The BIG Dynojet PowerCommander V and AutoTune Q&A topic

[DynojetResearch]

I am way behind on this post so I did not read every word. Good to see you guys trying some things. Let me see if I can clear some of this up. I am the guy out back testing all this stuff and coming up with all the settings. What I am about to say is NOT a blanket statement as every bike and ECU can be different.

The Optimizers came out of necessity from the Ducati world and is something we have been working on for years. In the past we have been able to simply unplug the stock sensor, or use resistors to eliminate the stock sensor. This is ideal in our minds but unfortunately does not work on some models. The Tenere being one of them and actually the Optimizer is pretty cool as it works similar to Autotune within closed loop. We target 13.6-13.8:1 in most cases as we found this to be enough fuel to remove the surge but no so much that your fuel mileage drops significantly.

So a stock a narrow band is very accurate but normally to an AFR of arounnd 14.7:1. This AFR is just too lean for good throttle response and performance. We basically offset the voltage to the ECU and it in returns thinks the bike is lean and will trim the base map accordingly. This by itself works well but only at steady state. Once you move to another RPM or TP setting the ECU has to sense the bike is lean, trim, send fuel and read again which all takes time. This is one of the reasons we recommend to add fuel in the closed loop area. so when you accelerate the bike is already rich and the ECU does not have to learn as much. Technically adding a value of 0-10 should not affect the overall outcome of the AFR at steady state but will affect as you transition within the closed loop area. This is something that needs to be playes with and may be up to rider preference.

One thing to remember is that we are a slave to the stock sensor and programming within the ECU. Some bikes are definitely better than others. For example the Ducati 696/1100. The rear cylinder is very consistent, we can make it stay pretty steady at 13.6-13.8 all day. The front cylinder however will swing from 13.2-13.9. If you connect back to stock you will see the front cylinder go from 14.4-15.4 and we don't know why.

To adjust closed loop has been explained fairly well in earlier posts. What you are adjusting is the voltage of the offset of the Optimizer. A +15 would be 15mv higher than our standard settings. In my testing I have found that a +10-15 normally gets you +.3 of a AFR. So it would go from 13.8 to 13.5. Again, this varies from bike to bike.

One thing I have noticed on the R6/R1 but honestly can't remember on the Tenere is that the PAIR valve needs to be blocked to get accurate readings. It does not make sense that the ECU would run the clean air system while in closed loop but they definitely do on some models.

Hope all this helps. If you have any questions feel free. Thanks for your guys support.

 

[Blue_eyes]

::008::

Thanks for the info!

The S10 doesn't have a PAIR system. The +15 resulting in a .3 AFR enrichment figures since I noticed that the O2 optimizer closed loop configuration slider bar can be adjusted up to + 30.

So if I want to enrich the O2 optimizer from 13.6 to 13.0 I need to set the O2 Optimizer closed loop configuration slider bar to +30.

Will setting the O2 optimizer closed loop configuration slider bar to +30 and entering a value like +14 in the closed loop area of the Fule table improve power / accelleration when going through the 2%-40% throttle range?

And what AFR value delivers the most power?

 

[YamaPA]

I am way behind on this post so I did not read every word. Good to see you guys trying some things. Let me see if I can clear some of this up. I am the guy out back testing all this stuff and coming up with all the settings. What I am about to say is NOT a blanket statement as every bike and ECU can be different.

The Optimizers came out of necessity from the Ducati world and is something we have been working on for years. In the past we have been able to simply unplug the stock sensor, or use resistors to eliminate the stock sensor. This is ideal in our minds but unfortunately does not work on some models. The Tenere being one of them and actually the Optimizer is pretty cool as it works similar to Autotune within closed loop. We target 13.6-13.8:1 in most cases as we found this to be enough fuel to remove the surge but no so much that your fuel mileage drops significantly.

