rechip bmw 1150's

[Roger 04 RT]

MORE! WE NEED MORE!!!!

I'm split on the issue Tim, there is an increasing amount of Qualitative information mounting in contradiction to Roger's extensive Quantitative data....and I'm not sure why.

...


I need to read my books on fuel injection to get my head around this stuff again....

Post edit..

One final point...If you add more fuel through a chip but have also reduced the restrictions in the combustion tract then more fuel and more air can still give the same AFR, however there is more fuel and more air going through the engine...more power. Whilst the chip may correct the AFR back to a default value for a an overly rich adjustment....If I'm not mistaken there is no mass or volumetric measurement of fuel and air in your evaluation...

Thus it appears to me Roger, you could be entriely correct about triming/adaption to a factory set Lambda value but have reached the wrong conclusion...however I suspect that the lambda correction does have some reducing affect on the chip but if fitted with other mods would still achieve an overall HP improvement.

You mention that added air at the same AFR will create more power. That's true. But there is no added air from either the AF-XIED/LC-2 or a chip replacement. So I've not reached the wrong conclusion on that point.

A Wideband O2 sensor measures residual O2 and residual fuel, through its oxidizing of remaining fuel inside its pump cell. Because of that the Wideband O2 is now regarded as the primary engine combustion measurement tool for tuning. Location of the Wideband is important, nearer the exhaust valve (without getting it too hot) is better since as air and fuel travel through the exhaust they will combine--especially in the catalytic converter.

Fuel Octane doesn't directly affect power. Octane is selected based on the need for knock suppression related to, among other things, cylinder pressure during combustion. Once you have enough Octane, you don't need more. Therefore, timing changes don't necessarily create more power. The ideal spark timing ignites the burn and creates peak cylinder pressure about 16+/- degrees after TDC. Changing the timing doesn't necessarily create more power. However, if the timing has been advanced too far in order to reduce emissions by giving the mixture more time to burn, it is possible to increase power output by REDUCING timing slightly. I'm not an expert in this and the engine makers have teams of engineers working to create the most efficiency when they design the spark advance tables.

The reason that I have measured the mixture richening effect of every fueling solution is because you get the most power and best drivability by moving the mixture richer than 14.7 and toward Best Power Mixture. That is a well known, not contested fact. If someone says their solution richens the mixture, the first thing I do is measure it. You want to find a way to add enough fuel, without adding too much.

The reason that a richer mixture than 14.7 adds power is that although 14.7 is the ideal mixture where all the oxygen and all the fuel can perfectly combine, in the real world it doesn't all combine in the cylinder. Some combines in the exhaust and some in the catalytic converter. By richening the mixture you create a greater chance that all the oxygen combines with fuel in the combustion chamber, creating power.

So far what I've found myself is that richening the mixture just a little bit more than the original R1100 running no catalytic converter (which is about an AFR of 14:1) creates a nice running R1150 on pure gas or E10 fuel. That AFR seems to me to be around 13.8:1 which is a lambda of 0.94.

 

[Flipfly]

Of course you'll be split on the issue, all the reading you like won't tell you what happens in your right hand ...... fit one, what's the worst that could happen?

KABOOOOOOM

I've tried many tens of thousands of chips, none have improved the rider

 

[Deleted account 200123001]

You mention that added air at the same AFR will create more power. That's true. But there is no added air from either the AF-XIED/LC-2 or a chip replacement. So I've not reached the wrong conclusion on that point.

Agree 100%, if I understand correctly AF-XIED is "tricking" the Motronic into thinking that the mixture is running too lean by making it think there is more free air than there actually is.This richens the mixture..happy days.

A Wideband O2 sensor measures residual O2 and residual fuel, through its oxidizing of remaining fuel inside its pump cell. Because of that the Wideband O2 is now regarded as the primary engine combustion measurement tool for tuning. Location of the Wideband is important, nearer the exhaust valve (without getting it too hot) is better since as air and fuel travel through the exhaust they will combine--especially in the catalytic converter.

Errr, not sure I agree with you there:- Wideband O2 sensors, only sense oxygen unless I'm mistaken see link Excess fuel is calculated not measured directly unless I've missed something?

