Target tune closer to coming to market?

[hrdtail78]

I was getting confused on the difference between OL TT AT and CL TT AT.  I still am a bit.  CL TT uses the ST/LTFT as set up in the HD Delphi system.  Why can't it use the 0-5 volt it uses to give the ECM feed back and be logged at the same time.  It works with AT basic and stock NB sensors.  Besides Vision gives you VE new.  Just average those up and you got it, right?

[joe_lyons]

As of right now there is no Target Tune Auto Tune that is closed loop.   There is Target Tune that you have to send your cal the dynojet or Fuel Moto to have altered to use the Target Tune module. 

Have you used MLVHD this way and had bad results or are you assuming? 

[hrdtail78]

Have you used MLVHD this way 

No

[joe_lyons]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

[FLTRI]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Excellent idea.
If all things equal they should agree within .5afr
Bob

[Onthefence]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram. 

[joe_lyons]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

Did you still have the bike using the narrowband sensors along with the widebands? 

When using the widebands through PV to set VEs I like to use megalog viewer and the histogram/table generator.  Once you set up the X&Y to match and an Excell file to flip everything correctly it is pretty easy.  I use this formula and apply it to a Delta difference of the same calibration I am using (([Lambda2]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10  and
(([Lambda1]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10

This gives the difference between what is asked and what is seen so you can copy paste to the Delta table of the cal your messing with.  It works pretty well and I use it with older SERT and Vrod SEPST stuff.

[GregOn2Wheels]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

OnTheFence - your formula is close, but it calculates Lambda1 as a percentage of Set Lambda.  What you're after here is the Lambda1 to Set Lambda difference (delta) as a percentage of Set Lambda.  Try this formula:


-((Lambda1 - Set Lambda)/Set Lambda)


If you take the answer from above and multiple it by VE Front, you will get the delta to VE Front New.  Proof of this formula is if you take the answer from above and multiple it by Set Lambda, you'll get the delta to Lambda1.


I don't know if this will eliminate your .1 - .2 AFR difference, because there are still the questions of which observations to filter out before aggregation and the question you raised about the aggregation method  MLVHD uses when populating histograms.  What I'm fairly sure of is that the formula above is one you want to use.

[GregOn2Wheels]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

Did you still have the bike using the narrowband sensors along with the widebands? 

When using the widebands through PV to set VEs I like to use megalog viewer and the histogram/table generator.  Once you set up the X&Y to match and an Excell file to flip everything correctly it is pretty easy.  I use this formula and apply it to a Delta difference of the same calibration I am using (([Lambda2]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10  and
(([Lambda1]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10

This gives the difference between what is asked and what is seen so you can copy paste to the Delta table of the cal your messing with.  It works pretty well and I use it with older SERT and Vrod SEPST stuff.

Joe - doesn't this formula assume that 10 VEs equal 1 AFR?  I was talking to Jamie about this earlier today and he said that this rule-of-thumb does not apply across the board.  Specifically, we were talking about an idle issue and he said that 10:1 isn't accurate at idle.  I really don't know - just passing on what I think I heard Jamie say.

[hrdtail78]

that this rule-of-thumb does not apply across the board.  Specifically, we were talking about an idle issue and he said that 10:1 isn't accurate at idle. 

I would take this as.  It is a rule of thumb because it is a starting point.  Different cam/ exhaust is going to create different cross talk and reversion.  Sometimes 10:1 chases the target rich/ lean and 5:1 fits.  Sometimes it might be ?:1.  Without any feedback data that can be logged and verified.  VE new and set lambda's isn't everything......  and why should it be?  Target tune is out and it will do it for us.

[Onthefence]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

Did you still have the bike using the narrowband sensors along with the widebands? 

When I was playing with MLV and AT-100 tuning,  I was running both in an FM head pipe.   The widebands seemed to report fairly consistently.  However, when enabling closed loop it seemed the narrow bands moved the measured Afr .2 - .3 leaner.   It seemed that I had the best luck tuning the lCL areas with the narrowbands and the OL with the AT-100.

[Onthefence]

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

OnTheFence - your formula is close, but it calculates Lambda1 as a percentage of Set Lambda.  What you're after here is the Lambda1 to Set Lambda difference (delta) as a percentage of Set Lambda.  Try this formula:


-((Lambda1 - Set Lambda)/Set Lambda)


If you take the answer from above and multiple it by VE Front, you will get the delta to VE Front New.  Proof of this formula is if you take the answer from above and multiple it by Set Lambda, you'll get the delta to Lambda1.


I don't know if this will eliminate your .1 - .2 AFR difference, because there are still the questions of which observations to filter out before aggregation and the question you raised about the aggregation method  MLVHD uses when populating histograms.  What I'm fairly sure of is that the formula above is one you want to use.

I am on board with your formula * VE = New VE.   When discussing the .1 to .2 I just assumed this is about as close as you can get in open loop. 

I am interested in seeing what others do with MLVHD and the histogram.  MLVHD is a nice log parser for Power Vision users.  I am fairly trusting  the histogram outputs. And I think filtering has to be done when looking at AFR.