So a stock a narrow band is very accurate but normally to an AFR of arounnd 14.7:1. This AFR is just too lean for good throttle response and performance. We basically offset the voltage to the ECU and it in returns thinks the bike is lean and will trim the base map accordingly. This by itself works well but only at steady state. Once you move to another RPM or TP setting the ECU has to sense the bike is lean, trim, send fuel and read again which all takes time. This is one of the reasons we recommend to add fuel in the closed loop area. so when you accelerate the bike is already rich and the ECU does not have to learn as much. Technically adding a value of 0-10 should not affect the overall outcome of the AFR at steady state but will affect as you transition within the closed loop area. This is something that needs to be playes with and may be up to rider preference.

One thing to remember is that we are a slave to the stock sensor and programming within the ECU. Some bikes are definitely better than others. For example the Ducati 696/1100. The rear cylinder is very consistent, we can make it stay pretty steady at 13.6-13.8 all day. The front cylinder however will swing from 13.2-13.9. If you connect back to stock you will see the front cylinder go from 14.4-15.4 and we don't know why.

To adjust closed loop has been explained fairly well in earlier posts. What you are adjusting is the voltage of the offset of the Optimizer. A +15 would be 15mv higher than our standard settings. In my testing I have found that a +10-15 normally gets you +.3 of a AFR. So it would go from 13.8 to 13.5. Again, this varies from bike to bike.

One thing I have noticed on the R6/R1 but honestly can't remember on the Tenere is that the PAIR valve needs to be blocked to get accurate readings. It does not make sense that the ECU would run the clean air system while in closed loop but they definitely do on some models.

Hope all this helps. If you have any questions feel free. Thanks for your guys support.

I have a couple of comments, some directly related to the above, some to DynoJet in general, some in general general:

1. Who is the author (first name, position and department please) from DynoJet who wrote the above? I ask this because, quite honestly, I have spoken to several individuals who provide tech help at DynoJet (namely Roy, Chris, and Scott) and sometimes the answers I get provided differ among those individuals. I will tell you, I like and feel quite confident with ONE of those named individuals as I like his demeanor, he takes the time to answer my questions, and is "confident" in his replies without asking other Dynojet personnel for help. I wont mention names at this point in time.

2. The ONE individual at Dynojet who I eluded to above told me that the optomizer slider bar values represent AFR FUEL CHANGES not millivolt changes as indicated above. After reading the above post, I called him back for a clarification and was now told that the optomizer slider bars values DO REPRESENT MILLIVOLT CHANGES. Therefore, my previous post on page 9 or 10 about the optomizers is wrong and I will revised it. I dont know if there was a communication breakdown or what, but what I posted earlier now appears to be wrong.

3. There appears to be too many cooks in the DynoJet kitchen. Getting different answers to the same questions depending on who one talks to is not good. This HAS to be costing DynoJet staff time and surely doesnt help us. I suggested to the Dynojet tech that I talked to today that DynoJet should have a staff meeting and have one individual assigned to handle the Super Tenere questions.

4. Is there a reason other than "the ECU wont let us" why the Power Commander V cant control ignition timing on the Super Tenere?

5. There appears to be several individuals who are quite active on this thread who are having "replication problems" with their maps. For example, I believe the "base map" that we all sort of started with was from Blue Eyes. TABASCO acquired the map and then disseminated Blue Eyes' map to forum members as needed. So Blue Eyes' map became the "base map" for many PCV and AT users to "get us close". This map had in the fuel table under the 60% throttle column, large negative numbers...like -16 to -18 with the assigned AFR from the AFR table. After an indivudal rode his bike, came home, accepted all trims, sent the map to the bike and repeated this process several times, the 60% throttle column fuel table numbers never really changed much and remained big negative numbers. However, those individuals who sensed "somtething is not correct here" have taken the time to zero out the 60% throttle column on the fuel table map or even zeroed out the entire fuel table area of the open loop and NOT change anything else (no changes to the closed loop area, no changes to the AFRs, no "forced values" in the fuel table open loop) have found, that after riding, coming home, accepting trim, sending the map to the bike and repeating the process several times, that the 60% throttle column is WAY DIFFERENT than before. The large negative numbers in the 60% throttle column are now gone. In addition, for those that changed the open loop fuel table to zero numbers during the trial, they are seeing way different numbers across the fuel table. This makes no sense. If auto tune is working correctly the maps should be relatively close. Please do not say its the weather. This occurs on the same given day and can be repeated over and over. Please dont say it's s slow responding 02 sensor. Almost everyone who has this issue has less than 4000 miles on their 02 sensor. It is as if the fuel table numbers cannot be "released" or revised by something. I dont know, but it happens.

