HarleyTechTalk

Quote from: glens on Saturday, September 24, 2011. 01:15:15 AM.
Sporty, it's relative simple.  Really.  And the colors are immaterial.

In closed-loop operation, the ECM drives the fuel high, then low, then back again, then back again...  It monitors itself by reading the O2 sensors tracking the swings.  It zeros in, not on the specific AFR, but on the narrow range centered upon that AFR.  Over time as necessary corrections are noted, they're kept track of and utilized so as to keep the fueling swings nicely centered on the target output of the O2 sensors.  And these corrections can successfully carry over to the areas of operation which cannot be self-monitored via the simpler, faster, and cheaper type of O2 sensor we have in use: both wide-open throttle and sudden throttle transitions throughout the operating range, along with cold startup, to name a few.

This is an excellent method of maintaining the tune in the face of changing circumstances.  Circumstances like differing fuel make-up/quality; differing injector response over time; differing fuel pressure over time; etc.

A carburetor has better ability to adapt to running variations than does open-loop-only EFI.  And a carburetor can't hold a candle to EFI which is running with a self-contained system of checks and balances (closed-loop operation).

The only real drawback is that all the closed-loop running parts must work and work together in harmony.  Sometimes that doesn't happen, though, and the conventional wisdom says to just bypass closed-loop operation altogether when problems arise.  Some folks never even bother to look for any problems, they just step back several years in technological time as a matter of course.

The above quote from glens on the whittlebeast thread got me wondering about how we could use the AFV effect on open loop areas to our advantage. These are my first thoughts on it and it would seem that with the minds that are on this site that we should be able to develop a working process or two to try on the more radical builds. I would like to try this if it sound like it is worth the test time. What do the tuners think?

1. V-tune and auto-extend including optimizing the timing
2. Dyno tune the top end portion of the maps for best power and record the AFR with the dyno.
3. Ride the bike with a known fuel long enough to allow it to generate the AFV
4. Return to the dyno and rerun the top end while recording the AFR with the dyno
 
Wouldn’t the difference in AFR between test 2 and test 4 reflect the AFV. If so could we apply that percentage to the open loop area and reflash with the new cal. The check would be to run the bike again to allow AFV to generate and then rerun on the dyno to see if it now reproduces the run and AFR from the run in step 2. This should set things up so that as AFV changes in closed loop they affect the open loop areas in a positive manor. This may be overkill on most bikes but if the process worked it could help to fine tune the more modified and high output bikes.

First off, the auto extending of the ve tables is a guess, so you can rule that out immediately, it may work in some instances but more often then not it will be inaccurate. 
I know what you are getting at here but wouldn't it just be more realistic if by software manipulation the afv did not affect the open loop areas at all?

What are you thinking and tting to accomplish here?  I don't think your head is toyally wrapped around AFVs and how they function.

Two things...  In closed loop they function differently than the open loop sections that get effected.  Closed loop will lean or richen.  Open loop portion of a  closed loop tune will only richen.

So with this...  You wanna do what?  Be more clear.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I may be all wrong here that is why I started the thread.
If the AFV drives the open loop area richer after the dyno tune it will be too rich. If I can measure the amount that it drives it too rich I can compensate for it in the cal then the next time the AFV should drive the open loop area to where it was tuned on the dyno instead of too rich.
If tuned with the best gas this should let the AFV help the open loop area richen for bad gas  just as it helps the closed loop area without driving it to rich when you fill up with the good gas.

Are you talking open loop or WOT.  What I understand is that AFV do affect OL but the farther is gets away from a CL cell.  The less affect it has.  So, if 80kpa is the high limit, 100kpa has 90kpa and 95kpa inbetween.  So how much it affects 100kpa (if at all) has to be known before we could try and work with it the way you are saying.

Wouldn't  recording the before and after affects on the dyno at 90,95 and 100 kpa give that information.
We know it is coming into play and we have no way to see or alter it directly with the present software so I'm just think about how to monitor it and reverse engineer it into the cal to get the best results possible

I'm pretty sure the 100kPa gets effect out of this mechanism.  I'm not so sure the effect is only ever richer; I believe it goes both ways in our system.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on September 28, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
If the AFV drives the open loop area richer after the dyno tune it will be too rich. If I can measure the amount that it drives it too rich I can compensate for it in the cal then the next time the AFV should drive the open loop area to where it was tuned on the dyno instead of too rich.

And where would you be before that might happen, too lean?  What if a fuel-pulling effect takes place instead?  Way too lean then?

There's no "the AFV".  There are multiple AFVs per cylinder.  Per authoritative statements there are various numbers of them in different calibration levels (I'm thinking more in later ones).

If you've tuned on a dyno, the relationships between closed-loop areas and always-open-loop ones is established as correct.  If the AFVs do anything either direction from that as a result of whatever (valid) reason they make changes, you want that initial relationship to remain, which you won't if you pre-bias the system somehow.  Something like a different fuel blend causing an effective VE change down low (one way or the other) is good cause for a similar change up high because it's the same fuel running both places.  Whatever relationship there is between somewhere closed-loop and WOT would ideally remain when AFVs do their thing over time.

I'd strongly caution against messing with it like you're contemplating.  Best would be to get all the VEs calibrated in proper relationship to one another at some point in time with the AFVs sitting right at 100% at that time if possible.  I realize that'd take a bit of faith, but implore you to trust me.  Heck, things change a few percent from day to day even on the same tank of fuel; you'll never get it all to stay exactly the same over any length of time.  Get things as close as you can and let the system do its work.

OK so I just reread Steve’s post #423 on Andy’s thread and I guess I either misread or misremembered that post. I know that reading that thread is what got me thinking about all this.
Sorry for wasting time and forum space. I just have always needed to understand how things work and tend to obsess until I think I do.
Thanks to all that replied 

I sure don't think you'd need to apologize about anything regarding this thread.

1FSTRK,
Why not do a careful experiment to test your ideas?
Toasting a motor is the biggest fear, so go carefully.
If you have the equipment and a little time, why not test. You might come up with something unexpected. Let us know.

Quote1. V-tune and auto-extend including optimizing the timing
2. Dyno tune the top end portion of the maps for best power and record the AFR with the dyno.
3. Ride the bike with a known fuel long enough to allow it to generate the AFV
4. Return to the dyno and rerun the top end while recording the AFR with the dyno

1.Dyno tune all ve's
2. Ride the bike with a known fuel long enough to allow it to generate the AFV
3. Return to the dyno and rerun the top end while recording the AFR with the dyno

this has all been done on a few dynos.
not only does the AFR'S change but so does wot HP/TQ

What's going on in these cases where things are coming in to play and changing are problems that should have been fixed prior to tuning. I can run and have run our 120R test bike, several times, over the past 7500 miles of testing and it runs Closed Loop just like a stock bike and it makes within +/- 1.5% of what it did when it first came off the dyno. So it's not a matter of it doesn't work, it's a matter of spending the time to make sure each part of the system is working as it should to start with.

Quote from: strokerjlk on September 29, 2011, 12:25:52 PM

Quote1. V-tune and auto-extend including optimizing the timing
2. Dyno tune the top end portion of the maps for best power and record the AFR with the dyno.
3. Ride the bike with a known fuel long enough to allow it to generate the AFV
4. Return to the dyno and rerun the top end while recording the AFR with the dyno

1.Dyno tune all ve's
2. Ride the bike with a known fuel long enough to allow it to generate the AFV
3. Return to the dyno and rerun the top end while recording the AFR with the dyno

this has all been done on a few dynos.
not only does the AFR'S change but so does wot HP/TQ

It seems if the VE tables in the closed loop area were not correct and the VE at WOT was set correctly on the dyno then that would account for the AFV changing the WOT dyno run after time.
If the closed loop VE tables are correct at the time of the dyno run then the AFV should follow throughout the table.

Quote from: 04FLHP on September 29, 2011, 01:33:23 PMIt seems if the VE tables in the closed loop area were not correct and the VE at WOT was set correctly on the dyno then that would account for the AFV changing the WOT dyno run after time.
If the closed loop VE tables are correct at the time of the dyno run then the AFV should follow throughout the table.

Or maybe neither were set "correctly".  That is to say, maybe the plumbing/sensors function together just fine and the dyno operator either has such faith in their exhaust gas acquisition and/or O2 sensor systems that they tend to quibble over 0.1 AFR and set it at odds with what the ECM wants to do.  Naturally, in such a case, the ECM in closed-loop will "dick with" what they've done.

Quote from: Steve Cole on September 29, 2011, 12:45:13 PM
What's going on in these cases where things are coming in to play and changing are problems that should have been fixed prior to tuning. I can run and have run our 120R test bike, several times, over the past 7500 miles of testing and it runs Closed Loop just like a stock bike and it makes within +/- 1.5% of what it did when it first came off the dyno. So it's not a matter of it doesn't work, it's a matter of spending the time to make sure each part of the system is working as it should to start with.

The last sentence is the first place to start....... :embarrassed:

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 29, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
1FSTRK,
Why not do a careful experiment to test your ideas?
Toasting a motor is the biggest fear, so go carefully.
If you have the equipment and a little time, why not test. You might come up with something unexpected. Let us know.

I don't think there is any chance of toasting the motor because the tune will never be that far off when doing this test.
Doing this right is time consuming and the dyno time cost money so it is not worth it if none of this works the way I thought it did. glens and Steve have explained the things I misunderstood on how AFV is applied so this test seems to be senseless now.

Quote from: glens on September 29, 2011, 01:51:21 PM

Quote from: 04FLHP on September 29, 2011, 01:33:23 PMIt seems if the VE tables in the closed loop area were not correct and the VE at WOT was set correctly on the dyno then that would account for the AFV changing the WOT dyno run after time.
If the closed loop VE tables are correct at the time of the dyno run then the AFV should follow throughout the table.

Or maybe neither were set "correctly".  That is to say, maybe the plumbing/sensors function together just fine and the dyno operator either has such faith in their exhaust gas acquisition and/or O2 sensor systems that they tend to quibble over 0.1 AFR and set it at odds with what the ECM wants to do.  Naturally, in such a case, the ECM in closed-loop will "dick with" what they've done.

I don't think 0.1 AFR will show up as a loss of HP and TQ on a WOT dyno run and I know you can't feel it when riding. 

I agree.  I was merely trying to make a point.  I see folks who are tuners posting here who seem to always have problems with closed-loop operation.  And I've seen some mention tuning to 14.3 instead of 14.6 because they were using an ethanol blend fuel which has a stoich AFR lower than gasoline.  Regrettably I don't recall off hand whether they're same folks or different.

What I've never heard anyone mention is how they're deriving that "14.3".  Most of the AFR measuring stuff I've seen is hard-coded to show 14.6 at stoich.  But stoich is stoich, so whether it's actually 14.3:1 at the moment, or 14.6:1 at the moment, the meter will show "14.6" if it's stoich.  If they then take this meter and tune relative to "14.3" the old-school way of setting all the AFR tables to a single value like 13.5 and making the VE tables put out 13.2 on the meter, it's likely to cause troubles trying to put the bike into closed-loop afterward, because what they'd thought was "14.3" was in fact the equivalent of "14.0" with their "14.3" fuel.

Now you say "I doubt .3 AFR would show up as a loss of HP/TQ or that you could feel it while riding".  I don't know if it would and I don't know what kind of HP/TQ loss they are even talking about.  1 or 2 percent?  10?

The scenario I put forth just above would by itself cause AFVs of nominally 102% 98% right off the bat, which when carried to WOT would put the mixture 2% rich lean.  Would that cause a (repeatably) measurable loss of HP/TQ?

I believe there can be combinations of equipment that make some areas of closed-loop problematic, don't get me wrong.  But every combination that comes through their doors?  I'd have to say that something ain't happening right, and it seems to be fairly consistent for some.

Granted, I tend to hang around here in spurts.  It's been probably most of year since my last one.  Perhaps some of this stuff has gotten discussed in the mean time and I missed it.  If that's the case, kindly point me to the discussions.  If it's not the case, well, now's about as good a time as any to talk about it, what do you say?

That's exactly why tuning with lambda instead of AFR makes so much sense.  :teeth:

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 29, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
1FSTRK,
Why not do a careful experiment to test your ideas?
Toasting a motor is the biggest fear, so go carefully.
If you have the equipment and a little time, why not test. You might come up with something unexpected. Let us know.

All it would take is a PowerVision with the wideband option running both the stock narrow bands for closed loop and the widebands on the same bike and a quick experiment.  In testing with the wideband so far, I am seeing that the Sportys have a hell of a time holding AFR over time.  Time being 45 min or so.  This is stuff that will be tough to catch on a dyno.

It makes me wonder if this is why Harley goes to so much trouble to feed hot  air to the air cleaner.  This  may have to do with getting the intake manifold up to temp to keep the fuel off the surface.  This may be all related to why a motor needs so much AE when cold.

Beast

Quote from: whittlebeast on September 30, 2011, 03:53:46 AM

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 29, 2011, 09:39:37 AM
1FSTRK,
Why not do a careful experiment to test your ideas?
Toasting a motor is the biggest fear, so go carefully.
If you have the equipment and a little time, why not test. You might come up with something unexpected. Let us know.

All it would take is a PowerVision with the wideband option running both the stock narrow bands for closed loop and the widebands on the same bike and a quick experiment.  In testing with the wideband so far, I am seeing that the Sportys have a hell of a time holding AFR over time.  Time being 45 min or so.  This is stuff that will be tough to catch on a dyno.

It makes me wonder if this is why Harley goes to so much trouble to feed hot  air to the air cleaner.  This  may have to do with getting the intake manifold up to temp to keep the fuel off the surface.  This may be all related to why a motor needs so much AE when cold.

Beast

I do not own any of the equipment you mentioned.
I see no problem with a competent dyno operator with the proper equipment performing this test and getting accurate data, but as I said, I no longer believe this particular test will provide any useful or new information.
My testing and your Sportster testing would not be comparable because of the numerous differences and totally uncontrollable variables.
I do not see where any of the data you have gathered with your systems is complete enough or repeatable enough to draw any accurate conclusions as to the root cause of the changes you report. To continue to record and view data with different software has not enabled you to accurately conclude if what you are seeing is caused by the original Delphi code having a flaw, or if the ECM is doing what is was programmed to do in response to something that is off in the mechanical design of the motor or exhaust or some other hard parts. Without some way of identifying the root cause how do we know if we should redesign the EFI system to match the motor or redesign the motor so it will work with the EFI.   

Quote from: whittlebeast on September 30, 2011, 03:53:46 AM
It makes me wonder if this is why Harley goes to so much trouble to feed hot  air to the air cleaner.  This  may have to do with getting the intake manifold up to temp to keep the fuel off the surface.  This may be all related to why a motor needs so much AE when cold.

The restrictive air cleaner is there to help meet EPA drive-by noise regulations and to prevent water intrusion.  The fuel is going to be on the intake manifold walls regardless of manifold temperature, it looks like a bloodbath in there when the engine is running.

I love this forum.
Guys propose perfectly reasonable suppositions, others tell them why they will not work and then no innovation, no experimentation is attempted.
B. S. (male cow poop)
I have a Forcewinder, the original long intake pipe with a Unique Metal Products (UMP) desert racing air housing with a UNI air filter. The UMP housing is the first Harley housing he made. I love it. Looks Great! Had to send the housing to UNI for the filters because I had to modify it to fit with the roll bar. Imagine a diesel filter (they use a lot of air) with a spin to the intake air to separate the particles (dirt) out of the intake air. I get turbulence, cool air and when I go to the desert this winter, no sand.
That my friends is innovation. Some ask if it is a turbo, I say no I just want lots of clean cool turbulent air.
My bike screams, for a Sportster.

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 30, 2011, 07:26:28 AM
Some ask if it is a turbo, I say no I just want lots of clean cool turbulent air.

are you sure you want turbulent air?   :scratch:  I think what you gain by using a longer throat on the intake tract is tuned airflow....which is likely the opposite of turbulent air flow. 

I know this has nothing to do with Harley's. GM with their vortec head design wasn't that designed to increases combustion chamber turbulence for better fuel air mixing and flame front  control? It sure made a difference in the old 350 engine.

Quote from: cts1950 on September 30, 2011, 07:55:04 AM
I know this has nothing to do with Harley's. GM with their vortec head design wasn't that designed to increases combustion chamber turbulence for better fuel air mixing and flame front  control? It sure made a difference in the old 350 engine.

yes, turbulent combustion chambers....but not turbulent intake tract.  Turbulence in the intake tract is a power robber, not power adder. 

The Vortex head design was to CONTROL the turbulence in the combustion chamber which is a big difference than just having a turbulent chamber. The key to it all is having control over things not just tossing it together and hoping you hit upon a combination that works. Doing testing to prove out what you have is key, but just as key is not to misread the data being provided by the test equipment. You can only figure this out if the test you are performing has equipment being used that is capable of measuring what your looking for. This is a very big mistake people make, assuming that the reading they are getting is real when it's NOT.

You know, I am not sure.
Have tried 4 different air filters, this latest made it lean over 3,000 rpm.
Stopped  intake/exhaust experimentation while trying to figure out tuning, still working on the tune.

Quote from: mayor on September 30, 2011, 07:34:19 AM

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 30, 2011, 07:26:28 AM
Some ask if it is a turbo, I say no I just want lots of clean cool turbulent air.

are you sure you want turbulent air?   :scratch:  I think what you gain by using a longer throat on the intake tract is tuned airflow....which is likely the opposite of turbulent air flow.

Quote from: Sporty 48 on September 30, 2011, 03:35:27 PM
You know, I am not sure.
Have tried 4 different air filters, this latest made it lean over 3,000 rpm.
Stopped  intake/exhaust experimentation while trying to figure out tuning, still working on the tune.

You do bring up a good point about tuning. The pro tuners see a lot of combinations that work and a lot that don’t. When we tune our own bike we see only one bike with one combination so how does one tell when we have reached the point that hard parts need to be changed.
When the 1100 Sportster came out I had one and it had pipes and an air cleaner change and it ran ok but it never seemed smooth in the 2-3000 rpm range. Then the CV carbs came out and I swapped out the butterfly carb for the CV carb and a jet kit. I could not get it to run smooth at all, took it to the local tuner and he took one look and said “you can’t run that pipe with that air cleaner and a CV carb” He had been down that road before. He had an AC cover with a piece of clear plastic glued in the center so you could watch inside with the bike running. With no cover the bike ran fine, put the cover on and the carb slide would just bounce up and down at 2600-3000 rpm. I could run stock pipes with that air cleaner or my pipes with the stock big air box and it was smooth as silk. I tried different springs in the slide and finally gave up. Now fast forward to today and my very modified EFI twin cam and no slide to watch, what are the chances that if there were a slide in the TB that it would be bouncing all over right where I’m having trouble? Now how would the ECM and the AFV react to that when it closed loop. The thing is I think EFI is so much better that we can actual tune a bad combination that we would have otherwise given up on, not great but good enough that we just won’t give up and change a hard part.
Some folk are just learning about the pulse waves that we deal with in these things and others refuse to even admit they exist but there is a point in the tuning process where it is time to change one of the hard parts and see if it will tune.
Just my 2cents mix with some first hand experience.

Quote from: glens on September 28, 2011, 08:50:56 PM
I'm not so sure the effect is only ever richer; I believe it goes both ways in our system.

you are incorrect in your assumptions, Glens.  Only goes richer in OL is a left over from the original base delphi programming, of which MOCO did not change when Delphi wrote the MOCO code.  The programmers felt going leaner than the map settings, using AFVs in OL, would be beyond stupid.  Now, the bike WILL lean back to original map settings as AFVs change.  They will never go below what is on the base map while in OL.

CL is a different animal completely.

It'd be nice to assuredly know this sort of stuff...  Got a source you can name for the info?

Quote from
Steve Cole
Re: The sort of thing that gets my attention
« Reply #423 on: Wednesday, September 21, 2011. 05:30:18 PM.

In the HD Delphi code only, what is learned in closed loop is applied in open loop. This is not always the case in other applications. The most common approach I know of is to use what is learned provided it is richer and not use any enleanment in open loop.

I'm taking this as saying that the HD Delphi closed loop learned can and will drive open loop rich or lean.
Maybe Steve can correct me if that is wrong.

FBRR, is whom I am quoting.

Quote from: 04FLHP on October 01, 2011, 12:43:31 PM
Quote from
Steve Cole
Re: The sort of thing that gets my attention
« Reply #423 on: Wednesday, September 21, 2011. 05:30:18 PM.

In the HD Delphi code only, what is learned in closed loop is applied in open loop The most common approach I know of is to use what is learned provided it is richer and not use any enleanment in open loop.

THIS is what the english easy to understand side says...  Steve is quoting me quoting FBRR

WURK_TRUK

Not me quoting you quoting FBRR. HD doesn't do it the regular way from what we have found.

Quote from: 04FLHP on October 01, 2011, 12:43:31 PM
Quote from
Steve Cole
Re: The sort of thing that gets my attention
« Reply #423 on: Wednesday, September 21, 2011. 05:30:18 PM.

In the HD Delphi code only, what is learned in closed loop is applied in open loop. This is not always the case in other applications. The most common approach I know of is to use what is learned provided it is richer and not use any enleanment in open loop.

I'm taking this as saying that the HD Delphi closed loop learned can and will drive open loop rich or lean.
Maybe Steve can correct me if that is wrong.

I can't think of a reason anyone would run an OL cell/area leaner than a CL setting.........

:scratch:

Say what you have found, then, Steve. :wink:

Quote from: WVULTRA on October 01, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
I can't think of a reason anyone would run an OL cell/area leaner than a CL setting.........

I can't either, but I'd sure want an appropriate AFV to take things leaner any appropriate where in open-loop if that's what was determined needed doing any appropriate where in closed-loop.  If there's a reason, like I went from corn gas to just petroleum gas, or my fuel pressure regulator was putting out more pressure, etc., I'd like the right thing to be done open-loop as much as I want it done closed-loop.  Either direction.

OK  this is confusing. Steve has repeatedly said that if the ecm was set in OL it dose not care what the o2s are reading. Is the afv active in OL or not and how dose it know how to adjust the fuel mix if it dose not use the o2s for feedback in OL.

Quote from: cts1950 on October 01, 2011, 10:25:33 PM
OK  this is confusing. Steve has repeatedly said that if the ecm was set in OL it dose not care what the o2s are reading. Is the afv active in OL or not and how dose it know how to adjust the fuel mix if it dose not use the o2s for feedback in OL.

what is confusing to me is, if the bike is set to OL.....how could it be considered OL if the o2 sensors are still providing feedback for adjustments to the fuel supply (essentially CL)?  :scratch:

Quote from: cts1950 on October 01, 2011, 10:25:33 PM
OK  this is confusing. Steve has repeatedly said that if the ecm was set in OL it dose not care what the o2s are reading. Is the afv active in OL or not and how dose it know how to adjust the fuel mix if it dose not use the o2s for feedback in OL.

Not confusing at all if you know what's being talked about.  Nobody's saying if you reset the AFVs and take away closed-loop operation across the board in your fuel tables ("unnatural" open-loop operation) that any AFVs are going to dick with what you've done (or ever save your butt :).  What's being discussed here is open-loop operation which occurs "naturally".  That is, in the far right and the bottom of the fuel tables all the time and anywhere in the "14.6" area whenever transient conditions occur, such as when AE (for example) kicks in momentarily, in which case the ECM drops out of closed-loop for the duration (but you still reap the benefits of the pertinent AFVs all the while).

