Some "secrets" about Beemer injection

[peter f]

BikeBoy.org - Fuel Injection – Open Loop and Closed Loop

Hot spot (and best explanation so far for this "black hole" thing, he he) :

.....

Adaption and tuning

The adaption table, by definition, constantly modifies the fuelling in the Closed Loop area to give a very close approximation of the fuelling required for a mixture of Lambda 1 (14.7:1). This means that if you make any mods to change the air/fuel ratio in the Closed Loop area it will be overridden, sooner or later, by the Closed Loop system. So if you fit a PC3, Dobeck or Dimsport add on box and tune the whole fuel map the Closed Loop system it will return the tuning to how it was previously in the Closed Loop area. But, this is expected, so it’s not a big deal as such. Or, if you knew where the Closed Loop throttle and RPM cut offs were, you could just stay out of that range.

My theory (which is untested) on how to work out these cut offs out is by using a load dyno. You hold the bike at a constant RPM – 3,000 would be a good start – and monitor the Lambda sensor output signal voltage using a scope or analogue multimeter (digital may not be fast enough, although you could use the AC voltage function) when holding a constant throttle position. You’ll need some way of reading throttle angle too – either thru the PC3 or Dimsport or using the Ducati Mathesis or DDS or Technoresearch diagnostic system.

...

[peter f]

PS: after resetting the adaptation table and installing the RB3 compatible L-micro chips (L = 1) and ...er...having some "little" problems (among them HIDEOUS fuel consumption - town: 15Lt/125km + RON100 + 1.8Euro/Lt = bankruptcy)...

...I'm now with my OEM L-sensors reinstalled.

Moral: I'm working on it (but not too hard, he he)

[KMoore]

Brad Black is a long time member of this forum. Good to see he has put his knowledge and experience into his own business.

[AntonLargiader]

Originally Posted by peter f

My theory (which is untested) ..

You could have used that in the title, rather than 'secrets.'

[peter f]

Originally Posted by AntonLargiader

You could have used that in the title, rather than 'secrets.'

quotes are used instead, he he

given the opportunity some questions:

1. I can't understand that adaption table logic > given the fact that conditions vary (IAT, engine tmp etc etc) why use an "interpolation" table (so to speak) instead of continuously trying to turn the mixture lean - and back - ON A PER CONDITION basis?

2. a serial aftermarket "ECU" is it or it's not a stand alone acting unit? why the adaptation table (close loop) makes things messy for PC/RB et all ? I mean since the "ECU" knows rpm/TPS (and thus he can clearly address a portion of the stored map) why the close loop "dead end" situation? (L-sensors present).

3. has anyone (just for curiosity) a similar "map" defining open/close loop segments for that R12S?

4. with a serial "ECU" installed, even in open loop mode and in steady throttle conditions (say: motorway) can the "ECU" turn the mixture lean ? (or at least try to do it).

5. can someone invent a wide band L-sensor that could cost 30E instead of 500? (Nobel prize is assured + fame + hot bimbos).

[peter f]

Originally Posted by peter f

3. has anyone (just for curiosity) a similar "map" defining open/close loop segments for that R12S?

I mean something "like" this:

[twodear]

Peter, I can't answer your questions, so feel free to ignore this question in return if you're so inclined.

Have you Dyno results before and after adding the RB3? I'm thinking about RB3 or PCIII...is one better/easier than the other?

The exhaust I've ordered is Akrapovic, so I hope the 'chip' and exhaust together will be rewarding.

Jim

[chewie]

I see your sig line has changed, when were we going to be informed of this?

You know Jim, there is this 'show your scoot' thread, I think you owe it to us

[Sofatester]

Originally Posted by twodear

Peter, I can't answer your questions, so feel free to ignore this question in return if you're so inclined.
Have you Dyno results before and after adding the RB3? I'm thinking about RB3 or PCIII...is one better/easier than the other?
The exhaust I've ordered is Akrapovic, so I hope the 'chip' and exhaust together will be rewarding.
Jim

Jim, I'm not Peter but I'll try to sort a few things out nevertheless.

