It is ok now thanks 
JohnGS1100 Tuning Chip
- Thread starter uncle dick
- Start date
At last, chip fitted and managed a quick run out of 10 miles. Lovely, much smoother and low revs where the surging was and definitely feels more responsive and a bit quicker.
Anyone else looking to fit a chip, you'll need an anti tamper torx key, not sure what size, luckly borrowed one from our friendly garage and be prepared to pull the silicon seal in the ECU apart, it was very well stuck!
Anyone else looking to fit a chip, you'll need an anti tamper torx key, not sure what size, luckly borrowed one from our friendly garage
and be prepared to pull the silicon seal in the ECU apart, it was very well stuck!
At last, chip fitted and managed a quick run out of 10 miles. Lovely, much smoother and low revs where the surging was and definitely feels more responsive and a bit quicker.
Anyone else looking to fit a chip, you'll need an anti tamper torx key, not sure what size, luckly borrowed one from our friendly garage
get a bigger ride under your belt and tell me more mines on its way.
OK
I have done nearly 5000 miles with John's chip and it's just got better and better - really smooth now ,virtually no surging, quick on the uptake and quick to be fast (if that makes sense!!), 53 to 55 MPG.
Thanks John - brilliant
D
I have done nearly 5000 miles with John's chip and it's just got better and better - really smooth now ,virtually no surging, quick on the uptake and quick to be fast (if that makes sense!!), 53 to 55 MPG.
Thanks John - brilliant
D
I've had the chip fitted for about 500 miles now, currently on a trip around sout Ireland 
The surging is very much still there, I like to think it's less, but not sure. The bike does feel a bit quicker, more torque, though still the really annoying 1100 buzz at 4000 rpm! Assume it will sort out over time, or do I need to make any other changes?
The surging is very much still there, I like to think it's less, but not sure. The bike does feel a bit quicker, more torque, though still the really annoying 1100 buzz at 4000 rpm! Assume it will sort out over time, or do I need to make any other changes?
sean-gs
Registered user
OK
I have done nearly 5000 miles with John's chip and it's just got better and better - really smooth now ,virtually no surging, quick on the uptake and quick to be fast (if that makes sense!!), 53 to 55 MPG.
Thanks John - brilliant
D
which bike are you riding and which chip did you fit? regs, Sean
I m close to take and post the results. Thanks Roger.
I buy a wideband and i fit it in to the pipe of exhaust and i will see live the AFR.
I believe that this huge boxer engine (1100-1150) can gives much more power..
Anyway, i will back soon
I buy a wideband and i fit it in to the pipe of exhaust and i will see live the AFR.
I believe that this huge boxer engine (1100-1150) can gives much more power..
Anyway, i will back soon
Roger 04 RT
Registered user
John, That's great. Make sure you run a realtime log data collection, not just look at the gauge. There is so much more info when you collect the log.
I can help you examine the log if you email it to me. The best initial log is from a cold start. Then a riding log.
Good luck, RB
I can help you examine the log if you email it to me. The best initial log is from a cold start. Then a riding log.
Good luck, RB
C
This conversation is way above me but I'm following the thread with great interest.
I have got one of Johns chips fitted, and I must say there is a marked difference in the bikes performance..
R 1150 gs, 2002 single spark.
Many thanks to both of you.
Hopefully if you and John work together the boxer engine will be truly amazing.
This conversation is way above me but I'm following the thread with great interest.
I have got one of Johns chips fitted, and I must say there is a marked difference in the bikes performance..
R 1150 gs, 2002 single spark.
Many thanks to both of you.
I'm back from Ireland and catching up with messages. It seems that I didn't understand what to do, I just fitted the chip (1999 R1100GS, no cat, no lamda, it's got a beige coloured plug thing). I'd not adjusted the CO2 thing, will I have done any damage over 1400 miles? I'll have a go at adjusting that tomorrow, are all the instructions in one place somewhere?
Think I've found the CO2 thing, but do I need to disassemble the back end of the bike as in John's photo to adjust it or can it be done without? There's a small hole in the mudguard under the thing, would that be where the screw is?
Anything else I need to do... other than take it to someone competent?
Anyone about in Somerset?
For the record without adjusting this CO2 thing the bike was great at higher revs; but awful in town, I thought something must be wrong, MPG down from 52/53 to 47...
TIA
Think I've found the CO2 thing, but do I need to disassemble the back end of the bike as in John's photo to adjust it or can it be done without? There's a small hole in the mudguard under the thing, would that be where the screw is?
