Jump to content
IGNORED

Introduction and O2 Question


roger 04 rt

Recommended Posts

To be clear: Is it correct that this approach still requires the LC-1 to spoof the engine computer to get to the 13.8:1 AF ratio? In other words, no Booster Plug, yes LC-1, yes fuel pressure regulator?

 

BTW - thanks again for your continued investigations -- this appears to be the "cleanest" set-up so far. I'm about to rebuild my 95K '04 RT-P, so this could not be any more timely for me!

Link to comment

Good questions.

 

Before answering, and I'm sure you know this, I can only answer this question in the context of a stock motorcycle--stock intake, stock exhaust, stock Coding Plug, no other fuel injection changes. A bike should be well tuned, have good coils, good compression, good fuel hoses and pump and no defects.

 

With that proviso:

 

1) Closed Loop operation brings many benefits that have been discussed throughout the thread. The Motronic fuel tables are designed for an AFR of 14.7:1 but the Motronic algorithms are designed to converge around ANY transition point of the O2 sensor. The stock sensor transitions from 200 mV to 800 mV at an air-fuel ratio of 14.7:1. The LC-1 can be programmed to make that transition at ANY air-fuel ratio. Therefore to keep Closed Loop but move to another AFR you need something like the LC-1. A point I will make is that this is in no way "spoofing" the Motronic--it giving it a different switching point and working within it's design parameters.

 

A side benefit to the LC-1 is that you can always read your motorcycle's AFR. I have found this to be a very helpful diagnostic tool.

 

2. Since the stock fuel map is set for 14.7:1 at cruise, whether you shift the map using a fuel pressure regulator or an IAT shifting device is mostly a matter of choice. The closer your fuel table is to the O2 switch point, the smoother your engine runs while you wait for the Motronic to create its Adaptation Values.

 

Running the leaner E10 fuel, the Motronic has to adapt 10% to get from 14.7 (where it is starting) to 13.8. A BoosterPlug shifts things 6%, a fuel pressure regulator can shift things 10%.

 

Another example though would go like this, you're running gasoline with no Ethanol and moving from 14.7 to 14.1 (4% richer, it runs nicely there too). For this, you need only a 4% move.

 

3. Lastly, there is the Open Loop option. You lose the regulating benefits of Closed Loop. If you run gasoline, without ethanol, a BoosterPlug will get you about 6% richer, good enough for some.

 

If you run fuel with ethanol and add a BoosterPlug you only end up 2% richer than 14.7. I doubt you would notice the difference.

 

So running E10 and looking for a richer mixture Open Loop, I would go the fuel pressure route.

 

The problem with all the Open Loop options is that you have no way for sure to know what AFR you've ended up at. And like running a Techlusion, you have to use the "butt dyno". method.

 

My favorite for E10 Land:

LC-1 and Fuel Pressure boost to 52 psi

 

My favorite for Gasoline Land

LC-1 and a BoosterPlug because the BP is easier to install.

 

A compromise for E10 Land

LC-1 and BoosterPlug

 

This is probably a longer answer than you hoped for but there are several things to consider.

 

RB

 

Link to comment

Top of the afternoon to you Roger,

Thing I am having trouble with is this: You have an LC-1 installed with associated wideband O2 sensor. With this combo you can select an A/F ratio of say..13.8/1 which will be the A/F ratio when the Motronic goes into closed loop, all well and good. Now you have increased the fuel pressure to the injectors which will result in a richer mixture both in open and closed loop. Seems to me that the Motronic will simply overcome the extra fuel added by pressure by shortening the on time of the injectors when in closed loop thus returning the A/F ratio to 13.8/1 so not much is accomplished when in closed loop over just running with the LC-1. I can see where the extra pressure will richen things up when running in open loop but I can't see how this would benefit actual performance over the Booster Plug and adjusting the TPS to .40 volts at idle. Am I coprrect in assuming that you are increasing pressure only to richen things up further when in open loop? You know I honestly can't tell much if any difference in performance between E10 and non-ethanol which I use most of the time mainly because my motorcycles are not ridden in winter and the corrosive effects of ethanol I can live without. Even use non-ethanol in my lawn mower (Honda). :rofl: Just got back from a couple day ride where I used whatever gas was available and did not notice a decrease in performance or any surging. Was on my R1100RSL for this ride. Oh, I should also mention again that I have the O2 sensors disconnected thus am always in open loop.

 

As a side note: I might just part with my '04RT as I seldom ride it after finding the '94RSL. The RSL is really growing on me. I like the light feel and superb handling in the twisties.

Link to comment

Hi Roger

 

For testing purpose, here is an idea.

 

if we know how many millivolts the O2 sensor sends to the Motronic to get a air/fuel ratio of 13.8, Could it be a good idea to build a precise regulator to feed the Motronic O2 inlet to the required voltage to get a 13.8 AFR ?

 

 

Link to comment
Hi Roger

 

For testing purpose, here is an idea.

 

if we know how many millivolts the O2 sensor sends to the Motronic to get a air/fuel ratio of 13.8, Could it be a good idea to build a precise regulator to feed the Motronic O2 inlet to the required voltage to get a 13.8 AFR ?

