FUDGE THE KOOLAIDE- Time for some Whiskey Tuning

[wurk_truk]

I have talked Ron Babos in trying to tune the HTT 120 with a twin Scan + kit and simply see how that works out for him. (He purchased the TS on my say so...  I cannot imagine any other tuning device that would do as nice a job...  open loop... as a Twin Scan, right?)  I have decided to do the same type of tuning right along side of him, so that we can help each other learn a bit.

So...............  maybe somebody could help us out a bit.  We both would like to look at some stuff that has worked for others in the past, namely the fueling strategies.  What AFRs seem to work best and where.

I have an 09 FLH/DBW bike.  120R; 58mm SE-TB. 5.3 injectors, Boss exhaust; engine is totally stock.

Ron has an 07 Softail with the HTT 120 in it.  I will let Ron give all of the build details.

Both of us won't be ready for a couple weeks, and then at that time, a few members have PMed me and we would all like to learn together on how best to use a Twin Scan + kit to its fullest capabilities.

Myself..  I wish to try to develop the best home made open loop tune I possibly can.  My new bungs should help with that.  Then go back and finish off the closed loop tune to the best I can do there, too. (I imagine I will do idle and WOT with the TS+kit for that tune also.)

Then..................  check MPG and do a few tugs to see how this all works out.

Should be fun.

(something in my primary is 'giving up the ghost' and have to fix THAT before any tuning, HAHA!!!)

[Ohio HD]

I'll be watching this John, will be interesting to learn as you guys go through this.

Brian

[wurk_truk]

Hopefully, that is the IDEA Brian... we can all learn together.   I would also like to get Mayor at least watching this thread, as I have been trying to talk him into a Twin Scan, too.

And... this thread is NOT about closed or open loop either.  This thread is simply how one should tune with a Twin Scan to achieve a nice OPEN LOOP tune.

TIA to all who reply.

[mayor]

I'll be watching.    I really like the idea of a TS tune, but having a hard time personally justifying the expense.  I'm kinda cheap.   

[HV]

Im cheap too but its their $$$ so Ill watch    Should be interesting for sure ..hope this thread stays Civil and does not get in to a    event 

[rigidthumper]

Bookmarked!  Very curious as to process/progress. 'member, I'm mostly ignorant with a streak of dummy, so pics are useful, man!

[Durwood]

 

[BVHOG]

The key to tuning with the twinscan on the road has some of the same issues as the v-tune, mostly hitting all the proper cells without killing yourself trying, not to mention breaking every speed limit sign in sight and not wearing out your brakes.
Other than that knowing what data to disregard is key and for someone to tell you what data that is without seeing what is going on real time is virtually impossible. I have tuned many bikes on the road with the twinscan before I had the dyno and ran many of those bikes on the dyno afterwards, the road tune was always a bit on the rich side of target when re-checked on the dyno.  I tuned 4 trikes this year with it on the highway and the results were more than acceptable.
All this being said the twinscan is a great tool both on and off the dyno and the best dollar value for investment of any tool I have ever purchased.
As for afr targets that will be determined on an individual basis but basic guidelines would be 14-1 cruise up to 50-60- KPA and then blended down to 12-8 to 13-0 for 100kpa  with higher rpm areas a bit lower at the same kpa's
OK, so what kind of whiskey? are we talking Bourbon or that watered down Canadian stuff?(we have to have something to argue about)

[FLTRSE3CLONE]

I have talked Ron Babos in trying to tune the HTT 120 with a twin Scan + kit and simply see how that works out for him. (He purchased the TS on my say so...  I cannot imagine any other tuning device that would do as nice a job...  open loop... as a Twin Scan, right?)  I have decided to do the same type of tuning right along side of him, so that we can help each other learn a bit.

So...............  maybe somebody could help us out a bit.  We both would like to look at some stuff that has worked for others in the past, namely the fueling strategies.  What AFRs seem to work best and where.

I have an 09 FLH/DBW bike.  120R; 58mm SE-TB. 5.3 injectors, Boss exhaust; engine is totally stock.

Ron has an 07 Softail with the HTT 120 in it.  I will let Ron give all of the build details.

Both of us won't be ready for a couple weeks, and then at that time, a few members have PMed me and we would all like to learn together on how best to use a Twin Scan + kit to its fullest capabilities.

Myself..  I wish to try to develop the best home made open loop tune I possibly can.  My new bungs should help with that.  Then go back and finish off the closed loop tune to the best I can do there, too. (I imagine I will do idle and WOT with the TS+kit for that tune also.)

Then..................  check MPG and do a few tugs to see how this all works out.

Should be fun.

(something in my primary is 'giving up the ghost' and have to fix THAT before any tuning, HAHA!!!)

Did you have your bike on the dyno initially after break in? If so is there a link to your sheet?

[wurk_truk]

Nope no dyno before or after break-in.  I have a copy of TTS 120R cal and v-tuned the bike...  I'm not done with the v-tuning because there were a few little changes along the way..  When I was down in FLA, I went to eat lunch with Doc, and for shits and giggles we did a couple WOT tugs.  To do the tugs, we set the fuel on the 100% columns using a sniffer.

118hp 124tq fifth gear with a rain soaked AC.   Couldn't be happier with those numbers.  THe TTS is dialing in nicely, it seems.  It's time constraints mostly.   THIS thread being about a nice TS tune, will also sharpen my skills to use the TS when doing the TTS tune, also.

I ride with a laptop, and save my TS data runs there instead of the dongle.  I am sort of experienced in gathering data...  haha!!!  and I know that I like to cut down on the acceptable data and combine multiple runs before generating the tune, Bob.  I imagine this will be some serious work, but thats OK.

[7hogs]

 

[HV]

I like to tune with Jim Bean 

[jty]

Very interesting to know how the VE's differ when measured with widebands.   

[rbabos]

Very interesting to know how the VE's differ when measured with widebands. 

That and what the actual afrs I'm tuned to. Right now it's only a guess.
Ron

[jty]

Very interesting to know how the VE's differ when measured with widebands. 

That and what the actual afrs I'm tuned to. Right now it's only a guess.
Ron

So what's the plan? Replace O2 bungs in the Supertrapp with widebands, set the whole AFR map to 13.5 and see what comes out? At least that is something  I have planned to do (in a dyno)

[wurk_truk]

OK.   I just got off of the phone with someone that sells Twin Scan + kits.

For any member of HTT that wishes to purchase a Twin Scan plus kit, here is a REAL good deal on owning one yourself.

I can sell anyone in the lower 48 states either a Twin Scan 2+kit with a Wego 3d ( for 'regular' bikes with a 1850 plug) OR..  a Twin Scan 3+ kits with a Wego 3d (for can bus bikes), either one will be $499 plus shipping.  I paid $525 in 2009 and the cheapest I have seen one lately is $599, so this is really a nice offer.  For folks that don't know...  one has to PLEASE remember that a Twin Scan will NOT program an ECM, it is an aide to tell one WHAT to program into their bike.  One will still need a TTS or similar to actually finish a tune out.  Ron and I have BOTH a TTS and a Twin Scan+ kit.  For folks with older bikes... and have an old SERT laying around, this is THE way to tune those bikes.