So when you're running a properly-set-up closed-loop setup, the AFVs developed during normal day-to-day operation will maintain your tune over time, both in the closed-loop areas of the fuel tables (both when running closed-loop and open-loop there), and in the open-loop areas.  Now this might not happen as well as designed if you try to get clever and only set a tight cruise area at highway speed to closed-loop or something; that would depend on how the AFV "tables" might be set up internally.

It guess it boils down to Steve saying "whenever it's in open-loop", not "whenever it's (entirely) set open-loop".

[add: Whenever it's in open-loop, for whatever reason, no AFVs will be getting developed, however if AFVs have gotten developed, they will always be put to use no matter the current *-loop situation. ]

I believe that it works as follows:
Closed loop = O2s active and ECM will richen or lean real time to keep O2s centered
AFV = a saved calculated adjustment applied to one of the base fuel tables (VE or AFR) to better center the AFR starting point based on how far the original tables have to be adjusted to keep the O2s happy. (Say 2% across the board increase or decrease to make it quicker and easier for the ECM to adjust for proper O2 readings)
If this is how it works and because you have closed loop readings consistently off far enough to apply a 2% AFV as a new starting point to the base table then regardless of what caused it (fuel change) that 2% multiplier should be applied to the open loop cells as well.
The open loop does not have the O2s on line for feed back but the AFV of 2% can be applied to the base table because what ever change in the bike, fuel, or conditions will exist in both open and closed loop. It is kind of like the ECM can do an internal v-tune run to generate an AFV for small changes that occur.
Of coarse this is all just my take at this point in the discussion.

Open loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM +/- stored AFV"s

Closed Loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM +/- actively changing AFV's

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 02, 2011, 12:11:05 PM
Open loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM +/- stored AFV"s

Closed Loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM +/- actively changing AFV's

:up: :up:
It doesn't get much easier to understand than that.
Thank you Steve

No it is NOT simple.  I wish to know why Steve is saying the Delphi team is giving me incorrect info and I will want this to be backed up.  I'm NOT Andy, nor do I expect to be treated as if I am.  If OL on a closed loop tune can go leaner than the map settings, I want to know what testing you did?  As it stands, without your giving up the data, even in a phone call...  I will EITHER believe the guys that INVENTED the code, or I will know CL is a bunch of crap.

so is it safe to say that if Steve said it this way you would agree:

Quote from: anyone from anywhere
Open loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM and stored AFV's that add to the fuel pulse wave, but not ones that subtract

Closed Loop operation = the fuel tables in the ECM +/- actively changing AFV's

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 02, 2011, 05:09:02 PM
No it is NOT simple.  I wish to know why Steve is saying the Delphi team  is giving me incorrect info and I will want this to be backed up.  I'm NOT Andy, nor do I expect to be treated as if I am.  If OL on a closed loop tune can go leaner than the map settings, I want to know what testing you did?  As it stands, without your giving up the data, even in a phone call...  I will EITHER believe the guys that INVENTED the code, or I will know CL is a bunch of crap.

Did your Delphi team work on the AFV code for the HD version or Delphi in general?

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 02, 2011, 05:09:02 PM
I will EITHER believe the guys that INVENTED the code, or I will know CL is a bunch of crap.

Putting aside the question of whether or not writing software properly constitutes an invention, why would you take such an extreme stance?  Am I correctly understanding the last part of your statement, fleshed out, as "I will know Closed Loop is a bunch of crap"?  Why?  Why would you be so offended at the notion that fueling adaptation could either add or remove fuel when/where appropriate?

OK
If a normal closed loop tune contains open loop cells such as idle and lets say 80 kpa and above will the afv correct the entire afr table or just the cells that are in closed loop.  I can see the ecm adjusting the closed loop cells, but the cells in open loop that the ecm is not collecting o2 data for, I would not I would not expect the afv to change these cells.

There's not "the AFV".  There are many of them, in various locations, per cylinder.

They wouldn't be needed for closed-loop areas except for a starting point at new startup or to use whenever closed-loop is temporarily disabled.  They'll always be needed for areas which never themselves get active trim updates to their fueling.

If Delphi didn't write in ability to remove fuel as needed in the outlying areas of the fuel tables, and MoCo came along and added the functionality, I'm glad for it.  It's much more sensible that way.

Specifically:

Quote from: cts1950 on October 02, 2011, 08:09:44 PM
If a normal closed loop tune contains open loop cells such as idle and lets say 80 kpa and above will the afv correct the entire afr table or just the cells that are in closed loop.

Actually, idle would usually be included, and the part about "the AFV" has been addressed.  In answer to your direct question "Will the entire table or just marked-as-closed-loop cell[s be affected]?", the answer would be "the entire table".

QuoteI can see the ecm adjusting the closed loop cells, but the cells in open loop that the ecm is not collecting o2 data for, I would not I would not expect the afv to change these cells.

Why would you not expect them to be affected?  (or why would you expect them to be not affected?)

The DBW throttle control table only goes to 2500 rpm, does that mean there's no throttle control above that speed, or does it mean that whatever's in that last row gets carried over to the higher speeds?  Obviously, it's the latter. 

Why would it be so hard to envision an "AFV table" which gets treated the same way?  A limited scope of cells which can receive updates, with the outer bounds being carried over to further operational areas which cannot receive their own updates.  That's the way I'd do it and I'd bet that's the way the folks that did it did it.  It's a sensible method :)

I am just trying to get a definitive answer, to eliminate any guessing and tie this info down. I have been told that the ecm dose not care about cells in open loop and why should it care in this instance.

Quote from: glens on October 02, 2011, 08:24:17 PM
If Delphi didn't write in ability to remove fuel as needed in the outlying areas of the fuel tables, and MoCo came along and added the functionality, I'm glad for it.  It's much more sensible that way.

why do you feel it's more sensible?  I would rather err on the side of caution (richer), especially since the change in afr before perceptable difference to the operator for a good running bike is quite broad. 

Without being able to read the c code, or attempting to test it, we're all just guessing here.  I know what other manufacturers do (the last adaptive fuel values are extracted up to full load, and can both add and remove), and I can theorize on how our module works, but I'd trust Steve over a Delphi source because I would not be surprised if Steve changes a bunch of things in the base cal and changes the code with each .mt release.

It would be easy enough to check if you had a wideband, just fudge the last couple closed loop-enabled VE columns high by a significant amount, let it adapt, then see if WOT is leaner than when you started.

Quote from: blusmbl on October 03, 2011, 04:21:15 AM
Without being able to read the c code, or attempting to test it, we're all just guessing here.  I know what other manufacturers do (the last adaptive fuel values are extracted up to full load, and can both add and remove), and I can theorize on how our module works, but I'd trust Steve over a Delphi source because I would not be surprised if Steve changes a bunch of things in the base cal and changes the code with each .mt release.

It would be easy enough to check if you had a wideband, just fudge the last couple closed loop-enabled VE columns high by a significant amount, let it adapt, then see if WOT is leaner than when you started.

Great answer. 

A Power Vision with the wideband option exposes and logs most of this stuff.  In many of the code versions , this stuff can be turned on and off.  I happen to run the Sporty with closed loop on but with adaptive learning turned off.

Beast

Quote from: mayor on October 03, 2011, 03:07:44 AM

Quote from: glens on October 02, 2011, 08:24:17 PM
If Delphi didn't write in ability to remove fuel as needed in the outlying areas of the fuel tables, and MoCo came along and added the functionality, I'm glad for it.  It's much more sensible that way.

why do you feel it's more sensible?  I would rather err on the side of caution (richer), especially since the change in afr before perceptable difference to the operator for a good running bike is quite broad. 

Mayor
I believe the idea is to not error or to error less. If you have a good tune on both open and closed loop areas and you get a full tank of fuel that requires the closed loop area to be adjusted leaner to be in tune then wouldn’t you expect that same amount of lean offset would be correct when applied to the open loop area. It is after all burning the same fuel.
It comes down to believing the O2s and the ECM can do the job of keeping the tune when conditions change.
I think there is some confusion because we are used to thinking in terms of using this system to reverse engineer the ve tables to create new ones for performance upgrades, when it was design to hold a correct tune in tolerance by making adjustments for changing conditions.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 03, 2011, 05:04:34 AM
I believe the idea is to not error or to error less. If you have a good tune on both open and closed loop areas and you get a full tank of fuel that requires the closed loop area to be adjusted leaner to be in tune then wouldn't you expect that same amount of lean offset would be correct when applied to the open loop area. It is after all burning the same fuel.

so, let's say that the tune was based on an E10 blended fuel...and you were lucky enough to get some real gas for a tank ride, how much perceptible difference would the operator feel if the AFV's reduce the desired pulsewidth in the open loop areas to account for the less needed fuel to reach the desired afr in those settings?  How much different would the bike run, if the AFV's didn't get applied to the open loop areas :nix:  I doubt that the average person could tell the difference.  :nix:   The window for power generation in regards to afr is broad, but the leaner settings of this window create heat.  Most of the time, richer fuel settings are more to control heat...not necassarily to produce more power. This is why I would prefer to err on the richer side (not rich, but rather richer side of stoich).

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 03, 2011, 05:04:34 AM
It comes down to believing the O2s and the ECM can do the job of keeping the tune when conditions change.

The very nature of the narrow band system does not allow for 100% closed loop operation, so why would anyone want this system to behave that way when the programmer specifically tells the ecm to ignore certain areas (by setting them to open loop)? Another way to look at it is with certain pipes/cam configurations the data obtained by the sensors may be skewed, so the applied AFV's could make the bike run worse than if the data was ignored altogther (like the programmer intended by switching to open loop).  My guess is this is what Wurk is worried about happening. 

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 03, 2011, 05:04:34 AM
I think there is some confusion because we are used to thinking in terms of using this system to reverse engineer the ve tables to create new ones for performance upgrades, when it was design to hold a correct tune in tolerance by making adjustments for changing conditions.

I think the confusion might be on just how minute of change is perceptible to the operator.  Even if the margin of error for reaching the desired afr is broad, the perceptible difference to the operator is broader.  If anyone doubts me on this, just hook an afr meter up to a carb bike and ride around for a while. 

Both the Delphi and the MOCO.

I say invention as opposed to tuner companies saying THEY wrote this, as they did not.  Delphi wrote THE WHOLE code, one as the standard Delphi code and two as a 'project' for MOCO.

I want a definitive answer, too.  FBRR confirmed that OL gets effected by CL AFVS.   The problem for the OP is these OL changes are math derivatives and cannot be matched to the CL portion of AFVs.  The percentages, etc are all different.  Think about it.  OL HAS to be effected, or else when the fuel would dictate...  the OL would/could stay lean unless the AFVs from CL richened them up.

Glens, I'm glad you are back, but now-a-days it looks to us that you have taken over the point in these arguments of Bob.  Used to be you questioned Steve regularly....  Now you don't at all.  A LOT of knowledge has been gained for ALL of us in your absence.

Alcohol plays a BIG factor in all of this.  If tuned with E10, the bike will ALWAYS stay normal or rich in OL regardless of fuel.  But if OL can go leaner than the map, while in OL, then what happens is during the normal swings trying to center up, the OL can go too lean for the engine.  My/our whole point in tuning is to try and exploit little things to make for a better running, richer running, SAFE tune for bikes that have a 'build' going on.  There are those that Fuel Mileage isn't the biggest concern.  The biggest concern is to keep everything within parameters that give built engines the ability to be reliable.  I don't mind that OL would lean back out, with different fuel, to what the map cells are set for, but being able to lean UNDER that?  No way Jose.  It IS cruise that is the worry, too.... on bigger engines.  THAT is THE area one NEEDS to keep nice and cool.  a 400+ mile day, and one could be unaware the bike is leaner than the map...??   That, scares me.  Any throttle movements could be handled by PE settings but having PEs low as 2500 is ridiculous, IMHO.

Lets look at all of the 'failures' of axtell cylinders.  No matter what one thinks, some of these really do have to do with heat being produced during cruise.  I have seen the blue wrist pins, etc myself, first hand.  With our ECM being able to pull timing and stopping ping... cruise is THE danger zone to my way of thinking.  Very easy to overheat this.  Hell a 100% stock bike will overheat this area a LOT.  With higher comp and nonstock cams...  this is NOT a good thing, IMHO.  My stock bike would hit ETMS on the off ramp from a run that was done at 75+ mph for simply two hours.  A 'telling' fact for me is the Ron Dickey, in his personal bike used TTS for the 107 build, but switched to TMax on his 117.  Why?  To keep it rich enough in the cruise areas is why.

A Stage 1 is NOT my concern, what is...  is the ability to keep engines running 100sq and up doing their job, staying cool, and being reliable.  What is left to determine is whether FBRR is correct or Steve.  If it is Steve, I simply wouldn't be able to condone the use of CL in highly modified engines...  And dammit!!!  I've been the lone voice of reason on this issue.

I am/was a huge fan of CL.  I was willing to try CL on my 120r.  I could then argue we tune more CL bikes...  if mine would keep a stable tune.  That kind of tune would call for a small amount of CL that is in play right under cruise, but not IN cruise or idle, or any power making portion of the tune.  One wants it to adapt while riding easy in town and NOT while doing 75+ on the highway.  But, if one cannot minimize the ECM calling out leaner than the map, I am surely ready and willing to go to the dark side and tune everything OL.  Simply tune with 89 E10 and rest assured the bike then can handle any fuel encountered.

Look guys you all need to understand that the AFV's are more than one. Based on the calibration written you can have up to 24 learn cells to store the AFV value in, per cylinder. How those cells are lay'ed out is up to the calibrator. Just because the code takes those values and uses them in open loop is not a bad thing. If the cells within the tables are all 1 then no change is going to occur but if the cell has a stored value of something other than 1 it is going to effect the output for that area of the cell.

In order to run a test you need to first have equipment capable of doing the measurements and then be able to repeat the same test in the same exact conditions. The first thing would be to run in closed loop with the factory O2's fully operational and tune the bike per what the ECM is requesting. You cannot use something outside the ECM as the ECM is going to do what it wants whether you like it or not, so you must first let it settle on what it wants. Once that's done and the correct VE table is generated you need to run for some "X" period of time and record the results. Then reset the AFV's and repeat the test. If the two test come out the same then you have a good base calibration to start the test with. Now take and reduce the VE values across the board 15% and run again "X" time to allow the AFV's to learn. Then repeat the test to make sure these results match the first two test. If they do then the system is adapting as it should. Now reset the AFV's again and run the test with the AFR table dropped from 14.6 to 14.5. This will put it in Open loop and you should see a complete different test result. If you do then things are working as they should.

Mayor

Yes the average person probably would not feel it and it may or may not show up in fuel mileage, but the point I think you may be missing is the AFV when applied to the open loop area in this example will not be causing the bike to run any leaner than the map intended. It will adjust the open loop to hit the originally intended numbers, keeping it from going rich because of the fuel change. Basically what you would have had if you wrote the table using the new fuel to begin with.

Close loop area is held to the engines usable range of the stock narrowband sensors.

This is the stickiest part but I believe the ability to switch from closed loop to open loop is in the program to allow you to add the additional fuel needed to run the AFR richer than the narrow band sensors would allow in the needed areas. I don’t think it was put in as a way to compensate for bad cam/pipe combinations. I do not deny that some people are using it for that purpose, but when you use tools for things other than their original purpose you may loose some functionality. I understand and have experienced this first hand. I have pipes that produce this exact effect, which is why I started this thread. I wanted to clarify how the system actually works so that I may decide how to proceed.
It seems that what we have been doing is turning off closed loop to make up for the fact that we can’t turn off AFV in open loop when we have a motor combination that produces bad affects that AF collects data from in closed loop. 

I feel that it makes as much sense to have AFV cover the entire range on a motor that has a good cam/pipe combo as it does to ask for the ability to turn AFV off because I want to run a combination the has some idiosyncrasies that I am otherwise willing to overlook.   

I've long held and stated the opinion that it'd sure be nice to know the layout of the AFV "tables" in any particular calibration (or is it in ECM code that burning a calibration doesn't touch?).  Especially so, perhaps, if it's a fixed table format.  If you're concerned about operation in the bottom and the right of the fuel tables (or does the scheme follow the VE tables instead?) ever going leaner than some figure you think you've got, then merely "strand" the last column and row of the AFV "tables" by dropping them out from closed-loop maintainability.

Likewise, it'd sure be nice to know if the tables dynamically follow the edges of closed-loop coverage and will never "strand" any "AFV cells" in the way envisioned just above.

Also, if you've got a trouble spot where you just can't (or don't otherwise want to) prevent some obnoxious airflow condition without messing up a larger, more desirable area of operation, it sure would be nice to know whether you could or could not isolate that spot from closed-loop, thus prevent that AFV from changing.  Or something like that...

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 03, 2011, 08:12:50 AM
I say invention as opposed to tuner companies saying THEY wrote this, as they did not.  Delphi wrote THE WHOLE code, one as the standard Delphi code and two as a 'project' for MOCO.

It's a can of worms I don't want to open here, but many folks who write software, both for a living and for a hobby, feel that putting different combinations of code together does not truly fall under the classification of "invention".  Creating a new programming language, maybe, but merely using an existing one, even in novel ways?  Nope.  It'd be akin to applying for (much less getting) a patent on striking a nail with the side of a hammer head.  Anyway...

QuoteThe problem for the OP is these OL changes are math derivatives and cannot be matched to the CL portion of AFVs.  The percentages, etc are all different.

I don't know if we're agreeing or not here.  If your VEs are proper everywhere, why wouldn't a 4% change on the border of where the AFVs get generated translate accurately on out the rest of the way?  Either direction?

QuoteGlens, I'm glad you are back, but now-a-days it looks to us that you have taken over the point in these arguments of Bob.  Used to be you questioned Steve regularly....  Now you don't at all.  A LOT of knowledge has been gained for ALL of us in your absence.

If Bob and I hold similar opinions then either it's pure luck on one of our parts or we at least come to the same conclusions based on processing the information similarly.  I highly doubt Bob molds his opinions based on what I have/had might say, and I know it doesn't happen the other direction either.  At least not blindly at any rate.

I have largely quit asking Steve some kinds of questions because he has either answered them already or I surmise it would be pointless.  Steve knows a lot, likely more than any non-MoCo_code_writing Delphi engineer, but some things either he can't know for sure or sure can't say here.

"A LOT of knowledge has been gained for ALL of us in your absence."  Whew!  I'm glad you didn't say from or by my absence!  :)

QuoteAlcohol plays a BIG factor in all of this.  If tuned with E10, the bike will ALWAYS stay normal or rich in OL regardless of fuel.  But if OL can go leaner than the map, while in OL, then what happens is during the normal swings trying to center up, the OL can go too lean for the engine.

I guess that would depend on factors relating to the strategy and how it's implemented.  Does the scheme go ahead and throw preliminary corrections at all the AFVs after confirmation "at the mouth of two or three witnesses" (so to speak) immediately after a significant-enough rise in the fuel level?  (Might be wise to do.)  How rapidly at any give time does the system update the AFVs?  Are there situations looked-for which either speed up (example already contemplated) or slow down the process?  Where are the damn things?  There are a lot of questions which, as I speculated, either Steve can't say for sure or, really, can't say.  And don't neglect the notion that trying to "crack the code" can run one afoul of the Fed as often as not anymore.

Does the average Joe need to concern himself with these intricacies?  Hell no.  But there are some of us who get off on just such kind of information; and maybe will or maybe won't actually go ahead and make use of it on our or others' bikes for good or otherwise.

I dearly hope you do ferret out just exactly what's going on (in a '12 Touring ECM, for sure!) in this matter; and that you share the information with at least me :)

Let me answer a few things here

1. I know where each and every AFV cell is set in all TTS based calibrations.
2. I'm the one that set them up, but NO I will not tell, there is already to many companies trying to copy what we've done so certain things will only be talked about in general.
3. Are they all the same for each application from HD, NO.
4. Can the AFV's by themselves be switched off and on, NOT IN ALL SOFTWARE
5. If Whittlebeast did a little real testing he would have figure this out by now, as it cannot be switched in a Sportster calibration.
6. Does it really matter where they are setup, I believe so.
7. AFV's are what they are and they work if you let them.
8. Closed loop and AFV are not one in the same but one needs the other to work.
9. AFV's can only be updated when running in closed loop operation.
10. AFV's can be used in both Open and Closed loop for corrections only.

That about covers it. You need to stop worrying about thinking out as AFR is everything. NONE of the meters measure AFR, they measure the difference in O2 level in the exhaust versus what in the surrounding air, that's it! So the Closed loop system is all about keeping that ratio as close to the same as possible and it does it nicely when setup properly to start with.

All I can say is our 120R test program gets checked roughly every 1500 miles, we are 8000 miles in an it produces the same power and torque now as it did when it came off the dyno. The  AFR measurement are the same within the accuracy of the measuring equipment. So it can be done and it does work with what I would call a big engine and cam combination with a pretty open exhaust 2:1 system on it. It should be back soon for the 10,000 mile check out.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 03, 2011, 05:27:29 PM
Let me answer a few things here

1. I know where each and every AFV cell is set in all TTS based calibrations.
2. I'm the one that set them up, but NO I will not tell, there is already to many companies trying to copy what we've done so certain things will only be talked about in general.
3. Are they all the same for each application from HD, NO.
4. Can the AFV's by themselves be switched off and on, NOT IN ALL SOFTWARE
5. If Whittlebeast did a little real testing he would have figure this out by now, as it cannot be switched in a Sportster calibration.
6. Does it really matter where they are setup, I believe so.
7. AFV's are what they are and they work if you let them.
8. Closed loop and AFV are not one in the same but one needs the other to work.
9. AFV's can only be updated when running in closed loop operation.
10. AFV's can be used in both Open and Closed loop for corrections only.

That about covers it. You need to stop worrying about thinking out as AFR is everything. NONE of the meters measure AFR, they measure the difference in O2 level in the exhaust versus what in the surrounding air, that's it! So the Closed loop system is all about keeping that ratio as close to the same as possible and it does it nicely when setup properly to start with.

All I can say is our 120R test program gets checked roughly every 1500 miles, we are 8000 miles in an it produces the same power and torque now as it did when it came off the dyno. The  AFR measurement are the same within the accuracy of the measuring equipment. So it can be done and it does work with what I would call a big engine and cam combination with a pretty open exhaust 2:1 system on it. It should be back soon for the 10,000 mile check out.

Steve
Thanks again for posting here and trying to help us get some understanding of this AFV thing. I think with the help from this thread I have some handle on how to make it work for me now.

I will be doing some testing and tuning with different exhaust changes over the winter to solve some of my incompatibility issues.

My Question to you is this:
Do the AFV differ enough from base cal to base cal that I should be testing different base cals to find the one that works with my combination?

This is the Sporty calibration I have been running for several years opened up in PowerVision.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/PVLimitsAndSwitches.jpg

Beast

whittlebeast

Andy that's just my point. Just because you see it, you believe it and that is the problem. The same as you believed the PV was reading more data from the ECM, just BS. There are things that are not what they seem and YOU need to test them prior to claiming what you do. Once you start doing some real testing maybe you can begin to understand how these things really work.

1FSTRK

Trying various base calibrations is always a good thing when you do not have a match to your parts as there is much more in a base calibration that may match what you have besides AFV's.

Early in testing the capabilities of the PowerVision, I was testing on the bike with the tune I had been running for a couple of years.  For the last 1000 miles or so, I had o2 eliminators on the bike.  The field named VENewFrontPctPV is a "Manipulated" field that is

100*[VE New Front]/[VE Front]

The field names Front AFF is coming from the PowerVision data stream.  I would have to say the correlation is strong.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/AdaptiveFueling.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/AdaptiveFueling.jpg)

The same data but zoomed in tighter

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/AdaptiveFuelingTight.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/AdaptiveFuelingTight.jpg)

Note that my bike is only in closed loop at very low power output.  Essentially the bike is only in closed loop when coasting or idling.

