Guys (and Gals),

We have an opportunity to have a different RPM scale with the .MT7 files TTS is developing for the MasterTune. If you remember, back before 2006 the Race Tuner had a different RPM scale in the VE tables than it did in the newer files. Harley changed this scale to get more granularity in the midrange, where they needed more to help with emissions testing. That reduced the granularity in the higher RPM range and introduced the 9000 RPM limit that so many complained about.

We need to make suggestions based on our experience with this motor, especially when we get into better cams, intakes and pipes.

Understand that even though the scale ends at 9000 the ECM will work fine up to whatever redline you choose, it just uses the values in the last column from then on out. This isn't an exercise to extend the range of the ECM, we just need to adjust the scale so it makes more sense based on how we use the motor. Also understand that too much granularity in the higher RPM's will make it more difficult to tune since it's nearly impossible to collect data in those cells without putting a lot of unnecessary stress on the motor.

I think we have 15 columns and 23 rows to work with, if we can get 1 more column and 1 more row I would add 50% TPS and 10000 RPM to the table below. From what I've seen I suggest the following values.

TPS %: 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100

RPM
1000
1200
1500
2000
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500

This gives us the granularity to tune in the meat of the powerband we cruise in as well as at the upper range for the racers in the group.

Please comment on this and make your own suggestions so everyone's opinion can be heard.

Mark,

I would like to see 5250 and 5750 as well. I believe that between 3000-6000 is where I do most of my riding anyway. :2cents:

Mark,

I would like to see 5250 and 5750 as well. I believe that between 3000-6000 is where I do most of my riding anyway. :2cents:

So, maybe something like:

RPM
1000
1250
1500
2000
2500
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
9000
10000

Or even more radical, since what happens under 3000 is basically irrelevant:

RPM
1000
1250
1500
2000
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
9000
10000

I agree, the more cells we can get between 15-60% TP and 2750-6000 RPM the better. From what I've seen, is there really a need to have 5 TP between 0 and 10? In most cases you ignore most of the data less than 5 TP anyways.

I agree, the more cells we can get between 15-60% TP and 2750-6000 RPM the better. From what I've seen, is there really a need to have 5 TP between 0 and 10? In most cases you ignore most of the data less than 5 TP anyways.

Those of you who have data logs, take a look at where your throttle spends most of it's time. I'm not talking about on the track or on the dyno, I'm talking about around town or on the highway.

From what I've seen the area between 5% and 20% is where you spend 80% of your time and the area under 10% is more than half of that. It's rare to see anything above 25% throttle unless you are doing sustained high speed runs or a lot of acceleration and by definition, acceleration is a short term event.

On my bike, cruising down the local secondary roads between 45 and 55 I'm at, on average, 7% TP. That's also the area where the most rideablity issues pop up such as lean surge, deceleration popping, etc.

If you have data logs that show different then post them up. I'd love to see some data logs for 80+ mph highway cruises to see where the TPS is (we already know the RPMs will be between 4500 and 5500).

Those of you who have data logs, take a look at where your throttle spends most of it's time. I'm not talking about on the track or on the dyno, I'm talking about around town or on the highway.

From what I've seen the area between 5% and 20% is where you spend 80% of your time and the area under 10% is more than half of that. It's rare to see anything above 25% throttle unless you are doing sustained high speed runs or a lot of acceleration and by definition, acceleration is a short term event.

On my bike, cruising down the local secondary roads between 45 and 55 I'm at, on average, 7% TP. That's also the area where the most rideablity issues pop up such as lean surge, deceleration popping, etc.

If you have data logs that show different then post them up. I'd love to see some data logs for 80+ mph highway cruises to see where the TPS is (we already know the RPMs will be between 4500 and 5500).

Thanks for the info. I am new to this and definitely not as experienced as you and others are.
I know most of the cells fill up below 15% but I wasn't sure where exactly the TP was during most riding. I would have guessed closer to 25-30% but that was just guessing at my hand position on the throttle. I may have to make the TP's on my throttle control and do some runs just for shits and grins.
My thought was to try and get more info on acceleration. I know the TS does a good job in the cruising range but has a hard time getting much info beyond that.

RPM
1000
1200
1500
2000
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500

This gets my vote.

I'd love to see some data logs for 80+ mph highway cruises to see where the TPS is (we already know the RPMs will be between 4500 and 5500).
Ride to K.C. with Mat J. you can even see some 90+ mph cruise.

Ride to K.C. with Mat J. you can even see some 90+ mph cruise.

And I bet my laptop battery won't go dead between gas stops :D

And I bet my laptop battery won't go dead between gas stops
Probably not, you get to stop every 100 miles for gas. I show 12 to 13% tps at 80mph and 14 to 15% at 85mph. 1130 cc, 28 tooth ft. pulley and 180 rear tire. I can get some more data this weekend.

Or even more radical, since what happens under 3000 is basically irrelevant:

RPM
1000
1250
1500
2000
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
9000
10000


I like this one.

Rpm
1000
1200
1500
2000
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500

Do you really need 1% tps ?

Do you really need 1% tps ?

Perhaps not but the TPS resolution needs to be higher below 20% than above because that's where you spend most of the time, from the riding data logs I've seen.

How about we drop 1%, shift left @ 30% and add 25%

How about we drop 1%, shift left @ 30% and add 25%Sounds good to me.

I like this one.

I agree with this one, the more you can do between 3000 and 6000 the better the tune will be!

I agree with dropping 1%TPS and adding 25!

How about:

TPS %: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100

RPM
1000
1250
1500
2000
2500
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
8000
9000
10000

It removes the 1%, adds 2500 and removes 7500.

If you look at most maps you'll see the area from 7000 - 9000 is much smoother than the lower midrange, partly due to the lack of time spent in the higher RPMs to collect data and partly because it's such a transient area for most riders.

