Print

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

[mayor]

what it does is show those that are actively participating that there are others with skin in the game.  Doing these test and reporting our findings takes time, and it would be nice to know that there are others donating the time as well.   

[Steve Cole]

Problem has been the same old one all along. People who will not be named all along have said it's impossible it will not work, not accurate enough and on and on and on. Has to be done on a dyno with Broad Bands and in truth the Broad Bands due to how they are being used, are no better or worse than the stock Narrow Band units. Now that a few have finally done a little testing on your own, maybe, just maybe people will learn that it works and works fine. Is it dead on NO but neither are Broad Bands. Until a few of you were willing to enlarge the scale of your Broad Bands so you could really see what is going on with Broad Bands, no one was going to believe us that have said for years it can be done and works fine.

Is anymore data going to change your results? Would seeing our data that basically shows just what yours does change the results? I've spent the better part of 5 years trying to get people to understand Broad Bands and the short falls. Without getting a few of you to do you own testing it was getting no where, other than a bunch of arguments and a lot of BS. You certainly would not have believe it had you not done it on your own thats for sure as you all have been fighting it for years.

[mayor]

You certainly would not have believe it had you not done it on your own thats for sure as you all have been fighting it for years.

I'm assuming that this is directed at me, since Joe is a relative new comer to this conversation, so let me respond by asking in what way have I been fighting this? 

You seem to have a rather short memory.  When I made the jump into flash tuning a few years ago, did I not go through the process as outlined by TTS and its representatives, all the while documenting publically what I was doing, with a final outcome that validated that vtuning per the outlined process worked?  In the validation, did I not also publically document that when the Vtune program on an afr bike indicates that enough data has been collected on an extendable cell that the results are fairly linear to what was recorded on an external afr meter?  The lambda cals are the only one's that I do not have confidence in the extension method, and I have not seen any circumstance to get me to change my opinion on that. 

I am not opposed to using broad bands, but I am not opposed to using narrow bands either. In the several attempts that Bob had made previous to get this thread going, I never publically stated that it wouldn't work. I honestly didn’t know, in truth I was actually biased towards the notion that it would work since Bob and Jason both had stated that WOT tuning using narrow bands was not a new concept.  If I mind correctly, it was you telling Andy Whittle that narrow bands can't be used in this fashion several years ago, not me. 

The only issue that I have on using the narrow bands to tune with is an operator at this time is not dealing with known values.  If you go tell someone to target 1720 mV on a lambda bike, they will look at you like you have two heads.  There is nothing to tell them how many ve values that you must increase the cell to if the current reading is 1610 mV.  The operator can use afr since the calibration has a table with desired afr, and then the math between desired.

[joe_lyons50023]

No it will not change my data but the more data the better.  But ohh well same outcome different forum.  Yes you can use narrow bands to get you in the ball park to 12.5-13.5 but I did the same thing with basic auto tune and didn't have the figure out the scale of sensor voltage to afr.  Until you come out with a way to make this usable through your programing on a somewhat automated scale then I don't see a huge gain but with just two people information its really not that big of a deal.  Broad bands have worked just fine to tune our fancy Brigs and Stratton which is simple to tune in the first place but I get the idea of trying use what's already on the bike but even that isn't always In a proper place.  Now get to work on my closed loop ignition timing and then you will get great praise and gifts from the heavens lol.  All in fun guys its cool learning more of this stuff.

[cvofbme]

By showing my recorded results does that put more OR less credit to your findings?

I would think not, but would show that you actually have data that you recorded other than just posting the question on behalf os Steve.

[Steve Cole]

I point this to ALL of you that have fought about the Broad Band Sensor issues, and yes you are one of them but not all of them. There has been a preconceived notion that you have to do it that way and anything else is no good. These tests done by you and Joe only show its not to be true.

I'm assuming that this is directed at me, since Joe is a relative new comer to this conversation, so let me respond by asking in what way have I been fighting this? 

You seem to have a rather short memory.  When I made the jump into flash tuning a few years ago, did I not go through the process as outlined by TTS and its representatives, all the while documenting publically what I was doing, with a final outcome that validated that vtuning per the outlined process worked?  In the validation, did I not also publically document that when the Vtune program on an afr bike indicates that enough data has been collected on an extendable cell that the results are fairly linear to what was recorded on an external afr meter?  The lambda cals are the only one's that I do not have confidence in the extension method, and I have not seen any circumstance to get me to change my opinion on that. 

Clearly your leaving a few other things out but it was on another site so we can let it go.

I am not opposed to using broad bands, but I am not opposed to using narrow bands either. In the several attempts that Bob had made previous to get this thread going, I never publically stated that it wouldn't work. I honestly didn’t know, in truth I was actually biased towards the notion that it would work since Bob and Jason both had stated that WOT tuning using narrow bands was not a new concept.  If I mind correctly, it was you telling Andy Whittle that narrow bands can't be used in this fashion several years ago, not me. 

Publicly stated being the key words but the private side has been sent around too. As far as Whittlebeast I said what he was trying to do would not work, never once did I say that Narrow Band tuning would not work at WOT. Your memory seems to be a little on the short side by taking things out of context. I've been tuning with Narrow bands for years so it not new to me at all

The only issue that I have on using the narrow bands to tune with is an operator at this time is not dealing with known values.  If you go tell someone to target 1720 mV on a lambda bike, they will look at you like you have two heads.  There is nothing to tell them how many ve values that you must increase the cell to if the current reading is 1610 mV.  The operator can use afr since the calibration has a table with desired afr, and then the math between desired.

