Altitude Issues

[Onthefence]

While on a Trip out west I found my bike ran pretty crappy at high elevations.  8k and up.  Ran a few PV AT Pro sessions and it got better.  Noting that my cruise area was in the 30kpa range, I am curious how that is accounted for on a dyno.  Can you hit those areas or is it a matter of a good tuner knowing manual adjustments.

It seems on the street anything I would log in 30kpa would be in decel.

[FLTRI]

While on a Trip out west I found my bike ran pretty crappy at high elevations.  8k and up.  Ran a few PV AT Pro sessions and it got better.  Noting that my cruise area was in the 30kpa range, I am curious how that is accounted for on a dyno.  Can you hit those areas or is it a matter of a good tuner knowing manual adjustments.

It seems on the street anything I would log in 30kpa would be in decel.

If decelling is 30kpa how could you cruise at 30kpa unless you were going downhill?
Bob

[rageglide]

Less air to work with at altitude - the kpa values will be lower.   WOT might only be 70kpa at 8k feet where it would be 100 @ sea level.

The ECM must scale/correct accordingly for the change in MAP.  This is where EFI with Closed loop shines.   Just like a CV carb will handle altitude better than an S&S E.  Running open loop puts you in the same class as the S&S carb.   

Getting the <30kpa VEs dialed in perfectly for technically unrealistic RPMs at Sea Level would probably not help at altitude because the ECM should now treat 30 as a running pressure vs a decel.

[FLTRI]

Getting the <30kpa VEs dialed in perfectly for technically unrealistic RPMs at Sea Level would probably not help at altitude because the ECM should now treat 30 as a running pressure vs a decel.

Makes no difference where in altitude you are, 30kpa is 30kpa and tuning is exactly the same.
The problem comes when trying to get the 100kpa cells when you are at altitude.
No problem tuning low KPA at altitude.
Bob

[PoorUB]

While on a Trip out west I found my bike ran pretty crappy at high elevations.  8k and up.  Ran a few PV AT Pro sessions and it got better.  Noting that my cruise area was in the 30kpa range, I am curious how that is accounted for on a dyno.  Can you hit those areas or is it a matter of a good tuner knowing manual adjustments.

It seems on the street anything I would log in 30kpa would be in decel.

I just ran into this too. My Ultra was tuned well for 900 feet, but ran poorly at 5,000 ft and up. The easy answer is to add to the VE's at the lower MAP. If your engine runs good at 40 MAP, just extend the settings in the 40 MAP column to the lower MAPS.

[Onthefence]

While on a Trip out west I found my bike ran pretty crappy at high elevations.  8k and up.  Ran a few PV AT Pro sessions and it got better.  Noting that my cruise area was in the 30kpa range, I am curious how that is accounted for on a dyno.  Can you hit those areas or is it a matter of a good tuner knowing manual adjustments.

It seems on the street anything I would log in 30kpa would be in decel.

If decelling is 30kpa how could you cruise at 30kpa unless you were going downhill?
Bob

For clarification, I meant that at 500 feet above sea level, I only see map readings in the 30kpa range during decel.  My assumption originally was that a dyno at the same altitude would produce the same results making it a bit difficult to hit those low map areas.

[rageglide]

Getting the <30kpa VEs dialed in perfectly for technically unrealistic RPMs at Sea Level would probably not help at altitude because the ECM should now treat 30 as a running pressure vs a decel.

Makes no difference where in altitude you are, 30kpa is 30kpa and tuning is exactly the same.
The problem comes when trying to get the 100kpa cells when you are at altitude.
No problem tuning low KPA at altitude.
Bob

I agree 30 is 30.  But if cruise 65mph level ground cruise shows 30kpa at 8k and 50kpa at sea level, and the 30kpa is not tuned for the same conditions (rpm and tp), how can the engine demands be the same?   

At 10k feet if WFO shows 70kpa You will never be able to hit 100kpa without forced induction.   Less air, Less pressure.
Just like you can't hit 120kpa at sea level.  100kpa is 14.7psi it only goes down with altitude.

That's how I understand air and naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

[FLTRI]

...65mph level ground cruise shows 30kpa at 8k and 50kpa at sea level, and the 30kpa is not tuned for the same conditions (rpm and tp), how can the engine demands be the same?

30kpa IS the demand. The ECM only knows KPA. If an engine is properly tuned (calibrated) at 30kpa it makes no difference what altitude.
That's the way I understand it.
Also, I don't think 30kpa is a realistic number for a land yacht to maintain 65mph level ground no wind. I may be wrong.
Bob

[a2wheeler]

Yes, kpa is the load factor, but that combo of rpm and kpa is all over the map. At idle 1000 rpm, kpa is 31.8 here at 6000 ft.  Decel, I can be rpm 3000 and kpa is 17. Accel, 3200 rpm and kpa is at 28. It climbs fast though. You just have to get the cells filled in the best you can. A dyno would fill them in better. I just got back from a sea level trip and initially, the 6th gear accel was a dog, but the ECM seems to learn enough that after 4500 miles it ran ok. I think it could be better. But I just guessed at those cells.

[Coyote]

but that combo of rpm and kpa is all over the map.

   Pretty sure it's only in one place (cell)

[FLTRI]

Yes, kpa is the load factor, but that combo of rpm and kpa is all over the map. At idle 1000 rpm, kpa is 31.8 here at 6000 ft.  Decel, I can be rpm 3000 and kpa is 17. Accel, 3200 rpm and kpa is at 28. It climbs fast though. You just have to get the cells filled in the best you can. A dyno would fill them in better. I just got back from a sea level trip and initially, the 6th gear accel was a dog, but the ECM seems to learn enough that after 4500 miles it ran ok. I think it could be better. But I just guessed at those cells.

Just keep in mind I doesn't matter what you and I think is happening. It ONLY matter what the ECM does based on its rules not ours.
What I mean is there is only one cell for a given KPA @ rpm, as Coyote mentioned.
If you will accept that fact you will be able to find and tune where needed. No need to guess at cells you can't collect data for.
I do a bit of blending, smoothing, and other subtle changes to the tune based on my experiences with particular builds and how they react to different exhaust systems and cam profiles.
Common sense approaches to tuning helps too. Give the engine what it likes.
If you get plenty hits you prolly can use the data. If you don't either it's too lean or rich...or something mechanically is wrong.
Bob

[Onthefence]

I am still not clear if a bike on a dyno at or above sea level could run at those low map settings to take the measurements to calculate good ve numbers.

[FLTRI]

I am still not clear if a bike on a dyno at or above sea level could run at those low map settings to take the measurements to calculate good ve numbers.

The only issue with high alititude is getting to 100 KPA. Not sure why you think low KPA is unique to high altitude.
The key is to leave some low KPA stuff in open loop so the ECM doesn't rely on the sensors for that area. It's knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em so to speak.
Bob

[Onthefence]

So it's common for a bike to cruise in the 30kpa area at sea level? I didn't know that. Mine is far higher than that and must be uncommon.  Thanks for the information.

[a2wheeler]

but that combo of rpm and kpa is all over the map.

   Pretty sure it's only in one place (cell)

Yes, poor choice of words. yes it is one cell for a given rpm/kpa, but the variable is you might be decel, or accel, or high altitude or low altitude. My point was even at idle I see 32 kpa at 6000ft and at sea level, idle will be different.
And I equate blending VE cells that I can't get enough hits in as guessing. I have read several different expert opinions on how upper kpa columns should blend up, and some say blend down, or blend even. Or maybe I got all those confused with blending of the timing tables. If you get close, then the ecm fills in as you ride in those new cells - for what ever reason you end up hitting them.  That was the case with mine. I'm happy with what it learned in a short period. However, I now want to change my target main lambda table to get a bit better mileage. And when I reload the map, it will reset all those learning. I wish I could see what it learned, I have no different guesses.

[FLTRI]

So it's common for a bike to cruise in the 30kpa area at sea level? I didn't know that. Mine is far higher than that and must be uncommon.  Thanks for the information.

Ok, show us a data log that shows 30kpa while cruising at 65mph on level ground.
Maybe it takes less KPA to produce the same power at high elevation as at sea level to maintain 65mph?
Air's thinner maybe that's why less KPA necessary to maintain 65mph?
Bob

[a2wheeler]

That is definitely easier on a dyno. But I'll give it an attempt. I doubt that 30 will be seen at 65 mph, but I'll try several speeds to create a pattern of high altitude. This will most likely be in the 7k ft range. What I have been seeing in general is that the cells I can hit at 7K ft are a shift left about 3 columns that folks can hit at sea level. I can not hit 90 + kpa, I have to go down to 6k ft and go through strange driving styles to even touch 90 and then it is not often enough to use it. I fill cells in 25kpa to 80kpa and I hit 15kpa and 20 kpa but TTS does not keep track of those.   

[FLTRI]

... I'll give it an attempt. I doubt that 30 will be seen at 65 mph, but I'll try several speeds to create a pattern of high altitude. This will most likely be in the 7k ft range. What I have been seeing in general is that the cells I can hit at 7K ft are a shift left about 3 columns that folks can hit at sea level. I can not hit 90 + kpa, I have to go down to 6k ft and go through strange driving styles to even touch 90 and then it is not often enough to use it. I fill cells in 25kpa to 80kpa and I hit 15kpa and 20 kpa but TTS does not keep track of those.   

Sea level calibrations look just like yours, no difference. The fact is you cannot get to the high KPA due to altitude. No shifting to the left.

It's very easy to hit max KPA, whatever it is, just put it in high gear and add throttle. If you are in the lower rpms you can hit max KPA with as little as 15% throttle.

