'09 Stage 1 - TTS Map & Timing Review

[mcouture]

I've got an 2009 Street Glide with Zippers AC and Wild Pigs slip ons (1.75" baffles) and TTS.

I have what I feel is a pretty good tune, very smooth, no popping however I'm getting some pinging.     I've V-Tuned this a lot so I think I got VEs pretty close.

Last night I was running up the interstate to pick up my daughter and was running 65MPH in 6th gear and whenever I went up a slight grade I could hear it ping.  The air temp was in the 70's.   

Today I took the laptop out and recorded a short run (temps in 50's) on the interstate and you can see it is pulling a couple degrees under acceleration.

My current tune: http://www.box.com/s/fc2dbb39691bddcaee4f
50* interstate recording: http://www.box.com/s/1bccbec56a5b4b19018b

Anyone want to review my tune and review my timing tables?

Thanks.

-mike

[mayor]

can you post your vtune runs and vtune calibrations? 

your ve's are lower than mine were when I was running stock cams, but I was also running mt7 cal at the time.   

[mcouture]

You can see my history here: http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,38330.0/all.html

I took that tune and ran it all last season.  This season I reduced the timing (49* max to 45* max) because I was fighting pinging under load.  I did a few V-Tunes to get the VEs to recalibrate from the timing changes and that was it.   Oh yeah, ping still there...

I'll upload my last V-Tune session once I get to my laptop.

[mcouture]

Ok here are my sessions:  https://www.box.com/shared/zq1so93beu

In the IVO4 directory is the current tunes that I have been running  (IVO4-PROD-004 is current).

In the IVO5 directory is my recent attempt at trying to make IVO5 work - Camtune says IVO5 is my setting to use.   It tunes however idles around 48 and when tuned you can see the low RPM range the VEs are in the 40's and no amount of EGR will make them move.

Both IVO4 and IVO5 seem to be running ok - IVO4 I was able to move VEs with the EGR settings but I've removed a bunch of timing from the base map and I still get pinging under load.   IVO5 I have not run much to tell if it would be a good tune or not.

Last year Steve was hinting at my open exhaust, O2 placement or lazy O2 sensors as being suspect - I believe we ruled out the O2 sensors with some of the data logging we did last year.  Which would leave me at O2 sensor placement or my open exhaust being issues with tuning.

I don't want to go down the road of changing exhausts or header pipes but will if I have to....

[mcouture]

Ok, decided to weld new bungs into my stock headers.  It used to take 2+ minutes for the O2 sensors to come online, now they come online at the 70 second mark.

I took my IVO5 calibration and ran 4 V-Tune runs.  Here is the last one: https://www.box.com/s/54dc7d16f2604f9016be

Here is the calibration: https://www.box.com/s/6cbc50d7c53cdd0767e5

Still can't get the VE's to increase at low TPS from 0 - 2500RPM - however I'm not seeing low 40's anymore, it's more in the 50's.  The EGR table does now move VE's from 2500 up - while before they would not move.

Overall I've seen VE's increase across the board.   The bike seems much more smooth and responsive.   I no longer have the deceleration pop using IVO5 as I did before with the stock location of the O2 sensors.


Take a peek and tell me what you think of the tune...

[strokerjlk]

maybe you better read this.
that is way to much timing.  its a cal to stay away from.
on top of that you left your AFR at 14.6 (closed loop) everywhere except 100 kpa.
i bet that is a pinging nightmare

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php?action=search2

[mcouture]

Strokerjlk -

Your link you provided is broken.

The "tune" I provided in my link is not the 'final' product, it's setup for tuning as per the documentation.

As for your comment of "its a cal to stay away from" - then what options do I have when this is the only cal for a Stage 1 2009 Touring bike???  Plus, I've been here all last year with requests for help using this cal and nobody spoke up about too much timing....please enlighten me!

[strokerjlk]

Strokerjlk -

Your link you provided is broken.

The "tune" I provided in my link is not the 'final' product, it's setup for tuning as per the documentation.

As for your comment of "its a cal to stay away from" - then what options do I have when this is the only cal for a Stage 1 2009 Touring bike???  Plus, I've been here all last year with requests for help using this cal and nobody spoke up about too much timing....please enlighten me!

