Couple of threads have perked a thought or two, regarding the TTS AFR table and let's just say open loop to keep it simple, if you have a number, say 13.2 for example, there is no guarantee that's the actual AFR is there?
Assuming that's correct then if you establish VIA other means that the 13.2 asked for in the table is actually say 13.8 just for the sake of a number, would that .6 AFR difference be the same for the other asked for ratio's in the same table and Cal? IE 13.4 asked for is actually 14?
Thanks for any thoughts.
Hilly
If you ask for 13.2 and with a good sensor detect that it is actually 13.8 then you need to adjust the VE's to get the requested & actual to be the same.........
That is basically what v-tune is trying to do with the stock sensors as well but at 14.7 less the bias setting or whatever the Lambda setting is.
Just because one cell or area is .6 out does not mean that all the cells are .6 out either.
The only way to truly know is with a good sensor and an operator that knows how to use it properly...............
Set the AFR across the map to 13.2 and dial in all the VE's till the requested = actual and then set the AFR to what you want for normal riding.
how r u going to tune in the ve's when vtune will not work??
burgie
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 03:10:36 PM
how r u going to tune in the ve's when vtune will not work??
burgie
Well obviously not with v-tune.............Maybe a DTT Wego system which uses sensors capable of reading down at 13.2 if you are a home user.
OR
Perhaps take it to a dyno operator who has the correct equipment.
Quote from: Scotty on June 01, 2012, 02:48:33 PM
If you ask for 13.2 and with a good sensor detect that it is actually 13.8 then you need to adjust the VE's to get the requested & actual to be the same.........
That is basically what v-tune is trying to do with the stock sensors as well but at 14.7 less the bias setting or whatever the Lambda setting is.
The Bias setting, on a HD, is the target for the ECM to hit NOT a bias to 14.7
Just because one cell or area is .6 out does not mean that all the cells are .6 out either.
The only way to truly know is with a good sensor and an operator that knows how to use it properly...............
Set the AFR across the map to 13.2 and dial in all the VE's till the requested = actual and then set the AFR to what you want for normal riding.
One thing that needs to be added to the above is that some common sense needs to come into play. If you request 13.2 (as above) and the shape of the VE tables becomes up/down over and over (cliff/valleys) throughout the range then something else is going on, as that is not how a mechanical engine is going to work. That something else is important and needs to be identified and resolved. It could come from lots of thing from a lifter pumping up, cracked exhaust, leaking sensors setup, EGR ect. If you identify and resolve it you will be able to feel it and measure the results.
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 03:18:20 PM
That is basically what v-tune is trying to do with the stock sensors as well but at 14.7 less the bias setting or whatever the Lambda setting is.
The Bias setting, on a HD, is the target for the ECM to hit NOT a bias to 14.7
That's what I said.................you should learn to read Australian a bit better. :wtf:
What am I missing then?
You said "14.7 less the bias"
That's not correct. The CLB setting is the voltage the ECM is targeting directly.
If you run a fixed gas across the sensor it is going to generate a voltage based on that gas. If you then change the gas to a different one, it again, is just going to generate a fixed voltage, it doesn't switch voltages as some believe. The ECM drives the system richer and when it see the voltage change it then begins to drive it leaner until the voltage again changes. This is why you see the switching occur in a stock system.
how do u set bias on a lamba bike like a 2012 ttriglide??
burgie
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
What am I missing then?
You said "14.7 less the bias"
That's not correct. The CLB setting is the voltage the ECM is targeting directly.
If you run a fixed gas across the sensor it is going to generate a voltage based on that gas. If you then change the gas to a different one, it again, is just going to generate a fixed voltage, it doesn't switch voltages as some believe. The ECM drives the system richer and when it see the voltage change it then begins to drive it leaner until the voltage again changes. This is why you see the switching occur in a stock system.
But isn't the switching voltage fixed for 14.7 at say 450mv and the clbs an offset or bias to alter the switching voltages in the ecm? The mid point between high mv and low mv of the wave is the target afr, isn't it?
Ron
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
What am I missing then?
You said "14.7 less the bias"
That's not correct. The CLB setting is the voltage the ECM is targeting directly.
If you run a fixed gas across the sensor it is going to generate a voltage based on that gas. If you then change the gas to a different one, it again, is just going to generate a fixed voltage, it doesn't switch voltages as some believe. The ECM drives the system richer and when it see the voltage change it then begins to drive it leaner until the voltage again changes. This is why you see the switching occur in a stock system.
I was talking in laymans terms that any normal person using the TTS would understand.
People find EFI terminology hard enough as it is so explaining that the standard closed loop system targets 14.7 less what ever you set the BIAS at makes perfect sense to normal people who use the calculator that comes with Mastertune.
