| Author | Message | ||
     Slypiranna |
Yes. | ||
| Xb9 |
I thought so too. So the closer you are riding to sea level the lean running drivability problems are more severe. | ||
| Slypiranna |
It's also showing up in the AFV's posted above and the elevations reported. Your original questioning of AFV data per elevation/local might need to be revisted for further understanding Xb9. It seems your leaning towards a closer/happier A/F ratio and thus a more positive perception to that owner? So why not add that data here? Mine are now back to 100F/100R, elevation, +900', Dec 07 build, current reflash, 6k miles...throttle locked, noid eliminated and oh, RUNS LIKE CRAP in CLOSED LOOP! Wideband reports way lean in CL...and as we've learned, AFV's have nothing to do with closed loop...only OPEN LOOP????????????????????????????! Where was that link you originally posted of finding your zip's elevation? (Message edited by slypiranna on July 13, 2008) (Message edited by slypiranna on July 13, 2008) (Message edited by slypiranna on July 14, 2008) | ||
| Zac4mac |
Thrashing maybe Neal, but part of the recipe is "light/no load conditions"... I'm convinced that learning is in 3rd gear, since I now am in a near constant learn mode and she keeps getting smoother. Maybe somebody did something magic to her when she was in the Factory parking lot... Checked after getting home from work today... 90.0/94.5. Stuck in slow(13 mph) traffic, idled in 2nd... | ||
| Slypiranna |
What's your elevation Z? Didn't you post somewhere a while back that on a trip to near sea level Loretta ran worse? This is curious stuff... I've tried this learning zone countless times with no improvement. | ||
| Xb9 |
Zac's AT 5000 FT. ASL Longmont, CO http://www.wunderground.com (Message edited by xb9 on July 14, 2008) | ||
| Xb9 |
I wish I knew if the baro sensor offset acted independently of the AFV, or if it is incorporated in the AFV. I would think (hope) it is independent. | ||
| Zac4mac |
MM- yes When I went to Texas the first part of April, AFVs remained where they were here at home and she ran like crap. Got a case # from BMC-CS for "rideability" when I got back home. Back home at altitude, with the AFVs the same as when I left, she ran smooth again. AFVs were 94.5/94.5 this whole time. Then at 7003 miles, I got the reflash, AFVs reset to 100/100 and I had a popcorn machine. AFVs stayed at 100/100 until 7800-7900 miles, changed to 90/99 and was smoother. A couple of hundred miles later I found her around 90/95 and she was smoother yet. When I went to Milwaukee for Homecoming, AFVs were still the same as when I left Colorado and she ran rough again. Then after talking to a few folks, I tried 3rd gear/4k rpm and she "learned" and smoothed out considerably. Did it again in Nebraska, when I got up over 2000' and AFVs changed for the better and she ran smoother. About 30 miles from home, I did it again with the same results. In the last week, she has settled in twice, getting closer to the 94.5/94.5 she ran so well at months ago. There is a definite relation between AFVs and rideability. At my altitude, 94.5/94.5 seems close to optimal. At sea level, she was smoother closer to 100/100. It "feels" like the AFVs are set in closed loop, used in open loop with no sensor input AND closed loop WITH sensor input for "fine adjust". At least that's what my "butt dyno" says. Z | ||
| Bob_thompson |
This really IS getting more interesting. I just wish someone from BMC would chime in and either tell us we are all full of it or add something as to weather a fix is in the works or just that we have to live with it. (Maybe not if programmers come out and they are not hamstrung by the EPA). Naturally that would be our choice but not any manufacturers. Again I applaud all here who have helped with understanding this quirk with our still loved 1125R's. Zac, you and I are having similar findings with our "stock" bikes. My rides almost always start with a short ride of about ten miles to get to my "playground". On that short straight I'm at constant 4200 ft elevation and near 4000 rpm's and evidently in closed loop learning curve with every ride. And what Dave(Xb9) has said that at higher elevations (leaner air) our factory "relatively lean" conditions as mandated by EPA regs. are less troublesome. Best discussion on the board. Bob | ||
