Now as for Andy, helping others, simplifying complex terms and in general having fun while tuning, go dude!
Many times Andy Whittle Beast has cautioned me when considering performance options and he has refocused me back to the critical elements of the tune: VE's, AFR and Timing.
Did I miss anything?
I can't wait to ease into closed loop tuning.

[mayor]

I, personally, kind of, take offense at the shots made at a tuner who uses 5 gases and tunes using  both AFR and VEs to dial in his tunes.  That particular tuner advocates open loop only tuning, and states this when going to him for a tune.  99&44/100% of folks that go to that tuner... or ANY tuner for that matter, do NOT attempt to alter their tunes after the fact.

If those comments are directed towards my comments about the ve's needing to be correct, for the other tables to work right...you are reading too much into what I'm saying.  First, I have never met Bean so I have no personal reason to say this- I would trust Bean to do a tune for me.  That's saying a lot, because I can't say that the list of folks that I would trust is very long.  Any comments that I made was not to discredit Beans tune.  If what he did was dial in both afr and the ve's to get certain numbers, that's irrelevant to anything until someone starts messing with things.  This is likely going to be an issue as soon as someone who doesn't realize how the things were set starts adjusting things at face value. If the tune is never touched, no biggie.  I don't personally have an issue with open loop tunes, but then again I also like closed loop tunes.

Second, so you find it offensive when some would question how the afr was derived...but you are fine with a fellow starting multiple threads talking how he adjusting the lean spots out of an open loop tune that was done by Bean?  I personally would trust Beans equipment over those cheap assed narrow bands, and I have a hard time believing that a open loop tune set to 14.2 or so will have lean spots that are lean enough to be felt by the operator. I have to say, I find the very thought absurd.   Heck, I had lean spots in 15+ afr range on my carb bike that I never felt.  I just can't see a tune that Bean did drifting greater that a full afr.  I think the micro tweeking to fix lean spots discusion does far more to discredit Beans tune than us discussing the methods of how he reached his verified afr's.

[HogBag]

 

[whittlebeast]

My method merely preaches to look at the data.  Correctly installed o2s a wicked fast and wicked accurate at 14.6 and are totally trusted in every closed loop tune.  When doing a closed loop tune and aiming for 14.0, the o2 should almost never swing to the lean side of 14.6 as that is over a 1/2 AFR from your target AFR.  If 90% of the o2 hits in one area are lean, you have a hole.  If that hole only shows at some weather condition that Bean never saw in his lab on the day he tuned the bike, it it not is fault.  Just a weather condition he never ran into on that day.  My bet is Sporty48 never messed with 90% of the VEs as Bean had them set.  I also bet he never touched any of the timing curves that Bean set.  AE, DE, you name it is all as Bean set it.  It was just the few lean holes that always seem to show up on the data logs.  These are the only VEs that messed with and fuel was only added.

I wish Sportsters could run closed loop but the AFR swings are simply to huge.  These bike are just to sensitive to having that much fuel pulled out.  If it was 3% pulled for a couple of tenths of a sec, it would be fine.  We are forced to accept  open loop and shooting for 14.0 and accepting the fuel and weather changes.  I wish we had access to the o2 settings but we don't at this point.

Keep in mind that most all of the PC3 and PC5 tuned rice bikes running around are all running open loop and are making insane HP.

Beast

[glens]

If 90% of the hits are on the lean swing, all that means is that 90% of the hits that were captured were on the lean swing.  It doesn't mean that any more than half the swings the engine uses were lean.  Like you said, the sensors are wicked fast.  So is the ECM in driving them.  It's just not wicked fast in spitting data out onto the bus, since that area of its operation is relatively inconsequential and the bus has more important things to do in normal operation.  Not to mention the bus type is relatively antiquated and not necessarily even up to the task of passing all that much data.  Are you positively sure that the sportster ECM code makes bigger swings than the big twins?  Do their smaller injectors have anything to do with their apparently larger fueling swings in the data logs?

You are aware, aren't you, that Bean uses the VE tables somewhat conventionally along with the AFR tables somewhat unconventionally to generate the tune, right?  By altering any of his AFR commands you've changed things in the VE tables as well.  I'm glad you think you can do better with a smidgen of data off the bus during uncontrolled operation as compared to his multi-gas analyzation during controlled operation.  It shows you can think outside the box.  But when folks who've been working intimately with the box for years, much more intimately, try to tell you what the box is capable of and what it's not, you'd do well to listen to them instead of trying to do what you likely won't admit publicly you're really trying to do.

I'm sure Bean does what he does because the two table types don't have perfect coincidence.  Heck, they're not even using the same two types of information as each other in the sportsters.  Which brings up another point.  The VE tables, when using Alpha-N axes, cause each cell to cover multiple MAP values, which means multiple airflow conditions.  Are you sure that your system of tuning properly takes this into consideration?  Isn't it rather using hit-or-miss squared?

If the sportsters used individual intake runners and spun to twelve grand, using double the valves per cylinder they now use, I'd bet they'd make wickeder horsepower too, even running closed-loop over much of the range.

[whittlebeast]

I personally use both Alpha-N and Speed Density logs to look at data.  On the Yamaha, I use Speed Density to make the vast majority of the VE corrections but then I always look at the VE trace to get to holes that are more throttle position based.

Beast

[whittlebeast]

There is essentially four ways to tune a bike that I am aware of.

1) Tune the majority of the tune utilizing the NB 02s to develop the VE News.  Then you use the average or the NE News (after applying filters) to develop the the VEs.  You then extrapolate the VEs beyond the areas of the map that you are willing to target the valid range of the NB O2s.

2) Use target AFRs that are not in the range of a standard NB so you use a wideband O2 and lean on the VEs or (VE correction factor) to get the actual AFR to hit the target  AFR.  This is essentially how the guys that can not hack the ECU are stuck to tuning.

3) Use a dyno and a 4 or five gas and for the most part shooting for a near constant CO of about 4-6%

4) Set the TPS to a position, have the dyno hold the RPM and then tweak the AFR/VEs and timing to maximize HP/torque at every combination of TPS and RPM that you can get to.

Have you ever looked at the VE tables after the same bike went thru all 4 methods?  Does one method excel in drivability in all situations?

I do see some amazing differences (and clues) looking at lots of different maps.  I hope some day we can get this site to debate this sort of thing.

[hpulven]

If 90% of the hits are on the lean swing, all that means is that 90% of the hits that were captured were on the lean swing.  It doesn't mean that any more than half the swings the engine uses were lean.

This is a point that interests me;
On my twincam the PV logs show another interesting tendency, when the clb's are at 700 mV, the sensor voltages average (count or integral) about 840 mV, and it looks like the sensors are doing crossovers  about once every 5th second.
With clb at around 500, it looks like the sensors are doing crossovers about once every second (like they are supposed to do). Until spring and further testing I can only speculate around several possibilities:
-Are the NB sensors that much slower at a higher clb?
-Is the ECM dataoutput the reason? Why is there a systematic skew one way or the other?
-Is the datacollecting on the PV the problem? Again, why is there a systematic skew?

What do people using TTS see when they log sensor voltage at higher clb's, what is the mean time between crossovers compared to at about 450 mV?

[FLTRI]

Andy,
Not sure why you accept that nothing you can do with any software that will change the voltage output of a sensor.

No matter what you set CLB's the sensor puts out exactly the same voltage as with no CLB.

Now the software takes those O2 sensors' output voltages and may apply an offset to tell the software it's running leaner/richer than targets...then adds more/less fuel to get the exhaust output the target/desired AFR.

I have to note, it appears you make statements simply for your amusement listening to those who actually know why your statements are incorrect...then you simply change your posts kinda like keeping folks wondering which cup you put the pea under.

Remember Andy, you are trying to compete/educate some folks here who either designed the calibration tuning software or use the software/hardware for emissions testing which cannot be done without proper testing using really high speed/reliable equipment used for resolving emissions and/or rideability issues.

What do they use for this precise measurement? MLV? Datamaster?, NB? BB? O2 sensor?, or any other aftermarket software/hardware? NO!

I believe what some of these experts are trying to get you to see and understand is the equipment and software you are using to determine what is "actually" happening WHEN it is actually happening.

Can you make an educated guess and have a relatively good chance logging over long periods will show some data that couldn't be expected reliable with the sample rates included in the equipment we all use to tune bikes.

These few talented calibration guys provide the luxury of having them to educate us.
They use sophisticated OEM calibration hardware and software to which we have no access (due to costs) to resolve internally hardcoded software and hardware that affects running characteristics.

What I would do if I were you would be to ask for advice and take it...unless of course you can effectively discredit the data with advice you've received.

There is a lot of information you could use to help understand what you are really doing and advising?..for example how much run quality and power change is realised with a 3% fueling change. ie: 14.2 vs 13.8.

Hoping this is taken in the spirit in which it was intended,
Bob

[whittlebeast]

I wish it was just 3%.  I could work with that number.  About three percent is what I have seen on the BTs.

At highway speeds, the data logs on the Sportys look very different  than they do on the BT motors.  Feel free to take each for a ride and then plot pulse width.

Beast

[glens]

If 90% of the hits are on the lean swing, all that means is that 90% of the hits that were captured were on the lean swing.  It doesn't mean that any more than half the swings the engine uses were lean.

This is a point that interests me;
On my twincam the PV logs show another interesting tendency, when the clb's are at 700 mV, the sensor voltages average (count or integral) about 840 mV, and it looks like the sensors are doing crossovers  about once every 5th second.
With clb at around 500, it looks like the sensors are doing crossovers about once every second (like they are supposed to do). Until spring and further testing I can only speculate around several possibilities:
-Are the NB sensors that much slower at a higher clb?
-Is the ECM dataoutput the reason? Why is there a systematic skew one way or the other?
-Is the datacollecting on the PV the problem? Again, why is there a systematic skew?