PM me and I will swing you over to the seller.  I, myself, am not selling these and also do not wish to post online publicly who is selling these for this incredible price.  Mayor...  NOW is the time to get in and throw one of these on the shelf for later.

This will FURTHER my knowledge, and everybody elses, if we get quite a bit of action on this thread as time goes on.

Robin, I would imagine we WILL post pix, etc for you!!!

[rbabos]

Very interesting to know how the VE's differ when measured with widebands. 

That and what the actual afrs I'm tuned to. Right now it's only a guess.
Ron

So what's the plan? Replace O2 bungs in the Supertrapp with widebands, set the whole AFR map to 13.5 and see what comes out? At least that is something  I have planned to do (in a dyno)

Basically I want to establish good solid ve's and a real afr starting point. From there, work out some form of afr table that agrees with all running conditions. Without solid ve's a tune is basically chit.
That's step one for me and even though it runs decent I feel it could be better in some aspects. Twinscan might point me in the right direction for improvement.
The build is the HTT 120. 110 heads done by Don Dorfman (Dewey's Heads), .010 over 120r pistons, SE 120R crank,  195ccp, S&S 585ES cams, 55 hpi with 1.8 manifold. 2-1 Supertrap 26disc closed end.
DNO-176 calibration. Fuel is 91 octane.
Ron

[Hilly13]

I really like the idea of knowing what the real AFR is, but how do you know if the wideband is accurate? Just a genuine question nothing more.

[rbabos]

I really like the idea of knowing what the real AFR is, but how do you know if the wideband is accurate? Just a genuine question nothing more.

Given the free air sensor calibration for the wego unit, should be acceptably accurate for our needs. Nothings perfect but don't think the error would amount to much.
Ron

[Hilly13]

Thanks Ron, sounds like a good thing.

[TXChop]

Do you guys tune to a flat 13.2 or so and then set the afr's? Or tune to the AFR desired?
AE,DE,AKR all get shut off? Or are gentle movements better?
Does the TS record as long as you want hooked up to a laptop like a vtune run?

Can bike be ridden when sensors arent recording, will it hurt the sensor?

Sorry for the newbie questions, have the Ts kit for years now, just never really used it.


Oh and can a bosch 17014 sensor be used to replace a bad one by just re-wiring the connector?

[rbabos]

Do you guys tune to a flat 13.2 or so and then set the afr's? Or tune to the AFR desired?
AE,DE,AKR all get shut off? Or are gentle movements better?
Does the TS record as long as you want hooked up to a laptop like a vtune run?

Can bike be ridden when sensors arent recording, will it hurt the sensor?

Sorry for the newbie questions, have the Ts kit for years now, just never really used it.


Oh and can a bosch 17014 sensor be used to replace a bad one by just re-wiring the connector?

Good questions and most I can't help you with since I will be using one for the first time also shortly. What has come out in the afr section is it might be better to not set 13.2-13.5 across the board and instead set more normal afrs like 13.8 idle, 14.2 cruise and 13.2 wfo. This would cause less error since the range would be reduced. In the same fashion I'd likely cancel out AE,DE,and all knock sensing features. My idea, I don't want influenced readings. How they play out later is no concern to me once ve's are set. This would be more of an AFR adjustment area to be dealt with later as far as I know.
Twinscan has it's own recording storage , separate from the laptop.  It can be viewed from the laptop after the run.
Don't think running the sensor unheated will do it any favours but not sure.
This is where one of the top tuners that use this system should  explain its use right from hookup, gathering data and finalizing the ve's in the map. I'm sure there's variations between tuners but it would be good to hear all methods, both dyno and road tuning.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

It will record as long as you want on a computer.

IMO mapping VE's to a steady AFR is better.  Tuning AFR comes after setting the VE's.

Tried to leave your thread alone Truk.

[wurk_truk]

It will record as long as you want on a computer.

IMO mapping VE's to a steady AFR is better.  Tuning AFR comes after setting the VE's.

Tried to leave your thread alone Truk.

Yep.  This is the way to go in my book.  How bout sending that TS my way so I can ship it north Jason?  All of us should get things together so that we can all play around as a bunch... me, you Chop, Ron, etc and play around a bit.  I will look into my primary issue this week and have it figured out soon (I Hope).

[rbabos]

It will record as long as you want on a computer.

IMO mapping VE's to a steady AFR is better.  Tuning AFR comes after setting the VE's.

Tried to leave your thread alone Truk.

It seems we already have a small issue regarding methods based on the other thread afr actual that has me jumping between the two.  Steady state afr is the norm for sure but I will be road tuning this sucker and Stroker does bring up a valid point in that having my present running afrs more or less set closer to where they should be. In theory the adjustment points should be less, with less error should one move the calibrated 13.2-13.5 steady afr from twinscan to the 14.2 ish for actual engine running. Not wanting to start the usual pissing matches but realistic pros and cons to both theorys. Both work, but without a dyno, which would be more productive and accurate for road tuning? The big if in my case is are my afrs accurate enough now to go this route?
Ron

[hrdtail78]

Targeting 13.5 across the board makes for smoother VE's.  Or any constant with in reason.  Why?  Take MAP vs. RPM.  If I am asking for a constant my VE table will be smoother.  Take 2500rpm's.  If we are targeting 13.5 in the 50kpa column we can set or VE for that cell.  Then we move to the 60kpa column.  We should have more airflow here.  Maybe not, but the difference between these cells should be minimum.  Maybe the VE number will be 1-2 units away from each other.  Smooth transition.  Now, if we target 13.2 in the 60 and 14.2 in the 50kpa.  We are already asking for 20 units different between these to cells.  You just put a peak or valley into the VE table. 

If we understand that the VE table represents the amount of airflow through the engine.  We can start to understand that when mapping this.  We need to take out outside influence to map it.  This includes warm up enrichment, accel, decel tables, PE mode, and spark knock.  IMO this also includes changing of desired AF.

[1FSTRK]

Targeting 13.5 across the board makes for smoother VE's.  Or any constant with in reason.  Why?  Take MAP vs. RPM.  If I am asking for a constant my VE table will be smoother.  Take 2500rpm's.  If we are targeting 13.5 in the 50kpa column we can set or VE for that cell.  Then we move to the 60kpa column.  We should have more airflow here.  Maybe not, but the difference between these cells should be minimum.  Maybe the VE number will be 1-2 units away from each other.  Smooth transition.  Now, if we target 13.2 in the 60 and 14.2 in the 50kpa.  We are already asking for 20 units different between these to cells.  You just put a peak or valley into the VE table. 

If we understand that the VE table represents the amount of airflow through the engine.  We can start to understand that when mapping this.  We need to take out outside influence to map it.  This includes warm up enrichment, accel, decel tables, PE mode, and spark knock.  IMO this also includes changing of desired AF.