And finally, anything below 25-30kpa is decel and if running an open exhaust, air reversion can cause erroneously lean mixture only to have the system dutifully and accurately compensate.
Ya learn to guess good on the decel numbers to control behavior like popping and backfires.
Different exhaust systems react differently to decel fueling and timing strategies.

If I've learned anything from tuning it's the ECM will always win and no matter how smart I think I am the ECM easily outsmarts me.

I've learned how to work with the system (a lot of thanks to SC of course) in an endevour to better understand why it does what it does. That way hopefully, I will make more informed tuning decisions in order to produce a better running bike.
I learn something new every day too.
Bob

[rageglide]

   The conversation isn't about producing the same power.   It's about the engine running best at altitude when the engine has been tuned to run best at close to sea level.  30kpa at sea level is decel (closed throttle) but at 8k feet, it's going to translate to throttle being open a fair amount. 

There is less air at altitude, therefore there is less pressure.  Cruising at 65mph at same RPM will not be using the same TP as at sea level.  It's not the same.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

If 50kpa at WFO at altitude is ALL the pressure you can get. That's it, without forced induction you will never get to 100kpa at that altitude. 

[glens]

25-30 kPa is decel even at 9 kft?

You, mount a large fan in one wall of your booth, have it blow out, but don't allow enough makeup air to the room.  And you, mount a large fan in one wall of your booth, have it blow in, but don't allow enough exhaust air from the room.  Problem solved: extend your tuning range. 

I think the biggest issue is when AE and DE running modifications (exiting closed-loop) are disabled for the purpose of collecting data while road-tuning.  These really are, or least can be, irregular conditions which should not be used as a basis for establishing VEs.  Especially so when they're present in an inordinate amount within any log file.  A certain amount (at least type) of accel enrichment will be built into the VE tables from the presence of a sufficient amount of such conditions during a run, for example.  AE/DE stuff would certainly influence the lower usable pressure range at the sea coast, generating data really not pertinent for more "normal" operation that will certainly be encountered at altitude.  Perhaps that's what's happened in these two recent examples?

Refer to paragraph two.

[a2wheeler]

My head hurts now, but this grasshopper is still processing on all that you guys have shared.

Glens,  early TTS instructions said turn off AE and DE for vtune data collection. Newer versons say leave AE and DE on during vtune data colleciton. I got confused with your comments - are you saying that having AE and DE on during collection may adversely affect those low kpa columns depending on what altitude you are at during the collection? So I'm am thinking you suggest turning AE and DE off during collection?

[rageglide]

my head hurts too...

As Bob said, (and I did too) the ECM is going to try to deal with the situation regardless.  That's it's job. 

Less Air, Less pressure.  ECM deal with it.   (Best if it's in closed loop)

[harleytuner]

Not to get the Topix off course, but on the dyno I tune deceleration manually. It's really quit simple, I usually go in 3rd gear, get the bike up to 5k then start the record, slowly let off the throttle while watching the kpa keeping it at your target all the way back to idle. My dyno is at 80' above sea level but 35 miles west of me is over 3000'.

[Onthefence]

So it's common for a bike to cruise in the 30kpa area at sea level? I didn't know that. Mine is far higher than that and must be uncommon.  Thanks for the information.

Ok, show us a data log that shows 30kpa while cruising at 65mph on level ground.
Maybe it takes less KPA to produce the same power at high elevation as at sea level to maintain 65mph?
Air's thinner maybe that's why less KPA necessary to maintain 65mph?
Bob

By my observation, the map readings were shifted left throughout the operating range.  It seems 75-80K was all I would see at WOT.  Idle was in the 20s maybe.  Most of the cruise below 3000 rpm was in the 30s. 

I am not all that surprised by the map readings or questioning those.  I was only trying to figure out if a sea level dyno tuners regulary replicated those conditions for measurement or if you have to manually fill in those areas based on experience? 

I will look and see if I still have the logs.

[glens]

early TTS instructions said turn off AE and DE for vtune data collection.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the "official" guide that said to disable AE/DE, and I took some issue with the issue back then.

Newer versons say leave AE and DE on during vtune data colleciton.

Good!

I got confused with your comments - are you saying that having AE and DE on during collection may adversely affect those low kpa columns depending on what altitude you are at during the collection? So I'm am thinking you suggest turning AE and DE off during collection?

No.  That's backwards from what I'm saying.  Leave AE/DE up and running while vtuning.  The instances they're needed will be disallowed from later consideration by the software (plus some few seconds after they happen, so things return back to normal).  Let me try to say it a different way.  Say you don't want any running time disallowed from data collection, so you disable AE for vtune logging.  That's just like disabling the accelerator pump on your carburetor back in the day.  When you're steady throttle then open it some, the engine needs a little extra fuel so it won't stumble any during the transition.  But you've disabled it so it does stumble a little and this event gets recorded as something that requires VE changes to correct it.  But it was in fact a transient change which should be handled by something other than VE correction...

Think of it like this.  You're recording your buddy's band to make a demo disc.  You mix it down using your favorite speakers which really make a lot of good bass, plus you've got them in the corners of the room which increases bass response even more, relative to higher frequencies.  So you adjust the bass on the recording so it don't sound quite so "boomy".  Now the next person to play the recording, if their speakers don't make exaggerated bass and/or they're mounted in the middle of a wall, will wonder why there's no bass in the recording.  Does that make any sense?  It'd be a case of using a non-flat-response system as a reference and making adjustments to the content so that the response is then flat.  Later, when a flat-response system is used to play that recording, the result is the opposite of the condition that existed when making the recording.

That same sort of situation can happen when developing VE tables for a calibration.  And this is likely why it's evidently now recommended to leave AE/DE enabled while vtune logging on the road.

The reason I brought this up was it's likely that lower-kPa (like where you're idling or even slightly lower pressure) will get recorded as a disproportionate amount of AE/DE activity at lower elevations.  If that "abnormal" activity is allowed to influence the final VEs it won't really much matter while at lower elevations, but it will come into play pretty heavily high up in the mountains.  I was just wondering aloud about it maybe happening in this case.

[Coyote]

I don't understand why idle MAP readings would change much from sea level to higher altitudes. I understand the WOT readings capping out lower at elevation but I would expect the idle area to remain almost the same. Guess I will have to test this next run up the hill.

[PoorUB]

Also, I don't think 30kpa is a realistic number for a land yacht to maintain 65mph level ground no wind. I may be wrong.
Bob

I have a bunch of data running in the Red Lodge MT area, 5,000+ feet. I see quite a few areas where I was running 2,500-3,000 RPM and the MAP is around 30 KPA, sometimes less, so it does happen in high elevations. possible it was on slight down hill runs, but at any rate the engine sees the conditions.

[Onthefence]

Also, I don't think 30kpa is a realistic number for a land yacht to maintain 65mph level ground no wind. I may be wrong.
Bob

I have a bunch of data running in the Red Lodge MT area, 5,000+ feet. I see quite a few areas where I was running 2,500-3,000 RPM and the MAP is around 30 KPA, sometimes less, so it does happen in high elevations. possible it was on slight down hill runs, but at any rate the engine sees the conditions.

Can you post a data log?  My adjusmtents were made with PV autotune which by default does not keep a log from AutoTune.  Just a value file to apply.

[FLTRI]

Also, I don't think 30kpa is a realistic number for a land yacht to maintain 65mph level ground no wind. I may be wrong.
Bob

I have a bunch of data running in the Red Lodge MT area, 5,000+ feet. I see quite a few areas where I was running 2,500-3,000 RPM and the MAP is around 30 KPA, sometimes less, so it does happen in high elevations. possible it was on slight down hill runs, but at any rate the engine sees the conditions.

Yep, but no difference at sea level. Only difference is max kpa is lower in altitude.
Not sure why this is so difficult to buy into.
Of course you can log low kpa when on level ground especially at low vehicle speeds.
Ya just can't push a bike through the air at 65mph @ 30kpa UNLESS you are going downhill.
Bob

[PoorUB]

Maybe I am missing what you guys are looking for, but I have looked at data runs at 900 feet and the only time it hits 30 KPA is at idle, the rest of the run the KPA bottoms out above 40. The 30 KPA above idle RPM cells will never get logged and tuned.

The question still arises, how do you tune for the lower KPA cells other than a educated guess, or cut and paste the 40 KPA cells to the lower KPA cells with no data?

I have a recording I can post, but it is too large to post here directly, any help with it??

[Onthefence]

I don't understand why idle MAP readings would change much from sea level to higher altitudes. I understand the WOT readings capping out lower at elevation but I would expect the idle area to remain almost the same. Guess I will have to test this next run up the hill.

According the chart here.  http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html  at 10,000ft the atmospheric pressure is 69.7kpa.  Shouldn't that be within 2 kpa of what you will see at WOT. 

At sea level my bike idles at 37-40kpa.  Roughly 37-40% of atmospheric pressure.  Would the percentage not be similar at any altitude?  .37 X 69.7 = 25.789   .4 X 69.7 = 27.88. 

[Onthefence]

Also, I don't think 30kpa is a realistic number for a land yacht to maintain 65mph level ground no wind. I may be wrong.
Bob

I have a bunch of data running in the Red Lodge MT area, 5,000+ feet. I see quite a few areas where I was running 2,500-3,000 RPM and the MAP is around 30 KPA, sometimes less, so it does happen in high elevations. possible it was on slight down hill runs, but at any rate the engine sees the conditions.

