Valentine one and Canbus problems

[iehrlich]

I am having a very frustrating experience with my Valentine One falsing Laser alerts on a frequent basis. After lengthy analysis and troubleshooting with tech support at Valentine; they determined it was picking up pulses from the Bikes Canbus system (06 KGT). They admitted they knew of the problem but had no solution and suggested I disable the Laser alert and check back with them every six months to see if they had a fix. He said they could not contact me nor could they post the fix on the web site but that I would just have to call in.
Anyone else having problems?
You may want to avoid the Valentine if you are considering a new detector.

[Gilly]

The detector just needs a power and a ground to operate, correct?

Gilly

[StevieWonder]

Realistically, all the laser function does is tell you that you just got a ticket (assuming you were driving over the limit), not unlike instant-on radar activated at close range.

I wouldn't avoid the obvious and proven advantages of the Valentine because of laser issues. Nobody else's unit is going to protect you either.

[MCohen]

I can think of a couple of things to try--which I'm sure you've already done but it the obvious that is sometimes overlooked. I assume you used the hard-wire box (or cigarette lighter plug-in) that came with the V1 and didn't wire the V1 directly to power? Is the power coming directly from the battery and not from some other point?

Michael

[username]

i agree with everyone:

1. wire directly to the battery and see what happens. you should be fine. i've read many "my canbus is glitching with my _________ hooked up" threads and wiring to the battery is the oft-cited solution.

2. what good is a laser detector? i truly don't know. if the detector goes off, arent you being scanned? or does it somehow detect the guy twenty cars ahead of you being scanned? if it only can tell when you are being scanned, and you're speeding, arent you hosed?

i have no clue. running the risk of a thread hijack, what good are laser detectors other than for the people that say, "well i want to know when i am being monitored by the government?"

[StevieWonder]

2. what good is a laser detector? i truly don't know. if the detector goes off, arent you being scanned? or does it somehow detect the guy twenty cars ahead of you being scanned? if it only can tell when you are being scanned, and you're speeding, arent you hosed? f


Answer ... the sad truth is there is no existing laser detector that will give you protective, advance warning. The physics of the laser beam is that it is a very narrow of energy that is essentially undetectable prior to being defined as the target. The radar has a wider beam and spillover that is detectable in advance. The laser doesn't have that "sloppy" approach which renders it next to impossible to detect prior to be targeted. The technology for acceptably portable laser detectors does not currently exist.

The only advantage for the rider/driver is that the laser must be within a 5 degree angle of perpendicular to the front of the vehicle, that it won't operate properly through window glass and is unreliable in adverse weather (rain, snow, dense fog).

Bottom line ... a laser detector is a ticket announcer.

[Gilly]

By the initial post, it sounds like he is getting false readings, :
my Valentine One falsing Laser alerts on a frequent basis
So what happens is he is getting false ticket announcements.

To tell the truth, I wasn't aware of BMW cycles using CAN until the West Bend rally. I am pretty familiar with CAN systems on Mercedes from a previous job.

You can't really hook the detector up to a CAN line anyways, it can't act as a power supply. Typically you have a 2 wire system that send out opposite signals from each other, which will prevent radio-magnetic interference. This should make it pretty difficult for a CAN to interfere with something like a radar/laser detector (although the real worry is RMI from driving under power lines, etc). It would have to be interfering somehow by an inductive process, and I can't really see it happening (this is all low voltage schtuff), but hey, maybe Valentine is having problems lie this with CAN or I-BUS equipped cars, they found out the BMW bikes have data bus and now are assuming that the problem du jour on cars applies to the bikes as well. In the mean time it's easy to say "call us in 6 months".

Here is a pdf I found on laser detectors:
http://www.roadangel.co.uk/downloads/docs/How_Laser_Works.pdf

Gilly

[StevieWonder]

The point was that the laser alerts are of no value unless you want to start slowing before the cop actually arrives on your rear.

Select the laser warning function to off (a simple program selection does that on the Valentine) and, voila, no more false alerts/announcements and no wiring concerns.

Trying to fix a false alert problem is much ado about nothing since the laser function is 99% meaningless.

