Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 9 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 287

Thread: 2004 R1150RT Wideband O2 Sensors

  1. #271
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #5

    As I mentioned above, Roland and Terry collected BMSK data with the GS-911 while making 8-10 passes at a dyno lab. One of the items reported by the BMSK to the GS-911 is a parameter called Engine Load. It is reported as a percentage of the maximum torque load that the engine can produce.

    From the Air Charge chart in Dyno post #1 (essentially the same information as Engine Load) you can see that 80% is typical maximum charge at WOT for our type of engine.

    In addition to the GS-911 data collected on the dyno, Terry has set me dozens of test-run GS-911 files from his R1200GSA including some where he has accelerated in 4th gear at WOT--same as on the dyno.

    On the chart below you can see that the max engine load on the dyno was ~63% and the max engine load on the road was ~70%. This is another way to see that the dyno is under-loading the engine due to a lower inertial load than an actual riding load. Also note that on the dyno, the engine load doesn't reach 60% until 3500 to 4000 RPM. This is another indication that less than full HP and torque is being measured.

    The dyno measured a peak 95HP and 74 lb-ft torque. If you scale up those numbers by 70/63 (road load/dyno load) you get 105 HP and 83 lb-ft torque, which is the R1200GS spec. I don't know if this is coincidence or if the dyno might have gotten the right answer if it had a full riding load but I wanted to point this out.

    If you look at the engine load before WOT you see that riding down the road in 4th gear, 1800 RPM yields a 35% load. The BMSK senses 0% load in the seconds before WOT on the dyno. This difference has much more bearing on the measurements than the 63 vs 70% load issue. The reason is that the BMSK commands very lean operation at light loads, resulting in an under measurement of torque below 3500 rpm. The solution to the problem is to add a small static load to the dyno (by asking the dyno operator for it ahead of time). You might even be able to apply the rear brake just before WOT, to keep the fueling where it belongs.

    In the charts in Dyno post #2 you can see that most riding is in the 2000-4500 RPM range. You can get a much better measurement of torque in this range on the Dyno if you properly load the engine during the test.


  2. #272
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #6



    In Posts #3, 4 and 5 we've seen a Dyno chart, and the leanness & low engine loads cause by the Inertial Dyno method. The chart above demonstrates a few more differences between an Inertial Dyno test and On-Road riding. The RED bars are rear-wheel acceration on the Dynamometer during the test run. The BLUE bars are rear-wheel acceleration on a level road, no wind, in 4th gear, the same as the Dyno test. The data presented here was taken by a GS-911 connected to an R1200GS during Inertial Dyno tests on an R1200GS. The Closed Loop AFR preceeding the test had been at approximately 13.8:1 in both cases with time for full Mixture Adaptation. Barometric pressure and Air Temperature were similar and close enough for these purposes.

    --The first thing to look at is that the Dyno reaches a rate of acceleration at the rear wheel of 24 fpss (feet per second per second). On the road, under the same conditions the acceleration is about 12 fpss. The Dyno test is like accelerating a bike that is about half the weight of an R1200GS.

    --Due to the leanness caused by deceleration (the red bars pointing downward), the Dyno doesn't reach full fueling and acceleration until 4800 RPM. On-road reaches full acceleration at 3000 RPM because on the road, the engine is fueling to overcome the air and rolling resistances of traveling 20-25 mph and therefore in Closed Loop at 13.8:1.

    --Looking at the Dyno results, you can see that on the Dyno the rear-wheel acceleration stays fairly flat to 7900 RPM. This is because the resistance of the Dyno is constant at all times--the inertia of the roller. On the road, as the bike accelerates, more of the HP of the engine is used to overcome air resistance and as a result the HP left over for acceleration goes down--above 75-80 mph, it goes down quite quickly. At 6700 RPM, while the rear-wheel keeps accelerating at a high rate on the Dyno, the on-road acceleration has dropped from about 12 fpss at 5500 RPM to about 8 fpss at 6700. On the road, the engine does more work than on the Dyno at high RPMs.

    The chart at the bottom of the page is the same acceleration information but equalized to 100% of the Dyno's top acceleration for the Dyno data and to 100% of On-Road's top acceleration for the On-Road data. This means both sets of data reach 100%, making them easier to compare. I've added this chart because it becomes very obvious how much better an On-Road test is at finding low-RPM torque and horsepower and also how much added load the bike experiences at high speeds due to air resistance.

    --At 1950 RPM, on-road acceleration is 80% of peak acceleration. By comparison, due to leanness preceeding the measurements, the Dyno test shows only 30% of its eventual peak. From the beginning, through 4000 RPM the Dyno is underreporting the bikes true torque.