Fuel Octane doesn't directly affect power. Octane is selected based on the need for knock suppression related to, among other things, cylinder pressure during combustion. Once you have enough Octane, you don't need more. Therefore, timing changes don't necessarily create more power. The ideal spark timing ignites the burn and creates peak cylinder pressure about 16+/- degrees after TDC. Changing the timing doesn't necessarily create more power. However, if the timing has been advanced too far in order to reduce emissions by giving the mixture more time to burn, it is possible to increase power output by REDUCING timing slightly. I'm not an expert in this and the engine makers have teams of engineers working to create the most efficiency when they design the spark advance tables.

Agreed...but and this is the but...John's Chip (for example) May have changed timing, which your measurements would not detect?

The reason that I have measured the mixture richening effect of every fueling solution is because you get the most power and best drivability by moving the mixture richer than 14.7 and toward Best Power Mixture. That is a well known, not contested fact. If someone says their solution richens the mixture, the first thing I do is measure it. You want to find a way to add enough fuel, without adding too much.

Again, agree 100% I'm not disputing your method, only that more air + more fuel can give the same AFR as standard...and your measurements are only recording O2 quantity, so on a standard bike where no additional air is being added....we agree that just adding more fuel will be negated over time, however I query whether all the chips/boxes/devices/doodahs have only changed injector pulse width i.e plain and simple fuel quantity, and as soon as someone mods the bike by adding a K&N and/or decat and/or end can....then more fuel will be needed to maintain that constant AFR.

I can fully understand why your testing on a standard bike...to remove doubt...but I think its important to remember this when set against your lambda measurements.

The reason that a richer mixture than 14.7 adds power is that although 14.7 is the ideal mixture where all the oxygen and all the fuel can perfectly combine, in the real world it doesn't all combine in the cylinder. Some combines in the exhaust and some in the catalytic converter. By richening the mixture you create a greater chance that all the oxygen combines with fuel in the combustion chamber, creating power.

Sort of Agree.....

So far what I've found myself is that richening the mixture just a little bit more than the original R1100 running no catalytic converter (which is about an AFR of 14:1) creates a nice running R1150 on pure gas or E10 fuel. That AFR seems to me to be around 13.8:1 which is a lambda of 0.94.

Again agreed.

I'm actually not disputing your method or findings...merely that you are measuring a single value...Oxygen concentration in the exhaust (out of many others), nothing more, nothing less. This is in my view a limited one, it is sufficient for XIED and the like...but not chips and similar which may affect more than just lambda values.

I commend you for a crusade to "cut through the bull shit" and putting your money where your mouth is by buying the "gadgets" yourself and testing them quantitatively.

The difficulty I have had up to now is making sense of all the conflicting views...

The answer I conclude is everyone is correct albeit from a limited perspective.....

To truly and wholly answer the question of whether John's chip does or does not "work" and to what degree, would require an extensive and very expensive testing regime with some rather expensive equipment, but then "chips" and the like would probably cost £5000 rather than £50.....

 

[Deleted account 200123001]

fit one, what's the worst that could happen?

errr...this http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php/378170-What-the-hell-has-that-chip-done-to-my-engine!

 

[Roger 04 RT]

Some comments below.

Agree 100%, if I understand correctly AF-XIED is "tricking" the Motronic into thinking that the mixture is running too lean by making it think there is more free air than there actually is.This richens the mixture..happy days. What the Motronic does in closed loop is to find the center point of the O2 sensor. So a better way to think of it is that it is signaling the Motronic to "center" fueling at a richer afr. The Motronic isn't tricked so much as it is reacting normally just to a different standard.

A Wideband O2 sensor measures residual O2 and residual fuel, through its oxidizing of remaining fuel inside its pump cell. Because of that the Wideband O2 is now regarded as the primary engine combustion measurement tool for tuning. Location of the Wideband is important, nearer the exhaust valve (without getting it too hot) is better since as air and fuel travel through the exhaust they will combine--especially in the catalytic converter.

Errr, not sure I agree with you there:- Wideband O2 sensors, only sense oxygen unless I'm mistaken see link Excess fuel is calculated not measured directly unless I've missed something? Yes, you are missing something. The Wideband O2 sensor has a Nernst cell that operates like a standard O2 sensor. But it also has an Oxygen pump cell that operates in two directions. It can remove excess hydrocarbon or remove excess oxygen. As a result, it can directly, accurately compute pre-combustion AFR. Please see: http://www.megamanual.com/PWC/LSU4.htm.

