ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > GSpot > Parallel Universe
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-14-2013, 02:39 PM   #196
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
Hi Mousitsas, You've asked a good question. The answer is a bit involved but I'll do my best not to overcomplicate a fairly complicated subject. Please look at this as a how the PC V works, not as a critique. Like most manufacturers, they don't have an incentive to clearly tell you all the trade-offs.

First, the simple answer. With or without Autotune, the BMS-K has a built-in Barometric Pressure sensor, a built in intake manifold Air Temperature sensor, a built in Battery Voltage sensor. You can disconnect the O2 sensor any time, and the BMS-K will run Open Loop, producing a fuel pulse based on RPM and TPS angle, and also compensate for Barometric Pressure, Air Temperature, Battery Voltage, and engine Oil Temperature during Warm-Up. These compensations are pretty accurate but not perfect. What the BMSK doesn't compensate for is Air Flow (dirty filter), air Humidity, Fuel Pressure or Fuel injector flow rate (slight clogging) or Ethanol Content of the fuel. That's the area that the BMS-K's powerful Closed Loop routines and Adaptation Values really shine. With Closed Loop running, it nails the correct fueling both in the Closed Loop areas ... and in all Open Loop areas ... using its Adaptation Values that it calculates during Closed Loop. (Of course what BMW considers correct is partly mandated by the EPA which is why we want to add fuel. !)

Autotune is a very different beast from the BMS-K's Closed Loop and Adaptation Values. And you can only have one of them at a time. If you connect the PC V with Autotune, you lose Closed Loop. Another factor to consider is, what does the BMS-K do when it can't run its Closed Loop program. The answer is it goes into a sort of Limp Home mode that is never seen on a Dyno run but that occurs while you ride. Here is how a well adapted R1150 would look, notice the AFR spread on the little insert chart, how tightly it holds to 13.8:1:



Here is the same bike with the O2 sensor disconnected. Notice how the Motronic compensates buy running high fuel and low fuel (rather than a straight line) and in the inset chart, how much the AFRs have been spread out.




So the PC V and Autotune get a stream like the one above and then add or subtract fuel to that up/down stream. Note though, under WOT like the Dyno run, the BMS-K is not running the Limp Home pattern and that's why Dyno tuners don't notice it.

Looking at the sample chart from Dynojet below, Autotune works by you filling in a table of AFR targets organized by Throttle Position and RPM (starting with the default table they provide). I've noticed their AFR targets are basic to say the least and not what you would want. (Something important to know is that the BMW designed targets also include a corresponding entry in the Spark Advance and Spark Dwell tables. Since you don't adjust Spark Timing with Autotune, you're pretty much guaranteed to be off the mark with Spark Advance--leading to the potential for pinging at worst or less than the best power.)

So you start with the table of AFR targets. Then there are two modes according to the write-up:
"The Auto Tune kit can be configured to run and correct at all times or by using the "map switch port" on the PCV. You can set it up so that you can switch back and forth between the tuning modes and the base map settings. You can also configure the Auto Tune kit to wait until the bike is at a certain operating temperature before beginning to make adjustments."
Autotune then fills in an adjustment factor when/if you ride your motorcycle under the TPS/RPM combination. You can see that to get a complete tune you have to run in every cell. The best way to use Autotune is "not running all the time" since these programs are know to be imperfect. You need to do some smoothing between adjacent cells quite often. But for the sake of your question, if you do run in correct-at-all-times mode. Then it will adjust over a few hundred miles depending on your riding style. That is much slower than the BMS-K's Adaptation Routines which have short term and long term trims which operate in realtime.

Going back to the issue of how to fill in the table below or whether to use their stock table, the basic AFR target table they ship looks to rich at low power settings and not rich enough at high power settings based on what I've seen.