 

 

That won't work. Feeding the ECU a constant voltage from the O2 sensor means the ECU will thing the AFR is correct no matter what it really is.

Link to comment
That won't work. Feeding the ECU a constant voltage from the O2 sensor means the ECU will thing the AFR is correct no matter what it really is.

Since a constant voltage is illegal the ECU wouldn't think the AFR is correct, rather it would think that the O2 sensor is faulty and set a fault code and stay in open loop.

 

But either way, no, it wouldn't work. You maybe could build a circuit that spoofed the ECU by mimicking the correct O2 duty cycle.

Link to comment
Top of the afternoon to you Roger,

Thing I am having trouble with is this: You have an LC-1 installed with associated wideband O2 sensor. With this combo you can select an A/F ratio of say..13.8/1 which will be the A/F ratio when the Motronic goes into closed loop, all well and good. Now you have increased the fuel pressure to the injectors which will result in a richer mixture both in open and closed loop. Seems to me that the Motronic will simply overcome the extra fuel added by pressure by shortening the on time of the injectors when in closed loop thus returning the A/F ratio to 13.8/1 so not much is accomplished when in closed loop over just running with the LC-1. I can see where the extra pressure will richen things up when running in open loop but I can't see how this would benefit actual performance over the Booster Plug and adjusting the TPS to .40 volts at idle. Am I coprrect in assuming that you are increasing pressure only to richen things up further when in open loop? You know I honestly can't tell much if any difference in performance between E10 and non-ethanol which I use most of the time mainly because my motorcycles are not ridden in winter and the corrosive effects of ethanol I can live without. Even use non-ethanol in my lawn mower (Honda). :rofl: Just got back from a couple day ride where I used whatever gas was available and did not notice a decrease in performance or any surging. Was on my R1100RSL for this ride. Oh, I should also mention again that I have the O2 sensors disconnected thus am always in open loop.

 

As a side note: I might just part with my '04RT as I seldom ride it after finding the '94RSL. The RSL is really growing on me. I like the light feel and superb handling in the twisties.

 

The easiest way to think of this is that the Motronic requires the least Adapttion when the switch point of the O2 sensor 13.8:1 and the fuel maps (factory set to 14.7 at cruise) are the same. By boosting the fuel pressure I've made the times in the stock fuel map produce fueling like they had been designed for 13.8.

Link to comment
Hi Roger

 

For testing purpose, here is an idea.

 

if we know how many millivolts the O2 sensor sends to the Motronic to get a air/fuel ratio of 13.8, Could it be a good idea to build a precise regulator to feed the Motronic O2 inlet to the required voltage to get a 13.8 AFR ?

 

 

It would be great if it worked that way but the only thing the Motronic tries to figure out from the O2 sensor is whether the mixture is richer or leaner than the switch point of the O2 sensor. To change that switch point you need a different O2 sensor, one that switches at other than stock 14.7:1.

Link to comment
That won't work. Feeding the ECU a constant voltage from the O2 sensor means the ECU will thing the AFR is correct no matter what it really is.

Since a constant voltage is illegal the ECU wouldn't think the AFR is correct, rather it would think that the O2 sensor is faulty and set a fault code and stay in open loop.

 

But either way, no, it wouldn't work. You maybe could build a circuit that spoofed the ECU by mimicking the correct O2 duty cycle.

 

That's right, a constant voltage looks like an error. Based on how the Motronic uses the O2 sensor, it can't be spoofed into a different target AFR. You really need an O2 sensor with a different switch point.

 

Nightrider.com has a patent on something that shifts the stock O2 sensors on Harleys but it won't work on a Beemer.

Link to comment

Dirtrider asked me the other day to take a test ride with fuel pressure set to 52 psi, Motronic reset and in Open Loop mode (Wideband O2 sensor unplugged). I got out yesterday and made the run.

 

My report is simple, the bike runs great--smooth, good power, very responsive to throttle from 2000 RPM or so on up, even in 4th gear. A lot like the Closed Loop test rides at 52 psi and Wideband O2 set to 13.8:1. It's not really a surprise to me that it ran well in Open Loop. But I want to point out one thing: because I had the Wideband O2 installed, I knew that my setting of the fuel pressure was producing the enrichment I was looking for. Without the Wideband O2, you can crank up the fuel pressure, but you can't say for sure where you are with the enrichment.

 

If you go back earlier in this thread to here: Open vs Closed Loop, notice how much flatter the Closed Loop curve looks and how much tighter the histogram distribution of AFRs is in the smaller plots.

 

The same thing happened yesterday when I rode at 52 psi, reset Motronic, Open Loop. The range of AFRs, rather than being tightly centered on 13.8:1 where mostly around 14.3:1 and 13.3:1 (the two horizontal dashed lines in the plot below). My educated guess is that this is how the Motronic tries keep the Catalytic converter running even if the O2 sensor is dead. Normally in Closed Loop, with a stock sensor, the Motronic runs fueling a few percent above and below 14.7:1. (Snooze alert: The reason for going to the lean side of 14.7 is to allow Oxygen to recharge the Cerium in the three way converter.) So now, Open Loop the Motronic makes big moves in the fueling, still hoping to create a lean-of-14.7/rich-of-14.7 scenario. This way too rich/way to lean is a sort of limp-home-mode. (It's noteworthy that this will be how many PowerCommander and Techlusion curves would look if anyone plotted them.) I think it is very likely that this causes more fuel consumption than the Closed Loop case.