Fuel Octane doesn't directly affect power. Octane is selected based on the need for knock suppression related to, among other things, cylinder pressure during combustion. Once you have enough Octane, you don't need more. Therefore, timing changes don't necessarily create more power. The ideal spark timing ignites the burn and creates peak cylinder pressure about 16+/- degrees after TDC. Changing the timing doesn't necessarily create more power. However, if the timing has been advanced too far in order to reduce emissions by giving the mixture more time to burn, it is possible to increase power output by REDUCING timing slightly. I'm not an expert in this and the engine makers have teams of engineers working to create the most efficiency when they design the spark advance tables.

Agreed...but and this is the but...John's Chip (for example) May have changed timing, which your measurements would not detect? John does change timing in the chip. I can measure it with the GS-911. What jumped out at me was that the dwell time was half what it should be because he hadn't changed the dwell table after he changed the timing table.

The reason that I have measured the mixture richening effect of every fueling solution is because you get the most power and best drivability by moving the mixture richer than 14.7 and toward Best Power Mixture. That is a well known, not contested fact. If someone says their solution richens the mixture, the first thing I do is measure it. You want to find a way to add enough fuel, without adding too much.

Again, agree 100% I'm not disputing your method, only that more air + more fuel can give the same AFR as standard...and your measurements are only recording O2 quantity, so on a standard bike where no additional air is being added....we agree that just adding more fuel will be negated over time, however I query whether all the chips/boxes/devices/doodahs have only changed injector pulse width i.e plain and simple fuel quantity, and as soon as someone mods the bike by adding a K&N and/or decat and/or end can....then more fuel will be needed to maintain that constant AFR. I can't really understand what you're getting at here. My measurements aren't recording residual oxygen. They are measuring pre-combustion AFR by analyzing the exhaust with the Wideband sensor. The measured afr is accurate and appropriate.

I can fully understand why your testing on a standard bike...to remove doubt...but I think its important to remember this when set against your lambda measurements.

The reason that a richer mixture than 14.7 adds power is that although 14.7 is the ideal mixture where all the oxygen and all the fuel can perfectly combine, in the real world it doesn't all combine in the cylinder. Some combines in the exhaust and some in the catalytic converter. By richening the mixture you create a greater chance that all the oxygen combines with fuel in the combustion chamber, creating power.

Sort of Agree..... Not sure why you say sort of. Adding fuel until the mixture reaches the Best Power Mixture does increase HP.

So far what I've found myself is that richening the mixture just a little bit more than the original R1100 running no catalytic converter (which is about an AFR of 14:1) creates a nice running R1150 on pure gas or E10 fuel. That AFR seems to me to be around 13.8:1 which is a lambda of 0.94.

Again agreed.

I'm actually not disputing your method or findings...merely that you are measuring a single value...Oxygen concentration in the exhaust (out of many others), nothing more, nothing less. Not true. As above I'm measuring pre-combustion AFR. This is in my view a limited one, it is sufficient for XIED and the like...but not chips and similar which may affect more than just lambda values. It is sufficient even for modded chips. When a chip modder changes timing, there can be a power increase or decrease. Advancing timing can reduce or increase power, and retarding timing can reduce or increase power. It depends whether the spark advance was correct for best power to begin with. The spark advance map is much more complex than the fueling map and is harder to develop. In John's case, I don't know whether the timing is better or worse but I know the resultant dwell time is much worse on my dual spark. For the same stick coil the r1200 uses a 2 mS dwell, the r1150 uses a 1 mS dwell and after his changes John's dwell was under 0.5 mS--not enough coil charging time.

I commend you for a crusade to "cut through the bull shit" and putting your money where your mouth is by buying the "gadgets" yourself and testing them quantitatively.

The difficulty I have had up to now is making sense of all the conflicting views... I see the problem as mainly one of manufacturers of add-ons making certain claims about what their products do versus no actual hard measurements by them to support their claims. Then some of us make measurements that either substantiate or disprove the manufacturer claim. Once that happens, a lot of smoke gets blown into the air and it's hard to see clearly.