Beast

It sure looks like everything above 3000 and 50 kpa is near a multiplier of 100. It must be adding a little fuel above idle to 2200.

Have the PowerVision guys got back to you yet with how they're deriving "AFF"?

A quick glance would seem to indicate that by shrinking the closed-loop coverage you're able to hang AFV cells out to dry.  Assuming the data is valid-enough to draw such conclusions.

Quote from: glens on October 04, 2011, 09:24:01 PM
Have the PowerVision guys got back to you yet with how they're deriving "AFF"?

A quick glance would seem to indicate that by shrinking the closed-loop coverage you're able to hang AFV cells out to dry.  Assuming the data is valid-enough to draw such conclusions.

I have not asked about the AFFs as we normally talk about far more interesting issues and features in the pipeline.

I have not seen any issues in the data feeds that lead me to question it's validity.  Sure there is a bit of data here or there but we never come to conclusions based on random data.  We are always looking for patterns in the majority of the data.

In this trace, would you worry about the few random yellow dots or would you concentrate your effort on the blue blob?

https://idisk.mac.com/ryser//Public/PowerVision/Geeksters2-1_wb_man_3.png

Beast

It is rather obvious that the rear at 2250-2500 and 40-60 kpa needs more fuel.

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 05, 2011, 03:49:37 AM

Quote from: glens on October 04, 2011, 09:24:01 PM
Have the PowerVision guys got back to you yet with how they're deriving "AFF"?

A quick glance would seem to indicate that by shrinking the closed-loop coverage you're able to hang AFV cells out to dry.  Assuming the data is valid-enough to draw such conclusions.

I have not asked about the AFFs as we normally talk about far more interesting issues and features in the pipeline.

I have not seen any issues in the data feeds that lead me to question it's validity. Sure there is a bit of data here or there but we never come to conclusions based on random data.  We are always looking for patterns in the majority of the data.

In this trace, would you worry about the few random yellow dots or would you concentrate your effort on the blue blob?

https://idisk.mac.com/ryser//Public/PowerVision/Geeksters2-1_wb_man_3.png

Beast

Did you bother to read what everyone has pointed out to you with your own PV data logs? Did you get it explained to you why they FAKE data and add it to the logs at a ratio of about 10:1? If you cannot see anything wrong in the data logs you've posted the rest of it is really quite meaningless. This is NOT random data as your trying to brush it off as it's a 10:1 ratio and that is clear as a bell when you look at the data files as supplied by you!

So if you could strip out all the FAKE data the resulting graphs would look completely different by a ratio of about 10:1 and that is NOT random data, That is HUGE. There is a very old computer saying, CRAP IN CRAP OUT and that just what all of this is. Until you solve the base data issue the rest is just more .............

"Look guys you all need to understand that the AFV's are more than one. Based on the calibration written you can have up to 24 learn cells to store the AFV value in, per cylinder. How those cells are lay'ed out is up to the calibrator. Just because the code takes those values and uses them in open loop is not a bad thing. If the cells within the tables are all 1 then no change is going to occur but if the cell has a stored value of something other than 1 it is going to effect the output for that area of the cell."

"1. I know where each and every AFV cell is set in all TTS based calibrations.
2. I'm the one that set them up, but NO I will not tell, there is already to many companies trying to copy what we've done so certain things will only be talked about in general.
3. Are they all the same for each application from HD, NO.
4. Can the AFV's by themselves be switched off and on, NOT IN ALL SOFTWARE"


How is this not different from the Harley Hidden Tables  Whittlebeast has been asking for for years. He just did not know the name of the tables He should have been asking for the TTS hidden tables. Now knowing that the afv can mess with open loop sections of a tune I am more convinced not to use any any closed loop in a tune. I do not want a hidden table that can be diffrent for each base cal offered and no documentation on where the afv cells will be applied. That is kind of like the Microsoft sales person saying that is not a bug that is a Feature.

So are you saying PV is intentionally inserting false data? or is it data that has not gone through your filters. Is it because they show the ve new in the data stream and you have chosen to filter that out ,because the end user can't handle that data.
How is removing data not fake.
What is ve new except for the ecm taking the value in the ve table then using the o2 data and making corrections to deliver the proper amount of fuel to keep the o2s at their switch point.
I suspect you are using the ve new once you have filtered it and using it to populate your 24 afv cells per cylinder.

Quote from: cts1950 on October 06, 2011, 08:04:42 AM
So are you saying PV is intentionally inserting false data? or is it data that has not gone through your filters. Is it because they show the ve new in the data stream and you have chosen to filter that out ,because the end user can't handle that data.
How is removing data not fake.
What is ve new except for the ecm taking the value in the ve table then using the o2 data and making corrections to deliver the proper amount of fuel to keep the o2s at their switch point.
I suspect you are using the ve new once you have filtered it and using it to populate your 24 afv cells per cylinder.

Cannot say if they have done it on purpose or not but the simple fact is they are inserting data where it does not belong. I am not commenting on anything other than the fact that the PV logs as posted by whittlebeast are loaded about 10:1 with fake data. Whether or not the data in any column is accurate or not is a different discussion and could only be tested by side by side testing. The HD ECM will only send a small packet of data about every 25ms. That packet will contain as few as 2 items to a max of 6 items. To get a frame of data you must get multiple packets and you cannot just fill in what you want when you want too and expect things to work correctly. So some simple math shows the problem in the datalogs as posted by whittlebeast.

So if they are not showing/displaying the data correctly who know what goes where? One would need to know how they are doing it, to take the fake data back out of the logs to see what is really going on. Then you could work with whats left.

So has anyone here actually done a test?

try this...

Tune your bike with all AFR targets from 15-80 kpa to 14.6 or Lambda 1.00 just like a vtune.  Once tuning is done, do several WOT runs and get a good feel for the PW that the ECU is sending to the injectors as the motor passes thru the higher revs.

Now set your VEs in the 15-80 kpa range to 95% of what you use on that fully tuned  bike.   Ride the bike for a few long rides.  This should convince your ECU that the motor is running 5% lean for some reason, so it should run most of your AFFs up to 105.  If you have a PowerVision, turn on Front AFF and Rear AFF on the display and you can watch all of this stuff happening on the fly.

Now if all this stuff is working as people claim and you have a code with Adaptive fueling turned on, you should get 5% more fuel at WOT.  Keep in mind that the first ms or so of commanded PW does not count so the change in PW should be right at 104.5% of the first test +/- a little.  If the WOT PW is the same, then the trims do not have an effect on the top end.  Hopefully the weather is close in the two tests.  You can always toss the original map back in the bike and clear the trims and get better back to back testing.

Have fun tuning

Beast

Is the PV data logging merely repeating the data it receives until it receives new data or is it actually making something up, it would seem very difficult to fill in the blanks with the "Fake" data and even be on the same page with what the ecm is delivering.

Quote from: BVHOG on October 06, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Is the PV data logging merely repeating the data it receives until it receives new data or is it actually making something up, it would seem very difficult to fill in the blanks with the "Fake" data and even be on the same page with what the ecm is delivering.

It just happens to write a new record about every .025 sec or so with the last date it saw from each channel it is watching,  In the case of the wideband channel the numbers change about every third record.  Other channels change somewhat less often.  Almost every channel gets updated in .200 to .250 ms or so.  It all depends on how much data it is trying to watch.  Fake in this world is like plagiarizer in the book world.  Just there to stir up BS to change the subject.

I have not seen any data that was questionable enough to have any affect the final tune in either system I use.

Beast

Quote from: cts1950 on October 06, 2011, 08:04:42 AM
Now knowing that the afv can mess with open loop sections of a tune I am more convinced not to use any any closed loop in a tune.  I do not want a hidden table that can be diffrent for each base cal offered and no documentation on where the afv cells will be applied.

Elaborate, please, on why AFV factoring in open-loop is "messing with" it?  And which "open loop" area(s) do you have in mind?

There are likely several more "hidden tables that can be different for each base cal" than just where AFVs are stored.  And so far as I understand it, none of the other tuning interfaces/software show you more actual tables than does the TTS stuff

QuoteSo are you saying PV is intentionally inserting false data? or is it data that has not gone through your filters. Is it because they show the ve new in the data stream and you have chosen to filter that out ,because the end user can't handle that data.
How is removing data not fake.

It's not so much that the spurious data is "false".  It's just spurious.  It appears as though every "channel" buffer only gets a new value whenever a new value comes for it from the ECM and the PV spits it whatever's in the buffer each time it spits data out.

If you have 10 "buffer spits" which all contain some value repeated over again, it's data which weights the average incorrectly, if you're averaging the data.  If you're merely graphing it, instead of a line directly between the two good points you've got a horizontal line, which ain't so bad but ain't so good either.

I'd say removing data isn't faking anything, especially if the data has a high probability of being incorrect as far as matching other data from the same general place and folks try to use it for purposes it isn't so applicable.

QuoteWhat is ve new except for the ecm taking the value in the ve table then using the o2 data and making corrections to deliver the proper amount of fuel to keep the o2s at their switch point.

I'd say it's the resultant calculation of the (what might be current, probably averaged between four cells) VE value against the (unknown-location probably averaged between four cells) AFV.

QuoteI suspect you are using the ve new once you have filtered it and using it to populate your 24 afv cells per cylinder.

I suspect the ECM itself populates the AFV cells it's told it has and the VE New is a result of them against the VEs.  But since the VE number isn't usually directly out of the table and the AFV isn't usually directly out of its table, both usually being proportionately averaged.

Andy: it'd be better to increase your displacement by 10% if you want to waste your time on such a test.  BTW, I toyed with one of your log files the other day:
Script started on Thu 29 Sep 2011 12:11:48 PM EDT
glen@ace:~/Documents/temp$ ls -l *csv
-rw-r--r-- 1 glen glen 10255595 2011-08-28 10:58 log0048_FreshStockInstall.csv
glen@ace:~/Documents/temp$ time { awk 'BEGIN { FS=","; this=0; } { print $1-this
; this=$1; }' log* >PVdeltas.csv; }

real    0m0.480s
user    0m0.468s
sys     0m0.012s
glen@ace:~/Documents/temp$ ls -l *csv
-rw-r--r-- 1 glen glen   206045 2011-09-29 12:12 PVdeltas.csv
-rw-r--r-- 1 glen glen 10255595 2011-08-28 10:58 log0048_FreshStockInstall.csv
glen@ace:~/Documents/temp$ wc -l *csv
   69160 PVdeltas.csv
   69160 log0048_FreshStockInstall.csv
  138320 total
glen@ace:~/Documents/temp$ exit

Script done on Thu 29 Sep 2011 12:12:31 PM EDT
What that did was separate the "ms" figure out of the log file.  The lines eventually end up being 23.741 ms average by the end of the file.  Here's the result of that console command above (the actual data lines start after the two lines containing "0" following the one with "-28".  Drop it into MLV as is and you'll see the sample times.


[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

Recall from sampling theory 102 that sampling of asynchronous data is different than synchronous data streams. Treating asynchronous data as synchronous in most cases produces poor results, although the synchronous technics are simple and cheap. Andy’s proposed method appears to do this, and may be just plain wrong. But perhaps looking at the end objective and environment, maybe not wrong enough to make a difference anyway.  Maybe wrong enough that other methods are still better but that’s hard to tell.  Claims that this method and tool kit may be the best thing since sliced bread strikes me with some skepticism... but valuable discoveries happen sometimes just playing around.

If I am understanding this correctly, we are to interpret these scatter graphs as something based on the number of measurements of a certain value over a fixed time period. If the number of times a certain value shows up is skewed due to sampling error (like repeating a value as if its a new value or loosing a real but same value in the noise) then the interpretation is suspect? How close does it need to be to make any difference. I dunno but I just don't get excited about sorting through noisy data.

After the fact, it is somewhat difficult determining if the sample is a repeat or an actual new valid but same value. Missing a good repeated value is almost as significant as repeating the same. Maybe a human with superior pattern recognition can sort it out. I wonder if the PV has the horsepower to use a more sophisticated and accurate sampling method than the cheap and simple poling scheme it appears to use. Of course then we would be discussing the value the ECU is reporting and if it is any more useful for this method.  Maybe more sophistication is a waste of energy..  maybe not.   

So with all these sampling issues, not that any data is fake..  data is data.. , I'm not convinced that this method would provide better results on the street or strip than the alternatives. How can that be proven? I guess I’m skeptical if its worth the extra effort until the effect of poor sampling can be determined.

Later....

 "If Harley used the same "scheme" we use, we allowed the "LEARNED" values to modify OPEN LOOP (P.E.) ONLY if the "learned values" were ADDING fuel!"


You will NOTE! I said IF!! Harley used the same scheme!! Steve has indicated they did not! And I too think it an error to allow ANY closed loop AFV to remove fuel in OPEN LOOP! If that is what HARLEY allows, it's not very smart!! ( running a little too rich is far safer than running a "little" lean in open loop! And allowing the AFVs correction in OPEN LOOP to subtract as well as add fuel risks a "little"lean to occur! That is the whole idea behind ONLY allowing "FUEL ADD" from AFV in open loop.)

And that danger MAY !! NOTE MAY be magnified based on the cell (AFV cells)definition boundaries as they relate to the VE table break points.


I try to stay out of the fray as it seems not to add anything and only gets twisted. 
But you need to remember VE is only a model based INPUT to the MASS AIR PREDICTION. And AFV are corrections based on closed loop control! Those are two seperate functions!
VE is an INPUT!
AFVs are a  LEARNED "correction" value from closed loop fuel control!

Here are two screenshots of datalogs.  One the file I attached earlier, and one of a TTS "DBW" log that was probably about 15 minutes (also probably with a not-so-well-made data port to interface connection).

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

Post the raw dm3 file and let's see what you have.

Beast

To what purpose?  I exported it, culled all but the "Frame Time" deltas (with a command just like shown above), and opened the result in MLV, just like the file I attached earlier, which I also MLV'd.

The delta seconds is much higher in the TTS log but the variance is much less than in the PV log.  Note that in that the bulk of the hits are about 17 ms but they're all over the place quite often.

I still say I like that the HD Delphi implementation will both push and pull fuel open-loop.  If the VE tables are correct then that's what you'd want.

Quote from: glens on October 06, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
To what purpose? 

I find it interesting to see how other people are doing with their tune.  You would be amazed what you can learn by looking at tunes.

Beast

No, I wouldn't be amazed.  That log file was the second half of the trip bringing the bike home from a stage-one plus cam install, running on a base calibration.  It isn't interesting in the least.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 07, 2011, 05:07:58 PM
FBRR.... :wink: :teeth: :smilep: :up: :up:Yay!!!! 

I purposely tried to drag you in here.  I know the 'ifs', and KNOW you stated if, etc.... but Steve says he has PROOF that the ECM pulls fuel from the OL portion of the tune.  I see no problem with the AFVs going richer AND leaner in OL, as long as the AFVs can NOT pull leaner than the map settings.

In a couple of months, I have dyno time set up to test what HD actually does.  I truly wish Steve would share on this one small issue, as it is important to me, and just maybe me?  I simply cannot see how this would be 'proprietary' to TTS, or any other tuner on the market, as it would involve the code from the MOCO.

Wurk_Turk,
Steve did give you an answer and also stated why he will not specifically say exactly what and where.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 03, 2011, 05:27:29 PM
Let me answer a few things here

1. I know where each and every AFV cell is set in all TTS based calibrations.
2. I'm the one that set them up, but NO I will not tell, there is already to many companies trying to copy what we've done so certain things will only be talked about in general.

So it would appear that while the MOCO had written the ECM code ( and I am willing to bet that it is possible that Steve, as well as others, had a hand in that since TTS also developed the SERT module and software, No?) TTS has changed where the code looks for the AFV data and that would require the code to be changed. So to some degree, yes, that could be considered 'proprietary' information and I for one can understand why Steve would hesitate to share that info since TTS feels this is one of the things that makes it's software stand out and function better.

So can you truely blame him for not explicitly sharing that information with us?

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 07, 2011, 05:07:58 PM
Also having a stable tune is an issue.  MY idea of a stable tune would be one that does NOT allow the ECM to command LESS fuel to the bike while in OL.  I really think, if it all works correctly, that Closed loop is the way to go for touring....  but if the code allows too lean of an operation, then?????

I agree, a stable tune is important, but I disagree with your line of thought when it comes to pulling fuel if deemed necessary while in open-loop operation.

If you've got your VEs set correctly this should be a non-issue in terms of concern and a strong positive issue in terms of maintaining a stable tune.  Say you'd tuned with E10 and are on a trip using your second tank now of pure straight gasoline.  If your E10 tune was correct in all respects I'm pretty sure you'd see, if you could see, AFVs all very close in value, pulling several percent fuel now.  If it's correct to do this while closed-loop, and I'm sure you'd agree it is, please explain succinctly why you wouldn't want the same proportion of fuel also pulled anywhere running open-loop?  It would be correct to do so and if it did not occur, your tune would not fit your criteria of being stable!  How is it you disagree with this notion?

I have advocated tuning with E10, so that it would be RICHER with regular gas.  But, now the flip...  the bike will run lean when tuning with gas and running E10.

I have my answer.  This ALL goes back to Ron Dickey seeing excessive heat on closed loop tunes.  I am NOT talking about Stg1 103's BTW.  It now appears to me that closed loop can be detrimental after a certain amount of 'building' on an engine.  Where that line may fall?  I don't know, nor will I further worry about it.

Open loop it is.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 08, 2011, 07:43:55 AM
I have advocated tuning with E10, so that it would be RICHER with regular gas.  But, now the flip...  the bike will run lean when tuning with gas and running E10.

I have my answer.

Open loop it is.

:wtf: Never thought I'd see the day. :hyst: With all the +/- of each, my choice in the end as well. Not slamming closed loop since I ran the 113 most of the season with it. In the end I just can't trust an 02 sensor to protect a rather expensive engine. No way of knowing if a lean condition will sneak in over time with a degrading or failing sensor. By the time it becomes obvious damage might have happened. I've heard all the arguments for both, tried both and in the end I will feel warm and fuzzy in (open) going down the road, especially in Canada where fuel quality is not an issue.
Ron

I'm not talking stage one 103s either.

Ron, the beauty of it is the stock (type) sensors, when they start to go south, invariably indicate falsely lean.

I don't plan on ever building an engine, much less one I'd "tour" with, that would make closed-loop problematic.  Closed-loop all the way for me.  I want a stable tune in the face of different fuels and differing operational characteristics the kind of which just happen over time, like injector response and fuel pressure.

Quote from: glens on October 08, 2011, 08:48:21 AM
I'm not talking stage one 103s either.

Ron, the beauty of it is the stock (type) sensors, when they start to go south, invariably indicate falsely lean.

I don't plan on ever building an engine, much less one I'd "tour" with, that would make closed-loop problematic.  Closed-loop all the way for me.  I want a stable tune in the face of different fuels and differing operational characteristics the kind of which just happen over time, like injector response and fuel pressure.

I think the faulse lean part needs some explanation. Does this not translate to a leaner mixture in the end? If faulse, how can you decifer the data to know where you stand?
Ron

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 08, 2011, 07:43:55 AM
I have advocated tuning with E10, so that it would be RICHER with regular gas.  But, now the flip...  the bike will run lean when tuning with gas and running E10.

Exactly.  When you're running open-loop all the time.  Closed-loop and it doesn't matter which of the two fuels you use, whenever, because your tune will wind up the same everywhere (in terms of fueling).  If you're not on the ragged edge anywhere for either fuel or spark it'll be stable all the time.

I'll quit harping on it (for) now...

Ron, false lean is when the voltage output is lower than it should be.  It's rather like a battery with the voltage produced being greater as the difference between O2 levels increases either side of the element.  If it's so rich that it's getting sooty it'll indicate lean (low voltage output), driving even more fuel...

As the "battery" gets tired, the voltage produced becomes less, normally indicative of a "lean" mixture.

[edit: It's almost impossible (at least quite unlikely) to get a false "rich" reading (excess voltage being produced), which would remove fuel from where things were programmed.  Also, as the sensors age they become sluggish, but this only serves to cause (and may in fact be the main reason for) a lower average voltage being produced.  Under usual circumstances error would most always results in things richening up instead of the other direction. 

I'm trying to think of a scenario which would cause excess voltage to be produced such that fuel would get incorrectly pulled...  I'll let you know if I come up with one.]

Quote from: glens on October 08, 2011, 09:29:31 AM
Ron, false lean is when the voltage output is lower than it should be.  It's rather like a battery with the voltage produced being greater as the difference between O2 levels increases either side of the element.  If it's so rich that it's getting sooty it'll indicate lean (low voltage output), driving even more fuel...

As the "battery" gets tired, the voltage produced becomes less, normally indicative of a "lean" mixture.

[edit: It's almost impossible (at least quite unlikely) to get a false "rich" reading (excess voltage being produced), which would remove fuel from where things were programmed.  Also, as the sensors age they become sluggish, but this only serves to cause (and may in fact be the main reason for) a lower average voltage being produced.  Under usual circumstances error would most always results in things richening up instead of the other direction. 

I'm trying to think of a scenario which would cause excess voltage to be produced such that fuel would get incorrectly pulled...  I'll let you know if I come up with one.]

that's easy..getting struck by lightening as you are riding along LOL.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 08, 2011, 07:43:55 AM
I have advocated tuning with E10, so that it would be RICHER with regular gas.  But, now the flip...  the bike will run lean when tuning with gas and running E10.

I have my answer.  This ALL goes back to Ron Dickey seeing excessive heat on closed loop tunes.  I am NOT talking about Stg1 103's BTW.  It now appears to me that closed loop can be detrimental after a certain amount of 'building' on an engine.  Where that line may fall?  I don't know, nor will I further worry about it.

Open loop it is.

You had better go back and talk with Ron Dickey again as he see's the same thing on some carburated rigs that were tuned on a dyno by a so called expert tuner!  :emoGroan:

You can take things to an extreme on either end and not like the results so I guess you should not do anything, or Rip the fuel injection back off the bike, throw a carb. on it and then call it a day. That way you will only get what the carb let's out so it will be rich in some areas lean in others and when you get various fuels your screwed. Then make sure you only ride around your area because if you go up in altitude your screwed again.

Now does that make any sense? Fuel injection with closed loop control is much better and controls the mixtures more precisely. How is this and issue?

 :pop:  :soda:
Ron

I will do my own tests and dyno runs and decide for myself.  Since the answer to my question is/ was not forthcoming, Steve.  You know damn well i like EFI. :wink:  AND... Closed loop. :wink:

Just make sure you compare apples to apples.

I think I can do a test myself without a dyno.

Tune the bike CL and let it build up AFVs for a bit after tuning with 93.  Then throw in some 89 corn.  See what happens to the desired AFRs in the OL areas.  Should desire a richer AFR.

The switch it... tune with 89 corn, and see what the desired AFR is after installing 93.  Hopefully stays the same.

Same bike, pipe, etc.  Simple Apple Pie to me! :smilep:  I will need to weld in a couple 12mm bungs on my Bosscat.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 08, 2011, 03:16:46 PM
Now does that make any sense? Fuel injection with closed loop control is much better and controls the mixtures more precisely. How is this and issue?

