HarleyTechTalk

Damn, go for a two day ride and a lot of good discussion on WBO2's... 

Thank you Hardtail for your reply and providing the data that got the discussion going 

Quote from: upnorthbiker on October 08, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
... plus I was expecting the wide bands to be more forgiving to the location than the narrow bands.

'cause you heard that on the Internet?   Here's an alternate take:  they both (nb, bb) work exactly the same way except that one has its own closed loop controller and can pump O2 ions in and out of its reference chamber only.  They both have the same requirements in terms of getting sample into the sample chamber.

Glen, do you have a log to demonstrate that happening or did you hear that in the internet?

If you borrow a Power Vision, I bet we will be able to determine what is going on with the motor.  Simply post up about a hour log.

Andy

How is a log going to show how the sensor works?   We already have people thinking that because you use TT with the same controller that it is faster.  I know it has been posted on the net so it has to be true. 

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2015, 06:05:47 AM
How is a log going to show how the sensor works?   We already have people thinking that because you use TT with the same controller that it is faster.  I know it has been posted on the net so it has to be true.

The ECU is not faster, just better at following the hints/leads from the O2 sensors.

Quote from: glens on October 11, 2015, 11:51:36 PM

Quote from: upnorthbiker on October 08, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
... plus I was expe'causecting the wide bands to be more forgiving to the location than the narrow bands.

you heard that on the Internet?
dont we get 99% of our information from the internet ? why else are we on this forum ?   
Here's an alternate take:  they both (nb, bb) work exactly the same way except that one has its own closed loop controller and can pump O2 ions in and out of its reference chamber only.
They both do the same job, but theres a few differences between them, the WB is much larger so it protrudes much further into the flow, theres more, and larger sample holes to get more gas to sample, its a no brainer that they sample more efficient and faster than the NB. Anyone who has AT100 or TT autotune will tell you how fast they can fill the cells compared to the NB.
They do not have pumps and still rely on good location in the flow. They are in the same location as the original NB but Ive just pointed out why they must be getting better samples that the NB.
They both have the same requirements in terms of getting sample into the sample chamber.
Ive also heard on the internet that they should be 6 inches from the head port, one is approx. 7 inches and the other is approx.  5 1/4 inches.
They are not near the collection box or cat, and no where near the exhaust exit. I dont think that its possible to get a perfect position on a production exhaust and these are probably the best compromise I will get without modifying heat shields ect.

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 12, 2015, 06:11:56 AM

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2015, 06:05:47 AM
How is a log going to show how the sensor works?   We already have people thinking that because you use TT with the same controller that it is faster.  I know it has been posted on the net so it has to be true.

The ECU is not faster, just better at following the hints/leads from the O2 sensors.

Hints, leads?  You mean voltage input.  It takes a voltage input and does math based on the input.  The ECU isn't making decisions.  If other things are lined up.  It will use the input.  If it is not.  It ignores it.  When the ECU programed to pole the sensor.  It doesn't care what the sensor is doing.  It doesn't care if it is a fresh signal from the controller or a repeated signal from the controller.  It takes the input.

What Glens describes is the exact reason why a NB will always be faster then the 4.2's.  It doesn't have to do as much to get a signal.  It really doesn't matter how people want this to happen or how they spin it to sell you the equipment.  It is what it is. 

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2015, 07:18:07 AM
What Glens describes is the exact reason why a NB will always be faster then the 4.2's.

Okay you're right one is faster than the other... BUT why would the ECM F'ng care since it reads the tables?  O2's are just providing data for short/long term learning.  Kind of like ION sensing does not prevent spark knock within the current event...

Quote from: glens on October 11, 2015, 11:51:36 PM

Quote from: upnorthbiker on October 08, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
... plus I was expecting the wide bands to be more forgiving to the location than the narrow bands.

'cause you heard that on the Internet?   Here's an alternate take:  they both (nb, bb) work exactly the same way except that one has its own closed loop controller and can pump O2 ions in and out of its reference chamber only.  They both have the same requirements in terms of getting sample into the sample chamber.

Sorry but this statement is wrong on so many levels that it's a joke.  Repeating it over and over and over does not make it valid.

Narrow bands are great when the ECU is seeking 14.7 AFR   Everywhere else is sketchy at best.

Quote from: q1svt on October 12, 2015, 07:29:52 AM

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2015, 07:18:07 AM
What Glens describes is the exact reason why a NB will always be faster then the 4.2's.

Okay you're right one is faster than the other... BUT why would the ECM F'ng care since it reads the tables?  O2's are just providing data for short/long term learning.  Kind of like ION sensing does not prevent spark knock within the current event...