 

So here is the Open Loop 52 psi plot with all its "wildness".

 

open52psireset.jpg

 

 

My favorite configuration remains:

LC-1 set to 13.8:1 with Fuel Pressure boosted to 52 psi (for E10 fuel).

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Roger,

 

With your LC-1 setup, do you command a particular AFR or a particular lambda? Put another way, do you adjust the AFR for the fuel you burn (pure gas vs. E10), or do you simply command a lambda value and let the AFR take care of itself?

Link to comment
Roger,

 

With your LC-1 setup, do you command a particular AFR or a particular lambda? Put another way, do you adjust the AFR for the fuel you burn (pure gas vs. E10), or do you simply command a lambda value and let the AFR take care of itself?

 

Karl,

That's a very good question. I should mention that my answer will sound like double talk for those not conversant in stoichiometric ratios and Lambda.

 

The LC-1 is an oxygen measuring device and you can optionally program in AFR or Lambda and you can tell the LC-1 what the stoichoimetric ratio of your fuel is. I write my reports in AFR for these threads and normalize them to gasoline at 14.7:1 (as you know, E10 has a stoichiometric ratio of 14.13:1). However, on the LC-1, I actually program in Lambda and have it set to switch at Lambda = 0.94. When I say I've got the AFR set to 13.8:1 I'm really saying that I'm running 6% richer than stoic.

 

A key thing I've measured is that the Motronic MA 2.4 with Pink Coding Plug has fuel map time values which correspond to Lambda = 1 for gasoline (in the cruising part of the map). If you put E10 in your tank, the pulses are only long enough to produce Lambda = 1.04, fairly lean. And it also requires the addition of 10% more fuel to get from 1.04 down to 0.94. That's a big adaptive move for the Motronic, hence the boosted fuel pressure to minimize the amount of adaptation required.

 

The other thing I just realized yesterday, as I mentioned above, is that the Motronic MA 2.4 no-O2-sensor limp-home-mode is to vary the AFR widely to try and keep the Catalytic Converter, converting.

 

RB

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Roger, if in open loop with the O2 disconnected to maintain open loop why then do I not feel the motor responding to a varying A/F ratio? As you know I am always running with the O2 sensor disconnected and all I get (seat of pants) is super smooth operation and good gas mileage. Now, if I remove the CCP I get what is usually referred to as a "limp home" mode of operation with very rich running evidenced by much back firing. With the O2 disconnected I thought the Motronic would simply look at the various sensor inputs and maintain a constant A/F ratio based on input from the TPS sensor, IAT sensor, elevation sensor, oil temp sensor. At least this is the impression I get strictly based on how the bike runs and feels.

Link to comment

Hi Roger,

Both MC's operate in open loop with O2 sensor disconnected. The '04RT has a modified AIT sensor the '94RSL has stock AIT sensor. Both MC's have the TPS sensor adjusted to .4 volts. The RSL has no code plug and has a 1K CO potentiometer installed adjusted for best idle. The '04RT has a yellow CCP installed as it definitely likes this config over a pink CCP. Also, the '04RT has had the cat converter removed from the stock exhaust system. I would not remove the cat again as about all it accomplishes is increasing the noise level which can be annoying at times. The cat converter does not diminish performance in any way as it is totally non-restrictive. I removed it because at the time I thought it maybe tended to heat up the trans. Kind of doubt that happens as I give BMW engineering more credit than that.

 

That's about it.

Link to comment

When working on Earle's MC in Driggs, ID to smooth out the motor and eliminate surging I finally adjusted the TPS while running the engine at 2K RPM then shut down and checked the TPS voltage and found it to be .410 volts. His motorcycle has a booster plug which made no discern able difference at all in actual observed performance. His O2 sensor is disconnected. I left Earle with a very smooth running MC and the thing that made the big improvement was the adjust to the TPS.

 

When I returned home I set the TPS on both my 1100 and 1150 to .4 volt. There is no doubt in my mind that this adjustment to the TPS has the desired effect of richening the AF mixture sufficiently to produce good smooth performance in open loop. After making this adjustment to my "94RSL I found I had to re-adjust the CO POT to slightly lean the mixture.

 

Conclusion: I think it possible to correct lean burn surging on these oilheads by making only a few minor adjustments and modifications. The main adjustment is to the TPS and major mod is disconnect O2 sensor and experiment with different CCP configs. I question the need for a modification to the AIT sensor. I also believe any spark plug with the same electrode config be it Autolite or NGK or whatever will work the same to improve combustion efficiency. Just not a lot of rocket science here.

 

Now, all that said there is no doubt that one can achieve great results by going the LC-1 wideband O2 sensor route as well. I don't know if modifications to increase fuel injector pressure is really necessary from a purely practical standpoint but it is certainly an interesting experimemnt.

