ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
#31
08-20-2007, 09:46 PM
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: UltraKla$$ic
Again, the trick and the correct way that I see in doing the conversion from the DTT to the TMax would be to CONVERT the MAP(kPa) positions from the DTT program to TPS that the TMax uses and THEN, apply them to the TMax for timings in the correct TPS vs. RPM. Anything less would be a dangerous application of timing from one program to the next, hence my initial reply. To me the current method is nothing but a hodge podge of guessing with application.
I'm not ******* anybody, and I commend your efforts, but if it would be this easy, I would have already used the timings from my SERT program and applied them to the TMax.................which again, I'm not saying cannot be done, but the conversion would have to be made.
Again, the trick and the correct way that I see in doing the conversion from the DTT to the TMax would be to CONVERT the MAP(kPa) positions from the DTT program to TPS that the TMax uses and THEN, apply them to the TMax for timings in the correct TPS vs. RPM. Anything less would be a dangerous application of timing from one program to the next, hence my initial reply. To me the current method is nothing but a hodge podge of guessing with application.
I'm not ******* anybody, and I commend your efforts, but if it would be this easy, I would have already used the timings from my SERT program and applied them to the TMax.................which again, I'm not saying cannot be done, but the conversion would have to be made.
http://www.head-quarters.com/html/efi_i_tuning.html
I even used lesser values to reduce any risk. When I initally started and ran the bike I was looking for anything to shut it down. But, as I ran it farther and farther I learned that my "guess" wasn't going to harm anything. Remember, I didn't just jump right up to these values. I gradually increased them over a period of four steps. I used the recommended maps as a threshold that I might be able to get to. So, I wouldn't call it a guess. More of a practice of trial and error. And, because I was so cautious I had more trial than error. My only negative experience was a little pre-detonation. It sounds like chirping right under the tank. I'm sure that didn't hurt anything compared to others experiencing the agressive pinging.
Give it a shot and let us know how your bike responds. I'm interested in what others learn / do from this so I may consider applying any positive results.
#32
08-20-2007, 11:14 PM
Road Captain
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: SpikeCT
Ok roughly speaking its relationship is approximately like this!
16 in-Hg = 2% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 5% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 10% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 20% Throttle
24 in-HG = 40% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 60% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 80% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 100% Throttle
Ok roughly speaking its relationship is approximately like this!
16 in-Hg = 2% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 5% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 10% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 20% Throttle
24 in-HG = 40% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 60% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 80% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 100% Throttle
#33
08-20-2007, 11:30 PM
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
So if we scale 11 to 88 then we end up with....
16 in-Hg = 11% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 22% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 33% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 44% Throttle
24 in-Hg = 55% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 66% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 77% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 88% Throttle
At least that's how the math works out.
With this correlation, here is a direct timing conversion from DTT to Tmax. Notice the change ticks aren't that different from the latest change I made to this map. I'll try to load this map, give it a run, and report the results tomorrow.
16 in-Hg = 11% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 22% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 33% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 44% Throttle
24 in-Hg = 55% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 66% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 77% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 88% Throttle
At least that's how the math works out.
With this correlation, here is a direct timing conversion from DTT to Tmax. Notice the change ticks aren't that different from the latest change I made to this map. I'll try to load this map, give it a run, and report the results tomorrow.
#34
08-21-2007, 07:30 AM
Road Captain
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: Z_Stingray
So if we scale 11 to 88 then we end up with....
16 in-Hg = 11% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 22% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 33% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 44% Throttle
24 in-Hg = 55% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 66% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 77% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 88% Throttle
At least that's how the math works out.
With this correlation, here is a direct timing conversion from DTT to Tmax. Notice the change ticks aren't that different from the latest change I made to this map. I'll try to load this map, give it a run, and report the results tomorrow.
So if we scale 11 to 88 then we end up with....
16 in-Hg = 11% Throttle
18 in-Hg = 22% Throttle
20 in-Hg = 33% Throttle
22 in-Hg = 44% Throttle
24 in-Hg = 55% Throttle
26 in-Hg = 66% Throttle
28 in-Hg = 77% Throttle
30 in-Hg = 88% Throttle
At least that's how the math works out.