[NN9S]

Answer ... the sad truth is there is no existing laser detector that will give you protective, advance warning. The physics of the laser beam is that it is a very narrow of energy that is essentially undetectable prior to being defined as the target. The radar has a wider beam and spillover that is detectable in advance. The laser doesn't have that "sloppy" approach which renders it next to impossible to detect prior to be targeted. The technology for acceptably portable laser detectors does not currently exist.

The only advantage for the rider/driver is that the laser must be within a 5 degree angle of perpendicular to the front of the vehicle, that it won't operate properly through window glass and is unreliable in adverse weather (rain, snow, dense fog).

Bottom line ... a laser detector is a ticket announcer.

All I know is I have a V-1 on my bike and do get a warning when shoot with laser at vehicles in front of me. It has been enough a couple of times to save me. BTW the high mounted stop light of a Chevy Trailblazer and models like it in the GM line up will false the V-1 with a laser alert.

[Gilly]

I agree with you Stevie for sure, but I can see where it would get REAL irritating if you're SPEEDING along and think you just got painted by laser but you didn't. And now that I think of it, I know there is a problem, or WAS a problem say 10-15 years ago, when these radar detectors were also giving false warnings due to things like motion detectors (for example automatic opening doors on stores). Am wondering, if maybe the problem is some other technology out there that the detectors are picking up on in laser mode, and not something internal to the bike (or detector).

Gilly

[wmubrown]

The point was that the laser alerts are of no value unless you want to start slowing before the cop actually arrives on your rear.

Select the laser warning function to off (a simple program selection does that on the Valentine) and, voila, no more false alerts/announcements and no wiring concerns.

Trying to fix a false alert problem is much ado about nothing since the laser function is 99% meaningless.

I'm wasting my breath I am sure, but I have some to spare. You're rather vocal on this but by my own personal experience, it WORKS. Yes, in general, if it goes off, you were nailed. But I have counted 4 specific times I had a laser tag alert, SAW the officer with the gun, and he was pointing it at another vehicle.

Laser is a light beam. Yes, it's a tight beam, but light scatters when it hits reflective objects - the physics of the gun counts on that. You can, in certain situations, get an advanced warning of a laser trap. Yes, it counts on other vehicles being present and close-by.

To say it's ineffective, useless and to just turn it off is plain short sighted.

[wmubrown]

If Valentine is aware of the problem and has no solution, you can BET running power directly to the battery is NOT going to help. That's an easy solution and they would suggest it if that would solve the problem.

The Canbus system is essentially a computer network. Is has an oscillator that controls the timing of the signals carrying the data. That oscillator puts out RF noise and that is what is likely tripping your Valentine. What to do? In the cases of RF noise, shielding is usually the solution. However, if you shield the V1 from RF, you're also shielding it from the radar signals you're wanting it to detect! This clearly is not an option.

Plan #1: Relocate the V1. The oscillator for the canbus system is located somewhere under your seat. The further you place the V1 from it, the less RF you will pick up. This is an easy experiment, just grab the V1, and try it in different locations to see if it improves the situation.

Plan #2: A little more difficult than #1, RF noise can travel through the power system, thus all the suggestions to run power to the V1 directly to your battery. However, the power leads themselves can pick up noise so routing them is very important - you want them as far away as possible from the canbus computer too.

Plan #3: More difficult as this is not an item you can go buy off a shelf: putting a power filter inline as close to the V1 as possible will remove any extraneous noise in the line and provide the V1 with nice, flat, DC. The V1 comes with a vehicle wiring harness, but is a simple noise choke (wires wrapped around a ferrite core) - you want an active noise filtering solution. Where? Well... not readily available actually, PM me, maybe we can experiment a bit or if you are handy with a soldering iron and electronics I can give you the 'plan'. Try the other suggestions first.

When wiring: keep wire leads as short as possible. Having a bundle of wire at either end because you "might" need a service loop is inviting noise into your system. If you are using the audio break out box, you should keep it REAL close to the V1 and keep it's pigtail lead between the two as short as possible also.

Report back any results, hopefully one of them helps.

[StevieWonder]

Yes, in general, if it goes off, you were nailed. But I have counted 4 specific times I had a laser tag alert, SAW the officer with the gun, and he was pointing it at another vehicle.

Yes, it can work in very specific and VERY LIMITED cases. But the sad reality is that 99% of the time you are dead meat. The older lasers, which may have been what you encountered, had a wider beam spread. My friend who is a traffic cop says the newer units are much more focused, don't require near the reflectivity from the target vehicle and are easier to aim. Just as earlier laser guns were subject to being "fooled" by headlights, the technology of the laser has far exceeded that of the laser detector.

