Yes, but when you flash the ECM for a Smart Tune data collection run you check the box that this is for a Smart Tune. It loads your map, but sets the AFRs to closed loop across the board and adjusts some other parameters for data collection. After the data collection runs are completed, you should at some point reflash the ECM w/out checking the box to restore the bike to normal EFI operation.

The picture you are showing is the normal AFR map for your bike. If you had a shot of the AFR tables set up for data collection run, then likely all the cells would be red at 14.6.

 

The title of this thread is "which tuner" right? There are other threads that discuss how to use a specific tuner, why to you always try to divert threads when you are painted into a corner and challenged with fact? Are we talking, for the money, which tuner gives you the most capability. Are we discussing spending more $$ for an inferior product? I may be mistaken but I think guys here want to know just what they actually get for their cash, in simple terms.

When I said open, it has no proprietary implication, you seem to be taking a simple statement and twisting it to your benefit... again, Is HD so desperate for sales they are using forum plants and disinformation? HD does not explain why the SEST does what it does, mostly because they don't have a clue, they bought it from someone and they just there to sell it ... I didn't say anything about proprietary algorithms which are irrelevant here.

For example, you get very good explanations from TTS, all TTS questions are answered well, whether its about adjusting one thing and something unexpected happens or what exactly is that parameter suppose to do, or what seems to work well here and there ... or what have they verrified on a dyno when you tweak here or there.. the complex relationships are explained very well. You get nothing from HD. Nothing proprietary here, just support on how the use the tool well. Why are you clouding this simple concept with being proprietary... you don't have a good answer? Come on you can do better than that.

Just saying, for open minded readers here, that if you are making a decision based on a marketing claim, you must go beyond the marketing jibe for these products and verify they do as they claim. Forums like these are very helpful for that purpose. Lots of snake oil out there, its not unusual for companies to use a shill here..

Have you sniffed the exhaust of a smart tuned bike to determine if it even comes close to what you expected (thought you set) closed loop? Until you've done that, its just guesses and BS on your part, right? Oh you don't think HD will spin things, leave a few details out, to sell a product, right? I have not run a sniffer but have read the results of others. You may not believe everything you read on the internet but there have been several independent reports. TTS seems to be reliable, and where it may deviate from what you expect, TTS support is quick to explain why they did it that way.

I think that I've also heard that even if you put lipstick on a pig... well its still a pig

Just a challenge to back up what you think you observe with facts and evidence. Until then it is just BS, but you wouldn't know that without double checking. It is useful to have someone report their observations here, however. Your posts may be more useful in a how to smart tune thread, that may be more valuable to this forum instead of all the BS.

 

Which facts, and what corner was I painted into?? Are you refering to the compaison of features you posted?

Fair enough (maybe). But these threads mostly turn into ads for the TTS backed up by what usually turns out to be on examination half truths and baseless opinions. I use the SESTP but I don't bash the TTS cause I've never used it. When people have made claims that the TTS is so much better than the SESTP because thus and such, I have questioned that but I don't pretend to know all about the TTS because I've never used it.

How much time have you spent using the SESTP?? You would seem to be quite the expert on both systems. But I'm pretty sure everything you know about the TTS has come to you second hand.

Re Read my posts, or should I repost them at a lower grade level to facilitate this. I've made no bizzarre claims or any claims at all about the TTS. I've questioned claims that TTS promoters have made, and I've posted my experince using the SESTP.

Care to explain how I benefit?? I woud like to see more unbiased accurate information passed here. I have no desire to twist anything anyone says, if you cannot speak clearly and your meaning is not understood then that is your fault.

Are you really this stupid? Is TTS so desperate that they have to depend on lies and disinformation?? I really think not. You just come acoss as not having a clue about the TTS or SESTP further than what others have said.

I understand what it does. It isn't that complicated. Not sure what it is that is so baffeling that you don't understand. I posed several questions to you in my last response but rather than trying to have a discussion and provide reasonable answers you just seemed to fly into some sort estrogen fueled rage. I take it the questions were just too tough for you.

Care to explain what issue I clouded and the smokescreen I used so effectively?? You seem to be saying that TTS provides some education about how HD EFI works. A thorough knowlege of how the EFI works would tell you what the various parameters do. I guess it sounds like TTS does a better job of handholding the user. Support after the sale is an important consideration. HD does have the Training DVD. But There just isn't anything so mysterious going on, I guess that is why I thought you were referring to calculations and algorythms built into the program.

You do understand that TTS cannot just create some function that isn't already built in to the ECM? Do you understand that the TTS and SESTP only facilitate making changes to parameters stored in memory areas of the ECM? The software is mostly just the user interface that allows you to retreive, manipulate, save, and flash the data.