I am stating that the ECM doesn't care.  It is a voltage input.  Doesn't matter from what.  You could set up an external box that has a variable voltage out put and the ECM wouldn't know or care.  Just the same as putting bad sampling into the ECM.  Data can look all correct but with out verifying the data.  14.3 cruise might really be 14.8 or 13.2.  Who is to really say.  Look at the topic of tune drift.  It is all based on sensor inputs.  What does matter is how the code is written.  Once I get a TT tuned bike in here I can upload the ECM's code and find out what is really going on with it.  Until then.  It is just assumptions. 

Quote from: q1svt on October 12, 2015, 07:29:52 AM

'cause you heard that on the Internet?   Here's an alternate take:  they both (nb, bb) work exactly the same way except that one has its own closed loop controller and can pump O2 ions in and out of its reference chamber only.  They both have the same requirements in terms of getting sample into the sample chamber.

Sorry but this statement is wrong on so many levels that it's a joke.  Repeating it over and over and over does not make it valid.
[/quote]

One thing to say something is wrong.  Something else to explain how it works with back up proof to prove that it is wrong.  I'd bet Glens can back his statement with sensor manufacture data.  But the burden is yours since you are calling him on it.  The same as you calling me or Bob out on data to back up our statements on sensor voltage and lower KPA.

Quote from: whittlebeast on October 12, 2015, 08:32:24 AM
Narrow bands are great when the ECU is seeking 14.7 AFR   Everywhere else is sketchy at best.

They can and do go a bit richer than that everyday on thousands of bikes with no problems.

Now that the thread has been reopen and the admins have asked all to be better in our communication, I thought I would try to respond to the points I was called out on in the enclosed posts...

To me there seems to be a lot of information on Wide Bands/ Broad Bands as part of this Target Tune product discussion.
I'm attaching a link to an O2 HTT sensor discussion that took place in 2011.  It's a great discussion before there were many HD tuner option that are available today, and far less biases. 
jm2c
http://harleytechtalk.com/htt/index.php/topic,44573.0/all.html

Quote from: q1svt on October 12, 2015, 07:29:52 AM

Quote from: hrdtail78 on October 12, 2015, 07:18:07 AM
What Glens describes is the exact reason why a NB will always be faster then the 4.2's.

Okay you're right one is faster than the other... BUT why would the ECM F'ng care since it reads the tables?  O2's are just providing data for short/long term learning.  Kind of like ION sensing does not prevent spark knock within the current event...

"One main issue with trying to talk about response time is that people want to believe what they get out of the ECM data. While that data is correct at the time the sample was taken you just do not know when that was and how much was missed in between the two samples that you get to see in the data side by side. This is an ECM limit and has nothing to do with the O2 sensor.

The truth is that the response time of a Narrow Band sensor is quick enough so it can be read every engine firing cycle up to about 6000 RPM. Broad Band sensors have a slower response time than Narrow Bands and True Wide Band sensors."


"Typically no one runs closed loop at any RPM that high but all that is going to happen is the sensor response time becomes close to the same rate or slightly slower than at which your trying to read it. At that point you will be seeing more of an average reading due to the slower response time. Not the end of the world but your accuracy starts to drift as you asking for things faster than the sensor can respond to changes. "

Quote from: q1svt on October 12, 2015, 07:29:52 AM

Quote from: glens on October 11, 2015, 11:51:36 PM

Quote from: upnorthbiker on October 08, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
... plus I was expecting the wide bands to be more forgiving to the location than the narrow bands.

'cause you heard that on the Internet?   Here's an alternate take:  they both (nb, bb) work exactly the same way except that one has its own closed loop controller and can pump O2 ions in and out of its reference chamber only.  They both have the same requirements in terms of getting sample into the sample chamber.

Sorry but this statement is wrong on so many levels that it's a joke.  Repeating it over and over and over does not make it valid.

"It's a fine point, xxx, but there is a very real distinction between the types of O2 sensors; which sensors are the topic of this thread; and we need to refer to the different types with distinct, concise terms."


"I like the mental image of the sensor essentially being a little battery.  When it's up to temperature and the oxygen differential across (inside/outside) the element is sufficiently within range, the sensor will make DC voltage, varying in proportion to the oxygen differential.

