moto

I generally do it at all throttle positions the customer and the ECU or lying box will allow tuning at. In the case of the PCIIIUSB, this would be 0, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%. Regards, Derek

At what throttle position? Apparently with an attendant loss in HP in a few areas... Regards, Derek

I don't think I answered this, except to say that I don't consider them to be very related, especially when it's possible to have the same O2 readings all the way from below 2% to above 11% CO and O2 content all the way from .2% to 4% at best power. That said, I would look for stagger and/or ignition issues if O2 fell above .3%-.4% for large bores and 1%-1.1% for small bores after no more power was to be found by glogally adding or subtracting fuel. Regards, Derek

Use a 304 bung and weld it on with 308 rod. Be sure to back purge with argon. If you can't find a bung with a radius to match the OD of the pipe, I can machine one for you. Regards, Derek

This is not a valid assumption, as "reading nicely" has no direct relationship to how the engine is running. One would need to determine what "reading nicely" for a given rpm/throttle position combination consists of when the engine is known to be running optimally. Even then, I think you might find it could "read nicely" under a variety of conditions, i.e. the reading being the same does not guarantee the same mixture. If those numbers actually consistently related to mixture strength in a universally repeatable manner, you would be correct. Regards, Derek

Bravo! I thought that one was gone forever... Regards, Derek

More correctly, it reacts CO & H2 to make O2 when none is otherwise present. It requires a positive voltage when there is O2 present, and a negative one when there isn't. The relative amount of current that is required is related to how much O2 or CO is present. Regards, Derek

I apologize for having assumed you weren’t. You're welcome. I'm sure you already thought of this, but in lieu of the non-functioning "commit trims", you could keep a backup copy of your original map to revert to/look at if you loose track of how you changed the values. By the way, I got my last key from Emma in less than 24 hrs. Regards, Derek

No, I have to wait like everyone else. Unfortunately this has been fairly typical as of late. I suspect that the left would be the master. Wayne told me that I would have to select "read map from ECU" and send him the file to be converted to a map file before I could proceed. Maybe it will work afterward. I suspect that the "commit trims" function will not work until you are working with the file he sends back after the aforementioned procedure. The ECU key is just text, so you should be able to copy it over. Good questions! I'd like to know the answers myself. On a PC with pump emulation, you can assign how much fuel is added for a given rate of throttle opening. Not as far as I know. Given what Wayne told me about sending the file in first, I don't think I would. It's not for mine. Regards, Derek

I am now also able to tune the Guzzi MM-IAW15M ECUs via TuneBoy TuneEdit. The price for the keys is the same, with the difference being that TechnoResearch uses a hardware key vs. TuneBoy's software key. Regards, Derek

You still need to tune jetting and ignition advance with carbs and points. The discussion of O2 sensor vs. 4-gas EGA is just as relevant to this as it is to tuning electronic ignition and FI. Regards, Derek

The average CO was 4.31%, and it would have been perfectly safe to tune to within ± ~1 percentage point of this number without any fear of carbon buildup or burnt valves whatsoever. In terms of HP, you might loose .5 to 1% per cylinder by being off by 1 to 1.5 percentage points of CO from ideal. (bear in mind that they may not want the same thing and therefore not be off by the same amount or in the same direction). This is what I've been trying to say all along: That CO is much more reliable as a target than O2 and that if you want to use gas targets, CO is the one to use. Regards, Derek

As a final arbiter, I agree that power or BSFC are the only reliable measurements. Because you can get to best power so much faster with EGA data to point the way. They are proven to be trends, but that's it. Me too. I'm also curious how much I could change a cell value for the worse before the WBO2 sensor would notice. We could find out. Burlingame is not too far from here... Maybe. I think it might show leaner. Again, horsepower speaks for itself. You cannot ignore how various tuning effects come into and out of phase with each other at various throttle position/rpm combinations, nor can you ignore reversionary effects. (BTW, see the latest Futura map here. It's a bit smoother looking than the last). I wouldn't do that. That the map should be smooth looking is an invalid assumption. Regards, Derek

How gradually are we talking about? But you still need an appropriate sensor voltage target for each cell, and how do you come up with that? Even then, the ECU can gradually correct until it sees that voltage and that is no guarantee of anything, as the voltage can exist at different mixtures, staggers and timing. My hat's definitely off to him for producing a programmable ECU. I even respect him for having the ability to build a closed loop system, even if its usefulness is a bit dubious . Regards, Derek

Tuning link has some advantages over closed loop. Steady state testing and the fact that the sensor is remote mean there are no instanteneous pressure or temperature variations. A regulated power supply means no variation in sensor input voltage. I'm not sure he's actually argued that. He could do it if he had the patience. However, it would take him much longer than if he had 4 gasses to look at. Oh dear. Why? Regards, Derek

It sounds more like you are assuming that you are in the center of the lane because you have not crashed into anything yet. How do you know how the voltages relate to mixture? If you assume they relate to mixture at one table position in a certain way, do you then assume they relate in the same way at another? Why choose between 7 voltages instead of the choosing the exact one needed? You don't need an O2 sensor to do this, as you can experiment in the same way by just changing the pulsewidth for a given intersection of throttle position and rpm. Sure, that's a great thing to be able to say, but once again it has to be able top be quantified and qualified, or else there is no substance to saying it. Such a statement needs to be able to be backed by data of some type. Sure it's great to not have stumbles or hesitations and have good economy. But that's a pretty low standard for determining that an engine is running well, and you can easily achieve that without an O2 sensor. The fact that you are providing a programmable ECU to replace the 16M is certainly a boon. It can be run open loop, can it not? Regards, Derek

Cliff, I'm interested to know how you arrive at what the proper "A/F ratio" target should be for a given engine, combination of parts, cylinder, throttle position & rpm. Could you shed some light on this? Regards, Derek

??

