hilltop remapping etc

[Mistacat]

If they did that then the bikes wouldn't run dangerously lean.

Under certain conditions I would consider 14.7 to 1 dangerously lean.
Unfortunately that is what the narrow band lambda sensors run at because that is the AFR needed to for the catalytic converter to work.
After altering the base map what AFR are people running at 60 mph and 20% throttle , (closed loop).??
I assume someone has run a wideband lambda sensor and meter to measure the results.

 

[Magwych]

I thjough the lambda sensors simply output a voltage that is dependent on the amount of O2 in their operating atmosphere? Using that output volatge an ECU can compute the AFR. If that is so, then the ECU uses that voltage output to measure the affects of the changes the ECU makes to the AFR. in which case the ECU is determinng the AFR not the lambda sensor? That being the case AFR is determined by the programming of the ECU. Ideally one would chnage the settings in the ECU program, to something more like 13.7:1 .

Semantics I know, but it is shitty out and crap on the TV

Wide-band sensors and devives to "skew" their output are often used to fool ECU into thinking that the AFR is where the manufacturers want it whilst the actual value is where we wousd like it, for exmaple the Innovations LM-2 kit. These would be a good way of getting the mixture "just-so", but with the R12000GS the cost doubles because we have one in each downpipe :-(

 

[Mistacat]

I agree, the lambda sensor simply outputs a voltage, but a narrow band sensor can only operate a very small way either side of lambda (14.7 to 1).
I use an innovate LC1 for data logging and a pair of A/F - XIED`s to offset the lambda output to give me an AFR of 13.8 to 1 in closed loop.
The open loop map learns from the closed loop inputs.
If a device is used to alter the injector pulse width, such as a techlusion etc the lambda sensor instantly corrects it back to 14.7 in closed loop and the open loop quickly learns as can be seen when the device is removed.
Just for the record a pair of A/F XEID`s are cheaper than the PC V that I used to run are simpler to install and retains the lambda sensors.
I found myself forever tweaking the PCV map even with a PC autotune installed.
But I still cant see how an alteration to the base map can override the Lambda sensors in closed loop??

I thjough the lambda sensors simply output a voltage that is dependent on the amount of O2 in their operating atmosphere? Using that output volatge an ECU can compute the AFR. If that is so, then the ECU uses that voltage output to measure the affects of the changes the ECU makes to the AFR. in which case the ECU is determinng the AFR not the lambda sensor? That being the case AFR is determined by the programming of the ECU. Ideally one would chnage the settings in the ECU program, to something more like 13.7:1 .

Semantics I know, but it is shitty out and crap on the TV

Wide-band sensors and devives to "skew" their output are often used to fool ECU into thinking that the AFR is where the manufacturers want it whilst the actual value is where we wousd like it, for exmaple the Innovations LM-2 kit. These would be a good way of getting the mixture "just-so", but with the R12000GS the cost doubles because we have one in each downpipe :-(

 

[Pukmeister]

If you get a remap, be sure to mention to the dyno operator you wish to be shown the AFR graphs both before and after adjustments prior to them starting the job, otherwise they might just crack on an do the work quickly without recording it in their before and after dyno runs.

 

[TLSgazza]

Well, I've been in touch with mikeyboy about doing my service, I think I will get this done first now then maybe think about getting it mapped later on if needed, thanks for the input gents though it was getting to be a little above my head in the last 8 or 10 posts about the lamda sensors.

 

[Mistacat]

If you get a remap, be sure to mention to the dyno operator you wish to be shown the AFR graphs both before and after adjustments prior to them starting the job, otherwise they might just crack on an do the work quickly without recording it in their before and after dyno runs.

Would be nice to see some Dyno information for 20% throttle opening 4000 rpm with light load. ( as in reel time road cruise conditions)
Some Dyno operators just do full throttle runs which only shows open loop fuelling, and record 9 cells of the 288 in the map matrix.

 

[fringe]

I agree, the lambda sensor simply outputs a voltage, but a narrow band sensor can only operate a very small way either side of lambda (14.7 to 1).
I use an innovate LC1 for data logging and a pair of A/F - XIED`s to offset the lambda output to give me an AFR of 13.8 to 1 in closed loop.
The open loop map learns from the closed loop inputs.
If a device is used to alter the injector pulse width, such as a techlusion etc the lambda sensor instantly corrects it back to 14.7 in closed loop and the open loop quickly learns as can be seen when the device is removed.
Just for the record a pair of A/F XEID`s are cheaper than the PC V that I used to run are simpler to install and retains the lambda sensors.
I found myself forever tweaking the PCV map even with a PC autotune installed.
But I still cant see how an alteration to the base map can override the Lambda sensors in closed loop??

I don't know if Geoff does this, but there is also an adaption table which will be in "learn mode" which then alters the adaptation map when in closed loop (off the base map). With closed loop + adaption table only working at certain RPMs and TPS angle - the adaptation table is cleared when battery disconnected or cleared via diagnostics but the base values of the adaption table are stored. Adaptation map only allowed to go within certain values, so Geoff could theoretically alter the closed loop map, and then lock down the adaptation table...

 

[Sgt Bilco]

Well, I've been in touch with mikeyboy about doing my service, I think I will get this done first now then maybe think about getting it mapped later on if needed, thanks for the input gents though it was getting to be a little above my head in the last 8 or 10 posts about the lamda sensors.

