screwed, without the benefit of a reach around.
stud insertion and removal.
The third member
old dry gloves and the grip warmers
Do I need to go back and find more?
Must recalibrate my mind. Do I turn myself on, twist my throttle twice, turn myself off, and then rev my motor?
Best if your significant other does it for youWell, she has the diagnostic equipment I don't, so that may be the way to go, kinda like getting "flashed", if ya get my drift
Now lets say you have an un-calibrated system. For this demo we'll use TPS 25% TPS 100% (This is what I did in the video, by setting the throttle lock to ~25% and running the calibration.) Now the ECU and TPS are mismatched. The ECU see that when the throttle is fully closed, the TPS Voltage is 1.46V, therefore it needs to spray 200CC's of fuel in.
[CHART 3]
ECU 0% - 1.46V - 200CC
ECU 25% - 2.04V - 275CC
ECU 50% - 2.62V - 350CC
ECU 75% - 3.20V - 425CC
ECU 100% - 3.78V - 500CC
The ECU is now programmed to see that when the throttle is fully closed, the TPS Voltage is 1.46V, therefore it needs to spray 200CC's of fuel in. Because it's a simple computer, it cannot detect a negative percentage, so when you close the ACTUAL THROTTLE, the ECU is still putting out it's current minimum amount of fuel set for TPS 25%, because according to the ECU's calibrated programming, TPS 25% = ECU 0% Thus when you close the throttle completely, and the ECU is still putting out TPS 25% of fuel, but the Throttle is a 0%, you run into an extremely rich condition, thus making the engine run rough and inefficient.
[CHART 4]
Correct
Fuel CC
TPS 0% = 0.68V 100CC ECU OUT OF RANGE - 200CC - RICH CONDITION (HESITATION OCCURS HERE due to incomplete combustion)
TPS 25% = 1.46V 200CC ECU 0% - 1.46V - 200CC - Correct A/F Mixture (SPIKE IN RPMs OCCURS HERE)
TPS 50% = 2.23V 300CC ECU 33% - 2.23V - 232CC - Lean condition, less power, requiring slightly more throttle, using more fuel to maintain speed
TPS 75% = 3.01V 400CC ECU 67% - 3.01V - 364CC - Less lean condition, but still down on power, requiring slightly more throttle so on...
TPS 100%= 3.78V 500CC ECU 100% - 3.78V - 500CC - Proper A/F mixture
Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking... I'm not an engineer.
<snip>
- I have sell this bike. I will kill myself. I'm so happy with how the engine responds, specially when I see small gaps in traffic that I usually gave up on because of the stupid hesitation. Now I just take them, because the bikes shoots forward every time I touch the gas. It's exhilarating.
Me happy.
Stephen, it took me a while but I think that I found the mistake in your logic. I marked the sentence that leads to the mistake. As one can see from Chart 3, the ECU is not programmed to
"see that when the throttle is fully closed, the TPS voltage is 1.46V"
but instead, the ECU is programmed to
"see that when the TPS voltage is 1.46V, the throttle is fully closed" --> although in our example it isn't because we stopped it from closing by using a Go-Cruise.
Hence, any voltage below the 1.46 threshold will be seen by the ECU still as 0% throttle opening (because it cannot deal with negative %) and will be injecting the fuel for that throttle opening, which as Rembrandt pointed out, is idle. Therefore, although the throttle is slightly open (between 0% and 20%), the ECU thinks that it's fully closed and it injects too little (just enough for idle) --> lean condition. In fact, if the 100% throttle opening is correctly calibrated, the bike will run lean up until that point, all over the throttle opening range.
I added a table below, and also an example in which the WOT has been incorrectly calibrated. In particular, a case in which at the time of calibrating the full open throttle, the throttle was opened only to 80%, so the ECU learns that 4V mean 100% throttle opening. The bike will then run rich.
For my table, I assumed that the voltages go from 0V at closed throttle, to 5V at wide open throttle. I also assumed that at closed throttle the engine needs 1 cm³ of fuel (to keep it at idle), and at WOT it needs 20 cm³.
BTW, I am an engineer, but that's no guarantee, is it?
Regarding Rembrandt's measurements, of course the voltages stay the same. It's not important the voltages that the ECU sees, what's important is how it converts them to throttle opening.
Finally had a chance to read through everything... Had a 200 mile round trip to Hood River for work yesterday.
Anyways, OK...
So Rembrandt, you have the KDS equipment. Good to know, and if you don't mind, I'm going to pick apart the test procedure a bit, and someone PLEASE tell me if my thinking on this is wrong. I'm not trying to insult anyones intelligence, but I am going to break this down Barney style to make sure we're working on common assumptions/ facts (if they are)
THE GLOWING LINES ARE THING'S I AM NOT 100% SURE ON. I WILL CHANGE/ UNGLOW THEM UPON CONFIRMATION.
The TPS, much like a volume knob on a guitar/ computer speakers/ etc, reads from 0%, to 100% (unless you are a kid in a garage band, then it goes to 11...).
TPS: (25-75% values determined with an interpolation calculator, for demonstration purposes only, these are NOT hard tested values. 0 and 100% values are tested per Rembrant using KDS above, may vary slightly between bikes)
[CHART 1] [THESE VALUES NEVER CHANGE EVER!]