RB3 isn't a "chip" but a programming tool plus an ignition+injection computer which is shipped together with a software (light version). It also allows the use of a shift-sensor and together with a matching sensor (Rapid Bike or Cordona) becomes a quick-shift-automat. RB3 has proved to be a very effective tuning tool.

So together with a good dyno, good fresh air ventilation, exhaust gas absorbers, some good AFR-measuring-equipment and the Rapid Bike professional Software it allows a competent tuner to tune-in all kinds of exhaust systems. On the other hand this doesn't mean you can equalize advantages or disadvantages of the various exhaust systems.

A complete Akrapovic System for the R1200S is quite a good choice, although it's a quite expensive one.

The advantages thru a good tuning effort with RB3 also depend on the stock software version loaded in the BMS-K (= the bikes main computer unit). Some Software-versions produce more hp (Ver. 9.2-9.4 and newest) some versions after 10.x lead to a lack of power but good waste-gas values and a more steady power output.

So RB3 will always lead to a very nice gain together with a perfect fine-tuning, but the amount of additional hp may vary due to the stock software version loaded.

The worst stock software versions sometimes produced a castrated bike with only 113-115 hp (DIN).

A total stock R1200S with a stock software ver. of 9.2-10.x may produce real 118-124 hp (DIN). Measurement by DIN lead to significant lower hp values than measurements by SAE or bhp. That's normal. Don't let them fool you with higher hp values, there are perhaps as many ways to falsify a dyno spread sheet than a government statistic.

Installing a complete Akrapovic exhaust and a RB3 with a dyno run by a good tuner may lead to a power output of 127-132 hp (DIN).

It's vital to have the correct type of lambda eliminators installed with RB3. Without these eliminators the Stock BMS-K will (also depending of stock software version) learn that the AFR is out of range and will undertake countermeasures (i.e. reducing fuel injection time).

I'd suggest a pair of BoxerBurners and a pipercross Air filter (only in landscapes with few dust) as an addition to RB3 and a good aftermarket exhaust system.

This will probably lead to about 133-138 hp (DIN). That's a quite cheap package and the result is a totally different bike.
That kind of tuning up to about 135 hp (DIN) also proved to be okay even for long-distance use.

Power output above 135-138 hp (DIN) begins to become more delicate and requires additional measures in order to prevent engine failures.

Engine failures by excessive strain of the motor will mostly be a ruptured exhaust valve or a conrod bearing failure (by lack of oil lubrification / unsufficient oil pressure)

[peter f]

Originally Posted by twodear

Have you Dyno results before and after adding the RB3? I'm thinking about RB3 or PCIII...is one better/easier than the other?

1. RB3 is (supposedly) faster but my advice is to go the PC5 way (see M-Tec results etc). Unless you know some gifted tuner who can guarantee wonder results with the RB3.

2. Prior the RB3 power was the usual 107/108 rwbhp and not that wonderful at partial TPS openings. After the RB3 (+ full HPE) and several frustrating moments (and 5 bottles of pepper Russian Vodka) and L-chips instead of L-sensors...power is "around" the 120 mark, depending on the map - measured several times (but all that matters is the partial TPS response - a lot better).

3. Bad news: Due to that incredible high fuel consumption (town riding + dense traffic + lot of idling > meaning been in close loop all the times) I've just reinstalled the L-sensors and lost power somehow but (a) I have no dyno proof on that, (b) I don't care any more (there's the RR thing around in case...he, he). Bike does backfiring again and gives me the feeling of that "harsh/rough" lean operation that characterizes the K12 series (but I don't care any more).

Note: Another friend of mine (got the RB3 from Robert Foster I believe) here in Greece had very serious idling and consumption issues with these Dimsport L-chips. He's also back on L-sensors.

On top of all these add the eternal idle issue(s) with my bike > broken nerves and no solution (yet).

[Sofatester]

RB3 is faster than PC 5 and that's in my view the key problem of PC 5. M-Tec is a kind of "tec" I will avoid. But that's only my personal opinion.

[peter f]

On the other hand THE most important bit of the RapidSomething thing could be this : (for a variety of reasons)





He He

[peter f]

Originally Posted by Sofatester

JWithout these eliminators the Stock BMS-K will (also depending of stock software version) learn that the AFR is out of range and will undertake countermeasures (i.e. reducing fuel injection time).

