When I was working to clean up my map for a set of D&D slipons, out of all the dyno runs made, the highest horsepower figures were obtained around 13.8 to 14:1. Seemed odd to me but that's how it worked out. The difference amounted to around 1 horsepower and that was from AFR readings of around 12.8 to 13.2:1.

 

Danno,
Is that 1 HP gain from peak just peak or under the entire curve?
And is that 1 HP gain from ~13.0 to ~14.0 AFR?

So is yours set at WOT between 13.8 and 14.1:1 now?
Interesting info indeed, Thanks.

I have a feeling that what I will need to do is get a flat line at 13.0, then record acceleration times to 9 grand (no track close by). Then adjust the whole line down, compare, then up and compare, etc. I'll post my findings for sure, as this information seems scarce, and seems ever increasingly usefull.

 

My best pull ever was at 14to1 also.

 

Danno,
Is that 1 HP gain from peak just peak or under the entire curve?
And is that 1 HP gain from ~13.0 to ~14.0 AFR?

So is yours set at WOT between 13.8 and 14.1:1 now?
Interesting info indeed, Thanks.

I have a feeling that what I will need to do is get a flat line at 13.0, then record acceleration times to 9 grand (no track close by). Then adjust the whole line down, compare, then up and compare, etc. I'll post my findings for sure, as this information seems scarce, and seems ever increasingly usefull.

A flat line AFR ratio sounds good but it does not give the best power through the RPM range. Look at the dyno printouts. The first half of a dyno run almost looks like a 360 degree sine wave before it goes flat. In other words best power is achieved by starting out lean then going rich and then hitting the ultimate ratio from about 4000 rpm and up.

 

Danno,
Is that 1 HP gain from peak just peak or under the entire curve?
And is that 1 HP gain from ~13.0 to ~14.0 AFR?

So is yours set at WOT between 13.8 and 14.1:1 now?
Interesting info indeed, Thanks.

I have a feeling that what I will need to do is get a flat line at 13.0, then record acceleration times to 9 grand (no track close by). Then adjust the whole line down, compare, then up and compare, etc. I'll post my findings for sure, as this information seems scarce, and seems ever increasingly usefull.

Peak HP to Peak HP. I didn't spend the time to compare each point or major points on the chart. The adjustments I made were basically in the 80% and 100% throttle positions as I was trying to see what I could squeeze out of that combo. The rest of the map was done first by rolling through the gears at various RPMs and throttle positions. I made a few adjustments there but it was fairly close to start with as the baseline was a map for my combo that I pulled from the Dynojet site. I have just found that their maps tend to be rich and wanted to fine tune things to my bike.

 

You guys are great! Thanks for the excellent info.

Anything else that I could looks at?

 

My best pull ever was at 14to1 also.

13.5 TO 13.8 HAS MADE THE MOST POWER ON OUR DYNO.

 

13.5 TO 13.8 HAS MADE THE MOST POWER ON OUR DYNO.

Rick,
How is drivability with that a/f ratio?

 

Awesome!

I have done a LOT of data logging with the AFR this week, and learned a lot. I have so much data that I wrote/am writing software to analyze the data for me.
Right now my targets are
TPS 0, 2, 5 and 10, 20+
AFR 13.0, 13.5, 14.7, 13.5

I just can't seem to figure out the 0% TPS. The computer will actually shut down the fuel for at least the top 5K RPM's, then it gradually leans it in. Any thoughts on this?

Stay tuned, more to come.

 

Gas mileage is much improved, probably around 20 more miles on a tank of gas.

Performance with an AFR of 13.5 is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than the map that I started with, which was PIG rich (As low as 10.8, looks like it had a target of about 12.5 across the board on my bike)

 

air1kdf, I found on mine that running an AFR in the mid 13's was the best for great road manners and power combined. I get 46+ mpg and she runs real strong.

Mike

 

13.5 TO 13.8 HAS MADE THE MOST POWER ON OUR DYNO.

Are that Race Tuner values or measured figures?
Did anyone compare / validate the Race Tuner settings?
I mean: do RT AFR settings match the measured values on the dyno with a setup that fully matches the RT calibation file???
This would be really interesting stuff...