One thing that maybe belongs here in this thread is a general overview of the broadband sensor systems.  The sensing elements themselves are the same as our stock narrowbands, so they have the same voltage output characteristics.  Their innate switching speed will be generally the same (switching speed is the rate at which they are capable of changing output voltage in response to changing O2 differentials).  The thing about these sensor systems that few folk seem to appreciate is that the sensors have an additional "mechanism" which allows air to be "pumped" into/out_of the back (outside the "pipe") of the sensing element, altering the O2 differential, and this aspect is manipulated by their own closed-loop controller which is what puts out the 0-5V signal.  We never see the 0-1V sensing element signal which that controller uses internally.

In exactly the same way as our ECM varies the injector duty cycles to cause the O2 sensor to "switch" back and forth across the set output voltage, the broadband controller varies the amount of O2 being "pumped" in/out the backside of the element, causing the element itself to "switch" back and forth across a set output voltage.  The controller derives its own output voltage (0-5V) based on what it needed to do with the "outside/backside air pump" to get the sensing element itself to act like it was, on average, immersed in the result of a stoichiometric fuel-burn exhaust stream with equal pressure both sides of the element.

That all takes time, and if it's chasing a moving target, like the output of our ECM-controlled injectors provide, it's likely-as-not going to take even more time.

But time itself isn't the deal-killer.  What is is the unknown pressure differential between the two sides of the sensing element.  If there's a differential pressure of anything other than zero, the controller cannot know that.  But it would care, because it's measuring the current it uses in the "pump" to cause the sensing element to switch, and this is its main criteria for putting out a signal (0-5v).  If there's an excess of oxygen (excess from what would be present in the result of a stoich burn) inside the pipe, the controller has to cause excess oxygen to be pumped into the backside of the element in order to reach the proper equilibrium.  If there's an oxygen deficiency (from what would be present in the result of a stoich burn) inside the pipe, the controller has to cause excess oxygen to be pumped out of the backside of the element in order to reach the proper equilibrium.

What happens when the pressures are different on the two sides of the element?  The controller is going to have to pump oxygen one way or the other to make up for that, but it won't know it's doing so for that reason.  It'll think the exhaust is the result of either a richer or leaner burn instead.  Now if there were pressure transducers both inside and outside the pipe, right at the sensor, the controller could poll them and take the readings into consideration when it's developing its output signal (0-5V), and that output signal would be much more pertinent to the task at hand.

Obviously, the temperature of the sensing element would be valuable information for the controller, as well.  But between the two, pressure and temperature, the pressure is going to be the larger error-causing factor when its differential value is only assumed by the controller.

And don't forget that the controller is going to need at least a couple of "switches" resulting from its reference-oxygen pumping action before it can draw any conclusions, and this takes time.  The time factor could be minimized if the sensor's closed-loop controller had intimate communication with the engine's injector controller and knew what was going on in that respect at every instance.  Without that information (and, of course, a bigger, faster "brain"!) you could wind up with a situation anywhere between the two systems being in perfect sync or perfectly out of sync.  And this will prove, in the long run, to be the underlying reason the broadband sensor systems are "slower" than the stock sensors.  It's not that either sensing element is faster than the other (when new, and within design limitations, naturally),  its that the one is standalone and the other is part of a complete closed-loop system of its own.

So what would happen if a dyno operator was using a broadband [system] along with a device to vacuum-pull a sample from the pipe to and across the sensor tip, but he did not include the sensor itself in the same amount of clean-air vacuum, leaving it instead exposed to "outside" air pressure?  Would his readings have a "built in" skew one way or the other?"

There are a number of Wide Band posts regarding Bad Sampling Results...

Without valid data, how can the following be eliminated as the cause?

"So what would happen if a dyno operator was using a broadband [system] along with a device to vacuum-pull a sample from the pipe to and across the sensor tip, but he did not include the sensor itself in the same amount of clean-air vacuum, leaving it instead exposed to "outside" air pressure?  Would his readings have a "built in" skew one way or the other?"

There is just so much more that needs to go into the discussion but each time it's tried, it ends up in left field. The LSU4.2 Bosch Broad Band sensor is what most everyone is using so one needs to limit the discussion to the sensor and what it can and cannot do. It doesn't matter what the system can do as it can ONLY be as good as the sensor itself first! You have to look and use what th emanufacture of the sensor tells you to do IF you expect the results! After that you have to mix in all the other issues that come along with using it but you first have to understand what the sensor all by itself need to operate correctly to get the results that people want to believe.
[attach=0]

Quote from: q1svt on October 16, 2015, 06:07:22 AM
There are a number of Wide Band posts regarding Bad Sampling Results...

Without valid data, how can the following be eliminated as the cause?

"So what would happen if a dyno operator was using a broadband [system] along with a device to vacuum-pull a sample from the pipe to and across the sensor tip, but he did not include the sensor itself in the same amount of clean-air vacuum, leaving it instead exposed to "outside" air pressure?  Would his readings have a "built in" skew one way or the other?"