Amen brother! Amen! Regards, Derek

We've already established that a narrow band O2 sensor essentially toggles negative/positive on the threshold of zero oxygen content. We also established that a so-called WBO2 sensor measures O2 when it's present, and reacts CO & H2 to make O2 when it's not present. It requires a positive voltage when there is O2 present, and a negative one when there isn't. The relative amount of current that is required is related to how much O2 or CO is present. So, if the mixture is rich enough, you are correct: the sensor is measuring CO and inferring A/F ratio from this. The problem is that for it to measure CO, no O2 can be present. By the time O2 is not present, the engine is likely to be running extremely rich, as I have found that there is always somewhere between .1% to 4% O2 left over when the engine is making best power. To illustrate this point further, a (now retired) CARB (California Air Resources Board) automotive engineer friend of Kenny Augustine's has stated that a narrow-band O2 sensor and cat equipped vehicle typically has a 10% loss of effeciency, specifically because the cat requires extra CO in order to strip the oxygen from of the oxides of nitrogen. The fact is that this rich mixture is provided when the O2 sensor thinks the engine is running a stoichiometric ratio. I'm convinced that a WBO2 sensor reports a stoichiometric ratio under similar conditions. I don't presume to know what the customer needs/requires. I think that's really up to the individual. But I think the consumer should be given all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. This involves exploring and revealing the pros & cons of the various strategies rather than just saying,"x will make your bike work great". If you are going to say, "x will make your bike work great" you have to quantify and qualify exactly what "great" means, or else we're back to the dogma people here were trying to avoid. Again, I think it's a matter of degrees and up to the individual. How smooth is smooth? How responsive is responsive? What is good economy? I think that should more properly say "can". I've never said that using a closed loop can never improve a map. I think that under the right conditions, such as if the original map is way off toward the lean side, it probably can. What I am saying is that using closed loop cannot improve upon proper dyno tuning with a 4-gas EGA, and that after this is done closed loop is more likely to hurt than help. Regards, Derek

I have never stated that looking at O2 content has no legitimate use. If I had, I could understand your criticism a little better. But just to be the devil's advocate, if the emperor was wearing no clothes, should I say he sort of was, just to make sure I wasn't making a black/white statement, and to make sure I was not offending anyone's sensibilities? Regards, Derek

I haven't yet found a way to avoid dogma without examining a subject in depth. I don't know if it's possible. Regards, Derek

Are you saying that no one here is interested in what works, what doesn't work and why? Regards, Derek

Or Direct-Link. Regards, Derek

I might not create the exact same map, but the map I created the first time around would be better than what closed loop could produce. To be clear, my question about the basis of your comment was not to say that there are no variables to be corrected for. It was to ask on what basis you can assert that using closed loop "can more often do a better job of creating an ideal mixture at cruising speeds while enhancin a dyno tuned map than just a dyno map can". Why would you want to correct for the lack of basic maintenance with a change in mapping? Wouldn't it be much better to just adjust the TPS, valves and cam chain tensioners? They might be, but I'm sure we can agree that all other things being equal, there is precisely one map that is perfect for best power at all table positions, and one map for the best BSFC at all table positions. Again, what facts is this theory based on? You are right, but what I am assering is that even in their present form, they are more appropriate than what O2 sensor based corrections can produce. I agree. But this implies that O2 content is directly and consistently related to mixture strength, and that we know what the O2 content target is for every table postion at this slightly leaner setting. The problem is that O2 content is not directly and consistently related to mixture strength and that in order to find the correct O2 content targets, we need a an eddy current brake with a 4-gas EGA. If the map was optimized for power, you would never see a 12.5:1 ratio. Stoichiometry for gasoline is around 14.7:1, which, as far as I know, in terms of O2 sensors, implies zero percent residual oxygen. I have not found an engine yet that had no oxygen left over when it was making best power for a given table position. Using the "s" instead of the "z" is just the British spelling. Does the Optimiser attempt to automatically tune the ignition advance? Again, the built in pressure/temp corrections are likely to do a better job, unless maybe the MyECU doesn't have those. However, using Tuning Link implies that the stock ECU is being used, which does have them (To be fair, Wayne McDonald has uncovered some problems with corrections at high alitude when using a PC). How can closed loop operation on the road correct for the weather when it's possible to have the same O2 readings all the way from below 2% to above 11% CO and O2 content all the way from .2% to 4% at best power? How well the probe works depends on how far it's shoved up the pipe. I can't speak directly to what works properly with tuning link, but I have found that with my EGA below 18" in is iffy. I prefer to use bungs welded in the headpipes, but when I can't, I've found 28" to be completely reliable. While contamination with ambient air is definitely a detriment, I don't think poor results from the use of TuningLink are solely to be attributed to this factor. I think it has far more to do with using an O2 sensor in the first place. Regards, Derek