HarleyTechTalk

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.   

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
V tune can sample open loop now

Quote from: wolf_59 on June 02, 2012, 05:25:44 AM
Thank you Glens 
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
V tune can sample open loop now

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 

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 
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
V tune can sample open loop now

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 

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.    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

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

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.

       Actually 450mv is 14.68, so you are both wrong.



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.............

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. 

  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.............

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. 

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?