Print

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

[Buckeye_Tuning]

Actually, I think I can do this without issue.  I v-tune and then use wide bands to finish off the 80-100kpa.  I think there would be no problem using sample blocks and wing the bike for WOT, using my Innovate controllers and keep datamaster up and going AT THE SAME time.

[ultraswede]

We NOW have a WINNER!!!!! 

Im sure u don't want to see a picture of me 

[mayor]

As I understand the argument;
The Broad Band sensor is not as accurate as it could be as used on Harleys.
The NB sensor is also somewhat inaccurate at 13,2 AFR.

But they are both good enough! 
(with the proper software support)

This is my position, and if we can once and for all have consensus on this...that would be great.  If I never have to see another broad band tech data sheet posted in an attempt to discredit their use, that would be great too.
 

I believe what SC is saying is if we are happy with the variables with broad bands we would be happy with the variables with narrow bands. 

then he should have made that concise of a statement, but no where can I read his remarks as being that concise.  He may have thought this, but he did not articulate this statement very well.  I can not say that I would agree with that statement though.  I have yet to see an example of wide open tuning with a narrow band that is with in the allowable variance of the broad bands.  Therefore, I can not say that I would be happy with narrow bands to tune wide open if I had the option of broad band sensor tuning.  This does not mean that tuning wide open with narrow bands is a bad idea, but I do not think that we need to make sure that we remain focused on the fact that what this experiment is about is using a sensor you have to tune an area that you have no other means to sample.  As I see it, the accuracy of broad band’s are not in any way tied into the final objective which is a method for DIY tuners to be able to safely populate the wide on VE cells using tools already at their disposal.   

So back to my little simple experiment.
Since you cannot understand my offerings for how to do the test, just follow Hilly13's understanding of the procedure and note the results. Let us know what you find.

if Hilly’s post is exactly what you have in mind, then it is a flawed test since the correct VE values were already known at one time by the tester.  This will introduce bias to the test, whether consciously or unconsciously.  The only way for this to be shown as a plausible way to tune wide open throttle is for the test to be done blind.  That means a sensor voltage target needs to be given and someone not familiar with the ve tables values for a particular motorcycle needs to demonstrate that they can tune the bike to o2 sensor values and those results are then tested on the dyno with broad band sensors.  As I understand Steve’s test, this is what he did.  Anything outside of this is simply chewing up someone’s time and tires. 

So Bob, all you have to do is post some o2 sensor values that you have seen during your extensive testing and we will have a good path towards testing this. 

[Steve Cole]

You asked for data I gave you  data.
You asked for proof I gave you the proof
Now you do not want to read the proof

 


Maybe the attached article will help you understand

[Steve Cole]

I would really like to see a side by side comparison of the reported AFR from a narrow band and wide band sensor. Not sure why this has not already been done, or maybe it has and I missed it.

I think I have all of the hardware to do a comparison. Might have to weld a bung or two. Should be home in a few weeks.

Just thinking out loud,maybe a set of oem pipes on a cable operated TB. Could put the sensors right next to each other up near the head. Would have to manually fill out a spread sheet with the RPM vs readings from each sensor. The peanut gallery will not doubt find countless clinical errors, but it would be better than any of the other side by side NB vs WB sensors that I have seen (none).   

Will be a few weeks before I can get to this. Certainly this has already been done before, maybe someone else can post up a link to a similar comparison, maybe even an automotive application. Would save me from burning a day (that I don't have) tinkering.

Roger                                                                                                                               

Would be a good test but I have one question for you. How are you going to know which reading is correct or are they both wrong?

[whittlebeast]

Would be a good test but I have one question for you. How are you going to know which reading is correct or are they both wrong?

Graph it.  Things will jump right out at you when you are getting the wrong answer.

Andy

[FLTRI]

If you use widebands to set the standard ok.
But if you use broadbands then which readings will you believe, the narrow bands or the broadbands?
Blind testing is ideal which is exactly why I have not produced data.
Now you want my data to prove that I show correlation?
That's why I asked for independent testing.
Round and round we go! Still no answer to the question other than questioning my motives.
Bob

[joe_lyons50023]

I would really like to see a side by side comparison of the reported AFR from a narrow band and wide band sensor. Not sure why this has not already been done, or maybe it has and I missed it.

I think I have all of the hardware to do a comparison. Might have to weld a bung or two. Should be home in a few weeks.

Just thinking out loud,maybe a set of oem pipes on a cable operated TB. Could put the sensors right next to each other up near the head. Would have to manually fill out a spread sheet with the RPM vs readings from each sensor. The peanut gallery will not doubt find countless clinical errors, but it would be better than any of the other side by side NB vs WB sensors that I have seen (none).   

Will be a few weeks before I can get to this. Certainly this has already been done before, maybe someone else can post up a link to a similar comparison, maybe even an automotive application. Would save me from burning a day (that I don't have) tinkering.

Roger                                                                                                                             

I did this already and posted the results look at post 159, 160 and 161.   If someone wants more data at different areas then I can provide this.

[Hilly13]

As I understand the argument;
The Broad Band sensor is not as accurate as it could be as used on Harleys.
The NB sensor is also somewhat inaccurate at 13,2 AFR.

But they are both good enough! 
(with the proper software support)

That's what I thought he was putting out as well ultraswede, seems fair to me, there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak.

