Print

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

[joe_lyons50023]

Benjamin franklin?

[FLTRI]

Benjamin franklin?

Bob

[whittlebeast]

And the answer is....?
Bob

I do not have that computer with me so I am going from memory.

In MLVHD under calculated fields
 create a new field
call that field say o2VoltsFr3
then enter the formula
[o2VoltsFront]  * 1000

Note that the field name are all case sensitive .  You can also do if statements like...

If [o2VoltsFront] > 2 then display 0 in the graph.  This would be

[o2VoltsFront]>2?0:[o2VoltsFront]*1000

the length of nesting can go on and on.  You just have to play with it.

[joe_lyons50023]

That first math equation was the one I used [Front O2 V] * 1000. And set my scales up to show 20mv increments. 

Bob I would like to do a wider afr log before I said anything for sure and also this will give some idea of the increments of the MV to the afr to help with possible ve calculations. Kina like the difference of getting from 1740mv to 1700 MV is 4% ve.

[FLTRI]

That first math equation was the one I used [Front O2 V] * 1000. And set my scales up to show 20mv increments. 

Bob I would like to do a wider afr log before I said anything for sure and also this will give some idea of the increments of the MV to the afr to help with possible ve calculations. Kina like the difference of getting from 1740mv to 1700 MV is 4% ve.

Good info, thanks for posting. I'm sure Andy can add to this.
Bob

[whittlebeast]

Phil from MLV knows how to set up a transfer function to use Steves's o2 numbers in a lookup table.  I bet he would not be willing to make it built and be defined as AFR but he would be willing to share the trick.  Most likely it would work very similar to the MAF lookup tables.

Andy

[FLTRI]

Ok Andy,
Please translate your post so even I can understand WTF you just said.
Steve's o2 numbers? Steve who and what numbers does he have?
I was hoping you would analyze the scatter plot Joe put up or change it into another plot, or something.
Just don't stand there! Lol
Bob

[joe_lyons50023]

I thought I made it pretty simple, guess I need to try harder next time. Now is what I wana know is what is the deal with the bias voltage and the fact that if it is a 1000mv feed how does that explain that when I see an afr of 15.2 the O2 sensor reading is .920 and this whole deal with the voltage when it is rich.  Leads me to believe that it is a variable voltage.

[whittlebeast]

It really does not matter what he is doing, we can duplicate it.  That is just typing.  Now trusting any standard narrow band to consistently do anything worth accepting that far away from 1:1 entirely up to the user.  I use way different methods to tune and am willing almost all of it.  I am in this purely for the fun of tuning.

Harley just has a few quirks that need to be worked around.  First be willing to look for the quirks and then have the programmers mathematically model the quirks and you are good to go.

The MAPxRPM vs pulse width is the very basis of EFI.  for any given airflow, you need some consistent  amount of amount of fuel.  That is called a function in math.  Two very different but repeating answers for the same given air flow raises questions.  In the Honda VVT world, the third thing comes from AFR target when the VVT thing brings in more air flow.  OK, if we are tuning Hondas, it just takes a little more typing to predict the required PW.  We locate things like that are going on when we plot MAPxRMP vs PW in the first 15 sec of looking at new data coming off a VVT  motor.  Way cool stuff.  In one of those motors, you can plot MAPxRPM vs MAF and bang the VVT jumps out.

In the Harley world, things are very simple.  Get the correct MAP and RPM and you are off and running.  The trick is getting the correct MAP.  It all really oblivious that things were being hidden in the VTune data logs.  The standard export was not showing everything required for the math to work.

Andy

[FLTRI]

Ok Andy,
Please translate your post so even I can understand WTF you just said.
Steve's o2 numbers? Steve who?
I was hoping you would analyze the scatter plot Joe put up or change it into another plot, or something.
Just don't stand there! Lol
Bob

Try again? Guess the fact you mix in other situations stories into the OP yet never showing the scared graphs that say it does or doesn't work.Ive heard the naysayers...that's the easy answer.
How bout some of your WOT sporty logs comparing o2 voltage to actual sampled AFR??
That would be a huge help.

Bob

[whittlebeast]

I only have one set of  bungs on my bike.  My voltage at WOT is in the 1020 range.

[whittlebeast]

FLTRI, Did you ever get a around to getting a big, generic o2 enabled data logs to see how your tunes using this new method are coming along?  I am really excited to see one.

Andy

[FLTRI]

FLTRI, Did you ever get a around to getting a big, generic o2 enabled data logs to see how your tunes using this new method are coming along?  I am really excited to see one.

Andy

Andy,
I don't tune using long data logs and scatter graphs. In fact I rarely have a need to specifically data log for anything except v-tuning and diagnostics and usually catch the issue live on the dyno.

Besides that, the OP is about the relationship of O2 voltage to tailpipe AFR, not to create a data log for you make scatter graphs from.

Add to that the fact this is riding season and we're swamped so I have no free time.

You have a Delphi Sportster and prolly hours upon hours of data logs...use one of them if you want to make a point of reference.

Bob

[whittlebeast]

Bob, the entire point of this thread is to see if the software that Steve has developed can get a good tune.  The only way I know how to check out his work is go ride the bike that has been tuned this way on the street and see how it looks on the data loggers.  If the fueling is all over the place as you ride, we know we have an issue.  This stuff gets easier with time and after looking at lots of data.

Andy

[Steve Cole]

Funny you should say this after all these years. You know that  we developed Vtune and released it back in early 2008. It works very well and as a matter of fact so well that ALL of the competitors have copied it into there products. You also know that it was tested  by an EPA employee in the lab on his own time and money and his results proved that it did what we claimed. He also tried to test one of your tunes but you could never get rid of the vibration that came only when he used your tunes and it would not give good numbers in the lab. So why now would you claim what we've done needs to be tested with your scatter graphs again when you could not match what Vtune did with your methods before?