Yep, but no difference at sea level. Only difference is max kpa is lower in altitude.
Not sure why this is so difficult to buy into.
Of course you can log low kpa when on level ground especially at low vehicle speeds.
Ya just can't push a bike through the air at 65mph @ 30kpa UNLESS you are going downhill.
Bob

I ran my bike at 8,000 feet and up between 2200 - 2500 RPMS in 6th gear and saw map readings consistently below 40k.  6th gear at 2500rpms is the same speed no matter what the map sensor reads.

[Coyote]

Whatever KPA you idle at represents the current motor load. If it's 40 kpa, that's an absolute manifold pressure measurement. You go up in elevation, that load does not change. So the KPA required to sustain that load does not change. The only deal with elevation is you have less air to deal with so you will top out at a lower KPA and make less power. At least this is what I understand from the reading I've done on this system.

I have read some that the load on the motor might drop slightly at elevation but this is due to the exhaust being a bit easier to push out into the thinner air. 

I hope the experts will correct me if I'm off on this.

[FLTRI]

I ran my bike at 8,000 feet and up between 2200 - 2500 RPMS in 6th gear and saw map readings consistently below 40k.  6th gear at 2500rpms is the same speed no matter what the map sensor reads.

You will regularly see under 40 KPA whenever you are basically in a no load state.
In other words, it makes no difference whether you are at sea level or 6000ft.
Again, 40kpa is 40kpa and can be observed no matter what elevation you are at.
I must sound like a broken record because I make the same statement over and over only to fall on deaf ears I guess. Nothing special at altitude other than less air to get to 100kpa.
Coyote, I'm no expert but maybe someone you feel is will come on here to straighten this argument out.
Bob

[Coyote]

Bob, if you're saying I got that part (sounds like so) then that's good enough for me. It would be interesting to know about how much power one loses at altitude when the max KPA drops to say 70. I know I can feel it.

[FLTRI]

Bob, if you're saying I got that part (sounds like so) then that's good enough for me. It would be interesting to know about how much power one loses at altitude when the max KPA drops to say 70. I know I can feel it.

Do a pull while maintaining 70kpa. It won't be exact but definitely close.
Plus air quality also plays a part. Take your bike to a smokey fire area and run it on a dyno and compare results with clear air runs.
May have the same temp and humidity but full of crap (particulates, etc) which kills power.
Bob

[Onthefence]

I ran my bike at 8,000 feet and up between 2200 - 2500 RPMS in 6th gear and saw map readings consistently below 40k.  6th gear at 2500rpms is the same speed no matter what the map sensor reads.

You will regularly see under 40 KPA whenever you are basically in a no load state.
In other words, it makes no difference whether you are at sea level or 6000ft.
Again, 40kpa is 40kpa and can be observed no matter what elevation you are at.
I must sound like a broken record because I make the same statement over and over only to fall on deaf ears I guess. Nothing special at altitude other than less air to get to 100kpa.
Coyote, I'm no expert but maybe someone you feel is will come on here to straighten this argument out.
Bob

No one is stating that 40kpa at 500 feet is somehow different than 40kpa at a higher elevation.  What I am stating and you obviously disagree with is that my bike will not hit map areas below 40kpa unless either idling or deceling while at or near sea level. 

However, when I was at elevation, I saw below 40kpa while I was cruising down the road.  That's just a fact.

All I was asking was whether this could be reproduced on a dyno at or near sea level.  Your response throughout has been that my data is wrong.  In a round about way I have my answer.

Maybe your bike has different readings than mine at 10,000 feet, which makes my numbers seem unbelievable.

[FLTRI]

Nope. Never doubted your data. Never.
What I have repeated was that you can go 65mph at sea level and turn the throttle until you see 40 KPA. Same goes for at altitude.
Now if you can show some data that supports your statement that you can hold steady state speed @ 65mph level ground at any altitude while only showing 40kpa I will stand corrected and apologize for arguing with you ok?
I've been wrong before and not ashamed to admit it, but I don't how you can be at 6000ft altitude and use less KPA to hold 65mph than at sea level.
Bob

[PoorUB]

I don't argue that a certain KPA is the same regardless of elevation. I just want to know the best way to tune for it when you can not reach it at the elevation you tune in. Tuning for lower KPA in lower elevations.

[Coyote]

If idle KPA stays the same as does the decel area, it would seem if you tune the bike at sea level, then the rest is already there. 

[wolf_59]

Idle KPA on both my bikes completly different builds at 6000' is in the 37-38 range
KPA at this elevation is 83.2 average atmospheric pressure is 11.7-11.8 compared to 14.7 at sea level
Dyno correction factor is 1.27 at 6500'

[FLTRI]

I just want to know the best way to tune for it when you can not reach it at the elevation you tune in. Tuning for lower KPA in lower elevations.

You're killing me! 
Once again, no difference whatsoever. I tune from 20kpa up to 100kpa or whatever max is.
There is no lower KPA at altitude except maximum?
I can reach any KPA at sea level as you can at 6000ft but you can't reach the high load/KPA I can at sea level.
Tuning is exactly the same.
Bob

[PoorUB]

I just want to know the best way to tune for it when you can not reach it at the elevation you tune in. Tuning for lower KPA in lower elevations.

You're killing me! 
Once again, no difference whatsoever. I tune from 20kpa up to 100kpa or whatever max is.
There is no lower KPA at altitude except maximum?
I can reach any KPA at sea level as you can at 6000ft but you can't reach the high load/KPA I can at sea level.
Tuning is exactly the same.
Bob

You are killing me!

Well, I looked at some data runs at home and at 5,000+ feet. The only time the engine saw 30 KPA at home was at idle. At 5,000 feet it would see 30 KPA running down the road and it hit the 20's once in a while at idle. Running down the road here at home it would barely make 40 KPA and was closer to 50 KPA at the low end. So go ahead and tell me how to reach 30 KPA part throttle cruise running down the road, because so far I can not get down that far at part throttle at home.

[glens]

I say everything scales with elevation.  Nothing to back it up yet but I'll see what I can do.

[whittlebeast]

Tuning does change with altitude.  The operating range of MAP shifts lower as you go up.

[glens]

Think about it.  Say 40 kPa at idle at sea level.  If you went high enough that only 50 kPa were available to fill the cylinders, would it still be 40 kPa at idle?  Or would it be more like 20 ?  I'd put money on the latter.

Get Ron in on this one.  I'll bet he's had piston engines at altitude.

[Onthefence]

I just want to know the best way to tune for it when you can not reach it at the elevation you tune in. Tuning for lower KPA in lower elevations.

You're killing me! 
Once again, no difference whatsoever. I tune from 20kpa up to 100kpa or whatever max is.
Bob

I don't know that I saw stated before that you were getting the 20kpa and up range.  You are hitting areas that to this point seem impossible to hit on the street.  And they cover the map ranges that we claim we were having troubles with.  So yes as you keep banging your head over a good 20kpa is good at any evlevation.   In our case, since we haven't collected any valuable data down there it didn't get exposed as bad data until reaching high elevations.  Which for me the problems were in the 8 - 10 range.  5 and 6 ran pretty decent.

Any guidance on how to nail down those lower ranges on the street.  Say the 2000-3000 in the 30 and 35kpa? 

[whittlebeast]

Simply log the motor going up one of those mountain passes and watch the long term fuel trims change as you go up in altitude.  If the altitude correction table is correct, the trims will not really change that much.

If your software does not expose this table or have the data available in the logs, have the company fix the software.

The same sort of trick works great on the warmup logic.  This has everything about hitting your AFR targets in all situations as consistently as you can.

Andy

[Onthefence]

Think about it.  Say 40 kPa at idle at sea level.  If you went high enough that only 50 kPa were available to fill the cylinders, would it still be 40 kPa at idle?  Or would it be more like 20 ?  I'd put money on the latter.

Get Ron in on this one.  I'll bet he's had piston engines at altitude.

My understanding is yes it will be lower by some factor.  Thinking any throttle setting below WOT is drawing a vacuum against whatever the atmospheric pressure is.  So at 5% throttle opening the density of 50kpa air should be lower than  the same throttle opening at 100kpa air.   

According to Wikepedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAP_sensor

Engine vacuum is the difference between the pressures in the intake manifold and ambient atmospheric pressure. Engine vacuum is a "gauge" pressure, since gauges by nature measure a pressure difference, not an absolute pressure. The engine fundamentally responds to air mass, not vacuum, and absolute pressure is necessary to calculate mass. The mass of air entering the engine is directly proportional to the air density, which is proportional to the absolute pressure, and inversely proportional to the absolute temperature.

[joe_lyons]

I looked back through real quick but did you post your calibration?  It would be nice to take a peek at it.

[Onthefence]

I looked back through real quick but did you post your calibration?  It would be nice to take a peek at it.

Calibration or log?  My tuning at elevation was done using PV AT and I did not create a log for it.   I have plenty of logs at 500ft, but didn't think those are in question.

[Onthefence]

This guy is making similar claims as I am.   According to him engines idle at different manifold pressures depending on altitude.   By his example, there is a significant difference at 10,000 feet.  Less at 6,000 but still measureable different.

http://www.underhoodservice.com/diagnostic-dilemmas-the-pressures-of-intake-manifold-vacuum-tests/

When testing manifold vacuum, it's important to remember that if an engine idles at 22" Hg at sea level, it will idle at about 17" Hg at 5,000', 14" Hg at 8,000' and 12" Hg at 10,000' altitude. Variations from the calculated standard, of course, are the weather conditions, the engine design, and how well the engine management system adjusts spark advance and air/fuel mixture to correspond to a change in barometric pressure.