6. As some have said elsewhere, this bike seems to be the most sensitive bike I have ever owned to fuel changes. Small "forced number" changes in the closed loop portion (from say 4 to 7) of the fuel table as well as seemingly small AFR changes (13.4 to 13.0) in the open loop area make some pretty large performance changes that can be felt by seat of pants. The changes I have felt are not, "gee, a change", its "OMF____ingG what a change".

7. Has DynoJet prepared a USA spec map for this bike? I dont think so. I believe all the maps created for the Super Tenere are European based and I believe we are hearing that there are some pretty big differences between the Euro spec and USA spec ECUs. Any comment from DynoJet regarding this?

 

[jajpko]

I have a couple of comments, some directly related to the above, some to DynoJet in general, some in general general:

1. Who is the author (first name, position and department please) from DynoJet who wrote the above? I ask this because, quite honestly, I have spoken to several individuals who provide tech help at DynoJet (namely Roy, Chris, and Scott) and sometimes the answers I get provided differ among those individuals. I will tell you, I like and feel quite confident with ONE of those named individuals as I like his demeanor, he takes the time to answer my questions, and is "confident" in his replies without asking other Dynojet personnel for help. I wont mention names at this point in time.

2. The ONE individual at Dynojet who I eluded to above told me that the optomizer slider bar values represent AFR FUEL CHANGES not millivolt changes as indicated above. After reading the above post, I called him back for a clarification and was now told that the optomizer slider bars values DO REPRESENT MILLIVOLT CHANGES. Therefore, my previous post on page 9 or 10 about the optomizers is wrong and I will revised it. I dont know if there was a communication breakdown or what, but what I posted earlier now appears to be wrong.

3. There appears to be too many cooks in the DynoJet kitchen. Getting different answers to the same questions depending on who one talks to is not good. This HAS to be costing DynoJet staff time and surely doesnt help us. I suggested to the Dynojet tech that I talked to today that DynoJet should have a staff meeting and have one individual assigned to handle the Super Tenere questions.

4. Is there a reason other than "the ECU wont let us" why the Power Commander V cant control ignition timing on the Super Tenere?

5. There appears to be several individuals who are quite active on this thread who are having "replication problems" with their maps. For example, I believe the "base map" that we all sort of started with was from Blue Eyes. TABASCO acquired the map and then disseminated Blue Eyes' map to forum members as needed. So Blue Eyes' map became the "base map" for many PCV and AT users to "get us close". This map had in the fuel table under the 60% throttle column, large negative numbers...like -16 to -18 with the assigned AFR from the AFR table. After an indivudal rode his bike, came home, accepted all trims, sent the map to the bike and repeated this process several times, the 60% throttle column fuel table numbers never really changed much and remained big negative numbers. However, those individuals who sensed "somtething is not correct here" have taken the time to zero out the 60% throttle column on the fuel table map or even zeroed out the entire fuel table area of the open loop and NOT change anything else (no changes to the closed loop area, no changes to the AFRs, no "forced values" in the fuel table open loop) have found, that after riding, coming home, accepting trim, sending the map to the bike and repeating the process several times, that the 60% throttle column is WAY DIFFERENT than before. The large negative numbers in the 60% throttle column are now gone. In addition, for those that changed the open loop fuel table to zero numbers during the trial, they are seeing way different numbers across the fuel table. This makes no sense. If auto tune is working correctly the maps should be relatively close. Please do not say its the weather. This occurs on the same given day and can be repeated over and over. Please dont say it's s slow responding 02 sensor. Almost everyone who has this issue has less than 4000 miles on their 02 sensor. It is as if the fuel table numbers cannot be "released" or revised by something. I dont know, but it happens.

