shayne
Omnipresent
1998 Blueprint
Posts: 8,639
|
Post by shayne on Dec 23, 2009 16:57:02 GMT 10
I would be leaning more towards either a Haltech or Motec. Both are a fair bit more established with less bugs and both will allow full control over mapping and odd-fire engines. We actually use alot of Haltech ECUs when emissions compliance is paramount, and this is usually the most demanding situation you can put an ECU through. Mostly this is due to their closed loop control, which isnt really a top priority in this application though. Adaptronic are a good midrange ecu and are getting there slowly. They will soon be a real force, but as they progress so too do the more advanced systems. The general rules you should apply is this... firstly if a hand controller can be attached it is usually not a good ecu, and secondly, race applications need less ecu power than street applications (most people think it is the other way). The cheap ecu might get you down the drag strip, but it wont give the the finer control needed for a street application. If anyone has any ecu specific questions, I am more than happy to give some open advise. Haltech was one of my first choices, but they are not suitable. They cannot do the separate maps for each cylinder. I contacted them to check this. Motec lower end models won't do it either. You have to go a long way up the price range before they do everything I want. There is also an issue with using the factory Honda sensors to drive it - they won't use the crank or cam triggers that I want to use. The new Adaptronic does all these things. You should check it out - it is a big step up from the original version. It will do just about everything you can think of.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Dec 23, 2009 20:42:46 GMT 10
Haltech actually do have fuel and ignition mappable per cylinder in 3D with full user configurable axis selection and load sites, but you are right in that it is similar to Motec in it not being available in the lower spec models. Both brands are user mappable for reluctor input so you should not have any issues with the trigger. It will more be a problem with the pattern, but this is only a minor issue to sort out with any conversion.
Did you mean the e1280s? I will be the first to admit I am wrong but I only saw % cylinder trimming as 1D adjustment and not full 3D mapped. 1D is something almost all ECU's do these days.
I like the Adaptronic Vidigauge. Not really for the Storm but handy for any car with an indash screen. Clever.
|
|
shayne
Omnipresent
1998 Blueprint
Posts: 8,639
|
Post by shayne on Dec 24, 2009 16:11:25 GMT 10
As you would have read on this thread so far, am learning about this as I go, so I am no expert.
Haltech told me by email that their ECU would not do it. Motech will, but the inputs were the problem. This was the M4 & M48 I was discussing with them.
As for the Adaptronic, I do not remember, so you could well be right in regards to how it works. I asked them if I could run separate ignition and fuel maps for each cylinder and they said yes. I also asked them if I could have any RPM points and they said it was unrestricted, so I could put them every 100rpm. This looked much better than the others in comparison, and really the only other option was Motech (after Haltech told me they could not do the separate maps for each cylinder). I looked at lots of ECU's but only two ended up being an option from what I found.
How exactly The E1280's (that model no sounds correct) works I am not sure, so if you have any current info I would look at it for sure before I bought one.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Dec 25, 2009 22:09:11 GMT 10
Only here to help. :-) Engine management can get very complicated very quickly, and unless you work with it everyday the marketting can quickly interfer with real world use.
I had a good look over the latest software for the E1280 (18th Dec release), and I could only find cylinder trimming as a % over trim, which shows up in the Fuel Delivery sub-,menu. The Motec M4 and M48 will do this too, and so will Haltech systems back until the early 90's. The new Haltech Platinum Pro series will allow full 3D map trimming per cylinder. They start out the same as Adaptronic with just a single number, but the map can be expanded in any axis and direction you choose with user definable points to create the 3D table.
It may have been the way the question was asked (cylinder mapping), where Motec and Haltech would have said "no not really" where they were thinking about completely seperate Load vs RPM maps for each cylinder, whereas it sounds like Adaptronic answered it thinking about just basic cylinder trimming.
IMHO, this is complete and utter overkill anyway. I would highly doubt there would be more than a couple of tuners in the country that would spend enough time to map out individual cylinders to this level. First of all you would need to ensure you are accurately measuring AFR on each cylinder, at the same EGT, at the same distance from combustion, in the same pipe and flow characteristics, with equally accurate AFR meters calibrated indentically. Then start to look at the ignition side of things... back to fuel ..... back to ignition..... then you might get it all correct and find it shifts ever so slightly with either air density or engine temperature changes between cylinders..... especially on a twin.