Edited by JamesW
Link to comment

Afternoon James

 

On the 1100 a slight TPS adjustment can improve fueling a bit.

 

On the 1150 with the Ma 2.4 system the TPS is a learnable TPS system so the Motronic doesn't use the TPS voltage as set but instead uses the low & high threshold as the absolutes. Bet if you put a GS-911 on that 1150 you will find the TPS voltage as seen by the Motronic the same as it was before your adjustment after a bit of riding.

 

Link to comment

Hi DR,

Yes, that would be right on the 1150. I had to remove F5 and re-program the upper and lower limits of the TPS. That said it would seem to me that you would still get the same richening effect as on the 1100 or at least it certainly appeared that way when I fired it up and went for a ride. The 1150 idle is smooth as can be and there is plenty of low end snort with no trace of surging. I don't think the 2.2 Motronic must be reset after TPS adjustment or put another way it doesn't learn but just looks at new TPS setting and responds accordingly. Don't have a GS911, to expensive for my blood and yet I didn't bat an eye yesterday when I forked over $129 for a fifth of Crown Royal ER, go figure.

 

Oops, you say "after a bit of riding", interesting. Why would this phenomena occur after removing F5 and setting the limits. Also, I thought this learning ability was disabled if one disconnects the O2 sensor. Am I missing something here?

Edited by JamesW
Link to comment

Afternoon James

 

When you re-program (teach) the TPS you are teaching the Motronic the High & Low limits of the TPS movement. So (within reason) the Motronic uses the lowest limit as the initial & the highest as the high limit. Unlike the 1100 Ma 2.2 the Motronic doesn't directly use the TPS output voltage but uses the voltage CHANGE from low threshold to high threshold to figure throttle plate position.

 

When I spoke of riding it for a while in the above post that was in case you didn't do the TPS re-learn. Somehow they eventually seem to figure out the highest & lowest & learn from that.

 

What you did when you removed #5 fuse is you allowed the Motronic to lose any of it's stored adaptives. That usually makes them run better for a while & seeing as you are not running the o2 sensor I doubt it re-leaned any new adaptives.

 

Link to comment

A couple posts ago I said I would explain the connection between Closed Loop, Adaptation Values and Fuel Pressure increase.

 

There is no easy way to think of or explain the full operation of the Motronic. That is especially true when you get into one of the Motronic MA 2.4 strongest abilities: Value Adaptation.

 

Assuming you maintain Closed Loop operation by keeping a valid O2 sensor in the system, there are many examples in this thread which show the following:

 

1.) If you leave the stock O2 sensor (programmed by physics to an AFR of Lambda = 1 which is 14.7:1 for gasoline) through the process of Adaptation the Motronic will, over time, create Adaptation Values which eliminate the affect of fuel pressure changes, input air temperature changes, etc. In other words it reverts to the AFR dictated by the O2 sensor--including during Open Loop operation by applying the learned adaptation values as corrections.

 

2.) If you put in an O2 sensor that shifts Lambda (in my case programmably to Lambda = 0.94 which is 13.8:1 for gasoline) you don't require a change to air temperature or fuel pressure. But a pressure increase can still have value as you will see.

 

The reason for the behaviors in 1.) and 2.) are because the Motronic can use its O2 sensor to learn in Closed Loop corrections to the Open Loop Fuel Map. For example, the Fuel Map value for 3500 RPM and 6 degrees on the TPS might be 3.5 milliseconds. In Closed Loop, the Motronic and O2 sensor might "see" that it actually takes 3.675 milliseconds. If that actual value is the case over the long term, the motronic might start with a 1% Adaptation Value, that creeps its way to a full 5% over time. This is a simple picture of how Adaptation Values get learned. (When you pull Fuse 5 or a battery lead they get erased.)

 

In case 2.) the Motronic must create Adaptation Values like the ones below (I can't find the R1150 Bosch/BMW's adaptation table but the table illustrates the point). Because the stock Fuel Map values in the Motronic equate to lambda = 1 for gasoline but Lambda = 1.04 for E10 fuel and because I've programmed lambda to 0.94, the Adaption Values inside my Motronic will be about +10%. These values will be in something like the 4 X 4 matrix at the top of the table below.

 

A few things about Adaptation values: they bridge the gap between the stock Fuel Map and reality as defined by the O2 sensor; it is hard to drive in Closed Loop in some of the areas of the adaptation map, e.g. high manifold pressure or high RPM; and these values can take hours of driving to build up.

 

So the reason to boost the fuel pressure or move the IAT sensor colder, is to bring the stock Fuel Map closer to the final AFR so that the Adaptation Values can be small. One last note, the Fuel Map might be a 16 X 16 table where the Adaptation Map might only be 4 X 4, much coarser. So all things considered there is real value to getting the Fuel Map shifted close to the final values.

 

An adjustable fuel pressure regulator does a great job of invisibly aligning the Fuel Map and a Wideband O2 sensor, and does a great job of taking care of the extra fuel needed for E10.