6. As some have said elsewhere, this bike seems to be the most sensitive bike I have ever owned to fuel changes. Small "forced number" changes in the closed loop portion (from say 4 to 7) of the fuel table as well as seemingly small AFR changes (13.4 to 13.0) in the open loop area make some pretty large performance changes that can be felt by seat of pants. The changes I have felt are not, "gee, a change", its "OMF____ingG what a change".

7. Has DynoJet prepared a USA spec map for this bike? I dont think so. I believe all the maps created for the Super Tenere are European based and I believe we are hearing that there are some pretty big differences between the Euro spec and USA spec ECUs. Any comment from DynoJet regarding this?

For the record, I've been talking with YamaPA about what he has posted about this. Also have talked with TABASCO about the same subject and agree with the above quoted post.
I would like to thank both YamaPA and TABASCO for taking the time and effort to call and discuss this with DynoJet..

I made two different maps, one with 0 in the closed loop and 13.0 in all other cells except for 3.
Then I made a map with 8 in the closed loop with the same other cells as above. All fuel cells were at 0 on both maps.

I rode these maps on the same day within hrs of each other. The changes were not what one may expect. Coming out of the leading edge of the closed loop, the changes were only -1 or -2 and +1 or 2.
Instead of adding fuel to achieve the 13.0 AFR the Auto Tune was subtracting fuel. This makes no sense at all.

Also with 8 in the closed loop, I pick up a vibration as did another person. With 0 it was very smooth.

I have made other maps eliminating the high minus values setting the fuel cells to 0. The changes are sometimes very irregular. A -2 next to a +10 and back to a - 3.

I don't think the Auto Tune is working as it should. I know there is a time factor and have allowed for that.
Also I don't believe DynoJet has taken the time to fully dyno the bike and make a map that is specific to the USA bike.
I am not sure that the ECU is the same flash that is in the EURO bike. I don't think it is..

If someone would like to run these test maps, shoot me a pm with email and I will send it to you. The map test was run at about 700' and 50 degrees.

And to add, I can get the bike to run very nicely, but It should do it without a lot of fuss. I should not have to force numbers in the fuel cells to do this.

So I hope Dynojet will fix what seems to be a problem and bring a bike in and check it.

 

[~TABASCO~]

I want to thank you both for your hard work on understanding the PCV. I enjoy talking to you both about the topic and looking forward to more "fun" conversations on finding out what the heck is going on.. You guys must have blisters on your fingers now from typing all that..... Let me know what other hypothesis you guys might come up with.. Looking forward to mastering this thing... Good job !!! ::008::

 

[spasm]

this is certainly interesting stuff guys, maybe when we finally get a full undrstanding of whats right and wrong, and HOW TO and the best settings for our PCV's and AUTOTUNE's. someone could type up a sticky for all those poor new comers, to save them trawling through these very lengthy threads, it would make it so much easier ::008::
as this is my first injection bike and my first power commander, i personally have found it hard to understand all these numbers and posts, but thanks to you guys, blue eyes, tabasco, yama, japa, and co. i am well up to date and i fully understand what settings and where and HOW to do it all.
thanks again ::008:: ::022::
i think ONE good sticky, written in a easy to understand way is needed

 

[~TABASCO~]

We have spoke about it and one of us is going to do just that. A semi-simple understanding on how the correct way to set up the PCV / AT up. And a how too on achieving what you want out of the PCV... Hopefully it will be worked on and posted soon..... Maybe changed and tweaked a little when even more info is learned.....

 

[Blue_eyes]

@YamaPA and Japako,

Let's go with the knowledge we already have and not speculate about things that we do not have any reason for.

Facts:
Yamaha has tweaked the ECU in such a way that the throttlebodies do not open fully in gears 1,2 and 3 in S-mode and gears 1,2,3 and 4 in T-mode. That could very well explain the results we see in the 60% column of the PC V (where the ECU restriction is most noticable according to the Dyno graphs we have seen).

