haditlowered
Registered user
...I will believe the physical test i did today thank you 
that will allow you to save the wide band AFR for a more appropriate use 
Accelerator module fitted
- Thread starter Bem
- Start date
...I will believe the physical test i did today thank you that will allow you to save the wide band AFR for a more appropriate use 
haditlowered
Registered user
Perhaps.... because your so clever, you could spend some time looking at why it DOES work, since that has been proved beyond doubt, you never know - you may actually learn something during that process, unless of course your one of those clever buggers that know it all already. 
Yes, I am quite clever thanks and just because you might not understand what I've explained (which is clearly evident) doesn't mean you need to descend to school yard antics. It just makes you look bad. Hey, who knows, perhaps you should call me out for a school yard brawl or something? That'd be big and clever.
I really don't care whether you understand me or even believe what I've written. Like I said, enjoy your module, I'm glad it brings some happiness into your life.
I really don't care whether you understand me or even believe what I've written. Like I said, enjoy your module, I'm glad it brings some happiness into your life.
thank you for that Gigsy, I find this imagined interchange between the various components quite persuasive, particularly the closed loop script.
I do not think Sol2.be would offer any argument with that part of your explanation. Using the measurement of the products of combustion after the bang to determine the AF ratio seems sound and logical. In the open loop scenario though, is it not the case that the Lambda data is disregarded as engine is not in a constant state ie cruising with a set throttle? From what I have read about the IAT devices, I have not seen any where reference to 'learning' from closed loop state. I believe that this is where your argument clashes with the IAT producers claims.
Alan R
Thats a fair point and is where modern ECUs differ from older generation ECUs in that the correction data did not used to be stored.
What usually happens in more intelligent ECUs is the ECU monitors the MAF (mass air flow sensor) during closed loop fuelling even if it doesn't use the data to control fuelling - it uses the data from the AFR sensor to calibrate the MAF. Because the O2 readings detected by the AFR sensor differ from what the ECU expects from a given MAF value, it'll re calibrate it accordingly... this is the learning phase. I fully expect IAT producers to discount this, after all it would not be in their interests to admit it really.
The reason the ECU does this is because AFR sensors are typically narrow band - I.e. They can only read AFRs within a certain range. At WOT (wide open throttle) the target AFRs are often beyond the range of the AFR sensor so it needs to have this calibration data to protect the engine against detonation when it can't rely on AFR sensor data to control fuelling.... It's essentially calculating what the AFR is rather than reading it.
It's not so much that the AFR data is disregarded because it's not in a constant state (you can vary the throttle quite a lot and quite quickly in closed loop) it's just that if the AFRs range is say 14:1 to 15:1 and the AFR is 16:1 it'll only report 15:1 to the ECU.
I would just add that some IAT modules are no doubt better at tricking the ECU than others - especially if they're modifying data from multiple sensors but ultimately, they are all trying the trick the ECU and the ECU will always be trying to compensate for them. The smarter ECUs become, the less and less effective IAT modules will become. As I've said before, IATs do produce short term gains but long term, reprogramming the ECU is the only real solution.
haditlowered
Registered user
The analysis by gigsy (not related to this thread but don't i know that name gigsy from a WRX thread too...) anyway, I've sent that analysis of closed loop / open loop to Marc at Sol2.be, i would imagine everyone with a module fitted would like to know the reality against gigsy's theory, and anyone wanting one will want to know before they buy.
As for attitude - It's not school yard antics at all, and i don't look bad because of it.... you are persisting with the argument that it does not work, perhaps Alan R has seen something you've missed? - you are not prepared to even consider that you might actually be wrong and thats... perhaps a little arrogant.
If your going to blind people with science you need to be sure of the facts. I might not understand the intricacies as much as the "clever" ones, but i have no doubt that your analysis is incorrect because i have one fitted, my bike behaves in a different manner and my argument is based on that fact, and it has done for 3 years... is that not considered long term?, in the event that it's proven to work, and your theory incorrect when Sol2.be respond you will learn something - so thats a good thing right.... if it's not proven you will stand correct and i will doff my hat.
As for attitude - It's not school yard antics at all, and i don't look bad because of it.... you are persisting with the argument that it does not work, perhaps Alan R has seen something you've missed?
- you are not prepared to even consider that you might actually be wrong and thats... perhaps a little arrogant.If your going to blind people with science you need to be sure of the facts. I might not understand the intricacies as much as the "clever" ones, but i have no doubt that your analysis is incorrect because i have one fitted, my bike behaves in a different manner and my argument is based on that fact, and it has done for 3 years... is that not considered long term?, in the event that it's proven to work, and your theory incorrect when Sol2.be respond you will learn something - so thats a good thing right....
if it's not proven you will stand correct and i will doff my hat.So a device that alters the reading from the lambda sensor such as the American AF-xied device currently being debated in the 1200 section will be efective long term? They are not cheap and compare in price with a Hilltop re program or a power commander.