What do people using TTS see when they log sensor voltage at higher clb's, what is the mean time between crossovers compared to at about 450 mV?

Okay, look at it this way.  At 3000 RPM you're talking a frequency of 50 Hertz per cylinder's four-stroke cycle.  Half that number will get you the frequency of the exhaust strokes, during which, say, the O2 sensor is polled, so 25 times per second at 3000 RPM.  Inverting 25 cycles per second gets you 0.04 seconds per cycle.  The O2 sensor is getting read every 40 milliseconds at 3000 RPM.  I believe that's about the average delta between successive "readings" taken by the Powervision; 40 mS.   The TTS averages roughly 250 mS per "reading", depending upon the data "package" requested.  That's about as fast as the ECM can deliver the data over the bus.  The PV continually replicates any data point every ~40 mS until such time as a new value for that data point is obtained, when the replication resumes.  The new data typically arrives every ~250 mS from the bike's data port.

So at 3000 RPM, you're looking at in your data log, on average 40/250 of the O2 sensor readings the ECM uses.  16% of the pertinent data is all you're seeing at 3000 RPM.  What do you suppose the chances are that you're getting a  "perfect" look at what's actually going on?  If the ECM fuels higher-than-CLB for a couple or three power strokes, then lower-than-CLB for a couple or three power strokes, what are the chances you're seeing a proportionate representation of that in the data logs?  I don't know.  I'm asking you what you think the chances are.

[hpulven]

So at 3000 RPM, you're looking at in your data log, on average 40/250 of the O2 sensor readings the ECM uses.  16% of the pertinent data is all you're seeing at 3000 RPM.  What do you suppose the chances are that you're getting a  "perfect" look at what's actually going on?  If the ECM fuels higher-than-CLB for a couple or three power strokes, then lower-than-CLB for a couple or three power strokes, what are the chances you're seeing a proportionate representation of that in the data logs?  I don't know.  I'm asking you what you think the chances are.

Thank you for your answer, these are indeed numbers to keep in mind trying to interpret logs.
To answer your question I naturally think the chances of getting a "perfect" look are about zero. What I would expect is that we would get far fewer crossovers in the logs than what is happening in reality, as the reality is indeed undersampled. Further I would expect runs where higher voltages are overrepresented and runs where lower voltages are overrepresented.
But, in a long log run, we are sampling from a reality where the voltages are supposed to be under the chosen bias about 50% of the time and over about 50% of the time, so from a statistical point of view the global average should be near the chosen bias voltage. So I would in fact expect a proportional representation of each side of the bias in the log as a whole. This is what puzzles me and the reason I asked my questions, I really don't understand the systematic skew of the data,
the somewhat peculiar habit of PV to repeat the last value is not enough to explain this.
As I am not able to test this with my newly bought TTS until my bike is out from winter storage I am curious to know if the TTS way of logging gives a more proportional representation of the O2 sensor voltage? That would be helpful in eliminating some possibilities.

[TXP]

Without lab quality sensors, you'll never get there. Perfect is as elusive as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. From my experience, their is currently no more accurrate product out there than TTS for the Delphi systems. Like it or not Steve is still at the lead of the pack IMHO. Others are working to make their products more user friendly. I recently had a very good discussion with the SESPT programing guru and he is not static. I expect we will see that product move in a positive direction in the not too distant future. In this business you continually move forward or get left in the dust.

[glens]

I don't think we can expect anything even approaching a proportionate view of what the O2 sensors are saying.  We might get mostly the high swings one time, mostly the low swings another.  All we really can expect is to catch the fact that the sensors are indeed switching due to the injector activity.  Just like all we can expect is to catch the fact that the injectors are fueling some low and some high.  To take the data we have and attempt to derive exactly how much time the injectors are spending open vs. how much time they're spending closed, or how much time the O2 sensors are spending above CLB vs. below CLB, is just plain foolish.

In direct answer to your question, I've seen O2 traces which usually indicate a shorter and broader plateau above CLB, with a deeper and narrower valley below CLB at such times as the CLB is set toward the higher end.  When CLB is closer to the midpoint the traces are more symmetrical.  But all I ever take away from any of it is that they are indeed switching.

If you held a steady engine speed and throttle position (if those are the axes of your VE tables; RPM/MAP otherwise) long enough, and at the center of some VE table cell, then you likely could trust the "VE new" and/or "AFF" that you see.  I'm assuming the Powervision "AFF" is derived by "VE new"/"VE".  But even if you could trust it, I still don't think it would be informative in any usable way regarding repopulating your VE tables.  You would only be able to do that if you knew where the AFV cells were located in your calibration, and what the surrounding AFV cells contained.  Since they're averaged together proportionately, they might not really indicate what the best VE value would be to place in any given VE cell.

Another aspect of this would be that you'd have to know what the center of a VE cell really pertained to.  If there was a cell at, say, 2500 RPM vs. 50% throttle, is the center on the RPM axis 2500 or does that value pertain to the cell boundary nearer the smaller RPM value.  Likewise, does the 50% throttle indicate the center of that column or the boundary adjoining the next smaller value?  Do you understand what I'm saying?  It'd make a difference, for sure.

As well, you'd have to decide if the physical center of the cell would be the best place to find a value for that cell, or whether the best statistical sample of all that the cell covers would be the best value to use; the two are likely different.  I don't feel there's enough data available out of the system bus to determine such stuff by merely perusing log files.  You'd need intimate knowledge that only a few folks possess in order to accurately put the data to use.

The best thing to do would be to grab all the sensor and component signals directly, at full speed, and interleave that data with what you can discover from the ECM, or compare it directly to the calibration tables.  Only then could you use the information to derive a better state of tune.

[whittlebeast]

If you flip a coin 10000 times you will get real close to 5000 heads or 50%

If you only count every tenth flip you will count 1000 flips and get real close to 500 heads or 50%

As long as the number of samples is high, nearly nothing changes in the big picture.

Beast

[glens]

True enough if you're tossing coins.  What's the likelihood of getting several hundred of something in a row? 

Maybe we should refer to this as "The Coin Toss" method of tuning.

[mayor]

I actually agree with Andy's logic on this, and it's a SPC (statistical process control) method of veiwing things. This was along the lines of what I was thinking in relation to the slower broad bands. You might not be able to get a reading every fire, but there's still plenty of fires being recorded. 

[Coyote]

Tossing coins is not a good analogy for tuning. I've spent my life in the controls, closed loop, digital sampling industry. Once you lose data, you cannot recover it from averaging. There is a reason that you must sample data much faster than than the data itself. A nice theorem to look up is the Nyquist  theorem. It explains the minimum sampling rate for analog signals. And while I'm the first to admit I don't know crap about tuning, this is just basic engineering. Andy's logic has no basis here (certainly not on a moving target). If you hold steady for sometime, then maybe.

[Scotty]

Just something I read on REAL random events.

Random doesn’t look so random!
Most people find long series of consecutive results much less likely than they really are. A string of four heads starts looking like a pattern when in fact, there isn‟t one. A string of eight or nine will have a crowd looking for any cause other than random chance but in reality, there is a very good chance that at least one of these long runs of consecutive results will appear if you continue flipping a coin long enough. In fact, you are almost guaranteed to see at least one series of six or more consecutive heads or tails in one hundred coin flips. This is why fake results are so easy to spot. We find this very surprising at first because we expect the outcome of consecutive coin tosses to alternate between heads and tails much more than they really do. We easily mistake long series of consecutive results, or clusters, as patterns when they are in fact truly random. To the untrained eye, this makes random results appear to be 'fake', and fake results seem more 'real'.

[TXP]

When you are reading data from the ECM, and its data that is actually NOT being updated as you read it, and the target is moving, how can anyone possibly think you are getting perfect data, or a perfect tune. Very few of us in the field will ever even see the type of equipment it takes to capture the data in question in real time. So basically aren't we all just using what we have and doing the best we can with it. Chasing perfect data without the correct "lab quality" equipment just isn't realistic. Not throwing stones at anyone, but the laws of physics have not been repealed,,,at least as far as I know. 

[whittlebeast]

Most of my early tuning on the Harleys is done in closed loop anyway using the CLI, O2 Integrator or VE New vs VE.  All of those are filtered anyway by the "sacred" ECU anyway.  When you look at several rides of 20000 to 30000 samples, fatterns start jumping out at you.  Even 6 apparent random hits in a row normally would not get may attention.  When you see 6 high then 6 low then 5 high then 7 low.....  That pattern would get my attention.   If you saw that pattern ever time, then you have something.

Beast

[yositime]

If you see a pattern or not, the observation is simply an artifact of the sampling method and/or timing.  You probably need a good book and a 10 week undergraduate course to gain a better technical understanding but it is what it is. We see this often from the younger fellas in radio or satellite communication practice when they try to use improper sampling techniques or try to draw conclusions from the bastardized data (extracting data from what appears to be random samples). I’m sure it happens anywhere you try to predict outcomes based on insufficient data.  It is not that the observation is useless, but the analysis usually gives you the wrong result which more often than not leads you down a wrong path, making unsupported claims, along with misleading you into believing you are doing things more precisely than you are.

Happens all the time, and sometimes a gem is discovered by accident...  but the chances of that is less than hitting the powerball jackpot .