My theory: Because the throttlebodies are not opened as wide as they normally would/should be, and the PC V is fooled by the ECU in thinking that they are, the AT needs to take-out fuel since the throttlebodies are not opened 100% but less in that range. Hence the high(er) minus (-) values in the 60% column.

I have no reason to assume there is anything wrong with the PC V and/or AT (why would we?). It all works as to be expected, I can see and feel the difference it makes, (the values change according to plan and engine certainly runs much better/stronger).
It is just the ECU that is tweaked by Yamaha to not fully open the throttlebodies when we twist the gas (fully) open. Hence, the AT will need to take out fuel as the amount of air coming in is smaller.

We should find out more on this when I have had more opportunity with the Diapason ECU which has this restriction removed and thus 0-100% throttle = 0-100% trhottle.

Does this sound plausible?

 

[X5]

Purely for the sake of Socratic argument, I wonder what the California Dyno S10 (sorry forgot his name at the moment) rider thought about the improvement of his bike after adding the new exhaust, headers, PCV and AT and then once he saw his dyno test results, eventhough the dyno peak was not significantly better than stock? My point being how "seat of the pants" perspective is so subjective.

 

[YamaPA]

@YamaPA and Japako,

Let's go with the knowledge we already have and not speculate about things that we do not have any reason for.

Facts:
Yamaha has tweaked the ECU in such a way that the throttlebodies do not open fully in gears 1,2 and 3 in S-mode and gears 1,2,3 and 4 in T-mode. That could very well explain the results we see in the 60% column of the PC V (where the ECU restriction is most noticable according to the Dyno graphs we have seen).

My theory: Because the throttlebodies are not opened as wide as they normally would/should be, and the PC V is fooled by the ECU in thinking that they are, the AT needs to take-out fuel since the throttlebodies are not opened 100% but less in that range. Hence the high(er) minus (-) values in the 60% column.

I hope I dont open my mouth and insert foot here, but .....I dont think the PCV READS THE ECU.....it is a piggy back device TO THE ECU to my understanding. The AT reads the AFRs, it talks to the PCV and the PCV makes calculations based on what the AT is reading. The PCV FOOLS THE ECU by giving it instructions to modifiy the injector pulse width...the length of time the injector squirts fuel. That +4 or -10 you see in the FUEL TABLE map is telling the ECU to leave the injector open for +4% longer period of time (in the case of the +4 number) or to shortern the injector opening time by 10% (in the cae of the -10).

But I hear what you are saying......MAYBE the PCV and AT are "confused" by what it is seeing in gears 1-3 vs. gears 1-4. This should be easy to test. Use S- mode only. Am not going to even worry about whether maps in T-mode look the same as S-mode at this point in time. Start with a zeroed out FUEL MAP (but use whatever AFRs you wish in the AFR table and use whatever numbers in the closed loop area). Dyno or ride the bike. Dyno preferred. Hey, this would be great if DYNOJET did this test! Use only gears 1-3. Build a map. Save that map.

Start a new map with the same zeroed out FUEL MAP (but the same AFRs as the first map, and same numbers in the closed loop area). Dyno or ride the bike. Again, dyno preferred. Uses only gears 4-6. Build a map. Save the map. Now compare the maps!

Want to complicate the test....add maps from T-mode!

The problem that I am seeing is that the AT does NOT build and result in the same map if I start with your basemap (or whoevers base map was "circulated" when this thing first started which has the large negative numbers in the 60% throttle column) versus when I allow AT to build a map from a zeroed out FUEL TABLE basemap (the AFR table and closed loop area being the same for both maps when I start). The two completed maps look nowhere near the same. Something is not "revising" or allowing the necessary revising when all is said and done. I'm not talking about differences in the FUEL TABLE maps of 1-4s, I'm talking about seeing differences of 10-15. AT should result in the same FUEL TABLE map, after all trims have been accepted, for the two maps if the closed loop and AFR table of the two maps start out as the same. The two maps are different...significantly. This happens when two maps are created on the same day or when similar weather conditions are used over multiple days.

