Jump to content

Meinolf

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Meinolf last won the day on April 24

Meinolf had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About Meinolf

  • Rank
    Guzzisti
  • Birthday 04/30/1959

Previous Fields

  • My bikes
    Norge, V11, LM3, Mille GT, V1000G5+TR5 sidecar, 850 T5 Carabinieri, SPIII and assorted other makes
  • Location
    Uelversheim, Germany

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Motorcycling, my kids, reading, metal craft, sport

social network links

  • LinkedIn
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/meinolf-althaus/6/537/495

Recent Profile Visitors

219 profile views
  1. Meinolf,
    I posted this yesterday...

    "I realize this thread is as old as dirt, yet maybe the world has changed since 2007. I also posted this question under the "Fuel Mapping" thread. I don't mean to be redundant, I it's just with these older threads, I', hoping my question gets found:)
    I would really like to improve the fuel mapping in my 2003 Rosso Corsa. I had the TuneBoy work done to it, and it came out pretty good, not amazing, but pretty good . I still had the hesitation at the 2700 to 3000 rpm range. Actually I didn't love the throttle response below 3000 rpms in general. Any how, a blown clutch. a bit of fiddling by the Guzzi dealer and 5 years later it needs a refresh/update.

    Thus my question. Go back and have the TuneBoy refreshed or are there better options at this point? I'm not looking for a fire breathing dragon here, just a better, smoother throttle response."

    The feedback I got was...
    "Interesting. The question about whether "Beetle" (not a member here) has written V11 maps came up at the Fifteenth South'n SpineRaid. Dunno. :huh2:

    For sure, though, our member Meinolf has likely written the very best V11 mapping to date. Far better than any other option, as I understand. :thumbsup:"

    Thus my reason for reaching out...Do you have any maps for the Rosso Corsa available and how might I obtain one?

    Thank you in advance.

