Quote:
Originally Posted by BVBOB
have you logged afr data after using your smoothing software and compared it directly to the "before" afr, if so, what were your findings
|
Don't focus on the smoothing. That is just one part of the algorithm (although it is the hardest part to get right). I did not develop smoothing software. I developed VE generating software. Think of it as V-Tune for open loop bikes using the Twin Scan (
I am not affiliated with V-Tune or TTS in any way). The other mode I was alluding to will allow SERT and Super Tuner users with closed loop bikes to street tune their bikes the same way V-Tune users are doing (with a couple of extra copy/pastes since I don't have access to the SERT/Super Tuner map data).
I got sidetracked. To answer your question... the
only thing that determines the accuracy of the algorithm is this: do the generated VE values result in an AFR out of the tailpipe that matches the AFR target the algorithm was shooting for? The answer is yes. Graphing the logged AFR data after applying the generated VE tables verifies it.
Quote:
|
secondly, have you put this to the test yet on any dyno with it's own afr (or 4gas) sampling equipment for comparison, and if so, did it help performance?
|
The real question here is does the Twin Scan with Wego produce accurate AFRs? This is completely unrelated to my algorithm as all the algorithm can do is assume the information from the Twin Scan and wideband sensors is reliable and generate the VEs accordingly. As I stated above, the algorithm is accurate in that sense.
As far as a performance difference, yes, there is a noticeable difference between the generated map and the base map. My algorithm generated a map that was within 4 HP and 4 torque of what my bike produces after being dyno tuned. Note that the dyno tune included tuning of the timing. You can't "tune" timing on a street tune. All you can do is get the timing just short of knock and then hope that is close to max performance.