Say they want to know that the system is looking for 14.45 so they pop up your O2 calculator and they see even you have in the calculator 14.68 (14.7) and if they set the bias to 778mv the AFR should be 14.45.
So basically the stock system looks for 14.7 less whatever you set the bias to makes perfect sense.
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 03:46:08 PM
how do u set bias on a lamba bike like a 2012 ttriglide??
burgie
No bias in lambda bikes you can set the Main Lambda table to lower values which is SORT of the same as the bias in the AFR models.
Quote from: Scotty on June 01, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 03:46:08 PM
how do u set bias on a lamba bike like a 2012 ttriglide??
burgie
No bias in lambda bikes you can set the Main Lambda table to lower values which is SORT of the same as the bias in the AFR models.
Burgie, this is correct. Here is how to look things over so you understand a bit better... Lambda is 1.000. So, when you have your closed loop areas like .997, .977, etc... that difference from 1.000 is the bias, just like AFR bias can be around 14.4/ 778. See? So when you change your closed loop lambda tables to less than that 1.000, you are 'biasing' them.
It is actually a bit different, because Lambda at 1.000 may NOT be 14.7, but this is the easiest way for ME to think about bias and lambda closed loop.
Quote from: wurk_truk on June 01, 2012, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: Scotty on June 01, 2012, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 03:46:08 PM
how do u set bias on a lamba bike like a 2012 ttriglide??
burgie
No bias in lambda bikes you can set the Main Lambda table to lower values which is SORT of the same as the bias in the AFR models.
Burgie, this is correct. Here is how to look things over so you understand a bit better... Lambda is 1.000. So, when you have your closed loop areas like .997, .977, etc... that difference from 1.000 is the bias, just like AFR bias can be around 14.4/ 778. See? So when you change your closed loop lambda tables to less than that 1.000, you are 'biasing' them.
It is actually a bit different, because Lambda at 1.000 may NOT be 14.7, but this is the easiest way for ME to think about bias and lambda closed loop.
Damn did you just explain that in laymans terms ?
Even I understood it :fish:
Quote from: rbabos on June 01, 2012, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
What am I missing then?
You said "14.7 less the bias"
That's not correct. The CLB setting is the voltage the ECM is targeting directly.
If you run a fixed gas across the sensor it is going to generate a voltage based on that gas. If you then change the gas to a different one, it again, is just going to generate a fixed voltage, it doesn't switch voltages as some believe. The ECM drives the system richer and when it see the voltage change it then begins to drive it leaner until the voltage again changes. This is why you see the switching occur in a stock system.
But isn't the switching voltage fixed for 14.7 at say 450mv and the clbs an offset or bias to alter the switching voltages in the ecm? The mid point between high mv and low mv of the wave is the target afr, isn't it?
Ron
There is NO switching voltage per say. Look at the output curve of the sensor an it gives you a voltage for a given content of O2 versus the outside O2, that's it.
When you set the CLB tables you are setting the point at which YOU want the system to be at. The ECM will drive the mixture until it gets richer than what you set and once it passes that setting it will then begin to drive the mixture leaner until it again passes YOUR set point. Now it can only do it within the range that the sensor can measure but this is why you see the O2 voltage going up and down. It's not the O2 doing it, it is the ECM doing it and the O2 reporting it.
As for the Bias it's not taken from 14.7 and the O2 Sensor Voltage Calculator has 14.68 set as the "Stoichiometeric AFR" not any bias value. Guess down under they do things different but I try to make sure people try and learn the right things. The more they get told the wrong things the more confused they get. :cry:
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 04:51:45 PM
Quote from: rbabos on June 01, 2012, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 01, 2012, 03:32:12 PM
What am I missing then?
You said "14.7 less the bias"
That's not correct. The CLB setting is the voltage the ECM is targeting directly.
If you run a fixed gas across the sensor it is going to generate a voltage based on that gas. If you then change the gas to a different one, it again, is just going to generate a fixed voltage, it doesn't switch voltages as some believe. The ECM drives the system richer and when it see the voltage change it then begins to drive it leaner until the voltage again changes. This is why you see the switching occur in a stock system.
But isn't the switching voltage fixed for 14.7 at say 450mv and the clbs an offset or bias to alter the switching voltages in the ecm? The mid point between high mv and low mv of the wave is the target afr, isn't it?
Ron
There is NO switching voltage per say. Look at the output curve of the sensor an it gives you a voltage for a given content of O2 versus the outside O2, that's it.
When you set the CLB tables you are setting the point at which YOU want the system to be at. The ECM will drive the mixture until it gets richer than what you set and once it passes that setting it will then begin to drive the mixture leaner until it again passes YOUR set point. Now it can only do it within the range that the sensor can measure but this is why you see the O2 voltage going up and down. It's not the O2 doing it, it is the ECM doing it and the O2 reporting it.