 

ftcoc2.png

Link to comment
A few things about Adaptation values: they bridge the gap between the stock Fuel Map and reality as defined by the O2 sensor; it is hard to drive in Closed Loop in some of the areas of the adaptation map, e.g. high manifold pressure or high RPM; and these values can take hours of driving to build up.

 

Actually, closed loop operation, and therefore adaptation, may only occur in a small portion of the total map. Those areas you describe as "hard to drive in Closed Loop in" may be areas where closed loop operation never occurs by design.

 

For example, look at Brad Black's excellent article on open and closed loop fuel injection at Brad the Bike Boy. About half way down he presents a Ducati 916 fuel map which shows that closed loop operation only occurs in about 30% of the total map. In the other 70% of the map (high rpm or large throttle opening) only open loop operation occurs. Without the ability to reprogram the map, your air temperature and fuel pressure adjustments would be the only way to change the fueling from stock in these areas.

Link to comment

Yes, good points, let me amplify some.

 

Many adaptation strategies that I've read through, find a way to make measurements in the Closed Loop region which can cover larger or smaller parts of the fuel make, and then apply those learned factors to parts of the map that don't go closed loop--high RPMs, wide throttle openings. If your ECU algorithm learned that you needed 7% more fuel in most cells (say you were running E10 fuel and had injectors/pressure a few percent low) it would certainly be beneficial to apply that increased fuel at WOT. Looking at the adaptation chart (repeated below) you can see that for RPMs above 2200 and manifold pressure above 77 kPA (about 3/4 throttle opening) they continue to use the same factors.

 

I just looked through some data files I have and there are points above 5000 RPM that show Closed Loop. I don't know where the top is but that would be roughly 100 miles per hour in 6th gear!

 

Moving from the theory to test runs, I've run at Lambda = 0.96 (13.8:1 AFR gasoline) using 4 scenarios:

 

1) No BoosterPlug or FP increase

2) BoosterPlug (20C shift, 6% more fuel)

3) BoosterPlug in series with IAT sensor (30C shift, 10% more fuel)

4) Fuel Pressure at 52 PSI (aboute 10% more fuel)

 

It took hours of driving for case 1) to feel really good at all speeds and gears. Case 2) seemed pretty good right away but improved with driving (shown in some earlier posts in this thread, here), and cases 3) and 4) seemed really strong as soon as I drove off. So in practice the feeling of the motorcyle was as the theory would have predicted. Cases 3) and 4) idled well immediately (as you would expect) cases 1) and 2) idled well after the first test ride. The thing I don't like about 3) is that you don't know what else changes (if anything) when you signal air temperature 30C low.

 

ftcoc2.png

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Roger,

 

I would be very surprised if adaptation values are extrapolated into regions where only open loop operation occurs. There is no feedback if an error is made.

 

To what bike does the long term fuel trim table in your last post refer? Most BMWs use N-alpha control strategies, not MAP.

Link to comment

This is all most interesting bu for me the bottom line is to just KISS (keep it simple stupid) and disconnect the O2 sensor and operate in constant open loop. Oh, and don't forget to perform good regular preventive maintenance as in air filter change, spark plugs, oil changes.....then just ride. :)

Link to comment
This is all most interesting bu for me the bottom line is to just KISS (keep it simple stupid) and disconnect the O2 sensor and operate in constant open loop. Oh, and don't forget to perform good regular preventive maintenance as in air filter change, spark plugs, oil changes.....then just ride. :)

 

Of course the very simplest thing to do is leave one's bike in totally stock condition and tune it up by the book. So I don't think we're really talking about what's simplest, at least what I've been trying to find is what makes the 1150s run their very best, in harmony with the Motronic and with the least change. That goal is achieved simply with the replacement of the stock O2 sensor, with a Wideband sensor system like the Innovate Motorsports LC-1 ($145 at Amazon).

 

Beyond that, you can choose to speed and smooth the Adaptation Process with the addition of a BoosterPlug or increased fuel pressure.

 

Once the LC-1 is added, you have a full-time AFR monitoring system which can quickly lead to diagnosis of a range of problems.

Link to comment
Roger,

 

I would be very surprised if adaptation values are extrapolated into regions where only open loop operation occurs. There is no feedback if an error is made.

 

To what bike does the long term fuel trim table in your last post refer? Most BMWs use N-alpha control strategies, not MAP.

 

Karl,

Most of my information has come from the measurements and data that I've taken, explained by follow-up research.

 

The basic data that shows the Closed Loop adaptation process applied to Open Loop fueling is scattered through this now-long thread. This post is one where you can clearly see the entire start-up enrichment, warm-up enrichment, early Open Loop and Closed Loop all shifted. I chose the Adaptation chart a couple posts back only as an illustration of one way Adaptation can get applied. Here is another type of adaptation:

 

97800813.jpg

This is interesting because it shows 3 types of Adaptations: a short term fuel trim (Lambdaintegrator) and two long term fuel trims. One long term fuel trim is additive for short injector pulses the other is multiplicative for longer fuel pulses. This is from an early 2000s BMW car, I believe.