[Coyote]

This guy is making similar claims as I am.   According to him engines idle at different manifold pressures depending on altitude.   By his example, there is a significant difference at 10,000 feet.  Less at 6,000 but still measureable different.

http://www.underhoodservice.com/diagnostic-dilemmas-the-pressures-of-intake-manifold-vacuum-tests/

When testing manifold vacuum, it's important to remember that if an engine idles at 22" Hg at sea level, it will idle at about 17" Hg at 5,000', 14" Hg at 8,000' and 12" Hg at 10,000' altitude. Variations from the calculated standard, of course, are the weather conditions, the engine design, and how well the engine management system adjusts spark advance and air/fuel mixture to correspond to a change in barometric pressure.

I think your example is using Gauge Pressure. Not the same as what the MAP sensor measures.

[joe_lyons]

The calibration that you are using in the ecm.

[Onthefence]

This guy is making similar claims as I am.   According to him engines idle at different manifold pressures depending on altitude.   By his example, there is a significant difference at 10,000 feet.  Less at 6,000 but still measureable different.

http://www.underhoodservice.com/diagnostic-dilemmas-the-pressures-of-intake-manifold-vacuum-tests/

When testing manifold vacuum, it's important to remember that if an engine idles at 22" Hg at sea level, it will idle at about 17" Hg at 5,000', 14" Hg at 8,000' and 12" Hg at 10,000' altitude. Variations from the calculated standard, of course, are the weather conditions, the engine design, and how well the engine management system adjusts spark advance and air/fuel mixture to correspond to a change in barometric pressure.

I think your example is using Gauge Pressure. Not the same as what the MAP sensor measures.

Ok so a 22"hg differential would mean manifold pressure of  7" hg.
And a 12" hg differential against 20.6" hg at 10,000 feet = 8.6"hg 

Doesn't that make the map increase in his example if we are calling that guage pressure?   Does that make sense that MAP would increase?  That would be like 5kpa increase.

[FLTRI]

The question is how to tune a bike at altitude.
The answer is the same as at sea level.
The question is how to get to low kpa cells at sea level to tune for altitude.
The answer is the same method as tuning for sea level.

Bob

[Onthefence]

The question is how to tune a bike at altitude.
The answer is the same as at sea level.
The question is how to get to low kpa cells at sea level to tune for altitude.
The answer is the same method as tuning for sea level.

Bob

And along the way, a disagreement popped up as to whether at altitude you will see lower KPA settings during operation. Is it not fair to finish that discussion? 

I am not sure I have a handle if it's even possible to get those lower KPA at sea level on the street.  You have confirmed that it can be done on the dyno.  Care to share what gear to use to hit the 30 and 35 area's between 2000 and 3000 rpm?  I'll give it a try and see if I can do it on the street. 

[Onthefence]

Here is another claimant who saw idle map drop at elevation.

http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=1354

[FLTRI]

I am not sure I have a handle if it's even possible to get those lower KPA at sea level on the street.  You have confirmed that it can be done on the dyno.  Care to share what gear to use to hit the 30 and 35 area's between 2000 and 3000 rpm?  I'll give it a try and see if I can do it on the street.

Sure. Pick 3rd or 4th gear. Run along at 3000+ rpms and reduce the throttle to achieve 30 and 35 kpa.
Bob

[Onthefence]

The calibration that you are using in the ecm.

attached file is after tuning at the higher elevation.  Assuming that is what you are requesting to see.

[FLTRI]

The calibration that you are using in the ecm.

attached file is after tuning at the higher elevation.  Assuming that is what you are requesting to see.

Was this calibration, virtually as is, provided to you from Fuel Moto?
This calibration doesn't look like the ones I've got from Jamie.
Bob

[joe_lyons]

Whats your whole motor combo?

[whittlebeast]

All it would take is hooking up a PV to a fully tuned bike tuned in Denver.  Log that bike on a ride with the wife on the back from Denver, over Loveland Pass at 12000 feet to Avon and return to Denver.  Take highway 6 for part of the ride to get lots of different riding conditions.

Get a hotel room at Avon as the wife will love the ride.

Post that 4 hour ride on here and I should be able to show you guys all this cool stuff happening on the fly.

All I need in the log is

Timing
MAP
RPM
TPS
STFT I forget what they call it
LTFT I forget what they call it
O2
Baro if it is there, I think it is
Knock channels
VE
VE New

You may be shocked what you see.  I have racers that tune and practice  at 4000 feet and race at world finals at 400 feet.  We deal with it every year.

Note that the Baro pressure on Loveland Pass will be about 63.5 KPA

Andy

[whittlebeast]

We will also be able to see the timing compensation tables (if they exist) as you climb the hills.

Andy

[DrumRunner]

I delivered a modified 120r to a customer in Colorado, and we went riding for a couple of days. I tuned the bike at Sea level and did some flight recordings at higher elevations. I know for a fact the map values shift to the left. decel on this 120r was 20-26 @ 60ft above sea level decel at 6000 feet was in the teens. Idle also shifted down. I don't know if it is a linear scale that can be predicted  or not but elevation effects the whole map value not just wot.

[FLTRI]

I delivered a modified 120r to a customer in Colorado, and we went riding for a couple of days. I tuned the bike at Sea level and did some flight recordings at higher elevations. I know for a fact the map values shift to the left. decel on this 120r was 20-26 @ 60ft above sea level decel at 6000 feet was in the teens. Idle also shifted down. I don't know if it is a linear scale that can be predicted  or not but elevation effects the whole map value not just wot.

Not quite sure why you say anything shifts in either direction. Again the ECM wins no matter what we think is or is not happening. IF the ECM see map as load, does MAP (load) go down as elevation goes up to make enough power to drive the vehicle through the air?
Note: Since air is thinner at altitude the vehicle will go through the air a bit easier so a bit less load to maintain a given speed.
Anyone willing to post their 5k-up elevation logs showing steady-state cruise at 60-up speed?
Bob

[DrumRunner]

These are in no way perfect examples but it should at least show you that map does change across the board to some degree as elevation changes. It is not a consistent change,meaning if you loose 20 at barometric you don't loose 20 at cruise but you do loose some. The easiest to duplicate and verify is idle. At seal level idle is around 42 kpa and at about 8000 ft it is 33. the cruise is less than ideal since there is no way for me to tell of the bike is going up hill down hill with 100 percent confidence. The two examples I found have a constant steady speed and constant map range and tps but they are in different gears so it screws the comparison up. If this doesn't give you enough info ask Steve Cole. He gave me a crash course for a bike that I had to tune at sea level and deliver it to Colorado.

First pic is idle at sea level second is idle at about 8000 ft.

[DrumRunner]

idle @ 8000 ft

[DrumRunner]

cruise sea level

[DrumRunner]

cruise @ 8000 ft

[FLTRI]

Thanks for posting DrumRunner.
Now that we have data to refer to let's make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
We note the vehicle speed is right at 60 mph at both altitudes.
So next we look at the KPA and see far less KPA at 8k feet.
So we then go to engine rpms and we have a big discrepancy between rpms 2500 vs 3000.
So now we know the bike was in 2 different gears at 60 mph.
Now here comes the other foot....Compare the 5%tp @ 2505rpm (5th) @ 8000ft to the 9.1tp @ 2983 (4th) @ sea level.
This begs the question... why would it take almost twice the throttle in a lower gear to maintain 60 mph on flat no wind road than the same bike at 8000ft?
With the wind, against the wind? Slight uphill or downhill?
The bottom line is we don't have apples and apples.
Bob

[glens]

I predict 40% available kPa at idle will be 40% of available no matter the driveable altitude and it'll all scale from there.

[DrumRunner]

Yea I know we don't it's the best I could find on my limited flight recordings. I was to busy enjoying Colorado. But idle is apples to apples.

[glens]

Idle at sea level is 0.427 of available.  At 8k feet it's 0.433.  Close enough...

[FLTRI]

Note the 8k idle data is still in warmup mode (still adding .3 AFR) which has different desired.

Sea level idle desired = 1008 vs 1006 actual vs 8k alt desired = 984 vs 1084 actual.

This means the load on the bike will naturally be a bit different depending on different idle speeds with different fueling. VE accuracy really counts here as fueling may be good at idle but not above...as in warmup mode or visa versa. If the VE is incorrect the engine will increase load trying to get to desired rpm.

One last point... if you were to move the cursor just a bit to the right in the 8k alt graph you will get a different (higher) KPA reading as the engine is trying to hold desired rpm so KPA fluctuates as engine load changes occur.

I realize air is thinner at altitude but to think a bike cannot be tuned at sea level to run good at altitude is, well just not true...UNLESS the VEs are off and/or targets are significantly different between desired idle and warmup idle (higher rpm) cells.

The real challenge is to tune at 8k alt for a bike that will spend most of its time at sea level.
Since at 8k alt a tuner cannot get to 100kpa he must extrapolate/extend the VEs through the higher MAP cells. This method may be adequate but not as good as tuning at sea level.

Bob

[DrumRunner]

I have never seen a 9 kpa swing no matter how rich or lean the bike is at idle, just my observation. But I never said nor intended to imply that we can't tune a bike at Sea level and have it run great at altitude. I think it would be harder for a street tune to pull that off with out the ability to collect as much broad data. I built and tuned the 3 bikes we brought to Colorado and they ran great, not as much power but smooth and trouble free. It's funny hearing the differnce in even the idle cadance from sea level to alltitude. My zilla was alot quieter, I noticed the second I started it up.