Perhaps most open minded readers would like to read fact based info and experiences on the TTS from users of the TTS , and fact based info and experiences on the SESTP from users of the SESTP.

I've made no claims about the TTS except that it likely uses nearly the same algorythms as the SESTP.

As far as shills in this forum, I have noticed lots of bias towards the TTS. When someone says the SESTP is no good and does all kinds of secret mysterious stuff whereas the TTS is the end all and everything it does is completely known..... Well, I just have to question that.

No, I have never sniffed any exhaust. I don't reccomend it but it might be part of your problem, are you sniffing exhaust??

I take it you have a twinscan or other sniffer? Or is this just more second hand knowlege?

Just as I thought. You know all about them, but never used a sniffer.

TTS would never resort to marketting??

You are makeing me doubt that you actually understand the role of the tuning devices.

Hey, here's a good question?? I'm sure you'll ignore it like the rest I put forth though. How long has it been since TTS made the product rfor HD?? A few years right?? Suppose at some point the acrhitecture of the ECM changes?? is HD going to give this critical information to TTS??Maybe the 2012 HD models have this new ECM, is the TTS going to be obselete?

I never said TTS was a bad product, and it might be better than the SESTP. I just asked for actual facts to back up some of the really stupid claims that you and others have made about both products.

Whatever...

So are you saying that if I pick a cell and put, oh lets say 13.8 in that cell, and flash my ecm that somehow the sneaky SESTP might put something else there but the TTS will be true and put the 13.8??

Yes, so please stop spouting BS about topics you appear to be completely ignorant of. I asked for the procedures for doing a VTune. I take it you don't know how. Do you even own, and have you ever used a TTS?

Do you suppose the HD factory race teams use the TTS or SESTP??? Damn more hard questions.

Just go wash the sand out your vagina and have a cup of tea. You'll feell a lot better.

 

I would challenge that since a reflash occurs that the possibility exists that a different method of reading (collecting data from the sensors), processing (algorithm of the how) and output (what the motor is expecting) can occur. The ECM most likely has a base set of software like your computer and can be loaded with a different firmware (operating system) at the time a calibration is loaded. A perfect example is that I can load Microsoft Windows OR Linux on my current computer and they both will provide me with similar yet different functionality using the same exact hardware.

What the people who make the ECM (Harley doesn't make it, they just wire to it) know that very few others know (because they are not on the contract) is how to interact with, and what can interfaced within the unit itself. I am sure this is why there are only a couple of company's that have the know how on what to send to the unit - otherwise there would not be a market for the power commanders, fuelpaks and the like.

Tuning is a different concept than understanding how the computer works.

I would challenge that both pieces of software (yes they are both software programs) do what they think best for each scenario with the input that you put into your tables. I would also suggest that both units change it to whatever is best for a particular set of conditions based on all of the variables, not just the exact cell you think you are working with.

 

Well, I did it to you again...sorry for the speed shift. Yes, I meant AutoTune but jumped ahead thinking you'd keep up.

I'll take in down a notch or three...

 

Would you care to elaborate on this? I use the SESTP, It uses Smart Tune. I take it Auto Tune is similar but for another product other than the SESTP or TTS? The TTS uses VTune, whch product uses Auto Tune?

 

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. but my contention is that the TTS and SESTP do little more that allow you to view and modify parameters stored in memory in the ECM. I very much doubt that the actual program is modified during reflash to provide some new method for looking at and interacting with data recieved from the various engine sensors.

Maybe you are suggesting that flashing the ECM with the TTS somehow replaces the fuel managent program installed by Delphi with one of their own??

Maybe you can rephrase this? I'm just not following.

I understand about dual boot systems. Are you saying that the ecm contains one set of program logic for the TTS and Another program for the SESTP?? If this is the case I have to say I very much doubt this. Likely the manufaturer (Delphi) provides TTS and SESTP with API and other information so they can code their software appropriately.

Ok, I think what you are saying is that it is possible that Delphi has features built in the ECM that TTS may access but that SESTP for what ever reason feels are not important enough to provide access to.

I don't necessarily dispute this, but I think a good tuner should have a good understand of how the system works.

I am going to dispute this. The tools are completely useless, if you put a 13.5 into a particular cell, but the device writes some other value to that location in the ECM memory because it somehow knows better.

That being said, I do understand that just because the ECM sees that a cell at a particular rpm/map is 13.5 that doesn't mean that that AFR will actually be produced. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration. VE is one of these.

 

I am not going to go point by point and debate you because all of this is speculation - but consider that delphi is BIOS like what is on your motherboard which simply allows you access to the components and your tuning software is like an operating system. This is what I am trying to say to you. In addition, if you upgrade the software (at least with the SERT) there were times that an additional flash procedure would write new firmware to the ECM that made older versions of the flash procedure unable to work. With that said, it is logical to assume that more than simple tables were being adjusted; rather internal programming was being updated on the ECM.

