Accelerator module fitted

Bem · Jun 1, 2015

I have always been of a curious mind with regard to almost everything and anything that "improves your lot".
Having lived with my 650 twin for a few years I have been quite happy with it, but also aware of certain characteristics that drive others to drink. The throttle response in particular has been noted by many as being "too light" or "too fierce" something that has not bothered me unduly but I have agreed with these views. Saving up for a Hilltop tune is in progress, but in the meantime I thought I would try something a little cheaper- http://www.sol2.be/ for £30 or so. Looked at the Booster Plug for £102 but decided to be cheap.

And to cut to the chase - something has happened. I assume more fuel is going it at lower revs because on the overrun engine braking is reduced, and pickup on opening from lower revs is more assertive.

Or I could just be fooling myself.........

It will stay fitted.

haditlowered · Jun 1, 2015

I've had one on mine since just after i bought it, it's does what it says on the tin, i bought the longer one and put the sensor at the back of the bike, it tells the engine management that it's 20 degrees cooler than it actually is and adjusts the fuel to suit, i use it with the full Akra system, i was worried it would be too lean as standard - i get about 48 / 50mpg, and it's smoooth, goes like shit off a shovel.

Roger Chatterton · Jun 2, 2015

So if I have understood correctly, you are losing around 10 miles per gallon, or maybe more? That seems to make fueling a lot richer. That's a lot of MPG to lose. One of the big "plus factors" on these bikes is surely the fuel economy, and on a 16 litre tank( on my F700), I'd be dropping down to around 140 miles between re-fueling.

haditlowered · Jun 2, 2015

Roger Chatterton said:
So if I have understood correctly, you are losing around 10 miles per gallon, or maybe more? That seems to make fueling a lot richer. That's a lot of MPG to lose. One of the big "plus factors" on these bikes is surely the fuel economy, and on a 16 litre tank( on my F700), I'd be dropping down to around 140 miles between re-fueling.

Im not loosing any MPG? don't believe what the manual says either, i guess if you choose to ride at 56mph everywhere you'll get more MPG -, i ride quickly... and i don't care what the cost is, i just enjoy it - i didn't get the bike because the manual says it will do XYZ -MPG, interestingly though i was getting about 43 / 45mpg pre full Akra system and accelerator module - now I'm getting around 49!! so thats good!!

http://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/bmw/r1200gs - 48 / 50 is actually quite good according to this.

Bem · Jun 2, 2015

Ooh er missus! Don`t like the sound of that!
However I think Roger that you and I can relax - Haditlowered appears to be on a 1200!
I have not had it fitted for long enough to see any impact on consumption but looking at both the instant and average consumption nothing appeared to be amiss.
Doubtless those of a technical orientation can tell us exactly what is going on, but my simple feedback is that it affects the bottom end of things eg up to about 3k (the closed loop??)
HTH
Brian

haditlowered · Jun 2, 2015

Stuck the luggage on and sat on the motorway with a head wind going to Assen last year that was heavy on fuel, but thats as with any bike, but usually she's much improved from Pre Module fitment. My Audi manual said 60mpg - i was getting 42... i won't bore you with the answer from Audi when i complained, but anyway but testing is done under strict conditions that you and i will never achieve on the roads.
Have a google at "real mpg" for your bike, but i,m sure that as with the 1200 you will be getting better than that with the Module fitted - on the real MPG charts i'm getting top end MPG - and yes Rog, i'm on a 1200

, but i'd expect the Accelerator Module to perform the same on any bike. This is the RiDE article, have a look at the RoSPA test standard for your model (not that you'll ever achieve it...)

http://www.ride.co.uk/Fuel-Economy-Challenge/

Gigsy · Jun 2, 2015

Hate to burst your bubble but unfortunately, these things only work for a short while until the ECU sees the O2 sensor readings and realises that it's not fuelling correctly and then learns to correct itself. You will notice the difference when you first fit it of course but the actual effect won't last long.

Bem · Jun 2, 2015

And then what - if I remove it will things change again?
Better or Worse?
And should I pass on the new boots in order to go to the Hilltop?

haditlowered · Jun 2, 2015

Gigsy said:
Hate to burst your bubble but unfortunately, these things only work for a short while until the ECU sees the O2 sensor readings and realises that it's not fuelling correctly and then learns to correct itself. You will notice the difference when you first fit it of course but the actual effect won't last long.

Naaa, thats bollox... i'd like to see you back that up... the market for "Plug In and fool the ECU" tuning parts is immense, why would this one be over ridden by the ECU and not the rest, and - I've had mine on since 2012... and i know it's still working just by looking at the fuelling / MPG, and smiling every-time i twist that thing on the right.