With this correlation, here is a direct timing conversion from DTT to Tmax. Notice the change ticks aren't that different from the latest change I made to this map. I'll try to load this map, give it a run, and report the results tomorrow.
16 in-Hg = 2% Throttle = 12.54 degrees
18 in-Hg = 5% Throttle = 14.85 degrees
20 in-Hg = 10% Throttle = 18.70 degrees
22 in-Hg = 20% Throttle = 26.40 degrees
24 in-HG = 40% Throttle = 34.10 degrees
26 in-Hg = 60% Throttle = 57.2 degrees
28 in-Hg = 80% Throttle = 72.60 degrees
30 in-Hg = 100% Throttle = 88 degrees
Assuming that this is correct, my TMax timing tables are actually a little more aggressive than the DTT map...which makes sense because I'm running less compression and can handle more timing
We also need to realize that the DTT table from the HQ site is for a 95" BB, 10.5cr, HQ0039 (probably) build....
#35
08-21-2007, 07:51 AM
#36
08-21-2007, 08:13 AM
Ultimate HDF Member
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: PhilM
Darren.....
Let me try again... I was trying to answer that, but I probably strayed in my rambling.
The DTT does NOT use MAP for fuel delivery calcualtions. It it did, it would be a Speed Density device.
The DTT does read MAP and use it, in relation to RPM to manage TIMING.
The terms "Speed Density" and "Alpha-N" are used to describe fuel delivery systems (injector pulse width and spray intervals).
While ignition timing (when plugs fire)is part of the overall equasion and the controllers are housed in a common box, it is a totally separate control system thanthe fuel delivery system. DTT uses MAP for ingnition timing only - NOT fuel delivery. That does not make it a Speed Density system.
Sorry if my other post was unclear or ambiguous.
ORIGINAL: UltraKla$$ic
That being Alpha N vs. Speed Density, otherwise our communication ain't jiving. I left our last conversation in the past thread scratching my head because if the DTT uses MAP, then it "should be" Speed Density according to the exerpt..
That being Alpha N vs. Speed Density, otherwise our communication ain't jiving.
I left our last conversation in the past thread scratching my head because if the DTT uses MAP, then it "should be" Speed Density according to the exerpt..
Darren.....
Let me try again... I was trying to answer that, but I probably strayed in my rambling.
The DTT does NOT use MAP for fuel delivery calcualtions. It it did, it would be a Speed Density device.
The DTT does read MAP and use it, in relation to RPM to manage TIMING.
The terms "Speed Density" and "Alpha-N" are used to describe fuel delivery systems (injector pulse width and spray intervals).
While ignition timing (when plugs fire)is part of the overall equasion and the controllers are housed in a common box, it is a totally separate control system thanthe fuel delivery system. DTT uses MAP for ingnition timing only - NOT fuel delivery. That does not make it a Speed Density system.
Sorry if my other post was unclear or ambiguous.
Back to the conversation at hand. If I could convert my timingsin my SERT program to apply to my TMax, I'd give it a try as well.
At work right now so back later.
#37
08-21-2007, 08:23 AM
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: kdietz
My math came out different, but here's my take:
16 in-Hg = 2% Throttle = 12.54 degrees
18 in-Hg = 5% Throttle = 14.85 degrees
20 in-Hg = 10% Throttle = 18.70 degrees
22 in-Hg = 20% Throttle = 26.40 degrees
24 in-HG = 40% Throttle = 34.10 degrees
26 in-Hg = 60% Throttle = 57.2 degrees
28 in-Hg = 80% Throttle = 72.60 degrees
30 in-Hg = 100% Throttle = 88 degrees
My math came out different, but here's my take:
16 in-Hg = 2% Throttle = 12.54 degrees
18 in-Hg = 5% Throttle = 14.85 degrees
20 in-Hg = 10% Throttle = 18.70 degrees
22 in-Hg = 20% Throttle = 26.40 degrees
24 in-HG = 40% Throttle = 34.10 degrees
26 in-Hg = 60% Throttle = 57.2 degrees
28 in-Hg = 80% Throttle = 72.60 degrees
30 in-Hg = 100% Throttle = 88 degrees
ORIGINAL: kdietz
We also need to realize that the DTT table from the HQ site is for a 95" BB, 10.5cr, HQ0039 (probably) build....