Jan

 

Jan,
How could it match without pixie dust? Seriously, anything can change the AFR. Different pipes, air cleaner, lid on/off, and just the differences in bikes. I bet that somebody could get a calibration file real close though. Note that could and did are two different things.

The bottom line is that if you don't use a wideband, you really don't know what you have. I was surprised that mine was so far out. How's your gas mileage? LOL

 

That's exactly what I wrote above:
validate RT settings where the calibration file fully matches the bikes setup
Modern engines have very low manufactoring tolerances - they must all be pretty much the same with very litte deviation otherwise they could not comply to valid emission rules!

If best AFR performance is around 13 or even higher then why do the "stock" RT settings differ so drastically??? I talk about some 20 % difference and not pixie dust!!!
Are the RT devellopers nuts or how shall I interprete this?

Were above given figures measured with a wideband probe?

 

Are that Race Tuner values or measured figures?
Did anyone compare / validate the Race Tuner settings?
I mean: do RT AFR settings match the measured values on the dyno with a setup that fully matches the RT calibation file???
This would be really interesting stuff...

Jan

MEASURED ON OUR DYNO,NO THEY DON'T MATCH AS THE R.T. IS A CALCULATION,THE DYNO IS ACTUAL.THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE R.T.
TO MONITOR A/F. THE CALCULATIONS IN THE R.T.ARE A REFERENCE
FOR THE PROGRAM.AND YES WE HAVE TESTED MANY BIKES AND DOWN LOADS
AND IF YOU DON'T VARY FROM THE PARTS INSTALLED THEY ARE CLOSE.
TO LEAN IMHO.

 

That's exactly what I wrote above:
validate RT settings where the calibration file fully matches the bikes setup
Modern engines have very low manufactoring tolerances - they must all be pretty much the same with very litte deviation otherwise they could not comply to valid emission rules!

If best AFR performance is around 13 or even higher then why do the "stock" RT settings differ so drastically??? I talk about some 20 % difference and not pixie dust!!!
Are the RT devellopers nuts or how shall I interprete this?

Were above given figures measured with a wideband probe?

Jan,

If you look at the chart in 3 dimensions you see that they vary the AFR based on the engine load and rpm. 13.7 - 14.1, for instance, is a very good number for light to moderate load cruising where 13.1 - 13.5 is a great place to make power as in WOT.

The RT manual gives a nice description of this and explains the recommended AFR and the direction you should take it if you want more power or more economy.

One reason we see such flat AFR curves on the dyno charts is because that's only a 2 dimensional measurement. Every single dyno chart posted on this site is WOT. While that might be great if you're drag racing or want to win a bench race with your buddies dyno sheets it's virtually worthless on the street.

That's why I'm done with dynos and their Neanderthal operators. I'm either going to switch back to the V-Modded SE's for which I have a very good map (thanks to the baseline work Harley did) or buy a WEGO2 recording AFR system and tie it into my bike for RPM and throttle position and use real world readings to tune my map. Heck, I may just wait until they have their complete system and replace the ECM at the same time. This way it can go into a block learn mode and do the calculations for me.

Here's a link http://www.daytona-twintec.com/

 

Again I think we have a misunderstanding here.
I never cared for anythingelse BUT WOT, my aim has always been to improve max performance, I don't care about MPG and fuel saving and such.
"Performance" means "Power" means "kick ass"


For your better understanding I attach a screendump showing one of the race tuner calibration files.
Have a look at the 100 kPa (WOT) row and you will see that the AFR drops down to even 12,0 at 9000 RPM.

If theory and reality differs considerably (as Rick kindly remarked) then why is that so?
a) HD is drastically wrong and supplies a race tuner package with deliberately wrong settings?
b) There's something wrong with Ricks probe? Could it be that the probe shows too lean values because the measuring location is too far away from the engine (false air&low temperature)?