    --Notice too that at 1700 RPM on-road

    My next chart will show rate of acceleration for the test interval by comparing four Dyno runs on an R1200GS at 14.7:1 versus four runs at 13.8:1. All runs were on the same bike and same Dyno.
    RB


  3. #273
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #7

    Over the prior six posts I've attempted to dissect just what an Intertial Dyno does and what you can expect from the measurements. As I've said a couple of times, thanks go to Roland and Terry for spending the time and money to make several runs on Roland's 2009 R1200GS before installing an AF-XIED and four more runs after. Also thanks to Terry and the very cooperative Dyno operator for taking the time to record a full set BMSK data using the GS-911, which documented every moment of the the dyno testing.

    The Before tests were made with two stock O2 sensors, which means that the AFR of the motorcycle was 14.7:1 (lambda=1 to be strictly correct). The After tests were made with a pair of Nightrider AF-XIEDs installed, on setting 8 (about 13.8:1, lambda~0.94) and after the bike was ridden enough to allow for Mixture Adaptation.

    Presented below are the accelerations for the eight dyno tests. Because the BMSK reports the R1200GS's speed, moment by moment, it's straightforward to calculate the acceleration of the rear wheel for the duration of the dyno test. Looking at the data table you can see that the before and after testing conditions were nearly identical. The air temperature varied during the After tests, but it didn't seem to matter, and two tests were with quite warm intake air, a disadvantage. The barometric pressure during the After testing was lower, which implies that the engine's power was slightly reduced compared to the Before testing.

    The calculation takes the starting speed the instant before the throttle was opened, the starting speed the moment the throttle was closed, and divided the difference by the time (in milliseconds) between those two events. The chart below shows the results.

    What the numbers show is consistent with my impression of my own bike, it accelerates faster with a richer lambda setting. (As I showed earlier, that richness propagates through the entire fueling map through Mixture Adaptation.) Here are the comparisons from the charts.

    Average Acceleration: 19% better at 13.8:1
    Two Best Accelerations: 14% better
    Best Before (lean) to Worst After (richer): 8% better

    I would not conclude from these dyno numbers that a richer mixture leads to X% better performance, but it seems clear that the acceleration of Roland's R1200GS at WOT is significantly better with the richer mixture that it was with the stock lean fueling, which is what his butt dyno told him right away.

    RB


  4. #274
    Day Dreaming ... happy wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    1,930
    These dyno tests really add new perspective to the benefits of the AF-XIED. Road testing vs. dyno testing can never really be identical but nevertheless the take away here for me is simple enough. Better performance! And that was the goal.

    There is no comparable dyno data that I know of for the 1100 or 1150 but there is a lot of data that show similarities in performance and adaptivity in Motronic controlled bikes and BMSK controlled bikes. From my simplistic understanding the performance graph is confirms what my dyno butt has been telling me from day one. I believe these same results would be measured for Motronic controlled bikes as well.

    Thanks Roland and Terry for these tests and Roger for the expert analysis. This is great stuff!
    MJM - BeeCeeBeemers Motorcycle Club Vancouver B.C.
    '81 R80G/S, '82 R100RS, '00 R1100RT

  5. #275
    Jammess jammess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Florence, OR.
    Posts
    612
    Got to agree with HW when he says that his over the road fanny feel confirms or agrees with the data meticulously collected and analyzed by Roger and the guys. A 15 to 20% improvement in acceleration is nothing short of awesome and at a very small out of pocket expense. No doubt the single most cost effective improvement you can make to one of these bikes. Big thanks to Roger.
    Jammess

  6. #276
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by bobr9 View Post
    Ok, so basically it sounds like [mileage] is a wash in the grand scheme of things.

    ... I did not know about the LC-1 option, and I see on their website that a LC-2 is now the latest offering.

    Price is about the same, any opinions on which is the preferred one (AFXIED or LC-1 or LC-2)?
    LC-2 is the Innovate latest offering. It uses the same technology as their MXT-L (which came after the LC-1).

    The pros and cons, simply, are:

    LC-1: More accurate and stable, can be programmed to leaner or richer mixtures, and you can datalog AFR as you ride. The Bosch LSU 4.2 sensor which comes with it isn't quite as robust as the narrowband sensor, it is a bit of a project to wire the LC-2 and create its harness, and you need a PC to program it.

    AF-XIED: Plug and Play for all BMWs except the R1100 (needs a cut and a couple taps on the existing R1100 O2 sensor). Can be set without a PC and uses the existing O2 sensor so can easily be returned to stock. Since it uses the stock O2 sensor which is affected by exhaust temperature, AFR varies by about +/- 0.1-0.2 AFR from bike to bike. The variation of AFR isn't really important 4, 5 or 6% fuel added makes a nice improvement in low RPM performance on all the models it's been tried on: R1100, R1150, R1200, F800, K1200 and some others.

    Hope that helps.