It's not like O2 sensors have been in use for 30+ years or anything.  I'm sure it'll be awhile before the technology and closed loop strategy is ready for prime time.  :nix:

Note: this post may contain sarcasm.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 08, 2011, 05:56:54 PM
Tune the bike CL and let it build up AFVs for a bit after tuning with 93.  Then throw in some 89 corn.  See what happens to the desired AFRs in the OL areas.  Should desire a richer AFR.

You don't need to waste the time letting it "build up AFVs" first, just drain the tank after tuning and put in the corn.  It'll be the corn that brings about the change, not the octane, so why not use 93 corn?  Why introduce a different change when all you want to do is derive the AFRs?

QuoteThe[n] switch it... tune with 89 corn, and see what the desired AFR is after installing 93.  Hopefully stays the same.

Where, oh where did you get the notion that you'd want the same AFR as corn after changing over from the corn?  It'll be relatively richer then!  Think in terms of only lambda instead of "AFR" and it should be clear to you.  If you've got the OL lambda at 0.86, that means you want 0.86 no matter which fuel you're using.  If the AFVs don't correct it for you, after tuning with corn and changing to non-corn, it'll be too low without the corn -- not what you wanted there.  It'll be for you an unstable tune. 

I ask you yet again: please, please explain why you want it to be too rich OL in a situation like that when it can be just right instead?

Quote from: FBRR on October 06, 2011, 05:50:00 PM
"If Harley used the same "scheme" we use, we allowed the "LEARNED" values to modify OPEN LOOP (P.E.) ONLY if the "learned values" were ADDING fuel!"


You will NOTE! I said IF!! Harley used the same scheme!! Steve has indicated they did not! And I too think it an error to allow ANY closed loop AFV to remove fuel in OPEN LOOP! If that is what HARLEY allows, it's not very smart!! ( running a little too rich is far safer than running a "little" lean in open loop! And allowing the AFVs correction in OPEN LOOP to subtract as well as add fuel risks a "little"lean to occur! That is the whole idea behind ONLY allowing "FUEL ADD" from AFV in open loop.)

And that danger MAY !! NOTE MAY be magnified based on the cell (AFV cells)definition boundaries as they relate to the VE table break points.


I try to stay out of the fray as it seems not to add anything and only gets twisted. 
But you need to remember VE is only a model based INPUT to the MASS AIR PREDICTION. And AFV are corrections based on closed loop control! Those are two seperate functions!
VE is an INPUT!
AFVs are a  LEARNED "correction" value from closed loop fuel control!

truk
very valuable info right there :up:
you have all the tools you need to see it for yourself.


while your at it. try a Ohio Hillbilly test.
get your closed loop tune all tuned in.
leave the heat shields off the head pipes. ride those hills loaded down at night. note color of head pipes.
take closed loop portion to 14.4 afr... open loop. note color of head pipes.
take to 14.2 afr note color of head pipes.
take to 14.0 afr note color of head pipes.

My current ride is basically stock, I guess.  It's a land yacht sporting a 103 with 255 cams and different plumbing attached.  If anyone actually needed more than that that's fine for them, I guess, but it's a mystery to me :)  I get all the performance I can sensibly use while rarely venturing into the upper half of the throttle.

I say it's bullcrap that GM won't allow things to go leaner.  How the hell can they run gasoline or E85 in the same engine?  There's no way in hell they'd set the fuel mapping for E85 and let the chips fall where they may "AFR"-wise when gasoline is being used.  Granted, not all their engines are set up for E85, and ours ain't (but it can be).

I never said anything about altitude adjustment.  Must have been someone else.

Have you considered the possibility that the wide(r) swings you saw with the Twinscan maybe had a little something to do with the TS setup itself?  Have you considered that you'd actually ride "normally" a bit after a fuel refill before you ran up to WOT?

It seems to me you're being more emotional than sensible about this.

And for cryin' out loud, would you please answer my question???  Why would you want to be too rich anywhere for any length of time, and along with that, just what do you consider to be too lean?  Have you done the math?  What would the leanest you'd ever be OL, even momentarily?

wurk_truk

I think once you sit down with some real test equipment you will find that the O2 and ECM adjust pretty quickly. One of the many things you need to look at is the response time of the test equipment versus the cylinder firings.Once you sit down with the real numbers I think things will look different to you. A good 3 gas or 5 gas analyzer has a response time in the 3 - 6 second range so they are only good for testing at steady state conditions. Stock O2 are the quickest responding and they are read each and every firing cycle. Typically the O2 voltage will be switched around every 3 firing cycles, so which is quicker? Remember when using the factory data you only get to see 25% or less of all the data so do not jump to quickly on any conclusions until you factor that in.

I understand that this thread is mostly about how AFV's affect OL, and some are worried running too lean.  I assume this is at WOT.  Got to wonder how PE Mode, and PE AFR comes into play and when it was going to get mentioned?

I'd say it wouldn't matter because, as a guess, PE factors in along with, not instead of AFV.

ok here's a question regarding the afv's in open loop, here's my final vtune run on the mt7 cal I developed for my bike earlier this year:
(http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Data%20sheets/frontv-tunerd3run3VEs.jpg)

here's the actual ve's on the front cylinder prior to a dyno run:
(http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Data%20sheets/mt7frontvesfordynorun.jpg)

here's the recorded afr from a dyno run using the ve chart above:
(http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Data%20sheets/mt7afr_1.jpg)

so, my question is....if I richen up the areas that show leaner than my desired afr will the afv's gradually pull those areas back lean? 

No

I'd say there's not enough information to answer that question.

What are the AFR values in your PE and AFR tables for those areas?  Was the PE table active at any time during the run?  How well do your AFR tables compare to what got measured on the dyno?  What are your AFVs which affect the WOT areas in question?  What if they're greater than 100%?  If so, they're not going to pull any fuel, that's for sure.

Quote from: glens on October 09, 2011, 10:38:04 PM
I'd say it wouldn't matter because, as a guess, PE factors in along with, not instead of AFV.

That's what I'm saying glens. There is other things going on besides the AFV's tables. Seems people get tunnel vision on what isn't fully understood, and they forget about some other tables we do have control over.

Quote from: glens on October 10, 2011, 06:10:36 AM
I'd say there's not enough information to answer that question.

What are the AFR values in AFR tables for those areas?

set desired afr:
(http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Data%20sheets/AFRmt7dynorun.jpg)

Quote from: glens on October 10, 2011, 06:10:36 AM
Was the PE table active at any time during the run? 

I would say that the PE mode, if active during the run, was not a factor:
(http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Data%20sheets/PEAFRmt7dynorun.jpg)

I personally don't see the need for the PE mode to be active for most riders, and I think that if it is active the first several minutes or more should be set to match the AFR table.   I set mine up like the above because I found it becoming active as soon as I reached 4,500 at 100 map, when I was testing wide open throttle timing.  I also found that a little mouse motor with baby cams needs a little longer to reach 5,400 rpm in 5th gear from a 2,300 rpm start on a closed course.  I wanted to take PE mode out of the equation.  Since I never really ran the above calibration (I developed the mt8 right after the mt7), I just left it set that way prior to the dyno run. 

The cal listed on the above is showing a different date, but it's the same cal...I downloaded that one from my tuning thread on to my laptop. This particular cal is downloadable on this thread if anyone is interested (and run files are there too):
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,35308.226.html (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,35308.226.html)

Quote from: glens on October 10, 2011, 06:10:36 AM
What are your AFVs which affect the WOT areas in question?  What if they're greater than 100%?  If so, they're not going to pull any fuel, that's for sure.

don't know, never tried to find out where the AFV's were recorded/listed.  On the Tmax, I can see live afr read outs.....I haven't found were there are for the Delphi system yet.   :teeth:

It would be fairly simple to test all of this.

Beast

That's real helpful, Andy...

I'd had another thought on the matter.  It'd be easy enough to determine whether any AFVs had been influencing the run by clearing them and immediately repeating the run.  If there was no change, and there had been any meaningful run-time on the calibration before the run, then I'd have to say any changes you'd make to the non-closed-loop portion of the calibration would "stick" just fine, and thereafter be appropriately modified by any AFV activity.

Also, you'd really have to compare dyno-fetched AFR readings in the areas just down into the closed-loop area with what the calibration is calling for, since these will obviously be the areas to generate the AFVs that will be in use the rest of the way out.  It sure would be nice to know just exactly where to be looking for this stuff...

Quote from: glens on October 10, 2011, 08:33:27 AM
That's real helpful, Andy...

So borrow or purchase a PV setup with the wideband option and use that for your data logging.  Works fine even if married to a different bike.  You will love it and it is far cheaper than a dyno.

Beast

The AFV is just math applied to the values you have in the table when in open loop. If you manually adjust the values in the open loop tables to fix the lean areas the AFV math will be applied the same as it was originally and you end up with a new richer out come. You have to remember that the ECM is not looking at O2 readings to calculate the out come; it relies on the table values and math. If the closed loop area is not changed the AFV should generate the same offset as before and apply it to the new number generated from the new table value you supplied. Just like when V-Tuning I would shut the PE off for this test.
That is what I have gathered from all this.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 10, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
OK.  Closed loop.  AFVs do their thing.  I feel that the AFVs should NOT be permitted to lean out OL sections of the map lower than what the map settings are.

Glens and 1fstrk say its fine going leaner than the map.

BS, is ALL I have to say on that.   We have seen open loop sections that were set on the map to 13.5 afr and have WATCHED the AFRs go 15.2+ AFR.  Before this, I felt it was some kind of anomaly, but NOW I know that a whacked AFV will run an engine way ass leaner than what I ever wish to go.

Let's go back to the cylinder debate that is going on with Axtel.  Did you know that GMR, Roland, Valley racing all tuned 117s with v-tune on a dyno and left crap in closed loop.  Parts failed.  It's a 'thing' right now on other threads.  From what we have seen with the 15+ AFRs on OL portions of CL maps...  Ron Dickey no longer warrants parts if closed loop and his parts come unglued.   Think about that for a minute all of you.  I have.  We have all these guys saying Axtel cylinders failed and what junk they are.  But NOBODY mentions the tuning done at all.  Gee...  maybe thats because TUNING would throw it back on the shops?

And still...............  I'm a fan of closed loop.

But all of this has led me to wonder...  larger engines are beyond the design parameters of anything MOCO/ Delpi envisioned for the ECM to handle?

How come this crap doesn't rear its head until it's around a 117 or larger?  A million closed loop 107s work fine, too.  Something is going on, and I am NOT smart enough to know what it is, so............

So, since an answer to one teeny question, that was originally posed to me by FBRR, is NOT forthcoming by the powers that be and the folks that KNOW...   I have my total life savings going into a crate motor, and that engine simply HAS to last me awhile.  Engines ran fine enough from times beginning to 2006, and I guess I will initially go open loop and feel safe with MY investment.

As was stated...  maybe CL isn't ready for prime time on all applications quite yet.  In a world of Windows 7 and all that, the code in our Delphi's are more comparable to DOS, ya know?  Why ANYONE would program a bike that would allow 15.2 AFR in OL to be seen on a 13AFR section?  Is beyond me.

What was the question?

I'm surprised that no one pointed out in my example that the areas that the vtune showed where spot on (white cells extended in the 80-100% range at 3,500-4,500) were actually pretty close with what the sniffer read. The previous white cell area (2,250-2,500) may have been affected by the set desired afr (closed loop setting out to 90 kPa  :scratch:  ....if I would have known then what I now now  :teeth: I know that closed loop is not active out to 90 kPa, but the desired afr would be in open loop). If i would have had a better understanding of the ve tables when I developed that cal, I don't think I would have made the ve cells richer at 6k and up than the 5.5k values...especially with a baby cam bike.   :embarrassed:

So, to further add mud to the mix....if the afv's were active out that far on the calibration that I posted....would my results have been better or worse?   (http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo256/wannabmayor/Smileys/hmm2.gif)....or maybe even the same?   :pop:

Your question was not if your tune was off and how to fix it . You asked how AFV would affect your attempts to further tune the lean spots out.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 10, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
Glens and Mayor.  Feel lucky that you guys are satisfied with almost stock. 

don't be so quick to assume that I only have only almost stock bikes.... but I will say my "not almost" stock bikes are running in open loop, with fuel delivered by the Bernoulli's principle.   :wink:   and I can guarantee that my afr's wander using that technique. 

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 10, 2011, 11:38:13 AM
Your question was not if your tune was off and how to fix it . You asked how AFV would affect your attempts to further tune the lean spots out.

yes, but my personal answer was that the areas that the vtune said was spot on...turned out to be fairly close to spot on...and the areas that were not indicated to be spot on, were not...so if everything was spot on....would the afv's even matter?    :potstir:

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 10, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
Let's go back to the cylinder debate that is going on with company A.  Did you know that B, C, D all tuned 117s with v-tune on a dyno and left crap in closed loop.  Parts failed.  It's a 'thing' right now on other threads.  From what we have seen with the 15+ AFRs on OL portions of CL maps...  Company A no longer warrants parts if closed loop and his parts come unglued.   Think about that for a minute all of you.  I have.

I am somewhat familar with this, since I had a couple of conversations with the company A guy a few months ago.  Those are serious issues, for all parties involved.  The thing that I am very curious about was if the vtunes were simply extended, or were the values checked at 100% throttle using the sniffer, or if the ve tables were verified in the 40%-100% ve cells?  another thing that I am curious about is whether the timing was checked to make sure that it wasn't extremely active in knock retard events.  I am not a pro-tuner, but I personally would not rely on vtuned data only when developing a calibration if I had any easy choice not to.  I would sample the air while vtuning and double check areas that are typically in open loop when reached, and err on the side of caution (choosing the richer of two readings).  Whether the afv's would allow the richer settings to stay in open loop....is the question at hand I guess. 

Quote from: mayor on October 10, 2011, 12:02:57 PM

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 10, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
Let's go back to the cylinder debate that is going on with company A.  Did you know that B, C, D all tuned 117s with v-tune on a dyno and left crap in closed loop.  Parts failed.  It's a 'thing' right now on other threads.  From what we have seen with the 15+ AFRs on OL portions of CL maps...  Company A no longer warrants parts if closed loop and his parts come unglued.   Think about that for a minute all of you.  I have.

I am somewhat familar with this, since I had a couple of conversations with the company A guy a few months ago.  Those are serious issues, for all parties involved.  The thing that I am very curious about was if the vtunes were simply extended, or were the values checked at 100% throttle using the sniffer, or if the ve tables were verified in the 40%-100% ve cells?  another thing that I am curious about is whether the timing was checked to make sure that it wasn't extremely active in knock retard events.  I am not a pro-tuner, but I personally would not rely on vtuned data only when developing a calibration if I had any easy choice not to.  I would sample the air while vtuning and double check areas that are typically in open loop when reached, and err on the side of caution (choosing the richer of two readings).  Whether the Av's would allow the richer settings to stay in open loop....is the question at hand I guess.

I would like to know some of the above questions as well.  Bet it is easier to not warranty CL bikes, rather than find out who is tuning them correctly and who isn't.  Blanket clause will hopefully fix his problems.  Don't have a dog in that fight.

"I personally don't see the need for the PE mode to be active for most riders, and I think that if it is active the first several minutes or more should be set to match the AFR table."

I agree, if most riders we are talking about have mild builds.  I am referring to the not so common builds or the ones Truk is talking about.  PE mode, AFV's or AFR table.  ECM will pick the richest.  On the common builds 4300 is alright to start that clock, but we do have the power to start it at 2500 as rich as 9.1:1.

Truk,
When you talk about the AFR of 15.+ is that WOT?  Is that a flat line across the rpm?  Using Mayor's AFR trace.  Do you think that is going to put heat into the engine?  The problems I have with that trace isn't heat.  It would be power that he is missing.  I think incorrect timing will put in more heat than lean fuel, and at a faster rate.

It's a little weird replying to a message which doesn't exist anymore, but I'm going to give it a go.  And I want everyone to understand from the outset that I'm talking as one good friend to another.  There's no more animosity in "my voice" than there would be because we'd have to be talking loud over a crowd and music from the jukebox at a bar, having a beer discussing this.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 10, 2011, 10:48:11 AM
OK.  Closed loop.  AFVs do their thing.  I feel that the AFVs should NOT be permitted to lean out OL sections of the map lower than what the map settings are.

Glens and 1fstrk say its fine going leaner than the map.

I don't know about 1fstrk, but I'm not saying it's okay to go leaner than what's in the calibration.  What I'm saying is it's okay to pull fuel to make it so what's in the calibration is what you get.  And that's not strictly in AFR numbers because that's not what the ECM uses internally.  It'd be impossible to do so without some sort of dedicated sensors/routine for determining the stoich point and the density of the fuel in the tank before it ever gets sprayed into the engine, along with being able to directly measure the density of the air being ingested, and the fuel pressure (unless you do all this effectively after the fact -- closed-loop).  What the ECM is using is ultimately lambda, even if the calibration uses "AFR" numbers.  The ECM will normalize those to lambda, even if it doesn't specifically realize that's what it's doing, and you should be doing the same thing!

If you've got "12.8" in a cell and you've adjusted the VE table to achieve that under the correct conditions by using a "wideband" O2 sensor which was reading "12.8", and you did it using E10 then it's not 12.8:1 AFR!  It's 12.8/14.6*14.2=12.4 actual "AFR".  Note the 12.8/14.6, which is 0.8767.  That's the lambda value.  What you actually have in that cell is "0.8767 lambda".

Now, if you tuned with E10, closed-loop, with "12.8" in that cell, and you switch to E0, and you filled up again after that with E0, and again, depending on how much fuel was left in the tank each time, you'll eventually end up with only E0 in the tank.  At that point the AFVs will finally reach the largest factor they'll reach in terms of fuel composition itself.  And guess what?  They'll be causing fuel to be pulled while in that cell and your result out the pipe will be 0.8767 lambda!  That's just what you told it to do, so why do you not want it to do that?  I don't get it!

QuoteWe have seen open loop sections that were set on the map to 13.5 afr and have WATCHED the AFRs go 15.2+ AFR.  Before this, I felt it was some kind of anomaly, but NOW I know that a whacked AFV will run an engine way ass leaner than what I ever wish to go.

Who's "we" and how did you go about "see"ing that happen?  Are you "for sure" that it was one or more AFVs doing that?  Are you "for sure" it was actually "15.2+" coming out past the exhaust valve?

QuoteBut all of this has led me to wonder...  larger engines are beyond the design parameters of anything MOCO/ Delpi envisioned for the ECM to handle?

Why would it make a difference what size it is so long as everything comes down to simply a scale of displacement?  We've got the ability to juggle some internal timings around to suit valve activity.  What else can there be different-enough between an 883cc and a 124in that the same underlying engine management scheme wouldn't work?

QuoteHow come this crap doesn't rear its head until it's around a 117 or larger?  A million closed loop 107s work fine, too.  Something is going on, and I am NOT smart enough to know what it is, so............

Isn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?  I'd agree that something's going on in the failure cases, but I doubt very highly it's just that Ron Dickey didn't tune them open-loop.

QuoteSo, since an answer to one teeny question, that was originally posed to me by FBRR, is NOT forthcoming by the powers that be and the folks that KNOW...   I have my total life savings going into a crate motor, and that engine simply HAS to last me awhile.  Engines ran fine enough from times beginning to 2006, and I guess I will initially go open loop and feel safe with MY investment.

What exactly was that one teeny question?  Was it "does the H-D/Delphi scheme alter open-loop both directions via the AFVs?"?  If so, the answer forthcame and you somehow got it in your craw it's the wrong answer.

If you're wanting to feel safe open-loop I'd suggest going with a carb.  At least it's somewhat self-adaptable as opposed to some injectors firing for a fixed time regardless the fuel pressure or what the injectors themselves might be acting like at the moment.

QuoteAs was stated...  maybe CL isn't ready for prime time on all applications quite yet.  In a world of Windows 7 and all that, the code in our Delphi's are more comparable to DOS, ya know?  Why ANYONE would program a bike that would allow 15.2 AFR in OL to be seen on a 13AFR section?  Is beyond me.

I've got no further comment at the moment on that last part.  But it's funny you mention Windows 7 vs. DOS.  DOS-based programs don't have the overhead the Windows 7-based programs have, and if it's entirely unnecessary to have that overhead, as it is in the case of what's going on in the ECM, I'm really glad they didn't complicate things the way they could've.  At any rate, thank God it ain't running on either of those craps.

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 10, 2011, 12:39:36 PM

Quote from: mayor on October 10, 2011, 12:02:57 PM
I personally don't see the need for the PE mode to be active for most riders, and I think that if it is active the first several minutes seconds or more should be set to match the AFR table.

I agree, if most riders we are talking about have mild builds.  I am referring to the not so common builds or the ones Truk is talking about.  PE mode, AFV's or AFR table.  ECM will pick the richest.  On the common builds 4300 is alright to start that clock, but we do have the power to start it at 2500 as rich as 9.1:1.

oops, meant several seconds.   :embarrassed:  not minutes.   :teeth:

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 10, 2011, 12:39:36 PM
I think incorrect timing will put in more heat than lean fuel, and at a faster rate.

:agree:

Wurk_truk
  I have not seen any proof that AFV cause running leaner than the open loop AFR table calls for. The fact that they can mathematically reduce the amount of fuel sprayed to try and match the AFR table when a different brand or type or fuel is put in the tank is no different than using the math that is applied when you change altitude or temperature.
In the graph Mayor posted do you blame AFV or are the VE numbers in need of adjustment? You say that AFV won’t work above 117 CI , I would think that it would be more related to engine efficiency than engine size. My experience has been that it was touchier to exhaust and cam changes than anything else and I suspect that is because of how these things adversely affect the closed loop areas that AFV gathers data in.
I think we would be better server to keep the discussion focused on specific questions and data pertaining to the effective use of AFV than to just keep repeating that it is no good. If you determine that it won’t work on your set up fine don’t use it. If you have accurate data on how it is affecting a particular tune up I’d love to see the Tune tables and resulting graphs. I am very interested in the different ways to adjust EGR tables and pick closed loop cells so that AFV are collected and applied properly.

It's simply not fair to say closed loop running causing cylinder issues or afv for that matter, when a bike is tuned properly, be it closed loop or open loop and timing is accurate than you need to look elsewhere for the problems, if it left the dyno closed loop and the operator was not sure where it was at after the afv was applied and if it would stay there than they are at fault.
A few other things to consider, first off, clean and I don't mean kinda clean assembly, proper ring gaps,proper torque sequence etc.
And not to mention that you must realize you are no longer running a stock 88 inch bike any longer, that is to say don't sit your ass in traffic for an extended period of time and not expect the bike to get a bit hotter than stock. Oil coolers, engine fan if necessary, these things may be needed with some extreme combo's being run on the street. Heat is your number one enemy above all else.
A friend of mine here had run his S&S 124 for years with no problems, a nice long smokey burnout till the tire popped did the cylinders and pistons  in after many years with no problems. So is that the cylinders fault?
The whole idea of an afv changing a mapping area without any actual sampling is ludicrous on a performance build, too many variables going on for me to be willing to put my trust in a system that changes after it leaves my dyno. I don't feel that the high overlap cam setups, open exhaust systems being ran lend themselves to accurate enough sampling to make across the board changes. This system was geared for stock bikes, high back pressure exhausts and no overlap cams. Thanks to our friends at the EPA

Once people around here get to understanding that there is no measurement being done in AFR or anything other than measuring the O2 in the exhaust and comparing it to the O2 outside the exhaust things will never change. A closed loop system only keeps the O2 in the exhaust near the same at all times. It does this by measuring each and every cylinder firing and pushes it a little leaner for a few engine cycles then a little richer for a few engine cycles, over and over again. The AFV is just the amount of offset the ECM has learned over a long period of time for a given area of engine operation. It has to see the offset before the AFV changes and in terms of engine operation it is a slow changing item.