If you command 13.2 and get 13.2 at the pipe you will have the same ve as you do when you command 14.2 and get 14,2 at the pipe. The fuel change and the afr changes but the ve is a constant.
Actual measured data is always better than calculated data. I am not saying that using math will not work, and often it is all we have, but any time you can work with data from actual conditions is will be the best. I get attacked when I bring this up with regards to calculated corrected compression ratio vs. measured cylinder cranking pressure. 

[BVHOG]

If I were doing strictly on road tuning than by all means set the targets and then adjust VE's,  Tune to the target you have while actually riding, how can that be bad?  Changing the target after setting the VE's is bringing just one more mathematical equation into the mix although from doing it both ways I see very little difference. If you read the twinscan instructions it tells you to discontinue the older clumsy method (their words not mine) of setting the target all the same.
17014 sensors are no problem if you crimp the new deutch ends on, I buy the sensors at a local auto parts store here for under 60 bucks and get the pins from the HD dealer (accessory pins) I probably have 15 tunes on the present set and every time I check them for cal they are right on.
Don't see where you will hurt the sensor riding with it in but it really is a minor deal to pull them on 95% of pipes.
I have two complete systems I use here and have been using this product since it first came out as a single channel setup.
I feel it has been the best kept secret in tuning. Check out the Bob Woods website and take the shop tour, you will see he is using it on his dyno as well.

[hrdtail78]

Rbabos,
Your right there is a difference between tuning straegties.  IMO, mine (which isn't) is based on setting VE's correctly on the VE based systems we are using.  Not time and looking for a softer, easier way.  Maybe the difference between $300 tune and a $450 tune.

The DTT will allow you to set any desired and guess at what VE changes need to happen and produce that for you, but it will also do this for a constant.  So why not let it get you real close to a constant of say 13.5.  Let it do all the big adding and subtracting of 20-30 units.  Then when you are close.  Set AFR table to desired and let it change it 1-2 units to dial it in. Remember being 20 units off at targeted 14.2 is 15.2, but at 13.2 it's 14.2.

I can't see why the stragety would need to change from dyno to street.  BUT since I only have 3 bikes tuned on the dyno with the help of DTT and no street tuning.  IDK

[hrdtail78]

Targeting 13.5 across the board makes for smoother VE's.  Or any constant with in reason.  Why?  Take MAP vs. RPM.  If I am asking for a constant my VE table will be smoother.  Take 2500rpm's.  If we are targeting 13.5 in the 50kpa column we can set or VE for that cell.  Then we move to the 60kpa column.  We should have more airflow here.  Maybe not, but the difference between these cells should be minimum.  Maybe the VE number will be 1-2 units away from each other.  Smooth transition.  Now, if we target 13.2 in the 60 and 14.2 in the 50kpa.  We are already asking for 20 units different between these to cells.  You just put a peak or valley into the VE table. 

If we understand that the VE table represents the amount of airflow through the engine.  We can start to understand that when mapping this.  We need to take out outside influence to map it.  This includes warm up enrichment, accel, decel tables, PE mode, and spark knock.  IMO this also includes changing of desired AF.

If you command 13.2 and get 13.2 at the pipe you will have the same ve as you do when you command 14.2 and get 14,2 at the pipe. The fuel change and the afr changes but the ve is a constant.

But we have heard over and over on this site that this doesn't always work out like this.  Can't say it doesn't work to prove one point then change it to fit into another point.  If one column is set at 14.2 and the one next to it is set for 13.2.  What is the acual target fuel with one cell influencing the other?

Actual measured data is always better than calculated data. I am not saying that using math will not work, and often it is all we have, but any time you can work with data from actual conditions is will be the best. I get attacked when I bring this up with regards to calculated corrected compression ratio vs. measured cylinder cranking pressure.

But we are talking electronic fuel control.  It is math.  Acual condition are great.  Thats why we need to recheck VE's after changing the AFR table.  But once you get everything dead set, perfect.  We fill up with different fuel, weather changes, etc........ we are back to math.  Nature of the beast with OL tunes, or tuning OL.

[glens]

My take on it is that if the VE tables are correct, the results out the pipe will match the target set in the calibration, even if you change the targets all around after the fact.  The ECM uses math every time it gets ready to fire an injector.  The principal equation factor that we adjust to get the math correct is the VE table.  The target mixture is immaterial in the sense that if the VE value under consideration by the ECM at any moment is currently correct for one target mixture, it will also be correct for a different target mixture.

The problem I see with using mixed target mixture values while trying to arrive at correct VE values using an outside source is that mixture and VE table interpolation comes into play in combination with the uncertainty of ECM data output groupings.  If the same target mixture is used throughout, interpolation of those values is completely factored out.  Since the reported target mixture is thus never a questionable value for the moment under consideration, VE table population should go much more quickly and reliably.  There's no need to check the mixture again after then changing target values.  If they aren't perfectly accurate they're certainly going to be close enough.

[1FSTRK]

 
Thanks Glens. You are much better at putting my thoughts into words than I am.

[wurk_truk]

Ron, I am tending to side with Jason and Glen on this, for now.  But... since it will be me, you, and hopefully Jason, if time allows him, we CAN play around with BOTH methods.

One thing I have now got all together (well... almost...) is that I can run the twin scan while closed loop is in operations, as I went ahead and just received the NEW Herko Block set-up....  I can run the TS from the Herkos and monitor the actual output of AFRs, all the while the bike is in open or closed loop.

Also, I am going to politely request that the usual suspects refrain from bickering, if that is possible, now would be a good time to do so.

While we are waiting on Ron to get his Twin Scan, I will post up some pix and explanations on the Herko Blocks in a day or so, for the rest of our members.

Oh... I was told yesterday, that the pricing I quoted on anyone wishing to buy a Twin Scan + kit is still good.

[rbabos]

Ron, I am tending to side with Jason and Glen on this, for now.  But... since it will be me, you, and hopefully Jason, if time allows him, we CAN play around with BOTH methods.

One thing I have now got all together (well... almost...) is that I can run the twin scan while closed loop is in operations, as I went ahead and just received the NEW Herko Block set-up....  I can run the TS from the Herkos and monitor the actual output of AFRs, all the while the bike is in open or closed loop.

Also, I am going to politely request that the usual suspects refrain from bickering, if that is possible, now would be a good time to do so.

While we are waiting on Ron to get his Twin Scan, I will post up some pix and explanations on the Herko Blocks in a day or so, for the rest of our members.

Oh... I was told yesterday, that the pricing I quoted on anyone wishing to buy a Twin Scan + kit is still good.

Interesting to see both in operation at the same time. The vacuum system, this I gotta see.
You will have so much chit piled on the bike it will take out the comp on the first launch.
Ron

[wurk_truk]

It will record as long as you want on a computer.

IMO mapping VE's to a steady AFR is better.  Tuning AFR comes after setting the VE's.

Tried to leave your thread alone Truk.

Both work, but without a dyno, which would be more productive and accurate for road tuning? The big if in my case is are my afrs accurate enough now to go this route?
Ron

THIS is one reason I will be tuning to 13.5 globally at first.  With a possible error rate of .5afr (i don't believe that BTW), one would wish to be SURE, on a 120, to NOT be pulling the bike in from 14.7 to 15 AFR.