If you are trying to hit a moving target where your control system only has the capability to home in +/- 3% of ideal and it really doesn’t matter if you miss the target by 6%, seems to me that trying to adjust the target within 0.1% of ideal may be an academic exercise... but that's just my opinion and what do  I know. 

[glens]

Andy, we know how the CLB is derived when the same value is used throughout.  Tell us how any VE, VE new, or O2 integrator we might see in a log are derived.  Then tell us how they should be applied and why.  Don't be timid.  Give us something to chew on.

[1FSTRK]

Most of my early tuning on the Harleys is done in closed loop anyway using the CLI, O2 Integrator or VE New vs VE.  All of those are filtered anyway by the "sacred" ECU anyway.  When you look at several rides of 20000 to 30000 samples, fatterns start jumping out at you.  Even 6 apparent random hits in a row normally would not get may attention.  When you see 6 high then 6 low then 5 high then 7 low.....  That pattern would get my attention.   If you saw that pattern ever time, then you have something.

Beast

I have read this entire thread and I too see the pattern

[hpulven]

Some interesting input here:

To take the data we have and attempt to derive exactly how much time the injectors are spending open vs. how much time they're spending closed, or how much time the O2 sensors are spending above CLB vs. below CLB, is just plain foolish.

Yes, exactly is foolish, but not trying to find an explanation for why these patterns are skewed. It is not foolish to ask why they are skewed if you want to understand what is going on.

In direct answer to your question, I've seen O2 traces which usually indicate a shorter and broader plateau above CLB, with a deeper and narrower valley below CLB at such times as the CLB is set toward the higher end.  When CLB is closer to the midpoint the traces are more symmetrical.  But all I ever take away from any of it is that they are indeed switching.

Thanks, that is what I see as well, so then it is a question of why the ECM is putting out data skewed. You are satisfied with seeing that they switch, I probably should be as well, but it would be interesting to know why.
(So far noone has answered this question ...)

Tossing coins is not a good analogy for tuning. I've spent my life in the controls, closed loop, digital sampling industry. Once you lose data, you cannot recover it from averaging. There is a reason that you must sample data much faster than than the data itself. A nice theorem to look up is the Nyquist  theorem. It explains the minimum sampling rate for analog signals

I agree in the context of tuning, or trying to reconstruct the analog signal, but noone is trying to do that, are they? I fail to understand what Nyquist has to do with it, unless you are trying to reconstruct the analog signal and playing it on your stereo equipment. There are lots of other theorems much more relevant in this context, taken from statistical sampling of discrete data, not from signal theory of analog signals. What this is about is finding and filtering representative data from an undersampled dataset. (Which is what the tuning software do.)
My question is just about a peculiarity in a simple test for randomness:
Why are the data skewed? As they are skewed, we can agree that we don't have a random sampling situation. That is what I am wondering about, what is the explanation for this nonrandom effect?

So basically aren't we all just using what we have and doing the best we can with it. Chasing perfect data without the correct "lab quality" equipment just isn't realistic. Not throwing stones at anyone, but the laws of physics have not been repealed,,,at least as far as I know.

Exactly, so let us make sure we are not repealing statistical laws as well...
Even if the CL operation is not a random process, I would have thought that one hour of driving around would be enough to have a quite good pseudorandom situation, sampling a random variable defined as over or under the clb-bias, from a dataset where we know that this random variable should have a nearly 50/50 distribution would indeed be a tossing coin model. If this model is wrong there are several possibilities:
-The sampling is not random, but what is this nonramdom effect?
-The ECM is more busy when sensors show lean than when they show rich? If so, why?
-The sampling intervals are for some reason just the right multiple of the period of the o2 voltage signal, that would explain it, but totaly unrealistic.

I am still puzzled in my, perhaps foolish, hunt for some knowledge of a phenomena, which might be totally uninteresting and totally nonusable for tuning, but still...

[whittlebeast]

Hpulven

I would love to have you on board with the stuff I am seeing on the Yamaha world.  The data is amazing and totally different than what has been assumed to be gospel for years.  Things like the MAP at a 20% TPS sweep may be 94 kpa and a 100% TPS sweep may be 96 kpa.  You would expect the acceleration based on this, to be about the same.  But with the 100% sweep, the bike is accelerating 60% harder.  Is there a TPS based timing table?  Who knows....  But the the lesson is, keep looking at the data, there is a wealth of info in them.  You just have to be willing to look at the data.

Beast 

[Sporty 48]

Looking  at a datalog reminds me of a scattergraph of coin tosses when the engine speed and manifold air pressure of a motorcycle ride are added to the mix. This is not about lost data it is about the data that we get. When a change is introduced to the system, say adjusting VE's, then the resulting change is reviewed in the data we get from the next datalog.
Very simple experimentation. Make a change, look at the results.
This is a simple infernal combustion engine. Gas and air in, fire, exhaust out, do it again.
Find ways to make it faster, better. Keep it simple.

Tossing coins is not a good analogy for tuning. I've spent my life in the controls, closed loop, digital sampling industry. Once you lose data, you cannot recover it from averaging. There is a reason that you must sample data much faster than than the data itself. A nice theorem to look up is the Nyquist  theorem. It explains the minimum sampling rate for analog signals. And while I'm the first to admit I don't know crap about tuning, this is just basic engineering. Andy's logic has no basis here (certainly not on a moving target). If you hold steady for sometime, then maybe.

[PC_Hater]

Looking  at a datalog reminds me of a scattergraph of coin tosses when the engine speed and manifold air pressure of a motorcycle ride are added to the mix. This is not about lost data it is about the data that we get. When a change is introduced to the system, say adjusting VE's, then the resulting change is reviewed in the data we get from the next datalog.
Very simple experimentation. Make a change, look at the results.
This is a simple infernal combustion engine. Gas and air in, fire, exhaust out, do it again.
Find ways to make it faster, better. Keep it simple.

Tossing coins is not a good analogy for tuning. I've spent my life in the controls, closed loop, digital sampling industry. Once you lose data, you cannot recover it from averaging. There is a reason that you must sample data much faster than than the data itself. A nice theorem to look up is the Nyquist  theorem. It explains the minimum sampling rate for analog signals. And while I'm the first to admit I don't know crap about tuning, this is just basic engineering. Andy's logic has no basis here (certainly not on a moving target). If you hold steady for sometime, then maybe.

BUT IT IS NOT SIMPLE!!!
YOU ARE WORKING WITH CENSORED DATA. THAT JUST MAKES TUNING EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.
the caps were deliberate. as in remember the basic engineering. well said Coyote, but there are ways around that, they just give non-PhDs a headache... And have a look at Bayesian Statistics while we are at it.
PC_Hater BSc MSc

[whittlebeast]

Sometimes it's just not that difficult to pick up on the pattern.

[glens]

Andy, answer the freakin' questions!  How is the AFF derived?  How is what is used to derive the AFF derived?  How is the VE it's working against derived?  What is the O2 integrator and how is it derived and used?

Unless and until you can give real answers to those questions, then using them for anything whatsoever is foolish.  Your time would be very much better served just riding the damn bike.  Do you ever even do that?

[whittlebeast]

Try asking Steve how the VE New was developed.

I have noticed that if you take

VE Front * (Front AFF/100) * (Front CLI/100) you get real close to VE New Front

In PowerVision you can turn on and off AFF and CLI

How would I know....  Try calling Delphi and see if they will give you the underlying math.  I just  try to make sense of the data as I comes out of the port.

Beast

[FLTRI]

Sometimes it's just not that difficult to pick up on the pattern.

Andy,
Please take a couple moments to point the good, bad, and the ugly on your graphs like Mayor does so we can follow along.
You know, for us idiots who can't seem to see the obvious
Thanks,
Bob

[glens]

Yes, exactly is foolish, but not trying to find an explanation for why these patterns are skewed. It is not foolish to ask why they are skewed if you want to understand what is going on.

What's to understand about it?  It's not a situation similar to a coin toss, where there can only be one of two results.  Whenever you see a plotted point above the CLB, you do not know whether it was captured on the way up, at the peak, or on the way down.  The resolution just isn't there.  If you were able to ask the ECM to show only the minimum and maximum voltages of the O2 sensor, nothing at all of the rises and falls, then and only then might you be able to liken it to a coin toss.  But I'd bet it still wouldn't approach a 50/50 result over time like the coin toss eventually would.

If you could sample the data rapidly enough, you wouldn't need to see the specific high and low points.  You could reconstruct them if they'd got omitted.  But like I said, you don't know which direction the voltage is travelling at any time you get a snapshot of it.  It's effectively way beyond random.

... it is a question of why the ECM is putting out data skewed. You are satisfied with seeing that they switch, I probably should be as well, but it would be interesting to know why.
(So far noone has answered this question ...)

I'm afraid that to get that answer you're probably going to have to get hold of either a Delphi or an H-D engineer.  Someone who's actually worked on the code and is willing to discuss it with you.  It could have been done deliberately if the EPA mandated designed-in anti-tampering measures.  It could just be the result of "we never intended such use of the data, so didn't spend the time working on providing it in any meaningful way".  The antiquated bus in use may be a large factor.

If this model [50/50 distribution during CL] is wrong there are several possibilities:
-The sampling is not random, but what is this nonramdom effect?
-The ECM is more busy when sensors show lean than when they show rich? If so, why?
-The sampling intervals are for some reason just the right multiple of the period of the o2 voltage signal, that would explain it, but totaly unrealistic.

Unlike you, I feel that last possibility there is indeed the most likely of the bunch.  You've got a non-fixed frequency being sampled at a non-fixed frequency.  Remember, sending run data out the bus is not the primary duty of the ECM.  It's a relatively simple device built for one high-priority purpose.