| Dalton_gang |
I guess that I should at least contribute some info since everyone else seems to be working in this. Keep in mind that I have only checked my diag mode once until I started having issues. Now I`m checking it every time that I refuel even though my issues have gone away. (knock knock) Usually I`m riding between 475ft to 1000ft above sea level Dec `07 build #423 Original ecm flash and no performance mods Noid cable disconnected 3500 miles AFV front = 100 AFV rear = 105 Rarely do I ride under 4,000 rpm Often I do run the snot out of it Didn`t have problems until the A.T. around here was in the upper 80 deg to mid 90 deg range. Although back when the temps were in the 60/70 deg range I had noticed on a couple of occasions a loss in power for a day or two at a time. I could be wrong (as I usually am) but I think that Zac is on to something. I`m starting to think that I have been unknowingly doing similar things that are teaching my ECM. Maybe thats why I never had any real issues until I did some low rpm cruising when the temps were on the rise. | ||
| Xb9 |
'And what Dave(Xb9) has said that at higher elevations (leaner air).....' I'd rather refer to it as "less air density" which in turn lowers the compression ratio. Lower compression is better at tolerating a leaner mixture. | ||
| Chevycummins |
My bike does seem to run very lean, the surge feels like a lean surge. The exhaust pipe has almost no residue in it at all and the plugs are white. I just can't get it to learn but I did not give up on Zac's findings yet. It may just be my elevation causing it to be a really slow learner. I've got a couple things I'm going to try tomorrow to fool the ecm to run richer. I'll keep you guys posted. | ||
| Buford |
In regard to WB "simulated NB" signal output-what advantages would this be over the stock NB signal? More accurate? Faster reacting? Am considering getting a couple and then doing some serious front to rear data logging/fuel table creating. thanks! | ||
| Xb9 |
It IS lean in the Closed Loop region - there is no doubt (>15:1!). Open loop is fine. | ||
| Xb9 |
Buford, Yes and Yes. Zeitronix makes a wideband controller with an adjustable simulated narrow band switching point. Now that may be a good work around and theoretically would solve the problem, but you'd have to buy two and at $280 ea. it's a bit pricey. I have an earlier Zeitronix but bought it before they came out with the adjustable switching point. | ||
| Markrd500 |
I'm at sea level here guys and the bike's as lumpy as J lo's ass. | ||
| Buford |
Found this dual sensor WB set-up: Whatcha think? http://www.atlanticspeed.com/productcart/pc/viewPr d.asp?idproduct=5158&idcategory=0 | ||
| Xb9 |
Probably be OK for tuning if you don't mind ditching the O2 sensors and running it as a closed loop only system when you're done. The Zeitronix units MAY allow you to run in closed loop when the mapping is complete, as long as you get the adjustable switching point set right. I don't really see a need for the dual system, there's enough there to confuse oneself just doing one at a time. Keeps you from having to switch back and forth from front to rear though. | ||
| Slypiranna |
Thanks for your answer Zack...and based upon your experience, I have to again question whether or not the AFV's do contribute somehow to Closed Loop funtions. My dual wideband has never shown this to be the case however...at least on my bike. I've had it at sea level for 4k miles and 2k miles now at +900'. I agree...stock, very lean in CL from all that I've logged. 15:1 is minimum in most Closed Loop feedback. That is proven. Buford, I've had the Fast unit on my bike for a while now. The 11 doesn't get along with the narrow output. I've tried it. As far as altering the switching point with Zetronics? I too have questioned what if? Only more $'s and time will answer that one! And on we march, Next. (Message edited by slypiranna on July 14, 2008) | ||
| Id073897 |
AFV is learned in LCL and used in OL only. AFV in CL is useless. O2 is monitoring mixture in all regions.