I also think until we know what the differences are between the USA and Euro ECUs are, we are chasing tails by sharing maps between the two models/countries. Therefore, stick to your own country when sharing maps for now would be my advice.

My advice at this point in time to anyone just starting out with PCV and AT is as follows:

1. Dont mess with the optomizer configuration screen. Leave it alone. It is set at approximately at 13.6 to 1 by Dynojet for closed loop operation and works fine.
2. Insert some numbers from say 5-12 in the closed loop area of the FUEL TABLE. You need some numbers in here to get the 13.6 to 1 AFR during closed loop operation. In the open loop area of the FUEL TALBE, ZER0 OUT all the numbers. Dont use someone else's FUEL TABLE numbers in the open loop area.
3. Insert AFRs somwhere between 13.4 and 12.8 in the AFR table map. 13.0 and 13.2 are probably good if you dont like messing around...just use them and be done. Use "leaner" numbers (the 13.4 or 13.2) in the less than 40% throttle columns and "lower" rpms (say below 3000) and use "richer" numbers (13.0 or 12.8) in the 60% or more throttle colums and "higher" rpms (3250 and above).
4. Ride the bike, accept the trims, save the map, send the map to the bike, repeat, repeat, repeat until you see the trims coming back with "little" numbers (say 1-3). Save the trims one last time. Save that map as your final map. Send it to be bike and be done. Turn off AT if you want or dont turn off AT (your choice) BUT SAVE THAT FINAL MAP.
5. Do the entire procedure again when the weather changes significantly (winter, spring, summer, fall) and save a map for each season.


Pennsylvania has had an extremely mild winter to date.....that has changed today. Now cold and snowing. Salt and other decing chemicals will be applied by the road crews. That stops my riding of the S10 until it rains to wash the salt away and warms up. I got a feeling the bike just went into winter storage today and I wont be working on this anymore for quite a while. I'll check back to the forum, but I wont be testing anything I suspect.

 

[jozmoto]

4. Ride the bike, accept the trims, save the map, send the map to the bike, repeat, repeat, repeat until you see the trims coming back with "little" numbers (say 1-3). Save the trims one last time. Save that map as your final map. Send it to be bike and be done. Turn off AT if you want or don't turn off AT (your choice) BUT SAVE THAT FINAL MAP.

YamaPA has it exactly how I would do it (zero all open-loop cells). Only would like to point out from the comment above that this part cannot be rushed and will take some time to get enough time-in-cell to learn a good value. O2 sensors give unreliable results without steady inputs. Some cells can never be learned with steady-state inputs when on the road calibrating is done (vs dyno). Try to get steady-state inputs for 100% throttle and below 6000rpm as you are not going to be spending enough time there for a steady reading. You can only do what you can do though.

 

[Tremor38]

Purely for the sake of Socratic argument, I wonder what the California Dyno S10 (sorry forgot his name at the moment) rider thought about the improvement of his bike after adding the new exhaust, headers, PCV and AT and then once he saw his dyno test results, eventhough the dyno peak was not significantly better than stock? My point being how "seat of the pants" perspective is so subjective.

We don't know what the baseline HP for that bike was because the owner never did a baseline run. It's a bunch of speculative shadow chasing to conclude his peak power was 'not significantly better than stock,' although the figure is a bit surprising.

 

[jajpko]

@YamaPA and Japako,

Let's go with the knowledge we already have and not speculate about things that we do not have any reason for.

Facts:
Yamaha has tweaked the ECU in such a way that the throttlebodies do not open fully in gears 1,2 and 3 in S-mode and gears 1,2,3 and 4 in T-mode. That could very well explain the results we see in the 60% column of the PC V (where the ECU restriction is most noticable according to the Dyno graphs we have seen).

My theory: Because the throttlebodies are not opened as wide as they normally would/should be, and the PC V is fooled by the ECU in thinking that they are, the AT needs to take-out fuel since the throttlebodies are not opened 100% but less in that range. Hence the high(er) minus (-) values in the 60% column.