I don't deny the occasional success story but, the laser detector is also subject to numerous false alerts from LED light sources. My original point was that the best laser detector is not nearly as reliable as the latest radar detectors and that it seemed the cost/benefit offset of attempting another brand for, hopefully, better laser detection was not likely to be beneficial.

[StevieWonder]

Is there a way to create a shield of some sort under the seat ??? something as simple as aluminum foil or ... ??? Seems too simple to be true but maybe there's another spin on the thought that might prove effective, easy and inexpensive.

[wmubrown]

I don't deny the occasional success story but, the laser detector is also subject to numerous false alerts from LED light sources. My original point was that the best laser detector is not nearly as reliable as the latest radar detectors and that it seemed the cost/benefit offset of attempting another brand for, hopefully, better laser detection was not likely to be beneficial.

Yes, agreed, very specific situations and upgrading for better laser is a waste. GM tail-lights are *the* worst (or best I guess, depending on your perspective) at generating false alerts. The newer V1's trip more than the old ones (10 years between the two models I've had).

Is there a way to create a shield of some sort under the seat ??? something as simple as aluminum foil or ... ??? Seems too simple to be true but maybe there's another spin on the thought that might prove effective, easy and inexpensive.

Yes, aluminum foil is a good shield - it needs to be grounded. It's not very durable though and it's effectiveness will probably be small. The problem is, the oscillation travels through the entire system, so the RF can be radiated from anywhere and everywhere in varying levels. The greatest source would be around the computer itself, so it could help. A little tin foil and an alligator clip is a cheap and dirty test at least... BE CAREFUL not to short it against oohhhhh... say the battery or something ;) <<my bike fire is still TOO fresh in my mind>>

[kbasa]

The point was that the laser alerts are of no value unless you want to start slowing before the cop actually arrives on your rear.

Select the laser warning function to off (a simple program selection does that on the Valentine) and, voila, no more false alerts/announcements and no wiring concerns.

Trying to fix a false alert problem is much ado about nothing since the laser function is 99% meaningless.

For a long time, I would have agreed with you, but a couple weeks ago, in WI., I got a laser warning on the V1 and the laser wasn't even close to being pointed at me. We were in the second of three lanes, the cop was set up in the median and he was targeting a couple cars riding behind me and to my left, in the fast lane. I was close enough that I could see the cop and could see how he was aiming and who he was targeting. I was pretty surprised.

It's not much, but the V1 laser warning is better than nothing.

I have a V1 on my RT and I've run it's power from a Blue Sea fuse block that's powered directly from the battery. I need to add a relay to it, but I don't see that that will change the way power's delivered.

Also, I've found that on the RT, some combinations of shade/sun and the windshield will create false laser alerts. I've had it happen out in the woods, running through tree shaded road. It seems to me that the V1 measures some kind of light level differential to make a guess about what's a laser shot.

[Gilly]

The description given of the CAN bus system doesn't jibe at all with what I learned working on cars with CAN.
There is no singular CAN bus computer. There will be several computers on the CAN data bus all communicating. The messages generated are timed by all the computers together, I am not familiar with an "oscilator" in this system. The messages are sorted out via a priority system (message prioritization), the most important messages being given top/immediate priority over a low level priority. A meesage to turn on the brake light for example would have a higher priority over something like the engine temp going up 2 degrees.
Timing was an important trouble spot early on in CAN bus development. Mercedes was using a CAN bus in the early 90s for engine management on some models, and I dealt with this alot in the mid to late 90s as CAN started being used for body functions. By now I wouild assume most of these problems have been ironed out.
I assume the bikes are using the common 2 wire system where one line will have a higher amount of voltage (10 volts or so) and the other will be more like one volt. The higher voltage line is called "CAN LOW" because the signals are achieved by dropping the voltage down several volts, in a pulse signal, and the 1 volt line signal (CAN HIGH, confusing)is the same signal, but in reverse, up several volts. So the signals involved are all pretty harmless. The 2 wire system again is used to counter any problems with RMI and RFI and I've never heard of the CAN "creating" an induced problem to any other system, nor is it normally affected by RMI or RFI because of the 2 wire system, nominally the computers are actually comparing the CAN high and CAN low to read what the true message is. The CAN can still operate on only one wire if one gets cut, although it may be susceptable to RMI or RFI. About the only thing that will "bring down" the CAN is both lines cut, or shorting BOTH wires to ground or power or to themselves.
I would like to find out more about the system used in the bikes. If there is some "grand timer of the CAN" I'd like to learn the whole scheme used as compared to the car system. It surprises me BMW is using the term "CAN" (which stands for controller area network), as BMW has always used the term "I-BUS" for their system.
I fail to understand how RF noise ca be responsible for false LASER detection. laser=light? Maybe IR interference, that I could see. Well, you can't see IR, but you know what I mean. I wonder if the detector could be affected by the windshield of the bike, as it is a different material (plastic of some sort) and typically the detector is used behind a glass windshield?
Gilly