We also need to realize that the DTT table from the HQ site is for a 95" BB, 10.5cr, HQ0039 (probably) build....
ORIGINAL: kdietz
Assuming that this is correct, my TMax timing tables are actually a little more aggressive than the DTT map...which makes sense because I'm running less compression and can handle more timing
Assuming that this is correct, my TMax timing tables are actually a little more aggressive than the DTT map...which makes sense because I'm running less compression and can handle more timing
#38
08-21-2007, 08:29 AM
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: Z_Stingray
I didn't exactly guess at this. I did quite a bit of research before I felt comfortable advancing the timing. Again, I based my timing values off of this...
http://www.head-quarters.com/html/efi_i_tuning.html
I even used lesser values to reduce any risk. When I initally started and ran the bike I was looking for anything to shut it down. But, as I ran it farther and farther I learned that my "guess" wasn't going to harm anything. Remember, I didn't just jump right up to these values. I gradually increased them over a period of four steps. I used the recommended maps as a threshold that I might be able to get to. So, I wouldn't call it a guess. More of a practice of trial and error. And, because I was so cautious I had more trial than error. My only negative experience was a little pre-detonation. It sounds like chirping right under the tank. I'm sure that didn't hurt anything compared to others experiencing the agressive pinging.
Give it a shot and let us know how your bike responds. I'm interested in what others learn / do from this so I may consider applying any positive results.
ORIGINAL: UltraKla$$ic
Again, the trick and the correct way that I see in doing the conversion from the DTT to the TMax would be to CONVERT the MAP(kPa) positions from the DTT program to TPS that the TMax uses and THEN, apply them to the TMax for timings in the correct TPS vs. RPM. Anything less would be a dangerous application of timing from one program to the next, hence my initial reply. To me the current method is nothing but a hodge podge of guessing with application.
I'm not ******* anybody, and I commend your efforts, but if it would be this easy, I would have already used the timings from my SERT program and applied them to the TMax.................which again, I'm not saying cannot be done, but the conversion would have to be made.
Again, the trick and the correct way that I see in doing the conversion from the DTT to the TMax would be to CONVERT the MAP(kPa) positions from the DTT program to TPS that the TMax uses and THEN, apply them to the TMax for timings in the correct TPS vs. RPM. Anything less would be a dangerous application of timing from one program to the next, hence my initial reply. To me the current method is nothing but a hodge podge of guessing with application.
I'm not ******* anybody, and I commend your efforts, but if it would be this easy, I would have already used the timings from my SERT program and applied them to the TMax.................which again, I'm not saying cannot be done, but the conversion would have to be made.
http://www.head-quarters.com/html/efi_i_tuning.html
I even used lesser values to reduce any risk. When I initally started and ran the bike I was looking for anything to shut it down. But, as I ran it farther and farther I learned that my "guess" wasn't going to harm anything. Remember, I didn't just jump right up to these values. I gradually increased them over a period of four steps. I used the recommended maps as a threshold that I might be able to get to. So, I wouldn't call it a guess. More of a practice of trial and error. And, because I was so cautious I had more trial than error. My only negative experience was a little pre-detonation. It sounds like chirping right under the tank. I'm sure that didn't hurt anything compared to others experiencing the agressive pinging.
Give it a shot and let us know how your bike responds. I'm interested in what others learn / do from this so I may consider applying any positive results.
#39
08-21-2007, 08:35 AM
Road Captain
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: sleepyjim
Hey can someone speak english dang it!
LMFAO dam I just ordered my Tmax and see now that I will need to actually read the directions!
Hey can someone speak english dang it!
LMFAO dam I just ordered my Tmax and see now that I will need to actually read the directions!
I tend to fix stuff until it breaks
#40
08-21-2007, 08:37 AM
RE: ThunderMax Timing is RETARDED!
ORIGINAL: UltraKla$$ic
If I could convert my timingsin my SERT program to apply to my TMax, I'd give it a try as well.
If I could convert my timingsin my SERT program to apply to my TMax, I'd give it a try as well.
We should ge able to correlate your SERT values to Tmax TPS within a reasonable degree of accuracy.