Anything else I need to do... other than take it to someone competent?
Anyone about in Somerset?For the record without adjusting this CO2 thing the bike was great at higher revs; but awful in town, I thought something must be wrong, MPG down from 52/53 to 47...
TIA
Roger 04 RT
Registered user
I m close to take and post the results. Thanks Roger.
I buy a wideband and i fit it in to the pipe of exhaust and i will see live the AFR.
I believe that this huge boxer engine (1100-1150) can gives much more power..
Anyway, i will back soon
John, Did you weld a bung into your exhaust near the original?
Also, when you're ready I can explain how to take the LC-2 output (analog 1 or 2) to drive the input of your Motronic. You'll really like what it does.
Also a note, to get a good cold start log, power the LC-2 up for a minute or until it's warmup light stops flashing, then without shutting it off, start the bike. You can then measure all the various start, after start and warm up enrichments. Here is what a typical log will look like:
Yes Roger i bought a full LC-1 tool. Also i ask for test to a friend from Korea, he works to NeuroRobotics LAB(Mechanical Eng) and i ask too to an electronic enginier from Finland (he works on '90 old mods racing cars by motronic MA 2.4 mods) - i was send the bin files and the chip for tests.
I make also itself your tests and i will post the results.
The chip works, that can i say at the moment. Huge torque from very low rpms, higher (+8-12Hp) at high, better consumption. Driving by a gear up and extension torque curve and horsepower to more high rpms.
Stage 4 chip to a R1150GS :
Stage 5 to a de-cat R1150GS with free air filter and akrapovic exhaust :
..and here is a dyno from full stock R1100GS (as Orinico's bike, without lambda, CO-POT function - stock bike by the stock chip)
The problem of adjustment CO-pot by the stock chip, is that at 3.500+ rpms (at this point adjust) the AFR is rich, so the final adjust is ok at 3.500+ but very lean at low and high revs of rpms.
By the mod chip i made the AFR variable, little more richer at very low rpms, the same (as stock values) at middle (3.500) rpms and little richer at high rpms.
So..
if adjust again now the CO-POT at 3.500+ by mod chip the AFR will be CORRECT - variable for each rpms:
* 14,7:1 at iddle speed.
* 14,2:1 at middle revs (for economy consumption).
* 13,8-12,5:1 at 6.200-8.100 (for much more higher safety for engine, power).
*The final results will be huge torque at low (1.1100-1.900- can drive the bike by a gear up), more power at high, better consumption (cause little opening of throttles on torque revs of rpms 4.300-6.200).
# Orinoco here is details about easy adjust the co-pot, you can adjust by this way without tool, just read and adjust easy and carefully :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...154018.-2207520000.1431860168.&type=3&theater
..thanks for reading
I make also itself your tests and i will post the results.
The chip works, that can i say at the moment. Huge torque from very low rpms, higher (+8-12Hp) at high, better consumption. Driving by a gear up and extension torque curve and horsepower to more high rpms.
Stage 4 chip to a R1150GS :
Stage 5 to a de-cat R1150GS with free air filter and akrapovic exhaust :
..and here is a dyno from full stock R1100GS (as Orinico's bike, without lambda, CO-POT function - stock bike by the stock chip)
The problem of adjustment CO-pot by the stock chip, is that at 3.500+ rpms (at this point adjust) the AFR is rich, so the final adjust is ok at 3.500+ but very lean at low and high revs of rpms.
By the mod chip i made the AFR variable, little more richer at very low rpms, the same (as stock values) at middle (3.500) rpms and little richer at high rpms.
So..
if adjust again now the CO-POT at 3.500+ by mod chip the AFR will be CORRECT - variable for each rpms:
* 14,7:1 at iddle speed.
* 14,2:1 at middle revs (for economy consumption).
* 13,8-12,5:1 at 6.200-8.100 (for much more higher safety for engine, power).
*The final results will be huge torque at low (1.1100-1.900- can drive the bike by a gear up), more power at high, better consumption (cause little opening of throttles on torque revs of rpms 4.300-6.200).
# Orinoco here is details about easy adjust the co-pot, you can adjust by this way without tool, just read and adjust easy and carefully :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...154018.-2207520000.1431860168.&type=3&theater
..thanks for reading
Be sure for that, thanks.
Roger 04 RT
Registered user
Hi John, When you get your LC-1 installed and make some tests on the road, I think that you are going to find that your chart below (and the explanation you made above) is wrong. There are several reasons that I've covered before and in my dyno analysis post. (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23436774&postcount=652). I don't see any evidence on the R1150 and R1100 in stock form that they are lean at WOT. Somehow, your dyno results, with the AFR sensor at the tailpipe, are coming up with the wrong answer.