[iehrlich]

In summary the Valentine is direct wired to the battery with the valentine kit.
The detector i s up against the windshield in the right hand corner. i can not get it any futher away frm the Canbus source.
While I agree Laser warning is not going to help in many cases it will in some and for what this unit cost i don't feel Valentine's solution or attitude is appropriate.
They knew the problem was with the dtector picking up pulses from the Canbus and sent wm on a wild goose chase of pointless troubleshooting. They should advise of this problem on their web site for any potential buyer to be aware of.
i have heard that the new Passport 3500i is virtually as good as the Valentine and does not suffer from this problem nor does it require an accessory to get an audio output. If I did not already own this unit and I was aware of the problem I would buy thre Passport.
I appreciate all the feedback though.

[Gilly]

Here is a link that explains what I am trying to say about the 2 wire system, better than I can:
http://www.softing.com/home/en/industrial-automation/products/can-bus/more-can-bus/high-speed/electromagnetic-interference.php

Although they show CAN HIGH at the top, it is better to think of CAN LOW being up on top, but just a nit pick from me. It's unusual to have to get into the CAN wiring of this anyways, any more than anyone has ever had to rip into any other wiring problem. It's just a pair of wires........
Still struggling with how CAN wires, or any other part of the CAN can mess with a radar detector, and especially in a laser mode.....
The more I think about it the more I think it's the windshield, can you temporarily mount it on the top of the shield (looking over the top) or try the detector in your car? IR makes more sense than RF or RMI (especially from the CAN). Have you noticed a difference in operation due to sunlight? For example bright daylight, cloudy day, dusk or night time use??
Gilly

[kbasa]

They knew the problem was with the dtector picking up pulses from the Canbus and sent wm on a wild goose chase of pointless troubleshooting. They should advise of this problem on their web site for any potential buyer to be aware of.


Picking up what pulse? If you're wired to the battery, you have clean 12V power. The "pulse" Gilly talks about isn't strong enough to produce any kind of RF signal.

I'd bet you're getting a refraction from the windshield, which is setting off the laser. Like I said above, I've had laser false signals when riding in tree canopy/dappled sunlight conditions on other bikes.

Just for troubleshooting, move it someplace like the rear seat and tape it on with blue painter's tape. See if the problem goes away. If so, your problem is with the shield, not CanBus. I've used my V1 on my RT for a while now without difficulty and it's wired almost exactly like yours, although through a fuse block.

[Gilly]

That would bring up another thing to look for; does it do it mostly (as I would suspect) heading into the sun, or doesn't it matter?

Gilly

[iehrlich]

I used it on an Rt an LT and a Gold Wing with no difficulty.
There is no difference insofar as the suns orientation. The Valentine has laser detectors front and rear. I doubt it could be the windshield as it was unaffected on the other bikes. It is pretty clear from what the Valentine tech said that they know it is from the Canbus.