IMO, some (if not all) of the accuracy drift that is documented by Bosch regarding internal pipe exhaust pressure is avoided by using a vacuum source to draw the sample through a tube across externally mounted 02 sensors. Lag becomes a factor, as well as tube placement.
If pipe mounted sensor blocks (Herko blocks or the ones from Bay Area Performance cycles) are used, they have a small amount of the exhaust volume coming out at a 90° angle, moving across the sensor. There has to be some pressure increasing with RPM, as I see some folks using vacuum at low RPM, but not at WOT.  Comparative transducers would be needed to see the delta between 02 sensor in pipe pressure versus 02 sensor in an aluminum block mounted on the pipe pressure.  Once we know what the pressure is, we can consult the Bosch specs to see if we need to adjust our corrections to the VE tables.
WB internally mounted sensors may get better "in the stream" readings, but the pressure bias should be considered when making corrections, if the pressure/temp is known. 

Or we could ignore the pressure induced accuracy drift, try to give the bike what it wants, and not get lost in the minutiae.

While these attachments are NOT everything one needs to know, it is what is available to the public. The full data sheet isn't public at this time but it's out there if you look hard enough for it.

2nd one can be found below

http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/en/de/produkte/catalog_products_1_346230.php

I'm not sure why these broad band / narrow band sensor wars even exist.  In designing a closed loop system, the designer need to know what the response time of the sensor is plus all devices in the system and set closed loop control to some value slower/less than the response of the devices.. Why is "how the sensor works" all that important other than to figure out what the step response and group delay of the device will be? 

It's cool to know how the broadband device works as it's own closed loop system and it has it's own control loop to determine output but what synchronizing the 2 control loops only get you 1/2 better the switch rate of the broadband device if it's output was precise and the number of switches required consistent.. My bet is that the sensor output is filtered and the number of switches need to come out with the "precise" output depends on how fast the sample is changing.. That means you are back to the same overall response time anyway..   Instead of having one broad band sensor loop inside the sensor, it would be cool to add add say 3 more to 7 more devices inside the sensor and figure out a way to switch between senors sample between sensors and allow them to take the time to convert the sample.. This would speed the response time up but still give the same group response (delay from when the afr is sampled and output delivered) .

BTW looking at the picture Steve gave I don't seen an "switching"  If looks like a comparison direct comparison. The only possible switching might the the pumping? 

Add: Don't see any switching as mentioned for there isn't nothing to synchronize.. 

Great points guys...  P.S thanks for posting

To add to tube (sniffer) placement.  Motec page talks about placement location of WBO2's, and talks about slip joints, must be for their racer crowd, that it will allow air into the pipe.

If using the sniffer and your not inserting in well past the head pipe/muffler slip joint, might be getting incorrect different readings, than the onboard closed loop readings.

The errors that occur using the current aftermarket systems are due to NOT following the specifications required by Bosch, its just that simple. As Robin has posted if you donot care about accuracy and repeat-ability then just use it to help determine what the engine likes. While that will work fine for Dyno work, it does not and will not work, for any auto tune aftermarket system and there in lies the problems! As you ride a bike into various operating conditions the sensor gives a current flow out for what it see's. That current then needs to be conditioned to CORRECT it for a proper reading then sent to the ECM. This is where all the current aftermarket systems SKIP the necessary corrections that Bosch requires for the sensor to be accurate. The ECM doesn't know or care, as all it see's is the signal it is sent and it doesn't know or care if it's right or wrong, it just follows along.

MAX

A BroadBand sensor does not switch, it works off of current flow and the supporting electronics need to condition it and correct for the other variables as spelled out by Bosch. Most who have setup and tested the BroadBand sensor have found it's response time to be ~ 150 Ms when new and slows as it ages. It is not uncommon to see ~250 Ms after a few hours of use and then it settles there for along time.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 16, 2015, 09:04:17 AM

MAX

A BroadBand sensor does not switch, it works off of current flow and the supporting electronics need to condition it and correct for the other variables as spelled out by Bosch. Most who have setup and tested the BroadBand sensor have found it's response time to be ~ 150 Ms when new and slows as it ages. It is not uncommon to see ~250 Ms after a few hours of use and then it settles there for along time.

Thanks Steve..

So if we know that the sensor is only capable or response times in the ~250 Ms range how often do you guys think it can give an accurate reading of what the engine is doing?