As for the Bias it's not taken from 14.7 and the O2 Sensor Voltage Calculator has 14.68 set as the "Stoichiometeric AFR" not any bias value. Guess down under they do things different but I try to make sure people try and learn the right things. The more they get told the wrong things the more confused they get. :cry:
Your saying the exact same thing ..........semantics
450mv - 14.68 AFR
778mv - 14.45 AFR
so the system is set for 14.68 when set at 450mv
OR
If i want 14.45 I set it for 778mv
So the actual AFR out the pipe is 14.45
OR
you could describe it as 14.68 - bias difference = 14.45
So the AFR is 14.68 (14.7) less the bias setting.
semantics...............still the same result
if the lamba can be set at say 967 as opposed to 981, which is what is required to do a vtune, why vtune to 981 and then change it to 967?? wont the fuel be off??
burgie
burgies08ultra
The system has a limit that it will operate in and 0.981 it very near the limit. That is why we say to use that setting.
Scotty
You can keep going at it but it's not the same and I'm not going to continue to argue with you about it, it's not worth it.
Try this and maybe you will understand. Go to the O2 calculator in Mastertune, write down the default setting it comes up with. Then change the Stoichiometeric value to 14.45 and then <click> on the Calculate button. See what the O2 Voltage says now, it will be different!Then go look at ALL the values in the chart as they will have changed as well!
i vtuned to 981 and it came out good
but when i am running the bike, the oil is at about 250degrees and the engine temp in the data runs is right at 300.. sometimes over if doing 70 or more...
so i was thinking about going to 967 for crusing to cool it down.. it that not a good idea?/
burgie
rem i am running a 2012 triglide
All the arguing back and forth just makes things more confusing for those of us that just want to learn and understand, I respect the knowledge that is shared on this site but myself and others would appreciate it if someone could answer the question simply without all the high tec mumbo jumbo.
This is the way I understand it, I think :nix:
Stoich = 1.000 lambada = 450mv no matter what fuel or octane or whatever
Stoich for gasoline is somewhere between 14.68 and 14.27 depending on the quality of the fuel where you purchase it and whateverelse comes into play
so if you do actually have gasoline with a stoich of 14.68 and you vtune with clb's set at 741 mv your commanded AFR of 14.6 would deliver 14.6
However if you have gasoline that has a stoich of 14.27 and you vtune with clb's set at 741 mv your commanded AFR of 14.6 would deliver 14.2
Is this the correct way to look at this ? :banghead:
"14.7 less the bias setting"
Are you saying the number set in the bias is subtracted from 14.7? I understand it as 14.6 is the switch that tells the ECM to look at the bias table and use the setting there.
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 07:02:16 PM
i vtuned to 981 and it came out good
but when i am running the bike, the oil is at about 250degrees and the engine temp in the data runs is right at 300.. sometimes over if doing 70 or more...
so i was thinking about going to 967 for crusing to cool it down.. it that not a good idea?/
burgie
rem i am running a 2012 triglide
I wonder how rich does one have to go to actually get a decernable cooling affect? Not so sure 250* oil temp is all that high with todays oils.
Quote from: wolf_59 on June 01, 2012, 07:42:12 PM
All the arguing back and forth just makes things more confusing for those of us that just want to learn and understand, I respect the knowledge that is shared on this site but myself and others would appreciate it if someone could answer the question simply without all the high tec mumbo jumbo.
This is the way I understand it, I think :nix:
Stoich = 1.000 lambada = 450mv no matter what fuel or octane or whatever
Yes.
QuoteStoich for gasoline is somewhere between 14.68 and 14.27 depending on the quality of the fuel where you purchase it and whateverelse comes into play
Yes. Probably even lower than 14.27
Quoteso if you do actually have gasoline with a stoich of 14.68 and you vtune with clb's set at 741 mv your commanded AFR of 14.6 would deliver 14.6
Nearly. If your gasoline was stoich at 14.68, 14.6 commanded at 450 mV setpoint would deliver 14.68 If you'd specified a setpoint of 741 mV then 14.6 commanded would deliver 14.61
QuoteHowever if you have gasoline that has a stoich of 14.27 and you vtune with clb's set at 741 mv your commanded AFR of 14.6 would deliver 14.2
Is this the correct way to look at this ? :banghead:
So yes, this is pretty much the correct way to look at it.
This is also why "lambda" makes so much more sense because its numbers are always true. It's not using numbers that don't mean anything except on rare occasion as is the case with "AFR" numbers. If you consult the chart in the TTS voltage calculator you'll see that "741 mV" corresponds to "0.995 lambda". If you command 0.995 lambda you'll get it regardless the fuel while commanding "AFR" numbers rarely gets you the numbers you'd asked for, even though the mixture will be correct regardless (because the system is really using "lambda" in the background while closed-loop, whether it or you know it).