I have no reason to assume there is anything wrong with the PC V and/or AT (why would we?). It all works as to be expected, I can see and feel the difference it makes, (the values change according to plan and engine certainly runs much better/stronger).
It is just the ECU that is tweaked by Yamaha to not fully open the throttlebodies when we twist the gas (fully) open. Hence, the AT will need to take out fuel as the amount of air coming in is smaller.

We should find out more on this when I have had more opportunity with the Diapason ECU which has this restriction removed and thus 0-100% throttle = 0-100% trhottle.

Does this sound plausible?

I'm not entirely convinced about some of that. It may be that the ECU is different. How long did you ride the bike with that map in that made the high minus values.
On my bike and the maps I have been running, the values in the 60% range are very small and have never increased over time.
If I put a 0 in the closed loop and a 13.0 for the AFR, assuming the AFR in the closed is around 14.0, the auto tune should be adding fuel, not taking it away. I understand your take on the throttle body not being open 100%, and that could account for some of this, but in 5th or 6th gear why would they not be open 100%.

Also When you get the Diapason flash, it will be for a EURO bike and a EURO ECM. I'm quit sure it will work as expected,
but I'm not sure it will do the same for the USA bikes, unless they realize the difference when they receive our ECM and re-flash accordingly.

So back to my thoughts about DynoJet. They should have in my opinion done more testing on a US bike and not assumed that both ECU's were the same.

 

[Maybert]

Purely for the sake of Socratic argument, I wonder what the California Dyno S10 (sorry forgot his name at the moment) rider thought about the improvement of his bike after adding the new exhaust, headers, PCV and AT and then once he saw his dyno test results, eventhough the dyno peak was not significantly better than stock? My point being how "seat of the pants" perspective is so subjective.

Great thread gentlemen, you are doing an admirable job of posting great information ::003::

To answer your question X5, huge improvement over stock! The bike felt asthmatic to me when I took delivery, but did improve as it broke in and we did the airscrew mod.

In the current state of tune I find myself behaving badly and looking for excuses to loft the front tire (damn you traction control!). My only complaint was that power in the 4-5K range was lacking in 5th and 6th where I spend the vast majority of my 130 mile commute. Now that I have been playing around with the closed loop settings via the optimizer, power is better in this range and vibration is also down.

Currently running +4 on the optimizer and 13.2 AFR in open loop. So far (two tanks of gas) my personal observation is that power in the closed loop is smoother and mpg slightly better (1-2) with the optimizer at +4 than by adding fuel to those cells on the fuel map.

 

[jajpko]

Great thread gentlemen, you are doing an admirable job of posting great information ::003::

To answer your question X5, huge improvement over stock! The bike felt asthmatic to me when I took delivery, but did improve as it broke in and we did the airscrew mod.

In the current state of tune I find myself behaving badly and looking for excuses to loft the front tire (damn you traction control!). My only complaint was that power in the 4-5K range was lacking in 5th and 6th where I spend the vast majority of my 130 mile commute. Now that I have been playing around with the closed loop settings via the optimizer, power is better in this range and vibration is also down.

Currently running +4 on the optimizer and 13.2 AFR in open loop. So far (two tanks of gas) my personal observation is that power in the closed loop is smoother and mpg slightly better (1-2) with the optimizer at +4 than by adding fuel to those cells on the fuel map.

Thanks for posting that info. What is your altitude, and just to clarify, you have 0 in the closed loop?
Also did you put 0 in the fuel cells to start with and if you did, how did they change?
Thanks

 

[X5]

Great thread gentlemen, you are doing an admirable job of posting great information ::003::

To answer your question X5, huge improvement over stock! The bike felt asthmatic to me when I took delivery, but did improve as it broke in and we did the airscrew mod.

In the current state of tune I find myself behaving badly and looking for excuses to loft the front tire (damn you traction control!). My only complaint was that power in the 4-5K range was lacking in 5th and 6th where I spend the vast majority of my 130 mile commute. Now that I have been playing around with the closed loop settings via the optimizer, power is better in this range and vibration is also down.