[Durwood]

Truk,did you find a vacuum pump?

[wurk_truk]

I have a 12vdc vacuum cleaner that Herko sent me, and I saw online a 12vdc pump from a Cummins Diesel Dodge pump for $63 new.

[glens]

I would caution against too much pressure differential across the O2 sensor as this will skew its controller's output.  Is there any way to adjust the amount of vacuum being pulled?

[hrdtail78]

The two things that I see are going to be problems are. Getting the right vacuum. He can shoot for 3.5 l/min, but how?  The other is keeping the pump clean. Need to be able to filter the exhaust before it goes into the pump.

[Herko]

I would caution against too much pressure differential across the O2 sensor as this will skew its controller's output.  Is there any way to adjust the amount of vacuum being pulled?

The two things that I see are going to be problems are. Getting the right vacuum. He can shoot for 3.5 l/min, but how?  The other is keeping the pump clean. Need to be able to filter the exhaust before it goes into the pump

Wurk Truk is aware of these factors and issues and has plans to deal/improvise with them accordingly. The 12V vacuum was simply a readily available interim vacuum source to help get his project rolling.

3.5 L/min?? If this is from the DJ book my DJ book shows 35.0 L/min. Irrelevant here though.
Either way, a very light vacuum source is needed for the manifolds and sometimes none at all depending on pressure within the exhaust pipe at given operational parameters.

[hrdtail78]

Yes. DJ's book. My gauge is scaled to 3.5. 

[mayor]

let me see if I have this figured out right.  The Twin scan plugs into the data port and attaches to an afr module that has wideband o2 sensors (broadbands for the koolaid crowd).  You then drive around and collect data, and the software spits out a chart to tell you how far off of desired afr you are at given ve cells?  You then take this data and make a new calibration, then repeat until you are somewhat with in a margin of error?  do I have this about right? 

how about some pics of the TS installed along with some simple instructions for those of us sitting on the fence.   

[rigidthumper]

Another possible issue is pump mounting. If sealed within the saddlebag, the bag will fill up with exhaust and that can change the pumps vacuum. May have to build a small platform attached to the bag mounts, supporting the pump/hoses and maybe the TS unit also.

[wurk_truk]

The TS will fit under the side covers.  WEGO on the right and TS on the left where I have NO ABS.

Good catch on the pump Robin.  I will devise something.

Yes...  it's TTS all over again.  Except it gives a percentage of change one needs to do to make the VE correct.  This works for AFR and Lambda.

[Scarem]

I've been using the TS for a few years now. I tuned a 05 wide glide using a back pack to hold my laptop, allowing more data collection and multiple saved files.  I would set the data collection rate at 1.0 and cruise to an area where I could do some WFO runs. Pulled over, saved the 1.0 run data,( 45 minutes worth) cleared the buffer and sent the new 0.2 second collection rate to the unit and give it hell. The lower the sample rate, the more data collected, so the less storage you will have.  I think the .02 rate only holds ( the last ) 10 minutes of data. I did about 6 to 8 WFO's and saved that data then changed it back to 1.0 for the cruise home.  Once home I open the first file then import the other files to obtain one VE correction chart showing both cruise and WFO.  If multiple files have redundant data for any one cell, the software will average.
One thing you will need is a 12vdc feed to the wego for the wide band sensors. The wego comes with the same 12v connector as the typical battery tender uses.

[rbabos]

Good to know I at least have the 12v supply ready to go. My tuning fingers are getting itchy.
Ron

[wurk_truk]

Its on the way, Ron

[strokerjlk]

Good to know I at least have the 12v supply ready to go. My tuning fingers are getting itchy.
Ron

they dont need a power supply any more. powers up through the data port now.

[rbabos]

Good to know I at least have the 12v supply ready to go. My tuning fingers are getting itchy.
Ron

they dont need a power supply any more. powers up through the data port now.

Even better.
Ron

[ToBeFrank]

I was doing VE tuning with the Twin Scan back in 2008. I originally wrote MyTune because the VE tuning part of the Twin Scan was not so great. The wego part worked great though. They may have fixed the VE tuning softare by now. I fully tuned my build using the wego and MyTune, then had it dyno tuned to see how the self tune came out. The result: peak numbers roughly the same, driveability the same, fuel efficiency slightly better with self tune. My verdict: you should have no problems getting a good tune using the Twin Scan wego.

[rbabos]

I was doing VE tuning with the Twin Scan back in 2008. I originally wrote MyTune because the VE tuning part of the Twin Scan was not so great. The wego part worked great though. They may have fixed the VE tuning softare by now. I fully tuned my build using the wego and MyTune, then had it dyno tuned to see how the self tune came out. The result: peak numbers roughly the same, driveability the same, fuel efficiency slightly better with self tune. My verdict: you should have no problems getting a good tune using the Twin Scan wego.

Cool. Some of us are really looking forward to playing with it.
Ron

[rbabos]

Got my TS11 stuff and playing with the program but have a couple questions.
Why would someone want to run a base afr of 13.2 when it clearly states in the directions not to use this clunky method. For me, it would make more sense to run my existing afrs since it runs pretty good as is. Plus, this way I can leave it hooked up for a decent amount of time collecting data over varying conditions, have running better and less carbon than 13.2 across the board would do. I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?
Ron

[hrdtail78]

"I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?"

If you know you are close.  Like in your case.  Probably don't need the clunky way.  But what if you are starting from Scratch?  On a nonfamiliar build?

Question I have for you.  Have you read all the instructions that came with the kit?  Are you going to use the guideline of 13-14 for best cruise?

[Herko]

Blanket 13.2 or blanket 13.5 etc. vs. AFR/Lambda table populated with the end result numbers. The good thing is we have a choice. The choice should factor in the build, the situation, and the comfort level of the user.

[rbabos]

"I know this has been hashed out before but having clearly read the instructions why deviate from them?"

If you know you are close.  Like in your case.  Probably don't need the clunky way.  But what if you are starting from Scratch?  On a nonfamiliar build?

Question I have for you.  Have you read all the instructions that came with the kit?  Are you going to use the guideline of 13-14 for best cruise?

Makes sense on the fresh start. I think I will just run it at the 14.4 and see how much change there is. Then I'll see which path to take.
Ron

[Durwood]

Ron,I forsee a dyno in your future...

[hrdtail78]

As per PM.  I don't know why the Corrected VE cells are so small.   No excel master here.

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[Steve Cole]

Look at the top of the page and see where the scale is set. Typically in Excel when people see small sizes its set to something less than 100%

[hrdtail78]

I found the slider. Bottom right.

[strokerjlk]

Ron
Tune your current cal as it is plain and simple.
If your start another cal. Tune your open loop to target what you want.
If you want a closed loop portion tune to 14.6 with 450 CLB
You know the drill from there

[hrdtail78]

Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source. Work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM. Most will see leaving the whole thing open loop and blame the system for what they can't figure out. The easiest way to go. There is more out there.