I follow your logic, and understand your points, but with the setup I now have, if it is a bad combo, how do you explain the improvements I see.....
1...More power....and 2...Better economy....and 3....Much better flat afr.....and 4..... very smooth power delivery with any hint of rough hopping ( reason for the boosterplug...etc..) gone.
I am all for a one unit setup, and not have the boxes argue with each other... But it is hard to argue with success, as I am convinced after a couple of thousand miles, that it works. So I will await the results of the LC-1 install and trials on the 8GS, and see what it yields. You know more about this than I do, but again, I am having a hard time arguing with success.
__________________


Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 02:54 PM   #197
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrabaek View Post
I dont believe this to be the case. It was not done while pulling, but " driving around" on the dyno. Popping all over the place. I have all the faith in my tuner, and as he have done this for many years. We had the sniffer 4 feet in the pipe, but also verified this on the PC-5 readout. I do believe it did go that high.
I really didn't mean to disparage your tuner, more the method that gets those lean results. I understood it to be at the start of the pull so I'm glad you clarified that. I've looked at dozens of dyno charts that all show very lean operation at the start of the pull. That for sure doesn't exist.

That said, I've got literally tens of hours of recorded riding data, in hills and highways for the BMS-K other than overrun fuel cutoff it doesn't get leaner than about 16:1 during deceleration.

The popping makes me think that there was a misfire that left oxygen and unburnt fuel in the exhaust.
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:24 PM   #198
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrabaek View Post
I follow your logic, and understand your points, but with the setup I now have, if it is a bad combo, how do you explain the improvements I see.....
1...More power....and 2...Better economy....and 3....Much better flat afr.....and 4..... very smooth power delivery with any hint of rough hopping ( reason for the boosterplug...etc..) gone.
I am all for a one unit setup, and not have the boxes argue with each other... But it is hard to argue with success, as I am convinced after a couple of thousand miles, that it works. So I will await the results of the LC-1 install and trials on the 8GS, and see what it yields. You know more about this than I do, but again, I am having a hard time arguing with success.
First, there is no doubt in my mind that you've had a very substantial improvement that is a direct result of the fuel that you've added using the Power Commander V. The extra power and the smoother power delivery are all explained by the extra fuel. You've put a lot of time and had expert advice and got a good result.

The question I was answering was from mousitsas,

"In other words, for a given exhaust and intake setup, what do we miss by not having closed loop functionality?"

That was all I was trying to address, to explain how it works and the differences.

Because you have made a significant investment of time and money with experts, you're managing the challenges I mentioned when you choose an open loop solution. Open loop is very workable for performance oriented riders who understand the issues.
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:28 PM   #199
jscottyk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
jscottyk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Oddometer: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrabaek View Post
I follow your logic, and understand your points, but with the setup I now have, if it is a bad combo, how do you explain the improvements I see.....
1...More power....and 2...Better economy....and 3....Much better flat afr.....and 4..... very smooth power delivery with any hint of rough hopping ( reason for the boosterplug...etc..) gone.
I am all for a one unit setup, and not have the boxes argue with each other... But it is hard to argue with success, as I am convinced after a couple of thousand miles, that it works. So I will await the results of the LC-1 install and trials on the 8GS, and see what it yields. You know more about this than I do, but again, I am having a hard time arguing with success.
I really didn't mean to disparage your tuner, more the method that gets those lean results. I understood it to be at the start of the pull so I'm glad you clarified that. I've looked at dozens of dyno charts that all show very lean operation at the start of the pull. That for sure doesn't exist.

That said, I've got literally tens of hours of recorded riding data, in hills and highways for the BMS-K other than overrun fuel cutoff it doesn't get leaner than about 16:1 during deceleration.

The popping makes me think that there was a misfire that left oxygen and unburnt fuel in the exhaust.
ebrabeak, I did not read Roger's explanation as anything more than (a)description of how these mods are working in general, and (b) a more open description of the pro/cons of the the PowerCommander than Dynojet is going to market.

In my opinion, all of these mods are hacking the ECU and have pro/cons. Some work on more of the fueling system than others. So far, all are either hacking the intake input or the exhaust inputs to the ECU. Poolside has a great discussion of this early in his threads. Also worth noting that he is the only one with an idea for hacking the oil temp input to the ECU that I have read about. Unfortunately, it seems to move way out on this development roadmap… which is already incredibly, painfully, protracted (that said with all due respect Poolside ).
jscottyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:32 PM   #200
jscottyk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
jscottyk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Oddometer: 329
This chart and definitions from Poolside are worth posting for reference in these discussions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolside View Post
Following the chart is a definition of terms.