[wolf_59]

here is my idle at 6000'

[wolf_59]

some more data shots

[wolf_59]

data shot you can see how KPA swings with the road conditions, lowest map I seen on decel was 21.3 and was surprised at seeing 33-34 on the down hill side with cruise control on makes it a little easier to see this happening
All this data is from 5900-6000' elevation

[FLTRI]

Thanks for posting! Looks pretty normal and expected.
Bob

[wolf_59]

Just for comparison I rode up to Coal Bank Summit this morning elevation 10,640 ft. and did a recording at idle, Nice ride today wanted to get a comparison at 60 mph cruise but to much traffic and variations on grades to have a apples to apples comparison that it would be worth posting

[wolf_59]

I think I understand the difference's at closed throttle positions, the blade is in a fixed position at idle and decel less atmospheric pressure to push through the gap contributes to the lower MAP pressure.

[wolf_59]

Thought I would go ahead and post up the 60 mph log for those that would like to see it, this is from Durango Mtn Resort towards Durango so mostly down hill you can see MAP is anywhere between 27 and 49 KPA

[whittlebeast]

Here is the same motor on the same tune.  One log is at near sea level and the other is generally around at 4000 to 6000 feet.  Care to guess what log is from high altitude?

Note that one of the logs has a clearly red area, indicating the code is adding 10% fuel in a large area of the map.

http://www.nbs-stl.com/HarleyTuning/Plot1.png

http://www.nbs-stl.com/HarleyTuning/Plot2.png

Have fun tuning

Andy

[FLTRI]

Here is the same motor on the same tune.  One log is at neat sea level and the other is generally around at 4000 to 6000 feet.  Care to guess what log is from high altitude?

Note that one of the logs has a clearly red area, indicating the code is adding 10% fuel in a large area of the map.

http://www.nbs-stl.com/HarleyTuning/Plot1.png

http://www.nbs-stl.com/HarleyTuning/Plot2.png

Have fun tuning

Andy

Care to tell us the tuning value of these graphs?
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Sure, the code has a bust in the altitude compensation and the only thing that is saving the motor is the closed loop saving the motors pistons.

[FLTRI]

Sure, the code has a bust in the altitude compensation and the only thing that is saving the motor is the closed loop saving the motors pistons.

Any way to show this bust? Other than you simply stating it? Lol
Bob

[whittlebeast]

How would you fix the VEs on that bike that runs perfect at 1000 feet and 10 percent lean at 4500 feet?   What know who'd you grab?  Would you advise your customer to not drive on that road?

Andy

[whittlebeast]

this is like reading a transcript of a political debate. Ask a question and get either no answer out the answer to a totally different question. 

It really is all tied together.  You simply have to be willing to look at what the data is trying to tell you.  Altitude compensation is one of the more interesting subjects.  Really interesting at the code level.

Andy

[Steve Cole]

this is like reading a transcript of a political debate. Ask a question and get either no answer out the answer to a totally different question. 

It really is all tied together.  You simply have to be willing to look at what the data is trying to tell you.  Altitude compensation is one of the more interesting subjects.  Really interesting at the code level.

Andy

Please explain what you call "code"? Also tell us how much work, you yourself, have done with the HD code for the Delphi equipped bikes.

[whittlebeast]

Code is How the ECU deals with the PW as the Baro Changes

Most of my experience with Harley baro correction is watching the AFF change as the baro changes.  Not a good thing.  My gut feeling is this has to do with exhaust tuning changing as the baro changes.

Glad to see you're reading along Steve.

Have fun tuning

Andy

[whittlebeast]

Steve.

See post 83.  As a side note, that is your code running that bike.

[FLTRI]

How would you fix the VEs on that bike that runs perfect at 1000 feet and 10 percent lean at 4500 feet?   What know who'd you grab?  Would you advise your customer to not drive on that road?

Andy

I would rewrite the code of course! Geez, something that obvious too.
Now about the 10% lean. If we are talking say .798 and for some miscalculation in the code, it goes 10% lean from a 3500 ft climb so now we now have .877.
What is it you are concerned about? And what exactly would you do about the issue?
Bob
Bob

[whittlebeast]

At the very least, I would start by figuring out where the bust is in the code.  A workable altitude compensation may not be in the code at all but it appears it needs to be.

If I was in charge of getting to the bottom of this, I would be begging for customers HUGE data logs.  This all came up on this thread a month or so back.

[FLTRI]

At the very least, I would start by figuring out where the bust is in the code.  A workable altitude compensation may not be in the code at all but it appears it needs to be.

If I was in charge of getting to the bottom of this, I would be begging for customers HUGE data logs.  This all came up on this thread a month or so back.

Ok here's the bust in the code.
Here's 6hrs data log of riding all over the flatlands and hills/mountains. From sea level to 5000ft.
Wow! Look at that! It gets 10% leaner from 1000ft to 4500ft.
Is that the end of the story? Or do you fix the bust somehow?
Bob

[whittlebeast]

A fix is up to Steve or Dynojet.  I simply report what I see.  Dynojet may have fixed it.  One of us will report back after testing.

[Steve Cole]

At the very least, I would start by figuring out where the bust is in the code.  A workable altitude compensation may not be in the code at all but it appears it needs to be.

If I was in charge of getting to the bottom of this, I would be begging for customers HUGE data logs.  This all came up on this thread a month or so back.

So the answer to my previous questions is you have no idea how the HD code works and you have never worked with it yourself. I believe this is a fair answer based on what you've now said.

How accurate do you believe the system needs to be and how accurate do you believe all the sensors on the bike are? Can the system be anymore accurate than the sensor readings?

Come on now Andy and give a straight answer to these three questions.

[whittlebeast]

I feel over a full AFR error, with no knob for the tuner to twist to fix the problem, is not an acceptable answer.  These "systems" are marketed as the way to tune your bike with the accessories of your choice.  There is no mention to "provided you have closed loop to save your butt if you ride up and down hills"

MLVHD sorts and reports data.  The programmers code.  I appears that it is time for the programmers to start typing.

Andy

[whittlebeast]

This will get really interesting when the fully dialed in flat land Target Tune bikes start doing mountain road rides and record big logs.  It will also be cool to watch the Target tunes tweak on the long tern fuel trims as the weather cools.

This is all stuff you will never find on a stationary dyno.

Andy

[FLTRI]

This will get really interesting when the fully dialed in flat land Target Tune bikes start doing mountain road rides and record big logs.  It will also be cool to watch the Target tunes tweak on the long tern fuel trims as the weather cools.

This is all stuff you will never find on a stationary dyno.

Andy

So what you need to see those changes are logs that are long enough to go through seasons.
Now your talking a HUGE log!
Bob

[whittlebeast]

A two hour log in the heat of summer and comparing that to a two hour log on a 40 degree day of winter will give a wealth of information.

The trick is not changing the tune and looking at the long term fuel trims as they adjust for the weather change.

[whittlebeast]

I wonder if there is a member that lives near Phoenix.  A cool test for altitude compensation would be a getting winter day ride in the valley at 1100 feet.  And then compare that to a late fall ride up near Flagstaff at near 7000 feet.  You could get two days with comparable humidity and temperatures with a 6000 foot difference in altitude.

Both towns are relatively flat and only 140 miles apart.

Andy

[Onthefence]

I thought you already had the answer.   Until we know how the baro correction is supposed to work,  we can log thousands of miles and still only be guessing. 

[Steve Cole]

Whittlebeast

You've made 4 posts since I asked you three very basic simple questions and you have yet to answer any of them? Are you going to answer the questions or not?

While your answering the questions how about posting the raw data for you charts, DM3 format files are fine.

[whittlebeast]

The correct answer is as little long term fuel trims as possible, no matter where the motor is driven.

Most of the people I see data from, are using Power Vision for logging as TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user.

Steve, if you ask nice, possibly one of them will take the time to do a TTS logs that apparently only you can see the hidden trims.

Andy

[FLTRI]

..TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user...
Andy

So basically what you claim is it is virtually impossible to get an excellent tune with a TTS because all of the critical tuning data is hidden from the end user?
But...if you just had HUGE data logs from other tuners you can make informed, intelligent changes to produce an excellent tune because you can see some tables you can't change?
Bob

[whittlebeast]

No Bob

We use data that is hidden in TTS logs that Power Vision does not hide to tune TTS tables.

Andy

[FLTRI]

No Bob

We use data that is hidden in TTS logs that Power Vision does not hide to tune TTS tables.

Andy

I understand Andy. Give us an example of a hidden file, what it means to you, and how you use that hidden file to improve a tune.
Thanks,
Bob

[Steve Cole]

The correct answer is as little long term fuel trims as possible, no matter where the motor is driven.

Most of the people I see data from, are using Power Vision for logging as TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user.

Steve, if you ask nice, possibly one of them will take the time to do a TTS logs that apparently only you can see the hidden trims.

Andy

Again, your still not answering the three simple asked questions. Is it possible you are incapable of doing so?

For the record, there is no such thing as long term fuel trims in a HD Delphi system but even if there were they would be based from a sensor. So if that sensor has a +/- 5% tolerance what do you think might happen?

Your pretty chart is again useless, without the supporting "asked for" data.

[whittlebeast]

VE * (AFF/100) * (CLI/100) = VE New

I don't recall what you used to call them before you started hiding them.

For everyone else reading along, see http://www.nbs-stl.com/MLVDemo/012%20EFIFuelingEquation.PNG

Have fun tuning

Andy

[FLTRI]

Again, Give us an example of a hidden file, what it means to you, and how you use that hidden file to improve a tune.
Thanks,
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Again, Give us an example of a hidden file, what it means to you, and how you use that hidden file to improve a tune.
Thanks,
Bob

It is hidden data in the VTune Data Log file.  VE New, CLI and AFF is what DJ calls them.  Log your bike with a Power Vision and you can see them.

[Steve Cole]

Whittlebeast

How about you stop the made-up BS and post answers along with the real data! Are you that afraid that people will be able to see right through you?