When you consider that the standard carby may have mixtures shift by a full AFR point, you will most likely never feel it unless you have a wideband AFR meter there to indicate to you when it happens. Variation between the cylinders is something I would not expect to see more than maybe 0.2 to 0.3 AFR difference, which is small enough that it would take a pro tuner to pick it. If there is more than this amount of imbalance, the mechanical side of things really needs to be looked at. So tuning cylinders to the point of full 3D mapping is usually pointless.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Dec 25, 2009 22:17:48 GMT 10
I have been interested to see alot of people keep the main jet difference in the setup. I would be hesitant to say it is due to temperature differences, but more likely to say it is due to the intake length differences. Without testing it, I would take a solid guess that if both carbs used the same velocity stack they would both need the same jetting. Has anyone ever tested things to this level? Because it might help with the EFI side of things when it comes to tuning.
It looks like the intake length was changed on one cylinder to help spread the power. Honda probably found that making both short made the low-end go to crap, and both long made it not want to rev out. One of each and it picks up a little down low and a little up high giving a nice flat torque curve. Lengths somewhere in the middle may have caused weird power dips in the curve which is why they didnt go down that route.
Sorry if this is hijacking the thread a little, but I thought it helps with the EFI per-cylinder ideas.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Dec 26, 2009 8:36:34 GMT 10
I'm inclined to agree. Somewhere here I've posted an image from a Honda new model summery that explains the velocity stacks and the different ignition maps per cylinder. There is nothing about temp, just better tuning.
The temp of rear cylinders of twins creating a need for richer mixtures goes back to the old air cooled days. With liquid cooling and two side mounted radiators I can't see any reason why the VTR would have any more temperature variance than other motors.
|
|
shayne
Omnipresent
1998 Blueprint
Posts: 8,639
|
Post by shayne on Dec 28, 2009 16:35:10 GMT 10
My knowledge of the ECU's only extends to what the manufacturers have told me.
As for the separate mapping for each cyinder, temp may play a small part, but I suspect that the exhaust difference for each cylinder, and the intake design (one in front of airbox, one at rear) will be more relevent.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 3, 2010 17:46:37 GMT 10
Another idea for anyone wanting to go injection...
Why not keep the carbies as your throttle bodies. Just remove the slides. I could see custom velocity stacks with injectors mounted inside them being an easy solution. It may suffer the slightest of response issues at low rpm due the the injectors being mounted further from the intake valve than having the injectors in the inlet manifold or head, but it would still be many times more responsive than the carbies. There is already a TPS, and a MAP sensor could be added in quite easily from the existing balance ports. There is also a coolant temp sensor, so only an Air Temp sensor (mount it in the airbox) would be needed to get an accurate air density reading.
On a complete budget, the ECU would only need to do fuel only. Ignition control would be great, but you would get 90% of the gains just by having good fuel control. Having ignition control would also mean we can get away with not having idle control, rather an idle ignition stability algorithm can be used to keep the idle stable.
Also a small EFI pump could be mounted inside the airbox too. A small surge tank could receive the fuel from the main tank and the EFI pump pick up from it and return to it.
Food for thought.
|
|
shayne
Omnipresent
1998 Blueprint
Posts: 8,639
|
Post by shayne on Jan 6, 2010 9:00:46 GMT 10
The other option was to go to aftermarket throttle bodies, pump etc. But I do not want any compromises with the set up. No point doing it otherwise, not for me anyway. So I reckon that sticking with the Honda hardware and a good aftermarket ECU will be the best set-up I can get.
Hope so anyway!
|
|
billzilla
Senior Member
2005 - Matte Black
Posts: 338
|
Post by billzilla on Jan 6, 2010 10:50:46 GMT 10
For the price of aftermarket 50mm throttle bodies and inlet trumpets I'd be buying a second-hand set of carbies and gutting those, if you were going to go EFI.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 6, 2010 13:03:14 GMT 10
What about using a single throttle body? The airbox in general does not need to be there with EFI, so instead a small plenum setup is quite easy to do. It would also negate having to balance throttles ever again. I have rarely seen gains with multi-throttle over a normal plenum intake, so long as the intake lengths are correct. For a 4-cyl bike I can see 4x throttles being easier to package, but for us twins it is not a necessity. Something like a 60mm Commodore throttle could fit in there quite easy, and it has TPS and Idle Stepper built in, and you can get one for peanuts at any wreckers.
With EFI, balancing is critical. Carbies operate off their own flow patterns, so each carby will allow fuel flow to match air flow. EFI however will not self correct for individual flow differences. If you run an O2 sensor in each cylinder you may get around this a little but it is still not a correct solution.