What to go for......
Alan R
What to go for......
Alan R
It depends if it if it modifies both input (e.g. MAF) and output sensor data (AFR). If it just does AFRs then the ECU would probably learn to compensate for it but without knowing much about that device, I can't say for sure though.
haditlowered
Registered user
whats long term.... my module has only been working perfectly for 3 years, and apparently thats only short term....
The analysis by gigsy (not related to this thread but don't i know that name gigsy from a WRX thread too...) anyway, I've sent that analysis of closed loop / open loop to Marc at Sol2.be, i would imagine everyone with a module fitted would like to know the reality against gigsy's theory, and anyone wanting one will want to know before they buy.
As for attitude - It's not school yard antics at all, and i don't look bad because of it.... you are persisting with the argument that it does not work, perhaps Alan R has seen something you've missed?
If your going to blind people with science you need to be sure of the facts. I might not understand the intricacies as much as the "clever" ones, but i have no doubt that your analysis is incorrect because i have one fitted, my bike behaves in a different manner and my argument is based on that fact, and it has done for 3 years... is that not considered long term?, in the event that it's proven to work, and your theory incorrect when Sol2.be respond you will learn something - so thats a good thing right....
The Sol2.be module is quite crude in that it only modifies the data from one sensor - as I understand it, it doesn't modify the data a constant amount across the temperature range so in that respect, it's clever at what it does but it is limited.
It was also originally developed on older ECUs and things have moved on since then, whereas this module has not (as far as I know). As I've also said, it's not exactly in Sol2.be's interest to admit that modern ECUs will negate the effects of the device - they may not even know this, they're not really ECU experts per se. If you really want to see if it's actually working then, like I've said, you'd need to monitor AFR and actually see what effect it's having on fuelling - a proper imperial test or perhaps speak to Bosch.
I'm not trying to blind anyone with science, merely trying to explain how an ECU works so that people can understand why these devices are not a magic bullet and/or make up their own mind.
I also know first hand (well, second technically as it was a mate's R1200) where the effects of the module were exactly as I describe - great to start with but after a while, less so. There's also eh trait that if someone believes something is having a beneficial effect, then for them it'll always feel that way.
haditlowered
Registered user
Thats correct - it just monitors the temperature, but that is all it has ever claimed to do.
If you don't actually know - why are you even commenting on it, base your analysis of facts.
Sol2.be state: "the module will only work during the open-loop mode. That is the mode where most of the effects of the lean fuel mixture are seen. When cruising, you need less power to keep the desired speed. So the motorcycle doesn't encounter hereby much problems." so your theory about not operating properly in the closed loop is irrelevant - they have not targeted the closed loop with this device, and that is exactly where we that use them feel the benefits.
So technically - sorry in reality... you have never used this module at all, you have no first hand - long term knowledge of it's capability or performance, and you have no idea if Sol2.be have moved on since the early module..... - you assume once again to tell me i am wrong... as i said - your arrogant to tell me that i "have a feeling" that my bike is performing better than it actually is, who am i to comment, I've only been riding bikes for 33 years.... i cant possibly be right.
Well done you've been riding for 33 years. Congratulations, clearly you must know best. That, my friend, is arrogance, not having some knowledge and trying to impart it. Once again, I've tried to provide and explanation of how something works and yet again you resort to name calling when you can't comprehend it.
My practical experience of the device has been that it does exactly as I predicted based on my knowledge of ECUs and the first hand experience of someone I trust 100%. My knowledge of the development of the device is based on information on their website which doesn't mention whether they have enhanced the design or not, that is why I say "as far as I know".
BTW the ECU will try to be in closed loop the vast majority of the time and only enter open loop when you're at wide throttle openings (ie when accelerating hard and where a snatchy throttle is least felt) so by their own admission, the module does nothing for the vast majority of time. Care to explain that one?
My practical experience of the device has been that it does exactly as I predicted based on my knowledge of ECUs and the first hand experience of someone I trust 100%. My knowledge of the development of the device is based on information on their website which doesn't mention whether they have enhanced the design or not, that is why I say "as far as I know".