[Gilly]

To put it more bluntly, I believe they are passing the buck and blaming a new cycle technology that the owners aren't familiar with, because I don't think it's possible for the CAN bus to interfere with another electrical component on the bike, at least not via RF. It is just a pair of copper wires operating at low voltage. It's like saying the door bell wiring on your house is screwing with your tv reception. Especially when you take into consideration that your false signals are for laser detection, not radar.
But I appreciate the original intent of the thread, which is to inquire if anyone else has the problem and to warn people about Valentine and how their "lengthy analysis and troubleshooting" will eventually lead them to "admit that they know of the problem" and blame: the CAN databus system????:huh

Gilly

[iehrlich]

To put it more bluntly, I believe they are passing the buck and blaming a new cycle technology that the owners aren't familiar with, because I don't think it's possible for the CAN bus to interfere with another electrical component on the bike, at least not via RF. It is just a pair of copper wires operating at low voltage. It's like saying the door bell wiring on your house is screwing with your tv reception. Especially when you take into consideration that your false signals are for laser detection, not radar.
But I appreciate the original intent of the thread, which is to inquire if anyone else has the problem and to warn people about Valentine and how their "lengthy analysis and troubleshooting" will eventually lead them to "admit that they know of the problem" and blame: the CAN databus system????:huh

Gilly

The single most significant difference between the four bikes I have used the Valentine on is the Canbus. The problem is fairly pervasive but most common when decelerating to below @ 3000 rpm and on the throttle. Goes away again when rpms rise above @ 3500. It will also do it allot at idle when the bike is cold.
It does it under many other circumstances as well. It does seem to be related to something the bike is emitting that the detector is picking up and interpreting it as laser

[Gilly]

Maybe try what Dave suggested and move it away from the cluster entirely. Instead of the back seat maybe just onto the tank area where you can watch it. If it's consistently doing it, that should be an easy test.
Maybe RF noise on the power line, could pick it up even though wired direct to battery (which I would think would be a hassle to remember to turn it on/off every time you ride) in which case a noise filter might fix it, but still stumbling with why a problem like this would present itself as a laser alert, and Valentine should give you some explanation to that if it's a known problem. Bottom line is yeah even though it's a problem known to them, they have no idea yet and easiest to blame the CAN bus. Although I have been looking into this, and a BMW page I found describes it as a single line. But I am relatively sure it's actually 2. Unless they came up with some way to counteract possible RMI/RFI on the CAN, which is entirely possible.
Now here is one way way outside chance regarding false laser readings: is the COLOR of the bike alot different than the previous bikes, because we are dealing with a light (laser), possibly the light is being reflacted off this bike differently than the others? I do know that when MB went to IR remote locking/unlocking on their cars that they were have complaints or reduced range on light colored cars like white and silver causing IR "static" in bright sunlight. Pulling at straws on that one.


Gilly

[wmubrown]

There is no singular CAN bus computer. There will be several computers on the CAN data bus all communicating. The messages generated are timed by all the computers together, I am not familiar with an "oscilator" in this system. The messages are sorted out via a priority system (message prioritization), the most important messages being given top/immediate priority over a low level priority.

We have opposite experiences... mine is with networks, without specific knowledge of CANbus itself. However, that really doesn't matter. How a network works, is. To move data across a set of wires requires a precise time clock to sync properly. This clock is generated at a specific frequency set by an oscillator circuit. In all but a basic network, there must be at least one clock on each end of a network connection. Data is sent with a "start" message of a predetermined length and value, followed by the data, and concluded with an "end" message, again of a predetermined length and value. Your watch (digital, quartz, whatever) and computer are possible due to oscillators which produced a known frequency, which can be counted, and time incremented. Oscillators can range up through the gigahertz range (there is now experimentation going on in the terahertz range). Your computer is likely operating a more than a gigahertz (GHz) right now, your telephone at 2GHz unless you have the older 900 megahertz style (Mhz). An unwanted effect is radiation of this oscillation signal, which is why many such devices are shielded and/or contained in a metal box. UNLESS it's radiation you WANT to receive - such as a satellite TV signal, Bluetooth signal, etc - in which case they are mounted in plastic boxes. When 2 Ghz phones came out, they were often rendered useless when in the same house as a 900 Mhz phone - because the clocks conflicted with each other and disrupted communications (the equivalent of a false detection on a radar detector).

In addition, there are harmonics produced in multiples of the fundamental frequency (2x, 3x, 4x, etc). A radar detector is a very sensitive radiation receiver, seeking very specific, known bands speed radar emits. It can erroneously detect wavelengths close to known bands, be fooled by strong signals (like a CB radio set to high power can come across a TV set, FM radio, etc), AND trip a false alert should the oscillation come through the power supply to the detector.

In short, it's a dirty world out there... I'm amazed these things work at all sometimes.