I guess I never opened your map. or since you say steve helped you with it??? I probably bit my tongue
I dont know I bumped the thread to the top for you in this section.
45 48 deg in your cruise area is not gonna cut it.

[mcouture]

**** Update:  I did a search for "CTD205" and found a thread that shows that the cal I am using IS very aggressive on timing.    Geez.   MAYBE I will try the "CYC205-03" cal and try everything all over again...  10-15* of timing differences between those 2 cals are quite a bit!

I never looked at the CYC205 before today.   Those timing tables are radically different from the CTD205 tables.   

So which cal should I be using?  CTD205 and potentially have to reduce timing in areas or CYC205 and potentially have to increase timing in areas?  hmmm

[strokerjlk]

So which cal should I be using?  CTD205 and potentially have to reduce timing in areas or CYC205 and potentially have to increase timing in areas?  hmmm

either way you need to re tune. or v tune again.
TD 205 can be a decent cal if set up right. just not one to start out on with the timing jacked up like that.
since you have a lot of work into the CTD 205, then just put a realistic timing table in it and do your thing again.
take a look at Aaron's (Aharp) piston from his dyno mule. that is where you are headed if you dont get that timing out of it.

[mcouture]

So which cal should I be using?  CTD205 and potentially have to reduce timing in areas or CYC205 and potentially have to increase timing in areas?  hmmm

either way you need to re tune. or v tune again.
TD 205 can be a decent cal if set up right. just not one to start out on with the timing jacked up like that.
since you have a lot of work into the CTD 205, then just put a realistic timing table in it and do your thing again.
take a look at Aaron's (Aharp) piston from his dyno mule. that is where you are headed if you dont get that timing out of it.

So would you recommend just copying the timing tables from CYC205 and use it in my V-Tuned CTD205 and do a couple more V-Tunes and be done with it?   Or?

[Steve Cole]

Just limit the max timing in you current tune to 45 deg and you will be fine. There are hundreds of people using that very base calibration without issue but with the decline of fuel quality and variations in engine builds we have found that 45 degrees max timing works best. Not a big deal at all just someone trying his best to    again 

[mcouture]

Just limit the max timing in you current tune to 45 deg and you will be fine. There are hundreds of people using that very base calibration without issue but with the decline of fuel quality and variations in engine builds we have found that 45 degrees max timing works best. Not a big deal at all just someone trying his best to    again 

Thanks Steve, I will reduce to 45 deg run a couple V-Tunes and then do a monitoring run.   

[strokerjlk]

Thats probably the reason i didnt try and help you before.
yes by all means run 45 deg timing  at cruise...

[FLTRI]

Use the handy Copy multiple tables to use a different  cal's timing tables.
Then take the bike for a ride and decide if you and the bike like it.
You can always revert back.

You really need to look at logged timing activity to know where you need to remove timing.

If you reduce timing and don't see reduction of pinging you are removing timing in the wrong area.

I find the biggest timing mistakes are due to not realizing where the timing is too far advanced...ie: light acceleration can easily be 80+ kpa.
HTH,
Bob

[mayor]

If you reduce timing and don't see reduction of pinging you are removing timing in the wrong area.

I find the biggest timing mistakes are due to not realizing where the timing is too far advanced...ie: light acceleration can easily be 80+ kpa.

This season I reduced the timing (49* max to 45* max) because I was fighting pinging under load.  I did a few V-Tunes to get the VEs to recalibrate from the timing changes and that was it.   Oh yeah, ping still there...

you need to pay attention to the data recordings.  If you are pinging under load, you shouldn't be in the 30-50 kPa range. 

By looking at calibration IV05-TUNE-010a-004 that you posted, I can see why you are pinging.  Not taking a shot at Steve, but Stroker is right.  There are base cals out there that have more advance than needed in places.  You can vtune the ve tables all you want, but that's not going to fix the over advanced timing issue.   Keep in mind, that you can be over advanced to where the engine isn't happy (meaning, not smooth) and still not have a knock retard event.  If you are pinging, then you are definitely over advanced.  Usually the 70-80 kPa cells are the culprit when there's a slight load applied, but it's best to view a data recording to see just where the knock retard is occurring. 