I am still puzzled in my, perhaps foolish, hunt for some knowledge of a phenomena, which might be totally uninteresting and totally nonusable for tuning, but still...

I don't feel it's foolish of you to seek the answer to your question.  I feel it's foolish to try to fine-tune the running characteristics not knowing everything the ECM knows.  And for whatever reason, it's obviously not going to share all that with you.

[whittlebeast]

FLTRI

In that plot, apparently the AFF or Adaptive Fuel Factor was turned on.  In that screen sho,t I had the colors set to auto scale so keep in mind that the color scheme is different on the two plots.  Notice that above about 2800 RPM both plots are giving a 100 for the AFF so apparently I was open loop above that RPM at the time.  The other colors indicate what the average AFF was at each throttle position.  So in the plot on the left below about 5% throttle and below about 2100 RPM the ECU was adding about 5% fuel thru most of that area.

In the rear cylinder it was adding about 2% and over a fairly narrow band of RPM near 2000 and mostly below 5% throttle.  The rear cylinder was getting really close on that bike.

Hope this helps

Beast

[glens]

Try asking Steve how the VE New was developed.

I'm not seeking the information for myself.  I want to see if you know what the stuff you're using really represents.  Obviously you don't.

Look back up in this thread at the pseudo-table I created.  If you've got a "VE" figure in one of your graphs that doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the applicable VE table, you'll know why.

I would like to know how DJ derives their "AFF Channel".  You said you'd ask them for me, like as you were on familiar terms with them.  Have you done this yet?  If not, why not; and why did you say you would in either case?

I have noticed that if you take

VE Front * (Front AFF/100) * (Front CLI/100) you get real close to VE New Front

How close?  Coin-toss close?  ( I couldn't resist )

In PowerVision you can turn on and off AFF and CLI

Without knowing what they are or what they do?

How would I know....  Try calling Delphi and see if they will give you the underlying math.  I just  try to make sense of the data as I comes out of the port.

Again, I'm not looking for the underlying math.  I'm looking to see if you even have a clue what the stuff is.

You can tell which values were used to derive the "VE" value you see at any point in a log.  They would be the four surrounding values in the table.  When you see a "VE New" in the log, you don't know if it's a result of four surrounding Adaptive Fuel Values or one from smack dab in the middle of a particular table cell.  You don't know where those cells are nor what they contain.  Just because a "VE New" value is declared at some point in the log does not mean that it would actually be suitable for use to replace any VE table value.

Your problems in your "Coin Toss Tuning Method" are so multi-faceted that if you could even get your noodle wrapped half way around them you'd cease dicking with this stuff like you are.

Changing VE values in the calibration based solely on what you've derived from data in the logs is more a waste of time than a dog chasing his tail.  Why don't you keep careful track of the changes you make over time and graph those?  I'd bet it'll plot a nearly perfect circle, given enough tosses of the coin.

[whittlebeast]

When you are driving thru the mountains and see a 5% grade, do you get out a digital level to point out at the location of the sign, the grade was 4.8% so you write the state to fix the sign or do you just accept that a hill is in your future?

Beast

[glens]

Andy, it really escapes me why you asked that of me.  The way I see it, you're the one with the level stopped at the sign.  I'm the one riding right up the hill like it's not even there.

For what it's worth, I have a very good idea of what you're actually trying to accomplish with your presence here, and believe me when I tell you this: it's backfiring on you.  You're firmly cementing the notions many have long held.  You could start to turn that around if you'd enter into some meaningful dialogue.

[Sporty 48]

Great humor and I think some of you know what you are talking about.
A lot of the confusion here comes from the points of view(s). I think there might be some government types used to dictating from on high. Some are enthusiasts, some engineer types, some are very technically minded. I get confused but am happy that the dialog is civil and engaging.
Good that we agree, at least, that the hill is up and tuning is good fun.

[Coyote]

Some interesting input here:

Tossing coins is not a good analogy for tuning. I've spent my life in the controls, closed loop, digital sampling industry. Once you lose data, you cannot recover it from averaging. There is a reason that you must sample data much faster than than the data itself. A nice theorem to look up is the Nyquist  theorem. It explains the minimum sampling rate for analog signals

I agree in the context of tuning, or trying to reconstruct the analog signal, but noone is trying to do that, are they? I fail to understand what Nyquist has to do with it, unless you are trying to reconstruct the analog signal and playing it on your stereo equipment. There are lots of other theorems much more relevant in this context, taken from statistical sampling of discrete data, not from signal theory of analog signals. What this is about is finding and filtering representative data from an undersampled dataset. (Which is what the tuning software do.)
My question is just about a peculiarity in a simple test for randomness:
Why are the data skewed? As they are skewed, we can agree that we don't have a random sampling situation. That is what I am wondering about, what is the explanation for this nonrandom effect?

I think that you do not understand closed loop systems. The closed loop fuel injection system, like all others, consists of an item to control (in this case fuel) a feed back sampling method (in this case O2 sensors), a low pass filter (in this case the filter is done digitally but that doesn't matter), a comparison with a reference (in this case a fuel target table, That comparison creates an error value). For a closed loop system to operate properly, the error value response time (set by the low pass filter) must be fast enough to meet the system requirements for error correction. The sampling rate for the feedback signal must be considerably faster than that to allow the sampling frequency to be removed (by the low pass filter). If it is not substantially removed, it will case artifacts in the feedback signal. This is why Nyquist applies. This is also why you can't just loose the data. Just as the closed loop won't respond correctly, your calculated measurements won't be correct either.

[hpulven]

I think that you do not understand closed loop systems.

You are assuming wrong, but let that be as it is.
I am assuming nothing about you from what you write about Nykvist, but it is in fact not relevant to the question I asked about the feedback from the O2 sensors.
I was told the ECM reads a discrete, single measurement every time the gases are escaping from the cylinder, and will be happy and satisfied with that. What the sensor voltage is between those discrete, time-separated measurements is of no interest to neither the ECM, you or me, so Nykvist is of no interest either, as noone is interested in reconstructing the complete analogue signal from the sensors between those separated measurements in time. (Other sensorsignals are a different matter.)

I think Glens made the final conclusion to my question:

I'm afraid that to get that answer you're probably going to have to get hold of either a Delphi or an H-D engineer.  Someone who's actually worked on the code and is willing to discuss it with you.

Fair enough, I will have to live with that. (My bet is on the sensors being more busy at certain stages in the feedback cycles, but it is only my hypothesis until som more info comes along.)

On the toin-coss discussion, I have to point out that we could indeed make a stochastic model with a binomial 50/50 distribution as the population we are sampling from.
A random sample would by the laws of statistics give the average (clb bias), but we agree that it does not, so the sample is not random and that is why I asked the question. (Why is there a systematic skew?) It does not, however, change the fact that we can look at it as a sampling from a binomial distribution.

(To be taken seriously I suppose I have to say something about myself:
I am not an expert on tuning, but my knowledge of mathematics, statistics and feedback control systems is quite extensive, believe it or not. It should be unneccessary to say things like this, we should be able to ask questions, answer questions when we can and discuss these things without making suggestions of other participants' eventual lack of knowledge, we all stand or fall by our logic and arguments, so let us consentrate on that.)

[yositime]

(Why is there a systematic skew?) It does not, however, change the fact that we can look at it as a sampling from a binomial distribution.

Sorry I'm a little thick here, not much of a theoretical mathematician, but why do you think there is a skew? Could the samples we have access to just look skewed or that the sampling technique is coloring the observations?
If we see all the samples, would the story would be much different, how can we tell?

[Sporty 48]

And to think this started over a question if the addition of a wide band sensor to a narrow band tuning device would enable the tuner to increase power or make the power smoother. Did anyone ever answer that question???
We are getting a little warm sunshine today, more snow is melting, not too much water in the roads.
Going to fire up the trusty Sportster and go do some throttle twisting on the roads, no NyQuil theorems or skewed ECU data readings, no closed loop dilemma, just a little fun.

[hpulven]

Sorry I'm a little thick here, not much of a theoretical mathematician, but why do you think there is a skew? Could the samples we have access to just look skewed or that the sampling technique is coloring the observations?
If we see all the samples, would the story would be much different, how can we tell?

You are right, and we are in agreement. There is a skew because it looks like a skew and the reason is as you say that the sampling technique is coloring the observations. The sampling is done by the ECM by what it decides to put on the bus. If we could see all the samples we would see what was really going on. I was only wondering if anyone could explain the system behind what the ECM is reporting and what it is not reporting. Thank you for asking, I probably should have put it like this earlier on, English is not my first language, so it doesn't always come out the way I want it to.
(It is a pity though, as we are not able to check the health of the O2 sensors by seing the regular, nearly symmetrical switching every second like when I log the sensors in my car.)

[Steve Cole]

The Data Bus was never setup for doing what we are doing with it. So with that in mind the simple truth is that you cannot take what is coming out in a PV log as anything close to what is really happening. I points this out to Andy with one of his own personal captures from his own bike. He was supposed to get answers to the questions that Glens posted but he has never done so or if he has he never posted those answers. With out those answers we are all just guessing at what they are doing with the raw data to get the results they areputting into the log. Going from memory I believe the data was off by about 12:1 ratio and finding which data goes with what is one issue that no one has answered. We are all assuming and at this point and that is not going to help get to the bottom of it.

[whittlebeast]

He was supposed to get answers to the questions that Glens posted but he has never done so or if he has he never posted those answers.

Feel free to post the answer. 