[wmubrown]

Here is a link that explains what I am trying to say about the 2 wire system, better than I can:
http://www.softing.com/home/en/industrial-automation/products/can-bus/more-can-bus/high-speed/electromagnetic-interference.php


Nice page! But what we're interested in is THIS part:
http://tinyurl.com/26wjdz

Which has a nice little image to explain a good portion of what I just wrote *sigh* ;)

[Gilly]

I understand all that, still confusing as to why, if the CAN bus is to blame (which I still insist is highly dubious), then why is the effect that he is getting laser false readings and not radar hmmm? Stray RF= "I am picking up a laser signal"?

Gilly

[kbasa]

The single most significant difference between the four bikes I have used the Valentine on is the Canbus. The problem is fairly pervasive but most common when decelerating to below @ 3000 rpm and on the throttle. Goes away again when rpms rise above @ 3500. It will also do it allot at idle when the bike is cold.
It does it under many other circumstances as well. It does seem to be related to something the bike is emitting that the detector is picking up and interpreting it as laser


CanBus voltage variances are about on par with how a turn signal operates on a standard bike, so I really doubt that it's your problem. I've run a V1 on various bikes for years without difficulty.

Given that laser is actuated by an optical signal from one of the sensors mounted on the unit (front and rear), I'd bet you're getting some kind of reflection or something that's setting it off. This was the logic behind my suggestion to do some fairly simple troubleshooting by changing the location as a way to test. You might also consider something like putting painter's tape all around the unit, shutting the optical sensors off from input. If you didn't have any false alarms while doing this, it would indicate that there was some kind of reflection of light event that was setting off your detector.

If you did continue to have alarms, even with the optical sensors blocked, that would indicate either a problem with the unit itself or some other kind of electrical interference.

I think Sherlock Holmes said that after you've eliminated all the potential solutions, the one that remains is your true solution, no matter how outlandish it might seem.

Rather than going out and buying another radar detector, I'd do some testing to find out if what you think you know is really the truth.

:)

[MCohen]

When I first installed the V1 on my bike I wired it directly from detector to power without the hard-wire box supplied (I had used the hard-wire box in my car already). I had assumed, wrongly, it was just a way to convert bare wire to an RJ11 (telephone style) plug. I didn't realize it was a noise choke. Whenever I revved the engine the detector would go off. It was receiving the engine noise not through the detector's radar receivers but through the electrical wiring. The fluctuations or frequency of the voltage caused the power to the detector's receivers to fluctuate in just the right way to make the detector think it was receiving a specific signal that is wasn't. Adding the hard-wire box fixed the problem.

So, it seems understandable to me that the network data/oscillations/noise added by the CAN-bus to the power supply could cause the same kind of effect and fool the V1 into thinking it was picking up a specific signal, such as a laser detection, when it isn't. This might be what is happening or it might be something else. My question is, if the CAN-bus is the problem then why isn't everyone with a CAN-bus bike having the problem? You might be better off starting a new thread, "Have you installed a V1 on a CAN-bus bike?" and ask if those people are using the latest V1 (which I assume your V1 is). There's a web page on the Valentine site which allows you to enter the serial number and check the version you have.

If people are using the save version of V1 as you, and not having a problem, then the problem can be overcome. Perhaps by picking up power elsewhere, through another noise choke, moving the wire or moving the detector. If the version of detector is different, you might be able to get an older version from Valentine that does work on the bike. Or, at least, give important info to Valentine that might help them locate the problem. The tech guys at Valentine probably don't see many motorcycle installations and I'm sure see even fewer installations into CAN-bus equipped bikes. They may not have the resources or test mules to find a problem that effects so few of their customers.

Michael

[wmubrown]

I understand all that, still confusing as to why, if the CAN bus is to blame (which I still insist is highly dubious), then why is the effect that he is getting laser false readings and not radar hmmm? Stray RF= "I am picking up a laser signal"?

Gilly

I don't know why laser, other that it's a totally different frequency band. If it were his X-band doing the same thing, we'd still be having the same discussion.

It's my belief that the CANbus is generating noise on the bike power system and the V1 doesn't like it. Put a filter on the power line (cheap $15 experiment) and see if the problem goes away.

