| Author | Message | ||
     Bigblock |
My CA bike is now at 95/F, 100/R after a few hundred miles. | ||
| Rocketray |
Grand Junction CO (5000ft alt), 2008, 1125R, 19492 miles, F90.0 R90.0 | ||
| Unibear12r |
My CA bike is back to the same as pre-flash. Only a few hundred miles sense the re-flash though. 100/F & 105/R (300' ASL here) Not much difference in weather and density between here and there Fresno. (Message edited by unibear12r on November 17, 2008) | ||
| Slypiranna |
I would like to understand the 15+% difference in fueling between these two CA bikes...what have you guys been playing with? Any mods at all? Fres, IMO, cold weather should be handled by the AT sensor's correction, within it's tables that it. It is a separate fueling correction from the base maps and the AFV's... The actual air density difference, unless we are talking extreme shouldn't present a major leap in global AFV correction. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
after the ride today, AFV now 83.5/94.5 What would be a possible reason for it changing from 93.5/90? I did have the airbox out for the first time, but this isn't the first time for wildly changing AFVs. | ||
| Unibear12r |
No intake, engine or exhaust mods here Sly. Bone stock except for de-noiding. I did have to put the carbon cannister back on after the dealer mistakenly removed it. But it was off for only 100 miles. The last re-flash definitely took as the bike runs a lot cooler and smoother and got a nice boost in mileage. | ||
| Slypiranna |
Fresnobuell, I don't believe it has anything to do with the airbox cover either. First things that hit my mind are a vac leak or o2 sensor issues but it could be a number of other causes. Getting close to 20% de-fueling in open loop at or near sea level for no major reason would tell me to have it checked out by the dealer. Second thing that comes to mind is your CA spec charcoal canister? That is an easy check for the owner to do...just a thought... BUT...I wouldn't trust over the internet diagnostics...  (Message edited by slypiranna on November 17, 2008) | ||
| Bigblock |
My bike is stock except de-noided | ||
| Id073897 |
So, what do all those number tell you, without knowing the mixture? | ||
| Slypiranna |
Id073897, I think that is the reason why most of us are here, to try and understand why such a difference with a few examples. The base maps are pretty much all similar so why are some adding and deleting such large amounts of fuel? | ||
| Id073897 |
What would you learn from getting lots of radiator valve settings without knowing the outside and room temperature? Even if all heatings would work the same way? Left alone the 20% deviation, allowed for temp sensor inputs. | ||
| Slypiranna |
Id073897 Well, we'd at least understand the minimum and maximum settings within the range...blindfolded to the numbers. From there we can "feel" what is most comfortable, even without knowing how cold or hot the atmosphere actually is. I don't know about you but I go from feeling very comfortable to hot or cold even by a 15%+/- "temp" setting. Now, what is NORMAL range for AFV's? Can you answer that for us? | ||
| Zac4mac |
Pre-flash, Loretta was happiest at AFVs around 95 F&R. Dunno about post flash, as she is still at 100 F&R. 7-800 miles since the new IC, 1500 miles since the re-flash. Z | ||
| Id073897 |
Well, we'd at least understand the minimum and maximum settings within the range...blindfolded to the numbers. If you understand, then please explain it to me, because I don't. Now, what is NORMAL range for AFV's? Can you answer that for us? The normal range (if there might ever be such thing) is that AFV that leads to the mixture the engineers had in mind when setting up the fuel map for the calibration mode region. Mixture is the process variable monitored and fuel is the setpoint. If these are not taken into account, what will the corrective factor on its own tell you? Nothing. Nada. Null. Furthermore AFV is not even exact, because it changes in predefined steps, not necessarily as mixture requires. If the bike would be equipped with a baro pressure sensor, would you compare air pressure values? Why then focus on AFV? It's of no use at all. | ||
| Slypiranna |
This bike has two baro sensors, one for atmosphere and one for intake manifold. Perhaps a differential within the ecu's calculations? Or two separate corrections within different fields? Most of us don't know because we haven't been educated and/or have not figured it out yet... The AFV function and some feedback info has been released by those in the know, just enough to keep us wondering...the basics are not enough information. 14.7:1 has been verified, as the target that the ecu looks for in CL, which is against early wideband feedback...won't argue with the engineer's on that one but we would have never known information like this without continuing to press for it. Disabling the O2's, locks the AFV's where they are at, at that time. Many tests on many 11's have proved this. Some examples that were at or near 100/100+ ran better than they did at lessor values. Other examples pre/post AFV resets that later learned lower values lost some power...not to say all do, but some have. (Sea level to 1000' elevations.) Working from a base map, if the AFV function adds or deletes fuel from it, will alter the entire OL regions. This is from the same engineer's that designed it. If the AFV function is of little use, then why is it such an important part of the this bike's ecu function/systems? I'll wager that there is a LOT left to understand concerning this ecu and the AFV function. For the mere purpose that we cannot understand and explain everything seems enough to keep questioning everything that is unlike the majority population. So, who's next to post their AFV's/elevation and how your 11 is running? | ||
| Id073897 |