Looks good Mark :thumb:

I like it.

How about:

TPS %: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100

RPM
1000
1250
1500
2000
2500
3000
3250
3500
3750
4000
4250
4500
4750
5000
5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
8000
9000
10000

It removes the 1%, adds 2500 and removes 7500.

If you look at most maps you'll see the area from 7000 - 9000 is much smoother than the lower midrange, partly due to the lack of time spent in the higher RPMs to collect data and partly because it's such a transient area for most riders.

Looks like a winner. Now, How can we get our Twinscan II plus to work with these new calibration cells? :confused:

Looks like a winner. Now, How can we get our Twinscan II plus to work with these new calibration cells? :confused:

That is the million dollar question, maybe Steve Cole will develop a like device that is more interactive with this software.

Mark I think that is the best configuration!

I like this most recent one, Mark - was not happy about the big jump from 2-3k and you addressed that. Although you don't spend a lot of time in that range, it can be twitch and necessary RPMS in city traffic or parking lots. I also like the granularity of the lower range TPS - I find that 90% of my riding is at TPS values under 15% - ususally closer to 10%, even when cruising at 70mph. Do we really need a 10k cell over a 9500, though? At what point does a map begin using a cell's values - when it his that threshold or midway between it and the previous cell? I have my rev limit set at 9600 - would I see that 10k value? And how much difference would there be between the 9k values and the split seconds anyone might spend at 10k? When I look athe thisw part of the chart:

5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
8000
9000
10000

I wonder if the top range might be tweaked lower and the values closer together, maybe:

5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
7750
8500
9250

That is the million dollar question, maybe Steve Cole will develop a like device that is more interactive with this software.

Mark I think that is the best configuration!

Trust me, good things will come from TTS in the near future, as long as the EPA keeps their nose out of things.

I like this most recent one, Mark - was not happy about the big jump from 2-3k and you addressed that. Although you don't spend a lot of time in that range, it can be twitch and necessary RPMS in city traffic or parking lots. I also like the granularity of the lower range TPS - I find that 90% of my riding is at TPS values under 15% - ususally closer to 10%, even when cruising at 70mph. Do we really need a 10k cell over a 9500, though? At what point does a map begin using a cell's values - when it his that threshold or midway between it and the previous cell? I have my rev limit set at 9600 - would I see that 10k value? And how much difference would there be between the 9k values and the split seconds anyone might spend at 10k? When I look athe thisw part of the chart:

5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
8000
9000
10000

I wonder if the top range might be tweaked lower and the values closer together, maybe:

5250
5500
5750
6000
6500
7000
7750
8500
9250

Understand that these points are just arbitrary delineations, it's rare that the motor ever finds an exact point on the map. All calculations are extrapolations from these points. The closer these points are to where the motor is working, the more likely you nail the correct value. Think of the VE table as a piece of rubber loosely stretched over the top of a box. The points in the table push up or pull down on the membrane causing peaks and valleys. Using this as a graphical representation of the extrapolation algorithm you can pick any point along the membrane and a VE value is returned. By moving the points closer together you add granularity and reduce the sharp peaks an valleys.

Now, your concern about the granularity below 3000 is understood but in that area of the map you are working with very low cylinder head pressures and other variables like limited airflow, minimal back pressure, etc. It's not nearly as important to "nail" the VE value in this area as it is to make sure your transitions are as smooth as possible. IMHO adding additional granularity in those areas will just make it take longer to tune and not provide much added value. I think the additional low TPS areas will address your slow speed concerns.

Conversely, above 7000 RPM there are 3 factors at work here that make it unnecessary to have a ton of granularity but still require tuning points above normal redline.

1. The motor rarely stays at one RPM for more than 1 or 2 ignition pulses.
2. It's difficult to gather reliable O2 information due to the lack of time spent at each data point
3. Many people are modifying their bikes with big cams, larger TB's and better pipes. They routinely operate their motors above 9000 RPM is race situations. There can be some significant changes to the flame front at these RPM's.

When you take all those into account, having 1000 RPM data points and extending them up to 10000 RPM satisfies the racer's needs for high RPM tuning while allowing the normal motor to have all the information it needs.

Did that make sense?

Looks like a winner. Now, How can we get our Twinscan II plus to work with these new calibration cells? :confused:

Just keep your WEGO in a safe place. TTS has some "ideas" on the drawing board assuming the MasterTune is a success and the EPA keeps their noses out of our garages.

Also, the TSII data points are defined in the PC software, not in the TSII firmware. Perhaps a call to Chris @ DTT to request that table be moved to a text file so you can manipulate the data would make the TSII more "future proof"

Did that make sense?

Very much so, Mark - thanks. So just to repeat and get it through my thick skull - data point between RPM and TPDS values are extrapolations? It is not a 'stair-step' as RPM or TPS thresholds are passed?

I did not know this... :chair:

Just keep your WEGO in a safe place. TTS has some "ideas" on the drawing board assuming the MasterTune is a success and the EPA keeps their noses out of our garages.

Also, the TSII data points are defined in the PC software, not in the TSII firmware. Perhaps a call to Chris @ DTT to request that table be moved to a text file so you can manipulate the data would make the TSII more "future proof"

Did you make the phone call to Chris yet? ;)

Trust me, good things will come from TTS in the near future, as long as the EPA keeps their nose out of things.

Mark,

I am looking forward to it!

Did you make the phone call to Chris yet? ;)

I haven't spoken to Chris in over a year. Sorry.

more cells more tuning time spent. of course i just hate when i am tuning and i have a lean spot half way between two cells that have the correct a/f. i do agree that for racing v-rods tuning cells to at least 10000rpm are needed. if i get brave tuning cells to 11000rpm might be handy