Currently running +4 on the optimizer and 13.2 AFR in open loop. So far (two tanks of gas) my personal observation is that power in the closed loop is smoother and mpg slightly better (1-2) with the optimizer at +4 than by adding fuel to those cells on the fuel map.

Hey Maybert, no slur on you or your bike for sure! I was making a point that I would expect much better than "generic stock numbers" for a bike with your modifications and that subjective perspective is just and only that.

In Florida, anytime a motorcycle wheel leaves the ground, for any reason on public roads, it is subject to massive fines and license forfeture...


Tremor: "although the figure is a bit surprising. " ::026::

 

[Blue_eyes]

Next time I ride the bike I will load a map with the Fuel Map zeroed out for the NON closed loop range.
Set the Optimizer sliders to 0
Put 12 in the closed loop range of the Fuel Map.

And see what trim values are being generated.

I drive the bike with this fuel map ever since the PC V is installed, the Target AFR Map has been changed many times, but not significantly in the 60% TP.

What I do not understand is why all the focus on the big difference in - values of the 60% column in someone elses Fuel Map compared to that of others, and expect everyone elses map to be the same in that area.

For me the bike runs fine, AT produces trim values, I have changed the Target AFR map almost every run to find out what AFR numbers produce the most power. So the trim values will remain relatively high until I stop changing the Target AFR values.

I am interested to find out if there is power to be won in the closed loop area by changing the O2 Optimizer sliders and corresponding values in the Fuel Map.

Anyway, sometime in the coming weeks/months I will put my bike on a dyno and have a custom map built and see what AT changes on that map.

As is, I am very very very very happy with the results so far. The bike now has loads of power in the entire rev range and in all gears and throttle reponse is agressive. Just as I like it. S mode is Supersonic mode, T mode is Tender. I have no wishes left for this bike, just like to fiddle with the goodies.

 

[jajpko]

Next time I ride the bike I will load a map with the Fuel Map zeroed out for the NON closed loop range.
Set the Optimizer sliders to 0
Put 12 in the closed loop range of the Fuel Map.

And see what trim values are being generated.

I drive the bike with this fuel map ever since the PC V is installed, the Target AFR Map has been changed many times, but not significantly in the 60% TP.

What I do not understand is why all the focus on the big difference in - values of the 60% column in someone elses Fuel Map compared to that of others, and expect everyone elses map to be the same in that area.

For me the bike runs fine, AT produces trim values, I have changed the Target AFR map almost every run to find out what AFR numbers produce the most power. So the trim values will remain relatively high until I stop changing the Target AFR values.

I am interested to find out if there is power to be won in the closed loop area by changing the O2 Optimizer sliders and corresponding values in the Fuel Map.

Anyway, sometime in the coming weeks/months I will put my bike on a dyno and have a custom map built and see what AT changes on that map.

As is, I am very very very very happy with the results so far. The bike now has loads of power in the entire rev range and in all gears and throttle reponse is agressive. Just as I like it. S mode is Supersonic mode, T mode is Tender. I have no wishes left for this bike, just like to fiddle with the goodies.

I understand about liking what I have.. lol I really like my bike and it is running very well. I am trying to understand what and how the different parts all work together. Also if a part is not working like it was designed, I would like to know that as well.

I will be very interested in what you achieve with your test. It would be nice if you could do the 0 in the closed loop as well, for a comparison.
You no doubt will do the dyno run with the new ECU and that will really be interesting to see the results.

Thanks

 

[Blue_eyes]

So, what is not working as it was designed? Am I missing something here?

 

[Maybert]

Thanks for posting that info. What is your altitude, and just to clarify, you have 0 in the closed loop?
Also did you put 0 in the fuel cells to start with and if you did, how did they change?
Thanks

Hiya Jim! Altitude is 200 feet, and yes I am currently running 0 in the closed loop fuel table.

As an experiment, I started a fresh map (all values at zero) when I changed the optimizer setting, and am seeing quite a bit of fuel added in the OL 5250-5500 rpm range at 10-40 % throttle. I don't have the map in front of me, but I think it was between +5 and +15 fuel. So far the other cells have had much smaller trim values.