[Gilly]

That sounds like a good plan to me too John. I'd also check the routing of the power wire to make sure it;'s not near anything high tension or a wire from the alternator. Also, isn't BMW offering Xenon lighting (true HID) on the new bikes? If so, make sure you're not near any headlight wiring or the ignition module, as those things I'm sure would create a good amount of RMI/RFI (assuming you have this option).
If you don't have Xenon, how about as a test powering up the V1 with the headlight power wire? Sounds crazy but it might just work.
As an aside, I also want to make sure John knows that I am not trying to dis his contributions, obviously you know alot about how this should work, and my experience, even though I did have several classes coving CAN data buses, is more practical/in the field stuff on cars, and the usual problem was someone that didn't even TRY to understand the system.

I also like Dave's idea, try covering up the optical sensor, what a concept!

Gilly

[wmubrown]

That sounds like a good plan to me too John. I'd also check the routing of the power wire to make sure it;'s not near anything high tension or a wire from the alternator.

Good practice... but the filter should be close to the V1 to reduce any noise picked up based on how the wire is run.

Also, isn't BMW offering Xenon lighting (true HID) on the new bikes? If so, make sure you're not near any headlight wiring or the ignition module, as those things I'm sure would create a good amount of RMI/RFI (assuming you have this option).

Yeah, especially when they first fire up! I'm not sure if they are on new bikes, guess I haven't been looking that closely. Though I know it's an option for the GS adventure.

If you don't have Xenon, how about as a test powering up the V1 with the headlight power wire? Sounds crazy but it might just work.
As an aside, I also want to make sure John knows that I am not trying to dis his contributions, obviously you know alot about how this should work, and my experience, even though I did have several classes coving CAN data buses, is more practical/in the field stuff on cars, and the usual problem was someone that didn't even TRY to understand the system.

No problem here Gilly.

I also like Dave's idea, try covering up the optical sensor, what a concept!

[[head slap]] Yeah... good suggestion! Cheap, quick, effective... I like it! ;) Don't use your thumb though... on older units that triggers a laser warning! ;) That and being within 10' of a neon sign was the only thing I knew that would trip a false laser alert on the older V1's. I'd go with electrical tape... I know, I know, the handyman's secret weapon is duct-tape, but it leaves residue electrical tape won't ;)

[cjack]

Yeah, especially when they first fire up! I'm not sure if they are on new bikes, guess I haven't been looking that closely. Though I know it's an option for the GS adventure.


12RT, GT, and LT so far as I know. I figure the CANBUS is innocent. Twisted pair with a braided shield ground over it. I think it's about 120 ohm impedance, split about ground. There may be radiation from the display, and maybe some wiring, the others, the ZFE and BMSK are pretty well shielded in aluminum boxes.
You can get some simple to apply filters from RS and others which are ferrite core clip on "filters" for your power to the V1 and other wires connected to it if any. These increase the inductance of the wire they are clipped on and impede HF, etc. noise. I use a lot of them to keep the ham radio rf out of stuff (I hate it when I knock the bread machine off after only an hour...). I also use them to keep the noise from USB cables to the printer, etc. out of my receivers. You can use several of them and as well wrap the wire thru them several times to increase the effect.
The best filter is usually an inductor with grounded coaxial capacitors on either end. Finding a good short ground is usually the problem with those.
The V1 may get radiation right thru the ir window. More on that if that if this filtering isn't the problem. Surely Valentine has worked on these issues, and I think the canbus answer is kind of lame from the representative.
Any chance that your V1 is defective as to it's resistance to rf noise as opposed to other V1s? There certainly is more rf noise present on the latest bikes, but it's the manufacturers responsibility to make their device rf immune if the radiating device is meeting the FCC requirements for radiation. I suppose these factors are worth looking into if this is a wide spread issue.
I know...sort of a lot of words without any data.

[wmubrown]

12RT, GT, and LT so far as I know. I figure the CANBUS is innocent. Twisted pair with a braided shield ground over it. I think it's about 120 ohm impedance, split about ground. There may be radiation from the display, and maybe some wiring, the others, the ZFE and BMSK are pretty well shielded in aluminum boxes.

I don't know how these systems are manufactured and then installed on the bikes, is there the possibility of someone (line worker or something) NOT properly terminating ends, breaking a shield, improper grounding or something? I have received reports of bike induced noise in audio systems starting with the first CANbus bikes. Previously, only bikes with a points ignition reported any sort of interference, hence the belief it's somehow related to CANbus. However, the problem is only on a handful of CANbus equipped bikes, so there's room for doubt.