Alan R · Jun 3, 2015

Gigsy said:
Hate to burst your bubble but unfortunately, these things only work for a short while until the ECU sees the O2 sensor readings and realises that it's not fuelling correctly and then learns to correct itself. You will notice the difference when you first fit it of course but the actual effect won't last long.

A bold statement that would benefit from some facts/ proof/evidence....... Over to you to back up your assertion please.
Alan R

Gigsy · Jun 3, 2015

haditlowered said:
Naaa, thats bollox... i'd like to see you back that up... the market for "Plug In and fool the ECU" tuning parts is immense, why would this one be over ridden by the ECU and not the rest, and - I've had mine on since 2012... and i know it's still working just by looking at the fuelling / MPG, and smiling every-time i twist that thing on the right.

Alan R said:
A bold statement that would benefit from some facts/ proof/evidence....... Over to you to back up your assertion please.
Alan R

I'm afraid it's not bollocks. Modern ECU's learn to correct erroneous sensor data. It's one of the reasons they're so good at managing emissions - they monitor all their sensors and if they detect that they're getting iffy data, they learn from it and compensate. Feel free to speak to a BMW tech or anyone that knows about modern ECUs.

I understand that people have tried accelerator modules and they will certainly get an initial benefit from them. Therefore understandably they think "great, this works" but I can assure you that if you stick a wide band lambda in the exhaust and measure AFR over time, you'll see the initial rich mixture being reduced. You can't see what AFR is being used by the ECU at any given time by looking at the MPG you're getting - only the ECU data itself or an O2 sensor can tell you that.

With regards to this comment "why would this one be over ridden by the ECU and not the rest", not all of these devices are the same. I'm referring to the modules that simply trick the ECU by providing an altered temp sensor value. They will work with older ECUs, just not more modern ones that "learn". It's not a conspiracy to put the market for tuning modules out of business, it's just a fact of how modern ECUs have developed to be able to be so fuel efficient and maintain low emissions.

Yes, I know there's a big market for these and as I've already said they certainly produce results over the long term on older ECUs. However, on modern ECUs, the effect IS dampened over time. Early ECUs did not learn in the same way as the ones found on current generation BMW bikes so these module continue to have the desired results on those bikes, just not the new ones. A lot of the reason riders still feel they are getting a benefit is because as the ECU has gradually learnt to correct the modified data, the rider has gradually learnt to adapt to whatever it was they wanted to gain from the module - for example, snatchy low speed throttle response.

I appreciate that saying something that is against the grain of Internet Wisdom is difficult to understand so if you want to burn the heathen unbeliever, that's up to you, but I suggest you do some research for yourselves before you pass judgement. Personally, although I'm not an expert per se, I have a pretty reasonable knowledge of how ECUs work and have spent a reasonable amount of time remapping in the past.

The bottom line is you get what you pay for, if you really want more power/better fuelling/etc then you need to reprogram the ECU so that it's fuelling and ignition timing tables etc can be optimised.

Gigsy · Jun 3, 2015

Bem said:
And then what - if I remove it will things change again?
Better or Worse?
And should I pass on the new boots in order to go to the Hilltop?

Yes, if you remove it, the ECU would need to re-learn from the now accurate sensor data. The plug in works by fooling the ECU into thinking it's operating at a lower temperature than it actually it is. It therefore (generally) adds more fuel to compensate for this since a richer mixture is required at colder temperatures to ensure enough fuel is atomised. This in turn has the effect of softening the initial throttle response.

By the time you're on a wide throttle, the ECU will usually be in open loop fuelling and adjusting it's fuelling differently (it's measuring the amount of air going in rather than the amount of O2 in the exhaust gasses to calculate AFR). Consequently, your MPG won't be vastly altered by the module.

If you feel that the module is of benefit to you, then by all means stick with it but if you really want more power/better throttle response/etc then a remap is the only real way to go.

haditlowered · Jun 3, 2015

Gigsy said:
I'm afraid it's not bollocks. Modern ECU's learn to correct erroneous sensor data. It's one of the reasons they're so good at managing emissions - they monitor all their sensors and if they detect that they're getting iffy data, they learn from it and compensate. Feel free to speak to a BMW tech or anyone that knows about modern ECUs.

I understand that people have tried accelerator modules and they will certainly get an initial benefit from them. Therefore understandably they think "great, this works" but I can assure you that if you stick a wide band lambda in the exhaust and measure AFR over time, you'll see the initial rich mixture being reduced. You can't see what AFR is being used by the ECU at any given time by looking at the MPG you're getting - only the ECU data itself or an O2 sensor can tell you that.

With regards to this comment "why would this one be over ridden by the ECU and not the rest", not all of these devices are the same. I'm referring to the modules that simply trick the ECU by providing an altered temp sensor value. They will work with older ECUs, just not more modern ones that "learn". It's not a conspiracy to put the market for tuning modules out of business, it's just a fact of how modern ECUs have developed to be able to be so fuel efficient and maintain low emissions.

