FUDGE THE KOOLAIDE- Time for some Whiskey Tuning

[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.