 

The Long Term Fuel trims are most advantageous to areas not covered by Closed Loop operation simply because the areas covered by Closed Loop get frequently adjusted by the short term trims. The two areas that most benefit from Open Loop, Long Term trimming are starting/warm up, and Wide Open Throttle. The target WOT AFR is somewhere around 12.5-12.9; now imagine you ran E10 and had a fuel system that was several percent low on delivery (reasonable assumptions). The AFR could quickly jump to 13.8:1 at WOT, not where the engine designers want it. Use the Long Term trim, scale the fuel up or down, protect the engine.

 

Here are a couple displays from PowerCommander software which give an idea how much of the Alpha-N table is covered by Closed Loop in their system (the dark areas, quite a lot). I would assume that their selection of Closed Loop areas mimicks BMWs but that is just a guess on my part. As I said earlier I have data showing Closed Loop above 5500 RPM. I can also confirm that at low TPS angles, Closed Loop stops around 3000 RPM (like the PC chart below).

 

pc1150map.jpg

pc1100map.jpg

 

In any event, your contention a couple posts back that fuel pressure increases are a sure way to boost AFR everywhere (provided you also have a Wideband O2 sensor so that it doesn't revert) is sound based on the actual data I've measured.

 

One last point, I began this effort about 9 months ago with the intention of smoothing out a minor roughness that I attributed to leanness in the neighborhood of 4000 RPM. I've ended up with the LC-1 and FPR producing a bike that pulls with gusto from 2000 RPM on up in 4th gear and 2500 RPM on up in 5th and 6th gears. This is a tremendous driveablility improvement.

Roger

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Roger,

 

The Power Commander displays are very interesting. If you're right, BMW's system operates closed loop in a larger area than I expected.

Link to comment
Roger,

 

The Power Commander displays are very interesting. If you're right, BMW's system operates closed loop in a larger area than I expected.

 

Although I think that I've pretty well wrapped up with this project, I may attach the GS-911 and take a ride in every gear from 1000 RPM to redline and see which areas have closed loop coverage. As I mentioned I sifted through the data this afternoon and found Closed Loop flags in the data up to 5500 RPM. When I do I'll makes some notes and post them.

 

Since the GS-911 doesn't report real time data for the 1100 series, when someone eventually attaches an LC-1 to an 1100, it will be interesting to see the AFR data. Until then ...

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Evening roger,

I would be interested in seeing the results of a dyno run on your '04RT. I would also like very much to take a ride on your mc. Maybe we could meet half way like say.... Minot, ND or some other forsaken place. You choose.

 

I guess the final outcome is one doesn't really need a modified AIT and the LC-1 is the recommended way to go at least on an 1150? Or should one consider a modified AIT to cover the open loop bases as well?

Link to comment
Evening roger,

I would be interested in seeing the results of a dyno run on your '04RT. I would also like very much to take a ride on your mc. Maybe we could meet half way like say.... Minot, ND or some other forsaken place. You choose.

 

I guess the final outcome is one doesn't really need a modified AIT and the LC-1 is the recommended way to go at least on an 1150? Or should one consider a modified AIT to cover the open loop bases as well?

 

A before and after Brake Torque plot (as opposed to a usual inertial run) would be interesting. There's no doubt it's got more get up and go between 2000 and 3500 RPM at the usual TPS angles as opposed to a WOT run. I don't think there is any reason I would have more maximum horsepower, just more get up and go in the driving range.

 

My thoughts on best configurations are here .

RB

Link to comment

Here is a neat small fuel pressure regulator that I came across after I bought mine. Higher price that others but small, with a good range of pressure variation.

RB

 

Varireg

 

photo%20025a.jpg

Link to comment
Dyno testing is the gold standard (or maybe the only standard).

 

Ben

 

If all you're after is more power.

 

Good dyno testing - which can include using an A/F probe - tells you lots of stuff about the character of your engine when interpreted by capable people.

 

Further, you are mistaken about "power," The analytic parameter to eyeball is torque at different rpm's certainly not just peak power and in comparison to the "before" condition. For example, low-end torque is what we are hearing about in this thread now.

 

Sure, I can joke that I "feel" all the great power improvements that occur every time I change the tranny oil*. Instead of "feel," many of us have worked through several cycles of modify-and-check dyno testing in enhancing our engines. As many tears as cheers in the process. And dyno testing quite literally measures just where the rubber meets the road.

 

The alternative is the "butt-dyno". For sure, the dyno charts change the whole basis of claims from subjective judgment (very subjective, however well intentioned) to objective measurement.

 

There are bike dyno testers in every region and the price is right. You download the "reader" software and away you go with the data.... if you have the plain courage to subject your claims to testing.

 

Ben

*the improvements only happen when I buy really expensive tranny oil but I am certain they would also happen TWICE as big if I distilled an additive myself from organic coconut juice, locally sourced.

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment

Morning Ben

 

I have to disagree with you on using a dyno for complete motorcycle tuning. It is obvious that you haven't spent any time on a chassis dyno doing motorcycle tuning.

 

First off, you can't just say DYNO as there are different types of dynos used for motorcycle tuning work.

 

The more common inertia types (like the common Dyno Jet) that most motorcycle shops have are a great tuning aid for roll-on power tuning, WOT acceleration tuning, & other acceleration type tuning, or even fuel/air ratios under different forms of acceleration. They are sadly lacking for steady state fuel/air ratio work, diagnosing steady throttle anything, & steady state engine surging or fueling tuning. They do have a good base program for adjusting for ambient temp, humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc. so most data is repeatable day to day & week to week even with changing atmospheric conditions. This is my Dyno of choice for power tuning & roll-on acceleration tuning. They just plain suck when trying to do any steady state tuning or constant throttle work. I have experience with this type of Dyno as one of my friends used to have one in his shop.

 

The other type is the a pump or electric current (basically a brake dyno). These do lend themselves to more steady state engine loading but this type is very difficult to set up for motorcycle usage. Such as how much load to dial in for a specific motorcycle at a specific road speed in each gear. I basically have no experience with this type of dyno for motorcycle usage other than some of the difficulties I have seen with experienced users trying to get back to back credible data from a motorcycle. (why most motorcycle shops have inertia type dynos).

 

 

For (one off) tuning for normal riding other than WOT accelerations & heavy throttle roll-ons you can't beat real world road data with the bike being ridden at actual road load type situations as long as you have proper instrumentation in place to measure & data log what is happening engine & fueling system wise.

 

Even a butt Dyno isn't too bad in some situations as that is what makes the rider happy not some random numbers or an adjusted for??? plot on a nice shinny graph sheet.

 

Link to comment

Hello D.R.,

I do agree with the "butt" dyno method for steady state running evaluation for sure. This method is also most cost effective, imo. Bottom (no pun intended) line is this method is for me the end all test.

 

I took my '94RSL to Boise for 3 pulls on the dyno for $20 as I wanted to find out what my A/F ratio is after modifications and what the torque/HP curve looked like as well. It was $20 well spent. That plus a few miles of good old butt testing to see if there was any surging and there isn't.

 

I think it would be interesting to see how Roger's machine performs on a dyno with different a/f settings using the LC-1. This kind of tuning would no doubt cost a bit more than $20 but would be interesting. Again, imo. It would just be a bit more data to add to the mix he has already collected.

 

I would be interested in the LC-1 especially for the reduced price but what bothers me is how would the motorcycle idle and perform when it comes to smoothness while in open loop and not looking at the wideband sensor? Seems this is where a modified AIT or readjusted TPS might come into play.

 

 

Edited by JamesW
Link to comment
Great Roger

 

It is a tempting mod if it is easy to use this device without too much fuel tube alterations.

 

Could you give us the mpg your doing with this mod ?

 

Thanks

 

Legarem,

Trying to clean up the loose ends on this thread, I did take a trip today and carefully filled the tank in the same place at the same station to the same level, twice. The trip was about half local roads with occasional traffic lights and stop/go and half highway, posted speeds 45 - 50 miles/hr, I was about 10% over the speed limit, with a couple stretches of 70 mph.

 

My odometer said the trip was 71.9 miles. The second fill-up was 1.496 gallons. That calculates to about 48 mpg. I don't know what the "before" would be, I'm not trying to indicate that this is good or bad. For me this type of mileage is fine.

 

RB

Link to comment
...

 

I think it would be interesting to see how Roger's machine performs on a dyno with different a/f settings using the LC-1. This kind of tuning would no doubt cost a bit more than $20 but would be interesting. Again, imo. It would just be a bit more data to add to the mix he has already collected.

 

I would be interested in the LC-1 especially for the reduced price but what bothers me is how would the motorcycle idle and perform when it comes to smoothness while in open loop and not looking at the wideband sensor? Seems this is where a modified AIT or readjusted TPS might come into play.

 

The area that I wanted to address with this project was 0 to 20 degrees TPS and 1500 to 4500 RPM since that's where most of my driving/cruising is done (but like everyone else I enjoy letting it rip in the turns on occasion and running WOT for stretches on the highway too). I've often wondered how torque would look in that range as a function of AFR. Between 13.5 and 14.1 I couldn't tell much difference, it just runs well. At 15.6:1 (I've tried that) it runs with some strain. For me, I can't see the bang-for-the buck of Dyno studies although I've called a couple guys.

 

As far as Idling, Warm-Up and WOT the bike is very smooth and responsive. I've wondered what it would feel like if I dropped to 13.2:1 but that will await someone else to take this further.

 

The next thing I'd like to do, as TestPilot suggested, is to map the RPMs where the Motronic uses Closed Loop. I think for a few weeks though, I'm just going to ride.

 

Oh, and if it's of any interest, the last time the valves were adjusted was about a year ago and I balanced the TBs at the start of the project. Plugs and air filter were done then too. I've just let them be since then.

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment

Hello again Roger,

Not a bad idea to just ride especially as the days are getting shorter.

 

When I had the dyno test done on my 1100 I had the tester hold RPM steady at about 4K RPM and we observed a steady 13.8 A/F ratio with nice torque and it held steady RPM with no throttle change. Good enough for me. I was going to take the 1150 in for a test run but the cost is now $70 for 3 pulls and extra for any tuning so decided seat of the pants is good enough for me.