Sure, the code has a bust in the altitude compensation and the only thing that is saving the motor is the closed loop saving the motors pistons.

It really is all tied together.  You simply have to be willing to look at what the data is trying to tell you.  Altitude compensation is one of the more interesting subjects.  Really interesting at the code level.

Andy

VE * (AFF/100) * (CLI/100) = VE New

I don't recall what you used to call them before you started hiding them.

For everyone else reading along, see http://www.nbs-stl.com/MLVDemo/012%20EFIFuelingEquation.PNG

Have fun tuning

Andy

Why is it so hard to answer three simple questions and provided the data? All your pretty charts are nothing more than complete made-up BS. You cannot or will not supply the raw data when asked for. You cannot answer three simple basic questions and without the supporting data, then again, your made-up pretty little charts are useless.

At the very least, I would start by figuring out where the bust is in the code.  A workable altitude compensation may not be in the code at all but it appears it needs to be.

If I was in charge of getting to the bottom of this, I would be begging for customers HUGE data logs.  This all came up on this thread a month or so back.

So the answer to my previous questions is you have no idea how the HD code works and you have never worked with it yourself. I believe this is a fair answer based on what you've now said.

How accurate do you believe the system needs to be and how accurate do you believe all the sensors on the bike are? Can the system be anymore accurate than the sensor readings?

Come on now Andy and give a straight answer to these three questions.

Then you turn around and post this dribble at the same time.

This will get really interesting when the fully dialed in flat land Target Tune bikes start doing mountain road rides and record big logs.  It will also be cool to watch the Target tunes tweak on the long tern fuel trims as the weather cools.

This is all stuff you will never find on a stationary dyno.

Andy

You do know that Target Tune uses the EXACT same code that you say is "busted" so how can anyone believe you or your pretty pictures? You are the perfect example of why we removed things that are unused from our data logs. You would try to twist things that you have no idea of how they worked, to try and make yourself and your pretty pictures show something that was never there in the first place. Now you are unable to simply supply the raw data again so you must be hiding something again!

You do realize that typing stuff out and putting it on your own site, still doesn't make it true.

[whittlebeast]

If TT has the same "bust", I bet we will find it.  I know just the guy that can do the test.

Andy

[FLTRI]

Again, Give us an example of a hidden file, what it means to you, and how you use that hidden file to improve a tune.
Thanks,
Bob

It is hidden data in the VTune Data Log file.  VE New, CLI and AFF is what DJ calls them.  Log your bike with a Power Vision and you can see them.

Come on Andy...ya got to answer the questions. We all want to learn but myself, I want to know how it will help me tune a bike better.
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Bob, do you have a Power Vision? 

Step one) Purchase a Power Vision

Step two) Use your favorite tuning device to tweak the VEs until the long term fuel trims stop moving around.  Best seen in scatter plots  Best calced in Histogram view.

Step three) Verify and adjust the Knock best seen in scatter plots

Step four) Ride

If you want things even better, purchase a Target Tune and repeat step two and three.

Have fun tuning

Andy

PS: the mods may want to copy this and start a new thread.....  You asked on a altitude compensation thread so I answered here.

[FLTRI]

Bob, do you have a Power Vision? 

Step one) Purchase a Power Vision DON'T NEED TO PURCHASE A P/V. BEEN TUNING WITH THEM FOR OVER A YEAR.

Step two) Use your favorite tuning device to tweak the VEs until the long term fuel trims stop moving around... AFAIK LTFT WILL NEVER STOP MOVING

Step three) Verify and adjust the Knock... DO THAT WITH EVERY TUNE

Step four) Ride

If you want things even better, purchase a Target Tune and repeat step two and three.
YOU SOUND LIKE A MARKETING AD! Working for Jamie or Dynojet now?

Andy

[whittlebeast]

I like their stuff.

[FLTRI]

I like their stuff.

Ok. Got it. Now where's that raw data log? Don't worry about who's bike it came from. That doesn't matter. We don't need to know anything about the owner or the mods to the bike.
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Give me 48 hrs to get two rides off the same bike on, for the most part the same type riding.  One will be dyno tuned by one of your favorite tuners and the other will be the same base tune but with a hand tweaked set of VE tables.  All at basically the same altitude.

What will you want for data fields?

What will you use for a basis for comparison?  Smell?  Max RPM?  Just asking....

[FLTRI]

Give me 48 hrs to get two rides off the same bike on, for the most part the same type riding.  One will be dyno tuned by one of your favorite tuners and the other will be the same base tune but with a hand tweaked set of VE tables.  All at basically the same altitude.

What will you want for data fields?

What will you use for a basis for comparison?  Smell?  Max RPM?  Just asking....

Why not just cough up the data that supports the posts?
You already have it.
Just post it as it came from the bike.
Then we can take a peak and discuss it from some other perspectives possibly?
We may learn a lot from this exercise but you have to be willing to provide the data you used in posted pictures or we just keep getting directed somewhere else.
Bob

[joe_lyons]

The correct answer is as little long term fuel trims as possible, no matter where the motor is driven.

Most of the people I see data from, are using Power Vision for logging as TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user.

Steve, if you ask nice, possibly one of them will take the time to do a TTS logs that apparently only you can see the hidden trims.

Andy

Again, your still not answering the three simple asked questions. Is it possible you are incapable of doing so?

For the record, there is no such thing as long term fuel trims in a HD Delphi system but even if there were they would be based from a sensor. So if that sensor has a +/- 5% tolerance what do you think might happen?

Your pretty chart is again useless, without the supporting "asked for" data.

Would the adaptive fuel value/ adaptive fuel factor be considered long term fuel trim?

[Steve Cole]

The correct answer is as little long term fuel trims as possible, no matter where the motor is driven.

Most of the people I see data from, are using Power Vision for logging as TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user.

Steve, if you ask nice, possibly one of them will take the time to do a TTS logs that apparently only you can see the hidden trims.

Andy

Again, your still not answering the three simple asked questions. Is it possible you are incapable of doing so?

For the record, there is no such thing as long term fuel trims in a HD Delphi system but even if there were they would be based from a sensor. So if that sensor has a +/- 5% tolerance what do you think might happen?

Your pretty chart is again useless, without the supporting "asked for" data.

Would the adaptive fuel value/ adaptive fuel factor be considered long term fuel trim?

NO

[Jamie Long]

http://go.delphi.com/cs/documents/dpss_documents/education/en-us/education_english_10985.pdf

[Coyote]

http://go.delphi.com/cs/documents/dpss_documents/education/en-us/education_english_10985.pdf

Thank you Jamie. 

[joe_lyons]

The correct answer is as little long term fuel trims as possible, no matter where the motor is driven.

Most of the people I see data from, are using Power Vision for logging as TTS logs hide all of the critical fuel tuning data from the end user.

Steve, if you ask nice, possibly one of them will take the time to do a TTS logs that apparently only you can see the hidden trims.

Andy

Again, your still not answering the three simple asked questions. Is it possible you are incapable of doing so?

For the record, there is no such thing as long term fuel trims in a HD Delphi system but even if there were they would be based from a sensor. So if that sensor has a +/- 5% tolerance what do you think might happen?

Your pretty chart is again useless, without the supporting "asked for" data.

Would the adaptive fuel value/ adaptive fuel factor be considered long term fuel trim?

NO

What would you say that it is? 

[FLTRI]

Thanks Jamie,
Long-Term Adaptive
The long-term compensation made by the ECM/PCM to vary injector pulse width. Based on Short-Term Adaptive, the ECM/PCM changes injector pulse width by a percentage to maintain minimal emissions output. Long-Term Adaptive is used during cold and warm-up operations while in Open Loop.

Short-Term Adaptive
The short-term compensation made by the ECM/PCM to vary injector pulse width. Based on oxygen sensor inputs, the ECM/PCM changes injector pulse width by a percentage to maintain minimal emissions output.

NOTE: Emissions output, for our purpose is AFR.

Bob

[Jamie Long]

Long Term Adaptive is a general definition. HD uses "Adaptive" as a block learn multiplier for the "adaptive" side of the fuel equation. Adaptive is used not only during cold and warm-up operations while in Open Loop, it is used during closed loop as well.

[FLTRI]

Long Term Adaptive is a general definition. HD uses "Adaptive" as a block learn multiplier for the "adaptive" side of the fuel equation. Adaptive is used not only during cold and warm-up operations while in Open Loop, it is used during closed loop as well.

Jamie,
Thanks for the info. How often is LTFT is updated and what spurs it to change?
Bob

[Steve Cole]

HD has and does do things there own way and do not follow the automotive standards. So trying to use those doesn't work well. Sometimes they will, but other times they do not. In the case of how the fuel system corrects they are all by themselves in how it's handled. Looking for long term or short term as the automotive side uses isn't going to happen as HD has there own twist to it. Is it better or worse than automotive, who knows, but it is how HD has done it, so one must learn it. It's is NOT the same in all models or years either! In the data that comes from the ECM you will get plenty of data that is useless and you must know how to sort it out and when the data it is reporting is any good. Jaime's post of general automotive terms from Delphi is fine for automotive but many parts of it do not apply to a HD at all. One needs to remember the slow reporting speed of a HD system typically 2 complete frames per second on a J1850 equipped bike and around 12 complete frames per second on a HD/LAN bike. We have rewritten that part of things to speed it up in the TTS code but No one, other than us, has to-date.