[Herko]

Excel is a powerful tool and is highly valuable in the tuning arena.
This will seem rudimentary to some, but, a tip I would pass along when using/teaching Powerpoint for technical applications is reverse engineering. Excel is very similar in this regard.

For example, open one of the DTT spread sheets and save it as a different file name. Then take the new-named file (initially, it's still fully the same file as the DTT file) and have at it. Start experimenting. Try things. Dissect. Add/remove columns and rows. Carry over formulas. Use the help files etc. If all gets convoluted, no harm no foul, simply start over with what you learned. Your original saved DTT file is still as it was when downloaded. With some time, you'll be handy with tailoring Excel files for specific tuning purposes and tasks. 

[rbabos]

Well, went through the motions and got it all working. Couple of observations. As was mentioned to tune the existing aft table so went at it. Discovered vtune was nice enough to add 14.7s ,15.5, 10.0 afrs within the map. AE, DE, PE, all disabled during runs.
Raises the question of why narrowbands put those afrs there and it took broadbands to find it. The whole mt8 calibration was vtuned richer than what's shown in he afr table . Up to 1 afr near idle and 2 around 60%. I think some of you will be surprised at what actual afr vtune gave you.
Ron

[mayor]

 

[rbabos]

This is my first run.
Ron

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[glens]

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

[Hilly13]

So what do we make of it Ron?

[Herko]

Ron,
What's the TS table look like with the data filtered?

[rbabos]

Ron,
What's the TS table look like with the data filtered?

The one 15.7 disappears as well as the one other but the high 14s remain. I started to filter on later runs. I will not ever TS my existing cal again. Making corrections to bring the ve's into what the AFR table is produces a condition where the engine runs like crap. It likes 13.2-13.5 but hates when the ve is chased to produce 14.0 as an example in the low end. Gets really confusing at times too. Next time it's 13.5 accross the board and then fine tune tune the afr table. Excel correction tables I tried do not give the exact corrections for some reason so I didn't trust them and did it manually from TS to TTS ve tables. More practice with them and it might be fine.  Spent 2 days and 200 miles and in the end have a smoother running engine at all rpms, except my light load jerking returned. I need to dial this in again with the afr table. Easy to use tool. Hardest part is fitting it all back into the case when done. Tuned open loop so I stuck the supplied O2 plugs in the bungs. I'm surprised unplugging the sensors don't produce a code.
Ron

[strokerjlk]

Making corrections to bring the ve's into what the AFR table is produces a condition where the engine runs like crap.

thats because your v tune was soooo lean to begin with.

[Herko]

Ron.
You may be aware, but on your 'Table Format' window you can select "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' to better match your 176 cal grid. I.e. your 7 and 25 columns will be presented.

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

The TS table Ron attached targets the VE Tables and shows the results in AFR for the VE calibration. Hence, it shows the X axis as TPS for the 176 cals.

[ToBeFrank]

I strongly suggest setting your entire AFR table to one value when logging with the twin scan and widebands. The software that generates a tune from the widebands has to be a lot smarter than with the narrowbands because the widebands are slow. Allowing the AFR target to move around makes it pretty much impossible to generate a correct tune.

EDIT: Note that I'm assuming you're street tuning, not on a dyno.

[rbabos]

I strongly suggest setting your entire AFR table to one value when logging with the twin scan and widebands. The software that generates a tune from the widebands has to be a lot smarter than with the narrowbands because the widebands are slow. Allowing the AFR target to move around makes it pretty much impossible to generate a correct tune.

EDIT: Note that I'm assuming you're street tuning, not on a dyno.

I'm tending to agree and one of the reasons is what Stroker mentioned. Too much variance between fuel command and actual TS results. If I ever do it again it will be 13.2-13.5 from the start. Might work to tune the existing if closer but you don't know until at least one run.
Yup, street tune and with a 120 in a softail that's a fkg joke. The run I posted has close to 110 mph in there at one spot. Loads , well, finding that with a big engine and light bike is a chore. From the first posted run I decide to live and worked my real driving range with a tad more rpms between shifts along with some short shifting. This engine runs in a very narrow tps range even getting on it, so real world driving and a tad more is where I drew the line for road tuning.
Ron

[rbabos]

Ron.
You may be aware, but on your 'Table Format' window you can select "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' to better match your 176 cal grid. I.e. your 7 and 25 columns will be presented.

I hope the TS software allows you to use RPM/MAP axes on its fueling table like what's in your calibration or looks like it's going to be real hit-and-miss trying to incorporate the suggested changes.

The TS table Ron attached targets the VE Tables and shows the results in AFR for the VE calibration. Hence, it shows the X axis as TPS for the 176 cals.

I see the option now but I set it to basic. How much difference would it make? Seems I got both afrs balanced between the cyls. Front one was always leaner throughout the table and need the most work. I see the advanced adds the extra tps % areas missing in the Basic. Those missing areas ,being I used basic, I blended.
Ron

[Herko]

How much difference would it make?

Go ahead and open your .log file(s) and then select the "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' format while it's there and see what you get.  TS is generous in logging data that we may think don't need or did not intend to see.  As Boz says, everyday is a school day.

[rbabos]

How much difference would it make?

Go ahead and open your .log file(s) and then select the "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' format while it's there and see what you get.  TS is generous in logging data that we may think don't need or did not intend to see.  As Boz says, everyday is a school day.

Will do.
Ron

[Herko]

Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source. Work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM.

or to paraphrase if I may??...Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source that will work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM. 

Respectfully disagree based on what I've experienced.
On this thread, the phase of tuning being discussed here is primarily VE calibration. There are a handful of ways to calibrate VE's. Use what works for you. Everyone has their reasons, equipment and methods. However, this thread is focused on calibrating VE's with the TS/WEGO. What's important is that they're calibrated properly.

When the VE's are calibrated with the TS/WEGO, and then portions of the cal are placed back in Closed Loop, depending on the build, all works well in Closed Loop. In the cases of "Depending on the build" this is irregardless of how you calibrated VE's as long as they were calibrated properly. AFR/Lambda cross checks with Dyno brake settings that reproduce parameters that place engine in the Close Loop mode tell a story...whether good or bad.

[rbabos]

How much difference would it make?

Go ahead and open your .log file(s) and then select the "ST Twin Cam -Advanced' format while it's there and see what you get.  TS is generous in logging data that we may think don't need or did not intend to see.  As Boz says, everyday is a school day.

Just viewed the log on the lap and switched it to advanced. Hmmm. Ran the filter also on the posted forum log. One of the 15 afrs left but with advanced a 16.1 was added to the mix. Seems the advanced shows a few extra lean cells. Well at least I used the filter once I got going with it. I do have a question however. If TS starts logging when the key is first turned on and the engine started, will it not be logging a richer idle afr, especially if the engine isn't up to temp? I did have the warmup table shut down throughout but I think the ecm adds fuel when cold based on the engine temp sensor. Could be wrong, but just wondered about it.
Ron

[ToBeFrank]

I do have a question however. If TS starts logging when the key is first turned on and the engine started, will it not be logging a richer idle afr, especially if the engine isn't up to temp? I did have the warmup table shut down throughout but I think the ecm adds fuel when cold based on the engine temp sensor. Could be wrong, but just wondered about it.

