Sounds like the same old sales pitch we had a few months back which covered wide-band vs narrow-band, and open-loop vs closed-loop ...hey ho

At the end of tuning with PV minus TT, you got the tune, the tune isn't a mystery, you've got a PV, and most likely 80 percent of your riding is going to be covered by a predominantly Narrow-band closed-loop AFR table (at least I agree with RB Racing, and past discussions in this regard)

Now if you are belting it up the strip or always tearing up the street trying to beat the metrics then fine, a more aggressive AFR table is what you maybe want and Wide-band closed-loop may indeed be useful (but remember their response time is rather slow).

As said earlier, TT doesn't fix a crap tune anyway ...just the VE tables

As you say, horses for courses, and I don't need one thanks very much. PV and TTS do fine on their own, and even better with a competent tuner.

 

...now if DJ were to work on that spark tuning that is in the PV a little more, THAT would be really useful ....pleeeease

 

Well... I'm not a salesman. In the end, it makes no difference to me what anybody chooses to do or buy.

Agree that you can arguably get decent results with just the PV and narrowbands and that you can pretty much cover - as they say - 95% of the performance band that one would encounter in everyday riding on the road.

I do have a quibble with your comments though. They suggest - if I've read them right/did not misunderstand - that you could/should be happy with the stock AFR table using narrowbands. Again, If I've understood your correctly, then I respectfully disagree. The primary goal in my mind - even using the PV Autotune basic with the narrowbands - is to dial in the VE tables so that you can increase the area of operation/cells in the AFR table not set to 14.6. I've haven't seen many arguing that having the stock AFR table set almost entirely to 14.6 is a good thing. To the contrary - most say - and I agree - that it's too lean etc. It does make the EPA happy though. The tune I got from Fuel Moto does not have a single cell in the AFR table set to 14.6 (or even close). To run it, that leaves me with two options. Dial in the VE's, eliminate the 02 sensors all together, and run full time open loop. Or, get something like TT with widebands and run full time closed loop (I still recommend dialing in/auto tuning the VE's even with TT). I went with the latter.

My own personal experience... My bike when I first bought it - stock other than exhaust, running stock tune - ran like crap. It was running too lean. Today - a much different story.

Sure... If other parts of the tune are screwed up (AFR, Spark, etc...), then TT isn't going to cure that. But TT does compensate for errors in the VE tables, environmental factors, etc.

I just changed the intake on my bike a couple of weeks ago and did some more logging.

It seems to have gotten a little leaner (VE tables are now off a bit):




Before the new intake, my results were looking like this:



Even though it (VE tables) may have gotten a little leaner, set AFR looks like it's still being reasonably achieved:





I've been very pleased so far with the results I've achieved. The bike runs damn good all across the board.

 

ee gads, MLV pictures, you're not Andy's brother are you (PS I don't do smoothed ...it hides too much, but that's just me)

The fundamental misunderstanding is that closed-loop does not equal 14.6. Narrow-band LAMBDA sensors (in the PV maps) can manage closed-loop between 0.964-1.023

That equates to 13.6-14.6 with the E10 fuel you get over there, but even assuming 100% gas that would be 14.2-15

90 out of 204 cells in my AFR table are 0.977 or 0.966, which assuming gas is 14.4 and 14.2 ...all of these are within the "range" of narrow-band closed-loop (and a bit richer than stock whose narrow-band closed-loop ranges from 0.994-0.974 (14.6-14.3)

So, and the point, suggesting that anything other than 14.6 is open-loop is horribly inaccurate and misleading for anyone getting into this from new. Narrow-band does perfectly well for most people, I would hate newbies to get the wrong idea on that.

Just to add a little perspective, I popped out to the country at the weekend. Two thirds probably town and some twists, and a third highway. From the logs I was only outside of narrow-band closed-loop 5.4% of that journey. That was only 6.4% of the time above 60kpa, 2.6% above 70kpa. But like I said, I'm just me, and I'm not tearing up and down the road

Apologies to the OP for the slight hijack, you did ask about peoples experience with TT and I respect that. I didn't agree that it was a magic silver bullet tho.