For an example what HD calls Front Adaptive Fuel Factor will send a value out each time the ECM is asked for it, BUT that does not mean the value is any good! If the engine is not in the proper operating condition the ECM ignores it and doesn't update the reading, so what you see is completely wrong. As I have told you all for years, there are 24 possible ones to pick and you must KNOW which ones are good and which ones are bad. Which ones get used at all and which ones don't. Once you know that then you must also KNOW when they can be used and when they cannot! Now once your down to that point you must understand what area they can be applied too (ie: what the RPM and MAP limits are).

So I look at the pretty pictures that Whittlebeast makes up and wants to say this or that about and know that he hasn't a clue as to what is really going on. Without being able to look into the tune and understand where settings are at, there is no other way to sort the data, from a datalog, unless of course you wrote the calibration data to start with and already know it!

[joe_lyons]

So if the adaptive is at 80% at 70 KPA at 2500 rpm it will not always use that value at 70 KPA at 2500 rpm?  Do you have some sort of image/drawing that shows what the adaptive table looks like?  Not being a smart ass,  just wanting to learn.

[Steve Cole]

So if the adaptive is at 80% at 70 KPA at 2500 rpm it will not always use that value at 70 KPA at 2500 rpm?  Do you have some sort of image/drawing that shows what the adaptive table looks like?  Not being a smart ass,  just wanting to learn.

Exactly! There is no way I know of to say what the cells will look like unless I have the calibration, you're asking the question about. As I stated before, they are different from calibration to calibration, one cannot assume they are the same as they are NOT at all the same. Why and how they are setup is up to the person that developed the calibration, there is no set standard that HD follows! As an example one calibration may only use a total of 6 cells and all the others are turned OFF, yet when you collect data you will always get a value reported! Remember just because there is a value reported doesn't mean the ECM is using it! One calibration can choose to update the value once every engine firing while another may choose to update once every 10 engine firings, it's all up to the calibrator! The areas they cover can be adjusted to whatever the calibrator wants within certain rules that must be followed, but many many variations are possible and used by stock HD calibrations.

[Onthefence]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool. 

[rbabos]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Yup. Kinda funny, isn't it, how nothing can be trusted yet a killer tune develops. People really need to check what they post.
Ron

[Steve Cole]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Seems you need to follow the conversation a little closer, as no one has stated what you seem to think is being said. Moving things in anyone given direction is far from an accurate tune. If all you want is results that are like a carburetor and that's good enough then fine, but if you want to use and get the benefits of EFI and closed loop operation you need to be a little more picky about how you use and handle data.

[Steve Cole]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Yup. Kinda funny, isn't it, how nothing can be trusted yet a killer tune develops. People really need to check what they post.
Ron

Just thinking of you this morning. I'm really interested on how well TT deals with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off. Not being able to establish a delta within 6 in that area with NB makes me wonder how in long term it will dial it in.
Ron

So which of your stories of yours are we to believe? 

In one post you say it works great (killer tune) yet in another you say it sucks in the 20 - 30 kpa area. 

[rbabos]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Yup. Kinda funny, isn't it, how nothing can be trusted yet a killer tune develops. People really need to check what they post.
Ron

Just thinking of you this morning. I'm really interested on how well TT deals with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off. Not being able to establish a delta within 6 in that area with NB makes me wonder how in long term it will dial it in.
Ron

So which of your stories of yours are we to believe? 

In one post you say it works great (killer tune) yet in another you say it sucks in the 20 - 30 kpa area. 

No oops on my part. Your reading comprehension skills suck.  I have many log runs to compare with. I only posted the differences that can be expected and learning what to trust. 20-30 is the v rod problem area we seem to fight with. It is also not closed loop friendly there. Knowing those quirks can get a decent tune, which I have. I'm curious how TT pans out in that area.
Ron

[Onthefence]

Seems you need to follow the conversation a little closer, as no one has stated what you seem to think is being said. Moving things in anyone given direction is far from an accurate tune. If all you want is results that are like a carburetor and that's good enough then fine, but if you want to use and get the benefits of EFI and closed loop operation you need to be a little more picky about how you use and handle data.

I read just fine sir.  You Stated that the AFF value at any given line on a log might be wrong.  I pointed out that a histogram would leave the impression that you could take the AFF against the existing VE in any given RPM X Map range and derive a new VE value.  It seems from that process that improvements are being made.   Apparently the reality is that process will polish up bad data and make it look good, meanwhile no gains have been made on the tune.

[rageglide]

I read just fine sir.  You Stated that the AFF value at any given line on a log might be wrong.  I pointed out that a histogram would leave the impression that you could take the AFF against the existing VE in any given RPM X Map range and derive a new VE value.  It seems from that process that improvements are being made.   Apparently the reality is that process will polish up bad data and make it look good, meanwhile no gains have been made on the tune.

I've used CLI to make a quick change to a fresh build with a fresh unknown tune which started up and ran badly.  Logged the behavior and observed large negative CLI changes in the problem range which I then subtracted corresponding amount from the VE cells in the range so as to get me close to decent running.  Then autotuned after that.  (not TT comments btw)

[Steve Cole]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Yup. Kinda funny, isn't it, how nothing can be trusted yet a killer tune develops. People really need to check what they post.
Ron

Just thinking of you this morning. I'm really interested on how well TT deals with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off. Not being able to establish a delta within 6 in that area with NB makes me wonder how in long term it will dial it in.
Ron

So which of your stories of yours are we to believe? 

In one post you say it works great (killer tune) yet in another you say it sucks in the 20 - 30 kpa area. 

No oops on my part. Your reading comprehension skills suck.  I have many log runs to compare with. I only posted the differences that can be expected and learning what to trust. 20-30 is the v rod problem area we seem to fight with. It is also not closed loop friendly there. Knowing those quirks can get a decent tune, which I have. I'm curious how TT pans out in that area.
Ron

Mt reading comprehension skills are just fine. Maybe you should read your own post a little better or maybe you have a selective memory. Your exact words "with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off.". In plain English that would lead a normal person to believe there was an issue otherwise why would you be complaining about it in multiple post here and else where!

[rbabos]

Given the fact that the data can't be relied on to hand tune,  I find it somewhat amazing that you can plot the AFF's in an histogram, adjust Ve's based on the AFF value in the histogram and the result will move the AFF in the direction you desire.

Granted it's all a lie, but at least the histogram looks cool.

Yup. Kinda funny, isn't it, how nothing can be trusted yet a killer tune develops. People really need to check what they post.
Ron

Just thinking of you this morning. I'm really interested on how well TT deals with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off. Not being able to establish a delta within 6 in that area with NB makes me wonder how in long term it will dial it in.
Ron

So which of your stories of yours are we to believe? 

In one post you say it works great (killer tune) yet in another you say it sucks in the 20 - 30 kpa area. 

No oops on my part. Your reading comprehension skills suck.  I have many log runs to compare with. I only posted the differences that can be expected and learning what to trust. 20-30 is the v rod problem area we seem to fight with. It is also not closed loop friendly there. Knowing those quirks can get a decent tune, which I have. I'm curious how TT pans out in that area.
Ron

Mt reading comprehension skills are just fine. Maybe you should read your own post a little better or maybe you have a selective memory. Your exact words "with that spastic 20-30 kpa area that pisses the three of us off.". In plain English that would lead a normal person to believe there was an issue otherwise why would you be complaining about it in multiple post here and else where!

The complaint is meant as in the form of challenging to tune . 20-30kpa area in a vrod is an well known issue but it can be dealt with. I got mine working. Let's see how TT handles it for the other two in the forum.
Ron

[FLTRI]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

[hrdtail78]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

Been my experience as well on anything with free flowing, short exhaust.  The vrod isn't special in this case.  It is actually set up a bit better with true duel intake runners.

[FLTRI]

Frankly, I love to tune Vrods as they are MUCH more linear as to the fueling...and timing for that matter.
They seem to hold predictable AFR better than BTs and Sportys. Just a much more efficient running engine in general.
The only vrod I had a problem with was a custom bike with Zoomie pipes. I believe they were like 2 1/2" ID and about 12-14" long.
Bob

[MaxxV4]

The only vrod I had a problem with was a custom bike with Zoomie pipes. I believe they were like 2 1/2" ID and about 12-14" long.
Bob

And it took a week to get your hearing back........ 

[hrdtail78]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

Been my experience as well on anything with free flowing, short exhaust.  The vrod isn't special in this case.  It is actually set up a bit better with true dual intake runners.

[FLTRI]

The only vrod I had a problem with was a custom bike with Zoomie pipes. I believe they were like 2 1/2" ID and about 12-14" long.
Bob

And it took a week to get your hearing back........ 