But do you know what. EFI is my livelihood but I personally went with buying a VTR because it had carbies. To me it adds character and a certain rawness that makes each ride that bit more soulful. If it ran perfectly smooth it would be more boring, whereas the carbies let me feel like the bike is alive and that little bit moody. For me it may be different because the bike is only for fun, something to take out of the garage for 15 minute rides to relieve the stress. But I can see for others that use theirs everyday that having EFI would be a great benefit.
Still.... I like to see the work everyone does with this. Very interesting. :-)
|
|
billzilla
Senior Member
2005 - Matte Black
Posts: 338
|
Post by billzilla on Jan 6, 2010 13:09:34 GMT 10
Good point about the single TB, that could work well enough. perhaps sticking out sideways?
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 6, 2010 13:36:36 GMT 10
EFI works a treat in cars and marine use. It still seems a little off even today in bikes though. Mainly because of the throttle response and its effect on bike and traction when pushing a little hard. Some brand new bikes are still being tested by journalists and they are still complaining about that harsh transition or overly touchy throttle response. Sometimes those carby disadvantages can turn out to be advantages I have to admit that EFI is a lot more efficient and offers a lot more scope for further development and interaction with other control systems. This is how Honda has tried to make it work better on their blade.
|
|
afl
Honourable Member
2007 Black
Posts: 953
|
Post by afl on Jan 6, 2010 13:40:03 GMT 10
But do you know what. EFI is my livelihood but I personally went with buying a VTR because it had carbies. To me it adds character and a certain rawness that makes each ride that bit more soulful. If it ran perfectly smooth it would be more boring, whereas the carbies let me feel like the bike is alive and that little bit moody. For me it may be different because the bike is only for fun, something to take out of the garage for 15 minute rides to relieve the stress. And most of us can fix it if the carbies play up. ;D
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 6, 2010 20:44:40 GMT 10
There are alot of ways the backlash can be addressed. It is not too difficult to map out ignition retard under very light throttle, and also on its re-application, to help remove the torque at that instant. Timing retard with delta throttle (changes in throttle position) is something that some OEM's use even on cars, but not all of them. What this does is either advance or retard ignition timing for a brief period after the throttle is opened or closed, and then it will decay over time back to the normal amount of timing. Retarding timing is a common way of removing power much much faster than you can with the throttle because it does it instantly per firing event.
Something Mazda did with the last RX7 was to cut one rotor at low rpm and low throttle openings. You would never know it was happening until you put on a louder exhaust. Then you could hear it drop in and out. These days though we can map around these issues so it is something we get rid of when installing a good aftermarket ECU.
But still, I can forsee there will be problems for a while yet. The biggest of which is the lack of inertia.... i.e. the bike is too light, so any change in power or its application is much more greatly felt by the rider.
Maybe I was on the right track with my initial idea of mounting the injectors before the throttle. This normally causes delays in fuelling, but it would only be as bad as the carby is. Maybe with the OEM's being busy cutting emissions and looking for the best response (mounting injectors closer) they lost that old feeling of the carbies. Maybe as continuously variable valve timing for inlet and exhaust hits motorbikes it may help to also solve some of the problems.
I would not be so easy to say the carbies are easier to fix. For me, I usually can diagnose a problem with injection before I get in the vehicle, and fixing is usually as easy as connecting up the laptop. Carbies though, you have to pull the damn things out everytime there is a problem. Dirty hands.....errrkkk!!! (in my best girly voice) :-)
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 6, 2010 21:06:22 GMT 10
I made up an example of what I am talking about. This is a map that shows the amount of ignition retard based on the starting point of where your throttle is when you start to open it up. As you can see, at very low rpm it will advance the timing during throttle movement from even closed throttle, adding response. But if the rpm is up a bit and the throttle is closed, it will pull 20deg out of the timing, but if the throttle is already open a little it will do the opposite and add timing. If the throttle is already open alot it will also do nothing. The decay time of this is also mappable so you can control how long this retard or advance lasts (usually a few engine cycles). On this particular ECU, the axis of these maps is completely edittable. You can make the RPM values whatever you want, and if you dont want RPM as the X-axis at all you can change it to something else... maybe rate of change of the throttle movement, or maybe map it versus vehicle speed. Quite a powerful system.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 6, 2010 21:17:15 GMT 10
From my perspective EFI is pretty easy to work with; although as the systems become more complicated, the equipment needed to diagnose them becomes less easily obtained. I use a number of OEM diagnostic programs at work, and some are just a nightmare as they are server based and don't like our network security system. The problem is that some of these EFI systems just don't have a generic type scanner available (e.g. Mercury Opimax, Evinrude ETEC or even Volvo's).