So just use lambda all the time and all the questions disappear. TTS should allow a toggle in the software to show lambda values in the main fuel table on the "AFR" calibrations. How I'd set up the software would be to show the closed-loop lambda values that result from the chosen CLB values. I realize it wouldn't be a straightforward proposition, but it'd be worlds better than fake "AFR" numbers which only serve to confuse folks.
Thanks to all that replied, got what I was after, if only the stock ECU could be fitted with 02 sensors capable of accurately measureing a broader range, that would be very helpfull
Quote from: Hilly13 on June 01, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
Couple of threads have perked a thought or two, regarding the TTS AFR table and let's just say open loop to keep it simple, if you have a number, say 13.2 for example, there is no guarantee that's the actual AFR is there?
Assuming that's correct then if you establish VIA other means that the 13.2 asked for in the table is actually say 13.8 just for the sake of a number, would that .6 AFR difference be the same for the other asked for ratio's in the same table and Cal? IE 13.4 asked for is actually 14?
I'm not sure anyone actually answered your direct question, the answer is no. You can not assume that if one areas is off by a fixed value that all areas would be off by that same fixed value. There are just too many variables at play. If you are asking this in regards to how to relate open loop values, based on limited sample info (like tested wide open on one cylinder)...the answer is a definite no- there are two many variables at play.
Thank you Glens :up:
So the only way to know where to set the open loop areas of the AFR after Vtune is to sample the exhaust
QuoteI'm not sure anyone actually answered your direct question, the answer is no. You can not assume that if one areas is off by a fixed value that all areas would be off by that same fixed value. There are just too many variables at play. If you are asking this in regards to how to relate open loop values, based on limited sample info (like tested wide open on one cylinder)...the answer is a definite no- there are two many variables at play.
:agree:
QuoteWell obviously not with v-tune.............Maybe a DTT Wego system which uses sensors capable of reading down at 13.2 if you are a home user.
OR
Perhaps take it to a dyno operator who has the correct equipment
actuall DTT wego measures down to 10.0 with broadbands.
with this system you dont have to cal the ve's to one specific AFR (13.2 or 13.5....0r 14.6-14.7 like vtune) across the table and dial the ve's into that specific AFR. then change the AFR table and hope you were now at whatever you told it...say 13.8 -14.7 cruise.
with the DTT wego you set your AFR to what you want 14.0-14.2 cruise 12.5-13.6 WOT 13.8 idle ..etc etc etc.
this way you tune to your desired AFR. so the ve's are calibrated to the specific AFR command in the AFR table. that way you dont have change the AFR table to your desired say 14.2 from say 13.2 ...it was calibrated at.
the farther away from actual you change the desired the more room for error.
tune it to the AFR you want,so you dont have to wonder if the changing the AFR table did what you wanted.
Quote from: burgies08ultra on June 01, 2012, 07:02:16 PM
i vtuned to 981 and it came out good
but when i am running the bike, the oil is at about 250degrees and the engine temp in the data runs is right at 300.. sometimes over if doing 70 or more...
so i was thinking about going to 967 for crusing to cool it down.. it that not a good idea?/
burgie
rem i am running a 2012 triglide
One of the largest problems with a Tri-glide is heat and one of the main causes of it comes from the LACK of airflow around the engine. With little to no airflow around the engine it continues to keep getting hotter and hotter and you can toss fuel at the engine in hopes of keeping it cool but that doesn't work! All you are doing is burning more fuel and it still gets hot. To fix a Tri-glide you need to make some airflow changes to allow the air to cool the engine. I have seen several different ways that people have tried but cannot say which one is best. You will gain much better cooling of the engine with proper airflow than you will ever get by tossing more and more fuel at it. Try contacting a member here with the handle of "Wizard" as he has done a bunch of work with cooling Tri-glides.
As for tuning with Vtune it works just fine IF you understand what you are doing. The whole idea of Vtune is to properly calibrate the system to start with. Once you properly calibrate the system it does what it is told to do and that's been proven time and time again. Is it perfect, NO but nothing else is either! All the various ways to try and get there can and do only end up getting you close to a number due to the tolerances of the systems being used. So no matter how or what you use your "Guessing" no matter what you use. The truth of it is the engine doesn't seem to care if the mixture turns out to be 12.8 - 13.5 at WOT on a dyno. The amount the power output changes is within the tolerance of what the dyno's being used can repeatedly measure. Then when you look at it in terms of real life use of your bike, how often are you riding at WOT? Most people spend 95% of the time operating the engine from idle to 4000 RPM and 0 - 40% TPS and that range is just where the stock sensors and Vtune are the best there is.