[mayor]

If you use widebands to set the standard ok.
But if you use broadbands then which readings will you believe, the narrow bands or the broadbands?   

so based on your statement and  Steve’s latest response, I am assuming that we have no consenses to Ultra’s statement.  We aren't testing either for accuracy, we are trying to see if a DIY tuner can obtain a close enough tune by using the sensor they have.  What does the accuracy of either have to do with this other than the what we have already deemed to be an acceptable range? 

Can we reach agreement that we are not testing the accuracy or either sensor?   We are simply testing to see if using a stock sensor in a manner outside of its normal use can be done to tune wide open.  Since the current acceptable practice for tuning wide open is using broad band sensors, that is what is being used to double check the narrow band tuning results.  The goal is to produce a safe running wide open afr value, so it's a broad target….so why do you guys want to continuously quibble over details with accuracy. 

Blind testing is ideal which is exactly why I have not produced data.
Now you want my data to prove that I show correlation?
That's why I asked for independent testing.
 

You can pretend anything you want…but I do not believe this to be the case.  I will quit beating around the bush, I believe the reason you have not produced data is due to you not having done the test.   

Round and round we go! Still no answer to the question other than questioning my motives.

how is me questioning whether the test is valid questioning your motives?  Here is the statement that I made, you tell me where I am questioning motives:

if Hilly’s post is exactly what you have in mind, then it is a flawed test since the correct VE values were already known at one time by the tester.  This will introduce bias to the test, whether consciously or unconsciously.  The only way for this to be shown as a plausible way to tune wide open throttle is for the test to be done blind.  That means a sensor voltage target needs to be given and someone not familiar with the ve tables values for a particular motorcycle needs to demonstrate that they can tune the bike to o2 sensor values and those results are then tested on the dyno with broad band sensors.  As I understand Steve's test, this is what he did.  Anything outside of this is simply chewing up someone's time and tires. 

[hrdtail78]

Since the majority of guys in this post have dyno's to use. Either own or use somebody else's. I think the use of doing this is lost some what.  I think the goal here is for a street tune. With out buying extra equipment.

[joe_lyons50023]

Maybe on a PV.  But I seem to remember that the ECM itself reads in 100ths of a volt.  It all depends how a tuning rpoduct pulls info out of the bus, IIRC.

It does read to the 100th but even with a datamaster log it showed .02 increments and not .01.  Mabie different with the 18mm.

[Steve Cole]

How can a test be run on a unknown thing, exhaust mixture in this case. Be tested with another unknown thing, Broad Bands in this case. Then those test results be used to prove or disprove anything! The point here is that you all wanted proof that Broad Bands were not being used as the manufacture says and it has been provided in several Bosch documents now and you are still wanting to say that's not the case.

"10.6  Pressure dependency of the sensor signal
A pressure change of the measured gas gives a deviation of the sensor
output signal of:
IP(p) = Ip(p0) * p/(k+p) * (k+p0)/p0"

I provided a graph of this showing only the rich part of the equation at sea level. Since the rich side is all we are talking about. I could do more graphs at various altitudes but I believe the one provided is clear enough for most to see what's going on.


"10.5  Sensor characteristic at low or high exhaust gas temperatures
Cold exhaust gas in addition to high gas velocity can lead to a reduced
sensor ceramic temperature, when the heater control is not able to keep the
constant ceramic temperature. This leads to a deviation of the sensor output
signal.
Hot exhaust gas with a temperature above the operation temperature of the
ceramic also leads to a deviation of the ceramic temperature and the sensor
output signal.
Guide value: a temperature change of the sensor ceramic gives a deviation
of the sensor output signal ΔIP/IP of approx. 6%..7% / 100K."

This is the temperature corrections that also needs to be done to correct the reading from the sensor for it to work per the manufactures requirement. Both of the above items are NOT being done by the aftermarket units being used today. There is only one company that I know of that does it and as I said before no one tuning wants to buy and install the equipment. So if you donot or cannot understand the manufactures requirements I do not know how else to explain it to you.

Now do you still want to tell me that Broad Bands are being used properly?

The only one who continues to quibble seems to be the ones hell bent on not wanting to admit the short comings of the broad bands even after all the supplied Bosch documents have provided the proof.

For those that understand how this effects things and also understand that the bogus information has been accepted as "fact" by many I think you can also see why those same people have a hard time understanding that you can do just as good of a job with a Narrow Band sensor. Neither one of them is perfect and neither one of them can claim you have a certain mixture with any degree of accuracy as they are being used today.

So now you need to find what is really acceptable and can we reach that point with what comes on the bike from the factory. IMHO with the testing we have done up to now the answer is YES you can. Still have much more testing to complete but so far things are looking very good.

I think the OP was to try and get people to do some back to back test with what they had and show the results in an open setting. Then those results could be talked about. I wish that the topic had NOT be brought up but it has, so now others are going to be trying the same things we are too.

[joe_lyons50023]

How does this explain when I view my broad bands and they match the narrow bands at 14.6 +-.2 at idle, cruise or wot?  I'm at 1000ft above sea level.  And we know that the narrow bands are very accurate at 14.6 with pressure/alt.

[roger28310]

Would be a good test but I have one question for you. How are you going to know which reading is correct or are they both wrong?

I wouldn't, but I would know if the NB and WB were within acceptable margins of each other. Maybe dispel the notion that wide bands are not as accurate as narrow bands. Of particular interest to me is how they compare at or near stoic, where the narrow bands are supposed to be in their most accurate zone.