  7. #277
    Registered User R100RTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Abbotsford, BC Canada
    Posts
    85

    Wide Band Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
    LC-2 is the Innovate latest offering. It uses the same technology as their MXT-L (which came after the LC-1).

    The pros and cons, simply, are:

    LC-1: More accurate and stable, can be programmed to leaner or richer mixtures, and you can datalog AFR as you ride. The Bosch LSU 4.2 sensor which comes with it isn't quite as robust as the narrowband sensor, it is a bit of a project to wire the LC-2 and create its harness, and you need a PC to program it.

    AF-XIED: Plug and Play for all BMWs except the R1100 (needs a cut and a couple taps on the existing R1100 O2 sensor). Can be set without a PC and uses the existing O2 sensor so can easily be returned to stock. Since it uses the stock O2 sensor which is affected by exhaust temperature, AFR varies by about +/- 0.1-0.2 AFR from bike to bike. The variation of AFR isn't really important 4, 5 or 6% fuel added makes a nice improvement in low RPM performance on all the models it's been tried on: R1100, R1150, R1200, F800, K1200 and some others.

    Hope that helps.
    Roger, your coverage and analysis of this thread and data continues to fill in blanks and develop some excellent tools for those inclined towards performance improvement & deeper understanding of their Oilheads & Motronic. Thanks and well done.
    I am unable to participate much beyond armchair observation but oft default to the oilhead forums, where I would venture to say that purist angst isn't as likely to nit pick a project as mine. Back to topic however.
    I've mentioned before, but it may relate less to oilheads than other random fuel injection projects and equipment. Regardless, I'll lay out what I've found with the LC1:
    The Inovate LC1 found a significant number of people having issues (myself included) when used as a wide band to integrate with their M.S. type projects. Some items of note were:
    - Although it will boot up during heat cycle, it resets and requires another initiation cycle when you crank or start engine. Not outwardly a problem but perhaps a factor when other conditions and readings are encountered - it just shuts its readings off.
    -Inability to handle readings beyond range without error codes and failed operation. As the unit I had gained hours, it seemed to develop a lack of tolerance to reading swings and would freeze/ shut down.
    -Ultimate inability to handle the Bosch LSU W.B. sensor leading to many buying replacements at a significant cost. I had one such "Failed" sensor tested by Alan To (14.7) and it was fully functional with his simpler stand alone gauge unit.
    I retired the LC1 and moved on to the MXT-L which I have found to work seemlessly with my Microsquirt based system. It does not reboot during cranking, has a wider range of measurement, and does not seem finicky in how it integrates with the Bosch W.B. sensor.
    I didn't find the wiring on either the LC1 or MXT-L challenging, other than treatment of grounding needs to be paid particular attention (as per instruction) and layout of the few wires involved should be isolated from other noisy runs (like starter & ignition cables) as EMF impression is a common cause of skewed readings.
    Thought I would add my $0.02 as there are not many responding on the topic of Wide Bands.
    Lorne.

  8. #278
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Lorne, Although the LC-1 works pretty reliably with the Motronic it seems that each of us has had a time or two when it needed to be recalibrated, which actually was running it through a full reset. Some of the other issues you mention (e.g. a restart during cranking, which seems to happen) isn't a problem for the Motronic or BMSK because they ignore it during those times. Still it does require a bit of care and feeding

    The LC-2 is said to use the same technology as the MXT-L which should make it more robust. I'm also told that it includes the cal led and push button function inside the unit which means an adapter box probably isn't needed as with the LC-1.

    Even if everything is perfect with the LC-1/2 you need to know how to program it and keep track of what it's doing. This is where the AF-XIED shines: you plug it in, chose a setting, and ride.

  9. #279
    143439 bobr9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Clarkesville, GA
    Posts
    143
    Can someone confirm that to install the AF-xied on a 99 r1100rt you only need to remove the right side fairing panel to do the splice into the O2 sensor wiring and not remove the gas tank? Thanks

  10. #280
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    Bob, you might be able to tap the cable to get to the wiring but you will be able to do a better job if you remove the tank.

    The cable runs from the exhaust on the right side, up past and underneath the right throttle body. There isn't much room to work there but just beneath the TB you could carefully remove the O2 cable sheath, and gain access to the wires. Figure out which of the white wires is +12Vwith a DVM. That is the power tap.

    Unfortunately Steve at Nightrider has not been able to find a reasonable source for OEM connectors for the Motronic MA 2.2 bikes--e.g. r1100.

    The install though only requires cutting the black wire in the O2 sensor cable and attaching two posilock connectors, then adding a positap to one of the white wires. The gain you'll get is worth the effort.

    Another note: the r1100 will work best with setting 7 or 6, one setting lower than other BMW bikes. This is due to its different thimble-style O2.
    RB

  11. #281
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    320
    I've been catching up on this thread with interest, and I'm wondering if the AF-XIED would be likely to improve my bike's mpg or performance.