Steady State
Just like it sounds. Throttle is steady and the motor is turning at a constant RPM. Steady State includes a constant throttle and speed on uphill or downhill grade.

Tip-in
Refers to an opening throttle movement. An increase in throttle angle. Tip-in isn't the amount of throttle movement, it's the movement itself. Specifically refers to the duration of time when the throttle angle is actually increasing.

Tip-out
Refers to a closing throttle movement. A reduction in throttle angle. Tip-out isn't the amount of throttle movement, it's the movement itself. Specifically refers to the duration of time when the throttle angle is actually decreasing.

Overrun Fuel Cutoff (or OFC)
Starting from any steady state throttle position, if the throttle is tipped out 15% or more the ECU cuts off all the fuel flow. If the rider closes the throttle completely and allows the bike to slow, fuel cutoff continues. Fuel delivery resumes below 1700 RPM, and is felt as a distinct lurch.

Leading Throttle
Say you're traveling at 35 mph and you tip-in the throttle to 75% and hold it there. The bike is increasing speed but hasn't yet reached its final velocity for the new throttle setting. You can think about that condition in terms of the motor trying to 'catch up' to the throttle. The throttle is ahead of the motor, and is leading it to a new RPM.

Trailing Throttle
Opposite polarity to Leading Throttle. You've backed out of the throttle some and bike is slowing but hasn't yet reached its final velocity for the new reduced throttle setting. The throttle is trailing the motor.

Closed Loop
Closed control loop operation is probably the most complex routine in EFI systems. But to explain it simply, Closed Loop is when the ECU is using O2 Sensor feedback to adjust its fuel calculations. When the ECU is running in Closed Loop, some sensor outputs are ignored and are left out of the fuel delivery calculation.

Open Loop
During Open Loop operation the ECU does not use O2 Sensor feedback to adjust its fuel calculations. And just as with Closed Loop, when the ECU is running in Open Loop, some sensor outputs are ignored and are left out of the fuel delivery calculation.

Transient Enrichment (aka: Accelerator Pump)
Without Transient Enrichment, the motor would stall when you open the throttle. With the right amount of enrichment, the throttle response is crisp. Puts a smile on your face. With emissions-based enrichment, it feels like a GS.

Transient Enleanment
The opposite of Transient Enrichment. How's that for sidestepping the answer? Seriously though, the two terms are actually the same term, but different signs. You know, one is positive and the other negative. Generally the two are collectively referred to as Transient Fuel.
jscottyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:46 PM   #201
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
I really didn't mean to disparage your tuner, more the method that gets those lean results. I understood it to be at the start of the pull so I'm glad you clarified that. I've looked at dozens of dyno charts that all show very lean operation at the start of the pull. That for sure doesn't exist.

That said, I've got literally tens of hours of recorded riding data, in hills and highways for the BMS-K other than overrun fuel cutoff it doesn't get leaner than about 16:1 during deceleration.

The popping makes me think that there was a misfire that left oxygen and unburnt fuel in the exhaust.
I supose there could be a margin of error pushing our reads a 2 afr higher than what you saw. It was agrevated by header, and pipe (cat'less)
__________________


Erling

ebrabaek screwed with this post 05-14-2013 at 03:54 PM
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 03:53 PM   #202
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
First, there is no doubt in my mind that you've had a very substantial improvement that is a direct result of the fuel that you've added using the Power Commander V. The extra power and the smoother power delivery are all explained by the extra fuel. You've put a lot of time and had expert advice and got a good result.

The question I was answering was from mousitsas,

"In other words, for a given exhaust and intake setup, what do we miss by not having closed loop functionality?"

That was all I was trying to address, to explain how it works and the differences.