[glens]

Andy, this ain't a personal attack, it's just a question.  Are you really that dense?  You are the first "he" in that sentence.  I guess maybe either you or I could be taken as any of the later "he"s in it.

Let me boil this down for you:

You made like you were peas in a pod with the DJ guys.

I asked you to ask them how they're deriving their "AFF Channel".

You said you would.

We're still waiting.

Once you post that information you'll have come through with your end of it, and I won't need to post anything because you already will have done so.

[Steve Cole]

He was supposed to get answers to the questions that Glens posted but he has never done so or if he has he never posted those answers.

Feel free to post the answer.

I already did that before but also stated I had to assume what they were doing. It perfectly clear that what they are doing is incorrect from your logs. To try and get to the bottom of it you really need to know, with out assuming. Your response was that you would get the information and post the answers as to how they were getting data that is not there and how to sort the PVrecords so you could get down to the real data. Then for Glen you also said you would get the answers to his questions. You take the PV data and make assumtions to make your plots look like you think they should, this is why you have to use forumla to change the data. So you start with fake, bad or corrupt data and try to filter it you still end up with fake, bad or corrupt data. All you need to do is get the answers you said you could get. Then everyone can make use of it.

[whittlebeast]

So do we need to assume every piece of data out the port is fake date from PW to timing... You name it.  It is all fake and BS?

Beast

[Steve Cole]

Never said that at all, how you coming on those answers?

[whittlebeast]

This is looking more and more like the only way that the only can tune one of these bikes with data you can believe is using a PowerVision to log the RPM, MAP and TPS off the data port and then use the wideband option to log the AFR.  Cool Steve for straightening all of this out for us.

Beast

[14Frisco]

Good day! Axe-handles.

[Tsani]

This is looking mere and more like the only way that the only can tune one of these bikes with data you can believe is using a PowerVision to log the RPM, MAP and TPS off the data port and then use the wideband option to log the AFR.  Cool Steve for straightening all of this out for us.

Beast

No Andy, it just simply looks like only you can tune one of those bikes with data you believe in using PowerVision. Don't know what the problem is, I have several sporty's here in the garage tuned with TTS and doing just fine.  If you have a method that helps DIY's, then back it up Andy. That seems like something you don't care to do. Your like that Govenor in The Best Little Whore House IN Texas who just keeps doing his side dances.  IMHO, it seems to me that your "method" is simply a glorified scattergraph version of Colortune using a lot of hit or miss guesstamates of 3% changes while pushing the PV as your proof that it all works. That you have a axe to grind with Steve is clear. This just isn't the place for it. And if I were the Folks at PV, I would ask ya to back off on pushing the product. Your lousy at selling it. Ain't no way I would consider it now. Any good salesman would be willing to prove the product works. And BTW Andy, I ride above 2500 RPM and use more than 15% Throttle, at least two hours a day even. Yeah, Like I said, I read. Even at the XLForum, which I have been poking around at before you got here. And no, I won't send you my data logs.  Now I know I ain't no brainiac, nor a well known and proven tuner, nor do I claim to be. But I will say that your posts have caused me to look at tuning in a different way say so to speak. But the more you spout, without proof, the more it looks like I made the right choice. I started reading your posts back in 2005, and peeked in here and there. Seems to me you been chased out of a few forums for the same crap you are pulling here. Looks like it's time to "Potty mouth" or git off da pot my man.

[glens]

Well, Andy, at least it seems you're trying to actively enter into some actual dialogue.  Too bad the only place it makes any sense is in the Andy world...

Let's look at what's currently going on here.  You use data taken from a device that oversamples an undersampled data set.  The device replicates all last-known values at the oversampled rate until such time as a new value is obtained, then resumes the process.  The various data therefore often doesn't correspond with the other data currently being replicated since not all of the items get updated at the same time.  You then take this faux data stream and mathematically manipulate it until it looks better to you, and "tune" (and "retune" and "retune" and "retune") engine systems with it.

This device also derives various data with no explanation, which it also replicates the way it does the real data, and which you also use in your manipulation.

You are repeatedly advised that the information itself, even if/when properly gathered and collated, still isn't very suitable for doing what you're trying to do with it.

You "participate" in several forums, constantly requesting folks send you datalogs from this system and from the TTS system, the longer the better, like as if you'll be able to plot some Rorshasch images with the information and discover secrets or something therein.

You come here trying to bait folks with intimate knowledge of the Delphi system into divulging some hidden secret you imagine must be there, and want to know, which you think they might know, only so you can use it against them in an attempt to prove them either liars or idiots.  Does that fairly sum it up?

I believe you have had to by now gotten the common notion regarding you firmly cemented into place, Andy.  Congratulations!

On a personal note, I've about reached the limit of what I can do to try to actually communicate with you.  It brings to mind the definition of some state/activity being "doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome".

Good luck.

[glens]

Andy ... git off da pot...

You know, you might just be on to something there!  That would explain a lot. 

[Jeffd]

You "participate" in several forums, constantly requesting folks send you datalogs from this system and from the TTS system, the longer the better, like as if you'll be able to plot some Rorshasch images with the information and discover secrets or something therein.

You come here trying to bait folks with intimate knowledge of the Delphi system into divulging some hidden secret you imagine must be there, and want to know, which you think they might know, only so you can use it against them in an attempt to prove them either liars or idiots.  Does that fairly sum it up?

bingo

[glens]

This is looking mere and more like the only way that the only can tune one of these bikes with data you can believe is using a PowerVision to log the RPM, MAP and TPS off the data port and then use the wideband option to log the AFR.

One more attempt, I guess.

Andy, you can save a lot of money in the long run by getting a TwinScanII+ kit.  With it you can log all the data, in conjunction with a set of broadband sensors, without lugging a laptop along, and later go back to your desk and use the included software to generate valid VE and spark tables.  And you can so generate calibrations for any number of bikes with it, without incurring further cost for the kit beyond the initial acquisition.  Naturally, it'll require some type of other device with which to write the calibration to each ECM, there's no getting around that.

This option has been available for at least 4 years that I'm aware of.

The only really new things brought to the table by the PowerVision so far is the combination of touch screen and faux data acquisition.

[wurk_truk]

 

+1 on the Twin Scan Plus Kit.

[Steve Cole]

This is looking more and more like the only way that the only can tune one of these bikes with data you can believe is using a PowerVision to log the RPM, MAP and TPS off the data port and then use the wideband option to log the AFR.  Cool Steve for straightening all of this out for us.

Beast

This is looking more and more like the only way that anyone can get an answer to a question from you is to not ask one. You stated that you were working with DynoJet Engineers and that you would get answer to some very basic questions that have been asked, why now is it that after several weeks you are still dodging what you already said you would do? For the record the PV is not a pile it just has some issues that are causing it to put out wrong data.

How you can take that to its the only way to tune is beyond me. You want to take data that is wrong, massage it until you think it looks good and then say it good data. Sorry but that just does not work and anyone who understands basic data acquisition knows better.

There are lots of ways to properly tune but what your doing just isn't one of them.

[Sporty 48]

So a wide band sensor is useful at full throttle, high rpm runs.
But the response time is slower than the narrow bands.
How does the wide band sensor assist tuning during those WFO runs?

[glens]

It assists you by indicating the direction and how far away you are from a stoichiometric combustion.  You compare this with what's in your fuel table and adjust the VEs to obtain out the pipe what the fuel table is trying for.

You must be aware that the fuel table uses manifold pressure instead of throttle position.  You can get all the same as "WFO" at a smaller throttle opening than you might think, and it varies with gear and RPM.  So you might need one value in, say, 2500RPM/50% throttle while closed-loop there, but another value while "WOT" open-loop there in a different gear; you'd have to decide which is the most appropriate to use.  It's certainly not all as cut-and-dried as Andy makes it out to be.

Don't forget that the stock sensor might well read different from a broadband sensor in any given situation where they'd overlap, and you want to go with what the bike's sensor has to say when using closed-loop or it won't work as well as you might expect when just putting faith in the broadband sensor.

You've got a TTS, right?  And you've got a copy of the tune Bean did, right?  Why don't you just put in the most applicable base calibration and run a few vtunes on it, to see what you get that way?  You might just like it fine, and if you don't, put Bean's work back into service and leave it alone.  You're not going to get any better than that by yourself at the level of understanding you presently seem to have, unless it's pure blind luck.  But then again, some people make a lot of money pitching pennies or otherwise tossing coins. 

[whittlebeast]

So a wide band sensor is useful at full throttle, high rpm runs.
But the response time is slower than the narrow bands.
How does the wide band sensor assist tuning during those WFO runs?

The delay is in the area of .5 sec and that is when there is a sudden change in exhaust flow like a throttle stab.

Beast

[FLTRI]

So a wide band sensor is useful at full throttle, high rpm runs.
But the response time is slower than the narrow bands.
How does the wide band sensor assist tuning during those WFO runs?

An experienced tuner knows how much delay from combustion to plotting the graph and uses that time offset to determine adjustment points in the fuel maps.

Depending on sample tube length to the measuring O2 sensor(s), and quality of equipment, the delay can be as short as .2 sec to a second or more.

HTH,
Bob

[Sporty 48]

Why thank you Glens, although I do believe you give me more credit than is deserved.
Does that make you feel somewhat superior? I do hope it makes you feel better about yourself, improves your self esteem.

Sportster TTS fuel tables have TPS not MAP, a update that has not quite migrated to the Sportster tunes.
Bean's multi gas unit seemed to take a few seconds to equilibrate to a steady reading, when he reached the desired rpm, with long tubes from the sample port to his analyzer.
The application of an installed wideband sensor on a road machine requires delays, ok.
So why is the data so suspect from a source other than the V-tune?
What is going on here does not pass the smell test, much worse than a shift of whit.