So if the ECM see's too much O2 in the exhaust it will richen the mixture to push it back to the set point. If it see's too little O2 then it will lean the mixture to push it back to the set point. So how are you going to get to little O2 in the exhaust after it had been tuned becomes the question? Answer that question before anything else and I think you will find it takes some sort of mechanical failure to do it, and if that's the case then you need to fix that failure before blaming the closed loop system.

The most common failure is going to be a improperly place O2 sensor and its going to happen more so at low engine speeds where it cannot get a proper reading. That's not an O2 fault or a closed loop fault, it's an exhaust system fault and it needs to be fixed.

Steve would you say that some of the aftermarket pipes could be designed so that there is no way to get a proper reading from an O2 sensor no matter where it is placed in the pipe?

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 10, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Once people around here get to understanding that there is no measurement being done in AFR or anything other than measuring the O2 in the exhaust and comparing it to the O2 outside the exhaust things will never change. A closed loop system only keeps the O2 in the exhaust near the same at all times. It does this by measuring each and every cylinder firing and pushes it a little leaner for a few engine cycles then a little richer for a few engine cycles, over and over again. The AFV is just the amount of offset the ECM has learned over a long period of time for a given area of engine operation. It has to see the offset before the AFV changes and in terms of engine operation it is a slow changing item.

So if the ECM see's too much O2 in the exhaust it will richen the mixture to push it back to the set point. If it see's too little O2 then it will lean the mixture to push it back to the set point. So how are you going to get to little O2 in the exhaust after it had been tuned becomes the question? Answer that question before anything else and I think you will find it takes some sort of mechanical failure to do it, and if that's the case then you need to fix that failure before blaming the closed loop system.

The most common failure is going to be a improperly place O2 sensor and its going to happen more so at low engine speeds where it cannot get a proper reading. That's not an O2 fault or a closed loop fault, it's an exhaust system fault and it needs to be fixed.

Just thinking this part over and this might account for some of the problems with bikes mapped with the dyno’s O2system. The V-tune using the factory O2s will give problems if the exhaust and sensor placement is of bad design and you would have to fix that before you could even complete the tune. Now on the dyno you can get readings from the dyno sensors that allow you to write a proper map and then when you leave and the ECM starts depending on the bikes O2s to dial the AFV it gets bad data. Technically the exhaust design was wrong from the start but because the map was not written from the bike sensors it was not picked up by the dyno operator.

QuoteIsn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

you have the closed loop theory down very well glens. in theory it sounds good. and if it always worked as in theory it would be great.
it has worked for you on what? two bikes, a stage one and now a stage two?

here is a couple more things steve has posted.
seems contradicting to me

QuoteIf your going to do it right you should be measuring EGT's and not exceed 1400 deg max. A those levels an HD air cooled motor can run for about 1 minute and that's it

QuoteCruise is another whole area and I  ............  see many people who firmly believe that a built motor must run at no more than 14.0 and  ............  the truth. To tell you the truth they will run great at 16:1 but you cannot deal with the heat at that 

@ 16.1 AFR it dosent take long to generate 1400 deg EGT.
so I agree with the 1400 deg EGT. but no way in hell you can run 16.1 at cruise,even if you want to live with the heat.
and I have seen 16.0 on tuned closed loop bikes. right wrong or indifferent. it isnt what I want to see.

QuoteIf you're wanting to feel safe open-loop I'd suggest going with a carb.  At least it's somewhat self-adaptable as opposed to some injectors firing for a fixed time regardless the fuel pressure or what the injectors themselves might be acting like at the moment.

so anything before the 06 dyna and 07 up EFI,would be better running a carb. :hyst: come on man you are smarter than that.
open loop isnt a set AFR of 13.2 -13.5 across the board ,as you have stated in various threads.
the map is set to the desired AFR you want to run in that area. then the ve's dialed in. (no v tune) 14.0-14.2 cruise. 12.5-13.6 wot. 13.5 -14.2 idle.
you mentioned in another thread that EITMS will kick in no matter what you tune to. in 14,000 miles EITMS has never kicked in on my 120. 13.8 AFR at idle.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 10, 2011, 05:48:19 PM
Just thinking this part over...  Technically the exhaust design was wrong from the start but because the map was not written from the bike sensors it was not picked up by the dyno operator.

That's a good synopsis of every thread ever like this here.

Quote from: strokerjlk on October 10, 2011, 05:53:17 PM

QuoteIsn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

But that's immaterial to the argument that they won't survive when running closed-loop.  Might as well say you've got a dollar bill with eight twos in the serial number.

Quotein theory [closed loop] sounds good. and if it always worked as in theory it would be great.
it has worked for you on what? two bikes, a stage one and now a stage two?

So why can't you ever seem to make it work?  Lots of folks can and do.  Yeah, two bikes, a stage one and a stage two; and another stage one before them.  So what?  The first one had the older-style exhaust plumbing which wasn't very amenable to closed-loop with free-flowing mufflers.  But it got made to work well, and I don't even do it for a living!

Quotehere is a couple more things steve has posted.
seems contradicting to me

["should not exceed 1400 deg EGT" and "built motors will run great at 16:1 except for the heat"]

@ 16.1 AFR it dosent take long to generate 1400 deg EGT.
so I agree with the 1400 deg EGT. but no way in hell you can run 16.1 at cruise,even if you want to live with the heat.
and I have seen 16.0 on tuned closed loop bikes. right wrong or indifferent. it isnt what I want to see.

He wasn't suggesting you cruise around at 16:1 and you know that.  The statements weren't contradictory; don't portray them in a way you know he didn't mean.

And we both know you've never seen a closed-loop bike running 16:1 in closed-loop, and if they were running 16:1 anywhere, then they obviously weren't tuned despite any claims otherwise.  Please don't tell me where you might've seen 16:1 was anything but a blip that some accel enrichment couldn't take care of, either.

Quote[me saying it'd be better to use a carb than open-loop EFI]

so anything before the 06 dyna and 07 up EFI,would be better running a carb. :hyst: come on man you are smarter than that.

Am I?  Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to sell myself long :)

In their days, were the MM systems usually considered to be better than a carb?  Right away?  After a while?

Was fuel typically a bit more consistent back then than nowadays?  Any at all?

Do EFI components hold their operating characteristics so reliably with no feedback that they don't need at least periodic checkups?  Really?

Quoteopen loop isnt a set AFR of 13.2 -13.5 across the board ,as you have stated in various threads.

I defy you to find any legitimate quotes of me saying that.

Quoteyou mentioned in another thread that EITMS will kick in no matter what you tune to. in 14,000 miles EITMS has never kicked in on my 120. 13.8 AFR at idle.

That's a bit of a mis-characterization of what I'd said.  I said it would kick in from time to time no matter what you do, and the "what you do" under consideration was leaving the system closed-loop instead of throwing the best part of the EFI away in an effort to rid some running heat.  There was also discussion of exhaust plumbing changes, EFI tuning, and those plastic "heat shields" shrouding the rear cylinder.  Going open-loop across-the-board was never under consideration except to suggest it wasn't the better option.

And why don't you throw back into my face where I've said I typically drop the idle area out of closed-loop?  I know I've said it within the last couple of weeks or so...

How often do you check your tunes over time?  How often do you monitor the injector functionality?  The fuel pump / pressure regulator?  Are you entirely confident things will stay where you'd set them, "set and forget"?

1FSTRK

First off you need to understand that a dyno operator O2 is no different than a factory O2. They are built from the same base technology only one has a broader range, hence the name Broad Band Sensor. So guess what boys and girls they BOTH have the same issues! So if your dyno operator just tosses a sensor in and calls it a day you have no idea how good or bad that reading is. I have watch many a dyno operator running on a out of calibration sensor and they never knew it. So now which is better or worse? You can take a exhaust sample tube and move it in the exhaust pipe and watch the reading change.......... so which one is right and which one is wrong? the truth is 95% of the dyno operators will never know or care. They are more worried about getting it in and out to collect a pay check and that's the real issue.

So if you adjust to the dyno sensors and the factory sensors read different who do you think is going to win if closed loop is used, The ECM with factory sensors or the one that got left back at the dyno?

Strokerjlk

I've got right at 10,000 miles on a 120R with Closed loop and it runs the same today as it did 6 months ago 132/131 ........ so what. All one needs to do is do the job right and it works just fine. 120R, HD heavy breather with a RB Racing LSR 2:1 pipe, you know the one you said could not be run in closed loop, sorry it works great!

As far as measuring EGT to not exceed 1400 degree's I still hold to that , no contradiction at all. When was the last time you even installed a EGT gauge on a customers bike or better yet have you ever. As that would mean you had to weld a bung into the exhaust pipe or at least a mounting hole in the exhaust pipe to mount it and take it out for a ride under all operating conditions.

You statement of 16:1 is not something that I have ever recommended to do so how about we get back to reality and let's run 14.68 at cruise and go test, after all that is Stoichometeric for today's gasoline, if you ever really bother to do so it will not even be close to 1400 degrees and you know it. As I matter of fact testing on a HD air cooled Big Twin engine at 17:1 55 mph cruise flat ground only made 1275! So because you have seen a screwed up tune up I'm supposed to toss out everything we know that works, sorry but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Now let's get to my statement about running an air cooler HD engine and it would overheatand EITMS kick in. You seem to like to take out bits and pieces of what I said how about the other part of it. Like take your bike and start it and walk away from it on a 90 degree day and just let it sit and idle. It will burn itself to the ground at 13.8:1 been there done that, so if the ETIMS never kicked in you have it turned OFF. As a matter of testing we run this test several times a year on new models to see what they take to overheat and a fuel mixture of 12.5:1 will not stop them from over heating when sitting still and idling. They need airflow to keep them from burning up. The richer the mixture to a point will slow the process but it will not solve it.

So let's talk about your 14.0 to 14.2 cruise in open loop based on what? Does your customer ride only on the dyno in the condition you ran it? Does the engine care what you thought you saw based on that day........... NO! Different day, different conditions, different tank of fuel and you have no idea where the mixture really is. Closed loop solves for that whether or not you like it or not and a 120R engine will run just fine all day long at cruise at 14.6 with no over heat problems. All that needs to be done is what your getting paid for when you tuning the bike. If there is a problem then call the customer and tell them. Fix it or not, that is up to the customer but do not blame the ECM or the tools for programming because your not willing or able to do what the customer is paying you for. It's no different than tuning a bike with a bad spark plug in it!

Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Beast

Quote from: strokerjlk on October 10, 2011, 05:53:17 PM

QuoteIsn't it right here in this thread that Steve reported nigh unto 10k miles already on an engine even larger than that running closed-loop?

steve says a lot of things.
so I got nigh unto 14,000 miles on my 120r. tuned open loop.
and another 8-9 120r's running around,tuned the same way.

This kind of says it all. Some people have closed loop and AFV working fine on all different size motors and other people can't figure out how to make it work. So my options were to start a thread to see if others here could help me to understand it so that I can make it work for me or give up on the new technology and go back to old same old way we used to do things.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 10, 2011, 06:44:57 PM
1FSTRK

First off you need to understand that a dyno operator O2 is no different than a factory O2. They are built from the same base technology only one has a broader range, hence the name Broad Band Sensor. So guess what boys and girls they BOTH have the same issues! So if your dyno operator just tosses a sensor in and calls it a day you have no idea how good or bad that reading is. I have watch many a dyno operator running on a out of calibration sensor and they never knew it. So now which is better or worse? You can take a exhaust sample tube and move it in the exhaust pipe and watch the reading change.......... so which one is right and which one is wrong? the truth is 95% of the dyno operators will never know or care. They are more worried about getting it in and out to collect a pay check and that's the real issue.

So if you adjust to the dyno sensors and the factory sensors read different who do you think is going to win if closed loop is used, The ECM with factory sensors or the one that got left back at the dyno?

Steve
Steve sometimes you’re just too quick to jump on the defense wagon. Without trying to say one sensor setup is more or less accurate than the other I was merely giving an example of how your theory that the exhaust was the problem would play out when the bike clearly ran good and showed good readings on the dyno’s O2 readout the day I had it tuned. I finally have got a handle on how this system could work the way you say it does but it takes a long time for me because of the defensive manor in which you present the information. Because it works on some bikes and not on others, and you just saying "I think you will find it takes some sort of mechanical failure to do it"  rather than giving some explanation of how it could happen, you lost me.
I know nothing on my bike was changed or replaced and I can flash the dyno made map right back in and it runs fine again. You just repeating that the system works and you are right (and you were right) didn’t help me understand how this was happening to my bike and how to fix it. Anyway thanks for posting because somehow mixed with all the defensiveness, attacks and sarcasm you managed to give enough information for me to get it through my thick head what was going on.

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 10, 2011, 06:49:08 PM
Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Yes.

Why would anybody want to do that except for testing purposes, Andy?  You do know the implications of that, right?

I meant to ask you in your other recent thread.  There are a couple or three log graphs you'd posted and I have to ask, how is it you get the engine speed to keep increasing after a long hard acceleration and you've closed the throttle?  Are you going down a long steep hill in top gear or something?  Like maybe coming down into Denver out of the tunnel?

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 10, 2011, 06:49:08 PM
Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Beast

You need to check out the numerous posts here by whittlebeast as he has cover that over and over.

Quote from: glens on October 10, 2011, 07:31:47 PM

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 10, 2011, 06:49:08 PM
Did you guys realize that with PowerVision, most of the base tunes allow you to run closed loop but you can turn off adaptive learning?

Yes.

Why would anybody want to do that except for testing purposes, Andy?  You do know the implications of that, right?

I meant to ask you in your other recent thread.  There are a couple or three log graphs you'd posted and I have to ask, how is it you get the engine speed to keep increasing after a long hard acceleration and you've closed the throttle?  Are you going down a long steep hill in top gear or something?  Like maybe coming down into Denver out of the tunnel?

In the cased of the Sporty, the AFR at low RPM changes in a huge way as you run thru a hour ride.  I have the average AFR/VE set correct for the beginning of the ride  As the bike warms up, the O2s pull about 7% fuel.  If I run adaptive learning, that correction would be all wrong.  I also do not want that correction going past where I want it to have an effect.  Whenever I do tuning now, I always ride about 45 min and throw out about the first 15 min of data just to account for this apparent bust in the code.  The guys at Fuelmoto have noticed the same problem on lots of these bikes.  This would be difficult to catch on a dyno but gets really apparent with good logging software.

Re engine speeding up when out of the throttle, where did you see that?  I had not noticed that one.  I only know of one hill that may do that but it may be true in that case.  If I was doing about 30 in second, that is most likely the hill.

Beast

I thought it was the adaptive learning which Steve said the other day couldn't be disabled on the Sportsters.  Oh, well, must've been something else.

So you're saying that after a ride, shutdown, and cool-off, the bike will start up with 7% too little fuel?  How long does that typically take to get remedied?

What's the ratio for your "time spent just riding the bike" to "time spent tuning the bike"?
 
Here's the most blatant of the three - http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/WB2edGearPull.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/WB2edGearPull.jpg)

In the other two the same thing happens but you let off the throttle less.

snippet:


[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

Here is a screen shot of the Idle and the changing AFR.  The bike at this point was running totally open loop logging duel widebands.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTime.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTime.jpg)

Beast

I just zoomed into that shift with all of the filters turned off and it took per the data loggers, the shift took about .250 ms.  That is way to close to the data rate of the device/network data rate to be worth coming to too many conclusions.  My guess is that I was fairly close on the shift.  When looking that sort of thing on the race cars we tend to run in the 20 samples per sec or faster range.  On the rice bike and shifter kart, you pull up on the shifter as you blip the throttle and you don't touch the clutch at all.

Beast

Andy,
Your getting boring.  I understand it is only a 2D graph, but will you look at it and answer Glens question straight.

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 10, 2011, 08:59:00 PM
Andy,
Your getting boring.  I understand it is only a 2D graph, but will you look at it and answer Glens question straight.

Here is an example of the narrow bands yanking fuel later in the ride.

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB.jpg)

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB2.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB2.jpg)

http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB3.jpg (http://www.ncs-stl.com/PVTune/IdleAFRChangeWTimeNB3.jpg)

The last trace is a hint as to what may be going on here.  Years ago we found that the V8 motors with water heated/cooled intakes had very different characteristics compared to the ITB motors.  We wound up adding correction tables based on IAT and Engine temp.  I also ran into this with the turbo Mustang when the first gear WOT stuff was very different in first gear when compared to second.  The issue turned out to be the response time of the IAT sensor.  In that case we leaned on the IAT transfer function on only the race tune that was very different than we used on the street tune.  Yep, that was a true work-around.

Sorry if you think this is boring but this is the sort of thing that keeps me interested when we find this sort of thing in other codes.  We identify the pattern and then just fix the code as required to model the issue.  Over here you have to find work-arounds or simply ignore the data.

You may be happy to hear that I moved the widebands to my rice bike.  In the Yamaha liter bike world, the issues are even more involved with different maps as you row up thru the gears.

Beast

QuoteSo why can't you ever seem to make it work?  Lots of folks can and do.  Yeah, two bikes, a stage one and a stage two; and another stage one before them.  So what?  The first one had the older-style exhaust plumbing which wasn't very amenable to closed-loop with free-flowing mufflers.  But it got made to work well, and I don't even do it for a living!

I have closed loop bikes running around. it works on some builds such as yours.
and I dont do this for a living :hyst:
and I have seen dyno tuned bikes come in that were 16.0  steady state in areas.
so back to the original post.
everyone has jumped to conclusions, that just because 1 fstrk and wurk truk were talking about AFV's leaning out open loop. that they were talking about WOT.
I think what they are most concerned about is more like the 2500-3000 rpm 70 kpa area that is set to 14.0 14.2 open loop leaning out.
question for you. what are the AFR swings, closed loop, when lambda or the afr CLB is set to 14.45? 70 kpa 2500-3000 rpms?
not what you think, what you know?
what is it you expect them to be ?

Steve Cole
you dont need a bung  :soda: to install a thermocouple either,you can do it fine with a riv-nut
I quit welding bungs in a long time ago. :banghead:

"I have seen dyno tuned bikes come in that were 16.0  steady state in areas"

This is a really open statement.  Mobil trailer down at Hogrock this weekend.  Got to talk with the tuner some.  Told me he doesn't need a brake on his dyno.  Direct link full maps take him about an hour and  TTS or SERT maps 2.  Maybe you are getting some of his overflow?

"I think what they are most concerned about is more like the 2500-3000 rpm 70 kpa area that is set to 14.0 14.2 open loop leaning out."

I thought they were talking about higher RPM and KPA.  Not necessarily WOT, but an area that couldn't be in CL. 90, 95, 100kpa.  2500-300 at 70 KPA is a prime area for CL.

70 kpa at 3500 on a big block wouldn't be where I would put something in CL.

Anyways, Ron Dickey called and I need to fix one thing.

Warranty is warranty.  Covers parts to be correct and in a workmanship like manner.  Those jugs that are twisted?  (was it DB choppers that posted those pix?) Ron WOULD warrant them instantly, right now.  And he says he can tell they are really old, too.  The pistons in them, are NOT his pistons, so no warranty there.

Also...  there is 'help a customer out'.  THAT is where I was going and misspoke.  If a customer fails to send a copy of his tune, and fails to send other data, THEN there will be NO help from Ron.  Ron said that he is highly suspicious of some closed loop tunes, especially in areas of where I am speaking...  70-90 kpa areas, besides possible lean or not lean, Adaptive Timing can be an issue too.  If the bike leans AND pulls spark, look out.

As always, I learn from Ron.  We talked about how the flame front works.  I had it right on detonation, but didn't have a full grasp of timing being pulled until he explained it better.  On a 90* piston [flattops]( as opposed to a 20* dome), late timing will force the flame front to the far side of the cylinder, while the cylinder is moving downwards.  The flame will expand against the cylinder wall as it expands.  Cylinders are taking the brunt of the flame instead of the chamber.  This heat will do rings in in no time.  The latest pix of KB and Harley pistons blown through?  He simply begged the question on HOW someone could possibly say those bikes were running 'decent' and the pistons blew thru.  Kinda obvious that things were NOT decent, right?  I agree.

Steve told me to try a few tests and to please hold off any final opinion, of mine, until I do these.  Fair enough.

Both Steve and Ron have told me that what I DO need to worry about is having a 'happy engine".  I agree.

What I do NOT agree with is my tired old argument on leaning out OL sections.  So, I have the tests from FBRR and now Steve.  It will take me until this winter to get the 120 over to the dyno and see whats up.

And, I don't think I will be breaking any confidences here....  One thing that Stroker and I talked about was that maybe MOCO did have the factory tune not go leaner than the map, but when a tuner is installed... SEPST or TTS, the tuner changes those settings.   After PMing back and forth with Steve...  it could be the other way around, too.  The MOCO's strategy could be to allow the bike to lean up, but a tuner could stop that effect.   I'm curious...., because Steve told me to ONLY use the newer TTS only cals, and not any SERT cal or old MOCO cal.   So, I will try the MT8 that Steve has going on for the 120.  It would be more work for me to set up and monitor the 09 ECM, so I will do this when Steve comes out with a Lambda 10 up cal for the 120.

I can run the twin scan AND have the bike in CL at the same time.  I can monitor things like desired AFR(Lambda) ratios while going down the road, if I take my pipe with 18mm bungs and install a new set of 12mm bungs down low.

So, with the tidbit of what cal I should use, I really am, now, withholding judgment on any of this.

The OP wished to know what goes on with CL tunes and the AFVs.  One thing that got mentioned late was his bike runs like crap after a few hundred miles.  Reset the AFVs, and all is cool.  1FSTRK is correct in his thinking on both the AFVs and EGR, and I would like to suggest to him one further avenue of investigation....  what pipe does he have?  Have you done a check of what the O2s place out in that pipe?  I would see what the depth of the O2s really are, and most likely use the Jason method of cutting the bungs a bit.  Check the running conditions AFTER getting those O2s in the exhaust stream a little better.   There IS a defense against screwy AFVs, regardless of how they work, and that is to try damn hard to get the best data to the ECM.

Let's step back and look at this and wonder why some people can figure it out while others cannot. Forget what you think you know and look at what is there. Stock you get an ECM with O2 sensors and it all works fine. Now you put on an aftermarket exhaust and it doesn't work right, so where does the problem lie? Now let's take a 120R and add it in, does the ECM know or care that the engine was changed....... NO. All this about trying to tune the ECM to get it to do what you want rather than what it wants isn't going to work. So how about you let it do what it wants, then you know what it's going to do and then make the necessary adjustments so the outcome is where it needs to be. The dyno O2's are not what the ECM see's so it doesn't know or care about them.

First you need to find and resolve the problem if you expect it to work, that's the part that many are not willing to or capable of doing. Saying that AFV's are the issue is just wrong, just as saying you need to run 14.0 - 14.2 at cruise in large displacement engines is wrong. What the engine needs is to run just enough fuel to make the power and burn it as complete as possible without over heating. Picking an overly rich mixture just means someone is being to lazy to adjust things properly and is not doing the necessary testing.

We have strokerjlk trying to tell people that 14.6 is too lean yet every OEM car, truck, bus, motorcycle and offroad piece of equipment has been running that very mixture for near 20 years now without issue! So why is it he is not capable of making it work properly when so many others can?