AFR 15.1 is not "very lean", it's just "a bit lean", same as 14.3 is not "very rich", but just "a bit rich". Lots of recent IL4 are running about AFR 16 in CL. Regards, Gunter | ||
| Slypiranna |
Thank you Gunter for your input! Should the timing maps be looked at a little closer to help explain some of this? | ||
| Id073897 |
I don't think that timing has an influence on AFR. Regards, Gunter | ||
| Alex |
In my opinion every value from the base fuel map is multiplied by AFV no matter if the value is in CL, LCL or OL region (at least it used to be with XBs. Can´t see why it should be different with 1125s). If that´s correct AFV would influence every region which makes a lot of sense to me. Any comments? Regards Alex (Message edited by alex on July 15, 2008) | ||
| Xb9 |
Gunter, thanks for your input. I agree. But this engine seems particularly sensitive and does not like to run lean. Could the fact that it is a 72 degree common crankpin (offset firing) twin and higher compression ratio have something to do with this? I agree with your statement Alex. AFV is an adjustment to the base maps and once set, 'jogs' the complete maps that percentage. I used to adjust my XB race bike with factory race tuner for different tracks and conditions by manually setting the AFV (with the closed loop system disabled). It would jog the maps as a whole. I've always looked at the closed loop function as a pollution control, something that is not 100% necessary as long as the base maps are spot on. Lots of motorcycles have been built in the past with an open-loop only system. Newer, more stringent emission requirements have forced the issue. Since the ECM is calibrated to run at >15:1 closed loop, we're kinda stuck on fixing it and retaining the closed loop function; unless...... Therein lyes the holy grail - we need to find the setting(s) in the ECM that will get us back to 14.7:1 in closed loop, and adjust the base maps in CL & LCL to coincide. On my example, the base maps (especially the front) are a mess below 4k in the closed loop region. And anything over 15:1 causes stumbling or surging. Get it down to < 14.7:1 and things smooth out real nice. (Message edited by xb9 on July 15, 2008) | ||
| Slypiranna |
Just to make sure I was not mis-understood, 15:1 minimum is the richest I've recorded in closed loop. When the bucking hits hard, I've seen the wideband toggle nearly off of what is accurate to record...and much leaner than 16:1. Concerning the Holy Grail concept, that would be the perfect solution to maintain systems functions...for an off road only applications of coarse. Finally, to make sure that we are all in agreement thus far; 1. AFV's are ONLY ADDED in Open Loop conditions? 2. Closed Loop fueling "target" is 15:1? | ||
| Id073897 |
In my opinion every value from the base fuel map is multiplied by AFV no matter if the value is in CL, LCL or OL region (at least it used to be with XBs. Can´t see why it should be different with 1125s). AFV is following EGO corr., so multiplying (raw) veBins with AFV additionally would lead to false pulsewidth. http://www.ecmspy.com/download/gunter/AFV.png in CL: pw = veBin * EGO Corr. in OL: pw = veBin * AFV * [OL OR WOT] enrich (depending on the region active) This is quite logical as it's the AFV's task to shift veBins in OL, as veBins are "shifted" in CL by EGO corr. Regards, Gunter | ||
| Id073897 |
we need to find the setting(s) in the ECM that will get us back to 14.7:1 in closed loop Why? What do you expect from a richer mixture under partial load conditions? Regards, Gunter | ||
| Xb9 |
Thanks Gunter, makes sense. 'We need to find the setting(s) in the ECM that will get us back to 14.7:1 in closed loop' Partial load (closed loop) cruise operation is the problem area on the '08 1125r. Unlike any Buell I have ever seen (this may be true for the '08 XB's as well), they are not targeting stoich for closed loop operation. The target is >15:1, which causes the drivability problems. Sly, my interpretation: 1. Yes. AFV's are only APPLIED in open loop with closed loop functionality enabled. IF the closed loop functionality is disabled (open loop only), AFV is applied globally in the map. 2. We don't know exactly, but from my observations it may be slightly higher than 15:1. | ||
| Buford |
Have ordered a set of the Race Wideband sensors. Have read/heard somewhere that exhaust temps may be an issue with the WB sensors? Curious if I will be able to use the stock bung location for the rear cyl WB sensor? My desire here is to use the WB sensors to more accurately develop the fuel tables then hopefully use the rear mounted sensor to input the "simulated NB signal" for the ECM for close loop operation if needed. Otherwise, I can always use the stock NB sensor for that. The FAST model sensor set-up that I linked above is designed for V Twin (HD, Buell?)motors, so hopefully it will prove useful. thanks! (Message edited by Buford on July 15, 2008) | ||
| Xb9 |
Both Sly w/ the FAST Unit and my experience with the Zeitronix - for some reason the 1125r does not like the simulated NB output on these controllers. Later I found no need to pursue it (unless we find the Holy grail!) Until we find those parameters causing the 'leaner than stoich closed loop', don't waste your time feeding the ECM any type of 02 input. All your CL region mapping efforts will be in vain because they will not be used, unless you run it open loop only. (Message edited by xb9 on July 15, 2008) |