BTW the ECU will try to be in closed loop the vast majority of the time and only enter open loop when you're at wide throttle openings (ie when accelerating hard and where a snatchy throttle is least felt) so by their own admission, the module does nothing for the vast majority of time. Care to explain that one?
haditlowered
Registered user
he's getting - finally, he's getting it.... or am i imagining that too.. , it's only a few quid chap, nobody is professing that this is going to do anything else except provide a smoother transition through the lower gearing with extended acceleration between initial changes, making the initial acceleration just that little bit smoother. The fact that i have been riding for a period does not mean that i know best, however it does mean that when some 
tries to tell me that i am imagining that my bike is performing just a little smoother i have the knowledge to know better, that fact that you dismiss that as a figment of my imagination sums up you and your limited knowledge of this product up to a tee - you cannot accept that my bike is performing better in lower gear changes because you are right.... and obviously that will always be the case... on one hand you berate my attitude, and on the other you say that I'm imagining things... go figure The reality is you have NO experience of this product at all.. do you?? ....NONE, and you have feedback from no more than ONE person!! so that make,s you arrogant for dismissing it's capability as well as the opinions of many who say that it works.... you stick with theory based on that "someone else" - but on this one i'm going with the majority, and with my own "hands on" experience of using the module.
Initially you were lambasting the device for not working in the closed loop, well we've discounted that as an issue, we have discounted that this is a full on tuning device, it was never meant to be, we have discounted that it doesn't need to work through the higher gearing and in cruising conditions, but still you persist with theory, conjecture, and assumption based on no "hands on" experience whatsoever with the product - which given your self proclaimed intelligence ....
is just a bit silly really....
haditlowered
Registered user
well i guess i'm not alone...another GS rider with a vivid imagination...
http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/400284-Accelerator-module-for-GS-GSA-WC
http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/400284-Accelerator-module-for-GS-GSA-WC
I'm not sure you've really grasped anything I've said have you, haditlowered? Doesn't seem so from your response.
In the conditions you describe, your bike is in closed loop fuelling, which according to the info you provided from Sol2.be says their module has little on no effect on fuelling. Therefore, how can it be that it's working for you, do you think? What Sol2.be's explanation says to me is that they don't properly understand what their device is doing at an ECU level.
As it turns out, I did think of something last night that could have a positive effect in the conditions you describe. Namely, it is possible that the ECU could learn that it can increase ignition advance rather than reduce fuelling once it realises it's running richer than it should be. This would be similar to what happens when you run a higher grade fuel.
If the ECU assumes that the reason the O2 in the exhaust gasses differs from what it expects is because it's burning a higher grade fuel (i.e. one that burns slower and is more resistant to knock), then it may advance the ignition so that more of the fuel is burnt during the combustion cycle. However, as already explained, this is something it can only discover if it's in closed loop and the AFR sensor is therefore within tolerance - of course, that is at odds with the info Sol2.be have provided you (i.e. that their device only works in open loop fuelling).
In my imagined conversation example it would go a little something like this:
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
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, the O2 level's not right here.
ECU: OK, thanks for telling me.
ECU (thinks): Hmmm, better do something about that, perhaps advancing the ignition a little will help.
ECU: Hey, Spark Plug, fire a bit earlier next time.
Spark Plug: OK.
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, that’s perfect now.
ECU: Great, thanks!
ECU (thinks): Cool, my rider filled me up with the good stuff, I'll remember that for when I go into open loop mode!
Sol2.be Module: Awesome!
Now, I'm not saying that this is definitely what's happening but I'm quite happy to accept that it's possible that the benefit you feel you are getting may be because of this and why, for you, you've not witnessed a decrease in the effectiveness of the device - if the ECU thinks it can get more bang for a given volume of fuel, it will learn this and keep doing it. As I've said, the only way to be sure would be an empirical measurement of AFR, ECU data, etc in repeatable conditions. See how I've used reason here and not blind faith?
It's also certainly a possibility that the ECU would produce different results between riders and definitely between different ECU models which is why you feel a benefit and others don't.
As I've said, I know a bit about ECUs and I've witnessed the phenomenon that I describe from someone I know well and to whom I explained this info ahead of him fitting the device. He's quite knowledgable on bikes too having ridden for over three decades, much like yourself. What he found was what I predicted would happen. Yes there are others who share your views that IAT devices work and continue to work, but there are also others, like my friend, that have found that they work at first but stop working after a while.
If you've found the device to work, that's great. I'm genuinely happy for you. However, I believe that they are floored and would recommend that anyone thinking about one saves there money and puts it towards a remap instead.
In the conditions you describe, your bike is in closed loop fuelling, which according to the info you provided from Sol2.be says their module has little on no effect on fuelling. Therefore, how can it be that it's working for you, do you think? What Sol2.be's explanation says to me is that they don't properly understand what their device is doing at an ECU level.
As it turns out, I did think of something last night that could have a positive effect in the conditions you describe. Namely, it is possible that the ECU could learn that it can increase ignition advance rather than reduce fuelling once it realises it's running richer than it should be. This would be similar to what happens when you run a higher grade fuel.