The answer I conclude is everyone is correct albeit from a limited perspective.....

To truly and wholly answer the question of whether John's chip does or does not "work" and to what degree, would require an extensive and very expensive testing regime with some rather expensive equipment, but then "chips" and the like would probably cost £5000 rather than £50..It would take hundreds of man hours to test them, agreed. In my testing of the chip he sent me I found it did not add the fuel he claimed after adaptation and the primary coil dwell was half what it should be. Why should I go further?...

 

[Deleted account 220427001]

all I said was rechip looks like I opened a Pandora's box !!! got a head ache !!

 

[beemer pimp]

Just reading all this replays , what about r1100rt ? I don't have lambra sensor ? So chip will work ?

 

[Old Codger]

Have Johns chip on my 1100 gs with co pot
It was no slouch but stronger pulling all over the Rev range just waiting to see how the mpg works out
Early days but an improvement

 

[Roger 04 RT]

Just reading all this replays , what about r1100rt ? I don't have lambra sensor ? So chip will work ?

If you don't have the lambda sensor, you could check that there is no Coding Plug installed, the socket should be empty. In that case on the R1100RT, whatever changes are made to the chip will not be adapted out.

However, you should make sure that you get a chip that matches the ethanol content in your fuel. For example:

Lambda=1 Ratio
Pure Gasoline: 14.7:1
Gasoline with 10% Ethanol: 14.1:1
Gasoline with 15% Ethanol: 13.8:1

So why does this matter to you? John says that on the R1100 without lambda sensor he sets the cruise afr for economy. That's probably good but too lean can lead to surging. Let's say his afr with gasoline is set at 14.7:1 (lambda=1). If you use that chip set with 10% ethanol fuel, your cruise lambda would be 1.04, which is like 15.3:1.

The same type of thing happens at WOT. If WOT was set to 12.8:1 for gasoline, fuel with 10% ethanol would run like 13.4:1, very different.

The examples above demonstrate the value of the lambda sensor. It automatically, through Mixture Adaptation (same process that negates John's chip), corrects the 4% difference between gasoline and fuel with 10% ethanol.

 

[Deleted account 200123001]

Some comments below.

Yes, you are missing something. The Wideband O2 sensor has a Nernst cell that operates like a standard O2 sensor. But it also has an Oxygen pump cell that operates in two directions.

It can remove excess hydrocarbon or remove excess oxygen. As a result, it can directly, accurately compute pre-combustion AFR. Please see: http://www.megamanual.com/PWC/LSU4.htm.

I stand corrected...that's very clever!! it does far more than I thought possible.

John does change timing in the chip. I can measure it with the GS-911. What jumped out at me was that the dwell time was half what it should be because he hadn't changed the dwell table after he changed the timing table.

So that confirms that there are lasting changes that are not affected by the mixture adaptation......

Not sure why you say sort of. Adding fuel until the mixture reaches the Best Power Mixture does increase HP.

Ignore me, I misread..

It is sufficient even for modded chips.

My apologies, now agreed, using the sensor you linked to (if thats the one your using) I can now see how your monitoring the residual products of combustion and can hence derive an actual and accurate realtime AFR.
Your conclusions remain valid so long as the amount of oxygen flowing into the engine remains constant, but as soon as this changes due to air filter/exhaust/decat your conclusions are no longer valid for the reasons outlined.

It would take hundreds of man hours to test them, agreed. In my testing of the chip he sent me I found it did not add the fuel he claimed after adaptation and the primary coil dwell was half what it should be. Why should I go further?...

>John claims you used the "wrong" chip that may or may not be true I don't know but doubt has been cast rightly or wrongly. I have the impression John has done a lot more work on his chips and the ones people are using now may be superior to the one you tested...
>I believe you are testing on a "standard" bike...for the reasons I have outlined with an air filter/zorst the adaptation can do its thing but you still have a gain overall at constant lambda that only a rolling road would see or road tests with appropriate speed test equipment.
>You've measured there is a change with the ignition but you are not measuring the effect of this at the back wheel where it counts...which is the whole point of performance improvement.
>Whilst the Wideband sensor you described does far more than I expected, even still its not the same as and doesn't give you the same level of information and understanding of what is actually going on with the engine as full gas analysis does. In addition you are measuring ratios of one substance to another...not the same as actual volumetric or mass measurements in and out.