Despite not having any knock retard events, I found that my bike vibrated more with increased cruise timing (which was actually less than what you are currently running).  I didn't notice it so much until I started tuning a new build on my other bagger (w/TMax), and after riding that one I noticed how less than smooth my TTS bike was.  There is no knock retard on the Tmax, so you have to tune by feel.   I was able to get that bike to run fairly smooth, then I rode the TTS bike and realized I needed to make some timing changes.  I reduced my timing in places on the TTS bike, and saw no real appreciable milage difference..but the bike now accelerates and cruises much smoother. 

try vtuning the attached calibration.  I modified your timing tables to something closer to what I'm running on my bike ('09 StG 96" w/48 cams).  This may need tweaked slightly, but I'll bet it's a better starting point than your base cal timing. 

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[strokerjlk]

Nice looking map

[mcouture]

Thanks Major - I'll definitely be trying that map.  I tried reducing the stock map to 45* and it was still way to advanced.  I tried reducing timing "here and there" but still wasn't able to cure timing being pulled in several areas.

The stock stage 1 map may work but for my bike/build it's a bit too hot.  Once I get some time to run that map, I'll post up the results.   Thanks everyone! 

[Steve Cole]

When you try to figure out pinging it is best to go record "Spark Data" NOT Vtune data since you have already done that and gotten it very close. If you have the time go make a Spark Data recording with your current calibration and email me the calibration and spark data recording and we can see about trimming it in for you. The data recording will show us just where it is and isn't pinging so we only work on the areas that need it.

[mcouture]

Steve, here is a Generic data recording of the CTD205 map I'm running now with 45* max timing.  It was in the upper 80's and it was pulling 2 degrees while on the highway...around 70 mph.

https://www.box.com/s/383a1060ac444ca8b940

I can record more in a couple days. 

[Steve Cole]

Open the recording in DataMaster. Once it open on the screen go to the "View" drop down menu and <click> on the 3d data visualizer. Set the X axis to Engine Speed, Y axis to MAP and the Z axis to Knock Retard Rear. Then <click> on the Plot Data button. This graph will show you everywhere it pinged during the entire run for the rear cylinder. Use this information to remove spark from the rear cylinder only where it pinged. Repeat the same setup for the front cylinder. In you recording it only has shown a total of 2 degrees of retard for the Front and Rear cylinder so it pretty damn close to perfect as is. Just trim up the few areas until the retard is gone then one last Vtune run to make changes from the timing adjustments.

[mcouture]

Steve, I did what you recommended and reduced the timing in the areas that needed it. 

It was great weather today and the wife wanted to go for a ride so I programmed the bike and went for a ride.  87* and all I have to say is the bike is terrific!   I have spent way too much time vtuning - Riding normally, the bike is insanely smooth especially between 2250-3500...

Here is my tune, reviews please!

https://www.box.com/s/8fee16e558259b655d54

[mayor]

you are not running enough timing in the 90-100 kPa columns, from 1,750-4,500.  Unless you have an extremely high CCP, there is absolutely no need to only be running 15 degree's of timing at 3k @ 100 kPA. 

[Steve Cole]

Looking at your tune it is still in the Vtune Mode. For normal riding you want to switch it back out of Vtune mode. Once you do that you can begin working the timing tables. When in the Vtune mode it is possible to get some knock that would not happen once set back out of Vtune mode. I would switch the tune into normal mode then do some "Sprak Data" recordings to see where your at.

[mcouture]

I linked the wrong calibration file.  I linked the one that was for vtuning. 

Here is the "production" calibration that I'm using: https://www.box.com/s/579de06d1752a5b86ba0

I used the "production" calibration to record "Generic Data" and that is what I used to find spark retard events.   Based on the spark retard events I reduced the timing in those areas.  If you compare the timing charts to original, you'll see what I pulled.

I need to record one more time to evaluate my settings did what they should have done.

Mayor, I'm not an expert here but you're saying I should have more advance at ~3000rpm?  Well I can try adding some but I've had some spark knock at 4000rpm already so I'm hesitant but willing to try.

[Steve Cole]

When looking for knock events it is best to record "Spark Data" this allows for a more accurate recording of just the spark type events.

[mayor]

you are not running enough timing in the 90-100 kPa columns, from 1,750-4,500.  Unless you have an extremely high CCP, there is absolutely no need to only be running 15 degree's of timing at 3k @ 100 kPA. 