All of this should be handled by the tuning algorithm. My experience with the TS is from 4 years ago so take it FWIW, but the TS software tuning was very basic. It did some simple filtering and then made adjustments to the VE based on the target and the logged value. It did not do the advanced filtering that needs to occur when road tuning.

[Herko]

This is where the logging 'interval' can come into play. I use .35 on the Dyno. Street tune, I would use something longer.

[ToBeFrank]

This is where the logging 'interval' can come into play. I use .35 on the Dyno. Street tune, I would use something longer.

I disagree. On street you want the shortest interval possible.

[hrdtail78]

Myself..  I wish to try to develop the best home made open loop tune I possibly can.  My new bungs should help with that.  Then go back and finish off the closed loop tune to the best I can do there, too. (I imagine I will do idle and WOT with the TS+kit for that tune also.)

Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source. Work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM.

or to paraphrase if I may??...Biggest problem you are going to have is making an open loop tune set up with an outside source that will work with the close loop portion being read by the ECM. 

Respectfully disagree based on what I've experienced.
On this thread, the phase of tuning being discussed here is primarily VE calibration. There are a handful of ways to calibrate VE's. Use what works for you. Everyone has their reasons, equipment and methods. However, this thread is focused on calibrating VE's with the TS/WEGO. What's important is that they're calibrated properly.When the VE's are calibrated with the TS/WEGO, and then portions of the cal are placed back in Closed Loop, depending on the build, all works well in Closed Loop. In the cases of "Depending on the build" this is irregardless of how you calibrated VE's as long as they were calibrated properly. AFR/Lambda cross checks with Dyno brake settings that reproduce parameters that place engine in the Close Loop mode tell a story...whether good or bad.

I completely agree with what you typed in red.  Both of these guys got thier head wrapped around Vtune, and the TS kit isn't as involved.  With the help they are getting from you guys, they'll be masters of it quickly.  The TS is targeting the fuel, and calculating VE's by how for off the desired AF actually is.  Nothing new there.  If the sensor is off by .3  That means your VE is off about 6 units.  TS gives us it's corrections in %, because it is made for SERT.  BUT VE is wrong.  I'm not saying that the stock O2's and ECM are going to get it perfect.  But They are going to win the fight if any CL is desired.  This is one reason I like to shoot for a constant.  The less the ECM has to do.  The more it can do what it does.

....And I will say it might not be the "biggest problem" but it is something I would take into consideration.

[Herko]

On street you want the shortest interval possible.

Frank, agreed, if transient items/occurrences are needed for review.
But when doing cell by cell VE calibration...no.

[ToBeFrank]

On street you want the shortest interval possible.

Frank, agreed, if transient items/occurrences are needed for review.
But when doing cell by cell VE calibration...no.

On the dyno, I agree. On the street, no way. You absolutely want the shortest interval (i.e. fastest update rate) possible for both cases.

[Herko]

I completely agree with what you typed in red.  Both of these guys got thier head wrapped around Vtune, and the TS kit isn't as involved.  With the help they are getting from you guys, they'll be masters of it quickly.  The TS is targeting the fuel, and calculating VE's by how for off the desired AF actually is.  Nothing new there.  If the sensor is off by .3  That means your VE is off about 6 units.  TS gives us it's corrections in %, because it is made for SERT.  BUT VE is wrong.  I'm not saying that the stock O2's and ECM are going to get it perfect.  But They are going to win the fight if any CL is desired.  This is one reason I like to shoot for a constant.  The less the ECM has to do.  The more it can do what it does.

....And I will say it might not be the "biggest problem" but it is something I would take into consideration.

J, to me, as far as accuracy is concerned, it's largely what the sensor's controller does with the information the sensor produces whether a LSU4 or an OE switching sensor. In what we're discussing here, LSU controller = TS/WEGO...OE controller = ECM. With the ECM being the host of the bikes's OS if you will and the OE sensor controller I can see your point. But again, I've had many Closed Loop successes calibrating with the TS/WEGO and using the TTS as flashing device.

One of my primary motivations for calibrating VE's with the TS/WEGO is that on many builds I don't like calibrating at the heat signatures that calibrating at stoich (or near stoich) produces.

[strokerjlk]

Just viewed the log on the lap and switched it to advanced. Hmmm. Ran the filter also on the posted forum log. One of the 15 afrs left but with advanced a 16.1 was added to the mix. Seems the advanced shows a few extra lean cells. Well at least I used the filter once I got going with it. I do have a question however. If TS starts logging when the key is first turned on and the engine started, will it not be logging a richer idle afr, especially if the engine isn't up to temp? I did have the warmup table shut down throughout but I think the ecm adds fuel when cold based on the engine temp sensor. Could be wrong, but just wondered about

dont plug your data port in until the bike is up to temp. but it really dosent matter those cells will be hit so many times it will get all the good data it needs.
using filtered data is a good idea until you get up to speed.
now I know your gonna end up doing another completely new tune. and really you need to play with it to see what all you can see and do.
I know you are set on the 13.2 13.5 cal ve's and then change AFR. and that will work.
but let me ask you this? after you do that...(change the AFR table to 14.4 etc)
isnt a guy like you going to sample again at 14.4 AFR and then make ve corrections again?
so you set the map up fat to start, and tune it lean,to the desired AFR. whatever that may be.

do some road logging . when you look back on your ve corrections,make your changes with the filter on.
then look at the ve corrections again  with the filter off and at 5 sample rate,then at 3 sample rate.
use those corrections when they look good. then see how close they were when you sample again. you will be shocked.
or pick an area that only shows when you have a 3 sample rate. write down the correction.
sample the area until you have a correction with the filter on ,or on 5 sample rate. again you will be surprised at how close the lower sample rate really was. ...this just helps pull it in  faster. you will be closer than if you did nothing at all to begin with. then just fine tuning it from there.
seen this on the street as well as the dyno.

[rbabos]

I think there's a point overlooked here. This bike was vtuned to start with. TS came up with different ve needs and the bike runs well. Vibraton levels are less now as one good indicator.  If I go back to closed loop it will once again revert, won't it? If vtune got it wrong the first time, how can I trust the narrow bands to retain what I just did with TS?
Ron

[ToBeFrank]

I'll say it once more and then leave it since I doubt anyone will actually listen anyway. You want to use the fastest sample rate possible on the street. There are two reasons why:

1) On the street, you'll have lots and lots of transients. Guess what the filters in the algorithms are for... filtering out the transients. If the filters can't see the transients, it can't filter them out. You'll be including bad data in your answers. The slower the sample rate, the harder it gets for the algorithm's filters to work. The TS is already almost too slow for good transient filtering. Developing the filters is easily the hardest part of developing a good algorithm.

2) Slow sample rate works fine in cruise areas where samples will be piling up in the bins, but what about the non-cruise areas? You'll set the throttle and go through the rpm range trying to hit all the bins. You don't want just one, two, or even a few samples in each bin, you want a lot of samples in each bin. With a slow sample rate you'll be lucky to hit one maybe two bins as you pass right on by, especially on a fast bike like Ron's. A slow sample rate will just make your job as tuner longer and harder. This is further exacerbated by number 1) above since now you'll have not only less samples in each bin, but also possibly transient data samples in the bins.