Because you have made a significant investment of time and money with experts, you're managing the challenges I mentioned when you choose an open loop solution. Open loop is very workable for performance oriented riders who understand the issues.
I see....thanks. I pesonally would not feel comfortable only running the pc-5 without the AT. I think the bms-5 and the pc-5 would fight eachother to death....but with the addition of the AT, it now runs in closed loop above 2% throttle.
The only thing I have seen that perhaps can elude to an armwrestleing, is sometime after a stop then fuel computer reads about 40% less mpg than as compared with before the install. But it only occurs sometimes.....and only for about 5 seconds. Not sure what is going on there......but it could also be as the at module is recovering the fuel control.
__________________


Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:09 PM   #203
jscottyk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
jscottyk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Oddometer: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrabaek View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
I really didn't mean to disparage your tuner, more the method that gets those lean results. I understood it to be at the start of the pull so I'm glad you clarified that. I've looked at dozens of dyno charts that all show very lean operation at the start of the pull. That for sure doesn't exist.

That said, I've got literally tens of hours of recorded riding data, in hills and highways for the BMS-K other than overrun fuel cutoff it doesn't get leaner than about 16:1 during deceleration.

The popping makes me think that there was a misfire that left oxygen and unburnt fuel in the exhaust.
I supose there could be a margin of error pushing our reads a 2 afr higher than what you saw. It was agrevated by header, and pipe (cat'less)
Could the popping be related to the SAS that ebrabaek still has in place? Unburned fuel plus extra 02 from the fresh air pumped into the exhaust plus heat equal combustion in the header? One of the main benefits the KTM crowd reports after the removal of their SAS is elimination of popping (backfires) on deceleration.

Also, it would seem the extra O2 in the exhaust provided by the SAS would provide an erroneous reading from the O2 sensor. Well, technically the sensor would be reading the O2 levels properly but the O2 levels would no longer be representative of what just happened inside the motor.

jscottyk screwed with this post 05-17-2013 at 08:36 PM
jscottyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 04:24 PM   #204
terryckdbf
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Perry, Ga
Oddometer: 857
It would be interesting and very useful if we had a Dyno run or runs charted and simultaneous information from the ECU with something such as a GS-911. The GS-911 gives a wealth of information and it could easily be utilized during a Dyno run.

Terry
terryckdbf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 05:11 PM   #205
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jscottyk View Post
Could the popping be related to the SAS that ebrabaek still has in place? Unburnt fuel plus extra 02 from the fresh air pumped into the exhaust plus heat equal combustion in the header? One of the main benefits the KTM crowd reports after the removal of their SAS is elimination of popping (backfires) on deceleration.

Also, it would seem the extra O2 in the exhaust provided by the SAS would provide an erroneous reading from the O2 sensor. Well, technically the sensor would be reading the O2 levels properly but the O2 levels would no longer be representative of what just happened inside the motor.
Could be..... It did vanish after the pc-5/at install though.
__________________


Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 05:48 AM   #206
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
I thought that this link from Joel's great discription of the SAS on the F800GS should be in here as well.....

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showp...55&postcount=9
__________________


Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 08:13 AM   #207
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrabaek View Post
I see....thanks. I pesonally would not feel comfortable only running the pc-5 without the AT. I think the bms-5 and the pc-5 would fight eachother to death....but with the addition of the AT, it now runs in closed loop above 2% throttle.
The only thing I have seen that perhaps can elude to an armwrestleing, is sometime after a stop then fuel computer reads about 40% less mpg than as compared with before the install. But it only occurs sometimes.....and only for about 5 seconds. Not sure what is going on there......but it could also be as the at module is recovering the fuel control.
I don't mean to be offensive or picky but might as well say this first ... you don't have Closed Loop operation above 2%. But you can generate target AFR correction factors. Let me explain the difference.
As you know, with Autotune, if everything goes ideally, the 10 by 30 matrix of 300 autotune-generated trim values will get populated as you ride. Most likely, less than half will be filled due to areas that you can't/don't ride in. Those trims will remain empty. (I can't find any criteria an the Dynojet site for when it fills a cell, which would be good to know. Usually you need a stable period of time.)

Then with Autotune in the always on mode that Dynojet describes, when you ride through that RPM/TPS combination, it adds a correction to the BMS-K pulse to get to the AFR in your target AFR table. Until there's a reasonable level of filling of the Autotune trim table you should expect uneven fueling--which corrects over some period of time.

There's also the issue of what the BMSK fueling pattern is when it detects a missing O2 sensor. Does it vary widely like the R1150s? I suspect it does. I'll try to get Terry to ride his R1200GSA with O2s disconnected, BMSK reset to see what it does. Terry?