Why do things change after the dyno that seems to run fine. The most simple answer is that the engine really doesn't care to awful much what it is burning at ratio wise unless you get way out of the ball park. Fuel economy will suffer running richer side than necessary and running to the leaner side will produce more heat. It will run pretty well at any ratio between 12.8 and 15.0. So get it in that ball park and most are not going to know any better and this is just what most tuners know and do not want anyone to be told about. This is the very reason these inexpensive Broad Band based units are used, they are not accurate and they are not tested by most so called dyno tuners. So you take the Broad Band sensor and stick it on the side of a pipe and that's all you need to do right? WRONG, it's not that simple and the problems long term that people are seeing is the very proof of that.

What is it that we are to do, be lazy and just set it up rich and forget about it or solve the problem and run it like it should. Let's think about this in terms of burning fuel. Why is it that running at near Stoichometric makes the engine run hotter? Simple, the more completely you burn the fuel the more power it produces, so if you are chasing power why would you want an incomplete burn that cost power and gets less fuel economy. Power is heat it's just that simple so the more power you produce the more heat you are going to generate.

Now we need to handle the heat coming from the combustion process. Does anyone think that the cooling of the engine is better sitting still than it is cruising down the road? Handling the heat has to be done, based on the running conditions of the engine. Sitting still and just running at idle a HD big twin engine will burn itself up when running at 12.5:1 ratio. That right there tells us the cooling system is not good enough and this is just what EITMS was designed for, to aid in keeping the engine cool at idle not moving. That doesn't mean it solves it, it's just another tool to help control heat production. Now everyone here almost increases the displacement of the base engine and since you now understand the heat issue how is going bigger and producing more heat not going to show up? So for each and every revolution of the engine it produces heat and the bigger the engine the more heat it produces, if you run both engines at the same mixture. So now how else can you help cool the engine? Add an oil cooler so that the oil removes some of the heat is a good start provided that they are not so restrictive that it cost oil flow through the engine.

Tuning is a lot more than just making an engine run, if your going to do it right. To do it right you must have the necessary equipment to do the testing with and spend the time to do it. What works for one where the conditions are such that you never see anything above 80 degree's air temperatures is not going to work for one who see's 110 degree's air temperatures. Just as saying stock O2's and stock ECM do not work, it works just fine if you spend the time to understand the system and work with it instead of against it.

The ECM only follows with adjustments if the amount of O2 in the exhaust changes from where things were set at to start with. This means the ECM will change to adapt the O2 level back to it's set point. Make the set point and the ECM happy to start with, then there will be no adjustments made. If your tuner did not set the ECM such that the offsets were taken care of when tuning or if the O2 sensors are not working properly you will see changes. To be able to do that you must have a way to see where things are at and that is just what DataMaster and Vtune allow you to do.

Just remember an old computer saying and maybe it will help, Crap in = Crap out

QuoteWe have strokerjlk trying to tell people that 14.6 is too lean yet every OEM car, truck, bus, motorcycle and offroad piece of equipment has been running that very mixture for near 20 years now without issue! So why is it he is not capable of making it work properly when so many others can?

we are not talking about a water cooled motor here.
14.6 isn't too bad in the right area.
80-85 mph two up loaded 3000-3250  rpms.  :down:
now factor in your going to see 15.0-15.5 in closed loop.  no way.

Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components. No, you do not factor in 15 - 15.5 because it's in closed loop, that's just flat out wrong.  A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean. A carburated engine will float around about +/- 1.2 AFR so you always had to run them rich to cover it up but you were fine with those moving around. As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all. So now your trying to go to extremes out of the cruise range and argue that cruise mixture should not be used there. As long as the EGT's are in the acceptable range then you can run it as close to Stoichometric as you want, no big deal.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 11, 2011, 01:47:46 PM
Water cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components. No, you do not factor in 15 - 15.5 because it's in closed loop, that's just flat out wrong. A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean. A carburated engine will float around about +/- 1.2 AFR so you always had to run them rich to cover it up but you were fine with those moving around. As far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all. So now your trying to go to extremes out of the cruise range and argue that cruise mixture should not be used there. As long as the EGT's are in the acceptable range then you can run it as close to Stoichometric as you want, no big deal.

So...  14.7 + .3 = 15.0 AFR

15.0 / 14.7 = 1.02 or about a 2% increase in fueling, give or take a little.

Is that what you are saying?  That all sounds totally reasonable to me  so far.

Beast

QuoteAs far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all.

so about 80 kpa?  :banghead:

so about could also mean 70 kpa.
my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up .
you might not consider it cruise range,but when I sit there tank to tank all day that is my cruise range.
you got canned maps with closed loop extened to 80 kpa. at 3000 rpm.  :banghead:

QuoteWater cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components.

exacatly :up:
and EGT will be higher on a air cooled motor vs water cooled. 

Quote from: strokerjlk on October 11, 2011, 02:17:45 PM

QuoteAs far as running 2 up at 80 - 85 MPH that's not in cruise and if you look at the kPa reading your going to find it about 80 kPa, again not considered cruise range at all.

so about 80 kpa?  :banghead:

so about could also mean 70 kpa.
my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up .
you might not consider it cruise range,but when I sit there tank to tank all day that is my cruise range.
you got canned maps with closed loop extened to 80 kpa. at 3000 rpm.  :banghead:

Yep we sure do as the END of closed loop range.  :emoGroan: So as I said you take it to the extreme edge and trying to call it normal. Provided the EGT's are in the proper operating range it's fine! 

QuoteWater cooled or air cooled doesn't matter as long as you can handle the heat produced. So if 14.6 is not running the EGT to high there is no problem running it there. It will not harm the engine or it's components.

exacatly :up:
and EGT will be higher on a air cooled motor vs water cooled.

EGT's will be the same on a water cooled versus air cool engine(within a few degrees), the engine temperature will be different as the water cooled engine has better cooling capacity. EGT's are the by product of the combustion process not the cooling system. As I have said over and over again you need to be able to handle the heat produced at ANY fuel ratio. If you cannot then you need to change something, it maybe timing, it maybe fuel mixture or it maybe the cooling package needs improving. So if it runs with EGT's in check and the engine temperature in check at 14.6 AFR why run it at 14.0 and suffer the fuel economy hit at $4.00 a gallon these days. After all that what your are being paid for, to TUNE it in the first place, isn't it? 14.6 is not going to bother any engine components provided you follow the rules. This is the same reason PE mode is there on a HD. It richens the engine up over time to help control the cooling of the engine! It's not there for any other reason but it also will not produce peak power as it's working it either. EITMS is the same thing at idle, to help the cooling system.

I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on.

Using O2 sensor feedback is the most fundamental aspect of EFI.  Steve is stuck here having to defend the use of O2's when everyone else in the industry has embraced the technology for the last 20 years.  It's not just defense of the TTS, it's trying to teach contemporary EFI theory to a group that doesn't trust them and is still stuck in the carburetion days.  Bottom line is everyone can tune their bikes however they'd like, but using some sort of feedback control via O2 sensors will do a much better job of maintaining the commanded air/fuel ratio across all operating conditions.  I'm still shocked people are trying to argue this.  How accurate you want to be is up to you, but that little sensor in the exhaust acts as a better calibrator than anyone here!

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory.  :potstir:

"This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it."

I'll agree with that statement.  It's the slant people put on things for their own reasoning's.  Makes things hard to keep up with for somebody that might know some things as well.


"I think what they are most concerned about is more like the 2500-3000 rpm 70 kpa area that is set to 14.0 14.2 open loop leaning out."

"2500-300 at 70 KPA is a prime area for CL."

"70 kpa at 3500 on a big block wouldn't be where I would put something in CL."

So, which one is it.  Many numbers and conditions been thrown out there.  All different.  To really discuss this we need to all be talking about apples.

"14.6 isn't too bad in the right area.
80-85 mph two up loaded 3000-3250  rpms."

" my 120r runs 70 kpa at 80-85 mph. two up ."

Is this tuned with SE, MT7 or MT8?  What cam is in there this week?  What's the idle kpa?  What happens if you load a MT8 file, with cam tune data performed.  Would you CL the thing if you were cruising 2 up if 80-85 mph 3000-3250 was 67kpa?

"what are the AFR swings, closed loop, when lambda or the afr CLB is set to 14.45? 70 kpa 2500-3000 rpms?"

" A properly setup closed loop system will move around about +/- .3 AFR as it switches rich to lean."

Now we have the swing.  14.15- 14.75, but we don't use 14.45, we go back to 14.7.  Apples to oranges again.

We have exhausted all the arguments and SC has probably said more than he wants about the inner workings.  Rider comfort is brought up.  Question I have is:

1. What is the change in EGT and engine temp comparing 14.7 to 14.2. 

2. How much cooling affect does fuel have? 

3. Does cam and compression control this more than fuel?

I have used EGT in a practical application.  Controlable mixture knob on a carbed engine.  Steady state of 3000rpms.  You can pull fuel until you get a rise in EGT.  If you keep pulling fuel you will hit peak EGT.  If you keep pulling fuel.  EGT will start to fall again.  Another bit of info I learned by doing this is.  CHT can inversely affect EGT.

There are plenty of arguments around the most basic principles of an EFI system and basic engine operation going on here that's for sure. Some want to say it doesn't work for whatever reason. It sure seems funny to me that for the past 20 years + all of us have been using it without complaints in our daily lives. You have a few who are old school and do not want to learn but then they want to say that they can use that very same technology on a dyno and it's OK. Same thing happened in the auto industry back in the late 70's when it was first introduced there but I guess I thought that people would have learned it works just fine and we would not be seeing it all over again. It took about 10 years in the auto industry back then so maybe that's what it going to take in the HD motorcycle industry.

The truth is that it works and the old school people just need to learn how to work with it instead of against it. Follow the rules of basic engine operation along with the basic rules of EFI and it works fine. You can bring up extreme cases one way or the other but if you follow the rules it's all accounted for and there will not be any problems. It's when those basic rules are broken that things go wrong. AFR readings or 5 gas readings are not the answer here folks, it an understanding of the basic principles and following them. To just blindly say it needs to be this or it needs to be that is BS. It's a combination of all these things that make an engine perform properly. If your going to pay a tuner then they should know and understand these things.

If you talk to most owners there only heat complaint is at low speeds in town, and most of those when you really starting talking to them are in traffic. Once the bike is moving above 25 mph they have no problems. So that area is what one needs to really look at. Trikes are a whole other issue. Since an HD engine will overheat all by itself when sitting, regardless of fuel mixture, it is a challenge. That is what EITMS was developed for, but most old school tuners just turn that function OFF. We spent a lot of time with that and changed how things operate in our calibrations to help that area and there is no need to run the engine down in the 13.8 or lower range at normal temperatures with our product. That's just a waste of fuel. HD and all the others do not work as our calibrations do in this area so No you cannot lump them all together.

If you do not want to learn and understand the system your never going to get it working as it should, it's just that simple.

 I follow that AFV will work most of the time but as you have stated you tailor each and every Base cal to make the AFV work as best you can before it is released. If we run a different motor combination it does not get the fine tune to the base cal that you enjoy. I will agree that it is usually going to work OK and that most of the time the trouble is caused by something mechanical that should be addressed anyway but it doesn’t mean that’s always the case. It also doesn’t have to be old school to be different. You are currently developing base cals for your 120r and I’m sure with your equipment and knowledge that you will make it work fine on your motor combination but does the fact that you had to change things in the base cal mean that there is something wrong or old school in your new 120 motor? I do now better understand the AFV concept and will make some changes to my motor and exhaust to insure that the data collected is good but the more you talk the more you sound like the Steve that told us that our bikes were wrong right up to the point you improved your software to allow tuning for cam timing.
Computers and EFI do not drive motor design forward. It fact history has shown that we have the motor designs and wait for the computers and software to catch up so that we can adjust for the needs of the advances in motor design. If we build every motor so that it is compatible with your old cals and EFI rules we will just have more old school motors.

It's just that simple.

Sorry you took it that way as that's not the case. Yes, we make changes based around the builds that you cannot do. Now if the tuners would be willing to spend around 4 -5 days of 8 - 10 hours a day and about $250,000 on base test equipment you could do it too. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon we have to work with what we can. We will continue to add to our products as we see things we can do and that's not going to change.

The advances come from us finding away to do things we could not or did not do before. Many of the ideas have come from customers and we have figured out away to make it work. The AFV's are never a cause of a problem and that is a big misconception out there. If there was no problem to start with, then the AFV would not do a thing. Now as far as old school and today's engines I think you trying to twist things way off base there. There are plenty of people that have been able to start with our base calibrations and tune just fine without issue in closed loop. Engines ranging from the mild 88 cu in to 131 cu in with blowers and turbo's! Then there are those who say it's no good and cannot be done you have to run rich or the engines will not live, that's old school and that's the problem. There is no one set answer to every possible combination and that is why we try to have several base calibration for one to choose from. I have not seen anything in the HD engine world that is new cutting edge at all. As a matter of fact the design is older than fuel injection and hasn't changed much over the past 20 years. Sure heads have been ported a little different and camshafts have various specifications but there is nothing that has driven HD engine design forward for a long time! So EFI is about the only thing that has changed on a HD Big Twin engine in along time. The addition of it has allowed HD to stay in business and the fuel economy to go from the low to mid 30's to the mid to high 40's while the engine size and bike size both increased!

That is just the long hard truth of it

Quote from: Hobe on October 12, 2011, 07:50:55 AM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory.  :potstir:

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

Quote from: blusmbl on October 12, 2011, 04:31:40 AM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on.

Using O2 sensor feedback is the most fundamental aspect of EFI.  Steve is stuck here having to defend the use of O2's when everyone else in the industry has embraced the technology for the last 20 years.  It's not just defense of the TTS, it's trying to teach contemporary EFI theory to a group that doesn't trust them and is still stuck in the carburetion days.  Bottom line is everyone can tune their bikes however they'd like, but using some sort of feedback control via O2 sensors will do a much better job of maintaining the commanded air/fuel ratio across all operating conditions.  I'm still shocked people are trying to argue this.  How accurate you want to be is up to you, but that little sensor in the exhaust acts as a better calibrator than anyone here!

I somewhat agree with your reply, however the ecm can only make corrections based on data recieved, you know, the old garbage in garbage out thing.  If I thought the uneven firing V-twin with a ridiculously open exhaust with  proper function hampered by design and a shared intake manifold would give accurate 02 feedback at all times I would consider using it. Your take on this still does not give account for the afv's making corrections to un sampled areas. Believe me or not, I really could care less but do what I did and purchase a dyno and see what I have seen, then come back and talk to me again.  And that little sensor in the exhaust is 100% useless without someone to take the data is gives out and put it into practical use.
No doubt Steve has developed a great product and has given us views to the inner working we would likely have never been privy to otherwise. However, he is still in this business for one thing, to make a living so don't expect to get wide array of information on alternative methods from him as the information will be highly biased on what he knows but importantly what he sells.
You all have the choice to be a blind follower or to keep your eyes open to what is really going on and keep an open mind.

So if the normal swing in AFR  is +/- .3 AFR,  what would that work out to in change in pulse width to get that 2% change in the amount of fuel out of the injectors?  Just for fun, lets say the pulse width is running about 4 MS and you are running along at 55 MPH.

If the o2s switch from lean to rich,  how long should it be till the fuel switches back the other way?

Beast

Quote from: BVHOG on October 12, 2011, 01:27:31 PM

Quote from: Hobe on October 12, 2011, 07:50:55 AM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory.  :potstir:

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

We don't have to qualify ourselves before posting do we?  Does FBBR own a dyno, does Glens, Truk, 1FSTRK, Mayor.........  Maybe Hobe trims trees for a living, and fills his spare time with Vtwin engines??  That's the nice thing about open forums.

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2011, 02:24:43 PM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 12, 2011, 01:27:31 PM

Quote from: Hobe on October 12, 2011, 07:50:55 AM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory.  :potstir:

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

We don't have to qualify ourselves before posting do we?  Does FBBR own a dyno, does Glens, Truk, 1FSTRK, Mayor.........  Maybe Hobe trims trees for a living, and fills his spare time with Vtwin engines??  That's the nice thing about open forums.

No one should have to qualify themselves but they should at least be able to come up with something genuinely their own based on experience and not just theory or repeating what they have only read or heard.

Whittlebeast

You are not going to be able to make those measurements with using the stock data information, to much is missing. So unless you get a real datalogger that accurately measures and stores measurements. and uses external equipment to make those measurements directly first, then write software to reconstruct the undersampled data as we've done, you not going to get there.

BVhog

As for highly biased information that's not true. The information I've given is real and true for the HD engines and the way the ECM works today. Any issues that have been pointed out have been backed up with cold hard facts, but that has not stopped you from trying to twist things around. Yes, I will point out what we have done and where its better than the rest but that information is still valid none the less. Who of the others has brought up the facts of O2 sensors, Broad Bands and Wide Bands? You and most others did not even know there was a difference, let alone how they worked or there accuracy under what conditions until I brought it up. Who located the issues with sensor mounting and the resulting problems it's caused. You want to blame the ECM when nothing is futher from the truth.

So if finding, pointing out and fixing the cause of the problems is being biased I guess I am.

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 12, 2011, 03:52:01 PM

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 12, 2011, 03:35:59 PM
Whittlebeast

You are not going to be able to make those measurements with using the stock data information, to much is missing. So unless you get a real datalogger that accurately measures and stores measurements. and uses external equipment to make those measurements directly first, then write software to reconstruct the undersampled data as we've done, you not going to get there.

So you don't have any idea how this stuff works?  It is a fairly simple, straight forward question.

Beast

And you were given a straight forward answer, you just do not like it. If you feel it's wrong please by all means go out and do the work and show us the results. Just make sure that you use equipment capable of making the measurements. A PV with Broad Bands or DataMaster isn't going to cut it. An injector is NOT a linear device so you do not get to add "X" amount of pulse width for a fixed gain in AFR. Intake manifold pressure, Fuel pressure and last but not least is a none linear injector are the reasons why. Then there is fuel sharing that goes on in the HD intake you need to add in too. So yes, I understand the how's and why's very well and the answer you want is not going to be the answer you get if you really go and do the testing with the proper equipment.

So now go back to the first answer I gave you.

See if this page helps you think thru this..

http://www.injectordynamics.com/ID1000.html#Dynamic%20Flow%20Characteristics%20-%203%20Bar%20%2843.5%20psi%29 (http://www.injectordynamics.com/ID1000.html#Dynamic%20Flow%20Characteristics%20-%203%20Bar%20%2843.5%20psi%29)

It only goes to prove my point better! Did you bother to read that page yourself? The injector is non linear in the lower pulse widths, it changes shapes with voltage changes and fuel pressure. They left out that it also changes with intake manifold pressure and that in a HD application there is fuel sharing in the intake manifold. So as I said before you are hoping for some BS answer and it's not going to happen. You need to go to the people who make injectors, Bosch or Magnetti Marrelli that are used in HD application not people who buy and repackage them. About as good as they get for production injectors are +/- 4% and get worse from there and that's what you have to deal with. But thanks for proving my point for me anyways with your link.

So now go back to the first and second answer I gave you. As the answer is still the same!

Cymbalta may help!

 :emoGroan:   Andy is  :fish:  again and im getting sick of this

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 12, 2011, 05:11:02 PM
Cymbalta may help!

Had to look it up. But that's funny.

One I forgot to answer was BVhog's comment to blusmbl. Do you have any idea who your talking too here? This guy has more hours on a dyno and doing calibration work than you, strokerjlk and whittlebeast all put together. This is what he does for a living day in and day out. If he wants to talk about it that's up to him but rest assured the old saying of been there done that applies.

As for the uneven firing the O2 could care less. Each O2 is read every firing cycle of the engine on a HD. So provided you install it correctly the O2 is going to give accurate readings each and every firing cycle up to 6000 RPM. You can really go to about 6250 as I recall but 6000 leaves an error of margin. As for the AFV's changing the tune it all goes back to the same old thing. FIX THE PROBLEM UP FRONT AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

To get a 6% increase in fuel flow, the formula is

(new pulse width) = ( ( (existing pulse width) - (the injector opening time) )  * (1 + (percentage change desired/100) ) ) + (the injector opening time)

If we start with a BPW of 4 and want 6% for fuel to see if the 02s go fat...  6% would be about a .7 AFR swing

((4-1)*1.06)+1=4.18ms

In the referenced example posted a few posts back the opening time (or dead time per those guys) at 14 volts would be right at 1 ms.  That is very typical for high impedance injectors.  They are all a little non linear below about 2 ms and above about 90% duty cycle.  None of this is news for the tuners that work closely with the programmers.  Most of the programmers that I know have flow benches at home for testing this stuff.

Beast

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 12, 2011, 05:54:05 PM
One I forgot to answer was BVhog's comment to blusmbl. Do you have any idea who your talking too here? This guy has more hours on a dyno and doing calibration work than you, strokerjlk and whittlebeast all put together. This is what he does for a living day in and day out. If he wants to talk about it that's up to him but rest assured the old saying of been there done that applies.

As for the uneven firing the O2 could care less. Each O2 is read every firing cycle of the engine on a HD. So provided you install it correctly the O2 is going to give accurate readings each and every firing cycle up to 6000 RPM. You can really go to about 6250 as I recall but 6000 leaves an error of margin. As for the AFV's changing the tune it all goes back to the same old thing. FIX THE PROBLEM UP FRONT AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

That's why I was asking, didn't know who he was and why the personal attack from a stranger, thanks for the info.
As for the test equipment used, you state you have the latest and greatest, exactly what do you have in your shop?  Do you have all the equipment you speak of, are you using an outside source?  You mention it frequently but it would be interesting to hear of the specific test equipment you own and use for cal development. With all this test equipment you have access to you surely know there are much better ways than 02 alone to test the exhaust sample.
Also, It would be interesting to know just how much sharing goes on with an injection system that basically sprays at the valve in an opposite direction of the opposing cylinder. Of course the carbs have that problem but I would assume it to be much less of a problem on an injected bike.
As for the original question in this thread I have to ask why you don't have the option of turning off the afv like the Power Vision does?

Quote from: BVHOG on October 12, 2011, 01:27:31 PM

Quote from: Hobe on October 12, 2011, 07:50:55 AM

Quote from: BVHOG on October 11, 2011, 08:02:48 PM
I read about engine heat etc and it's obvious these things will take some pretty lean mixtures and keep running.
What has failed to be mentioned here is rider comfort, nobody want's a bike that cooks their legs while riding it.
Not to mention that the extra heat WILL lower engine life.
Many complaints were made about heat in the factory bikes in the last few years, started the same year the closed loop system came into play, no coincidence there. These bikes are ran lean with the closed loop for one simple reason, EPA compliance.
We are led to believe the 2002 to 2006 bikes were a compromise and inaccurate if you happened to get a tank of slightly different gas yet the carb bikes that can't even hold the afr steady from front to rear cylinder are just fine.
Also, I read how the 02 system and the adaptive fuel values should be accurate when applied across the board, like Steve said, they do nothing but compare the left over 02 to outside air. Hardly a complete picture of what the motor is doing. What about the other gasses left over from combustion, they can give a much clearer picture of what's going on using a multigas analyzer in the right hands while the adaptive fuel value can only make a predetermined mathmatical guess for the areas it does not sample, again, more guessing.
Why would we believe the afv changes made would be linear across the board in the first place, chances are they more than likely are not.
I have seen nothing on this forum but an attempt by a manufacturer to discredit anything that does not agree with what the system he developed.  First the equipment we use is old and broken down, then broad bands are inaccurate, then the multi gas is too slow, then the bungs are in the wrong place, fake data etc. etc. and on and on. 
This whole thing has become so convoluted and personal that the info here is just about worthless to the average Joe that happens to stop by and read it.