By all means, do what you want, but from the algorithm perspective, faster sampling will always give you a better tune, especially on the street. And since you're hitting more bins, it will take less time. Win, win.

[ToBeFrank]

I think there's a point overlooked here. This bike was vtuned to start with. TS came up with different ve needs and the bike runs well. Vibraton levels are less now as one good indicator.  If I go back to closed loop it will once again revert, won't it? If vtune got it wrong the first time, how can I trust the narrow bands to retain what I just did with TS?

I have to believe you've got bad data in here somewhere. I've compared my narrow band algorithm to VTune's and they produce almost identical results. As such I don't think VTune is the culprit here. I'm inclined to think the error is in the input data (either to VTune or TS) or the TS algorithm.

[rbabos]

I think there's a point overlooked here. This bike was vtuned to start with. TS came up with different ve needs and the bike runs well. Vibraton levels are less now as one good indicator.  If I go back to closed loop it will once again revert, won't it? If vtune got it wrong the first time, how can I trust the narrow bands to retain what I just did with TS?

I have to believe you've got bad data in here somewhere. I've compared my narrow band algorithm to VTune's and they produce almost identical results. As such I don't think VTune is the culprit here. I'm inclined to think the error is in the input data (either to VTune or TS) or the TS algorithm.

That, I don't know.  Interesting points on the transients and sample rates. I used the default .25 and didn't want to drag the lap along so I guess slowing down the sample rate increases logging time but I see there's a trade off. I did not know the rest of the effects as sample rate is slowed when road tuning is done.
All this info from anyone is good to get for anyone else that's planning to use the TS.
Ron

[Steve Cole]

I think most here will agree that they now understand there is reversion going on in the exhaust. So WHEN you read the sensor is a big deal based on it's position in the exhaust and the reversion. The stock ECM reads the sensors once per firing cycle at ALL RPM's, does the TS? How does the TS even know when the cylinder being read was fired? It doesn't! The reads of the stock sensor are timed to the firing cycle, is the TS? There is so much more to what is going on when you try to do this on the street that your just not going to be able to cover with the TS but there are some that believe you just toss it in the exhaust and it's right and everything else is wrong. 

It's another tool and since its slow in the response area, as all Broad Band sensors are, it needs to be use in more steady state conditions to really show what is going on. You still have to account somehow for the reversion that the TS will just show as a reading being averaged in. Frank has tried to spell it out but it's up to the operator to use it correctly.

[strokerjlk]

I think there's a point overlooked here. This bike was vtuned to start with. TS came up with different ve needs and the bike runs well. Vibraton levels are less now as one good indicator.  If I go back to closed loop it will once again revert, won't it? If vtune got it wrong the first time, how can I trust the narrow bands to retain what I just did with TS?
Ron

I wasent suggesting you go closed loop. 
just pointing out a few things to look at when you start another tune.

Frank
if you haven't used the newer software with the newest filters. you might try it.
a few of the guys that had the same complaints as what you suggest ,were very pleased when they picked it back up and started using the new software.

[wurk_truk]

Ron, let Jim tell you how to combine multiple runs into ONE tuning VE file.

That is one VERY handy item for street tuning.  This is NOT V-Tune and stop thinking that way.  You could take a MONTH of rides, combine them into one, and see a nice global picture of things.  I feel this is a help to overcoming the slow reaction of the wide bands.  During multiple runs, you would be more likely to hit most areas in a 'steady' state' fashion. 

In the past...  I have seen both TS and v-tune call almost the exact same VEs.  Thats until you play with idle and 80+ kpa.  The TTS was rich by a bit on the 80+ kpa.  I can't help but think that pipe sucks.  It's the only thing common left between builds.  If BOTH (vastly different) builds exhibit the same problems, one just HAS to think of what is the common denominator.

And... yes and no on the ECM trying to change the tune with the bike in closed loop.  If the bike has reversion, doesn't matter then, the ECM will try to pull it back.  This goes back to our 'old' test of resetting the AFVs, and if the bike instantly ran better.....  At the time, all of us thought v-tune was NOT hitting the targets correctly.  But there's a LOT of water under the bridge since then.  We know that it's reversion playing hell with things.   There is two ways to attack this, one is manually massage the VEs a bit (trial and error) to get the reversion out and then leave that section in open loop, OR use the TTS EGR tool to keep the ECM happy.  The TS, used in conjunction with v-tune can help as an aid to developing the EGR tool profile, too.

I feel that us, as DIYers, need to use BOTH tools in conjunction with each other to develop a good, nice, stable tune.  And... is why I talked a couple of you guys into buying this.   I want to see how we could use the TS and TTS TOGETHER to make for a better tuned ECM.  So you know...  I believe BOTH Steve and Jim know what they are talking about, in relation to their choice of 'tuning tools'.  Problem builds may need BOTH is all I'm saying.  And... neither Jim nor Steve will entertain THAT idea, at all, it is up to us to figure out some methods that work.

[ToBeFrank]

if you haven't used the newer software with the newest filters. you might try it.
a few of the guys that had the same complaints as what you suggest ,were very pleased when they picked it back up and started using the new software.

I figured that was the case which is why I stipulated my experience was from a few years ago. It doesn't affect my answer on the sample rate though. No filter can overcome a too slow sample rate.

[ToBeFrank]

Ron, let Jim tell you how to combine multiple runs into ONE tuning VE file.

The TS software doesn't do this for you? If it doesn't, it should. I know you don't want to hear it because I pissed you off, but MyTune does this automatically. Just load your files and it takes care of the rest. I sometimes wonder if the people writing their software actually use it to tune their bikes.

[rbabos]

Ron, let Jim tell you how to combine multiple runs into ONE tuning VE file.

That is one VERY handy item for street tuning.  This is NOT V-Tune and stop thinking that way.  You could take a MONTH of rides, combine them into one, and see a nice global picture of things.  I feel this is a help to overcoming the slow reaction of the wide bands.  During multiple runs, you would be more likely to hit most areas in a 'steady' state' fashion. 

In the past...  I have seen both TS and v-tune call almost the exact same VEs.  Thats until you play with idle and 80+ kpa.  The TTS was rich by a bit on the 80+ kpa.  I can't help but think that pipe sucks.  It's the only thing common left between builds.  If BOTH (vastly different) builds exhibit the same problems, one just HAS to think of what is the common denominator.

And... yes and no on the ECM trying to change the tune with the bike in closed loop.  If the bike has reversion, doesn't matter then, the ECM will try to pull it back.  This goes back to our 'old' test of resetting the AFVs, and if the bike instantly ran better.....  At the time, all of us thought v-tune was NOT hitting the targets correctly.  But there's a LOT of water under the bridge since then.  We know that it's reversion playing hell with things.   There is two ways to attack this, one is manually massage the VEs a bit (trial and error) to get the reversion out and then leave that section in open loop, OR use the TTS EGR tool to keep the ECM happy.  The TS, used in conjunction with v-tune can help as an aid to developing the EGR tool profile, too.