Your last point, I never said it overwrites what you put into a table. I am saying that final output is going to be whatever the ECM programming wants it to be based on all of your input not just one cell. I think that is what ColdCase was trying to explain to you - that if you put a sniffer on it for a particular throttle position/rpm range you may not find EXACTLY what you put in for a VE cell since the ECM will modify it based on all the inbound parameters. I don't suggest that you put one thing in a table and it overrides it and writes it to the ECM.

Finally, these software programs are very complex and how they derive the calculations are similar yet likely different. Steve Cole with TTS was very secretive about how the ECM calculated data when he was a poster on this forum and he would not disclose what was hidden in tables that were not accessible.

 

I have some experience w/embedded computers and process control computers. So...

Lets reconsider your analogy. A processor that you might find in a PC might be connected to any variety of devices and any variety of operating systems, the BIOS (Basic Input Output System) is required to mange to manage input and output to these connections under a variety of operating systems. On top of that install the OS to provide an operating environment for the variety of programs one wants to use, and a user interface.

Now the embedded pc in the Delphi ECM is a purpose built computer. It is designed to handle a very specific set of tasks. So, I believe you will find that rather than the multiple layers of code, there is a single layer probably written in a first or second generation low level language. This would make the program very compact and the execution very efficient requiring less processing power.

Over simplifying things, the program receives data from the various sensors, looks up this information in the tables performs some calculations to set up the pulse width for the injectors. If the data tells the computer that this rpm/map is closed loop, then all other data is ignored and feedback from the O2 sensors is used to control the AFR at 14.6, however if the computer sees that the AFR at this particular cell (the current RPM/MAP) is 13.8, then the computer looks at feedback from the other sensors, ignores the O2 sensors, looks up required information in the tables (VE for example) and uses this information to perform the calculations required to set up the appropriate pulse width for the injectors to deliver the desired AFR.

This logic is fixed into the ECM and is not changed when you flash the ECM. The various tables contain variable information that the computer looks up during operation. To tune the operation of the EFI system you are not changing the logic of the program, but rather changing the information in the tables stored in the memory areas of the ECM.

I will accept that perhaps Delphi has included functions in the ECM that TTS may be able to access that HD has chosen not to include in the SESTP.

Final output will be what the ECM believes to be the requested AFR based the information used in the calculations. If this information is not accurate, that is where you will see a situation where an AFR of 13.8 is being called for but the observed AFR (w/a Sniffer) is something else. Program logic does not look and see that an AFR of 13.8 is called for but decides that based on other information it should produce an AFR of 14.3 instead. This information comes from variable data looked up in the tables and data from the sensors. Unless the AFR called for is 14.6 Closed Loop if this is the case then the O2 sensors are the sole source of feedback and the ecm runs the system in closed loop based on O2 Sensor feedback as long as the RPM/MAP is referring to AFR cells calling for 14.6. Unfortunately the system is not intelligent enough to say hmmm.. a 13.8 is called for at this RPM/MAP, but under the circumstances a 13.5 is a better choice.

Now I do understand that these operations are going on through a variety of cells, but it just makes it easier to discuss as a single cell.

It is understandable that Steve would protect his trade secrets. I have been a software developer and this information is his bread and butter.

There is a very good article in the current issue of AIM concerning the EFI system.

 

The delphi unit is not a pc. This statement suggest that it is a personal computer = which it is not.

I don't think we disagree here on this concept.

Again, I assert that TTS and SESTP have similar yet different programming in their respective flashes. The available input and the available output is the same - it's how the efficiencies are calculated that differences are observed. I also assert that the power with these two tools are not what is uploaded into the ECM; rather it is what can be told to the user of the software to get a closer calibration using the PC based software.

Your final sentence is correct but the rest of this is speculation. The ECM programming can make small decisions that are different than what you put into a VE cell. Adaptive fuel is a perfect example of where it makes a modification to help reach a desired effect. These are not written into any of the tables that you can modify - they are written into working tables stored in the working memory area of the ecm.

Ask yourself one question - if it was this easy to work with tables that the ECM owned - why does the SERT, TTS and the SESTP require a dongle to interface with it? I don't know the answer and I am quite sure that you don't know either - we are both speculating based on our experience with the tools that we use. I have had the advantage of looking at the software from all three above and they are very similar. I only assert that there are ways of deriving final output that can be flashed into the ECM at some level and that the DELPHI software simply provides a mechanism to receive input and send output - but again this is a speculation. I just figure if it was easy to just upload some tables then everyone would be directly interfacing with the ECM and not needing a proprietary set of software to do it.