Correctly or incorrectly,  I have been filtering out
Acel Enr > 0
Decl Enl > 0
TP < 6    -  My bike fairly consistently idles at 5
ET < 176  - 175 and up just seemed like a nice number
Plus I select the "Transients" supplied filter

[joe_lyons]

I'm doing a little test,  I recorded going though all the same motions that I would normally do when doing a narrowband sensor tune and will use MLVHD and view the VE new F&R and apply those to the VE table and then do a regular narrowband tune and see the differences between the two.  It might or might not work.  I guess I'll see.

Your results will be interesting to see.  I tried using VE New in MLVHD to dial in VEs using the AT-100 and found that while the MLVHD was showing almost all cells a few points rich, The "Average" VE New was an increase over what was already there.  However, when I calculated the "average" delta's between Lambda and Set Lambda that the VE were smaller.

(([Lambda1]/[Set Lambda])*[VE Front])-[VE Front]

Changing based on the delta's moved the Lambda readings in the right direction and was within a .1 or .2 AFR reading in open loop.

I used the word "Average" loosely as I am only guessing how MLVHD calculates and populates a Histogram.

Did you still have the bike using the narrowband sensors along with the widebands? 

When using the widebands through PV to set VEs I like to use megalog viewer and the histogram/table generator.  Once you set up the X&Y to match and an Excell file to flip everything correctly it is pretty easy.  I use this formula and apply it to a Delta difference of the same calibration I am using (([Lambda2]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10  and
(([Lambda1]*14.7)-[Set AFR])*10

This gives the difference between what is asked and what is seen so you can copy paste to the Delta table of the cal your messing with.  It works pretty well and I use it with older SERT and Vrod SEPST stuff.

Joe - doesn't this formula assume that 10 VEs equal 1 AFR?  I was talking to Jamie about this earlier today and he said that this rule-of-thumb does not apply across the board.  Specifically, we were talking about an idle issue and he said that 10:1 isn't accurate at idle.  I really don't know - just passing on what I think I heard Jamie say.

It usually works out just fine with the 10-1 ratio.  Having a good starting cal for your setup is very nice in helping with this.  But 2-3 good logs can help me to see these areas that 10 does not equal 1. 

Using the ecms integrators is one of the fastest and easiest way to get things close.  I got to observe target tune doing its thing yesterday and it is quite amazing how fast and spot on it gets things. I never did get to observe a revolution performance ECM in action but it seems like dyno jet has done their research and got this nailed down pretty decent. 

[Sunny Jim]

Well Joe, I suspect I will be the first West Australian to launch this product. I will try it on the 103 first. I am happy to report my DIY results.
120r has a new crank coming from the states in 7 weeks, so it will have to wait.

[Mirrmu]

Several hundred thousand, if not millions of them are Harley Davidson Twin Cam powered bikes ridden by owners
completely oblivious to the "problems" those of us on forums wring our hands over every day.

Pick a problem, any problem, cam chain tensioners, lifters, valve seals, valve guides, compensators etc etc and I can show you 10 owners who
haven't a clue what we're talking about.

My 110" CVO RGU runs happy as a clam all day long at 14.5, closed loop, 450lbs of passengers +gear, at 90* ambient on 91 octane fuel.
Coming up on it's 5000mi oil change and hasn't lost a single drop of oil since it's 1000mi service.

top post, so true

[hdmanillac]

Do TT need the CAN plug when using the CAN wire, like AT 110 Pro do ?

[Jamie Long]

Do TT need the CAN plug when using the CAN wire, like AT 110 Pro do ?

With Target Tune you do not need the CAN termination plug or CAN cable.

[hdmanillac]

Ok good news. There are enough wires around the TT.

[whittlebeast]

Are there settings to adjust the closed loop response? 

How much are you guys finding the Pulse Width moving around when the bike is at constant load?

Andy

[joe_lyons]

Are there settings to adjust the closed loop response? 

How much are you guys finding the Pulse Width moving around when the bike is at constant load?

Andy

I am going to put this on my own bike for a trial but I need to make some adapters to go from the 4 wire plugs to the 2 wire plugs.  Now I just need time.

[glens]

How much are you guys finding the Pulse Width moving around when the bike is at constant load

Probably dithers the same.

[hdmanillac]

Is a Closed Loop Lambda Range of [1.013; 0.876] suitable for WB sensors ?

0.876 is the set lambda at WOT in the cal I use.

[FLTRI]

Is a Closed Loop Lambda Range of [1.013; 0.876] suitable for WB sensors ?

0.876 is the set lambda at WOT in the cal I use.

Sure, why not?
Bob

[Sunny Jim]

Well it finally arrived! I I'll install it this weekend on the 103. Watch this space.

[Sunny Jim]

So if one was to use the Auto tube feature in the
Target tune,
does it tune like the Auto tune basic ie: real time,
or does one have store the data and re flash it like tuning with AT pro ?