I wrote in the basic instructions that I did to disable, Decel Enleanment, Accel Enrichment and Power enrichment. Anything that can influence the fuel should be removed. That would apply to WideBand tuning also. DynoJet also told me to set AFR to one value but when I questioned it they said leaving the AFR like I had it was OK too. I set 13.8 for the entire cruising range and went down to 13.0 in the higher rpm and throttle ranges. I think DJ is trying to be sure you don't tune at 14.6 with the WB sensors. Many people will tune and then go back to closed loop. So suggesting something like 13.0 to set the VEs and then return to 14.6 when they are set.

One thing that may be influencing your data collection at the WOT and higher RPMs maybe the MAP value. I have found that if MAP is at 100%, no usable data seems to be collected. What I have found is that a gradual roll-on of the throttle is needed. You can't just twist it wide open. I get much more usable data when I display the MAP value on the gauge and keep it less than 90 KPA when collecting data. PE Mode may be kicking in and keeping you from collecting usable data. Disabling PE and not exceeding 90 kpa should help.

When I spoke with DynoJet last week, I suggested a detailed tuning manual and was told one was coming. Maybe in the meantime, I could add instructions for Wideband tuning to the basic doument.

 

I updated the instructions by adding sections on How to setup your calibration for tuning, Closed Loop Bias Table Usage and Suggestions for tuning runs. Also added some information for Wideband tuning with Autotune.

Let me know if you see any changes needed or anything to add. Dynojet is working on a tuning manual but in the meantime, hopefully this will help.

http://www.box.net/shared/i66qvn4xf1s2xp7fgy8v

 

I see, and am leaving it where it is, which is where I want the AFRs to be. I'm actually seeing some movement in a positive direction, except WOT that is. Since WOT was tuned for two years with the PCV-AT, I assume it is fairly close, although the rear cylinder is running a bit leaner than I would like. I think I may revert to doing some manual changes to the VEs at WOT, then use the Lambda values in the CSV to determine the results.

I found a really bad hole in my VE tables, i.e. very lean, in an area I rarely enter--around 5% TP @ 3500 RPM. It was running 1.2 Lambda or higher there, and after some good runs in that area I saw some big changes that should make a difference.

Well, at 25' above sea level MAP can be as high as 102 at 100% TP, so this going to be a problem. I'm getting no WB2 hits on PV Tune at 100% TP.

I'll pass on looking at the gauge during WOT runs, trying to keep it on 90 KPA . Anyway, 90 KPA isn't WOT unless you're at 3000' ASL, so I guess that means tuning at true WOT isn't possible if you live in most of the U.S. I see up to 102 KPA on my log files, and it is always above 100 at WOT, as I'm at 25' ASL where I sit now.

Later Edit: I just talked to Jamie and he said he regularly tunes with 100 KPA values, but the problem we're having is that PV Tune is filtering the data because the hits are too few and far between. He said he ran his bike 15 times in the same manner that I did, second gear following into third, and only got a few hits at 100 KPA. Personally, I'm not willing to run my bike repeatedly like this, so I'm going to use the manual method for WOT tuning. Based on the log files, at WOT I'm close on the front cylinder but the rear is about .05 too lean. I'm going to add to the VE values of the rear cylinder until it gets even with the front, which shouldn't take many runs to acquire.

I changed PE AFR to 13.0 across-the-board long ago, the same as 100% TP. I don't frequent that RPM often and don't need the over-rich safety margin the factory puts into that table. I guess they expect some owners to run their bikes WOT for 20 miles.

It's in the final proof-reading stage. DJ isn't known for excellence in documentation, and I get the impression it is an afterthought that gets done in due time on the back burner. I think we'll get more from this thread than from docs now or in the future, but I hope they prove me wrong.

 

That is exactly what I was seeing. When we are out on the road, we can't "hold" WOT long enough to get the required hits to tune with. What I was trying to say was that when we just twist the throttle wide open, the bike progresses thru the cells so quickly that enough data is not captured. I didn't intend to limit to 90 KPA but to slow down the progression to 100 KPA to get more hits.

Also the correlation between MAP and Throttle Postion is not linear. 100% throttle does not equal 100 KPA. MAP varies due to load so riding hills, varying gears, speed and load all help target certain areas of the tuning map. Gradual throttle increase help to hit all of the areas better than just going straight to WOT.

WOT tuning seems to be best left to the Dyno. The good news is that I don't ride at WOT very often.