If the ECU assumes that the reason the O2 in the exhaust gasses differs from what it expects is because it's burning a higher grade fuel (i.e. one that burns slower and is more resistant to knock), then it may advance the ignition so that more of the fuel is burnt during the combustion cycle. However, as already explained, this is something it can only discover if it's in closed loop and the AFR sensor is therefore within tolerance - of course, that is at odds with the info Sol2.be have provided you (i.e. that their device only works in open loop fuelling).
In my imagined conversation example it would go a little something like this:
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
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, the O2 level's not right here.
ECU: OK, thanks for telling me.
ECU (thinks): Hmmm, better do something about that, perhaps advancing the ignition a little will help.
ECU: Hey, Spark Plug, fire a bit earlier next time.
Spark Plug: OK.
Spark Plug: Bang!!!!!!!!
AFR Sensor: Hey, ECU, that’s perfect now.
ECU: Great, thanks!
ECU (thinks): Cool, my rider filled me up with the good stuff, I'll remember that for when I go into open loop mode!
Sol2.be Module: Awesome!
Now, I'm not saying that this is definitely what's happening but I'm quite happy to accept that it's possible that the benefit you feel you are getting may be because of this and why, for you, you've not witnessed a decrease in the effectiveness of the device - if the ECU thinks it can get more bang for a given volume of fuel, it will learn this and keep doing it. As I've said, the only way to be sure would be an empirical measurement of AFR, ECU data, etc in repeatable conditions. See how I've used reason here and not blind faith?
It's also certainly a possibility that the ECU would produce different results between riders and definitely between different ECU models which is why you feel a benefit and others don't.
As I've said, I know a bit about ECUs and I've witnessed the phenomenon that I describe from someone I know well and to whom I explained this info ahead of him fitting the device. He's quite knowledgable on bikes too having ridden for over three decades, much like yourself. What he found was what I predicted would happen. Yes there are others who share your views that IAT devices work and continue to work, but there are also others, like my friend, that have found that they work at first but stop working after a while.
If you've found the device to work, that's great. I'm genuinely happy for you. However, I believe that they are floored and would recommend that anyone thinking about one saves there money and puts it towards a remap instead.
haditlowered
Registered user
Ian, I've not read your last post at all..., or paid much attention to the one before, so don't be surprised if my response does not address that content directly, i doubt you have anything new to add - it will be repetitive as per previous posts.
The FACT is: It is already established that you have no idea if the module actually works, that you have no experience with it first hand, that you have likely never actually seen one in real life, and you have nothing at all to back up your theory on it being useless apart from one guy who told you something.
If you were some high tech tuning guru one might listen, but that isn't the case, you have chosen to apply some likely DIY gained knowledge of tuning to the Sol2.be module, and it's obviously a case of "my idea fits all on tuning, how can i be wrong" attitude. Sol2.be have many many positive comments on this product, this is what they do for a living, i have used one for 3 years and it works, and without adding some weight to your arguments - your opinion really counts for nothing - as i see it you are at the limit of your knowledge and should not put forward an opinion that might put people off buying a product - unless you can back up that opinion with some facts or first hand practical experience and a long term test of the actual product..... Listening to one guy who you trust is all a bit weak.
The FACT is: It is already established that you have no idea if the module actually works, that you have no experience with it first hand, that you have likely never actually seen one in real life, and you have nothing at all to back up your theory on it being useless apart from one guy who told you something.
If you were some high tech tuning guru one might listen, but that isn't the case, you have chosen to apply some likely DIY gained knowledge of tuning to the Sol2.be module, and it's obviously a case of "my idea fits all on tuning, how can i be wrong" attitude. Sol2.be have many many positive comments on this product, this is what they do for a living, i have used one for 3 years and it works, and without adding some weight to your arguments - your opinion really counts for nothing - as i see it you are at the limit of your knowledge and should not put forward an opinion that might put people off buying a product - unless you can back up that opinion with some facts or first hand practical experience and a long term test of the actual product..... Listening to one guy who you trust is all a bit weak.
haditlowered
Registered user
Oh dear..
Ian,
i would read it - if i thought for a minute that you had anything new to say.... but you don't, so go ahead throw a wee bit of abuse, get it off yer chest mate, it bother's me not a bit - i have argued the case that the Module works, and i actually have experience of it, iv'e had it fitted for a long time, and yesterday to prove a point i took it off before i went out on the bike, experience with the module is something you are sadly lacking, and you refuse to believe that it works despite everything, - and we have also established that you have reached your limit on the knowledge of the module several posts ago.can i refer you back to post #9, only this time i would suggest that you get some first hand knowledge, and perhaps a long term test of the product as i suggested earlier before you run out of things to say about it's capability, and not base your entire argument on something a mate said.
Similar threads