You're not going to get any better than that by yourself at the level of understanding you presently seem to have, unless it's pure blind luck.  But then again, some people make a lot of money pitching pennies or otherwise tossing coins. 

[Blackcherry Low]

Why thank you Glens, although I do believe you give me more credit than is deserved.
Does that make you feel somewhat superior? I do hope it makes you feel better about yourself, improves your self esteem.

Sportster TTS fuel tables have TPS not MAP, a update that has not quite migrated to the Sportster tunes.
Bean's multi gas unit seemed to take a few seconds to equilibrate to a steady reading, when he reached the desired rpm, with long tubes from the sample port to his analyzer.
The application of an installed wideband sensor on a road machine requires delays, ok.
So why is the data so suspect from a source other than the V-tune?
What is going on here does not pass the smell test, much worse than a shift of whit.

You're not going to get any better than that by yourself at the level of understanding you presently seem to have, unless it's pure blind luck.  But then again, some people make a lot of money pitching pennies or otherwise tossing coins. 

Not quite sure what you're talking about there, but you might want to take another look at the AFR table.

[glens]

"Sporty", I don't really know what level of understanding or experience you really have, that's why I said what I said the way I said it.  You could, after all, be the inventor of motorcycles, dynos, and EFI and you're just here incognito stirring up crap.  Who can say in such a venue as this?

Sorry to say, but it didn't nor doesn't make me feel any better (or worse) about myself.  I'm just trying to give you some advice which I feel is sound.  You can do it or not, I don't care; either way you're certain to get your money's worth out of it.

Sportster TTS fuel tables have TPS not MAP, a update that has not quite migrated to the Sportster tunes.

I don't know which ones you have on hand.  All ten of the base .mt7 files I have for the sportsters use MAP vs. RPM for the fuel tables.  I just checked each and every one.

Bean's multi gas unit seemed to take a few seconds to equilibrate to a steady reading, when he reached the desired rpm, with long tubes from the sample port to his analyzer.

That's because of the way the gas is sampled with that equipment.  Obviously it wouldn't be any good for feedback in an operating closed-loop system such as ours.  Way too much latency.

The application of an installed wideband sensor on a road machine requires delays, ok.

I don't think anybody would be so esoteric as to install a true wideband sensor on a road machine for any other purpose than what would be the equivalent of "in the lab".  As I understand it, you could only buy a few of them for the cost of a brand new sportster, and I don't know if that's just the replacement sensors themselves or the equipment with which they interface.  Likely just the sensors.

The delay I believe you're envisioning, much the same as for Bean's setup, would only pertain if you were fetching exhaust from the system through a tube of some length.  If you had a narrowband or broadband sensor installed on the bike under normal use, there would not be such delay.  There would be no delay for the narrowband and very minimal delay for the broadband while it zeros in on the reference O2 "pressure" it needs to "pump" to/from the backside of its internal narrowband element.  The broadband sensor/controller combination may even be suitable, speed-wise, for most of what our ECM does with its narrowband under normal use.  There's a measurable delay, but it's nothing like what I think you're thinking.  Of course, that all depends on how the sensor is set up to get its sample.  Sometimes the sample takes time to get there when the sensor is not mounted right into the exhaust pipe.

So why is the data so suspect from a source other than the V-tune?

The data used in the vtune process is about the best you can get off the data bus and it's used in about the best way it can be used.  That's the difference.  TTS has used real data acquisition equipment to develop the system.  It works as advertised.

What is going on here does not pass the smell test, much worse than a shift of whit.

I agree, but I think you're thinking about the reverse direction from what I'm thinking.

See how easy that is to follow the quote/response?

[Sporty 48]

Blachcherry, Glens,
You are correct about the AFR tables having MAP, it is the VE tables that have Throttle Position on the Sportster mt7's.
I have spent so much time thinking VE's that I confused it with the Air Fuel Ratio table.

Glens,
Yes the quote/response format looks good and is easy to follow.

Vtune
I do not understand Vtune. Anything I do not understand and is difficult to work with tends to be unused.
It was easier for me to start out with a respectable dyno tune then data log and examine data with the MLV-HD and do minor (3%) VE adjustments on lean spots. That result has been very satisfactory.
Before going any further I decided to learn more about tuning, read a couple of books, and wade in here.
Other sites do not have the level of scrutiny found at HTT.
Yes, I need to go back and review basic tuning principles and build vocabulary to keep up with you big dogs..

Andy,
Yes, Andy is what he is. He helps others. He is enthusiastic about tuning and he is constantly trying new ideas. Not a bad dude at all, good to have around. Also Andy talked me into TTS over Power Vision not quite a year ago. Please do not hold it against him

Last night a short ugly long haired FatBoy challenged my tune, told him I was all show and no go.
Gonna ride with that Fatboy today, let him smell my rich open loop tune.

[glens]

I do not understand Vtune. Anything I do not understand and is difficult to work with tends to be unused.
It was easier for me to start out with a respectable dyno tune then data log and examine data with the MLV-HD and do minor (3%) VE adjustments on lean spots. That result has been very satisfactory.

Vtune is very much easier to understand and work with than what you're doing.  Really.  All you have to do is follow the directions and ride with smooth, deliberate throttle changes for a few good rides.  Try it.

I think it's a bit weird that you'd gotten a fairly comprehensive tune using the multi-gas method and you then find "lean holes" using the datalogs and a log viewer.  Either the tune wasn't so good or the subsequent method ain't so good.  I'd opt for the latter.

Try a few vtune iterations, please.  It won't cost you anything but a couple hours or so and I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised.

You just have to make sure that you don't have any leaks in the intake or exhaust systems, and that your O2 sensors are getting good samples.  But then again, this is stuff that needs to be done first before you use any method.

[wurk_truk]

Sporty 48

I would be more than happy to help you along with V-Tuning.  I'm sure I could get Mayor to help, too.

Learning without sarcasm is quite fun and I think you would enjoy this.   One thing, though...  I really don't see you having any more power than Bean's Tune, but I DO see that we could possibly get closed loop to work for you.

Either way... don't let this crap get the best of ya, and go put a can of whup ass on that Fatboy for me, OK?

[Blackcherry Low]

Blachcherry, Glens,
You are correct about the AFR tables having MAP, it is the VE tables that have Throttle Position on the Sportster mt7's.
I have spent so much time thinking VE's that I confused it with the Air Fuel Ratio table.

Curious as to why you would adjust the VE to fix a lean spot instead of the AFR.  Did Bean map out and cal the VEs when he did your tune?  And believe me, I'm not trying to tell you how to tune, I've never even done any myself, just some data logging, studying and spending time here.

[glens]

Bean doesn't just calibrate the VEs to generate the AFR values listed in that table.  He juggles them both to get better overall coverage.  The only real downside is that the result is definitely not closed-loop-able.  And by just looking at the calibration when he's done, I'm sure it would make less sense than the results actually produced.  It's my opinion that such measures should only be necessary in corner cases where closed-loop cannot be made to work reliably for whatever reason.

[Blackcherry Low]

So when you V-Tune, it should be fine just to go out and ride the bike the way that you normally do right?  And then be sure to ride the same way on subsequent V-Tune rides?

I did some V-tune rides last summer and rode in every gear and stepped RPMs up every 8-10 secs to try and fill as much of the map as I could, like if it was on a dyno.  But after thinking about it a little, it seems like I could be wasting a lot of time on that type of V-tuning.

[wurk_truk]

Bean does NOT do closed loop.  He tells every customer that he does OPEN loop only.

Here is what he does...  once he sets his Cubic Inches, he starts to tune...  if he finds anywhere where the VEs get maxed out, instead of starting over and changing the CI table, he just moves the AFR table to get more headroom.   And by that...  his VEs aren't maxxed out anymore.  Bean tunes to an end result of 'what is coming out of the pipe" and does NOT tune to make the ECM "Happy" as his tunes will NEVER be closed loopable.

There simply ARE folks that do NOT wish to have closed loop.  This is an ever present argument on here.  Why one cannot see that some prefer one operating method over another and just leave it alone is beyond me.  Glens and Steve should leave it alone now that they ran off all of the opposing viewpoints.

For Sporty 48...  he is mistaken in listening to Andy and adjusting a Bean tune... it TRULY is NOT adjustable.  Starting fresh out of the box with a TTS base tune, he would NOT have these issues.  But.........  how does sarcasm and belittling someone makes them want to tune the 'right' way with TTS?  How does 'finding' and posting an obvious mistake to discredit another member help Sporty 48 feel comfortable with an offer to help?  Glens... you actually are way worse at arguing YOUR POV that BVBob and Stroker ever were and we KNOW what happened to them.   Lighten up, dammit.

Right this second...  I am hooking up my mirror mount LCD screen, have the laptop in the back, especially rewired my new 120r to AFR O2 sensors in the pipe and I AM going to run some v-tunes on my map.  See how it works with a 120.

[wurk_truk]

So when you V-Tune, it should be fine just to go out and ride the bike the way that you normally do right?  And then be sure to ride the same way on subsequent V-Tune rides?

I did some V-tune rides last summer and rode in every gear and stepped RPMs up every 8-10 secs to try and fill as much of the map as I could, like if it was on a dyno.  But after thinking about it a little, it seems like I could be wasting a lot of time on that type of V-tuning.

That is NOT correct at all.  One needs to ride in a manner that hits all of the cells.  Let's allow Glens to fill in the how to do that.

