Joined
·
5,238 Posts
Have you ever looked at or analyzed some of the maps that either DynoJet gives you as defaults or from a custom tune? I literally have studied hundreds of maps and am confused by them for several reasons. Some maps will go from a 15 to a +40 in just a single RPM interval? I have had a hard time believing this can be optimal settings for a digital fuel injection system. Being a person of numbers and always trying to understand things in a more pure mathematical sense, I figured I would see if I could build a mathematical model that would optimize engine performance with minimal dyno runs. With the help from some sophisticated software I have access to, I have found some really interesting stuff and thought I should share it. This is solid data from my first full tests that were only run at 100% throttle to make sure the model will work. It can then be easily be extrapolated into all throttle positions and RPMs quite easily. This work was done with fuel injection mapping and timing mapping via PCIII usb with a timing box.
The Bike
04 SV1000 (My 32000 mile commuter machine)
Freshly serviced and tuned
Freshly cleaned and oiled BMC air filter
Snorkel in place (Yes, I left it in!)
Fresh oil change and filter with Motorex
M4 full exhaust system
87 octane pump fuel
PCIII usb and timing box
Data collection
The software I am using, with a few input parameters spits out a small series of fuel and timing maps to be run on the dyno from which torque data will collected. These runs include redundancy for prediction of errors including inconsistencies in dyno measurements. The only data needed is the torque values, no AFR requirement because 13.2:1 does not always give best power under certain conditions. If you can tune to give best torque at every interval, who cares what the AFR is. With all the data collected from the dyno runs it is then fitted to a 5th order polynomial equation and can show the relation and interaction between the RPM, throttle position, fuel change and timing. With this data, you can then predict optimal timing and fueling parameters for every position in the fuel and timing maps. Since the software understands the interaction between all the parameters it can often find optimal settings that are far better than the methods of find best fuel, then tweek timing. The adding of parameters does make it more complicated and time consuming but, it will still cut the total dyno time down and give significantly better results. A full system fuel map (all RPMs and throttle positions) w/o timing can be done in 1632 dyno runs. You just switch maps quickly, make sure bike is at target temp and make a pull, then repeat. So, after simulating data for quite some time to work out a few kinks, I rolled up the bike on the dyno and had at it. Thanks to my good friend Arlan at LED Performance who lets me use his dyno when needed. Here are my results, I was quite shocked. These numbers do not tell the whole story, but the included graphs do.
0 Fuel map and 0 timing map
Peak torque 67.5 ft lbs
Average torque 62.2 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 61.7 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 63.0 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 107.8
Average HP 85.8 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 67.6 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 101.4 (700010000RPM)
Optimal fuel map and 0 timing map
Peak torque 68.0 ft lbs
Average torque 62.9 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 62.3 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 63.8 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 109.7
Average HP 86.7 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 68.2 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 102.6 (700010000RPM)
Optimal fuel map and optimal timing map
Peak torque 68.3 ft lbs
Average torque 63.3 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 62.9 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 64.0 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 110.0
Average HP 87.3 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 68.9 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 102.9 (700010000RPM)
By displaying the numbers this way I think it displays my philosophy about what makes a bike fast. Peak numbers are often held up as the goal. Pull out the calculus books though and integrate under the torque curves. Two bikes that have the same peak numbers can be wildly different when you get down to real performance. Look for large average numbers, not peak and you will get a winner…
The Bike
04 SV1000 (My 32000 mile commuter machine)
Freshly serviced and tuned
Freshly cleaned and oiled BMC air filter
Snorkel in place (Yes, I left it in!)
Fresh oil change and filter with Motorex
M4 full exhaust system
87 octane pump fuel
PCIII usb and timing box
Data collection
The software I am using, with a few input parameters spits out a small series of fuel and timing maps to be run on the dyno from which torque data will collected. These runs include redundancy for prediction of errors including inconsistencies in dyno measurements. The only data needed is the torque values, no AFR requirement because 13.2:1 does not always give best power under certain conditions. If you can tune to give best torque at every interval, who cares what the AFR is. With all the data collected from the dyno runs it is then fitted to a 5th order polynomial equation and can show the relation and interaction between the RPM, throttle position, fuel change and timing. With this data, you can then predict optimal timing and fueling parameters for every position in the fuel and timing maps. Since the software understands the interaction between all the parameters it can often find optimal settings that are far better than the methods of find best fuel, then tweek timing. The adding of parameters does make it more complicated and time consuming but, it will still cut the total dyno time down and give significantly better results. A full system fuel map (all RPMs and throttle positions) w/o timing can be done in 1632 dyno runs. You just switch maps quickly, make sure bike is at target temp and make a pull, then repeat. So, after simulating data for quite some time to work out a few kinks, I rolled up the bike on the dyno and had at it. Thanks to my good friend Arlan at LED Performance who lets me use his dyno when needed. Here are my results, I was quite shocked. These numbers do not tell the whole story, but the included graphs do.
0 Fuel map and 0 timing map
Peak torque 67.5 ft lbs
Average torque 62.2 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 61.7 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 63.0 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 107.8
Average HP 85.8 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 67.6 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 101.4 (700010000RPM)
Optimal fuel map and 0 timing map
Peak torque 68.0 ft lbs
Average torque 62.9 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 62.3 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 63.8 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 109.7
Average HP 86.7 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 68.2 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 102.6 (700010000RPM)
Optimal fuel map and optimal timing map
Peak torque 68.3 ft lbs
Average torque 63.3 ft lbs (450010000RPM)
Average torque 62.9 ft lbs (45007000RPM)
Average torque 64.0 ft lbs (700010000RPM)
Peak HP 110.0
Average HP 87.3 (450010000RPM)
Average HP 68.9 (45007000RPM)
Average HP 102.9 (700010000RPM)
By displaying the numbers this way I think it displays my philosophy about what makes a bike fast. Peak numbers are often held up as the goal. Pull out the calculus books though and integrate under the torque curves. Two bikes that have the same peak numbers can be wildly different when you get down to real performance. Look for large average numbers, not peak and you will get a winner…
Attachments

235 KB Views: 522