I now think that whilst the tests you have done are robust, they are limited and you should not be put on the spot to say whether something does or doesn't work and that response be applied generally.

Thanks for your time and patience Roger it has been a very enlightening discussion.

 

[Roger 04 RT]

We need to go over this some more to get to the bottom of things. My responses below in blue.

...

My apologies, now agreed, using the sensor you linked to (if thats the one your using) I can now see how your monitoring the residual products of combustion and can hence derive an actual and accurate realtime AFR.

Your conclusions remain valid so long as the amount of oxygen flowing into the engine remains constant, but as soon as this changes due to air filter/exhaust/decat your conclusions are no longer valid for the reasons outlined. There are two points here. First, my measurements of AFR are valid no matter what you do to the VE of the engine. The AFR is still what I measure. The second piece is, how much more air/oxygen (VE) is there (1%, 5%) if the VE delta is under 5% the Motronic will handle it fine. If the VE is improved evenly thoughout the rpm/tps range, the Motronic will handle 15% delta easily through Mixture Adaptation. In these cases, I'm still measuring AFR. Lastly, if all the VE gain is at, say, WOT, then one would wonder whether the fuel and timing can be adequately adjusted through a chip without a full brake-dyno tune like BMW would do versus a simplistic WOT inertial-dyno tune.

It would take hundreds of man hours to test them, agreed. In my testing of the chip he sent me I found it did not add the fuel he claimed after adaptation and the primary coil dwell was half what it should be. Why should I go further?...

>John claims you used the "wrong" chip that may or may not be true I don't know but doubt has been cast rightly or wrongly. I have the impression John has done a lot more work on his chips and the ones people are using now may be superior to the one you tested... I had a very recent chip from John, not one of his early ones. When he produces GS-911 data and LC-2 or LM-2 data to show that the chip is doing what he claims (enriching the Closed Loop area), I will try to confirm with another test. Until he makes those measurements it would be pointless. In his thread on his chip he is still adamant that Mixture Adaptation doesn't occur, so I don't think that discussion is going anywhere.
>I believe you are testing on a "standard" bike...for the reasons I have outlined with an air filter/zorst the adaptation can do its thing but you still have a gain overall at constant lambda that only a rolling road would see or road tests with appropriate speed test equipment. My point is still valid. If he claims his chips add fuel in the Closed Loop area (which they do) but that is negated quickly in the Short Term Trims, and fully in the Long Term Trims, then his chips aren't doing what he claims.
>You've measured there is a change with the ignition but you are not measuring the effect of this at the back wheel where it counts...which is the whole point of performance improvement. I will leave it to others to make the tests on whether negated-fuel plus whatever he has done to timing, effects the rear wheel. I've measure and reported that adding fuel through closed-loop lambda-shifting does significantly effect the rear wheel torque.
>Whilst the Wideband sensor you described does far more than I expected, even still its not the same as and doesn't give you the same level of information and understanding of what is actually going on with the engine as full gas analysis does. In addition you are measuring ratios of one substance to another...not the same as actual volumetric or mass measurements in and out. Measureing VE changes from decat, etc. is something others may want to do. Since adding fuel over lambda=1 (14.7:1 for gasoline) adds power to any engine at any VE, an since this will benefit the majority of riders, this is where I've focused my effort. I don't think a full gas analysis is warranted at our level of performance changes, in that it wouldn't add significantly to the information.

I now think that whilst the tests you have done are robust, they are limited and you should not be put on the spot to say whether something does or doesn't work and that response be applied generally. I want to belabor this point. John claims his chip adds fuel in the closed loop area (less than half throttle) that doesn't get negated by mixture adaptation. There is no reason to believe that he can change Closed Loop AFR through reprogramming of the chip and the measurements I made confirm this. He did not disagree with my results, rather he claimed he sent the wrong chip. I will look again but I'm from "Missouri"--the Show Me state--seeing his GS-911 and LM-2 results would convince me to measure another "corrected" chip.

Thanks for your time and patience Roger it has been a very enlightening discussion. Likewise, this discussion is helping to bring the issues to the surface.