[Blackcherry Low]

That is NOT correct at all.  One needs to ride in a manner that hits all of the cells.  Let's allow Glens to fill in the how to do that.

Thanks truk, so I guess I'll continue then the way that I was previously doing the V-Tuning.

[FLTRI]

That is NOT correct at all.  One needs to ride in a manner that hits all of the cells.  Let's allow Glens to fill in the how to do that.

Thanks truk, so I guess I'll continue then the way that I was previously doing the V-Tuning.

Seems the absolute best way to a successful homebrew vtune in a timely manner (no guesswork) is to have a remote monitor to efficiently populate and spend enough time in each cell to furnish the system with enough data to tune in properly.
HTH,
Bob

[yositime]

Seems the absolute best way to a successful homebrew vtune in a timely manner (no guesswork) is to have a remote monitor to efficiently populate and spend enough time in each cell to furnish the system with enough data to tune in properly.
HTH,
Bob

Dunno about best way, but a remote monitor (or a tablet PC mounted in a viewable spot) sure shows you the amount of time you waste getting data on a cell that you already have enough data on...  and provides feedback on what gear/rpm/throttle adjustments you need to make to gather data for empty cells. Just don't be running into a tree or on coming traffic .

I think lambda bikes are easier, my neighbor fills most of his cells just driving blind.

[whittlebeast]

I think lambda bikes are easier, my neighbor fills most of his cells just driving blind.

Yep, that is why I almost always do the pc5 installs speed density.  Way easier to see the trends.

This is the same bike presented in alpha-n and speed density.  I actually make a few final tweaks on the alpha-n map after the majority of the work is done on the MAP based table.  They dial right in.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/pc5wb/AN_vs_SD.bmp

Beast

[FLTRI]

Andy,
Again, would you be kind enough to show me/us by circling the areas of interest and how you apply tuning techniques to the areas.

Sorry for asking again but, for whatever reason, you seem hesitant to explain the statements you make assuming? everyone here you show scatter graphs to understand and readily see what you reference as good, bad, indifferent AFR.

Looking forward to an answer so I/we can learn, or at least get on the same page as you with these scatter graphs you keep displaying.
Bob

[wurk_truk]

Low

Just today I tried v-tuning withOUT the monitor.  There IS a knack to it.  Mayor has a thread on how to ride.   You want to just about lug it to almost an extreme.  Also, a VERY steady hand is needed.  What happens, and if you played back a histogram of a vtune session...  to much throttle puts you over the KPA limit to collect data.

Start out, with this very steady hand and ride like normal.  Come back and view histogram.  Then its easier to grasp whats going on.  One wants to vary the throttle AND the load to hit all the cells.

You CAN get it is you replay the histograms.

That being said...  I'm working to get my monitor up and running....  makes tuning so much easier.  Cost was $100 and a bit of ingenuity.

Hilly terrain will make this job so much easier.  Today I was on basically flat trying to narrow down a 120r tune....  talk about excessive speeds coming on VERY quickly.

Also, you really jumped into the wrong thread with your VALID questions....  This is the ANGRY thread and you aren't being best served here.   Read some of the topics in Mayor's "Sticky"  http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,38632.0.html.  Then when you have more questions... start a NEW thread and ask away.

All of us are letting Andy and Glens get the better of us on this thread.  Glens, Mayor, or Bob would be more than happy to answer questions, I am SURE, in a different thread, Low.  If no one else will help you, If you would accept help from a dumbass, ....  I would be pleased to help.

Just seems all of us NEED an angry thread at all times, with the open/closed loop arguments gone, aren't we all just inventing more arguments?  For the sake of arguing?

[Blackcherry Low]

Low

Just today I tried v-tuning withOUT the monitor.  There IS a knack to it.  Mayor has a thread on how to ride.   You want to just about lug it to almost an extreme.  Also, a VERY steady hand is needed.  What happens, and if you played back a histogram of a vtune session...  to much throttle puts you over the KPA limit to collect data.

Start out, with this very steady hand and ride like normal.  Come back and view histogram.  Then its easier to grasp whats going on.  One wants to vary the throttle AND the load to hit all the cells.

You CAN get it is you replay the histograms.

That being said...  I'm working to get my monitor up and running....  makes tuning so much easier.  Cost was $100 and a bit of ingenuity.

Hilly terrain will make this job so much easier.  Today I was on basically flat trying to narrow down a 120r tune....  talk about excessive speeds coming on VERY quickly.

Truk, I just reviewed the last four V-Tune runs that I did and looked at the histogram.  They actually filled in quite well, so I guess I'll press on and see what I come up with.  Probably won't be able to get my hands on a display like some of you guys are using for a while.

[whittlebeast]

Andy,
Again, would you be kind enough to show me/us by circling the areas of interest and how you apply tuning techniques to the areas.

Sorry for asking again but, for whatever reason, you seem hesitant to explain the statements you make assuming? everyone here you show scatter graphs to understand and readily see what you reference as good, bad, indifferent AFR.

Looking forward to an answer so I/we can learn, or at least get on the same page as you with these scatter graphs you keep displaying.
Bob

On the right plot you are seeing the MAP vs RPM plot, just like the Lambda tuned bikes, but instead of looking at the VE in the field, you are seeing the AFR that you are hitting.  You can clearly see in the middle of that plot that I am getting about 14.2 AFR thru almost everywhere from about 55 kpa thru 75 kpa,  and between about 3200 and 5200.  This is where the vast majority of my low power riding is done.  As I roll into the higher MAP sections of the map, you can see that I drop to blues and greens indicating mid to low 13 AFR.  There is a pattern of a few red dots that I would keep an eye on here or there but no strong pattern that would be a a serious concern.

On occasion, you will see a fairly fuzzy pattern on the Speed density map on the right that shows up as a very defined area on the alpha-n map and is easier to get to on that map.  This example does not have that issue.

The Harley codes force you to have to only use one of the two tuning methods depending on the code.

Beast

[wurk_truk]

Low, GOOD JOB!!!   The thing to remember is when dialing in a tune using v-tune is each run piles all together into one tune.  If you end up with a 'problem' spot, it is no big deal to make a run just trying to get that hard to get spot or two.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

[Sporty 48]

Wurk Truk,
I have no problem with anyone on this site. Here to learn and no way will my ego interfere with learning tuning or whatever.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. More than one way to tune. I think some here forget that.

As far as this bike's tune goes, it is very, very good. I followed Beans advise and believe he is a very good tuner. I changed the air filter post tune and filled in what I found to be lean holes with TTS's, Whittlebeast's and MLV HD's help. The tune is not quite finished but I ran out of warm weather.

Glens,
I do look forward to doing a closed loop tune and Vtuning. It just got cold, trashed my computer and decided to learn from the best available. As far as my tune goes it was done the easiest way by my thinking.

The ride today was quiet, no other bikers showed at the meeting spot. It was too cold for them.

[FLTRI]

On the right plot you are seeing the MAP vs RPM plot, just like the Lambda tuned bikes, but instead of looking at the VE in the field, you are seeing the AFR that you are hitting.  You can clearly see in the middle of that plot that I am getting about 14.2 AFR thru almost everywhere from about 55 kpa thru 75 kpa,  and between about 3200 and 5200.  This is where the vast majority of my low power riding is done.  As I roll into the higher MAP sections of the map, you can see that I drop to blues and greens indicating mid to low 13 AFR.  There is a pattern of a few red dots that I would keep an eye on here or there but no strong pattern that would be a a serious concern.

OK, that's very clear. Now take me through the steps/procedure from seeing the scatter graph to your proposed changes to fueling maps.
As I have stated for a long time Andy, I'm really looking for the time saving aspect of these scatter graphs...as you have indicated.

The Harley codes force you to have to only use one of the two tuning methods depending on the code.

Not a problem from our perspective and I believe a couple other tuners made the same statement. We simply don't have the tuning issues with Sportsters as you seem to have. We've tuned at least 50 of the rubber mounts with only 1 bike that we had to leave in open loop due to the "zoomie" exhaust pipes (no baffles) so EGR was terrible.

All tuning bets are off if proper O2 sensor operation has not been verified. We pay close attention in making sure the O2 sensors work properly before attempting to run/tune in closed loop.

Bob

[glens]

Bean does NOT do closed loop.  He tells every customer that he does OPEN loop only.  ... Bean tunes to an end result of 'what is coming out of the pipe" and does NOT tune to make the ECM "Happy" as his tunes will NEVER be closed loopable.

So you've said a few times already.  We all believe you and nobody has even hinted that they disagree or that they think that's wrong to do at times.  Some of us have said that it's a shame to go that route if it's not necessary, since a "happy" ECM is always trustworthy, a joy to use, and it just disappears into the background better as a person roams around the country on their bike.

There simply ARE folks that do NOT wish to have closed loop.  This is an ever present argument on here.  Why one cannot see that some prefer one operating method over another and just leave it alone is beyond me.  Glens and Steve should leave it alone now that they ran off all of the opposing viewpoints.

If I had a part in running anybody off, it would have to have been because they'd rather run off than adequately explain why they take that stance in this day and age.  There are some folks who wish to use a carb over EFI of any type, too.  In my opinion it's largely because they learned something (maybe had a tough time doing it?) and don't have any wish to modernize further.

For Sporty 48...  he is mistaken in listening to Andy and adjusting a Bean tune... it TRULY is NOT adjustable.

Agreed.

