Tuning Anomalies using TuneECU and wideband

[BlacknCream]

So your map is going to work for a stock bike?

 

[Claviger]

In front Nev. I removed the stock sensor, disabled it in the tune and installed my wideband there.

Yes this should work well for a nearly stock bike. The only thing I have changed that effects the AFR is the removal of the underseat snorkels. IAT values did not change after doing so but the AFRs leaned by about .2 across the board, revision 6 corrects this, rolls back some the acceleration fueling areas to lean them slightly, and adds fuel to the low throttle1050-1600 range to bring afrs from high 15s down into the 14s for a smoother feel when going very slow.

One clear change in riding impression is that if I roll open the throttle somewhat quickly from 1000 RPM it used to accelerate fine but had a definite vibration to it, it did this from day one. Now it is much smoother from the very bottom, only a tickle of vibration which is totally gone by 1300 ish.

 

[Claviger]

One consistent difference I have found compared to most of the tunes I have analyzed is that this tune is more rich in the F table than most but leaner in the higher vacuum areas on the L table. Intact a lot of tunes I have looked at used the stock L tables with no changes, some use the base tune some use the TOR tables.

I preffer the strategy of L table tuning over F tables. I see it like this, F tables are good for shaping the general fueling requirements of the engine. Once the shape of the fuel curve fits the impulse of the intake and exhaust tuning, they are close to done.

The L tables though will automatically account for elevation changes and air density changes because both of those factors directly contribute to what the MAP signal is.

If the tuning is done exclusively using F tables, and a rider has a significant elevation or temperature change in their ride, the fueling will be off because the ecu saves the key on engine off map value as its reference (I think).

I suspect a lot of tuners are relying heavily on F tables because alpha-n is very common on motorcycles, my Daytona uses it (doesn't even have a map sensor plumbed to the intake). As such I suspect they tune using what they are comfortable using, human nature so they use the F table. Clearly this can work as it has been done by a lot of people with great results on rockets.

My background and vehicle I learned tuning on was pure speed density using a MAP vs RPM table and TPS only for the accel pump feature.

Personally I think Speed Density is superior on engines that have high flywheel effect (Rocket 3) because that instant change in map when opening the throttle isn't necessarily met with very rapid RPM changes like on a high reving bike with very little flywheel effect like 600s.

Speed Density is also more conducive to adding forced induction

This whole effort has me considering dumping the stock ecu and switching to a much more powerful option:/

 

[IMFASTTOO]

In front Nev. I removed the stock sensor, disabled it in the tune and installed my wideband there.

Yes this should work well for a nearly stock bike. The only thing I have changed that effects the AFR is the removal of the underseat snorkels. IAT values did not change after doing so but the AFRs leaned by about .2 across the board, revision 6 corrects this, rolls back some the acceleration fueling areas to lean them slightly, and adds fuel to the low throttle1050-1600 range to bring afrs from high 15s down into the 14s for a smoother feel when going very slow.

One clear change in riding impression is that if I roll open the throttle somewhat quickly from 1000 RPM it used to accelerate fine but had a definite vibration to it, it did this from day one. Now it is much smoother from the very bottom, only a tickle of vibration which is totally gone by 1300 ish.

DONT want to open the throttle quickly at 1000 rpm thats not good on the lower end

 

[Claviger]

I don't mean snapping it open just fairly quick, like leaving a traffic light with authority from idle.

 

[BlacknCream]

Sounds pretty good to me, I'd be interested in the change in fuel economy. Sends like out ought to be a little better with your map

 

[BlacknCream]

Get that thing on a dyno, I'm excited to see the torque curve

 

[Claviger]

A significant step forward has been made. I will do a "How to" thread for this in the future, for now I'll post the short of it.

Innovative says that their products will not work on Triumphs OBD ports, that the Firmware doesn't know what to do with Triumph ECU output...

I am happy to report that is flat out wrong. I have been data logging thus far by logging all OBD data using my phone, and the O2 sensor using the LM-2. Then I compile the logs afterwards so the times match. The resolution has been a bit of a limiting factor in fine tuning things, not sure how I got it tuned as well as it is using this method.

I got the LM-2 OBD2 cable in the mail today (finally), just did a test log using the cable and capturing RPM, ECT, IAT, TPS, MAP, Speedometer, Timing Advance, Wideband, and Engine Load. The significant step forward is that the LM-2 gets updated every .25 second vs the 1 second intervals the ELM327 to phone recording was getting. This should allow me to do much better log analysis and fine tuning, since I can log with perfecting timing alignment between all the sensors I can do street dynos to check if that extra 3 degrees timing or 5% fuel or whatever changes I make, changed power for better or worse (need to find a flat, open spot I can run it consistently on though).

Will do comprehensive walk through in the How To that is coming.

Costs:
LM-2 $233.00 on amazon
OBD-2 Cable for LM-2 $27.00 on amazon
12v Cigarette power adaptor $8.00 on amazon
Mount for LM-2 $45.00 on amazon

All told, still cheaper than a single dyno session from most places which are simply doing pulls, right click accept table, do a pull, rinse repeat until they hit 13:1 afr on the PC3/5. Much cheaper than a PC5+ AT and while yes its a bit more involved to tune, its also a vastly more powerful tool.

 

[IMFASTTOO]

I don't mean snapping it open just fairly quick, like leaving a traffic light with authority from idle.

NOT a good idea

 

[IMFASTTOO]

SO

Did a longer ride today on revision 5. The 1050-1400 area is still a touch lean, but everything else seems to be working perfectly. Once I tackle the slightly lean spot I will consider this a finished tune.

Got some normal speed freeway time and it looks like mileage is up from the other tunes I haved used expect I'll get around 30-33 mpg, which is a marked improvement from the 24-25 average I have been getting since it was new. These are about 70/30 splits of city/freeway.

Very low load cruise is 15.3:1 AFR bit crack the throttle to gently accelerate and it dips to mid 14s. Open it more for a moderate acceleration and it sits in the high 13s then when at 100% it drops and stay between 12.8 and 13.2.

Very happy with it. I have posted what I am going to put on the dyno and validate its power output. Cruise is exactly how I want it, was getting close to 40 mpg on the way home today, so freeway cruise seems very good. I'll also transpose it to an older base tune for pre-13 bikes once I get it dynod.

The cats on my bike are inside the muffler, so yes, and the small rectangular resonator next to the ABS controller. Cats make very little difference these days in overall power.

SO are your doing this on a stock bike ?