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed this? ALways good to wear it when developing a good conspiracy theory.  :potstir:

Don't recognize your user name, are you a dyno owner/tuner, what is your real world experience with the V-twin engine?

I am not a tuner, have tuned a few without a dyno and do not claim any expertise in such,  actually my comments are not directly related to tuning, it just happens to be the topic being discussed. Now I do deal with managing a number of personalities in my work, and recognize the "don't confuse me with facts cause I know it all" arguments. Typically it doesn't matter how many FACTS are provided there will be a reason why they are inaccurate or don't apply, sort of a conspiracy.

Watching your post over the long term it just struck me that you sure seem to lean that way, but I apologize for the comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but it best to leave it at opinions unless you can support them with the technical data to back it up.

I will just keep following the thread and wait for you to present your facts.

Hobe,
i thought you captured the spirit here quite well.
Some help others without charging any fees, some are pro's, some like me are just do it yourself-ers, quite a mix of tuning egos.
Harley is at least 10 years behind cars and ricers, the endearing "'cause we have always done it this way" attitude is pervasive, still, this is the best all around Harley tuning site I've found. Defending your position sharpens the understanding even if you are correct.

if you are good at deciphering double talk? in between the slander,and name calling , steve actually gives  some very good open loop points  :up:

Quote from: BVHOG on October 12, 2011, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 12, 2011, 05:54:05 PM
As for the original question in this thread I have to ask why you don't have the option of turning off the afv like the Power Vision does?

I've seen posts back a year or so ago where Steve listed the kinds of tools he has in his shop. Although he may have added a few more toys since then.

I think the point was that there is a lot of marketing and eye candy out there, and you should check/measure  the results before assuming a feature actually results in what you expect. I hear the PV provides user option to turn off AFV but does then perhaps ignores the user...  or it may be a useless feature because of the way the ECU works...    or that no one here has proven that turning the AFV via the PV makes any difference (perhaps I missed it).  Someting like the well known (current) Harley Brand tuner that gives the user the option to chose an AFR CLB offset but then ignores it regardless.  I wouldn't know if dynojet would do the same kind of thing, we already know they have convinced some here that the PV collects more data because it has a higher data rate, where the extra data in fact is useless and confuses analysis.

So Steve is telling us that he doesn't want to provide a feature in that he is not sure will provide the result the user wants, or makes any difference.  At least thats the drift I'm getting....   but I can be mislead...  and individuals can be mistaken.

I used to tell a very cluey bloke on another forum, you can lead a horse to water :wink:

Steve I read through the tuning guide again and I do not see any guidelines for defining the size of the closed loop area of a tune.
I looked through many different base cals and I see that you often change the shape and size of the closed loop area from cal to cal.

Do you recommend that these areas not be altered?

If altering the closed loop area is permitted what should I use as a guide line to decide to put a cell into closed loop?

I would assume that the larger the closed loop area the more stable the tune would be not only from the active adjustments of the O2s but also because of a larger sampling area to draw data from for the AFV applied to the open loop cells. 

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 12, 2011, 06:08:58 PM
To get a 6% increase in fuel flow, the formula is

(new pulse width) = ( ( (existing pulse width) - (the injector opening time) )  * (1 + (percentage change desired/100) ) ) + (the injector opening time)

If we start with a BPW of 4 and want 6% for fuel to see if the 02s go fat...  6% would be about a .7 AFR swing

((4-1)*1.06)+1=4.18ms

In the referenced example posted a few posts back the opening time (or dead time per those guys) at 14 volts would be right at 1 ms.  That is very typical for high impedance injectors.  They are all a little non linear below about 2 ms and above about 90% duty cycle.  None of this is news for the tuners that work closely with the programmers.  Most of the programmers that I know have flow benches at home for testing this stuff.

Beast

And this is based on what? An injector that no one knows how it acts or one that you have dreamed up. I given you the truth and you can chose to ignore it or not that's your choice but in the real world the above formula isn't worth the bandwidth used to write it in the post.

You have no way to know to many of the variables that I've pointed out and you have left out many of them from your math. Your math ASSUMES the injector is linear output device, when in fact it is not. Your link clearly shows that in there graphs. So until you include ALL the missing variables your still keyboard playing.

If any two sets of injectors were the same then we could just do a engine calibration on one engine combination and that calibration would work across the board perfect for everyone with that build, nice on paper but does not work in the real world at all, just as your formula may look nice to you but it doesn't work in the real world.

Quote from: BVHOG on October 12, 2011, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 12, 2011, 05:54:05 PM
One I forgot to answer was BVhog's comment to blusmbl. Do you have any idea who your talking too here? This guy has more hours on a dyno and doing calibration work than you, strokerjlk and whittlebeast all put together. This is what he does for a living day in and day out. If he wants to talk about it that's up to him but rest assured the old saying of been there done that applies.

As for the uneven firing the O2 could care less. Each O2 is read every firing cycle of the engine on a HD. So provided you install it correctly the O2 is going to give accurate readings each and every firing cycle up to 6000 RPM. You can really go to about 6250 as I recall but 6000 leaves an error of margin. As for the AFV's changing the tune it all goes back to the same old thing. FIX THE PROBLEM UP FRONT AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

That's why I was asking, didn't know who he was and why the personal attack from a stranger, thanks for the info.
As for the test equipment used, you state you have the latest and greatest, exactly what do you have in your shop?  Do you have all the equipment you speak of, are you using an outside source?  You mention it frequently but it would be interesting to hear of the specific test equipment you own and use for cal development. With all this test equipment you have access to you surely know there are much better ways than 02 alone to test the exhaust sample.
Also, It would be interesting to know just how much sharing goes on with an injection system that basically sprays at the valve in an opposite direction of the opposing cylinder. Of course the carbs have that problem but I would assume it to be much less of a problem on an injected bike.
As for the original question in this thread I have to ask why you don't have the option of turning off the afv like the Power Vision does?

To you anytime someone points something that you do not like it's an attack, time to get over it. There are lots of people that I've met through this forum that know very well how things work but are unwilling to post due to the attacks you launch at people. I've never stated anywhere we have the latest and greatest equipment but we have plenty of good equipment here and are able to rent what we need as well. As for turning off the AFV's the first thing that you would need to do is learn how to use it and the second thing would be that the feature we provided must really work. So what good would a feature be if it doesn't work and you have no way to even test for it in the product. IF people quit worrying about AFV's and fixed the real problem there is not a need for it as well.

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 13, 2011, 06:43:23 AM
Steve I read through the tuning guide again and I do not see any guidelines for defining the size of the closed loop area of a tune.
I looked through many different base cals and I see that you often change the shape and size of the closed loop area from cal to cal.

Do you recommend that these areas not be altered?

If altering the closed loop area is permitted what should I use as a guide line to decide to put a cell into closed loop?

I would assume that the larger the closed loop area the more stable the tune would be not only from the active adjustments of the O2s but also because of a larger sampling area to draw data from for the AFV applied to the open loop cells.

The areas that we define to be in Closed Loop operation are done in testing. There is no set area for all builds but general rules do apply. Typically you do not run closed loop in heavy decel areas, those again would be defined by the engine/bike combination. Also we test when to come out of closed loop under load, based on the engine load, engine temperature and exhaust temperature. Typically the larger the area you can run closed loop control in the better the engine will run in all environments. As the weight and size of the vehicle changes it will effect the closed loop area. So what you can do with a FX and what you can do with a trike with the same engine package are different.

There is no way to define what the exact AFR the engine wants to run at just as there is no way to define the exact closed loop area the engine needs.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 13, 2011, 09:24:22 AM

The areas that we define to be in Closed Loop operation are done in testing. There is no set area for all builds but general rules do apply. Typically you do not run closed loop in heavy decel areas, those again would be defined by the engine/bike combination. Also we test when to come out of closed loop under load, based on the engine load, engine temperature and exhaust temperature. Typically the larger the area you can run closed loop control in the better the engine will run in all environments. As the weight and size of the vehicle changes it will effect the closed loop area. So what you can do with a FX and what you can do with a trike with the same engine package are different.

There is no way to define what the exact AFR the engine wants to run at just as there is no way to define the exact closed loop area the engine needs.

Thanks for the quick reply. I have been reading the method that Mayor uses on the different threads here and there is always that gray area as to adding fuel or subtracting timing. Is that the best process to determine closed loop areas? Do you have any tips on determining which to start with timing or fuel?

Not really good information for you as we use more tools when developing a calibration here that you do not have hooked up and that is where part of the decision comes from. If you can at least get an EGT gauge tied to a cylinder then you could see what's going on at the higher load areas from a temperature standpoint, cylinder head temperature can also help but the stock engine temperature is a little slow. What I would do is ride 2 up with things that you would normally have the bike loaded with and go ride on some flat ground and slight inclines at normal operating speeds. Let that area you've riding in be a start to define the Closed Loop area.

What EGT do I want to see in the higher load areas?

As a general rule of thumb you do not want to exceed 1400 degrees. Now we all know rules are just guidelines and the engine will not fall apart if it goes to 1400 degree's but you had better not stay there very long. At idle you will typically see between 850 - 950. The longer you run with higher EGT's the hotter the head temperature and engine temperature get as well so you need to keep an eye on those too. Airflow across the engine plays a big role in how the heat gets handled. Trikes suck and about the 45 mph range there is little to NO airflow across the engine. Now get on a touring bike with leg guards and the airflow is completely different then one without the leg guards. So what works for one may well not work for another. I personally would have no problem with 1250 degrees all day long PROVIDED the head temperature and engine temperature ran cool enough.

Thanks again Steve that is in line with what I got from the dyno shop for temps.

In reply 126 I proposed a theory of why the dyno tune might be later affected by the AFV in an adverse way. In your reply 129 you kind of address my point although I did not want to debate over which one is more accurate but instead discuss your point of how the dyno O2s can be affected by many things just like the bikes sensors by how they are installed in the pipes. For the purposes of getting my upper throttle and rpm VEs in sync with the V-Tuned VEs so that my AFV will work properly I will be using the dyno after the V-Tune extend. I spoke with the dyno operator and he has assured me that this would not be a problem. My thought is that the final test is to confirm his dyno O2 is in sync with the bike by running the bike at various rpm and loads in the closed loop area to see his equipment match the closed loop AFR. This should insure that any VEs calculated from the dyno O2s would be in line with the ones in the V-tuned area of the table. Next I will have him tune for power by adjusting the AFR and timing the way he always does. I think this should give the best power and the best chance for me to get the most from the AFV applied to the open loop. I am hoping to use the same EGT sensors that he uses on the dyno so that they too will be consistent.

For over a year now I have read and studied this and it always came back to the O2 battle over which was right the dyno or the bike. I now believe they both can be installed and operated wrong. That said if properly installed and synchronized they both could be used to develop all areas of the tune so that it will operate as designed. I guess both Steve and the dyno shop were telling me the same thing all along I was just not hearing what they were saying.

The thing that you need to remember is where are the dyno O2's once you leave and go ride the bike. Right or wrong doesn't much matter at that point as the ECM only see's and works with it's O2's. This is why it is so important to use them, since they are the final answer. Just think about it, the dyno O2 say one thing and the factory O2 and ECM say a different thing, which one do you think is going to win the battle over how the bike runs down the road? This is why I keep saying let it win, I do not care. Once I know where it wants to be then I can make adjustments regardless of what it wants to get it to where I want it to go. The trick is to let the ECM and O2 win, since they always do in the long run anyways. Now I can change the adjustments knowing the ECM and O2 are happy to where I feel it needs to be. Then things work just as they should.

All the tools have there limits and you have to work within those limits as well, so if a dyno O2 has a +/- 8% range you or I have no idea what the real number is. We just know the number we see +/- 8%. Keep that in mind when thinking the ECM is wrong as well. So when you see 13.0 : 1.........

13.0 + 8%=14.04
13.0 - 8%= 11.96

This is the range that the AFR really is provided you know what the base fuel was to start with in the first place. So now does it really matter as long as the bike performs well and does not break parts and overheat?

Let's say that you step up to better equipment than most dyno operators own and get it down to +/- 3% that still gives you

13.0 + 3%= 13.39
13.0 - 3%= 12.61

All this ASSUMES that things are install properly and working properly but I hope it's getting clearer to you all what is really going on. I can tell you the engine doesn't care as long as you keep the ratio close and you do not overheat it.

So if you can run down the road at 14.9, 14.0 or 13.0 without over heating engine temperatures or EGT's the only thing you are going to loose is fuel economy as you go richer. The power output in those ranges is going to be pretty close to the same!

I know the ECM is what counts but because we are reverse engineering are VEs off from
O2 readings and I can’t run closed loop at the top of the table. I need to get that info from some place so the VEs are correct and as long as everything agrees it should work.

Quote from: strokerjlk on October 12, 2011, 08:32:14 PM
if you are good at deciphering double talk? in between the slander,and name calling , steve actually gives  some very good open loop points  :up:

FYI - Stroker was banned last night as a result of this post. So much I'd like to say but won't.

Cheers Jim, you are one of the best and will be missed. 

:beer:

FYI its a Temp Ban...

Discuss what you want but personal attacks and baiting will result in a vacation. As HV says, it's only a couple of days for Jim.

Temporary? Really?  The end of his message read as follows "This ban is not set to expire"

Good deal on Jim coming back. :teeth:

My thought is it takes two to tango but invariably only one gets sent to the woodshed. :doh:

Quote from: BVHOG on October 13, 2011, 05:33:42 PM
Temporary? Really?  The end of his message read as follows "This ban is not set to expire"

Bans are adjusted from no end date to a time period after all the admins have a chance to voice their opinions.

Cool.

I will pass that on when I speak with Jim again

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 13, 2011, 04:36:50 PM
The thing that you need to remember is where are the dyno O2's once you leave and go ride the bike. Right or wrong doesn't much matter at that point as the ECM only see's and works with it's O2's. This is why it is so important to use them, since they are the final answer. Just think about it, the dyno O2 say one thing and the factory O2 and ECM say a different thing, which one do you think is going to win the battle over how the bike runs down the road? This is why I keep saying let it win, I do not care. Once I know where it wants to be then I can make adjustments regardless of what it wants to get it to where I want it to go. The trick is to let the ECM and O2 win, since they always do in the long run anyways. Now I can change the adjustments knowing the ECM and O2 are happy to where I feel it needs to be. Then things work just as they should.

All the tools have there limits and you have to work within those limits as well, so if a dyno O2 has a +/- 8% range you or I have no idea what the real number is. We just know the number we see +/- 8%. Keep that in mind when thinking the ECM is wrong as well. So when you see 13.0 : 1.........

13.0 + 8%=14.04
13.0 - 8%= 11.96

This is the range that the AFR really is provided you know what the base fuel was to start with in the first place. So now does it really matter as long as the bike performs well and does not break parts and overheat?

Let's say that you step up to better equipment than most dyno operators own and get it down to +/- 3% that still gives you

13.0 + 3%= 13.39
13.0 - 3%= 12.61

All this ASSUMES that things are install properly and working properly but I hope it's getting clearer to you all what is really going on. I can tell you the engine doesn't care as long as you keep the ratio close and you do not overheat it.

So if you can run down the road at 14.9, 14.0 or 13.0 without over heating engine temperatures or EGT's the only thing you are going to loose is fuel economy as you go richer. The power output in those ranges is going to be pretty close to the same!

Quote from: 1FSTRK on October 13, 2011, 05:01:43 PM

I know the ECM is what counts but because we are reverse engineering are VEs off from
O2 readings and I can’t run closed loop at the top of the table. I need to get that info from some place so the VEs are correct and as long as everything agrees it should work.

Its actually more then 2 tangoing ..trust me there may be more to come.....  :unsure:

Jim is passionate about tuning.He posts here to help others understand tuning the way he sees it.I'm sure he has gained some business from posting here.However,it does not and am sure it will not replace his current carreer for income.His only downfall,in my opinion,is that his true sincerity sometimes overrides his responses.

I personally am tired of tuners,and head porters attacking others on this site in order to stir the pot or maybe even gain business.

I say this having not made one cent from others here.

It used to be fun sharing information and learning from others here.I have also met some very good people here.It seems as if the agendas of some posters have taken some of that away.

I deleted many of my posts today because of recent trends and my personal frustration with some posters and actions here.

I've said my peace.

Caring passionate people can get carried away.
That is one side effect of striving for perfection in a discipline.
Cooling off periods are good, I went hunting for a week, hardly thought about tuning at all.

Guys, just so you know. This isn't about any one person here. We (and I mean Mayor mostly (he was not the admin that banned jlk)) have been warning some of you about this for some time. And his warnings were coming from the group of admins on this site. Since he often takes care of this board, he took care of the warnings. We know it's a passionate subject. The truth is you can say pretty much what you think it's how you phrase it that's been an issue. There have probably been a lot more posts removed than any of you know about since we get them pretty quickly most of the time.

So we tried the warnings and now we've moved on to giving vacations. Keep the personal crap out and we don't have a problem. Personal attacks show a marked lack of respect and I don't think that's what any of us want. This is just my perspective on things.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 13, 2011, 04:36:50 PM
The thing that you need to remember is where are the dyno O2's once you leave and go ride the bike. Right or wrong doesn't much matter at that point as the ECM only see's and works with it's O2's. This is why it is so important to use them, since they are the final answer. Just think about it, the dyno O2 say one thing and the factory O2 and ECM say a different thing, which one do you think is going to win the battle over how the bike runs down the road? This is why I keep saying let it win, I do not care. Once I know where it wants to be then I can make adjustments regardless of what it wants to get it to where I want it to go. The trick is to let the ECM and O2 win, since they always do in the long run anyways. Now I can change the adjustments knowing the ECM and O2 are happy to where I feel it needs to be. Then things work just as they should.

All the tools have there limits and you have to work within those limits as well, so if a dyno O2 has a +/- 8% range you or I have no idea what the real number is. We just know the number we see +/- 8%. Keep that in mind when thinking the ECM is wrong as well. So when you see 13.0 : 1.........

13.0 + 8%=14.04
13.0 - 8%= 11.96

This is the range that the AFR really is provided you know what the base fuel was to start with in the first place. So now does it really matter as long as the bike performs well and does not break parts and overheat?

Let's say that you step up to better equipment than most dyno operators own and get it down to +/- 3% that still gives you

13.0 + 3%= 13.39
13.0 - 3%= 12.61

All this ASSUMES that things are install properly and working properly but I hope it's getting clearer to you all what is really going on. I can tell you the engine doesn't care as long as you keep the ratio close and you do not overheat it.

So if you can run down the road at 14.9, 14.0 or 13.0 without over heating engine temperatures or EGT's the only thing you are going to loose is fuel economy as you go richer. The power output in those ranges is going to be pretty close to the same!

As a case in point.
Most advanced area emissions testing is done with tolerances at 2.5%. And that is considered as "tight"!

Quote from: Rider57 on October 14, 2011, 12:26:58 AM
As a case in point.
Most advanced area emissions testing is done with tolerances at 2.5%. And that is considered as "tight"!

And yet the stock equipment on the stock bike is able to work within that window?  Would it be fair to say that if I had a Dynojet setup in my shed, and/or a TwinScan kit, and I found with either of them a discrepancy relative to what the ECM showed, that I might just be best off going with what the ECM had to say about it?

At one point I had 4 different o2 sensors on a car I was messing with.  Two wide bands and 2 narrow bands.  I learned to not do that as you will start to question everything.

Whenever we dyno tune a car with onboard wide band, the first thing we do is verify that the car wide band matches my wide band and the one that the dyno is using.  We normally pick the car one as gospel if the car is running full feedback and just deal with it at the dyno.   I had the guy that owns the Mustang install a couple of test bungs in the exhaust for just this reason.  When things get ugly we toss a known good heated narrow band in the exhaust and use it to find stoich.

Beast

It seems to me he OP is suggesting the use of the second sensor to fill in the areas that you can not take readings using the bikes narrow bands.

Not as a second opinion but as a way to calculate VEs from an O2 reading at 90 and 100kpa throughout the rpm range. I can see that you may be off by X% but at least you would have the VEs correct in each cell in those columns. After that tune the AFR table for power and the VEs should be fine when the AFV kicks in. If the two sensors disagree by 8% the day of the test in the 70 and 80% columns while the narrow bands are active then it is safe to use that as the correction in the 90 and 100% columns when testing with just the broad bands.
Steve said it best do not fight the ECM but that does not mean that you can not work with the ECM through the use of additional sensors if done properly. EGTs can be used also to work the upper areas but I think you would take a chance that the mixture was right but you would not know if the VEs were wrong and that is where the AFV would later be a problem.

Quote from: 04FLHP on October 14, 2011, 09:02:42 AM
It seems to me he OP is suggesting the use of the second sensor to fill in the areas that you can not take readings using the bikes narrow bands.

Not as a second opinion but as a way to calculate VEs from an O2 reading at 90 and 100kpa throughout the rpm range. I can see that you may be off by X% but at least you would have the VEs correct in each cell in those columns. After that tune the AFR table for power and the VEs should be fine when the AFV kicks in. If the two sensors disagree by 8% the day of the test in the 70 and 80% columns while the narrow bands are active then it is safe to use that as the correction in the 90 and 100% columns when testing with just the broad bands.
Steve said it best do not fight the ECM but that does not mean that you can not work with the ECM through the use of additional sensors if done properly. EGTs can be used also to work the upper areas but I think you would take a chance that the mixture was right but you would not know if the VEs were wrong and that is where the AFV would later be a problem.

The AFV will only adjust if the ECM see a different reading than what it's set for. For the most part you've hit the nail on the head. Let the ECM and O2 do what it wants and get the VE's calibrated with little to no offset. Now the ECM is happy and there will be no AFV and no integrator adjustments being made. This is the key to it all! Now that you see where the ECM wants things with no offsets you can start changing other adjustments to get it richer or leaner. For the areas outside the range that the ECM doesnot use the O2's you can trim in with something else if you like. The biggest issue to watch for in those areas is any difference between the two different systems so the blend point between them is smooth. If you do that any adjustment that is learned for the normal operation area will apply just as much to the entire engine operating range.

THIS time around, I plan on using the Twin SCan and the NB O2s at the same time.   Last time, since I only had one pair of bungs, I used one and then the other on the same day.  I saw less than a 5% variance between v-tune and TS.  Until it came time to extend.  And there it basically appeared to me that the extensions were rich compared to the TS.

So, to answer Glens, yes I trust the Twin Scan, and I would imagine that yes, most trust the dyno.

And I equally can imagine where extensions are NOT rich compared to TS.  If someone uses a different method for OL sections of the bike...  shouldn't matter as long as the lower CL portions match up decently between the two tuning methods.

It's fair to say that folks like myself, Mayor, Stroker wonder where auto extend and blending does to the bike and its REAL needs.  Steve argues, and I really accept him at face value all of the time, but some of the arguing points make me wonder.  But here?  Steve has wholeheartedly agreed there is NOTHING wrong with a different tuning device for those areas that ACTUAL v-tune cannot cover.  In conversations in the past, v-tune is set up to TRY to be rich in those areas.  Tries to be is the key phrase.   If the OP, or myself, feel it's better to dial it in correctly using other methods....  nothing wrong with that, for sure.

The one place I differ with Steve a bit is how crappy broad bands really are and I beg to differ a bit on that.  They may be slower to react, but both use the exact same nernst cell technology, and if one takes TIME, like I SEEN Stroker do, for example, I feel the sniffing part is equal between the two O2 set ups.  Looking for O2 is what they do.