I have had numerous WOT test runs made on the road, on a number of different motorcycles and with a number of different riders. It is clear from all those tests, whether on lambda sensor or CO pot motorcycles, that the Motronic and BMSK in stock form, fuel the bike nicely RICH. Take a look at the chart below on a fully stock 2000 R1100RT with no Lambda Sensor and an adjusted CO Pot. The Wideband sensor is located at the stock bung location. (I reported the same results from other riders of the R1150, R1200 and F800, and also the Husky Terra 650 who have installed Wideband AFR recorders, in on-the-road tests.)
In the chart below you can see that during a 12 second WOT acceleration, from about 2000 RPM to about 6500 RPM, on a level road during actual driving conditions, that the AFR quickly and smoothly drops to about 12:1, and then late in the run, at high RPM drops a little richer. When you get your LC-1 set up, you will see similar results.
The problem with these bikes is not WOT fueling, but fueling in the cruising range, which at about 14.7:1 is too lean for best cruise and roll-on acceleration performance. That is why the lambda-shifting technique works so well.
I have had numerous WOT test runs made on the road, on a number of different motorcycles and with a number of different riders. It is clear from all those tests, whether on lambda sensor or CO pot motorcycles, that the Motronic and BMSK in stock form, fuel the bike nicely RICH. Take a look at the chart below on a fully stock 2000 R1100RT with no Lambda Sensor and an adjusted CO Pot. The Wideband sensor is located at the stock bung location. (I reported the same results from other riders of the R1150, R1200 and F800, and also the Husky Terra 650 who have installed Wideband AFR recorders, in on-the-road tests.)
In the chart below you can see that during a 12 second WOT acceleration, from about 2000 RPM to about 6500 RPM, on a level road during actual driving conditions, that the AFR quickly and smoothly drops to about 12:1, and then late in the run, at high RPM drops a little richer. When you get your LC-1 set up, you will see similar results.
The problem with these bikes is not WOT fueling, but fueling in the cruising range, which at about 14.7:1 is too lean for best cruise and roll-on acceleration performance. That is why the lambda-shifting technique works so well.
Hi John, When you get your LC-1 installed and make some tests on the road, I think that you are going to find that your chart below (and the explanation you made above) is wrong. There are several reasons that I've covered before and in my dyno analysis post. (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23436774&postcount=652). I don't see any evidence on the R1150 and R1100 in stock form that they are lean at WOT. Somehow, your dyno results, with the AFR sensor at the tailpipe, are coming up with the wrong answer.
I have had numerous WOT test runs made on the road, on a number of different motorcycles and with a number of different riders. It is clear from all those tests, whether on lambda sensor or CO pot motorcycles, that the Motronic and BMSK in stock form, fuel the bike nicely RICH. Take a look at the chart below on a fully stock 2000 R1100RT with no Lambda Sensor and an adjusted CO Pot. The Wideband sensor is located at the stock bung location. (I reported the same results from other riders of the R1150, R1200 and F800, and also the Husky Terra 650 who have installed Wideband AFR recorders, in on-the-road tests.)
In the chart below you can see that during a 12 second WOT acceleration, from about 2000 RPM to about 6500 RPM, on a level road during actual driving conditions, that the AFR quickly and smoothly drops to about 12:1, and then late in the run, at high RPM drops a little richer. When you get your LC-1 set up, you will see similar results.
The problem with these bikes is not WOT fueling, but fueling in the cruising range, which at about 14.7:1 is too lean for best cruise and roll-on acceleration performance. That is why the lambda-shifting technique works so well.
Interestingly I can verify that pretty precisely. After fitting the PC3 I ran the bike WOT plugged in to the laptop and on the afr monitor it dropped to 12.1 exactly. Having left the motronic to fuel as standard but setting afr target on the pc3 to 13.8, the bike is much smoother and has more torque. There used to be a step in the power higher up the rev range. This has gone, but only, I guess, because the bike now pulls so strongly further down the revs that when the open loop kicks in it is less of a step from 14.7 to 12.1.
Still don't know if Johns chip does what it says, but I can verify that shifting to 13.8 makes a significant difference to the drive available throughout the rev range.
daverimm19
Registered user
Stage 6 received for a friends GS. I have a stage 5 in mine and very happy. Not sure how different it will be to mine. John ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Dave. Little difference, the stage 6 has little more power at high.
Similar threads