I have started another test with a slightly leaner map and can agree that the bike feels better with it. It's too early to come up with real precise figures yet.

regards,

Jan

 

THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE R.T.
TO MONITOR A/F.

Wrong! Mine can

 

Jan is that an actual AF ratio or an estimated ratio? Wouldn't you need an O2 sensor for any real readings of AF ratio.

 

Jan is that an actual AF ratio or an estimated ratio? Wouldn't you need an O2 sensor for any real readings of AF ratio.

Hey guys - don't you read all my posts? :whack:
http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6415&page=4

That's a lambda / O2 sensor on the picture, unfortunately not wideband.
I wouldn't go so far to say that it's real calibrated data but it is good enough for comparing different AFR's and to validate lean or rich in general. I've meanwhile made many many runs with it and I can definitely confirm that the outcoming data is astonishing stable/reproducable.

The screenshot showing the RT programme shows one of the "stock" AFR tables that come along with the RT package. It is not the one I'm using now, it is just an example for mark to show him what the RT settings are...

Rick stated that most of the RT files are close to lean (right?) - now how should we interprete this?

An AFR of 13,5 is "close to lean" in my opinion, at least it is miles away from 12,0. On the other hand Rick also wrote that AFR around 13,5 is best for performance - so can we all conclude that the RT files are indeed quite close to the optimum (performance wise)?

Or in other words:

The "stock" RT AFR settings at WOT of approx 12,5 are measured on most dynos as 13,5 which is best for performance.

My work with the RT has always been focussed on increasing the RPM bandwith. In my opinion the engine is intentionally limited at RPM's above 8500 1/min by excessive rich AFR in combination with excessive late ignition settings.

 

Jan,

If you look at the chart in 3 dimensions you see that they vary the AFR based on the engine load and rpm. 13.7 - 14.1, for instance, is a very good number for light to moderate load cruising where 13.1 - 13.5 is a great place to make power as in WOT.

The RT manual gives a nice description of this and explains the recommended AFR and the direction you should take it if you want more power or more economy.

One reason we see such flat AFR curves on the dyno charts is because that's only a 2 dimensional measurement. Every single dyno chart posted on this site is WOT. While that might be great if you're drag racing or want to win a bench race with your buddies dyno sheets it's virtually worthless on the street.

That's why I'm done with dynos and their Neanderthal operators. I'm either going to switch back to the V-Modded SE's for which I have a very good map (thanks to the baseline work Harley did) or buy a WEGO2 recording AFR system and tie it into my bike for RPM and throttle position and use real world readings to tune my map. Heck, I may just wait until they have their complete system and replace the ECM at the same time. This way it can go into a block learn mode and do the calculations for me.

Here's a link http://www.daytona-twintec.com/

WELL ON OUR GRAPHS THEY ARE FLAT FROM MAPPING AT ALL THROTLE
POSITIONS, THE EDDY BRAKE PROVIDES US WITH REAL WORLD LOADS ON
THE DRIVE TRAIN.THAT WAY THE TECH IS'NT RIDING IT REMAPPING,RIDING
IT REMAPPING,ECT.I'AM NOT SAYING THAT AFTER MAPPING UNDER LOAD,
AND TEST RIDING THAT IT'S 100%,BUT RARELY HE HAS TO ADDRESS TWEAKING THE MAP.DON'T COUNT ON THE FACTORY TO SWITCH TO A
CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM ANYTIME SOON.ALSO IF THE DYNO DOSENT
HAVE A WIDE BAND O2 SENSOR THEY ARE MISSING THE BOAT.
THE RACE TUNER CAN NOT READ AFR THEY ARE CALCULATIONS
ONLY.NOT EVEN CLOSE UNDER LOAD ACCORDING TO OUR WIDE BAND. :2cents:

 