Closed Loop (CL) operation takes a different approach. After being reset, the BMSK starts calculating Short Term Fuel Trims (ST) as soon as it goes Closed Loop, so that it can more quickly get into stable Closed Loop operation (and thereby minimize pollutants). Then over time, it starts to store those corrections in a table organized by TPS/RPM. Once that Long Term trim table starts to get filled, the BMSK has a proprietary algorithm that it uses whatever factors it has learned (Adpatation Values) to calculate trim factors that are used under Open Loop conditions, it areas where it can't, or hasn't yet learned corrections. If you have a GS-911, you can watch this process. Terry and I did just that on his R1200GSA. It was quite interesting to see it happen in the logs.

As an aside, I often read opinions that the BMSK can't make major corrections. That is not the case. It seems quite happy to make corrections over a 40% range on the 1150s and 1200s that I've measured.
So with those comments on Closed Loop vs auto-tune made, here are some things you might consider trying on your bike.

I like the idea of Autotune. I've read a good deal about those types of systems and if you're interested, there's a decent description on the Megasquirt site of how autotunes can be used. There's an order of magnitude more information at Megasquirt than at the Dynojet site.

To start with, here's a good autotune, generic AFR target matrix. Compare it to a Dynojet basic autotune chart. (Both charts below.) You'll see that with some thought and some experiments, we could come up with a much better set of AFR targets than those provided. I'll go further and say you could develop a better tune for your bike than the one you got from the Dyno tuning because: a) your wideband sensor is in a better spot than their tailpipe sniffer; and b) you can spend an infinite amount of time (all your riding time) refining the tune table.

Megasquirt Sample Target AFR Table


Dynojet Sample Target AFR Table for F800GS


So if you worked with the two tables to come up with something that represents a better set of AFR targets for the F800S than those of the Dynojet basics, you could ride normally (whatever that is for you) for several tanks gas and then post the trims that had been developed. From there you could manually smooth discontinuities between cells, and also manually reason values for those cells which had not yet been populated. And from all that install a new Fuel Trim table into your PC V.

It seems to me that the above process could/should reset in an excellent Open Loop tune. The key to success is having a high-quality set of AFR targets.

One of the other things you'd need to do to make a good AFR table is to use a GS-911 to learn the rough shape of the F800GS Spark Advance Curve. (A sample of mine below.)

Let us know what you think, it would be an interesting experiment to help you with.

RB

2004 R1150RT Spark Advance ScatterPlot
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:10 AM   #208
jscottyk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
jscottyk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Oddometer: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
...The key to success is having a high-quality set of AFR targets.
I seem to recall a thread from last year where señormoto offers to provide his AFR targets that were derived from a LOT of riding with an Autotune setup.

I'll see if I can locate that thread.
jscottyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:20 AM   #209
ebrabaek OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: El Paso,NM
Oddometer: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
I don't mean to be offensive or picky but might as well say this first ... you don't have Closed Loop operation above 2%. But you can generate target AFR correction factors. Let me explain the difference.
As you know, with Autotune, if everything goes ideally, the 10 by 30 matrix of 300 autotune-generated trim values will get populated as you ride. Most likely, less than half will be filled due to areas that you can't/don't ride in. Those trims will remain empty. (I can't find any criteria an the Dynojet site for when it fills a cell, which would be good to know. Usually you need a stable period of time.)

Then with Autotune in the always on mode that Dynojet describes, when you ride through that RPM/TPS combination, it adds a correction to the BMS-K pulse to get to the AFR in your target AFR table. Until there's a reasonable level of filling of the Autotune trim table you should expect uneven fueling--which corrects over some period of time.

There's also the issue of what the BMSK fueling pattern is when it detects a missing O2 sensor. Does it vary widely like the R1150s? I suspect it does. I'll try to get Terry to ride his R1200GSA with O2s disconnected, BMSK reset to see what it does. Terry?