If (IF!!) two bikes were completely identical (and I mentioned the allowed deviation in temp sensor voltages before) and would differ only in fuel pressure, they would show a different AFV, because a different amount of fuel is injected and would have to be corrected. Now given the fact, that two identical bikes will not exist, and there are lots of sensors and actors who might and will give different readings/feedbacks under the same condition, what do you learn from all the AFVs you are asking for? Disabling the O2's, locks the AFV's where they are at, at that time. Many tests on many 11's have proved this. As no closed loop exists any more that could feed back any corrective information, AFV will not change any more. If you disable closed loop, you will not take any information from the O2 sensor for EGO correction (even if it's signal could be monitored and logged). It's simply not used. It shall not be used anymore - this is what you told the ECM by disabling closed loop. It's as easy as this. In calibration mode the ECM counts events where the fuel feedback/O2 signal is above or below given thresholds. If this count hits a limit, AFV is adjusted by the beforementioned increment in the direction needed. After a given time the current AFV is written to EEPROM. That's not a secret and the variables are described in the eeprom directory at the ecmspy website. | ||
| Slypiranna |
The minor differences in fuel pressure and given sensors cannot explain such a wide AFV tolerance, IMO. Base maps should not need corrected up to 20%...unless there are modifications and/or problems causing such to occur. Designed injector duty cycle should remind why 115+%'s (on 08's @ or near sea level) are questionable if attempted by the AFV function to apply to base mapping. EcmSpy was based upon earlier DDFI. IMO, this is new stuff. The AFV information on EcmSpy's website cannot prove possible, 160% AFV's...whether or not earlier versions claim so. It does, however, suggest a +/-10% window as ok. Again, not enough proven information and that is why we march on in questioning/testing/comparing. Further understanding WILL come, if we keep open minds and continue to work together. That is what should be most important. If I am wrong...I'll eat it! Always have and always will but that is not my angle to be right or wrong, it is to learn and understand what we are working with here. Something of which, we've not fully proven to understand? More AFV/geography/Owner input...please!  (Message edited by slypiranna on November 18, 2008) | ||
| Bertman |
Calif. bike - sea level After 1000 miles since reflash including long ride in Nevada/Utah, plus 3 track days including Infineon Raceway yesterday. 95.5/F - 95.5/R Motorcycle has never run better! | ||
| Slypiranna |
THANKYOU!!!! Bertman! | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Anyone made an inquiry with BMC to try to shed some light on this AFV mystery? | ||
| Slypiranna |
Yes and vague... Perhaps that is why Xb9 relight this candle? | ||
| Id073897 |
EcmSpy was based upon earlier DDFI. IMO, this is new stuff. The AFV information on EcmSpy's website cannot prove possible, 160% AFV's...whether or not earlier versions claim so. It does, however, suggest a +/-10% window as ok. Again, not enough proven information and that is why we march on in questioning/testing/comparing. You obviously prefere esoterics to technical analysis. What you think possible or impossible is of no import when reality shows other results. DDFI-II and DDFI-III work exactly the same in this regard. As long as you do not learn how the ECM and a control loop feedback mechanism works, all your "comparing" is a waste of time. I know how the AFV is calculated, it's as written above. Our bench tests during ecmspy development complied with the documentation. If you really would want to find out, why AFV is spread across such a wide range, you have to take into account ALL boundary conditions that impact the amount of fuel injected, combustion itself (spark plug condition) and the fuel feedback. I re-emphasize that you are looking at the correction factor only, which tells you nothing at all if you do not evaluate all other input, especially if this is different from bike to bike. But do as you want. You know it all better anyway. (Message edited by id073897 on November 19, 2008) | ||
| Fresnobuell |
ID073897, so are trying to tell us that fluctuating AFVs approaching the -20% range is normal and should not be a concern? | ||
| Zac4mac |
Gunter - I looked at your tables... aaack that's why I don't do coding. Congrats and thanks for the perseverance. Simple questions 1) What does it take to get into "learn mode"? 2)What inputs are used to derive AFVs? TIA Zack | ||
| Id073897 |
ID073897, so are trying to tell us that fluctuating AFVs approaching the -20% range is normal and should not be a concern? A -20% on what? On a previous +20%? Or a previous -20%? Under which conditions? | ||
| Id073897 |
1) What does it take to get into "learn mode"? Learn mode is entered automatically when cruising with about mid-RPM and mid-throttle. IIRC I posted the details somewhere else here. 2)What inputs are used to derive AFVs? O2 sensor signal. | ||
| Slypiranna |
Id073897, I do not know "it" better. We simply agree to disagree. Cheers! mm | ||
| Zac4mac |
Details are what I'm after. I'm up to my ears in vague ideas and conditions, that's all I get from BMC. Please re-post any DETAILS. This is the ONLY thing pissing me off about Buell and this bike. | ||
| Doerman |
I think Gunter has provided the details. Not to put words in Gunter's mouth, but the values are relative to the previous map position. It is the "projection vector" the software took to come to the current map position. That means you should only see identical values if: The operating parameters during the last few miles prior to taking an AFV reading were identical in all respects between two readings: i.e, identical: - exterior temperature - barometric pressure - pump gas (brand, octane) - shift pattern - stoplight were on the same timing etc. I could be entirely wrong here, but there's nothing of value to be gleaned from the AFV values. I have not even read mine and don't care to since my bike is operating perfectly. But then again, I could be completely wrong (not about the bike operating perfectly part).  | ||
| Zac4mac |
Asbjorn - All along, all I've wanted was the "secret combination" to enter learn mode. I thought I found it at Homecoming. If Gunter is taking the code apart, there should be a field with ALL the parameters needed to do this. No guessing, just the actual inputs required. The only way to get this info is from a design engineer from that project, or a top grade hacker to get into the EEPROM and pull the info out. That's the info I'm dying to see. Z |