Good stuff and you won't be disappointed with his work. With every Hilltop thread, the usual suspects get all technical which doesn't mean shit to most of us

 

[Mistacat]

In my experience altering the closed loop via fuel pressure, map or injector pulse width is overridden by the lambda sensors.
lambda sensor offset is the only method I have tried with success.
The adaptation works in open loop and learns from closed loop inputs. That is why I was not happy losing the lambda sensors with the PC V.
I would not want to "lock down" the adaptation, as it has the ability to make changes to compensate for low fuel pressure, injector wear, poor fuel atomisation,
fuel quality and many more conditions that the bike does not have sensors to deal with. (if fuel pressure dropped in open loop the engine would seriously lean out in time)
It looks like this type of discussion is not welcomed here so will try to find a technical forum where it means shit to someone.

I don't know if Geoff does this, but there is also an adaption table which will be in "learn mode" which then alters the adaptation map when in closed loop (off the base map). With closed loop + adaption table only working at certain RPMs and TPS angle - the adaptation table is cleared when battery disconnected or cleared via diagnostics but the base values of the adaption table are stored. Adaptation map only allowed to go within certain values, so Geoff could theoretically alter the closed loop map, and then lock down the adaptation table...

 

[Blackal]

In my experience altering the closed loop via fuel pressure, map or injector pulse width is overridden by the lambda sensors.
lambda sensor offset is the only method I have tried with success.
The adaptation works in open loop and learns from closed loop inputs. That is why I was not happy losing the lambda sensors with the PC V.
I would not want to "lock down" the adaptation, as it has the ability to make changes to compensate for low fuel pressure, injector wear, poor fuel atomisation,
fuel quality and many more conditions that the bike does not have sensors to deal with. (if fuel pressure dropped in open loop the engine would seriously lean out in time)
It looks like this type of discussion is not welcomed here so will try to find a technical forum where it means shit to someone.

Foly Huck! You're precious!

 

[Deleted account 200502001]

I achieved good results by counter adjusting the near side chamfered foggit release valve.

 

[Mistacat]

I achieved good results by counter adjusting the near side chamfered foggit release valve.

The near side chamfered foggit release valve should never be counter adjusted it will knacker both giggling pins.

 

[Deleted account 200502001]

The near side chamfered foggit release valve should never be counter adjusted it will knacker both giggling pins.

Very true, but not if you also counter adjust the offside at the same time. But I didn't realise this and I ended up nearly knackering the gidjeon seals.

 

[oldnfat]

Very true, but not if you also counter adjust the offside at the same time. But I didn't realise this and I ended up nearly knackering the gidjeon seals.

I couldn't agree more BUT be warned, if you get the offside counter adjustment wrong your lower flange WILL leak leaving you with a moist gusset...to be avoided at all costs!!!

P.S. Stop me if this is getting too technical.

 

[JerseyNeil]

Good to finally read some proper techie jargon. Keep up the good work. I would love to join in but I have not done the required number of years training in the back bar of some seedy but characteristic watering hole.

 

[Deleted account 200502001]

I couldn't agree more BUT be warned, if you get the offside counter adjustment wrong your lower flange WILL leak leaving you with a moist gusset...to be avoided at all costs!!!

P.S. Stop me if this is getting too technical.

I know exactly what you mean. But for the benefit of any newcomers would it be possible for you to post some photos of the moist gussets you've experienced please?

 

[Lord Snooty]

moist gussets

At last, a phrase I recognise

 

[TLSgazza]

In my experience altering the closed loop via fuel pressure, map or injector pulse width is overridden by the lambda sensors.
lambda sensor offset is the only method I have tried with success.
The adaptation works in open loop and learns from closed loop inputs. That is why I was not happy losing the lambda sensors with the PC V.
I would not want to "lock down" the adaptation, as it has the ability to make changes to compensate for low fuel pressure, injector wear, poor fuel atomisation,
fuel quality and many more conditions that the bike does not have sensors to deal with. (if fuel pressure dropped in open loop the engine would seriously lean out in time)
It looks like this type of discussion is not welcomed here so will try to find a technical forum where it means shit to someone.

It's not that it's not welcomed, I just don't really have a clue what it's all on about,

 

[Beemerman59]

It's not that it's not welcomed, I just don't really have a clue what it's all on about,

Same here but for me that doesn't matter. All I know is my bike is smoother at low revs so I'm not hovering over the clutch lever, it doesn't stall anymore on slowing 3rd to 2nd, it has a linear power delivery with no flat spot at 4.5K revs and pulls like a train all the way to the redline. That's my real world road riding viewpoint on this question. Mine's an '08 single cam GSA and if only for peace of mind, I feel happier that the fueling after the remap is less likely to lead to longevity issues such as burnt valves due to lean running. According to the dyno readouts my torque and bhp went up dramatically (89Nm @5.5K/109bhp at the back wheel) but again that's not the point - the bike feels so much more alive - the motor just "feels" that its breathing as it should be. When I got the bike I always felt it needed just a little bit more oomph, not top speed but more about how it accelerated hard out of corners. Now it does it, so much so that I don't see any need whatsoever to "upgrade" to a TC or even a WC. I don't need anymore than I have now.

As for alternatives, the PC route is a very valid option. I have had accelerator modules and a Wunderlich Fuel controllers in the past and they have their place too. Having been left stranded with a broken fuel controller which also suffered from water ingress in the substandard TB connectors, I decided to go for the remap as the most elegant solution for me and no extra hardware to worry about for me or for the insurance. My tuppence worth.

 

[Bendy toy]

I went for a PC-5 because the seller had it on a bike with the same exhaust set up as mine (more or less). So I dropped it on and went for a spin. Indeed the bike feels a great deal better and because it goes & stops exactly when I want it to the bike also feels like it handles better. Of course it really needs a rolling road setup but its so close I'm in no rush.

The remap is the most elegant option and can be done by sending the ECU to Hilltop. Geoff has done so many BMW boxers, he will have maps already on his system for pretty much any inlet/exhaust setup. A dyno run or two will fine tune it but he's likely to be 90% there from his library.