So if you want bragging rights then by all means go and spend the time to get to a good dyno operator that really knows and understands how an engine operates and pay him to get that last 3- 5 HP and print you out a sheet of paper. Mastertune, Vtune and DataMaster are just tools to get the job done. Like any other tool if you do not learn how to use it, the outcome is not going to be what you want or as good as it could be.
We WERE talking open loop :nix:
V tune can sample open loop now :hyst:
Quote from: wolf_59 on June 02, 2012, 05:25:44 AM
Thank you Glens :up:
So the only way to know where to set the open loop areas of the AFR after Vtune is to sample the exhaust
Quote from: strokerjlk on June 02, 2012, 10:57:51 AM
We WERE talking open loop :nix:
V tune can sample open loop now :hyst:
Not the way I read his question. If you calibrate the entire VE table using Vtune and then return areas to close loop and open loop both areas are set. So I believe I answered his question :banghead:
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 02, 2012, 11:08:38 AM
Quote from: wolf_59 on June 02, 2012, 05:25:44 AM
Thank you Glens :up:
So the only way to know where to set the open loop areas of the AFR after Vtune is to sample the exhaust
Quote from: strokerjlk on June 02, 2012, 10:57:51 AM
We WERE talking open loop :nix:
V tune can sample open loop now :hyst:
Not the way I read his question. If you calibrate the entire VE table using Vtune and then return areas to close loop and open loop both areas are set. So I believe I answered his question :banghead:
Yes Sir, you did
once you VTune 30-80 MAP and 750-5500 RPM and return the AFR section of the map to original then your open loop AFR will be in a safe range for whatever the fuel stoich since the open loop areas are in that 13.5 - 12.8 range
Thanks
Quote from: Scotty on June 01, 2012, 02:48:33 PM
That is basically what v-tune is trying to do with the stock sensors as well but at 14.7 less the bias setting or whatever the Lambda setting is.
Reply #1 kind of brought up CL. Then take a hard look at reply #2. Reply #19 is still unanswered. :nix: It's hard to have a decent post on this forum without people using it for their own ax, they feel needs to be ground.
Quote from: strokerjlk on June 02, 2012, 05:27:44 AM
actuall DTT wego measures down to 10.0 with broadbands.
with this system you dont have to cal the ve's to one specific AFR (13.2 or 13.5....0r 14.6-14.7 like vtune) across the table and dial the ve's into that specific AFR. then change the AFR table and hope you were now at whatever you told it...say 13.8 -14.7 cruise.
with the DTT wego you set your AFR to what you want 14.0-14.2 cruise 12.5-13.6 WOT 13.8 idle ..etc etc etc.
this way you tune to your desired AFR. so the ve's are calibrated to the specific AFR command in the AFR table. that way you dont have change the AFR table to your desired say 14.2 from say 13.2 ...it was calibrated at.
the farther away from actual you change the desired the more room for error.
tune it to the AFR you want,so you dont have to wonder if the changing the AFR table did what you wanted.
This is probably why the correct terminology and nomenclature is important on a international forum.
With OL tuning. This is what I mean. Mapping VE's is setting everything to a constant targeted AFR. With roll on's and steady state testing. Taking things out of play like the accel and decel tables. The most important thing here is to map how much air flow is through the engine. Then we can set the AFR table to what we desire and fine tune the VE's if need be.
Quote from: mayor on June 02, 2012, 04:16:40 AM
Quote from: Hilly13 on June 01, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
Couple of threads have perked a thought or two, regarding the TTS AFR table and let's just say open loop to keep it simple, if you have a number, say 13.2 for example, there is no guarantee that's the actual AFR is there?
Assuming that's correct then if you establish VIA other means that the 13.2 asked for in the table is actually say 13.8 just for the sake of a number, would that .6 AFR difference be the same for the other asked for ratio's in the same table and Cal? IE 13.4 asked for is actually 14?
I'm not sure anyone actually answered your direct question, the answer is no. You can not assume that if one areas is off by a fixed value that all areas would be off by that same fixed value. There are just too many variables at play. If you are asking this in regards to how to relate open loop values, based on limited sample info (like tested wide open on one cylinder)...the answer is a definite no- there are two many variables at play.
Thanks Mayor, got it.
Quote from: hrdtail78 on June 02, 2012, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: strokerjlk on June 02, 2012, 05:27:44 AM
actuall DTT wego measures down to 10.0 with broadbands.
with this system you dont have to cal the ve's to one specific AFR (13.2 or 13.5....0r 14.6-14.7 like vtune) across the table and dial the ve's into that specific AFR. then change the AFR table and hope you were now at whatever you told it...say 13.8 -14.7 cruise.
with the DTT wego you set your AFR to what you want 14.0-14.2 cruise 12.5-13.6 WOT 13.8 idle ..etc etc etc.
this way you tune to your desired AFR. so the ve's are calibrated to the specific AFR command in the AFR table. that way you dont have change the AFR table to your desired say 14.2 from say 13.2 ...it was calibrated at.
the farther away from actual you change the desired the more room for error.
tune it to the AFR you want,so you dont have to wonder if the changing the AFR table did what you wanted.
