FlashTune ECU Flashing Interface

[quick kurt]

dragginass ,your speedo doesn't go past 152 mph in the vid, even with rpm's still rising. Any reason for this, or cause?

[AKDMA]

That sounds cool man, I'd like that. The only FT map I hated was the generic 3/4 map.. it was pure shit compared to what we have here. I'll shoot you a PM.

[R1evolution]

Originally Posted by quick kurt

dragginass ,your speedo doesn't go past 152 mph in the vid, even with rpm's still rising. Any reason for this, or cause?

good catch i noticed that too,but thought i was imagining things. lol

[SySt]

Originally Posted by AKDMA

I'm most certainly not getting upset, just to clarify.


I think that everyone in this thread wants the maximum amount of power they can safely achieve. That's likely a given. Throttle response is a different thing, but that's controlled by our different modes and YCC-T, so I don't see why one would willingly make a less powerful map. Doesn't make sense to me.
To answer your question, I ran the 91+map with a PCV map (tried several) loaded onto it. Then switched to Peen's V2 map, then lastly tried the N4speed map. If FT can make it so that we can import a PCV map with the same results as an actual PCV with the same map loaded, I'll be golden as I have a couple of auto tune maps that make good power throughout and are at a safe AFR.

I want to be clear, I'm glad you're doing what you're doing, we all want faster and better bikes. But in my eyes, it's very strange to make changes without disclosing what they are and why you've made them. Also, users flash maps at their own risk, so there's no need to protect people from this - unless you feel your maps are unsafe to flash.

What is wrong with the PCV import function that is currently implemented? Ultimately, all a standard PCV map is doing is scaling the base fuel map in the ECU. What exactly is leading you to believe that is not what is happening?

[dragginass]

Originally Posted by R1evolution

good catch i noticed that too,but thought i was imagining things. lol

Weird you posted that.....I just noticed it too! I'm going to go back and watch some of my older vids and see if it changed with any of them? I have no clue what could be causing it.

[dragginass]

Just checked my other videos from oilfields tune 2 weeks ago. Same thing. Speedo will not read over 152.

[Tad158]

So did you make any speedo adjustments?

[dragginass]

Originally Posted by Tad158

So did you make any speedo adjustments?

I did not make any % adjustments, but I did change my gearing #'s to 15-43. What's weird is that its not just that the speedometer isn't calibrated. The speed sticks at 152 even though the RPM is still rising. I'm stumped.

[v1025566]

Originally Posted by SySt

The option is not gone. It's a combobox (drop down menu) on the right now. Of course the TPS vs RPM option is TPS mapping only and MAP vs RPM option is MAP mapping only.

The Type 1 images now have a separate YCCT map for each gear including neutral. So not just the 09+ R1s anymore.

The YCCT and idle maps now allow for more precise adjustment by using one decimal place. For example: 19.3 is now an acceptable value and won't be rounded.

GUI glitches are also claimed to have been fixed (I don't know specifically which ones).

Powercommander maps will now be applied to the stock map or whatever your current fuel map is, it must be selected.

So using no o2 sensor you would use MAP vs RPM selection?

[SySt]

Originally Posted by v1025566

So using no o2 sensor you would use MAP vs RPM selection?

Where are you getting that? Absolutely not, I would recommend the opposite: TPS vs RPM selection. The only thing I explained is that either selection can be made. For instance, if I was to run a supercharger or turbocharger I probably would use the MAP vs RPM only option.

[Tad158]

Originally Posted by dragginass

I did not make any % adjustments, but I did change my gearing #'s to 15-43. What's weird is that its not just that the speedometer isn't calibrated. The speed sticks at 152 even though the RPM is still rising. I'm stumped.

Yea....Do you run a GPS logger by any chance? I wonder if there is a bug in the sprocket speedo adjustment code. I have made a % change on mine, but have only gone 140's with the GPS logger running, so it works at that speed anyway....

Originally Posted by SySt

Where are you getting that? Absolutely not, I would recommend the opposite: TPS vs RPM selection. The only thing I explained is that either selection can be made. For instance, if I was to run a supercharger or turbocharger I probably would use the MAP vs RPM only option.

What he said...

[AKDMA]

Originally Posted by SySt

What is wrong with the PCV import function that is currently implemented? Ultimately, all a standard PCV map is doing is scaling the base fuel map in the ECU. What exactly is leading you to believe that is not what is happening?

Well, Marider used a PCV w/autotune and dyno'ed the bike, then zeroed the PCV and loaded the same map onto his ECU, dyno'ed again and the results were less than optimal. It seems that if it were working well, we'd all just use a good auto tune or custom PCV map made for a bike with similar mods.

[Tad158]

I think that the map in the ECU was not simply the stock fuel map for that case...Also they have updated that part of the code...

[Mach.81]

R1evo
Please list any other anomalies that you think you found with the software.

Good catch with the proportion percentage bug. Did you find other bugs? I didn't see that myself. Guess that's why we're here. I agree 91+ maps.

When you get the data logger setup up and running I (we) would love to see the AFR readings for the closed loop area. Question regarding the O2 sensors.
Reading I've done shows latency and reversionary problems with the wide band O2 sensors at low rpm/throttle settings. How do you plan on tuning the closed loop area or is this the reason for all the testing.
How are you determining what is too much timing?

[Mach.81]

Originally Posted by Tad158

I think that the map in the ECU was not simply the stock fuel map for that case...Also they have updated that part of the code...

You're correct I think it was a stock EU ecu with a PCV & AT.

[Tad158]

Yea the stock EU ECU is different than any of the base maps we have...

[AKDMA]

I didn't know the fueling, etc was different with those. I need to just get an autotune... or wait for that feature.

[SySt]

Originally Posted by AKDMA

Well, Marider used a PCV w/autotune and dyno'ed the bike, then zeroed the PCV and loaded the same map onto his ECU, dyno'ed again and the results were less than optimal. It seems that if it were working well, we'd all just use a good auto tune or custom PCV map made for a bike with similar mods.

So they were less than optimal, but were they similar? Also, care must be taken when using a PCV map in Flashtune. You must ensure that when the PCV map was created the opened and closed throttle voltage settings in the PCV were right. If that is not set right then when the map is loaded into Flashtune, the fuel map will be off.

Originally Posted by Tad158

I think that the map in the ECU was not simply the stock fuel map for that case...Also they have updated that part of the code...

What do you mean they have updated that part of the code? What changes were made?

[Mach.81]

Originally Posted by AKDMA

Well, Marider used a PCV w/autotune and dyno'ed the bike, then zeroed the PCV and loaded the same map onto his ECU, dyno'ed again and the results were less than optimal. It seems that if it were working well, we'd all just use a good auto tune or custom PCV map made for a bike with similar mods.

I've been thinking about this "import" issue and its not nessarly a FT problem or a bug, it could simply be the PCV was not correctly calibrated for throttle postion. Meaning the AT/PCV maps x y axis scaling is not caliberated 100% correctly to the maps in the ECU causing the differences seen in the dyno results.

[Mach.81]

lol
SYST