I feel that us, as DIYers, need to use BOTH tools in conjunction with each other to develop a good, nice, stable tune.  And... is why I talked a couple of you guys into buying this.   I want to see how we could use the TS and TTS TOGETHER to make for a better tuned ECM.  So you know...  I believe BOTH Steve and Jim know what they are talking about, in relation to their choice of 'tuning tools'.  Problem builds may need BOTH is all I'm saying.  And... neither Jim nor Steve will entertain THAT idea, at all, it is up to us to figure out some methods that work.

Here's something to consider. My plugs have always shown the rear as richer after vtuning. Front was always leaner. After running one TS log it clearly shows the rear mostly in the 13.2-13.5 range and the front, well see for yourself. Thing is, it picked it up as leaner just like the plug shows and done with the same engine and pipe as was vtuned. If the sampling was fkd with vtune it would be the same with TS but it wasn't. So do broadbands sample slower but better? There's the question. Another interesting tid bit. The DNO176 with 739 clb tuned way richer then what was called for across the map even setting the CI to 120. Way richer, I say. I bought TS to find out what my actual afrs were. Now I know.
Ron

[strokerjlk]

Ron, let Jim tell you how to combine multiple runs into ONE tuning VE file.

The TS software doesn't do this for you? If it doesn't, it should. I know you don't want to hear it because I pissed you off, but MyTune does this automatically. Just load your files and it takes care of the rest. I sometimes wonder if the people writing their software actually use it to tune their bikes.

Yes it loads them for you.
Say you do 10 data runs. Saving each one. Something like ron 1 thru ron 10
All you do is open the first one. Set up the page to see the data in whatever function you want. Lets say Ve correction front . Now you just keep opening each saved file and it
Keeps making the changes based on the new data. You cant switch cly or function once you pull the second file in. So to look at the other cly you do the same again .pull all your saved files in. Once you make the ve changes then you start new logs,saving as many as you like untill you are happy with the amount of data you have

[ToBeFrank]

Ron, let Jim tell you how to combine multiple runs into ONE tuning VE file.

The TS software doesn't do this for you? If it doesn't, it should. I know you don't want to hear it because I pissed you off, but MyTune does this automatically. Just load your files and it takes care of the rest. I sometimes wonder if the people writing their software actually use it to tune their bikes.

Yes it loads them for you.
Say you do 10 data runs. Saving each one. Something like ron 1 thru ron 10
All you do is open the first one. Set up the page to see the data in whatever function you want. Lets say Ve correction front . Now you just keep opening each saved file and it
Keeps making the changes based on the new data. You cant switch cly or function once you pull the second file in. So to look at the other cly you do the same again .pull all your saved files in. Once you make the ve changes then you start new logs,saving as many as you like untill you are happy with the amount of data you have

Ah yes, now I remember. It's been that way since I was using it and was yet another reason I wrote my own implementation. In your scenario above, you'd end up doing the file open 20 times (10 for each cylinder) just to do one function, ve correction. What a pain in the ass that was. Want to add 10 more logs? Do 20 more file opens. No thanks. I wrote mine to do 1 file open and load them all at once. No need to do the open again when switching cylinders. Much faster when you're doing tens to hundreds of logs.

[wurk_truk]

Will MyTune still work with TS, even though the bikes in question are 2007 up?

[ToBeFrank]

Will MyTune still work with TS, even though the bikes in question are 2007 up?

It should work with any non-DBW bike (i.e. the map has to use TPS for the VE table). It would work for for MAP based VE tables too if I took the time to implement it, but I've been having too much fun working with my own hardware instead.

EDIT: And if the TS logs have changed such that it doesn't work, the design is such that I can easily add support for the new log format.

[Herko]

I'll say it once more and then leave it since I doubt anyone will actually listen anyway. You want to use the fastest sample rate possible on the street.

Frank.
I am listening. Respect what what you write. This may be one of those things whereby I locked in on a personal paradigm of "my initially learned info" that I need to rethink. Something that a good bourbon, cigar, printed wisdom and some reading time will cure for me.

After all, hard to not respect a guy that wrote a tuning program (MyTune) primarily with the intent of good will along with the needed betterment of Harley EFI operation.

[ToBeFrank]

After all, hard to not respect a guy that wrote a tuning program (MyTune) primarily with the intent of good will along with the needed betterment of Harley EFI operation.

Actually, you are the reason MyTune exists. It originally existed in algorithm form as a command line tool. You may not remember, but in early 2008 you and I emailed back and forth because you had read my posts about the algorithm, and you wanted to try it with the dyno. I sent it to you, but unfortunately the command line was too much of a turn off (and I don't blame you). It was then that I realized it could be useful for other people if it was easy to use. So I owe you a thanks! 

[wurk_truk]

How about a TPS based DBW tune?  205 cals?

I will admit that as a DIYer, TTS is a really great tool.  But the further 'out there' one gets on a build, one needs to keep an open mind and be willing to try out new and different things.  THAT is what the title of this thread is really all about anyways...

I have talked to Herko at great length about this very thread, and we both agree that we would TRULY like to see something new and different come about with this group of fellas that actually furthers ALL of our knowledge.  We have Frank, Steve, Jim, John, me, Jason, and Ron all in one thread and NOBODY is fighting yet.  Hope it stays that way.

[ToBeFrank]

How about a TPS based DBW tune?  205 cals?

Oops, yes. I shouldn't have said non-DBW bikes. The requirement is that the VE table has to be TPS based so a DBW bike with a TPS VE table should work.

I will admit that as a DIYer, TTS is a really great tool.  But the further 'out there' one gets on a build, one needs to keep an open mind and be willing to try out new and different things.  THAT is what the title of this thread is really all about anyways...

Agreed. There is definitely more than one way to tune a bike.

I have talked to Herko at great length about this very thread, and we both agree that we would TRULY like to see something new and different come about with this group of fellas that actually furthers ALL of our knowledge.

I'm curious what you guys would like to see?

[strokerjlk]

Good stuff
Frank i am with john i really dont know if what your saying is a problem?
The software has always been faithfull to me. As i have said before ..i learned alot from what went on in 08 as well.you and steve going  back and forth gave me a lot to look at as well. I thank you for that.
I see what you are saying about the software taking time for a street tuner. Yes it can.
I only use i on the street for trikes and problem bikes anymore. But when you are street tuning you have nothing but time..LOL. actually if you use it right you dont need to bring in more files. That is just for fine fine tuning IMO
On the dyno you just keep one file going real time until you flash,no big deal. Then fine tune from there with another file.

[strokerjlk]

Phone wouldnt let me get the last line in.
Frank thanks for showing back up you bring a lot to the table

[Sporty 48]

ToBeFrank,
I think I emailed you a couple of years ago about Sportsters.
Went to your website but did not see.
Does your Mytune work on Sportys yet?

[ToBeFrank]

Should work if they're closed loop or use the TwinScan.

[hrdtail78]