PCV+AT vs Dobek

[blip]

Hey Everyone,

I am about to pull the trigger on the Dobek AFR plus as an EFI controller and AFR gauge when I had cold feet and looked at the PCv + AT that a lot of you guys are running.

Anyone have any final thoughts on which of these is a better overall fit?

Key Features of the AFR+ Fuel Controller - Unique Load Based Technology and On-The-Fly Tuning
Dynojet Powercommander V - Cruisers and Touring Bikes


The reason I liked the dobek is the feature to change fuel ranges on the fly with a few buttons and the gauge helps to give me confidence.

I like PCV because it is easy to automatically add the trims from your ride. Not sure if Dobek can do this.

I am still amazed that noone has invented an EFI controller that is driven by a smart phone app.

Cheers,
Blip

 

[blip]

So ...... I may need to correct myself.
After looking a little more on the dobek site it seems that it is more of an auto-tune than an automap.

So ..... from this it seems dobek definitely has the edge, I would love to hear counter-arguements from PC fans. Given the number of people who use PC it has my respect.

 

[barbagris]

I RUN A PCV with AT.

One thing the PCV can do ( I do not know if the dobeck can) is allow you a different fuel map per gear. I wanted this feature - use it and it works very well.

It can allow you additionally 2 complete different sets of maps. If you use their AT addon - One set is assigned to the AT box. But you could (for example) have a detuned map for ****ty weather. It is something I toyed with. But eventually just used AT. Also - if you ever fancy getting your bike professionally Dyno'd - my guess is you'll find more PCV expertise out there.

Also if you want REAL control the PCV can do ignition and you can adjust per cylinder - more for the Dyno-Gods than mere mortals.

I think that the PCV can also allow on the fly plus logging using the separate screen thingie. I think @Claviger may have one.
My opinion however is that for all but obsessive tuners a gauge is a distraction.
I prefer to periodically review the trim tables offline. Often in conjunction with Triumph ECU data logged via the TORQUE app.
See the whole picture. If I had a Dyno close - I'd use it. If I had a Dyno god close - I'd just go to them.

We have the great MAP guru @HansO who can help with a target AFR map for the PCV/AT - load it and ride off. Never touch it again. Well - unless you get fussy.

Somebody has to explain Auto-Tune vs Auto-Map to me.

One thing - EITHER setup probably requires some minor changes to the Triumph base map to get the best results. Again @HansO

One thing is that all tuning is predictive based on the past. So REAL TIME is a misnomer. The past may only be milliseconds but for a computer that's a while. You cannot adjust a fuel injectors squirt after it has fired.

Also - whilst it is a MUCH simpler solution. Unless you plan to make major component changes (inlet-exhaust) then something like the BoosterPlug should be considered.

But like most things - what matters for day to day use is CONFIDENCE in what you decide to fit. If you have doubts about a solution - then frankly you already suspect and that leads to less confidence. I understand EXACTLY what a PCV does. I found it well documented technically.

 

[1olbull]

If possible, find a good dyno-tuner and you'll need neither!!!
I know of one of the VERY few best only 4,152 miles west of you!

 

[blip]

Great info thanks!

Reading up on dobek I think it does take into account the gear because it uses load based tuning (someone correct me if I'm crazy).
Ignition timing can be advanced with tune ECU tuning I beleive so got that covered with the @HansO tune already applied (Thanks Hanso).

So I guess it comes down too what is better ...... auto-tune ..... or auto-map. This might be a 'religous' question more than anything else but I'd love to hear peoples thoughts. Might be an interesting debate.

 

[barbagris]

Reading up on dobek I think it does take into account the gear because it uses load based tuning (someone correct me if I'm crazy).

Right - well LOAD BASED TUNING is just a mathematical formula applied.

LOAD_PCT = [current airflow] / [(peak airflow at WOT@STP as a function of rpm) *
(BARO/29.92) * SQRT(298/(AAT+273))]
Where:

- STP = Standard Temperature and Pressure = 25 °C, 29.92 in Hg BARO,
- SQRT = square root
- WOT = wide open throttle
- AAT = Ambient Air Temperature (in °C)

Characteristics of LOAD_PCT are:

- Reaches 1.0 at WOT at any altitude, temperature or rpm for both naturally
aspirated and boosted engines.
- Indicates percent of peak available torque.
- Linearly correlated with engine vacuum
- Often used to schedule power enrichment.
- Compression ignition engines (diesels) shall support this PID using fuel
flow in place of airflow for the above calculations.

It's a standard calculation - and is a bit of a guess-timate.

 

[Claviger]

IMHO Load based tuning is bollocks, to put it nicely.

Alpha-N pure is what all rockets should be using. Throttle position and RPM based table, like the F table in TuneECU. Add in a dash of barometric correction, temperature correction and bake for 12 minutes. The alpha-n/Speed Density hybrid they use from the factory is nice, but a well dialed in alpha-n pure is all that's needed and is perfectly functional, smooth, efficient, and emissions clean.

PCV+AT and Dobeck, have the same end state goal with slightly different calculations done to get there and user interfaces. PCV is vastly more flexible, allows more customization, the level of control and flexibility has no peer on the market except a standalone (Bazzazz doesn't and won't make a unit for our bikes). Dobeck is simple and a little cheaper (about the only advantages to PCV+AT).

I have to admit, I personally don't like the dobeck. The marking turns me off, the "its so simple a cave man could do it" attitude is an instant warning sign to me. The days of carbs are gone, and I dislike when companies try to overly simplify the complexity that is EFI by giving you a single knob, button, and gauge, expecting you to trust the software.

 

[Nat67]

IMHO Load based tuning is bollocks, to put it nicely.

Alpha-N pure is what all rockets should be using. Throttle position and RPM based table, like the F table in TuneECU. Add in a dash of barometric correction, temperature correction and bake for 12 minutes. The alpha-n/Speed Density hybrid they use from the factory is nice, but a well dialed in alpha-n pure is all that's needed and is perfectly functional, smooth, efficient, and emissions clean.

PCV+AT and Dobeck, have the same end state goal with slightly different calculations done to get there and user interfaces. PCV is vastly more flexible, allows more customization, the level of control and flexibility has no peer on the market except a standalone (Bazzazz doesn't and won't make a unit for our bikes). Dobeck is simple and a little cheaper (about the only advantages to PCV+AT).

I have to admit, I personally don't like the dobeck. The marking turns me off, the "its so simple a cave man could do it" attitude is an instant warning sign to me. The days of carbs are gone, and I dislike when companies try to overly simplify the complexity that is EFI by giving you a single knob, button, and gauge, expecting you to trust the software.

Good point !

 

[BigNorm]

@Idaho Red Rocket 3 . Give your .02. I know you run and enjoy Dobek.

 

[blip]

Interesting .......
Glad I posted the thread cause this is great info. I am definitely coming around to the PCV way of thinking.

Claviger, I noticed you run a tuneboy as well as a PC do you see significant advantage in having both?