There are a number of engine management strategies that could be employed, but I don't know that it is as simple as that. Let's face it, the manufacturers are still struggling to get it right. Bikes certainly throw in some unique challenges. For examples of this we need look no further than the engines designed by car racing engineers for bikes. Non of them have been able to make a successfully one. Usually they make plenty of power, but the engines just can't deliver that power in a way that riders or chassis can use effectively.
I think the main thing with carbies is that they have been around for some time, and people have at least some level of understanding of how they work; where EFI is still a bit of a mystery to many people.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 7, 2010 19:24:15 GMT 10
EFI is easy to work with, but designing and mapping from first principles is where most get stuck. It is quite easy to get the motor 95% perfect which most people would think there is nothing wrong, but the difficulty multiplies as you approach 100%. But maybe in motorcycle applications, the mechanicals need to be fixed and not the EFI system. Design out the backlash and the problem is not so bad.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 7, 2010 20:20:34 GMT 10
I think there might be some challenges in removing backlash, as it is needed to allow for thermal expansion and oil clearance. but then you never know. Lubrication and engineering materials are improving rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 8, 2010 11:43:09 GMT 10
I was just thinking about the single throttle body. I don't really have any idea why it couldn't be used, but I was struck by some observations. Firstly, a number of V twin bikes do use it, but these are all cruisers that have very moderate rpm limits. Multi cylinder Outboards (both two and four stroke) used to use individual carbies, but since moving to EFI and DFI most use a single throttle body. Yet performance bikes use multiple throttle bodies. The commonality that I see in this is that Outboard engines and Cruiser bikes all have a comparatively modest RPM limit (around 6000rpm for 4 stroke and 5000rpm for 2 stroke). Performance bikes on the other hand rev somewhat higher. Even the VTR with its relatively low 9500rpm limit. This made me wonder about intake tuning, and if their was some advantages with individual throttle bodies at higher rpm?
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 8, 2010 13:03:09 GMT 10
No, it is not the limitation of RPM, but more it is the wish for the utmost response. Usually a sports based vehicle will want rapid response so to accomplish this the throttles are moved closed to the valve to reduce the volume of air trapped there. It does introduce issues of flow imbalance, as I previously mentioned, if the throttles are not perfectly synced because the ECU cannot tell if one runner flows more than another. Whereas a carby is indivually fuelled for each runner.
A case in point would be the new Nissan R35 GTR. The previous models used 6-throttle induction in a bid to raise response with the low compression (relatively) inline 6-cyl engine. The new engine uses two throttle, one per bank of the V6. The new engine, although bigger in displacement, also makes almost double the power.
Now back to the VTR engine. Ultimately, the intake is breathing through a small snorkel at the front of the airbox, so having throttles any bigger than this will not increase flow. I believe this is currently the case anyway, the snorkel looks to me to be smaller than the carby throats. So theoretically if we went injection and put the throttle in the snorkel (single throttle I mean) then it will still flow the same amount of air as it does now. The only problem is the extremely large plenum volume, which dulls down ECU response time dramatically.
So designing the intake you would just need the length to be correct, and feed a plenum volume large enough to breathe but not so large that it causes response issues. The same goes for throttle body area. Add up the existing throttle area, and it roughly equals a 67mm single throttle. A 65mm would be more than enough anyway, as I have seen engines with these make well over the 200rwKW on the dyno.
So with the single throttle no complicated brackets, no more syncronising, and equal flow between the cylinders. No need for an airbox either, just stick a $30 Supercheap pod filter in there somwhere.