    Bike:
    2000 R1100RT
    75k miles (bought one year ago with 57k)
    Techlusion 1031 installed by PO
    No O2 sensor or CCP. (I have the yellow plug; I'd have to pick up a sensor.)
    Maintenance records proper and thorough
    35-37 mpg in weeks that I'm mainly commuting
    37-38 mpg for long superslab runs at 75-80 mph
    Low 40s mpg on long, slow runs.

    Aside from the abysmal mpg, the bike is very well behaved -- so well behaved that I wonder if I should even bother messing with it. Still, mpg in the 30s suggests to me that it could be running much better, and a reliable 45mpg would give me a much more comfortable cruising range.

    Interestingly, the service records are replete with complaints of surging, and the immediate PO, a good friend of mine, said he experienced it occasionally. Yet in nearly 20k miles, I may have experienced a surge once, and that was the day after the first time I synced the throttles, so I'd suspect even that one was more likely the throttle cable settling in somewhere.

    So, I think I have these questions:
    1. Is my mpg explainable by the fueling modifications, or do I need to be exploring other issues as well?
    2. If I replaced the current configuration with an AF-XIED, would I likely see an improvement in mpg?
    3. Am I likely already experiencing the performance benefits of an enriched mixture? Or is it perhaps so enriched that I'm experiencing a performance degradation? I don't have any other oilhead experience to compare to.

    Thanks in advance for any insights!
    2000 R1100RT / 1987 K75C (RIP) / Santa Clarita, CA

  12. #282
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    If you believe the folks at GAMI injectors, the top two reasons why engines exhibit rough running (surging) with lean mixtures (lean defined as leaner than BEST POWER mixtures) are unequal air and/or unequal AFR (Air Fuel Ratio). My answer is going to assume that your right and left cylinders have the same compression, decently adjusted valves and a decent left/right throttle body balance. The Techlusion literature says their stock settings aim to add about 8% to fueling. By adding all that fuel, you are greatly diminishing the sensitivity to AFR imbalance but you're paying for it in gas mileage.

    Your current set up is running very rich from idle through about 40 miles per hour based on No Coding Plug and the Techlusion. We have a good report on the 1100RT from Happy Wanderer running an LC-1 (R1100RT No Coding Plug, No CO Pot), here's the chart without your Techlusion.

    r1100noplugnocopot.jpg

    With a Techlusion attached, depending your your settings, and I'm assuming you're running gas with 10% ethanol, you would be 8-10% richer than the above chart. If you're running pure gas, you would be 12-16% richer than above. That would put you're AFRs richer than BEST POWER mixture, in a range from idle through 40-50 MPH, much richer than needed. It therefore seems very likely that the excess fuel is the root cause of your poor mileage.

    With an LC-2 which includes a Wideband O2 sensor, or an AF-XIED and stock narrowband sensor, you could control the fuel addition to a 4-8% addition with much better gas mileage Happy Wanderer's data below:



    So the unknown is, will 4-8% (consistent AFRs of 14.1, or maybe as much as 13.6) the leanest that will give you the performance needed) more fuel keep your surging under control? It seems very likely to me that it will unless your injectors are very mismatched.
    Last edited by roger 04 rt; 04-25-2014 at 02:41 PM.

  13. #283
    Registered User roger 04 rt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,269
    A few weeks ago I stumbled on the time required to reset the Motronic when you pull Fuse 5 or remove the battery cable. I use to think it was 15-30 seconds but now realize it is several minutes. 10 minutes is a certain time I believe.

    So that this little tidbit of knowledge isn't lost, I'm linking it here: Motronic Reset Time 10 Minutes

  14. #284
    Registered User R100RTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Abbotsford, BC Canada
    Posts
    85

    Units of Measure?

    Hi Roger, not sure what the units of measure are in HW's chart - "Fuel Quantity/ Miles/ Mileage".
    Would that be US gallons, or Canadian?

  15. #285
    Day Dreaming ... happy wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    1,930
    Quote Originally Posted by R100RTurbo View Post
    Hi Roger, not sure what the units of measure are in HW's chart - "Fuel Quantity/ Miles/ Mileage".
    Would that be US gallons, or Canadian?
    All measured in US Gallons and Miles. Most of the members here are US based so virtually all of the data presented here for mileage is based on US gallons and miles.

    At the risk of getting flamed I still think Ronald Reagan made a huge mistake when he canceled the US metric program to save some dollars. There are now three countries on the planet that don't use the metric system for weights and measures. Liberia, Myanmar and the USA.
    MJM - BeeCeeBeemers Motorcycle Club Vancouver B.C.
    '81 R80G/S, '82 R100RS, '00 R1100RT

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •