Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hrdtail78]

wouldn't that pave the way to reduce some of the perceive need for dyno tuners?

I'm not worried about that.  I am sure there are those that really worry about thier pocket book with this.  

[mayor]

I am also sure that's why that other thread got locked. 

nope, I think the issue was that it took Bob posting the fourth new start here to get to a point everyone could/should focus on.  The first three posts were so ambiguous that the discussion always ended up being individual circlejerks based on each persons inference of what he was asking asking.  After 261 posts, and half of them Bob asking why no one was proving the none stated theory wrong, why keep the thread open to allow folks of opposite opinion to get jabs into each other. 

I don't think it will put tuners out of business, but I do see the constant slew of "no need for dyno tuningever again" threads on various forums coming up.

[mayor]

So now we need someone who can be objective and non biased to do the test. Any takers?

I don't think you will truly find a non biased person anywhere when it comes to this subject.  Everyone is coiming in with, or starting to develop their one biases.  why not you?  if Bob can tell you what voltage that your wide open should be set too, you can do some data runs to see if you can get it in the desired range, then run it on a dyno to see how the afr/torque curve looks.   

[Buckeye_Tuning]

If after 261 posts, no answers to the original questions raised, and ending with the thread being locked down, is there really anything to gain by starting the same conversation all over again with primarily the same participants?  Just wondering....  

Because a lot of us did NOT participate, or could not participate fully.  Bob and I got banned from HTT for asking the politically incorrect questions over there.  If YOU like HTT, that's fine.  I no longer do, and over here?  I can post what I think about narrow bands without fear that the mods will ban me for doing so.  This will NOT be the same discussion at all.

There IS an issue over there and it is why I don't like the references to that site.  You are either IN or you are OUT.  You can see some of the INS coming here spewing forth how one guy from Illinois is the BEST tuner... way better than Doc , etc..  Here?  Cold hard data is going to rule.  No pros, no antis, but data.

If you THINK this will be a rehash... then how about moving along, no member has to read a thread they think will be worthless, right?

I will have a 96 coming in for a Stage 2 plus tune pretty soon.  Now THAT bike will be perfect to run some experiments upon.  I will also throw the 120r up on the wheel.  Over on HTT, I was NOT permitted to post ANY data as ALL data from me was suspect, which I HIGHLY resented, Mike!  HIGHLY.  Here on CVO?  Data WILL be given to the members.  The members will decide the truth and veracity of that data.  The MODS will NOT gang up and stop the flow of data, right?  Notice  how on that 261 thread... not one person  posted data?  Did you ever stop to wonder the... 'why' of that?  And... it has NOTHING to do with how Bob worded his OPs either. That is just Mike hiding the true facts of he is either IN on it or blind to it.  I think the latter.  Most I talk to think the former, though.

 It is because the free flow of ideas was STOPPED.  HTT is dying and on the way out.  When only ONE opinion is available, the 'entertainment factor' goes way down for members.  Also, the ideas one obtains from such a place is screwed because not all sides are present.

So... how about QUIT talking about what happened on HTT as that is not reality anymore anyways.  How about instead... move this thread along.  BTW, YOU always argue with ANY tuning and why is that?  You don't care, remember?  You have an EMS and no tuning is needed, right?  So... how about allowing us the courtesy to talk about this without the snide remarks that do NOT move the thread forward.  In return?  I will quit telling folks how EMS destroyed a bike or two, as I AGREE that that COULD have been statistical anomalies.  OK?

I think being able to have a DIYer be able to complete a tune without the need of anything else, like twin scan or some WEGO device would be very very cool for members.

Mike, here is something that you simply, as of yet, do NOT grasp......  There are so many guys that want their bike tuned, that it's crazy.  Forums distort facts like this.  Most want a tune and be able to move on, and all the hullabaloo about 'no more tuners needed' is so much air... it is silly.  I have given away way more tunes (to another tuner) than I have even thought about doing.

Instead, with a device that can 'do it all'?  That may very well be the 'thing' that grabs certain folks interest and one day THEY will own a dyno, too.

[Steve Cole]

I don't think you will truly find a non biased person anywhere when it comes to this subject.  Everyone is coiming in with, or starting to develop their one biases.  why not you?  if Bob can tell you what voltage that your wide open should be set too, you can do some data runs to see if you can get it in the desired range, then run it on a dyno to see how the afr/torque curve looks.   

Sounds like the same old chit with nothing changing, no one willing to think outside the box so therefor it must be wrong. Then when someone steps on the box all hell breaks loose!

Here is a simple test for you to do since you can run on a dyno. Take your bike and properly tune it at what you believe to be 13.0:1. Make sure you change the scale on the AFR chart so that it has a high of 14 :1 and a low of 12:1 so you can really see what you have. Now while you do a WOT run and record the DJ output on a properly scaled chart and make sure you have recorded the ECM data with O2 data at the same time. Next retune properly to what you believe is 13.5 :1 and repeat the same procedure. Post the two results and my guess is you will never get a flat AFR line to begin with no matter how hard you try! Now if you play the game and take the resolution on the AFR graph so that it has a high of 18:1 and a low of 10:1 it will look flat. Truth is it's not. Now compare those charts with the O2 voltage output and you will have your answer. Also when looking at the recorded data make sure that you have no AE, DE or pinging happening during the run as that will change the results. You have the time, equipment and bike to at least get that far along.

[mayor]

thanks Jason.  I'll try not to post too where people can see just how dumb I really am.    

tsani, why not you for the test.  I wasn't meaning I thought you were biased, but I think you would be good to participate on the test as a DIYer.  Like I said everyone is going into this with some sort of preconceived notions, but as long as folks are open minded that shouldn't stop everyone from reaching the same conclusion based on actual data.  Hopefully, data can validate who's notions have merit. 

why not me?  if I'm not mistaken, I think I'm the only one that publically posted some data on the subject in the group that's discussing it over here... The problem with me doing a DIY road test is both my EFI bikes are already tuned in an AFR range that we are trying to acheive, and I'm very familar with the cals on those bikes so I could inadvertantly or intentially bias the test with externally collected data (even if that data wasn't part of that test, since I have had both those bikes on dyno's to verify afr). 

[hrdtail78]

I don't agree with you that everyone is biased.
Me for example.
I believe in science and facts is facts. Just report the facts with supporting documentation and there can be no argument about it.

Doesn't mean I am not interested in the results or in learning.

I agree.  I don't have a dog in the fight either.  Facts is facts.  I got plenty of broad band system I can use already, and I have used narrow band system in the past to tune WOT.   When you tune a can bike, you only have 3 types of data to collect.  Really only 1 when you are tuning WOT.

[mayor]

Sounds like the same old chit with nothing changing, no one willing to think outside the box so therefor it must be wrong. Then when someone steps on the box all hell breaks loose!

I think you need to reread what I posted.  The problem was there was no direction, no one knew what the hell Bob was asking or where he was going with the subject. He was completely ambiguous. It has nothing to do with anything other than that.  If you read my posts, you will see that I am keeping an open mind. 

like it or not Jason, you are going into this biased.  You have done something similar before, so you don't see it not working. That's not a problem though. In science, there can be biases.  It's keeping them from affecting the tests that's important. 

[hrdtail78]

How about we just drop the whole HTT references once and for all.  I shut down on discussing tuning stuff because of the garbage. I am hoping it will go different here.

I hope so too.  I deleted and modded some of my above post.

[mayor]

I had posted something similar yesterday on this same subject.  This was my thoughts based on the magic number on my bike seeming to be 1720 mv:

to me a test would be fairly easy based on what has been posted on lambda bikes so far.  Change the afr table to 14.0 at wide open, and check the o2 sensor voltage...if it indicates that the value are around 1700-1720, then the data says this won't work...if the values reduce, then it is feasible..am I thinking right? to further test, set the afr table values to 12.5, and retest.  If the values stay around 1720, then this won't work...but if the values go up, then this is feasible.   :idunno:  So far, there hasn't been any data posted to suggest to me that this is not feasible.  Next time I'm at the shop, we may test my hypothesis...unless one of you other guys do first.

I think this is loosely similar to what Steve was suggesting....but I want to intenionally take the wide open out of acceptable afr range since that to me is part of the end goal (try to keep in an acceptable range). 

[mayor]

As for my data, I was pouring over it just before Bob posted this idea. What I was looking at was O2 sensor data that was "out of range" and figure what it meant and could I use it to see what the bike was doing. Problem was that I have a AFR, not a Lambda based bike and the sensors are non linear in their output. Hard to nail down.

I have both now, and I have boats loads of data recordings from my bikes... but unfortunately I never use the datamaster recording that recorded o2/lambda sensor voltage.  I never really cared at the time, since my wide open throttle on closed courses where generally limited to timing retard events and mph pull tests.  On a different note, lambda's are much easier to tune that afr bikes when closed course tuning.  The new hd06 dongle does help too, since it is faster.  I haven't tried collecting data with it on my afr bike, but I may when I get a chance to play with that bike. 

[hrdtail78]

Once you guys catch up to the fuel side.  I will hopefully own this.

http://www.tfxengine.com/index.html

[Buckeye_Tuning]

Here is what Russel does and I am going to repeat this process.  WHen doing a v-tune, at the end of things just keep v-tune up and running and sniff with a dyno or Herko blocks to get the WOT pull using the dyno O2 sensor.  I turned v-tune off at the end and then did the sweeps, so I have no WOT data to compare and share yet.  But doing it like Russel?  THAT will get it all.  I will also do the test as I outlined, too.  Steady state, like v-tuning, may be whats required?

[Buckeye_Tuning]

Once you guys catch up to the fuel side.  I will hopefully own this.

http://www.tfxengine.com/index.html

I love it, but will the transducer fit in an ACR hole?

[mayor]

that cool hrdtail.   Dan Fitzmaurice told me last year that they were thinking about adding the capabilities to input data from something like that into the Tmax.  I think it was just for building their maps, but how cool would it be to use that to directly input useable data.