 

Must admit I am tempted to spring for an LC-1 out of curiosity but then I would be tempted to buy a GS911 and on and on. Not worth it too me especially since I am thinking of selling the 1150 as I much prefer riding the '94RSL. I just love this bike! The leaned forward riding position is good for my back and I discovered that if I lower the wind screen so that the wind blast hits my entire helmet my body is in equilibrium which eliminates the strain on my arms provided I can ride above 60 mph. Only down side is the bugs but oh well, it is a motorcycle after all. :wave:

Link to comment
Morning Ben

snip It is obvious that you haven't spent any time on a chassis dyno doing motorcycle tuning.

snip

 

I've spent hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours working with dyno testing on two boxer engines - both types of dyno too. And many runs with a Tesla g-meter.

 

Your gratuitous insult does not enhance the credibility of your post.

 

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment

I also have an interest in audio design. Funny, there are the "golden ear" crowd who believe their judgments are free of bias and that they ears are super-sensitive beyond the limits of meters and microphones and there are the "measurement" crowd with calibrated microphones and trick software.

 

I am truly surprised to hear people on this board defending subjective testing and pooh-poohing measurements.

 

Are they the "golden butt" crowd who believe they are free of subjective bias?

 

Show us the dyno results.

 

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment

Afternoon Peter,

I don't think D.R. meant to offend. He is a valuable resource for informed information here and I for one appreciate and respect his input on matters oilhead. Same goes for Roger.

Link to comment
Afternoon Peter,

I don't think D.R. meant to offend. He is a valuable resource for informed information here and I for one appreciate and respect his input on matters oilhead. Same goes for Roger.

 

1. I fully agree the DR is a valuable resource here and doubly-so for more experienced tinkerers (ahem, ahem) who rely on his advanced knowledge than for others.... as I have said many times.

 

2. It should be "obvious" that I do have experience with dynos even from a fast peek at my previous post as do many others at this forum and that the remark really was insulting and uncalled-for, although I am certain it was never meant to be so.

 

And like the old joke line, "I've been insulted better"... no problem. Let's get on with seeing some dyno testing of impressive claims about air temp foolers and trick wide-band O2 sensors mods.

 

And lots more posts from DR.

 

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment

Hmmm ... Seems like this Wideband O2 thread has been hijacked by the Dyno Corps. Rather than name-calling and credential-posturing here, I've started you a new thread. I look forward to new insights there.

 

Everything You Wanted to Know About Dynos but Were Afraid to Ask

 

Let's keep this thread for Wideband O2 retrofitting and get things back to a respectful dialog.

 

RB

Edited by roger 04 rt
Link to comment
Hmmm ... Seems like this Wideband O2 thread has been hijacked by the Dyno Corps. Rather than name-calling and credential-posturing here, I've started you a new thread. I look forward to new insights there.

 

Everything You Wanted to Know About Dynos but Were Afraid to Ask

 

Let's keep this thread for Wideband O2 retrofitting and get things back to a respectful dialog.

 

RB

 

NO hijack what so ever. Just a request to see some documentation for your progress. Fair enough?

 

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment

I apologize to everyone that for some reason a fair amount of personal disrespect has crept into this thread.

 

I hope that it's very clear to everyone else that I've shared copious amounts (most would say too much ;) ) information in the 245 posts that form this thread.

 

For anyone who wishes the time and expense of dyno testing, you are welcome to do that at your own.

 

As for my thoughts on the value, I am happy to participate here: Dyno Thread.

Link to comment

Accusing someone of malfeasance who just asks for data is disrespectful; creating a false dust-up where none existed before is questionable behavior.

 

Posting dyno charts on a bike website is appropriate, routine, sensible... and expected.

 

I have been following this very interesting thread. Great data. Very valuable to see the results of using the wide-band A/F tool providing fresh information. Not least in value are Roger's excellent discussion and analysis posts. We need more of the same.

 

But now we need to see performance results from a dyno documenting progress.

 

Ben

Edited by Peter Parts
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I've now logged about 500 miles on my pressure regulator and LC-1 combo (no BoosterPlug or other change), all tuned for a gasoline AFR of 13.8:1 using E10 fuel. The mileage includes almost 100 miles between 70 and 85 mph. Lambda on the LC-1 is now set to 0.94 and the fuel pressure regulator (FPR) is set to 52 PSI, correcting Open Loop for both the change in Lambda and the leanness of E10 fuel. As setup now I would say that the Boxer engine is as responsive, smooth and powerful (for the bike's weight) as any engine I've owned. It's interesting to duck down below the windscreen at 75 in 6th gear, these 1150 engines at 3700 RPM really purr.

 

On the last series of Open Loop tests that I made, I attempted to set things up in the garage while on a conference call. Cradling the phone on my shoulder, taking the bike off the center stand and dodging some stuff piled on the floor in front of the bike led to a slow motion tip-over and a couple of deep scratches on the windscreen as it hit an adjacent bicycle. I've bought a Micro-Mesh kit and some coarser (320 & 600) sandpaper. That seems to be going pretty well. Scratches are gone, polishing it up. ;)

 

When I have time, I'll take a look at the speeds and RPMs where the Motronic is Closed Loop.

 

RB

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...