Closed Loop (CL) operation takes a different approach. After being reset, the BMSK starts calculating Short Term Fuel Trims (ST) as soon as it goes Closed Loop, so that it can more quickly get into stable Closed Loop operation (and thereby minimize pollutants). Then over time, it starts to store those corrections in a table organized by TPS/RPM. Once that Long Term trim table starts to get filled, the BMSK has a proprietary algorithm that it uses whatever factors it has learned (Adpatation Values) to calculate trim factors that are used under Open Loop conditions, it areas where it can't, or hasn't yet learned corrections. If you have a GS-911, you can watch this process. Terry and I did just that on his R1200GSA. It was quite interesting to see it happen in the logs.

As an aside, I often read opinions that the BMSK can't make major corrections. That is not the case. It seems quite happy to make corrections over a 40% range on the 1150s and 1200s that I've measured.
So with those comments on Closed Loop vs auto-tune made, here are some things you might consider trying on your bike.

I like the idea of Autotune. I've read a good deal about those types of systems and if you're interested, there's a decent description on the Megasquirt site of how autotunes can be used. There's an order of magnitude more information at Megasquirt than at the Dynojet site.

To start with, here's a good autotune, generic AFR target matrix. Compare it to a Dynojet basic autotune chart. (Both charts below.) You'll see that with some thought and some experiments, we could come up with a much better set of AFR targets than those provided. I'll go further and say you could develop a better tune for your bike than the one you got from the Dyno tuning because: a) your wideband sensor is in a better spot than their tailpipe sniffer; and b) you can spend an infinite amount of time (all your riding time) refining the tune table.

Megasquirt Sample Target AFR Table


Dynojet Sample Target AFR Table for F800GS


So if you worked with the two tables to come up with something that represents a better set of AFR targets for the F800S than those of the Dynojet basics, you could ride normally (whatever that is for you) for several tanks gas and then post the trims that had been developed. From there you could manually smooth discontinuities between cells, and also manually reason values for those cells which had not yet been populated. And from all that install a new Fuel Trim table into your PC V.

It seems to me that the above process could/should reset in an excellent Open Loop tune. The key to success is having a high-quality set of AFR targets.

One of the other things you'd need to do to make a good AFR table is to use a GS-911 to learn the rough shape of the F800GS Spark Advance Curve. (A sample of mine below.)

Let us know what you think, it would be an interesting experiment to help you with.

RB

2004 R1150RT Spark Advance ScatterPlot
None taken Roger. Just because you are direct, and blunt does not mean any hostility towards me.... No worries. This is my first direct experience with the PC-5/AT. Had pleanty of second hand looks, but this is the first where I am behind the wheel. Thus was the reason to travel 600 miles north, as I trust every word my tuner speaks. So one thing first.... When I spoke to the closed loop, I was not referring to the BMS-K. ( perhaps you did not take it as such anyway...) but as the global fueling's functionality. Closed loop fueling is incorporated via a O2 sensor (lambda sonde) fueling is in this case to be determined to meet the target AFR you input yourself. In reality how the BMS-K behaves, is second on the list of concerns, as the "under/over fueling" is corrected by the PC-5/AT combo. That is what I have allways thought/understood to be closed loop, but perhaps we are chasing defenitions, so I will just say that it is fueling whilst incorporating a O2 sensor, rather than a predetermined map neglecting any O2 input. I am still using the original map that my tuner fed to the PC-5 ( he developed this, rather than using the DJ map) I have read several posts on forums, where riders were not particular happy with the pc-5/at setup, and most of them stopped posting after they started to apply the trim setting. I don't know if there are any relations, but I have yet to apply the trim values. I understand the value of doing such, but dont want to chase my own tail, as I would like to raise the target AFR from 13.2 on my setup to perhaps 13.6-13.8, and have a look first, but perhaps stick with one thing first, adopting the trim values that I have stored over the last 2K miles. Again, for me it is just hard to argue with success. As I have seen a 3-5 mpg increase, along with all the other good points. I like to just change one thing at a time, so I will start with adapting the trim values , and see what happens...... I do value you your input, so feel comfortable, that I take no offense....
__________________


Erling
ebrabaek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:55 AM   #210
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,028
Good, we're on the same page. If you had some time, and could post three screen shots: afr targets, current learned trims, and current fuel map, that would be quite interesting to study.

Do you have a GS-911? Among other things, it would probably tell us when secondary air was enabled.
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 01:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014