 

I'm coming from Alpha-N perspective. So I don't speak much Speed Density, lambda, etc...

So... In the interest of preventing the promulgation of misinformation...

An AFR setting of 14.6 might not mean closed loop, open loop, or anything to the narrowband O2 sensors. They're just dumb sensors. But that AFR setting - 14.6 - does mean something to the ECM. That number - 14.6 - is a switch that tells the ECM to use the narrowband O2 sensors/run closed loop. Any cell set to any other number than 14.6 is commanding the ECM to ignore the O2 sensors and run open loop.

 

In the earlier days of Powervision, before Autotune, they had Log Tuner. In DJ's manual for Log Tuner they told you:

As they note, you manually had to go in and change all the cells in your AFR table to 14.6 (or 1 for lambda). Why? To force the ECM to run (always/across the board) closed loop. Not really a good thing - in and of itself. So, they also told you to set the CLB to 750mv to help compensate (to enrich the mixture) and to retard spark across the board by 4 to 6%. Nowadays we have Autotune, which does this all for you automatically when doing Autotune basic.

 

Noooo, please!, that's the bit you need to have another look at. Narrow-band closed-loop is not an "=14.6 switch", it's an operational "range" as I said above, or as defined in your configuration anyway (mine is a softail 358 btw)

(ok so there is a closed-loop on/off switch in the configuration, but if you have that enabled...)

 

This is maybe where you are getting confused. That is part of their process for running their "autotune", not a definition of what and how narrow-band closed-loop works

PV autotune - set the whole AFR table to 14.6
PV+AT100 autotune - set the whole AFR table to 13.1
PV+TT autotune - leave the AFR table at whatever it was.

Once autotune is finished, return the AFR table to whatever it was. Then, narrow or wide bands can do closed-loop within their ability

 

In the current DJ manual they state:

Maybe this will help clarify... Here is a stock map for a Sporty:



Now Andy authored a post over at XLforum that grew to a gazillion replies. That thread has a lot of history. Andy basically developed a method to do what is essentially Autotune basic back when DJ's Calc Tune wasn't working right. So Andy went through all that effort and dialed in his VE's etc. When it was all done, Andy's final AFR table looked like this:



Now, if we go with your logic, then Andy was essentially wasting his time dialing in those VE tables. After all, going by your logic, those narrowbands could effectively provide feedback (run closed loop) for just about all of Andy's AFR table (excepting essentially WOT). So you have to ask, why did Andy bother? Did he go to all the trouble so that the VE's were accurate just to cover WOT? Let me save you the trouble. The answer is no.

The point of creating an accurate VE table is so that one can create an improved AFR table that necessarily deviates from most - if not all - cells being set to 14.6. That's because deviating from 14.6 forces open loop - meaning no feedback to the ECM to ensure that set AFR's are actually being met. Since there is no feedback, having accurate VE's is important to reasonably ensure that set AFR's are being achieved. Otherwise, if narrowbands were providing feedback for error correction - in the potential/desired or by what you suggest is the only necessary range for AFR - it wouldn't be all that important if there was error in the VE tables.

Your theory also misses the point of Target Tune. DJ didn't simply develop and bring to market TT as a gimmick to deviously separate the gullible from their money. One of the key points of Target Tune is to allow you to deviate from 14.6 in the AFR table and still have a means of running closed loop.

 

Maybe I should have been more clear. Let me rephrase what I said above another way:

Why? To force the ECM to use the narrowband O2 sensors for feedback (closed loop operation) all across the board/everywhere in the AFR table. That is necessary because the ECM does not use the O2 sensors if a cell is set to anything but 14.6 (IOW's it runs open loop). With no feedback, there are no measurements, and there is no tuning.