Now, though, lets deal with a source or two of friction between the O2 camps.  This is REALLY the basis of these continued arguments...  closed or not...   a LOT of this DOES come down to manufacturing differences.  DTT does NOT use the same math to derive the AFRs from O2 content as TTS does and my LM1s are different again.

Can ANYONE tell me the match used in Innovate products is faulty?  Nope.  How about DTT's math?  Nope.  TTS's math?  Nope.  So some of this isn't Steve saying his is better than everyone's else... well he does, but more to the point he gets passionate about HIS crap and HIS discoveries, etc.   It's like Dynos.  Dynojet makes the most cost effective dyno, so that it what we are all used to...  and the numbers that Dynojets MATH use to make numbers is ALWAYS higher than what the other, equally as good, dynes make.  The other Dynes use different math.

Right now, I am a homeless bum with a 120r sitting awaiting my pick-up in Cinci...  YAY!!!  It came in today!  But in a past life I was an electrical contractor.  Know how many engineer types I have dealt with?  EEs, MEs especially.  Steve is an engineering type of dude.  SOME of you members HAVE to get exactly what I mean, right?  I have had to AGRUE about jobs on WHY a 4" piece of PVC conduit will NOT fit in a 2x4 framed in wall.  Engineers!  HAHA!  But Steve is passionate and a true believer in what he sees.  One simply can't fault that, right?  I sure the hell don't and I sure don't believe it is in any way protecting his TTS franchise's money flow, either.  He actaully has called me to BS about little stupid crap he sees, OK?

Passionate Man, Steve Cole.

But, Jim Kennedy is EQUALLY as passionate on what HE does as a hobby.  Stroker is NOT a full time tuner and out to pump out bikes to support his shop and living.  It's a love for bikes, and love for working on them that made him decide to get a dyno and learn more.  Most members here can surely relate.  Once I am no longer a bum...  I, too, will own a dyno of some sort.  WE, and others see anomalies.  Well, what causes them and why are they there?  We ask.  We question.  We argue.  Steve does the exact same.  Whittlebeast should ALWAYS be allowed on here, for these very reasons... let Steve, et al, argue with HIM1  Right?  Did anybody here miss where we all learned how PV fills in fake data?  Of course not.  ARGUING a point with passion brings out more learning for all of us who care to learn, right?

But, Jim cannot be as equally as passionate on this site, it appears.  I have TOLD him to try to keep the BS in better check.  WHen I called Steve last year about him and Stroker...  no go I guess.  So, with Jim and Steve going at it, who do you, MY fellow members, think is going to 'win' with the Mods?

Steve, of course, to think otherwise is fairy tale thinking.

I HAVE seen Steve improve his online statements with Bob and Jim, but I now feel, since I want Bob and Jim's input and advice every bit as much as Steve's...  I hope Bob and Jim chill out a bit and present in more thought provoking fashions.  Especially Jim.   I LOVE Jim, he is a VERY good friend to me, more than  guys ever realize.  He is just hard headed like me... and Steve.  He just won't let PAST name calling and all that crap by ALL involved go by the wayside.  Well, I will talk to him this weekend, and I hope the Mod Crew takes MY advice and allows alternative thoughts and ideas have every bit as equal a voice on here.

Dammit...  this is THE BEST Harley engine forum going.  The free wheel style of the Mods make it so.  So, let him back and I will talk to him, and even Steve if needed.  No where else on the internet do we see an actual tuning MFG argue and teach, and no where else do we see opposing views come into play, and no where else do members get to benefit from these discussions more than us, the members here.

And, for Glens, other tuning devices have capabilities that TTS may not.  No big deal at all.  Just like TTS will say what the command AFR is from the ECM.  Other tuners will state what the command AFR from the ECM is, and that number includes the trims.  Little differences that may be helpful.

Long ago, I had decided to trust ALL my tools, and use them according to their strong points.  Right now?  I have asked Jason, Hrdtl78, to help me understand EGTs better and maybe give advice on what metering systems he likes.  I have seen full blown data loggers for like $5-700 or simple meters...  What's best?  What has HE seen, right?

This post, by the OP, was about anomalies in AFVs.  I think we have alittle better undertsanding but not a whole lot.  AFVs are in the code, it is a stategy decided upon by a dude or a team.  To simply unquestionably accept someones code or scheme as 'right' with OUT questioning just isn't how I like to roll.

I'm every bit as passionate as the rest of you.

Well said Wurk  :up: 
As mods we have a REAL hard time on here trying to keep the Name calling etc to a low point..after all not only are the Posters in this section ( more then most ) Passionate about their work we are dealing with Harley Riders . ( Can you say A Types ! ) ... we try to keep to the side as much as we can... I know a few feel this has become a TTS Board..and in some ways it has... not that we want it that way..its just that most questions are about that system ...is this an indication that most use it ? ... NO I know a lot that do not use a TTS Including myself... However Steve at least comes on and answers questions about his product ..Is the TTS the Best tuner ?  that depends who is using it ..I would literally suck at using one as I don't know that much about them or use them... I know a lot that use a SESPT and have very good luck with them.....as with the other systems its all about what the guy using it is comfortable using... I for one do not have the time to come on and answer SESPT Questions ..and the MOCO I'm sure could care less about HTT or the AFR Zone... I'm sure though that if more questions RE the SESPT were asked someone would do their best to answer... Jim is welcome back any time and I hope he continues as others to Talk about Tuning... Other Manufactures have been on here and off but are welcome any time to talk about their systems wile answering questions if they chose not to that's their choice ... The MOCO is not interested in any way in tech Support for the SESPT due to Warranty issues if a Customer re maps his bike and damages it...they hardly even show the dealers much about Anything other then Using the SESPT with a Dyno..... Smart tuning is a learn it yourself deal and I love it and find it works very well... perhaps the lack of questions on here about it is an indication that it works and does not have the issues a lot are having with the TTS..  :nix: :bike:

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 14, 2011, 01:33:54 PM
other tuning devices have capabilities that TTS may not.  No big deal at all.  Just like TTS will say what the command AFR is from the ECM.  Other tuners will state what the command AFR from the ECM is, and that number includes the trims.  Little differences that may be helpful.

Long ago, I had decided to trust ALL my tools, and use them according to their strong points.

Are you sure the TTS' "command AFR" doesn't include the trims when open-loop?  I don't know; just asking.

I agree that any tools used should be done according to their strong points, with others used for their strong points when there's overlap between the tools.  But the thought I was trying to convey was that if there's a discrepancy between two lambda readings and the one (main) "tool" is going to always use its reading, that'd be the one to go with.  Obviously, the ECM isn't going to be using its lambda probes to the right and bottom of the fueling tables, so it'd be okay to use a different one there.

I know I'd said this within the last month or so, and Steve followed with argument against it, but I can't find it right now.  Find out what the ECM is thinking it's doing just before it leaves closed-loop, sync up your external sensor with it there, then whatever the delta is between them, maintain it the rest of the way out.  No AFVs, either positive or negative, should then affect the AFR you want developed there.  (aha! the word "delta" should find the post; I'll try...)

Okay, I'd read it within the last month but it was posted within the last month or so a year ago!  Steve seemed to be arguing against it then, but didn't he say it'd be okay just a few posts back in this thread?  Oh well, at least I'm consistent, hahaha!

http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,29246.msg300642.html#msg300642 (http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,29246.msg300642.html#msg300642)

At any rate, I'll eventually get around to doing something along those lines with my current setup.  I ordered the Fullsac x-pipe with both sets of bungs.

I have tons of issues right now with life in general.  So, I am kinda lazy and havent gone out to look at the data from Datamaster, but...  TS does it for sure, ya know?  If I was going open loop, and I used v-tune and another device to do it with, I wouldn't care a whole lot about 'match up' between the tools.  But since we are talking CL, I would really pay attention to what BOTH tools had to say in the lower KPA and RPM ranges.  If I couldn't readily see a very close correlation between what BOTH tools are seeing, I would go out and find out why first.  I think Mayor has seen some issues where the bike has an issue where it toggles out of CL.  To combat that, I would think fixing other things on the bike, like exhaust, would have to come into play for best results.

I have tuned a closed loop tune using TS and TTS separately, and in combination.  When doing an AFR tune, I either like the TS or I use TTS without any clb bias while v-tuning.  Both allow me to play with CLB Bias tables and AFRs without having to re-tune upon each change.

Now with Lambda..  I really feel that my default will be v-tune for the reason given... use the O2s at hand that the ECM uses kinda thing, but... again,...  I feel limitations on the OL side of the tune.  Instead of extend, I would like to SEE what the engine comes out to actually want.  So... the tools need to match outputs 80 kpa and under for a good seamless transition, IMHO.

Glens, I like my Twin Scan + kit that I bought from Dr. V-Twin out in California.  I also have a pair of LM1s from Innovate, but haven't played with them at all.  A MAJOR question, one that gets asked often, is:  what is my AFR?  And... the real answer using v-tune and TTS is...  who knows.  As opposed to what you think I DO know about all of this...  I KNOW that for the whole TTS, v-tune, ECM thing... the AFR, or Lambda, value doesn't enter into it at all, really.  But it sure the heck should in open loop and it IS nice to at least check, see?

My next purchase will be an EGT gauge kinda set up.  I really wish to see the temp while tuning.

The issue comes from the fact that the ECM uses information from the VE table even in both the closed loop mode and the open loop mode. So let take an example of how the ECM thinks, 3000 RPM and 80 kPa is where you are operating at. The ECM is not only using that VE point but also all those cells that surround it. So if your really at 3010 RPM and 81kPa and your in closed loop then when you get to 3005 RPM and 84kPa and your in open loop your using some of the same information. So now you set the VE table at 80kPa with an external sensor there but you just screwed up the setting for the closed loop adjustment at the same time. One need just to be careful and understand how it works prior to adjusting with an external sensor.

So if you let Vtune do the adjusting all the way to 82 kPa and you make sure that you have run the engine in all RPM zones to get the proper adjustments you have it tuned to what the ECM wants. Now those settings should not be changed. Now if you were to limit closed loop to 75 kPa and use external sensors to adjust the VE cells above 80 kPa one will not effect the other. Just remember the surrounding cells are being used so as long as you separate them you should not get into too much trouble.

What I argue with is trying to use the external sensor to tune the bike and then say that the ECM and factory sensor are wrong and cannot be used. So I guess it's all in how what you type gets understood. So you need to understand that when wurk_truk ran his test with external sensors things agreed within 5% but the simple true is we really do not know which one was truely correct, if either of them really were! The trick is to understand the only one that counts is the factory O2 and the ECM as that is what the decisions are going to be made on.

One major issue I have with Broad Band sensors is that very few if any of the current aftermarket systems have any way of testing them. I have seen many times a reading being taken on the dyno only to find out later it was off by over 1 AFR with them. None of the aftermarket systems are following the requirements as specified by the sensor manufacture. I brought this up and everyone says it doesn't happen only to find out that it does.  They need to be checked and replace and this is the same reason units that rely on them for the tuning have issues in the field. Yes, they are built from the same base technology but it has been found that they just do not hold up well on a HD or in racing environments in the field. The failure mode is that they drift the readings further and further away long before they fail completely. The worse I have personally seen was off by 1.5 AFR but I have been told by others they have seen them off by 2 AFR and still working. You have to buy test gas and check them from time to time and replace them when they begin to drift. True test gas will be labeled on the can as to what it is. So if the dyno operator doesn't have test gas or has something that is not labeled so that they can be check for accuracy use at your own risk or find a different dyno shop. Now if you are luck enough to find a shop with real Wide Bands those sensors get setup each and every time they get used and have to get a free air calibration and a full range calibration. If they will not set in, the sensor is going bad and you know it before you ever get started.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 14, 2011, 06:12:27 PM
A MAJOR question, one that gets asked often, is:  what is my AFR?  And... the real answer using v-tune and TTS is...  who knows.  As opposed to what you think I DO know about all of this...  I KNOW that for the whole TTS, v-tune, ECM thing... the AFR, or Lambda, value doesn't enter into it at all, really.  But it sure the heck should in open loop and it IS nice to at least check, see?

To be sure, the one thing you most likely never will know is what your AFR actually is.  The best you'll be able to say authoritatively is what your lambda is.  I don't understand in the least why all these Dynojets, TwinScans, LM1s, etc. show "14.68" whenever the lambda is "1".  How can they possibly know anymore what the AFR might be?

I do agree with you that it's nice to know what's going down in the open-loop-only areas, but obviously any "AFR" number is going to be only some kind of relative thing these days and as far as I'm concerned its use ought to be relegated to the history books.  Lambda is lambda and that's all that matters.  And with properly set up equipment and VE tables on our current closed-loop Delphi EFI the AFVs will make sure the open-loop areas are always correct in that respect.  :)

Just bought a 4 channel EGT data logger.  I feel two for CHT and two for EGT.

HAHA...  6 bungs in the pipes.

Will use aircraft spark plug gasket sender for the CHT readings.

I agree on the 80 up kpa for the different tuner, whatever that may be.  Also, this is all about baselines.  If everything is set up right, like O2 placements, etc.  some of the pure tech terms we use like AFR, etc are a little bit fluid, I guess.  Tune with v-tune and see what that AFR or Lambda corresponds with on Datamaster, then one can check over 80 and get a good feel out of the results, right?

Glens, I WAS where you ARE as far as Lambda, etc.  Yes, it all sounds good, but I have been spanked by the best that it is NOT as simple as it all centers the lambda regardless of the fuel.  So... these guys will need to spank you, I guess, too.  :)

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 14, 2011, 09:23:45 PM
Just bought a 4 channel EGT data logger.  I feel two for CHT and two for EGT.

HAHA...  6 bungs in the pipes.

Will use aircraft spark plug gasket sender for the CHT readings.

Oh no!
Now I’ll have to start a thread on which CHT sensor is right, the ones you added or the one the ECM uses. (Just kidding) The more good data collected the better. Then it comes down to how to interpret it and put it to good use. That is where this forum comes in, at times a fresh set of eyes and someone sees something we missed. I look forward to the day that you start to post what you gather from this set up as I feel it will help us all to learn something.

What 4 channel did you buy and where?

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 14, 2011, 09:23:45 PM

I agree on the 80 up kpa for the different tuner, whatever that may be.  Also, this is all about baselines.  If everything is set up right, like O2 placements, etc.  some of the pure tech terms we use like AFR, etc are a little bit fluid, I guess.  Tune with v-tune and see what that AFR or Lambda corresponds with on Datamaster, then one can check over 80 and get a good feel out of the results, right?

One of the things that this thread brought to light for me is that V-tuning and the rest of the VE tuning is not tuning the bike with the software. It is tuning the software to match the bike. Once that is done correctly the software tunes the bike and we can adjust the many offsets as we see fit. That is why both AFR and timing work off from MAP tables.   
If we look at AFR numbers the same as timing numbers they are just values in an equation. I’ve yet to see anyone set up sensors to confirm that a 32.5 number in the timing table actually triggers the spark at exactly 32.5 degrees BTDC. We all just work the timing by what the motor will take comfortably and move on. The same should be true with AFR and the entire range is base on what your ECM and O2 sensors see as 14.6 only because that value is the set point to activate closed loop. Everything above and below is a percentage higher or lower.

Quote from: wurk_truk on October 14, 2011, 09:23:45 PM
Glens, I WAS where you ARE as far as Lambda, etc.  Yes, it all sounds good, but I have been spanked by the best that it is NOT as simple as it all centers the lambda regardless of the fuel.

How could it possibly be any less simple than that?  The sensor's closed-loop system driving O2 to/from the backside of the cell so the difference across the cell mimics that of an NB sensor in a stoich burn environment has absolutely no idea whatsoever what the fuel composition or mixture could possibly be.  All it can do is create the appearance of a stoich burn and note what it took to get there (at the current temperature and pressure values at least, hahaha!) and report it.  If it takes no pumping of ions, the cell is in a stoichiometric burn environment; pump some ions in to get "there" and it's in a >1 lambda environment; pump some ions out to get "there" and it's in a <1 lambda environment.  (How can the relative pressures both sides of the cell not be extremely pertinent to any determination achieved by this closed-loop process?)

Oh, and let's indicate when we're at "lambda = 1.000" by saying we're at "14.68:1 AFR", even though there's absolutely no possible way we can know that...  (but if the operator wants to know what the actual AFR is, they can divide our display value by 14.68 and then multiply that by the stoich AFR of the fuel they happen to be using :)

Send the spanking crew.  I'd dearly love to hear how it's any different than that "in real life".

"Then it comes down to how to interpret it and put it to good use."

There is a mouthfull.  I have looked into the equipment on spark and pressure in the cylinder.  I think that would be the kats azz for setting timing tables.  Too rich for me at this time.  I am looking at a dual channel EGT set up.  I can already see front CHT with datamaster.  The system can grow into a datalogger down the road.  I am interested to compare EGT, AF to exhaust pressure for best power.  But is all comes down to the above quote.

Do not confuse Cylinder Head Temperature with Engine Temperature they are not the same. CHT is the temperature of the head in the combustion chamber area, typically referred to right next to the spark plug. This is why they use a thermistor attached to the bottom sealing surface of the spark plug for most cylinder head measurements. While HD has the sensor in the front head it is far from reading CHT.

Personally have used both egt's and spark plug thermocouplers to check carb tunes on experimental aircraft engines. Frankly, I see no use for them with efi. If there's an acurate means of determining the afrs the exhaust will be within spec, as well as head temps. While it's all interesting to view, in the end it's overtooling for the task, and somewhat redundant. IMHO
Ron

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 14, 2011, 06:28:21 PM
So if you let Vtune do the adjusting all the way to 82 kPa and you make sure that you have run the engine in all RPM zones to get the proper adjustments you have it tuned to what the ECM wants. Now those settings should not be changed. Now if you were to limit closed loop to 75 kPa and use external sensors to adjust the VE cells above 80 kPa one will not effect the other. Just remember the surrounding cells are being used so as long as you separate them you should not get into too much trouble.

The text I "bolded" is exactly pertinent to the underlying purpose of this thread.  So what you're saying is that we can decrease the closed-loop scope and cause the "outermost" AFVs to become "stranded" and no longer have an influence the rest of the way out, right?  Don't you think it'd be pertinent for us to be able to determine this stuff for sure, by knowing where the AFV cells exist in our current calibration?

I know the MOCO sensor is NOT CHT.  Also, I didn't really buy the logger (innovate TC4) to be able to check only AFRs.  My thought is one from Russel...  Lonewolf.  Buy a PC3, set fueling tables all to zero, then play with timing and watch EGTs.  The PC3 allows changes on the fly and one can play with timing and not have to reload a new map for each change. Once one finds good happy timing, put it in the TTS map and load it up.

The Innovate logger has no gauge set.  Runs to the laptop.  I may buy a gauge set for it.  Maybe from Drew, who it looks to me, Dynojet used or got a license to use for PV.

Not sure.  THIS money, for new tools, is always aimed at the future, the more I learn now, the better I understand things.

I'm taking v-tuning to the extreme, HAHA.  NEXT tool will simply HAVE to be an old broke down Dyno.  If folks still use a dyno on HArleys ten years from now, that is where I like to see myself...  tuning.

But, I have LOTS to learn until then.

Let me know when you get all set up.  I'll throw a case of beer in the tourpak and show up  :)

Quote from: glens on October 15, 2011, 10:06:16 AM

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 14, 2011, 06:28:21 PM
So if you let Vtune do the adjusting all the way to 82 kPa and you make sure that you have run the engine in all RPM zones to get the proper adjustments you have it tuned to what the ECM wants. Now those settings should not be changed. Now if you were to limit closed loop to 75 kPa and use external sensors to adjust the VE cells above 80 kPa one will not effect the other. Just remember the surrounding cells are being used so as long as you separate them you should not get into too much trouble.

The text I "bolded" is exactly pertinent to the underlying purpose of this thread.  So what you're saying is that we can decrease the closed-loop scope and cause the "outermost" AFVs to become "stranded" and no longer have an influence the rest of the way out, right?  Don't you think it'd be pertinent for us to be able to determine this stuff for sure, by knowing where the AFV cells exist in our current calibration?

Nope didn't say that at all. What I did say was that if you use a secondary system to adjust ANY closed loop area and the ECM doesn't agree with it, the ECM will adjust it to what it wants. So now what you thought you set isn't what you ended up with due to the error in the systems. So be following what I said you will not have the issue as you stay out of any VE cells that are in closed loop when using the secondary system. So if the AFV and integrators are at zero adjustment they will stay that way once the closed loop tuning is finished.

I'd understood what you'd said before you brought up limiting the closed-loop coverage, and wanted to know if there was further significance to doing that (limiting C/L), otherwise why would you bring it up?

So if we limit the closed-loop area to 75kPa when it had gone to 80 in the base calibration, the applicable AFVs will still carry over to 80+ ?  Yes or no, please.

I'm just trying to make sure I've got a good grasp on what's going to happen if/when reducing closed-loop coverage takes place.  It's pretty pertinent to what this whole thread was all about.

If you tune 80 kPa with secondary equipment it will affect the surrounding cells. So if you understand that part then the AFV's and integrators for the 75 kPa will be affected. So by tuning closed loop factory ECM and sensors to and including 80 kPa and only above that with the secondary system the two systems are not fighting over the 80 kPa cell. Now by cutting the Closed Loop area back to 75 kPa the AFV's and integrators will stop making any adjustment based on anything above 75 kPa. So now the two different methods of adjusting are not fighting one another.

You must account for all cases not just some of them as your question tries to do. It's not a matter of carrying the AFV and Integrator out to 80 kPa. If the AFV and Integrator are both "0" at 80 kPa this is what will be carried into open loop and by tuning 80 kPa in closed loop with the factory sensors it will stay that way.

Quote from: rbabos on October 15, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
Personally have used both egt's and spark plug thermocouplers to check carb tunes on experimental aircraft engines. Frankly, I see no use for them with efi. If there's an acurate means of determining the afrs the exhaust will be within spec, as well as head temps. While it's all interesting to view, in the end it's overtooling for the task, and somewhat redundant. IMHO
Ron

Besides just theorizing on that. I would rather do some particle test and reply later. I'm sure an EGT post is coming near future.

We have the same background dealing with this. Mine was more spinning a main rotor but....  Be interesting to say the least.

Quote from: glens on October 15, 2011, 12:17:39 PM
Let me know when you get all set up.  I'll throw a case of beer in the tourpak and show up  :)

That sounds cool as heck.  I WILL let ya know.

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 15, 2011, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: rbabos on October 15, 2011, 09:45:16 AM
Personally have used both egt's and spark plug thermocouplers to check carb tunes on experimental aircraft engines. Frankly, I see no use for them with efi. If there's an acurate means of determining the afrs the exhaust will be within spec, as well as head temps. While it's all interesting to view, in the end it's overtooling for the task, and somewhat redundant. IMHO
Ron

Besides just theorizing on that. I would rather do some particle test and reply later. I'm sure an EGT post is coming near future.

We have the same background dealing with this. Mine was more spinning a main rotor but....  Be interesting to say the least.

Done both fixed and rotory myself, in the experiemental arena. Jason, not saying the egts are useless, far from that but with all the tts data that can be had I just never felt the need to hook up a dual egt system. Simple as dirt to do if one feels the need and in a weird sort of way the afrs could actually be dialed in with them. Crude but effective.  Would be interesting to compare a fan cooled 360/380 Lyc working it's guts out in hover to a wfo Harley. My last experience with egt's is using the 2 stroke Rotax engines and the sole instrument to make sure the mixture wasn't going to cause a melt down. Never ventured over 1250 with these puppies or you were looking for trouble. :hyst:
Ron