TPS 0% = 0.68V
TPS 25% = 1.46V
TPS 50% = 2.23V
TPS 75% = 3.01V
TPS 100%= 3.78V
These TPS numbers represent 0% throttle opening, and 100% throttle opening. These Voltage numbers represent to the ECU how open the butterflies are. For the engine to run properly, the engineers have determined that it needs a certain air/ fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. The ECU reads the voltage from the TPS, and interpolates the Min/ Max voltages into percentages. The ECU then takes this percentage, and tells the injectors to spray in the appropriate amount of fuel for that percentage of the throttle being open. The amount of fuel per volt is (from my understanding) hard-programmed into the ECU, and cannot be changed without flashing the ECU. (At this point it goes from 'TPS throttle 0%', to the 'ECU throttle 0%' based on the voltage that the ECU is reading as 0%)
Now for all intensive purposes, lets say that the ECU tells the injectors to spray the following amounts of fuel per Volts: (FUEL CC's ARE MADE UP NUMBERS IN MY HEAD FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY!!!)
[CHART 2] [THESE VOLTAGES CAN CHANGE BASED ON THE CALIBRATION TO THE ECU. THE CC'S PER ECU PERCENTAGE NEVER CHANGES! (<<Edited to be correct info)
ECU 0% - 0.68V - 100CC
ECU 25% - 1.46V - 200CC
ECU 50% - 2.23V - 300CC
ECU 75% - 3.01V - 400CC
ECU 100% - 3.78V - 500CC
Now lets say you have an un-calibrated system. For this demo we'll use TPS 25% TPS 100% (This is what I did in the video, by setting the throttle lock to ~25% and running the calibration.) Now the ECU and TPS are mismatched. The ECU see that when the throttle is fully closed (at idle), the TPS Voltage is 1.46V, therefore it needs to spray 100CC's of fuel in. (We know that in reality this is not the case, and that will be explained below)
[CHART 3]
ECU 0% - 1.46V - 100CC
ECU 25% - 2.04V - 200CC
ECU 50% - 2.62V - 300CC
ECU 75% - 3.20V - 400CC
ECU 100% - 3.78V - 500CC
The ECU is now programmed to see that when the throttle is fully closed (at idle), the TPS Voltage is 1.46V, Therefore it needs to spray 100CC's of fuel in. Because it's a simple computer, it cannot detect a negative percentage. When you close the throttle completely, the ECU is putting out it's current amount of fuel for idle, set for TPS 25% (1.46V - 100CC), because according to the ECU's calibrated programming, TPS 25% = ECU 0%. Remember, the ECU cannot read negative percentages, so if ECU 0% (idle) is 1.46V, when you go below that (to TPS 0%, TRUE idle) it still sprays 100CC's of fuel. Now the bike is idling great. But as you open the throttle between TPS 0% and 25, it will still be spraying it's minimum 100CC's of fuel. That is not NEARLY enough to satisfy the thirst of the cylinders when that much air is going in. This costs lots of power, and can cause the bike to hickup, or even die.
[CHART 4]
Correct
Fuel CC
TPS 0% = 0.68V 100CC ECU OUT OF RANGE - 100CC - LEAN CONDITION (HESITATION OCCURS HERE due to insufficiant combustion)
TPS 25% = 1.46V 200CC ECU 0% - 1.46V - 100CC - A/F Mixture starts to finally increase (SPIKE IN RPMs OCCURS HERE)
TPS 50% = 2.23V 300CC ECU 33% - 2.23V - 232CC - Lean condition, less power, requiring slightly more throttle, using more fuel to maintain speed
TPS 75% = 3.01V 400CC ECU 67% - 3.01V - 364CC - Less lean condition, but still down on power, requiring slightly more throttle so on...
TPS 100%= 3.78V 500CC ECU 100% - 3.78V - 500CC - Proper A/F mixture
By properly calibrating the system, the ECU is reading the correct butterfly opening, therefore is putting the correct amount of fuel in.
Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking... I'm not an engineer.
[EDITED 23SEP2014 to have updated numbers and explanation regarding CHART 3 and 4]
bump.
After analysing the the theory behind it, I gave a try to this procedure. Sure enough, I noticed a few things:
- idle went down by about 150 rpm. I like it at 1150 and it went down to 1000. Same temperature, etc. It just went down.
- hesitation is gone. Period. I have been fighting this phenomenon since day 1 and been nothing but frustrated. When I first got the bike I was amazed at how tame it was, but after a while I wanted a 1352 cc engine (which I paid for), not a 600 cc. So flies out, PCV in. Power and torque were restored, specially under 4000 rpm, but the hesitation (coughing) continued. That off-on throttle counter-explosion that bothered me every single time. Next I added a throttle tamer. Better, but absolutely still there. It just got easier to avoid it by being gentle, but I don't like being gentle when I'm chasing (or, more often than not, being chased) by my friends in their bikes. Now it's solved. I just can't get her to do it. It's great.
- I have sell this bike. I will kill myself. I'm so happy with how the engine responds, specially when I see small gaps in traffic that I usually gave up on because of the stupid hesitation. Now I just take them, because the bikes shoots forward every time I touch the gas. It's exhilarating.
Me happy.
Well, I guess if everyone is doing it, I might as well too..Brian said he was going to try it, but I don't remember ever seeing a report. I tried it and it did drop the idle down a little, but I never had any problems per se, before the recalibration.
<snip>
but I never had any problems per se, before the recalibration.
I'm not having any issues with my bike except that it's too fast.
...or repaint it.More expensive than the plug wires. tp