Prior to the changes DJ made to the Trip Center calibrations, the distance traveled parameter was close to the value displayed on the fairing odometer. I was using a correction of 1.02, which matches my observations with the GPS, but the ECM odometer is not precisely with the stock gauge. I don't recall the differences but last summer I compared speed, RPM, and odometer for both the stock gauges and ECM parameters, and none matched their counterparts exactly.
I think the stock gauges are calibrated independently and I don't know of a way for the user to adjust any of them.

When you adjust the speedo using the calibration in the PV, the odometer also changes. My speedo was 4% fast and odometer 2% fast in stock form, and adjusting the speedo with the GPS put the odometer at about -2%, and that's where I am now. With limited experience with the beta FW and the changes they made to Trip Center calibrations, I may have to change the Distance Traveled parameter upward a bit.

 

I haven't tried 14.2, but at 13.0 and 13.5 it makes a meaningful difference in mileage. I might try it just for kicks, especially in summer.

 

I almost always use multiple logs, trying to keep them at 15-20 min. each. That was Jamie's suggestion some time back and I'm trying to stick with that ritual.

 

Are you doing Basic tuning with the stock NB sensors? If so, your open-loop areas will not change since there is no feedback there.

If you're tuning with WB sensors (Pro), you can tune the entire operating range, but if you aren't getting any changes in VE values you may not be getting enough hits. Remember that when accelerating in that region, usually at WOT, the RPM's change rapidly and it may take a few runs to get enough hits to make any changes. I would use the highest gear possible to maximize the time you are in those areas. If you're still having trouble getting enough hits you can reduce the minimum-hits value in the options section of PV Tune.

 

Are you using Basic or Pro tuning? If you are using Basic I'll report it to DJ, and it would be good to get your PVV and original tune to them. I sent these files to them when I made my first and only tuning run using the AT-WB process. It should be noted that the WB section is not fully functional yet.

I actually have no plans of using the Auto Tune feature in the PV except for beta testing. I have my tune down to about ±1-2% and am only doing datalogs now to make minor changes, usually in only one or two cells. I typically run PV Tune and look at the deltas, and if a cell is showing more than 3% variance I will change that value directly in WinPV.

One reason that I do it this way is that something in the tuning process causes my values at around 2750-3500 @ 0% to continually lean a small amount per tune until it starts popping. This happened for both cylinders and I didn't notice the overall change until those values were about 25% leaner than those surrounding them. I now use a set value and don't allow any tuning to happen there. Thus, tuning with Auto Tune is not something I can use. This particular problem is probably the result of reversion and isn't the fault of the PV tuning process. It's interesting that with the PCV-AT the entire 0% column of the Target AFR table is set to "0" which turns AT off for those areas. There is no such recommendation for the PV that I've seen.

I've also kept the spark tables out of the tuning process for quite some time. I have an intermittent false-knock in the front cylinder at a specific location that causes the PV to continually retard the timing slightly for each tuning run, and it never stops. The false knocks continue regardless of where the timing advance is set. In the past I've just used "Load Selected Values" and unchecked the spark tables in WinPV. In fact, when I was tuning this way I would usually have only the two VE tables selected.

I only tested it because I'm committed to the beta-testing program and want to do my part by providing feedback on changes. DJ and FM have been very helpful to me and that's the least I can do.

Regarding the algorithm, you would think they'd be using the same one used in the conventional process. That obviously isn't happening but I would think they should jibe with each other. Otherwise, at least one will not be accurate.

 

Yes. I have done it both ways. Normally I would process one log at a time but sometimes you just cant get a good mix of riding in so I would combine them. Just be sure they are created from the same base map. For instance, one day in the morning I did some mountain riding by myself. When I got home the wife wanted to go for a ride. Once we got back, I had to pick something up and did some interstate riding. I logged all of the rides, input all the logs into log tuner and got excellent coverage on the map.

 

Log tuner counts hits from all logs combined.

 

Basic tuning. I sent Dan @ DJ an email recently with my base tune, the pvv files and the log file so that he could assess. I'm in the same boat as yourself - my existing tune is within a couple percentage points run-run so I'm confident with it. I do occasionally get some knock in the front around the 2500rpm 50-60 KPa range - not sure of those are false or not, but will monitor. I do have my advance in that area lower than the rear which is surprising.

 

Great, that has been my experience, just wanted to make sure I understood. So far my distance traveled parameter is under about 1.5%, so I will record going forward along w/ fuel used. Thanks again.

TedMan

 

I see everyone talking about delta VEs as percentages. How do you change the delta value to a percentage? Mine comes up as the actual number being changed.
Thanx