Don't be disengenuous, you should own what you say. Your whole post was hostile but this part specifically is what I meant:

Regardless - it's not really the point but I didn't want to leave you unanswered. The meat of it:

I already did but I'll be glad to try again. If you can tune your VE to 100% accuracy then bully for you - but not everyone can. In all cases it's only accurate (to whatever degree) for that moment. When the temp changes 5 degrees you aren't 100% accurate any more, if you even started at 100%. Now we can debate how much change in conditions are needed for there to be a effective difference but the reality is that ANY change makes a (however small) difference. In CL the ECU compensates so you're still good but in OL your engine is now guessing, based on those VE which are now (to some degree) incorrect. Do we agree so far?

TT uses the WB sensors to read (and correct) the AFR in realtime. There are arguments about that actually being realtime what with delay and speed, but it's the best available for now.

So - if you are confident that your VE is close enough to perfect and/or the current weather isn't a factor to your tune then you won't see the need for TT. This sounds like where you are. Other people get to have their opinions though - they now have an option to set an AFR in their tune and TT will do it's best to make the engine hit that AFR regardless of how close your VE is AND regardless of weather. The value of that will vary by individual, from needless to very handy indeed.

Does that explain it well enough? Can anyone tell me if I got some part of that wrong?


Andy posted screenshots of a bike he tuned with WB and how well it seemed to be be able to maintain the requested AFR. Then he did it with TT and showed how the requested AFR and WB-measured AFR were identical, even better than the WB only tune. Thus demonstrating the benefit of TT. Now whether or not the AFR was best for that bike is for someone else to pick apart - he just showed that using TT let the bike operate at the AFR that the tune was set to use, nothing else.


It seems I stirred you up. If that makes you the **** I stirred then you said it not me - but it seems we may have found something we can agree on. Not sure why you're looking to pick a fight. I wish you good fortune.

 

+1 all that. Spirited debate is healthy and helpful. I try not to cross any lines and apologise if I have. HDF is a very valuable resource, I've learned a lot here.

 

mmm ...I'm not quite buying that

My read is he tuned the bike with widebands, and then ran a data run with widebands, to read how good the tune was??

Then he set TT to run the AFR in closed-loop ...I should blooming well hope a closed-loop system was capable of keeping actual to requested.

How good your tune is not the same as does closed-loop work or not.

In that context the question becomes do you want to run your bike in closed-loop, outside of the range of the stock narrowbands ...if so, TT or Thundermax can offer that.

Still doesn't answer oleboys question about the accuracy of tuning using stock vs TT ...although WOC gave us an example of narrowband vs wideband sensors in the last thread.

There are two things here that are getting blurred - tuning your VE tables, and running your bike's AFR table in a closed loop feedback system.

Me? I'm a street guy and happy enough with a partially closed loop system and who cares if it's out a bit on a spirited over-take or the odd blast. Oh, and as long as it gets through the MOT emissions test

 

Sorry Andy, can you explain this one for idiots please? because I don't see anything other than about 22 samples per second compared to my PV logs with about 12, and my O2 sensor voltage traces over the same 6 seconds duration you are looking at look equally awful and meaningless as your lines ...unless my sensors are goosed?



Front and Rear 02 volts over time (seconds)

The other thing that jumped out was your spirited 0-64 in a few seconds was done at an AFR wobbling around 14?

 

There's more to it Wide bands vs. Narrow bands. There's also the controller for the wide bands and how it interprets the signals it gets and what it does with it. I think DJ is on the right track with TT but I feel it has a long way to go. What I've seen with the WB pro tune results compared to the NB AT results leaves me with the conclusion that at this point dJ has a little more work to do. This isn't a negative comment towards DJ, I am a vendor of theirs and use their products often, it's just an observation from my findings.

To the OP, I recall reading a post where you said your CLI's were tight and maintaining within 3%, ride your bike bud, TT is a lot to spend on a product that will only control an area of your MAP that you probably ride in less than 10% of the time.

 

The difference between NBs and running TT is in the control algorithm. Google PID. With a Sporty, this is huge. I have been blasted for even bringing this up starting about 8 years ago. Within about 2 min riding the Sporty on TT, I realized that the engineers at DJ had found the issue and fixed it. This has always been a HHT (Harley Hidden Table) but it was fixed. This stuff is all totally exposed in most of the other SW packages I work with so it was easy to identify the problem in the logs.

It all has everything to do with what the code does with the Pulse Width as it dithers back and forth seeking the Target AFR.

Jamie knows all about this stuff.

Andy

 

Can you post your raw log somewhere? I need to see the Pulse Width or Duty Cycle of both channels on the same trace.

This has everything to do with if the changes in PW are drastic and if the front and rear changes are coupled or not.

Andy

 

My TT aims for an AFR target way richer than I would ever trust any NB as a workable AFR range. I almost never want my motor to swing much leaner than 14.7 AFR, ever. TT allows me to do this all day long with confidence to spare.

 

Blurred, but related. OP started this thread wondering why use TT if AT basic maps VE correctly. He seemed to think - I hate to put words in his mouth so this is my impression of his argument - that TT as a product must mean that AT basic wouldn't or couldn't actually map VE correctly. My understanding is that once the VEs are pretty close (set using NB or WB) one can use TT to keep actual AFR at the target AFR, in realtime - to the limits of the WB sensors, at least. Which is the purpose of mapping VE, right? We map VE to set AFR before the ignition happens, TT works the opposite end of the equation by reading the AFR of current ignition to adjust VE to meet the target AFR for the next ignition. Loosely speaking, because there are timing issues - so not the very next ignition but that's the idea. It works 'real time' to correct future events by looking at the results of the currently measured event.

Same here! But thankfully I don't have to worry about emissions tests :-) Start easy, run strong, don't bork my stuff running too lean - I'm happy.

 

So, just a screen shot isn't enough and you are asking for raw data?