This is probably why the correct terminology and nomenclature is important on a international forum.
With OL tuning. This is what I mean. Mapping VE's is setting everything to a constant targeted AFR. With roll on's and steady state testing. Taking things out of play like the accel and decel tables. The most important thing here is to map how much air flow is through the engine. Then we can set the AFR table to what we desire and fine tune the VE's if need be.
that is ridiculous!
sure it can be done that way. but why dial the ve's into a actual AFR that isnt the desired.
when the ve's are calibrated to the desired AFR your done.
you asked for 14.2 AFR and you calibrated the ve table to 14.2.
If you calibrated it to a constant of 13.2 actual ,now you are going to change your actual 13.2 AFR table constant ,to 14.2,so you moved it 1.0 AFR .
tuning VE'S to a constant 13.2 13.5 actual AFR and then taking the AFR table to desired AFR ,is what you do if all you have is an outside source such as dynojet AFR stack. nothing wrong with doing it that way if you want to go through all the extra steps. and if you only have a single AFR stack then you have to do it twice for the other cly.
when sampling with T/S wego you can dial the ve's into whatever the ECM is calling for,at all kpa.
so your desired is your actual
Quoteonce you VTune 30-80 MAP and 750-5500 RPM and return the AFR section of the map to original then your open loop AFR will be in a safe range for whatever the fuel stoich since the open loop areas are in that 13.5 - 12.8 range
that is true you will be safe in those areas that fall in 30-80 kpa if the ve's were correct to begin with...when you return that portion of the map to open loop. but you dont know unless you sample.
80-100 kpa is another story.
QuoteCouple of threads have perked a thought or two, regarding the TTS AFR table and let's just say open loop to keep it simple, if you have a number, say 13.2 for example, there is no guarantee that's the actual AFR is there?
no
Assuming that's correct then if you establish VIA other means that the 13.2 asked for in the table is actually say 13.8 just for the sake of a number, would that .6 AFR difference be the same for the other asked for ratio's in the same table and Cal? IE 13.4 asked for is actually 14?
No again
Doing it the way I describe makes for smoother VE's. Taking the extra time doesn't bother me. Reading with my single stack dyno or reading both front and back together with something else. Doesn't matter. You just need to try it. I know I wont convince you.
try it ????
you think I haven't :hyst:
I still don't understand why the following is correct......
One thing to remember is if you alter the Bias Table to a different target AFR that offset will carry over to the open loop, ie... if you set the Bias Table at 750 your going to get a target AFR of 14.2:1 but the Fuel Table thinks it's at 14.6:1, this is an offset of .4 and this will carry to the open loop...lets say you want an AFR of 13.0:1 at 80 kPa....you will have to set the Fuel Table value at at 13.4:1 there.
Yet when I wrote it as targeted AFR - bias = AFR I was told it was wrong.
Seriously that is what the above text is saying...............so I need an answer is the above text in bold wrong....YES or NO
Quote from: strokerjlk on June 04, 2012, 12:08:18 AM
try it ????
you think I haven't :hyst:
If you have done it and have done the back to back test? How in the world would I know. I can only go on what someone types, and thier findings.
Quote from: Scotty on June 04, 2012, 12:45:20 AM
I still don't understand why the following is correct......
One thing to remember is if you alter the Bias Table to a different target AFR that offset will carry over to the open loop, ie... if you set the Bias Table at 750 your going to get a target AFR of 14.2:1 but the Fuel Table thinks it's at 14.6:1, this is an offset of .4 and this will carry to the open loop...lets say you want an AFR of 13.0:1 at 80 kPa....you will have to set the Fuel Table value at at 13.4:1 there.
Yet when I wrote it as targeted AFR - bias = AFR I was told it was wrong.
Seriously that is what the above text is saying...............so I need an answer is the above text in bold wrong....YES or NO
The answer to the question can be both Yes and NO based upon the conditions with what your doing.
If your using stock ECM and Vtune to do the adjusting to the VE's in closed loop then the above statements are 100% true with the key words that if you alter the
Closed
Loop
Bias table (CLB) if will effect the open loop areas.
Now if you are NOT using the ECM and Vtune it may or maynot be true.
So in post 2 I clearly wrote v-tune and you said it was wrong but now it is right...............
I am glad it's right otherwise myself and your no.1 beta tester would both be wrong.
Quote from: Scotty on June 01, 2012, 02:48:33 PM
If you ask for 13.2 and with a good sensor detect that it is actually 13.8 then you need to adjust the VE's to get the requested & actual to be the same.........