Starting fresh out of the box with a TTS base tune, he would NOT have these issues.  But.........  how does sarcasm and belittling someone makes them want to tune the 'right' way with TTS?  How does 'finding' and posting an obvious mistake to discredit another member help Sporty 48 feel comfortable with an offer to help?  Glens... you actually are way worse at arguing YOUR POV that BVBob and Stroker ever were and we KNOW what happened to them.   Lighten up, dammit.

I suppose in some sense I've been sarcastic of Andy and his methods, both of "tuning" and more so his "participation" here.  Over time it's just kind of devolved into a situation where I guess I feel it's necessary.  I'd rather he just man up and back his play than have to resort to addressing him that way.

I don't follow the bit about wanting someone I've been sarcastic to, or that I've belittled, to tune the "right" way with TTS.

That "obvious mistake" was merely a recent example, it's by no means the first, and there was no obvious anything about it.  Such examples have been more common than you evidently know.

I'm not arguing my POV in this thread, am I?  My participation has primarily been comprised of trying to get Andy to follow up and follow through.  And like I said in an earlier post, I don't recall ever seeing BVBob or Stroker argue their points of view.  What I recall is them throwing their opinions out with no discussion, and often throwing them out with barbs.

Also, you [Low] really jumped into the wrong thread with your VALID questions....  This is the ANGRY thread and you aren't being best served here.

If you're referring to any of my participation, I really don't recall posting anything in anger.  About the worst I can remember is maybe replying in kind at times to posts directed toward me.

All of us are letting Andy and Glens get the better of us on this thread.

Could you elaborate on that a little for me?

Just seems all of us NEED an angry thread at all times, with the open/closed loop arguments gone, aren't we all just inventing more arguments?  For the sake of arguing?

Again, I don't see this as an "angry" thread, though I agree with your observation that at times they do seem to be necessary.  Usually it's in the dead of winter when most of us have got a touch of the cabin fever.  Though at any time I'd really like to hear some valid argument for using open-loop nowadays...  It's just not that difficult to accommodate the "happiness" of the ECM.

As to the best method of deriving a vtune, I believe I said pretty much all that needs saying a bit earlier in the thread.  Just avoid as much as possible any sudden throttle transitions.  There's really no need to excessively lug the engine anywhere.  If you have a hard time actually hitting an area just for the sake of doing it, one which you would never (or so very rarely) hit while riding normally, why waste the time on it?  If you can, I guess, then great; you'll have a more complete tune in the end, but if the tune is for you the way you use your bike, I'd say don't waste too much time doing things you wouldn't do otherwise.

Now having had the pleasure of finally getting a bike which takes "lambda" calibrations, I have to say that they're actually harder to do without a monitor.  With the "AFR" calibrations, you can just get into gear early and almost imperceptibly accelerate through the gears, getting very complete coverage.  Just going by "feel" it's easier to hold steady throttle position than it is to hold steady MAP.

[Blackcherry Low]

Low, GOOD JOB!!!   The thing to remember is when dialing in a tune using v-tune is each run piles all together into one tune.  If you end up with a 'problem' spot, it is no big deal to make a run just trying to get that hard to get spot or two.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

Yep, I'll keep you posted, only problem is we won't be doing anymore riding around here again until next spring.  Bummer   But thanks for the advice.

[Sporty 48]

For Sporty 48...  he is mistaken in listening to Andy and adjusting a Bean tune... it TRULY is NOT adjustable.

Agreed.

Ahhhhhhh, you guys are going to drive me sane.
Of course the tune is adjustable.
Any changes to a open loop bike requires tune adjustments.

[glens]

What changes did you make to the bike (apart from ECM calibration) after Bean tuned it?

[Sporty 48]

What changes did you make to the bike (apart from ECM calibration) after Bean tuned it?

A much bigger UNI foam air filter.

[Jeffd]

What changes did you make to the bike (apart from ECM calibration) after Bean tuned it?

A much bigger UNI foam air filter.

Not sure how the Harley sporty uni filter flows but the one I used on my Kaw klr650 did not flow nearly as well as the K&N but probably better at keeping dirt out.

[glens]

I'm not familiar with how the Sportys are set up, but if that filter element is still inside the stock assembly, it might not make much flow difference.  If it did change the flow, however, your Bean tune is shot anyway.  Shoulda done that before you got it tuned in any event.

What do you have for exhaust plumbing?

[Sporty 48]

What do you have for exhaust plumbing?

Exhaust is a D&D Bobcat
Intake is a Forcewinder manifold, UMP (Unique Metal Products) filter housing with UNI 5x7" dual layer oiled foam.

[wurk_truk]

Sporty48.  You seriously are NOT listening.  Open loop or not, one should NOT mess with a tune from Bean.  And if you wish an answer to this once and for all and to shut Andy up on this particular tune...  It is NOT an AFR tune.  Do you get that?  You are simply spinning your wheels messing with a 5 gas tune as if Bean did an AFR tune.  That tune you have was NOT set to lean OR rich or ANYTHING in between.  It is going to show rich and lean spots.   It was set so that the exhaust gases matched up on the Gas Analyzer.   Andy should have known better to send you down this path.  Truly.

The Bobcats were on the Bike when Bean tuned it.  I doubt a filter change 'ruined' the tune.  Looks like, when trying to educate here on HTT, folks get sticks up their asses and poke me with those poop sticks.  I keep harping on  Beans tune, why?  Because it is a 5 gas and looks and acts NOTHING like an AFR tune.  It is NOTHING like doing a Stage 1 with 255s and v-tune.  It operates completely differently.  Bean adjusts the VEs and AFRs to match a known set of exhaust gases.  All of us here and the world in general think AFR, so we tend to lump a 5 gas into that arena.

Listen my Friend, Sporty 48, for a second...  ALL fueling changes will make a pipe sound different.  Mayor and I talked at length about you and we both wish  you the best we can do.  I would like for you to FORGET all the crap in your head and start fresh, OK?  Save that Bean tune somewhere safe, and pick a base cal.   Since you surely DO hear pipe changes, the thing to remember is that change of tone may NOT be what is desired for best running.  I'm old enough and have been around enough, and you may too... actually.  Think on this:  you are fooling around and that is like spending money.  Once the money is spent you convince yourself you see some improvement, when in reality there was none.  I have done that, Glens has done that, everybody has done that.  YOU are doing that now because you have a mental need to justify the fiddling around.

Sporty48,  PLEASE pick a TTS base cal and fudge around with that for a change.  I'm as dumb on here as you are, right?  So...  let us dambasses stick together.  Pick a TTS base cal and try V-Tune.  I am v-tuning a 120r into closed loop...  so we be stupid together...   

[whittlebeast]

Suck, squish, bang, blow.  What part is different?

Lean holes cause drivability issues.  That is the bang part.  We all sniff the exhaust by the best method we have available in the blow part.  Sporty48 used Beans method to get 95% of the fueling and 100% of the timing.

When the last very few lean spots were located, the motor made music.

Beast.

[mayor]

My bet is Sporty48 never messed with 90% of the VEs as Bean had them set.  I also bet he never touched any of the timing curves that Bean set.  AE, DE, you name it is all as Bean set it.  It was just the few lean holes that always seem to show up on the data logs.  These are the only VEs that messed with and fuel was only added.

Suck, squish, bang, blow.  What part is different?

Lean holes cause drivability issues.  That is the bang part.  We all sniff the exhaust by the best method we have available in the blow part.  Sporty48 used Beans method to get 95% of the fueling and 100% of the timing.

When the last very few lean spots were located, the motor made music.

so you went from guessing that he only touched 10% of the ve cells, to knowing that he only adjusted 5% of the ve cells.     I must have missed the calibrations being posted. 

[Jeffd]

Suck, squish, bang, blow.  What part is different?

Lean holes cause drivability issues.  That is the bang part.  We all sniff the exhaust by the best method we have available in the blow part.  Sporty48 used Beans method to get 95% of the fueling and 100% of the timing.

When the last very few lean spots were located, the motor made music.

Beast.

do you have documented actual verified validated proof of this or is it placebo effect?  I have seen that happen on more then one occasion.  Seems like if his bike was running so wonderful this thread would be over a long time ago.  Seems more like it lives for other reasons.

[whittlebeast]

Data logging is all about taking out the "placebo effect".

Beast

[Sporty 48]

Sometimes i get so damn mad here, sometimes I cringe but right now you guys are about as funny as a bunch of professional jokesters.
Good work. Making me doubt my name and age.
See, I came here to get this tuning business down pat, not to be confused and doubtful of every move made.

Wurk Truk,
Trust me I have the original Bean tune on a memory card.
I have not yet defiled the holy grail of dyno tunes.
But I do keep copies for my gratification and tune mutilation tendencies.

Mayor,
You missed nothing. All I did was plug a few lean holes with fuel. Once, I plugged a rear cylinder lean hole a new lean hole showed up in the front cylinder. Manifold characteristics it was. I tried leaning the tune by increasing the AFR before getting all the lean spots out, whoa, decided to slow down return it back and learn some here. Or should I say face the Daily Inquisition. Not by you Mayor, always a gentleman you are, helpful and steady.

Andy, Jeffd,
Very good points, the placebo effect of illusory horsepower gains is certainly in play.
But to me bad gasoline and temperature drops are having the greatest impact on the bikes tune and performance.
It is warming nicely, still lots of snow and the road was frozen earlier but I should get out for a ride very soon.

[HV]

 

[whittlebeast]

Keeping an eye on the tune...

BMP-CGroup-Session1-BMH.avi

This came from one of my "tuner" friends.  Track mapping is fed off his Droid.  The gauges are off his Megasquirt.

Have fun tuning

Beast

[Sporty 48]

Yes, my feeling exactly.
This site no longer suits me.
Bye.