|
|
billzilla
Senior Member
2005 - Matte Black
Posts: 338
|
Post by billzilla on Jan 8, 2010 13:29:31 GMT 10
Add up the existing throttle area, and it roughly equals a 67mm single throttle. Ah this comes up frequently - No need to add up all the throttles to make one big one, as only one cylinder sucks at a time. A single 50mm TB should still be plenty for a single 500cc pot, though as you mention there's the airbox restriction before it and that could do with a larger opening perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 8, 2010 16:19:14 GMT 10
No, it is not the limitation of RPM, but more it is the wish for the utmost response. Usually a sports based vehicle will want rapid response so to accomplish this the throttles are moved closed to the valve to reduce the volume of air trapped there. It does introduce issues of flow imbalance, as I previously mentioned, if the throttles are not perfectly synced because the ECU cannot tell if one runner flows more than another. Whereas a carby is indivually fuelled for each runner. A case in point would be the new Nissan R35 GTR. The previous models used 6-throttle induction in a bid to raise response with the low compression (relatively) inline 6-cyl engine. The new engine uses two throttle, one per bank of the V6. The new engine, although bigger in displacement, also makes almost double the power. Now back to the VTR engine. Ultimately, the intake is breathing through a small snorkel at the front of the airbox, so having throttles any bigger than this will not increase flow. I believe this is currently the case anyway, the snorkel looks to me to be smaller than the carby throats. So theoretically if we went injection and put the throttle in the snorkel (single throttle I mean) then it will still flow the same amount of air as it does now. The only problem is the extremely large plenum volume, which dulls down ECU response time dramatically. So designing the intake you would just need the length to be correct, and feed a plenum volume large enough to breathe but not so large that it causes response issues. The same goes for throttle body area. Add up the existing throttle area, and it roughly equals a 67mm single throttle. A 65mm would be more than enough anyway, as I have seen engines with these make well over the 200rwKW on the dyno. So with the single throttle no complicated brackets, no more syncronising, and equal flow between the cylinders. No need for an airbox either, just stick a $30 Supercheap pod filter in there somwhere. True enough. But manufacturers must find the individual throttle bodies to give better overall performance as this is what they use on engines that rev a little more. This is true even in engines that aren't sports based. It is only once the engines get down to the cruiser levels of rpm that they go to single throttle bodies. Honda could have used a single throttle body like they do on some of their other V twins, but with the SP1/2 and even the XL1000V, they chose a twin throttle body set up.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 8, 2010 16:25:19 GMT 10
I would still go bigger than 50mm, especially with the RPM being pulled. At least a 60mm to cover the top-end, but I mentioned 65mm because it is a common size to find with all of the fruit attached. The benefit of EFI is that throttle size does not really effect fuelling unless you go wayyyy oversize.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 8, 2010 17:56:18 GMT 10
The VTR SP1 and 2's used two 54mm and 62mm throttle bodies respectively. Obviously they used a different air box to the VTR F, but the engines are similar, just in a little higher state of tune.
|
|
Mattjin
True Stormer
I don’t think you are stupid. You just have a bad luck when thinking.
Posts: 1,168
|
Post by Mattjin on Jan 9, 2010 21:35:17 GMT 10
Crazy sizing, there is no way the engine would consume that amount of air at the power it makes. How big are the valves?
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 9, 2010 22:48:16 GMT 10
The Suzuki V twins were similar, so the sizing isn't unusual for bikes. I'm guessing it is more to do with slightly better volumetric efficiencies at high rpm.
They both pull more than 10'000rpm. If we look at that we can see the intake valve is opening 5000 times a minute, or 83 times per second. That would mean the intake valve would only be open for about .008 of a second if you factor in the 250 degree intake duration (and for much of this time the valve wouldn't be fully open). That doesn't give much time for the 14.7psi of air pressure to push air into the cylinder. Now the intake valves are only two 16mm valves per cylinder. But I guess they want to use the air mass and its velocity (bigger throttle bodies, more air mass) to further increase the compressive force of the ambient air pressure on the cylinder charge.
The XL1000V, which is a very similar engine (much the same as our VTR's, but with a 5 speed box and less power) uses smaller throttle bodies, but then it is de-tuned to suit its adventure bike usage and doesn't rev as high.
|
|
billzilla
Senior Member
2005 - Matte Black
Posts: 338
|
Post by billzilla on Jan 9, 2010 23:59:48 GMT 10
Now the intake valves are only two 16mm valves per cylinder. They'll be quite a lot larger than that - typically on a four-valve head the inlets are about 1/3 the bore diameter so I'd be guessing about 33mm.
|
|
|
Post by colinlinz on Jan 10, 2010 8:26:46 GMT 10
Oops. Now see that's what happens when you keep me up after my bed time. Take a guess where I stuffed up. It just gets worse
|
|
shayne
Omnipresent
1998 Blueprint
Posts: 8,639
|
Post by shayne on Jan 10, 2010 10:45:13 GMT 10
As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, the SP1 throttle bodies are tapered - 54mm at the top, but 48mm at the bottom.
The SV1000 Suzuki used 52mm thottle bodies.
Mattjin, I agree with your comment about the snorkel size being the limiting factor. I have been on about this for years with the VTR - I reckon it is too small. But if you open up the airbox the carbs cannot handle it regardless of any jetting changes - I have tried plenty. So with my EFI swap I will be using a modified airbox, which will be based on the SP1 set-up. It has a much larger intake than the VTR, about times the size.
|
|