  2. Hi Dave, I don't know if the hardware of the ECUs used is exactly the same, the additional identifier (16Mxxx) on the ECU label would help in answering this. The code used in the Duc BINs is similar or identical (given the hardware of the bike is the same) regardless of the bike's make. Marelli uses a code library approach, many code sections can be found in all ECUs (P8, 16M, 15M, 5AM and even 7SM, though this one uses an inline coding technique). Cheers Meinolf
  3. Hi, why would one continue to use a PC after direct editing of fuel maps became possible escapes me. The PC is a wart on top of the ECU and the axis values don't match the ones used in the BIN at all, with all the detrimental effects resulting thereof. Which could be rectified, the Dynojet Power Core software allows changing the TPS % values and adding additional columns. They could be brought much closer to the degree values, at least on the 15M, where the low degree values can be represented with % values to a sufficiently good enough approximation. And Dynojet, upon request, also changes the rpm values and columns. Cheers Meinolf
  4. Hi, first and foremost the the peaks and troughs are a reflection of the volumetric efficiency of the engine. Air mass going into the combustion chamber does not increase linearly with rpm or TPS opening. Cheers Meinolf
  5. Hi, yes, the MCU is a 68HC11. All ECUs (Marelli 15M/59M/5AM and Sagem 1000) whose code I've dissassembled use raw look-up tables for the digitalized input and a conversion look-up table. The raw values are only used for out-of-bounds checks, most of the code uses the converted values. Which makes sense, as most raw values are reversed - low raw values equivalent to high converted values - and using a look-up table saves some code and computing time to reverse the data. And look-up tables make it easier to adapt to new sensors, be it NTC, potentiometer or whatever. Cheers Meinolf
  6. Hi, and just to close this off. The 157mV I recommend as TPS base setting stems from the TPS ADC look-up table in the BIN. Guzzi, or more likely Marelli, made a stupid mistake in this table because a wrong rounding was used. The ADC in the 15M/RC is a 8bit device, translating the (analog) voltage coming from the TPS into 256 digital steps. 5V divided by 256 equals 0,01953V. The difference between 150mV (factory recommended value) and 157mV is quite small, in fact if falls under the graininess of the ADC function (look this up in the web if interested), but why use a wrong value if the correct one is known. Cheap blueprinting, as it is. Cheers Meinolf
  7. Hi, the butterfly valves should be firmly seated against the throttle body. In fact the butterfly valve contact areas are slightly tapered (no sharp right angle edge) to ensure a consistent seating without hammering into the throttle body. I've found that getting consistent (+/- 1 or 2mV) readings if using the same force to completely close the valves is standard. The variations you mention might well be due to worn out throttle shaft bearing(s). I've used standard bushings to replace the original ones if the play became to large. Cheers Meinolf
  8. Hi, the recent discussion about optimized BINs has revived the interest in the BINs I created for the V11 (and Jackal) with a 15M ECU. Those having 2V CARC models might be interested in this one: https://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=100576.0 Cheers Meinolf
  9. Hi, re a) My comments above refer to the idle sync. The running sync should be done as described in the service manual. This will take up the lash in the connections between the two throttle valves. Removing this lash has no impact on the breakpoint sync done with the idle sync procedure. As written in my previous post, this becomes much more obvious if the system is closely looked at and considering in which direction the lash works. re b) If using one of the throttle stop screws will achieve both the synchronicity and the desired idle rpm, that's all right. I've found that getting both right typically requires both screws. Cheers Meinolf
  10. Hi, your reasoning is quite correct. However, there's a lot of combined play in different bearings. And only with zero play would setting the connecting rod clash with the throttle stop screw setting. Taking a close look at the mechanics will make this more obvious. Cheers Meinolf
  11. Hi, consider the following. The BIN contains two fuel (and ignition) maps, these are indexed by rpm and TPS and each rpm/TPS breakpoint contains fuel values. The main maps contain values for the left cylinder, the delta maps for the right cylinder contain the differences to the main maps. So a breakpoint in the main map might contain the value 100, the corresponding value in the delta map could be 10 (or -10). Which is added (or subtracted) from the main map value, so the value pair would be 100 and 110. These fuel values would achieve a given Lambda/AFR at a given airmass going thru the engine at this specific breakpoint. The airmass going thru the engine is determined by several engine specific characteristics and the opening of the throttle butterfly valve. The free area through which air can flow is described in a rather complicated cosine function, which also takes into account the diameter of the shaft and the thickness of the butterfly valve. The nature of sine/cosine functions is that they are not linear. Accordingly a very small rotation angle change from closed state would result in the same free area than a much larger angle change, say at halfway open. The TPS breakpoints are staggered very closely at the beginning, the steps would (for example) be 2.0°, 2.6°, 3.2°,.... At higher settings the breakpoints much farther apart, say 45°, 55°, 67°, 81°. But, with well choosen breakpoints all steps would result in linear increase of airflow, or rather airmass, moving into the combustion chamber. The essence is that at low TPS openings appearently minor changes have the same effect than much larger ones at bigger openings. The BIN and the included maps are not very carefully designed in the first place. They are acceptable for, say, 95% of all engines, deliver poor results with 4% of the engines are are perfect for 1% of the engines. Which, if one considers the priorities of a manufacturer, deviations from the blueprint due to mass production differences in all components, wear of said components and other changing parameters, such as gasoline mixture during the last 20 years, is not too bad. So the question is how to accurately align TPS breakpoints. Opening angle is not practical to measure, so indirect airmass flow is chosen. Indirect because synchronization uses pressure as an analog to airmass, which together with the fuel generates a certain force with which the cylinder is moved downwards and results in a partial vaccum. Springs are used to force the butterfly valves closed. The throttle stop screws act against the spring pressure and take up any loose play. Thus using the throttle stop screws for sync'ing gives a start non-variable position. My BINs contain fuel values in the main and delta maps tailored for a specific Lambda at any breakpoint. If the idle sync is not done as described the result will be that these fuel values at specific breakpoints no longer match. So, to use above figures, instead of having a value pair of 100 and 110 the value pair might be 100 and 120, because the next delta map breakpoint value is being used. The result would be different Lambda value for each cylinders. Which means the cylinders are working against each other. Allowing a user to loading a different BIN with edited maps was not intended by Marelli. Instead CO trim and bypass screws were the intended methods to correct differences between the two cylinders. CO trim influences fuel delivery, bypass screws influence air delivery. The effect of both methods tapers of with increasing fuel values (CO trim) and increasing airflow (bypass screws). So I've chosen to use fuel values which, with CO trim set to 0 and bypass screws closed, are on target. I could have chosen fuel values which provide the same Lambda with a CO trim of 100 and bypass screws 5 turns open, but why would I introduce 2 variables? Cheers Meinolf
  12. - By idle screw you mean one of the throttle stop scews? Don't use this procedure with my (or any) BIN. The main and delta fuel values are synchronized at every breakpoint. If you change the idle throttle of one throttle only then you lost the synchronization between the TPS breakpoints. Sync'ing in idle is the only way to match the TPS breakpoints. And it's especially important in the low load area because the TPS breakpoints are spaced so tightly. Getting this and the base line setting of 157mV right are the single most important steps. The V11 TPS placement on the right side is rather unfortunate because wear-prone connections introduce play. Cheers Meinolf
  13. Hi Richard, changing the program code is VERY difficult, because even using one different opcode might impact the very tight timing sequence of the code. We (Beard, myself) made code patching tests, but abandoned them for this reason. And, the code of the latest OEM BINs works well and reliably. I can't remember offhand all of the parameter changes I made, but this will give you an idea - RPM and TPS legends - Warmup table legend - Baro legend - Warmup table content - TPS look-up table - Engine temp trim correction - Air temp/air pressure correction table content - Idle ign - Main ign - Idle fuel table - Main and delta fuel table - plus other stuff I've already forgotten Cheers Meinolf
  14. a BIN is always the complete software, both program code and parameters. Cheers Meinolf
  15. Both the bypass screws and the CO setting date back to times when the BIN couldn't be changed and where the only possible means to correct variations inevitable in mass production and the unavoidable wear. Since Beard created the means to down/upload the BIN this has become unneccessary. I choose to use a CO trim of 0 as base for my fuel map optimization as the CO trim effect tapers off with increasing rpm, or rather increasing air flow. The closed bypass screw setting was used because it's easier to duplicate a setting of totally closed than 1 turn open. Somebody elses 1 turn is likely to be different from mine, even small variations matter in idle. The fuel map values at those breakpoints where CO trim or bypass screws have an impact are so that the mixture is correct with my recommendations. As my V11 was somewhat modified with conical opening of the snorkels, removing half of the shaft holding the butterfly valve, re-worked butterfly valve contours, TI cans, valve play set to 0.3mm for intake/exhaust to countermand the very long ramp up slope of the camshaft and the resulting loss of mean pressure, an average V11 would run a bit richer than mine. Still I would recommend to reduce the (left cylinder only) fuel values across the entire fuel map in small %-steps instead if trying fiddle with CO trim or bypass screws. Cheers Meinolf
×
×
  • Create New...