 

[Deleted account 200123001]

We need to go over this some more to get to the bottom of things. My responses below in blue.

Firstly, I think its worth reiterating that there is a difference between disproving a claim and proving that something doesn't work (generally)
As you know from our recent PM's I'm pretty sure that its the mixture adaptation that has cured the pinging at High RPM/High Load so I'm with you all the way on this process.

It seems to me that your measurement work has proven that some of Johns claims appear to be erroneous with regard to en-richening the mixture as your measurements indicate this is only to be temporary.

First - Agree 100%
Second - I don't know the answer to this the only way is to measure airflow into the engine before and after through suitable anemometer or similar.
With a K&N, Decat and end can potentially it could be significant? and whilst a standard and modified bike would have the same AFR the modified bike would in theory put out more peak power than a standard even though the AFR is the same.

So whilst your measurements are completely valid in both cases in proving or disproving a claim....care should be taken (myself included now) in interpreting this to mean the chip doesn't work i.e. deliver a performance improvement of "some" magnitude.

Lastly, I agree 100%, hence my comment a few posts back about the potential chip cost to really do ECU modifications properly.....BMW must have spent £1000's doing the mapping to cover the range and markets and uses....no to mention BOSCH spending probably as much on the R&D of the Control System itself.

I like the lambda shifting principle since, the lambda value is the pivotal value and it can be changed without messing about with the chip programming, simple and effective.

I had a very recent chip from John, not one of his early ones. - thanks for confirming that....this makes it even more of a mystery


When he produces GS-911 data and LC-2 or LM-2 data to show that the chip is doing what he claims (enriching the Closed Loop area), I will try to confirm with another test. Until he makes those measurements it would be pointless. In his thread on his chip he is still adamant that Mixture Adaptation doesn't occur, so I don't think that discussion is going anywhere. - For what its worth I think think your right.......

 

[JohnGS1100]

I m ready to send to Phil a chip for R1150GS twins with full modification lambda maps. I make the new AFR much more richer from 14,7 to 12,5 to all revs at close and open loop. And will work for 1 million miles the same.. with no adapt with no back to lean AFR.
There is no problem to Phil's bike because the cat removed from bike he just pay little more petrol

So when Roger send to Phil the LC tool, then we will know what is the true.
Chip will sended tomorrow, so will arrive after 5-6 working to UK.
Roger explain and training how works his tool and how can write the result to computer.

Roger and Phil.. Let's do the Job

 

[Flipfly]

Looking forward to trying both separately and will also do a 'joint test' to see if chip and lamda shift together works. if the motronic makes the corrections that john states, then both together should provide a lasting amount of ooomph although the chip may need reconfiguring for wide throttle openings otherwise it may run too rich.

 

[Flipfly]

I m ready to send to Phil a chip for R1150GS twins with full modification lambda maps. I make the new AFR much more richer from 14,7 to 12,5 to all revs at close and open loop. And will work for 1 million miles the same.. with no adapt with no back to lean AFR.
There is no problem to Phil's bike because the cat removed from bike he just pay little more petrol

So when Roger send to Phil the LC tool, then we will know what is the true.
Chip will sended tomorrow, so will arrive after 5-6 working to UK.
Roger explain and training how works his tool and how can write the result to computer.

Roger and Phil.. Let's do the Job

I want fuel economy too!!!

12.5 seems a bit extreme, but if trim is +/- 20% then at 12.5 afr the bike can just about get to afr 14.5, is this how you are getting around the long term trim issue?

 

[JohnGS1100]

I want fuel economy too!!!

12.5 seems a bit extreme, but if trim is +/- 20% then at 12.5 afr the bike can just about get to afr 14.5, is this how you are getting around the long term trim issue?

Do not worry Phil. I will send you two chip.

One only by mod lambda maps to very rich AFR, just to see the lambda shift at close loop, yes it is happen !! That chip we want you check and compare by the stock chip via Roger LC-tool and post the results here. That wants all at forum, to see that the lambda shift by the chip is possible.

I send too a second correct chip (present) to enjoy, by little richer AFR for better torque and consumption, also by faster timing advance for huge and safe power at all revs of rpms..

