Ok, so my lovely wife took over the BBQ so I could execute this important test...lol. She's so awesome...lol.
Ok, I did four checks with the KDS:
1. Checked my TPS readings when initially turning the bike on.
0% was .68v and 100% (WOT) was 3.78v
2. Did full calibration as described on page one of this thread, and then checked TPS readings again.
0% was .69v and 100% (WOT) was 3.78v
3. Did partial calibration...twisted the throttle 0-50% twice, and then checked TPS readings again.
0% was .68v and 100% (WOT) was 3.78v
4. Did second partial calibration...twisted throttle 0-75% twice, and then checked TPS readings again.
0% was .68v and 100% (WOT) was 3.78v
Now, it should be noted that my 0% reading varies slightly between .66v and .69v depending on how hard I close the throttle. This is why aftermarket devices like the PCV have adjustable settings for 0% and 100%. Although the voltage readings of the individual TPS units will all be the same, the 'actual' closed and open throttle voltages will vary from bike to bike slightly due to throttle cable adjustments, idle settings, throttle body cleanliness? etc, etc.
I should also mention that my C14 is/was working perfectly fine...no complaints. It does display some throttle snatch, but I think this is pretty common with these FI set-ups. I think it has something to do with the transition from the IAP map to the TPS map, but that's just a guess based on where it happens on my particular bike.
I'm not saying that this TPS calibration doesn't work...but the numbers above show what my bike did before and after this procedure.
HTH,
Rem
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]