Mayor, I'm not an expert here but you're saying I should have more advance at ~3000rpm?  Well I can try adding some but I've had some spark knock at 4000rpm already so I'm hesitant but willing to try.

pay attention to the column headers in your timing tables, they are listed in kPa values. In layman's terms those values represent the load the engine is seeing based on manifold vacuum. The higher the load, the greater the kPa value.  Full load on the engine will be at the extreme right of the timing chart.  Light load will be towards the left, and decel will generally be at the extreme left.   

If you pay attention to what I wrote earlier, I'm giving you coordinates to look at based on the column values. I'm suggesting that your timing in the furthest most columns to the right is too low at the above mentioned rpm's.  In no way would I call the timing in the 20-60 kPa columns too low, in fact I would say the opposite.   

If you can only run 15 degree's of timing at the very last cell to the right at 3k or you will get a knock retard, you likely have a ve issue not a timing issue. 

[mcouture]

I just got back from running the Gaspe in Canada. 2000 miles with the wife and a weeks worth of clothes on the back.   The bike pinged a lot. 

It pinged at 65 MPH in 6th gear at slight incline.  It pinged at heavy loads climbing some of those major hills - 10-15% grades.

I ran super at all times and some of the times I found ethanol free fuels too.  All 91 octane...

Major, I see you modified one of my earlier calibrations with your timing tables....can you verify that you copied both the front and rear timing tables?  Because I see both your timing tables are the same...

[mayor]

post the calibration you were running during the trip. 

I see you modified one of my earlier calibrations with your timing tables....can you verify that you copied both the front and rear timing tables?  Because I see both your timing tables are the same... 

they are probably the same, I generally start very similar and then let the data recordings dictate the changes.  The exact timing that worked for my bike, will likely not be exact for yours.  You really need to run data recordings and make adjustments based on knock retard events.  The tricky thing is you need to keep in mind that knock retard events can be from too much timing or too little fuel.   

[mcouture]

Here is the "production" calibration that I'm using: https://www.box.com/s/579de06d1752a5b86ba0

[mayor]

I can see why that cal pinged.  I think the set afr is too lean in the higher load ranges, and could be leaner yet if the ve's aren't right (since the bike is operating in open loop in those hi load ranges).  I also think the timing tables have too much advance in places and not enough in others. 

[mcouture]

Okie Dokie then,  If one can trust vtune, I have done about 30 sessions for this tune.  So I will assume VEs are as close as I can get them. 
I will trust your judgement and will take your timing tables from your map and do a couple vtunes and data recording and see how it performs.
It may be a few days before I get back out there but I'll be back....

Thanks Mayor

[mayor]

Okie Dokie then,  If one can trust vtune, I have done about 30 sessions for this tune.  So I will assume VEs are as close as I can get them.

this depends on how thorough of job you did at collecting data. You reall need to try to collect data to the point that all your last cells to the right have purple highlights in them, even then there is no guarantee that the populated values will be correct. 

will take your timing tables from your map and do a couple vtunes and data recording and see how it performs.
It may be a few days before I get back out there but I'll be back....

if you do this, please post the vtunes runs from that so we can help you along the way. 


One thing that you will need to do after all your tuning is done is fix the afr table.  The base settings for that cal is just too lean IMO. 

[FLTRI]

...The base settings for that cal is just too lean IMO.

What AFR do you use/recommend?
Bob

[mayor]

...The base settings for that cal is just too lean IMO.

What AFR do you use/recommend?
Bob

I'm not sure if you were trying to paint me into a corner/afr debate, or if you only read a limited amount of info and my last comment just happened to stand out.  Here was my prior statement, that should give plenty of context to that statement:

I can see why that cal pinged.  I think the set afr is too lean in the higher load ranges, and could be leaner yet if the ve's aren't right (since the bike is operating in open loop in those hi load ranges).  I also think the timing tables have too much advance in places and not enough in others. 

so, to answer your exact question.  I personally prefer to be in the 13-13.2 settings in the 90-100 kPa columns if vtuned, since that gives the widest margin of error.  If someone has sampled the open loop settings and determined that the VE tables are correct, then I don't see an issue with going leaner (~13.5).  With this said, the base cal afr settings has the 90 kPa column at 13.9 kPa, and keeps the afr in closed loop out to 80 kPa up to 3,500 rpm.   This may be fine if the afr is sampled and verified, but I don't think these are good settings when one does not know for sure that the desired afr is the actual afr.  Although, I personally don't think I would be comfortable running that afr at 90 kPa and I'm not a fan of running that lean to 80 kPa @3,500, even if sampled.   