That is basically what v-tune is trying to do with the stock sensors as well but at 14.7 less the bias setting or whatever the Lambda setting is.
Just because one cell or area is .6 out does not mean that all the cells are .6 out either.
The only way to truly know is with a good sensor and an operator that knows how to use it properly...............
Set the AFR across the map to 13.2 and dial in all the VE's till the requested = actual and then set the AFR to what you want for normal riding.
Quote from: Scotty on June 04, 2012, 12:45:20 AM
I still don't understand why the following is correct......
One thing to remember is if you alter the Bias Table to a different target AFR that offset will carry over to the open loop, ie... if you set the Bias Table at 750 your going to get a target AFR of 14.2:1 but the Fuel Table thinks it's at 14.6:1, this is an offset of .4 and this will carry to the open loop...lets say you want an AFR of 13.0:1 at 80 kPa....you will have to set the Fuel Table value at at 13.4:1 there.
Yet when I wrote it as targeted AFR - bias = AFR I was told it was wrong.
Seriously that is what the above text is saying...............so I need an answer is the above text in bold wrong....YES or NO
2 post two different things. Why you are trying so hard to twist things I really do not know. What you stated was and is wrong and will be wrong tomorrow too. The CLB is the target voltage the ECM is using to adjust, in Closed Loop. It is NOT subtracted from 14.7! 14.7 has NOTHING to do with the Closed Loop Bias. As I told you back a few post I'm not going to argue with you about it but I do not want others to think what your saying is correct.
I'm not twisting anything...........What I said in post 2 IS what your no.1 beta tester said except he said 14.6 and I said 14.7
I said 14.7 because 14.6 it is just the switch that turns on closed loop and depending on what the mv are set at is what the system is looking for.
What he said and what I said are the same thing but i'm wrong and he is right!
If the system is set for closed loop and the mv are 450 that is 14.7 and if you set the mv to 760 it looks for 14.4
14.7 - bias = AFR (bias = what you set the mv's at which is obviosuly going to more than 450mv as no one wants to run lean)
Sorry I have shown these messages to other people and they agree and I am getting that across to you.
Although your twisting it to make me look stupid it is fact correct OR your no.1 beta tester knows nothing either.
:gob: Actually 450mv is 14.68, so you are both wrong. :hyst:
Ron
Scotty
I do not have a number one Beta tester, so whoever your talking about they are just as wrong as you are. The only thing wrong here is you do not want to listen and learn. Call it what you like but that's the long and short of it.
14.7 or 14.6 or 14.5 or whatever number you want to toss in there has nothing to do with it! Is that simple enough for you to grasp? Since an O2 sensor doesn't measure mixture it could care less what it is, all it cares about is OXYGEN and from the level it measures, it generates a voltage. Since the ECM only know what the O2 sensor measures (voltage) how could it possible SUBTRACT it from 14.7?
The value stored in the Closed Loop Bias table is the voltage the ECM targets and the ECM compares this against the O2 voltage so it can make corrections.
You do have a no.1 beta tester and he lives in Florida and you get tech phone calls put through to him when you are away.
I am not going to say his name but I am sure most will know who I am talking about and he wrote the text.
So now everything I have learned from reading his posts is wrong............. :banghead:
Seems to me I might as well go back to a carb because you get 50 different opinions on what is right and what is wrong.
My bike runs great but now I am not so sure anymore because I think I tuned it wrong. :scratch:
Glad to do so.
Quote from: Scotty on June 04, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
You do have a no.1 beta tester and he lives in Florida and you get tech phone calls put through to him when you are away.
I am not going to say his name but I am sure most will know who I am talking about and he wrote the text.
So now everything I have learned from reading his posts is wrong............. :banghead:
Seems to me I might as well go back to a carb because you get 50 different opinions on what is right and what is wrong.
My bike runs great but now I am not so sure anymore because I think I tuned it wrong. :scratch:
The only thing wrong here is you do not want to listen and learn, it's really just that simple. You cannot pull parts of one conversation and mix them with another conversation and hope it makes sense; it just doesn't work that way no matter how hard you try. As for a number one beta tester and us referring calls to someone who can help them that happens all the time. It's called customer service and we refer calls to several people and not all of them were/are involved in beta testing.
I am no guru on the matter but to me it sounds like you are both talking about exactly the same thing just one is talking technical and the other in lamens.
It is all good.
Was there something about ethanol changing the Stoich?
Since we have 10% ethanol here how would that change what the narrow bands see?
This might be off subject, but why is there a CLB setting for 100 KPA? If you cannot run closed loop there why is it there? And does that setting have a big effect on actual fuel values?