 

Can anyone provide insight as to how the MPG adjustment actually functions? There is a fuel consumption output from the ECM. Obviously, there is a built in odometer. Does anyone have a sense as to the accuarcy of either of these outputs? Or does the PV do the math to one or two inaccurate outputs and the MPG adjustment applies a fudge factor just to get the MPG closer. Just asking...

 

And that's the reason I'm not too concerned about it. Besides, we can tune it fairly well manually by monitoring the Lambda results in the datalogs. I'm mostly good on the front cylinder but slightly lean in the rear at WOT, and today I did some adjustments to the VE tables. Alas, no chance to test again today because of weather.

 

There are two parameters that go into the MPG calibration, both instant and average: VSS (vehicle speed as seen by the ECM) and MPG Calibration. Both can be edited in WinPV and in the PV itself, and VSS is called Speedometer Calibration in the Gear section of WinPV. Older bikes don't have the VSS parameter, but I'm not sure about MPG.

The MPG Calibration parameter is a misnomer, as it measures fuel used, and is really the calibration source for that parameter, not MPG. The MPG function takes the VSS, which is somehow translated as distance, and presumably divides it by the fuel-used (MPG Cal.) value. So, you can calibrate both parameters as you wish to obtain the correct MPG values.

The problem is that if you want to get the fuel-used parameter correct you would naturally calibrate that to accuracy. But VSS and the actual speed you see on your speedometer aren't necessarily the same, as mine are different by about 1.2%. So, I now have fuel-used zeroed in fairly well, but MPG remains off by 1.2% (high). Thus to calibrate MPG I'll have to make my speedometer inaccurate. I choose to keep the speedo and fuel-used gauge correct and let MPG stay a bit optimistic.

I've told DJ that I would rather see a calibration for MPG separate from VSS and Fuel-Used, but I don't think this idea is a high priority, as I didn't get much response to that suggestion. Personally, I don't think the approach they took was the best, but I'm only a user, and what do I know?

You asked a simple question but the answer isn't so easily explained, so let me know if any of this gibberish needs further explanation.

 

On the newer bikes speedo you can push the trip button to get to miles remaining. I think it works on the same principle as DJ used. I have seen 84 miles remaining (as an example) and drive the 3 miles to get to the interstate on ramp and see I have 84 miles now. The ECU must use some fuel flow usage to determine this or else it just pulls a number of of someone's ***.

Bottom line: fuel gauges and miles remaining info are kool but never trust them.

 

Dennis, thanks again for all of your efforts/help on this forum. I read earlier that you had richened your decel enleanment table. My 2011 RKC is Lambda based, and was wondering how much you raised your values? I went from the "1.03" cell down (don't remember what temp that starts at) and set them all at 1.06. Do you think that is too much of an adjustment? I am just using the Basic module. Thanks again for any advice.

Also, after the final tuning is done, what is a safe value to set the Rev Limit at? Thanks and ride safe,

TedMan

 

TedMan

Hopefully this will not be confusing.. so here goes.

The Decel Enleanment table is not AFR or Lamba based so it should be the same for all bikes. There are 2 ways to adjust. You can change the Decel Enleanment Multiplier or you can change the actual Decel Enleanment table. I change the table because it is by temp and you can tweak certain ranges if you need to by temp.

Multipler Method: The Decel Enleanment Multiplier is normally set to 1.00. I checked with DynoJet and their description of this field usage is backwards in WinPV. They are going to correct it. If you want to richen the mixture during the decel event, you should decrease the value in this field. Normally I change values by 10%, then try 15%, up to about 30%. You can start with .90, then try .85, .80, etc. I normally use the Table method below - I know it works and it gives you more control by temp.

Table Method: For the Decel Enleanment Table, to richen the mix during decel, you actually decrease the decel enleanment table values. Since the table tells the ECM how much to lean the mix, smaller numbers equal richer. What I did was decrease the values in the table by 10% first, then tried 20%, etc until I zeroed it in. You can highlight the entire table, enter .8 in the value field in the WinPV toolbar and click X (multiply) to decrease the entire table by 20% or you can only reduce certain temps.

I changed the DE Table from this - to this (reduced by 20%)
1.00 - 0.80
0.98 - 0.78
0.95 - 0.76
0.90 - 0.71
0.76 - 0.59
0.60 - 0.46
0.53 - 0.41
0.49 - 0.37
0.46 - 0.34
0.46 - 0.34
0.46 - 0.34
0.46 - 0.34

I leave the RPM limit set to 6150. I have read several places that anything up to 6200 is pretty safe for a stock build.