Here is a little math to get you started thinking

1000 RPM = 8.33 cylinder firing events per second

1/8.33= 0.120 or 120 Ms per cylinder firing event

6000 RPM = 50 cylinder firing events per second

1/50 = 0.02 or 20 Ms per cylinder firing event

So if the sensor is only capable of ~ 250 Ms response times and the engine is at idle of 1000 RPM you have two cylinder firings in the amount of time it takes the sensor to read! At 6000 RPM you get 12.5 cylinder firing events! So it is pretty simple to show that you cannot read the sensor and get accurate readings. The best you can do is get some sort of average reading of what is in the pipe. When your out riding and the engine speed is going up and down the RPM range then what happens?

The stock small switching O2 sensors have a  response time of ~ 12 Ms, so you all can do the math and see how much better they are to getting what each cylinder firing is really doing. Now one needs to remember with the current aftermarket external Broad Band systems you have no way to sync the O2 reads to the engine, where as the stock O2's are. There are also other delays that have to be added on top of the sensor response itself for the rest of the system too.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 16, 2015, 05:30:12 PM
So if we know that the sensor is only capable or response times in the ~250 Ms range how often do you guys think it can give an accurate reading of what the engine is doing?
...

So if the sensor is only capable of ~ 250 Ms response times and the engine is at idle of 1000 RPM you have two cylinder firings in the amount of time it takes the sensor to read! At 6000 RPM you get 12.5 cylinder firing events! So it is pretty simple to show that you cannot read the sensor and get accurate readings. The best you can do is get some sort of average reading of what is in the pipe. When your out riding and the engine speed is going up and down the RPM range then what happens?

Steve, I'm a little confused regarding your last post.

The below quote is what I inserted into my post #11, and I took it direct out of your post from the 2011 O2 thread. Has your position changed? Are you only referring to data logging? 

"When your out riding and the engine speed is going up and down the RPM range then what happens?", the very same result is happening while it's on a Dyno for a very limited amount of time, & the data logging done by the dyno equipment is affected to since it too uses a 4.2 Bosch sensor...

Quote
"One main issue with trying to talk about response time is that people want to believe what they get out of the ECM data. While that data is correct at the time the sample was taken you just do not know when that was and how much was missed in between the two samples that you get to see in the data side by side. This is an ECM limit and has nothing to do with the O2 sensor.

The truth is that the response time of a Narrow Band sensor is quick enough so it can be read every engine firing cycle up to about 6000 RPM. Broad Band sensors have a slower response time than Narrow Bands and True Wide Band sensors."


"Typically no one runs closed loop at any RPM that high but all that is going to happen is the sensor response time becomes close to the same rate or slightly slower than at which your trying to read it. At that point you will be seeing more of an average reading due to the slower response time. Not the end of the world but your accuracy starts to drift as you asking for things faster than the sensor can respond to changes. "

edited: Forgot to add that I'm not sure there are any motorcycle engines that will run anywhere near 6,000 rpm at 14.1-15.4 afr

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 16, 2015, 08:46:02 AM
While these attachments are NOT everything one needs to know, it is what is available to the public. The full data sheet isn't public at this time but it's out there if you look hard enough for it.

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 16, 2015, 08:49:52 AM
2nd one can be found below

Are you saying that this is the non-public data-sheet?

Quote from: Steve Cole on October 16, 2015, 05:30:12 PM
So if we know that the sensor is only capable or response times in the ~250 Ms range how often do you guys think it can give an accurate reading of what the engine is doing?

Here is a little math to get you started thinking

1000 RPM = 8.33 cylinder firing events per second

1/8.33= 0.120 or 120 Ms per cylinder firing event

6000 RPM = 50 cylinder firing events per second

1/50 = 0.02 or 20 Ms per cylinder firing event

So if the sensor is only capable of ~ 250 Ms response times and the engine is at idle of 1000 RPM you have two cylinder firings in the amount of time it takes the sensor to read! At 6000 RPM you get 12.5 cylinder firing events! So it is pretty simple to show that you cannot read the sensor and get accurate readings. The best you can do is get some sort of average reading of what is in the pipe. When your out riding and the engine speed is going up and down the RPM range then what happens?

The stock small switching O2 sensors have a  response time of ~ 12 Ms, so you all can do the math and see how much better they are to getting what each cylinder firing is really doing. Now one needs to remember with the current aftermarket external Broad Band systems you have no way to sync the O2 reads to the engine, where as the stock O2's are. There are also other delays that have to be added on top of the sensor response itself for the rest of the system too.

All this says is, you need to slow the control loop down to a number greater than 250 ms response time of using BB sensors..    I've already stated that..