'09 Stage 1 - TTS Map & Timing Review

[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.