The changing fuel has everything to do with the problem. Years ago when the fuel was the same everywhere it was much simpler. Let's understand that ANY O2 sensor does not care about AFR at all. It's only job in life is to measure the O2 level in the exhaust and compare it to the O2 level outside the exhaust. From those two readings it generates a voltage, that's it. From the O2 level lots of things can be inferred, IF, and its a big IF you know all the other information. When you do not have all the other information you can and will make wrong assumptions!
Fuel today is anything but the same and since we do not know what fuel is being run at any one moment in time Air Fuel Ratio is a problem and that is just why the rest of the engine companies switch to terms of Lambda years ago. HD is just now coming around to it and most of the aftermarket still doesn't understand it. In order for a meter to read in AFR it has to ASSUME some number for the fuel to do the conversion from O2 level to AFR. IF you do not know the assumed value in the meter and the real value of the fuel being used, the readings are incorrect. How far off they are depends on the assumed value versus the real value of the fuel. So if you purchase an AFR meter, what is it calibrated too has to be a big question because if it's not the fuel you run all the displayed values are wrong.
With Lambda measurements it just comes direct from the O2 sensor. A lambda of 1 is the perfect burn ratio for any fuel and if the value is less than 1 its richer, greater than 1 its leaner. Very straight forward and the fuel variations now are gone. From Lambda we can convert to AFR values as long as we know the Stoichometric value for the fuel you are using. As with all systems there are limits to how far it can measure but as long as you stay in it range it works perfect. If you need more range then get a different system that is designed to properly run in the range you are looking for.
Quote from: Steve Cole on June 05, 2012, 08:29:31 AM
The changing fuel has everything to do with the problem. Years ago when the fuel was the same everywhere it was much simpler. Let's understand that ANY O2 sensor does not care about AFR at all. It's only job in life is to measure the O2 level in the exhaust and compare it to the O2 level outside the exhaust. From those two readings it generates a voltage, that's it. From the O2 level lots of things can be inferred, IF, and its a big IF you know all the other information. When you do not have all the other information you can and will make wrong assumptions!
Fuel today is anything but the same and since we do not know what fuel is being run at any one moment in time Air Fuel Ratio is a problem and that is just why the rest of the engine companies switch to terms of Lambda years ago. HD is just now coming around to it and most of the aftermarket still doesn't understand it. In order for a meter to read in AFR it has to ASSUME some number for the fuel to do the conversion from O2 level to AFR. IF you do not know the assumed value in the meter and the real value of the fuel being used, the readings are incorrect. How far off they are depends on the assumed value versus the real value of the fuel. So if you purchase an AFR meter, what is it calibrated too has to be a big question because if it's not the fuel you run all the displayed values are wrong.
With Lambda measurements it just comes direct from the O2 sensor. A lambda of 1 is the perfect burn ratio for any fuel and if the value is less than 1 its richer, greater than 1 its leaner. Very straight forward and the fuel variations now are gone. From Lambda we can convert to AFR values as long as we know the Stoichometric value for the fuel you are using. As with all systems there are limits to how far it can measure but as long as you stay in it range it works perfect. If you need more range then get a different system that is designed to properly run in the range you are looking for.
Thanks Steve
This is the answers to the questions that I was looking for and to what I was thinking just didn't know how to word it properly
Quote from: remington007 on June 05, 2012, 07:23:12 AM
This might be off subject, but why is there a CLB setting for 100 KPA? If you cannot run closed loop there why is it there? And does that setting have a big effect on actual fuel values?
Hell, my clbs only go to 80kpa, but the afr map can be set to 14.6 at 90kpa with no clb. :scratch: 100kpa is strickly open loop only.
Ron
Quote from: rbabos on June 05, 2012, 11:52:45 AM
Quote from: remington007 on June 05, 2012, 07:23:12 AM
This might be off subject, but why is there a CLB setting for 100 KPA? If you cannot run closed loop there why is it there? And does that setting have a big effect on actual fuel values?
Hell, my clbs only go to 80kpa, but the afr map can be set to 14.6 at 90kpa with no clb. :scratch: 100kpa is strickly open loop only.
Ron
This is the Harley world were working in so this applies here but may not elsewhere. The last value you see is used any time you exceed it so if you set a CLB at say 80 kPa it will use that (if told too) all the way to the end of the range of the sensor. There are many other things that setup the range something is allowed to work in that is not included in any tuner out today and if you do not know where and what they are set for its hard to say where the limits might be based off of looking at one table. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's being used by the ECM at all.
Quote from: rbabos on June 04, 2012, 02:58:42 PM
:gob: Actually 450mv is 14.68, so you are both wrong. :hyst:
Ron
and there you have your answer to tuning with your new T/S .
if you want to develop a closed loop map :dgust: set the CLB to 450 mv and dial the ve's in.
you only set the closed loop portion you want to run. the rest of the map you dial the open loop in to the AFR you want to run there.
if you want to dial your open loop tune in with T/S, dial the map in to your current AFR table.