So who is supposed to tell everyone what to do? The process has been there and if you go back and read, you can even find I posted the values long ago. The only one who responded to them at one time was Rabos but it was quickly shutdown by others.

The bottom line is that it clearly works just as it should within a tolerance that is more than acceptable for a HD engine. Not only does it get you in the ball park it get you as good as the Broad Bands do. The outcome here is/was much different as people really got to see some real data that did not come from myself or others that are accused of being onesided. They also got to see that the supposed flat line tuning on a dyno turns out not to be so flat when the scale get's changed to a usable range. So when they here it was tuned to 13.x they now know that those numbers are some sort of average that may or maynot be 13.x. The more data that would be posted is just going to show more of the same, so I believe the point has been well enough raised for people to get a better understanding.

[mayor]

Publically stated being the key word but the private side has been sent around too.

if you have a private written statement from me where I have stated anything other than what I have stated publically, please feel free to post it.  If you can't, then let's refrain from trying me on hearsay since what I say and what someone hears may not be one and the same. 

[FLTRI]

I would think not, but would show that you actually have data that you recorded other than just posting the question on behalf os Steve.

Data? I don need no stinking data!
And the last thing I need to do is post on behalf of Steve, he does fine for himself. 

Look, the whole purpose of my OP was to help those with closed loop bikes with tuners that wanted to get a decent WOT tune without traveling great miles just to get to a qualified tuner.

In order to do that folks needed to buy into tuning off what they presently have on their bikes...NBO2 sensors.

The fact that OTHERS produced the results that answered my question eliminated any assumed bias on my part, right?

IME, there is no, and never will be, a better end product for a proper tune from an experienced tuner with whatever he feels confident with. Forcing a Power Commander tuner to use a flash tuner doesn't work well as a rule.

Bob

[hrdtail78]

Wow!

What they want is a system that will do everything and no cut and paste.  The broadband systems on the market do tuning for you.  You can set recording speed at .2 and collect data.  Let's say I do 6 full throttle pulls and set up the data display for 5 filtered data.  It averages and filters the data to change VE's around for you.  I understand the problems of the data being collected this way and all the sort comings.  But....it does the VE for you.  No manual changing, no thinking about the data you collected.  Cut and paste into a wash program and your done.  Mytune, which I do use, allows you to upload the data directly into a program you cut and paste base VE's or spark table into.  Direct link will do the same, but it will change the VE's into data you can paste into TTS.  Direct link is my choice here because the column and rows match up better and WOT tuning I don't care if I give up a decimal point.

Set up a narrowband tuner that can all be used by the big three.  Meaning mastertune, data master, and vtune, do it all for them.  They will buy it and it marketed forever.  Here is the catch.  Don't sacrifice the tune the product can put out.  Oh oh!

Post up data?  I did.  Do you want me to post up the step testing I have done as well?  It does take time, and effort.  That I have earned and bought.  Should I post it up on the world wide web so everybody can see it for free?  I got back to back cam caparisons dyno runs, exhaust caparisons.  Same cam over and over in the same stock 103 with different stage 2's that I can't get to.  Takes time to record the data. Takes time to put it on a forum.  Now you want to bitch about time, and effort?  Not to me.  Maybe I am just too drunk on the Kool-Aid, but DIY did mean doing it yourself for a long time compared to finding others to do it and reporting back.

[joe_lyons50023]

I think Mayor and I both have that feeling of we showed ours now show yours and we get nothing. Kinda like that girl in high school.

[cvofbme]

Data? I don need no stinking data!
And the last thing I need to do is post on behalf of Steve, he does fine for himself. 

Look, the whole purpose of my OP was to help those with closed loop bikes with tuners that wanted to get a decent WOT tune without traveling great miles just to get to a qualified tuner.

In order to do that folks needed to buy into tuning off what they presently have on their bikes...NBO2 sensors.

The fact that OTHERS produced the results that answered my question eliminated any assumed bias on my part, right?

IME, there is no, and never will be, a better end product for a proper tune from an experienced tuner with whatever he feels confident with. Forcing a Power Commander tuner to use a flash tuner doesn't work well as a rule.

Bob

So while you have asked others to do the test and post, which two have done, you have nothing.     I guess that was to be expected.

[FLTRI]

So while you have asked others to do the test and post, which two have done, you have nothing.     I guess that was to be expected.

And your contribution?....besides heckling me.
Bob

[erniezap]

Okay guys, enough of the back and forth BS.  Agree to disagree and move on

[Hilly13]

Ok so we have it established that a steady voltage can be read at WOT, how do we DIY tuners determine what the voltage in that instance transpires to in AFR without some other sensor to tell us? 

[mayor]

Yes you can use narrow bands to get you in the ball park to 12.5-13.5 but I did the same thing with basic auto tune and didn't have the figure out the scale of sensor voltage to afr.  Until you come out with a way to make this usable through your programing on a somewhat automated scale then I don't see a huge gain but with just two people information its really not that big of a deal.  Broad bands have worked just fine to tune our fancy Brigs and Stratton which is simple to tune in the first place but I get the idea of trying use what's already on the bike but even that isn't always In a proper place.

this is my opinion as well.  Unless there is an easy way to use the o2 sensor data, all of this is for not.  You may have a few ocd types that are willing to put time and effort into moving the ve's around to get a desired o2 sensor mV reading, but the average person seems to what their bike to be tuned automagically.