WELL ON OUR GRAPHS THEY ARE FLAT FROM MAPPING AT ALL THROTLE
POSITIONS, THE EDDY BRAKE PROVIDES US WITH REAL WORLD LOADS ON
THE DRIVE TRAIN.THAT WAY THE TECH IS'NT RIDING IT REMAPPING,RIDING
IT REMAPPING,ECT.I'AM NOT SAYING THAT AFTER MAPPING UNDER LOAD,
AND TEST RIDING THAT IT'S 100%,BUT RARELY HE HAS TO ADDRESS TWEAKING THE MAP.DON'T COUNT ON THE FACTORY TO SWITCH TO A
CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM ANYTIME SOON.ALSO IF THE DYNO DOSENT
HAVE A WIDE BAND O2 SENSOR THEY ARE MISSING THE BOAT.
THE RACE TUNER CAN NOT READ AFR THEY ARE CALCULATIONS
ONLY.NOT EVEN CLOSE UNDER LOAD ACCORDING TO OUR WIDE BAND. :2cents:

Dear Rick,

I feed my O2 probe signal into the ECM by faking the speed signal. Then I connect my laptop and start data logging with the RT interface while I ride.
The higher the "speed" the lower the AFR
Of course this is not very accurate but good enough for comparing different runs.
Use this solution on a dyno with a wideband sensor and you would get some nice results - the advantage is that you monitor all relevant engine data simultaneously with only one device.

As an example I attach two screenshots from two different runs made with the RT data logger.
The weather is getting better over here in Germany and I am eager to start testing soon again and to discuss the results with you soon.

 

Hey guys - don't you read all my posts? :whack:
http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6415&page=4

That's a lambda / O2 sensor on the picture, unfortunately not wideband.
I wouldn't go so far to say that it's real calibrated data but it is good enough for comparing different AFR's and to validate lean or rich in general. I've meanwhile made many many runs with it and I can definitely confirm that the outcoming data is astonishing stable/reproducable.

The screenshot showing the RT programme shows one of the "stock" AFR tables that come along with the RT package. It is not the one I'm using now, it is just an example for mark to show him what the RT settings are...

Rick stated that most of the RT files are close to lean (right?) - now how should we interprete this?

An AFR of 13,5 is "close to lean" in my opinion, at least it is miles away from 12,0. On the other hand Rick also wrote that AFR around 13,5 is best for performance - so can we all conclude that the RT files are indeed quite close to the optimum (performance wise)?

Or in other words:

The "stock" RT AFR settings at WOT of approx 12,5 are measured on most dynos as 13,5 which is best for performance.

My work with the RT has always been focussed on increasing the RPM bandwith. In my opinion the engine is intentionally limited at RPM's above 8500 1/min by excessive rich AFR in combination with excessive late ignition settings.

LET ME CLEAR THIS UP AS FAR AS WHAT I SAID. I SAID THEY WHERE CLOSE
CLOSE BEING A POINT AND A HALF. MOST WE'VE TESTED ARE 14:1 TO 15:1
NOW TO CLARIFY,NOT ALL BIKES WE HAVE TESTED ARE VRODS. I'VE CHECKED ALLMOST ALL OF THE CALIBRATIONS AVAIL FOR ALL HARLEYS
AND FOUND MOST ARE ABOVE 13.5:1.

 

... I feed my O2 probe signal into the ECM by faking the speed signal...

Jan-Dirk, since our old discussions about your modified RT, I've read someplace that the ECM uses the speed sensor data in calculating the fuel delivery. I think it may only come into play for idle, when the ECM detects that your "Speed" and RPM don't match up, i.e your clutch lever is pulled in. But this could affect your Lambda readings if the ECM is using your false speed readings in calculating fuel delivery. If this is happening at other than idle, your whole concept could have a flaw. You are probably ok at WOT, but I just thought you should be aware of this.

To support my tuning and other stuff, I've purchased the Twin Scan 88 data logger, and the new "two analog input channel" DynoJet Wideband Commander. I found the best prices for each on eBay. I'm in the process of hooking up the Wideband Commander.

 

Hey guys - don't you read all my posts? :whack:
http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6415&page=4

No Jan, at one time I did read all the post on the forum but with an average of about 650 a day now I just don't get the time to read them all anymore.

Max