Yes, I know there's a big market for these and as I've already said they certainly produce results over the long term on older ECUs. However, on modern ECUs, the effect IS dampened over time. Early ECUs did not learn in the same way as the ones found on current generation BMW bikes so these module continue to have the desired results on those bikes, just not the new ones. A lot of the reason riders still feel they are getting a benefit is because as the ECU has gradually learnt to correct the modified data, the rider has gradually learnt to adapt to whatever it was they wanted to gain from the module - for example, snatchy low speed throttle response.

I appreciate that saying something that is against the grain of Internet Wisdom is difficult to understand so if you want to burn the heathen unbeliever, that's up to you, but I suggest you do some research for yourselves before you pass judgement. Personally, although I'm not an expert per se, I have a pretty reasonable knowledge of how ECUs work and have spent a reasonable amount of time remapping in the past.

The bottom line is you get what you pay for, if you really want more power/better fuelling/etc then you need to reprogram the ECU so that it's fuelling and ignition timing tables etc can be optimised.

i can see that you've taken the time to try to explain, however a lot of what you write relies on what evidence? i cant find any evidence to back up what your saying anywhere online, perhaps you can point me in the right direction please, - and i cannot assume that your knowledge is anything other that "what you have heard"?, if your belief is that that what you've said it correct that is your prerogative but i'll have a definitive answer shortly from Marc at Sol2.be. i understand that the devices job is to "modify" the signal the ECU gets from the intake air temperature (IAT) sensor....NOT THE o2 sensor, so as far as the ECU is concerned it has the modified signal giving it an Air Temperature, that temperature is about 6% cooler than the actual and that adjusts the fuelling according to the IAT signal - it does not "re-learn" as far as the ECU is concerned it has a signal and does it's job with the fuelling and assemes you are riding in a cooler climate needing more fuel - it does adjust fuelling to a number of other conditions but they are individual and not reliant on each other - if you take the module off it will re-learn because it thinks it's in a warmer climate....if what your saying is correct no ones bike would perform in winter!! - so as long as it's fitted the signal it gets from the IAT sensor IS modified to a cooler climate - the ECU thinks that is correct - thus it works.

haditlowered · Jun 3, 2015

Sol2.be responded - but I've asked them to expand on their answer:

"Hi, I don't know who is telling this, but clearly someone that doesn't know how the system works. The ECU doesn't change or adapt itself..."

Gigsy · Jun 3, 2015

haditlowered said:
Sol2.be responded - but I've asked them to expand on their answer:

"Hi, I don't know who is telling this, but clearly someone that doesn't know how the system works. The ECU doesn't change or adapt itself..."

Sorry, but I never once said the module affected data from the O2 sensor, in fact I've only said that this module affects data from the temperature sensor. If you expressed that I had said it affects the O2 sensor, then no wonder he doesn't think I know how the system works.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure Sol2.be understands modern ECUs if he thinks they don't adapt. They do adapt, I can assure you of that - for example, if the ECU detects knock at a certain engine load, it will learn to pull a little bit of ignition timing in that load cell so that it does't occur again. This is generally referred to as Fine Learning Knock Correction. The ECU does this to compensate for different grades of fuel, for example.

A similar thing happens with AFR. The ECU is trying to hit the target AFRs it's been programmed with based on things like air temperature (and thus air density), air flow, injector pulse width (how much fuel is being injected), ignition advance, etc. Typically, it will use an O2 sensor to measure whether it's hitting those AFRs. If it isn't, it tries to adjust and stores the adjustment values so that it can hit those AFRs in the future.

The module only affects the air temperature that the ECU thinks it has to fuel for - it doesn't affect the air density itself and therefore the resultant 02 levels in the exhaust gases and this is where the ECU learns to compensate.

That's just how they work. Feedback loops such as these are what make modern internal combustion reliable and efficient. Some of these modules are better at tricking the ECU than others but ultimately, the ECU will always be fighting them because the other sensors that it's monitoring are telling it that something isn't quite right. The bottom line is if you want to do the job properly, the only way of doing it correctly is to reprogram the ECU.

The diagram you've posted above is correct but it doesn't tell the whole story. It also is only for open loop fuelling and doesn't mentioned closed loop (where the O2/AFR sensor is doing the bulk of the work in determining fuelling). This is very interesting considering that the vast majority of time, you are in closed loop fuelling. In fact the only time when the ECU will generally switch to open loop fuelling is when you're at WOT (wide open throttle) because at this point, the O2 sensor is often out of range. At low throttle openings, the ECU is almost always in closed loop mode - or does Sol2.be not mention how his module affects closed loop fuelling on his website?

Gigsy · Jun 3, 2015

Because I'm bored at work, I thought I'd simplify things a bit... it basically goes a little like this:

Closed Loop.

