Free unrestricted maps for Rocket R GT and TFC now online

nullpointer said:

Thanks. I mean, it's difficult to understand why changing the AFR value wouldn't change the target AFR that the bike is trying to achieve. And I have heard reports from people changing the F/L tables and the bike gradually "unlearning" the change they've put in. But I don't know/remember if they were changing them naively or incorrectly. My main concern is that if the adaptations apply to the F/L tables, then naively changing them might just be pushing the range of learnable corrections to its extreme (perhaps intentionally?) and the bike is no longer able to adapt to conditions.

Do you have anything that describes how the various tables and their values are used by the system in calculating the fueling? Perhaps that would answer all my questions.

One more question: have you seen the stock Storm tables? My understanding is that the engine and related components are essentially the same as the vanilla Rocket 3 and so I'd be interested to see how your improved tune compares to what they put on the Storm.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Click to expand...

Penner said:

Yes. Just changing fuel tables with an active O2 sensor and AFR-tables left at 14.5 will definitly be overrun by the ECU. First by the short term fuel trims temporarily and then by the long term trims finally. You have to disconnect the O2 sensor or change the AFR-target to prevent that.
Fueling with the Rocket is just about the F and L tables. (And as always by sensor signals like temperatures and pressure and the active and stored values from the O2 sensor. Plus some others.)
Unlike the Delphi ECU changing the AFR target has no direct impact on fueling.
I am not yet sure about the Storm map. ( I hope will know soon) My best guess so far is that the ETV tables are the same or at least similar to the TFC map. That means throttle opening is still restricted to 75%.

Click to expand...

nullpointer said:

I assumed something like this. But Penner's reply suggests that the AFR values don't work exactly like that, which has got me confused. Assuming the narrowband O2 sensors are similar/the same as used on other bikes I've worked with, then your lower-range estimate of 14.1 sounds about right. I have had better/more reliable results with Delphi systems when trying to keep a good proportion of the table contents around 14.1 and above so the learned adaptations can be extrapolated by the system to also help hit open-loop targets more accurately under changeable conditions.

Click to expand...

nullpointer said:

Ah. I've just found this: https://tuneecu.net/Tunes_in_Hex_and_dat/TuneECU/Adaptive_Fuel_Systems_EN.pdf

A quick flick through suggests that the F/L tables are used directly to calculate the fueling, and the AFR table is used (in closed loop) purely for calculating adaptations to the F table. So it assumes that the F table gets it right (without using the AFR table), and the latter is used just as part of the feedback mechanism? So you basically need to adjust them in tandem? Or have I misunderstood again?

Click to expand...

dougl said:

It doesn't ignore the AFR values. See above. In closed loop, it calculates the amount of fuel from the F (L) table and 14.5. Then it adjusts the fuel using the lambda sensor voltage. In open loop, it calculates the amount of fuel from the F (L) table value and the corresponding AFR table value.

Click to expand...

dougl said:

There is a manual from Tuneboy (Jake McDonald), which was later duplicated by Alain Fontaine as Tuneecu. This explains a lot. Tuneboy says if the AFR table value is less than 14.5 (stoich), it won't use closed loop. I've seen stuff about mixing (interpolating) between closed and open loop outside the 14.5 block but nothing definitive. It's kind of academic. What's the point of using closed loop besides reducing emissions and saving petrol? I've disabled it by disconnecting/removing the O2 sensors on 2 Rocket III's and a T120. No difference in how they ran. One of the Rockets had a PCIII which was tuned to perfection - smooth at the low end and massive power at the high end. Penner has unrestricted the top end power by opening up the ETV tables. There's also the issue of the Torque Limit table which needs to be addressed. I put the TuneBoy manual under resources.

Click to expand...

nullpointer said:

I'm not bothered about emissions. But I would like to reduce fuel consumption when at cruise and heat in cities. But the interplay between the tables still eludes me

Click to expand...

Idaho Red Rocket 3 said:

I dropped the lower RPM AFR numbers to 3.80. From 2000 RPM to 5000 RPM I set then at 14.2 as cruising happens in this range. I use pure gasoline. Is it Good, Bad or Indifferent ? I hope someone soon figures out how we can use the Torque Limit page.

Click to expand...

dougl said:

It doesn't ignore the AFR values. See above. In closed loop, it calculates the amount of fuel from the F (L) table and 14.5. Then it adjusts the fuel using the lambda sensor voltage. In open loop, it calculates the amount of fuel from the F (L) table value and the corresponding AFR table value.

Click to expand...

nullpointer said:

So as a dyno tuner, what is your process, if you don't mind me asking? Do you basically set the AFR targets away from 14.5 and then adjust F/L until your wideband sensors (or whatever you use) gives you the actual AFR value you want? Does the ECU do anything at all with AFR targets that are something other than 14.5? Because (let's assume for argument's sake) it uses AFR=14.5 as the trigger to enable closed-loop, then surely it would just use any other value as "operate open-loop" and then ignore the actual AFR value entirely? So what's the point of making any changes to the AFR table other than to change from 14.5 to something else (or vice versa)?

Click to expand...