The most effective noise filter I've found is using active electronics. A real cheap and dirty filter, but extremely effective is a 7812 voltage regulator with a large capacitor (22uF 25V or higher) on the input side, and a smaller tantalum .1uF capacitor on the output side.

[cjack]

I don't know how these systems are manufactured and then installed on the bikes, is there the possibility of someone (line worker or something) NOT properly terminating ends, breaking a shield, improper grounding or something? I have received reports of bike induced noise in audio systems starting with the first CANbus bikes. Previously, only bikes with a points ignition reported any sort of interference, hence the belief it's somehow related to CANbus. However, the problem is only on a handful of CANbus equipped bikes, so there's room for doubt.

The most effective noise filter I've found is using active electronics. A real cheap and dirty filter, but extremely effective is a 7812 voltage regulator with a large capacitor (22uF 25V or higher) on the input side, and a smaller tantalum .1uF capacitor on the output side.

I don't think there is too much of a chance for improper manufacturing, although anything is possible. These wiring harnesses are pretty solid as to chances to mess them up. I suppose there could be a bad crimp or solder joint (if that is the way they are still bundle connecting wires). I think the terminators are in the display on one end and the alarm or dummy plug on the other as to the CANBUS
transmission line.

However, I have seen some pretty shoddy installations of aftermarket electronics by techs and owners alike. Very little is known about proper wire placement, noise shielding, and selecting the power and ground wires without noisy currents in them. This goes for graduate engineers as well in many cases. I can't speak for the curriculum in general these days, but study and understanding of these noise reduction techniques was always pretty much a personal endeavor. There was a pretty good text on it by Henry W. Ott. Not too cookbook, but more like understanding the laws of physics.
As to the regulator approach, I was thinking that most electronic add ons would have a regulator of some sort. Cincinnati Microwave used a 9 volt regulator for their detectors and I guess the V1 has a regulator as well.
Some years ago (there he goes...) I was trying to cure a '74 turn signal from turning itself on randomly. It ended up being that the owner took the 5K resistor caps off of the spark plug wires and there was 60 volts of rf noise in the switched 12 volt wiring circuit. This was the first transistorized turn signal from BMW. It didn't have a regulator...heh...just a high impedance trigger circuit from the handlebar switch. If fact, once an insect wing in the switch was the culprit in a similar "why is it triggering?" on a different bike.
Interesting about the noise starting with the CANBUS bikes. Wonder if we knew where power and ground was connected would help understand why. If directly from the battery didn't clean it up, I'm not sure where it would be better to get it. Then you almost have to say that the aftermarket electronics wasn't up to the task of being on the bike if BMWs radiation specs are within the allowed limits. True?

[wmubrown]

I can't speak for the curriculum in general these days, but study and understanding of these noise reduction techniques was always pretty much a personal endeavor. There was a pretty good text on it by Henry W. Ott. Not too cookbook, but more like understanding the laws of physics.

I have been out a number of years now too, so I don't know about current curriculum either, but back then they were breaking away from the whole lab experience in general and going more toward theory. I don't agree with that, hands on is still the best learning method IMO. We didn't have anything related to noise in our curriculum. Sounds like that book would be a good read, and still available, but pricey like most text books these days:
http://tinyurl.com/ywrrwf

It ended up being that the owner took the 5K resistor caps off of the spark plug wires and there was 60 volts of rf noise in the switched 12 volt wiring circuit. This was the first transistorized turn signal from BMW. It didn't have a regulator...heh...just a high impedance trigger circuit from the handlebar switch. If fact, once an insect wing in the switch was the culprit in a similar "why is it triggering?" on a different bike.

60V of RF noise?? Yikes!

Interesting about the noise starting with the CANBUS bikes. Wonder if we knew where power and ground was connected would help understand why. If directly from the battery didn't clean it up, I'm not sure where it would be better to get it.

The best ground is one closest to the device. Frame ground is pretty good, but only as reliable as the connection to the battery, so that needs to be good and secure.

Then you almost have to say that the aftermarket electronics wasn't up to the task of being on the bike if BMWs radiation specs are within the allowed limits. True?

And I am sure their 'excuse' will be to say it was never designed for use on a motorcycle, so we're SOL ;) No design can really account for all environments it may be exposed to either. This should be solvable though.