I'm merely an amateur, so I'd be interested in getting your professional opinion on this.   

[Hilly13]

Mayor we are learning with you bro, Bob your knowledge and experience is deeply respected.

[FLTRI]

I'm not sure if you were trying to paint me into a corner/afr debate, or if you only read a limited amount of info and my last comment just happened to stand out...

If someone has sampled the open loop settings and determined that the VE tables are correct, then I don't see an issue with going leaner (~13.5).  With this said, the base cal afr settings has the 90 kPa column at 13.9 kPa, and keeps the afr in closed loop out to 80 kPa up to 3,500 rpm.   This may be fine if the afr is sampled and verified, but I don't think these are good settings when one does not know for sure that the desired afr is the actual afr...on this.

Mike, sorry if you think I was trying anything but get your opinion on a subject you were talking about.
My purpose was to get a conversation going...that's all.

...I personally prefer to be in the 13-13.2 settings in the 90-100 kPa columns if vtuned, since that gives the widest margin of error...

VE tables dictate fueling REGARDLESS of what the AFR table is set to.
Open loop EFI has no way to compensate/correct for incorrect VE calibration.

For example, if the AFR table is set to say 14.5 and the VE @ say 25%tp/2750rpm should be 85 but is actually set to 65, adjusting the AFR table to say 13.5 will not provide expected (13.5) results.
The VE table MUST be accurately calibrated to that engine in order for the AFR table to work as expected.

Too many folks think they can tune their bike by simply adjusting the AFR to their desired and expected results. IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY.

Bob
PS - Mike, you do a great job here and are truly appreciated for your time and effort to help those are lost or need a bit of encouragement.

[mayor]

Mike, sorry if you think I was trying anything but get your opinion on a subject you were talking about.
My purpose was to get a conversation going...that's all. 

ok, but one never really knows when they are stepping into a trap.    Especially when it comes to tuning threads.     The last thing I wanted was to get up into a debate over open loop/closed loop afr's when it comes to load (MAP).    

...I personally prefer to be in the 13-13.2 settings in the 90-100 kPa columns if vtuned, since that gives the widest margin of error...

VE tables dictate fueling REGARDLESS of what the AFR table is set to.
Open loop EFI has no way to compensate/correct for incorrect VE calibration.

For example, if the AFR table is set to say 14.5 and the VE @ say 25%tp/2750rpm should be 85 but is actually set to 65, adjusting the AFR table to say 13.5 will not provide expected (13.5) results.
The VE table MUST be accurately calibrated to that engine in order for the AFR table to work as expected.

Too many folks think they can tune their bike by simply adjusting the AFR to their desired and expected results. IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY. 

that was my point with widest margin of error when setting the afr table.  If someone sets the afr towards the leaner side, and their ve's are on the lighter side of being right, then the afr is liable to be quite lean at wide open.  If they set the afr on the richer side, and their ve's is on the richer side, there's less risk IMO (not no risk, but less risk).

As most are aware I'm not against vtuned tunes, but I think that it's always best to verify open loop ve's in order to trust the afr table in conjunction with the open loop ve cells.  If the open loop ve tables haven't been verified to be correct, then I think its a good practice to run the 90-100 kPa columns to the bottom side (richer) of acceptable wide open throttle afr.  I think 13.0 is a good number, since 1/2 afr either way is still plenty safe. The trouble I see with having the 90 kpa column set to 13.9, is the majority of your heavy loads will be prorated much leaner than safe if the open loop ve cells are incorrect lean. 

[mcouture]

Thanks for your thoughts on running richer in the 90-100 kPa columns/open loop sections of the map if only v-tuned.  Seems to have some merit...

I was able to get about a half hour of v-tuning done until my laptop died.  I'm hoping to "borrow" one from work this weekend. 

I'll post all my results with attachments as soon as possible.

[strokerjlk]

Mike, sorry if you think I was trying anything but get your opinion on a subject you were talking about.
My purpose was to get a conversation going...that's all. 

ok, but one never really knows when they are stepping into a trap.    Especially when it comes to tuning threads.     The last thing I wanted was to get up into a debate over open loop/closed loop afr's when it comes to load (MAP).    

...I personally prefer to be in the 13-13.2 settings in the 90-100 kPa columns if vtuned, since that gives the widest margin of error...

VE tables dictate fueling REGARDLESS of what the AFR table is set to.
Open loop EFI has no way to compensate/correct for incorrect VE calibration.

For example, if the AFR table is set to say 14.5 and the VE @ say 25%tp/2750rpm should be 85 but is actually set to 65, adjusting the AFR table to say 13.5 will not provide expected (13.5) results.
The VE table MUST be accurately calibrated to that engine in order for the AFR table to work as expected.

Too many folks think they can tune their bike by simply adjusting the AFR to their desired and expected results. IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY. 

that was my point with widest margin of error when setting the afr table.  If someone sets the afr towards the leaner side, and their ve's are on the lighter side of being right, then the afr is liable to be quite lean at wide open.  If they set the afr on the richer side, and their ve's is on the richer side, there's less risk IMO (not no risk, but less risk).

As most are aware I'm not against vtuned tunes, but I think that it's always best to verify open loop ve's in order to trust the afr table in conjunction with the open loop ve cells.  If the open loop ve tables haven't been verified to be correct, then I think its a good practice to run the 90-100 kPa columns to the bottom side (richer) of acceptable wide open throttle afr.  I think 13.0 is a good number, since 1/2 afr either way is still plenty safe. The trouble I see with having the 90 kpa column set to 13.9, is the majority of your heavy loads will be prorated much leaner than safe if the open loop ve cells are incorrect lean.

Very well said !!!
  verifying closed Loop ain't a bad idea either

[mcouture]

Just posting an update.  I finished 3 vtune sessions with Mayor's timing maps.  The wife and I went on a short 250 mile run thru the White Mountains of NH and I've got to say - not one audible ping.   The bike felt so much smoother thru the whole powerband too.  I'm pretty impressed.

I got 45MPG.

I still need to tune out a slight pop on decel that comes and goes but that is fine, I can do that.   

What I found was with my old map, under load if I would drop down in RPMs to 2250 or under the bike would chug and you could tell the it just drops out of the power band.    With Mayor's map no chugging, and no sudden drop out of power band - just time to shift.

I need to do a couple of data runs to make sure of the timing but I'm pretty happy right now.

[mayor]

Glad to hear things are working out for you.  When you do the data recordings, make sure you post them to the forum, along with the cal you used, and we'll try to help you along the way. 

[mcouture]

Here is the folder I'll be putting the data in:

https://www.box.com/s/8111e19f265ef3dcc4c2

I'm using this cal right now: https://www.box.com/s/0d29ab20c076deb69ba6

[porterjet]

This thread pretty much sums up my TTS experience too except I have the Andrews 48H cams.
After reading the thread I went into the map and adjusted the spark advance tables to a max of 45 and noticed something, several times other cells would change on their own. It was as if changing one cell affects others and not necessarily right next door. This makes sense but I didn't know the TTS would do it automatically. Anyway, can't wait to get home and try out the changes. Besides v-tune and spark runs are a good excuse to get outside and

[strokerjlk]

This thread pretty much sums up my TTS experience too except I have the Andrews 48H cams.
After reading the thread I went into the map and adjusted the spark advance tables to a max of 45 and noticed something, several times other cells would change on their own. It was as if changing one cell affects others and not necessarily right next door. This makes sense but I didn't know the TTS would do it automatically. Anyway, can't wait to get home and try out the changes. Besides v-tune and spark runs are a good excuse to get outside and

Hummm 45 deg total advance everywhere?
45 deg of timing should be used in decel only
Even then you better make sure you only hit that area on decel.
If the timing changed in other places without your input , that isn't right .
You sure that the  color graph didn't change and not the timing?

[porterjet]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I reduced to 45 where it was higher, maybe 10 cells or so. I just went back and ran a couple of the cells back up and you are right, only the color in the other cells change, I guess I was seeing things. damm jet lag.