 

[Roger 04 RT]

I m ready to send to Phil a chip for R1150GS twins with full modification lambda maps. I make the new AFR much more richer from 14,7 to 12,5 to all revs at close and open loop. And will work for 1 million miles the same.. with no adapt with no back to lean AFR.
There is no problem to Phil's bike because the cat removed from bike he just pay little more petrol

So when Roger send to Phil the LC tool, then we will know what is the true.
Chip will sended tomorrow, so will arrive after 5-6 working to UK.
Roger explain and training how works his tool and how can write the result to computer.

Roger and Phil.. Let's do the Job

Looking forward to trying both separately and will also do a 'joint test' to see if chip and lamda shift together works. if the motronic makes the corrections that john states, then both together should provide a lasting amount of ooomph although the chip may need reconfiguring for wide throttle openings otherwise it may run too rich.

FF, The LC-1 is a permanent install on my R1150RT and my bike won't run without it since I use the LC-1's simulated Narrowband O2 sensor capability as the Lambda input to my bike.

John,
Rather than suggesting that I take my bike apart to send equipment overseas, what you should really do before making any more chips with what you call a "lambda table mod" is to get yourself an LC-2, weld a second bung into your exhaust and install it, AND get a GS-911 so that you can see what the Motronic is doing. This will tell you accurately when the Motronic is in Closed Loop and what the AFR is while cruising, accelerating and decelerating.

I installed the chip you sent me with "lambda table mod". It was not any richer in Closed Loop, even though it was richer at first in Open Loop before Mixture Adaptation negated the initial richness. I took the GS-911 data so I know what mode your chip was in. I also took the LC-1 data and know that Closed Loop did not change at all from stock.

When you buy or borrow a GS-911 you could also see that your spark advance changes are resulting in a very small Dwell Time, which is not good. I have that data too.

Until you get that instrumentation on an R1150 you won't truly know what your changes are doing. Once you can satisfy me that you have made those tests, I have offered to reinstall a chip on my bike to see if I can confirm it. Since BMW/Bosch have no documentation on a "lambda table" for control of closed loop AFR, and since I measured your chip and didn't see any shift either, it is up to you to make the measurements.

You're making a lot of money selling chips, what objection do you have to purchasing the proper instrumentation to verify what you're doing?

 

[JohnGS1100]

Roger, i not use LC-1, i use an external wideband - i put it at exhaust and i see the AFR live for each bike. It is very easy for me and i can use this tool to all bikes and car's. Also by this way i see the real AFR.

if you send to me exaclty your bin file from your chip i will make exaclty the correct chip for your R1150RT twins with lambda shift maps and you can see and post the results. As i said i was send you at the past a demo chip for R1150GS twin, this bike has narrow air intake tubes and the bin file in to the chip is diferent.

So if you send to me your bin file from your RT twins, i can prove the lambda shift and the richer AFR at close loop..

 

[Roger 04 RT]

Roger, i not use LC-1, i use a wideband and i see the AFR live.

Can you send to me exaclty your bin file from your chip ? I will make exaclty the correct chip for your R1150RT twins with lambda shift maps and you can see and post the results. As i said i was send you at the past a chip for R1150GS twin, this biek has narrow air intake tubes and the bin file in to the chip is diferent.

I have a database with all bin file from all boxer models BMW bikes, expect R1150RT-RS-S twins.

So if you send to me the bin file from your RT twins, i can prove the lambda shift and the richer AFR at close loop. I can make exactly as you wish the AFR, 14,2 or 13,8 or any you wish.

You really need to take a realtime log of the data, with the probe installed up near the stock O2 location. Then you need to ride the bike to see the effects on Closed Loop. I used to look at "live results" on a gauge but the results were not at all clear compared to a realtime log.

Once you demonstrate the effect with GS-911 and a realtime log of AFR, I'll be happy to re-engage on testing a chip.

You haven't answered my earlier question, why not buy the GS-911 and LC-2 instruments and run the tests on an R1150 yourself?

 

[JohnGS1100]

Roger i said many times. I do not want to use an LC because then i sould fit to each bike and it is too much trouble. Maybe i buy one just for test to my bike.. Have you any (second hand) LC to send to me or send to phil for make the test ? i pay for it.