ECU: Hey, Temp Sensor, how cold is it out there?
Temp Sensor: It’s 15 degrees
Sol2.be Module: No, it’s 5 degrees
ECU (thinks): Brr, bit chilly 5 degrees, I’d better inject more fuel
ECU: Hey, Injector, Temp Sensor says it’s a bit cold outside, please can you stay open a bit longer and inject more fuel.
Injector: Sure, not a problem.
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, you’re running a bit too rich.
ECU: OK, thanks for telling me.
ECU (thinks): Hmmm, better do something about that.
ECU: Hey, Injector, I know I said to stay open a bit longer because Temp Sensor said it was cold but AFR Sensor says we’re running a bit too rich so don’t open quite so long next time, please.
Injector: OK.
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, that’s perfect now.
ECU: Great, thanks!
ECU (thinks): Hmmm, weird my programmer said I needed a wider injector pulse width at this temperature so either I’m running in some sort of oxygen starved air or Temp Sensor is lying to me. Either way, I’d better remember that I don’t need such a big injector pulse width at this air temperature in future.
Sol2.be Module: Damn, I've been foiled!

Open Loop.

ECU: Hey MAF Sensor, how much air is flowing?
MAF Sensor: 3g/s
ECU: Hey Temp Sensor, how cold is it out there?
Temp Sensor: It’s 15 degrees
Sol2.be Module: No, it’s 5 degrees
ECU: Great, thanks.
ECU (thinks): Hmm, I know I’ve been told I need to inject this much fuel for that engine load at this RPM and at 5 degrees, but when I was running in closed loop earlier I needed much less injector pulse width than I thought. I’d better compensate and open for 3ms instead of 3.5ms.
ECU: Hey Injector, open for 3ms please
Injector: OK, no problem.
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!
AFR: Sorry, value out of bounds
ECU: OK, well I’ll assume I got it right based on data I’ve been told about and data I’ve learnt about.
Sol2.be Module: Damn, foiled again!

haditlowered · Jun 3, 2015

Im sorry to say, but you are talking utter tosh - the ECU's do ADAPT, but you said they LEARN....they do not learn.

They take several pieces of information and fuel accordingly, one piece of information is air temp, it takes all the readings individually and fuels accordingly, it's really simple...the module tells the ECU it cold outside, the ECU fuels a bit richer to compensate (and btw cold air is denser that hot air as I'm sure you know, so the ECU will likely compensate for air density once it's been told by the module that it's cold... the Sol2.be explanation is a lot clearer than anything you have written so far. http://www.boosterplug.com/shop/cms-24.html

But you had me interested to see if, as you believe, that i was loosing my marbles and imagined that the bike was smoother, with better acceleration through the gears, smoother roll-off, and all-round a better ride with the module fitted, after all I've had mine on 3 years... so i probably couldn't remember how lumpy it really was....So i took the sensor off before i left to run a 40 mile errand from which i have just returned (actually i have the extended version so i left it attached to the bike and just reconnected the original plug's) - the acceleration was straight back to lumpy in low gears, the engine braking was more pronounced, the change between gears was shorter, the jerky ride i had when i bought it 3 years ago had returned - the ECU didn't have to "learn" it just adapted to the new set of conditions given to it by the sensors with the module missing - so YES - it's still working and NO the ECU did not "learn" to by-pass it. I'm off with my cuppa to plug it back in safe in the knowledge that irrespective of who believes what -i have physically tested its performance three years on from fitting it, and if anyone is thinking of buying one - well i wouldn't hesitate!!

Bem · Jun 3, 2015

looking good for five pages - just off to make some jam sandwiches...........

haditlowered · Jun 3, 2015

Bem said:
looking good for five pages - just off to make some jam sandwiches...........

It might well be that we don't all understand the full technicalities of the ECU, and how it adapts to different conditions but the fact is i believe Sol2.be do fully understand, and the module works - and you cannot dispute a physical test of its performance 3 years after fitting, which i have done today.

I had cheese with salad cream BTW....

Gigsy · Jun 3, 2015

haditlowered said:
It might well be that we don't all understand the full technicalities of the ECU, and how it adapts to different conditions but the fact is i believe Sol2.be do fully understand, and the module works - and you cannot dispute a physical test of its performance 3 years after fitting, which i have done today.

I had cheese with salad cream BTW....

Lol - bet I could if I plugged a wide band AFR into your bike. Believe what you like, I couldn't give a shit.

Accelerator module fitted

younger than some, older than others

Registered user

Well-known member

Registered user

younger than some, older than others

Registered user

Registered user

younger than some, older than others

Registered user

Well-known member

Registered user

Registered user

Registered user

Attachments

Registered user

Registered user

Registered user

Registered user

Attachments

younger than some, older than others

Registered user

Registered user

Similar threads