The owner said: huh? to everything I said or asked. Lol
Fortunately I wear ear plugs and ear muffs so, while I still can hear the loud cry at 9200rpms, it's tolerable.
Bob

[rbabos]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

I find that a good bit of riding is done in the 25-30 kpa as likey do Chris and Jeff on the forum. Slow traffic, going through towns and so on.
I've even cruised long distances at 60 mph with a light tail wind at 5% with less then 30kpa. I would claim it a light load, not very light load or decel. Most steady state conditions under top gear are in the 25kpa range in around 3500 rpms. Not an area one can ignore when tuning, that's for sure since it lives there a lot.
20-10.3 kpa would be decel in the v rod.
Could be some difference on what you see on a dyno and what actual street riding shows up in this case.
Ron

[FLTRI]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

I find that a good bit of riding is done in the 25-30 kpa as likey do Chris and Jeff on the forum. Slow traffic, going through towns and so on.
I've even cruised long distances at 60 mph with a light tail wind at 5% with less then 30kpa. I would claim it a light load, not very light load or decel. Most steady state conditions under top gear are in the 25kpa range. Not an area one can ignore when tuning, that's for sure since it lives there a lot.
20-10.3 kpa would be decel in the v rod.
Ron

Ron,
You cannot compare load numbers with a tail wind included fer crissakes Ron! LOL!
IMO, 5% throttle is ver light load...especially since it takes about 5% throttle (from completely closed) just to idle. Just look at the throttle % at idle for a FBW bike.
Have you v-tuned, auto-tuned, or smartuned a bike to see what it takes to properly populate the 20kpa column? It's either decel or VERY light throttle/load.
Bob

[rbabos]

FWIW, virtually all of our bikes suffer from low kpa (load), light throttle exhaust reversion which causes erroneous O2 readings.
It's, IMO, necessary to be able to pick and choose when and where O2 sampling will be utilized and when the inputs will be ignored.
IME, 20-30kpa is decel-to-very light throttle with very light load.
Bob

I find that a good bit of riding is done in the 25-30 kpa as likey do Chris and Jeff on the forum. Slow traffic, going through towns and so on.
I've even cruised long distances at 60 mph with a light tail wind at 5% with less then 30kpa. I would claim it a light load, not very light load or decel. Most steady state conditions under top gear are in the 25kpa range. Not an area one can ignore when tuning, that's for sure since it lives there a lot.
20-10.3 kpa would be decel in the v rod.
Ron

Ron,
You cannot compare load numbers with a tail wind included fer crissakes Ron! LOL!
IMO, 5% throttle is ver light load...especially since it takes about 5% throttle (from completely closed) just to idle. Just look at the throttle % at idle for a FBW bike.
Have you v-tuned, auto-tuned, or smartuned a bike to see what it takes to properly populate the 20kpa column? It's either decel or VERY light throttle/load.
Bob

Yes I have. You clearly have not spent time riding one of these things to know how they behave in real life, rather then sitting on a damn dyno. Fer fk sakes, I'm not tuning a  tail wind situation, only stating I've ridden there, showing it can actually cruise in that condition that you claim is decel. I sure as hell am not in decel for 30 miles am I? Now you are confusing FBW throttle with cable. I start at 0, not 4-5%. I know the damn blade is open at 0 to some extent with IAC making up the difference but let's keep facts straight as in that it starts at 0%.  It's not uncommon to see 3500 at 5% for a lot of the days ride. 6% at 3750 and 7-8 at 4k in average conditions. I've got 30k on this bike now so I'm quite sure the figures I'm seeing are not dreamed up.
Ron

[FLTRI]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Ron. I guess my lack of on road experience with Vrods have me treating it like any other engine.
Here's a loaded question for you:
What KPA do you see on your Vrod at 5% throttle?
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Here you go Bob.  It took me about 3 min to get the answer you were asking for.

http://www.nbs-stl.com/HarleyTuning/VrodTps5.png

For the people that have MLVHD, here is the filter I used.

[TPS]>6 or [TPS]<4

Have fun tuning

Andy

[FLTRI]

Here you go Bob.  It took me about 3 min to get the answer you were asking for...
Have fun tuning

Andy

Sorry Andy, can you go ahead and answer the question?
"What KPA do you see on your Vrod at 5% throttle?"
Thanks,
Bob

[whittlebeast]

That is the answer.  Do I need to go back to how to read a scatter plot?  Try asking Steve as I am fairly sure he has a fairly solid understanding of them.

[rbabos]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Ron. I guess my lack of on road experience with Vrods have me treating it like any other engine.
Here's a loaded question for you:
What KPA do you see on your Vrod at 5% throttle?
Bob

Unless you can give me an average situation in operation, I can see 10.3-100kpa (98 actual) at 5%.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

Unless you can give me an average situation in operation, I can see 10.3-100kpa (98 actual) at 5%.
Ron

What altitude are you at?  I didn't think you were at a high altitude.   I would try and get the Cam tune feature for vision turned on and adjust that.

[whittlebeast]

He would have to be near idle at near sea level to get to 98 KPA at 5% throttle.  And I bet the throttles needs to be fairly large.

[FLTRI]

That is the answer.  Do I need to go back to how to read a scatter plot?  Try asking Steve as I am fairly sure he has a fairly solid understanding of them.

So again, no answer. I need to get the answer from someone else?
Bob

[FLTRI]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Ron. I guess my lack of on road experience with Vrods have me treating it like any other engine.
Here's a loaded question for you:
What KPA do you see on your Vrod at 5% throttle?
Bob

Unless you can give me an average situation in operation, I can see 10.3-100kpa (98 actual) at 5%.
Ron

How about steady state cruise at 75mph? 5th gear flat level ground without wind. What is the kpa/tp? Should be about 20kpa @ 5% throttle right?
Bob

[whittlebeast]

On the VRod log I was looking at his motor was holding 75 MPH at 11% throttle at 42 KPA.  I have no idea if the road was level....

Try popping any Power Vision on any VRod and jump on the highway.  It is right on the screen.  No logging required.

On a VRod, the vast majority of time is spent below 5.6% throttle.  You are going to have to trust me on that one because I can't prove it without math or pretty pictures.

Andy

[rbabos]

Unless you can give me an average situation in operation, I can see 10.3-100kpa (98 actual) at 5%.
Ron

What altitude are you at?  I didn't think you were at a high altitude.   I would try and get the Cam tune feature for vision turned on and adjust that.

1040 where I live. Just checked the PV a few minutes ago. 98.13
Ron

[rbabos]

On the VRod log I was looking at his motor was holding 75 MPH at 11% throttle at 42 KPA.  I have no idea if the road was level....

Try popping any Power Vision on any VRod and jump on the highway.  It is right on the screen.  No logging required.

On a VRod, the vast majority of time is spent below 5.6% throttle.  You are going to have to trust me on that one because I can't prove it without math or pretty pictures.

Andy

Sounds about right. Did I send you a log at some point?
Ron

[whittlebeast]

A few people have sent me VRod logs over the last few weeks.  I just grabbed one.  It was named log0004.csv at 1.2 meg

[rbabos]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Ron. I guess my lack of on road experience with Vrods have me treating it like any other engine.
Here's a loaded question for you:
What KPA do you see on your Vrod at 5% throttle?

Unless you can give me an average situation in operation, I can see 10.3-100kpa (98 actual) at 5%.
Ron

How about steady state cruise at 75mph? 5th gear flat level ground without wind. What is the kpa/tp? Should be about 20kpa @ 5% throttle right?
Bob

Very poor guess on your part.
What Andy reported in one of his logs seems close to what I remember.
I have a log of mine here showing 70mph for long enough to trust the figures. 10% TPS, 36.5 KPA at 5150 rpms.
Ron

[FLTRI]

Damn Ron, I thought ought you said you cruise at 20kpa? Steady state.
Or were you simply stating that you saw 20 during a tail wind while cruising?
Or were you going slightly downhill when you saw 20kpa at cruise.
No guessing involved,
Bob

[hrdtail78]

Downshift.   It's a vrod.

[rbabos]

Damn Ron, I thought ought you said you cruise at 20kpa? Steady state.
Or were you simply stating that you saw 20 during a tail wind while cruising?
Or were you going slightly downhill when you saw 20kpa at cruise.
No guessing involved,
Bob

I never exactly said I cruised at 20kpa. Your mind went off in a tangent again. I have seen mid 20s in light cruise in the right conditions, strong tail wind being one example but normally it's around 34kpa.
My original statement was regarding tuning the  4-5% tps in rpms between 2500-3500.  In steady state these areas produce mid 20s kpa. This is the area most difficult to dial in due to that reversion crap. I know you know that and are just fkg with me as usual. 
Ron

[rbabos]

Downshift.   It's a vrod.

That statement makes no sense unless the tune is so bad it runs like crap under 4k. Oh, wait , you just described 99% of all v rod factory tunes. Then I agree with your statement .
Tune it well as you know ,  it will run smooth everywhere .
Ron

[FLTRI]

Downshift.   It's a vrod.

That statement makes no sense unless the tune is so bad it runs like crap under 4k. Oh, wait , you just described 99% of all v rod factory tunes. Then I agree with your statement .
Tune it well as you know ,  it will run smooth everywhere .
Ron

But you must admit, the engine loves to run over 3500 rpm. 
You can tune them to run smoothly under 3500 but you can tell it wants to run up above.
In fact they really like over 5000 even more! 
A truly stark difference from the big twin. They like to stay below 5000.
Bob

[rbabos]

Downshift.   It's a vrod.

That statement makes no sense unless the tune is so bad it runs like crap under 4k. Oh, wait , you just described 99% of all v rod factory tunes. Then I agree with your statement .
Tune it well as you know ,  it will run smooth everywhere .
Ron

But you must admit, the engine loves to run over 3500 rpm. 
You can tune them to run smoothly under 3500 but you can tell it wants to run up above.
In fact they really like over 5000 even more! 
A truly stark difference from the big twin. They like to stay below 5000.
Bob

True.
Ron

[hrdtail78]

If you are trying to run a vrod down the road at 25 kpa and have had problems tuning the thing at this cruise.  I would trade it in for a Harley.   Turning every thread into a "tune my vrod for me at a condition they were never made to run at" is never going to get you were you want to go.   It's a muscle, sport bike right?   Quit driving it like an old man.

[MaxxV4]

[quoteI have a log of mine here showing 70mph for long enough to trust the figures. 10% TPS, 36.5 KPA at 5150 rpms.][/quote]
Is that in 4th gear? 5150 @ 70 mph is really low gearing. Even my Vmax when it had stock rear end gearing would turn about 5K rpm @ 75 mph (in 5th) and it was geared really short. I guess in any case, it doesn't make a difference what gear you are using if you are trying to find out what kpa is required vs throttle position @ rpm.