Hmm

This is the core of the matter: why this happens? I mean why the RB3 "allows" (so to speak) the BMS-K to re-take control of injection/advance?

Or...er...actually the RB3 can in real life operate within a short "deviation" of the BMS-K signals?

[Sofatester]

Ever thought of the way/direction the signals pass the wires

the by-pass adapter is indeed a nice additional feature, although I never needed it.
Just a nice-to have-also feature. And one you can't find with the Power Commander stuff.

I used RB3 from fall 2007 up to March 2010, then switched to PC 5.
PC 5 has more features, especially with the AT-100 Twin probe AutoTune Add-on. The latter one was the main reason for me to change. Another reason was some information I was told (couldn't verify it) that one or some lots of RB3 should have proved to be faulty. So I tried something new with PC5/AT100.
But computing speed of PC5 is slower than those of RB3 although PC5 has more features and therefore needs quite a lot more speed.

My dyno experience says that Power has dropped with PC5/AT100 compared to the last dyno run with RB3. Time will tell if the AutoTune feature will soften that drop-back. A lot of other tuners/riders made the same experience. Just ask fralind, as an example.

And you should take into consideration that Dimsport, the italian manufacturer of Rapid Bike, just develops the all-new Rapid Bike Evo (RB Evo). Rumors have it that this device will severely outperform the PC5 in computer speed.
RB Evo will also include a twin probe AutoTune feature and will consist of just one small box instead of three boxes as with PC 5 + AT 100.

So it will be a quite interesting thing to see the results when this item comes in customers' hands. Today even a release date is missing.

Until then, both RB3 and PC5 are serious tuning tools and not (only in my personal view) playground toys like techlusion or FKR boxes

[fralind]

Sofa tester observations, I can only emphasize that.

[twodear]

Thanks to all of you for all the time and effort to answer my questions. I feel bad that Peter F didn't get an answer for his.

Very good advice and I certainly have some homework to do.

[Sofatester]

Jim + Peter,

thank you. I would like to help Peter, if I could, but I think his problems can't be solved only within internet contact.

Maybe Peter has one of the faulty RB3 units, maybe he had wrong eliminators installed (that occured sometimes, as there once was a wrong eliminator number in the list a few years ago), maybe the eliminator was defect, maybe something else went wrong during the tuning/programming procedure. There are so many possibilities. I know of one case where it simply was a problem with water inside a cable joint.

I guess that one good dyno+mechatronic guy has to inspect and test the hardware. I know some guys here, but no one in Greece.
Sorry for that. All my best wishes.

[peter f]

Sofatester,

Thanks for your detailed answer(s)

With regard my very bad experience with that RB3 thing some few comments more:

1. I have 2 R12 RB wiring looms (just in case...Italian made stuff, you know, he he).

2. RB L-eliminators are the correct ones and they DO return a constant value of 1 when bike is connected (too many tests to remember) to that GT-1 diagnostic super gizmo. No value alteration is detected ever. But even if we assume that they work...er...when they work (Italian electronics) the motor should "default" to lean (BMS-K fights back and "takes over" etc etc) and not extra rich mixture (see 3).

3. As I said the dead end situation with the L-eliminators and my RB installation is the ABSURD fuel consumption when in traffic/extended idle. I suspect that my HPE catalyst is poisoned as well - extra extra rich mixture (and a smelly exhaust).

4. RB Manager Pro gives no clue about a potential RB fault (but indeed a faulty RB in some chip could be a possibility).

Rumor is that Dimsport has plans to actively train/support some tuning shop here in Athens. This means that a group of 2-3 RB "experts" is expected in the near future (hopefully armed with the Dimsport Tuning bike plug-in/on-line device). I'll give them a last shot (and only one) when/if this happens.

And if they can convince me that the RB was money well spend...I'll "upgrade" the BMS-K to that 9.2 nuclear build.

[Sofatester]

.........okay, that's useful additional info.
So now if I was forced to make a guess I'd put my money on a defect RB3 box.
Try it out. Good luck.

[fralind]

The described problems can also start from the wrong position of the lower choke come on the dyno, in conjunction with a non-specific lambda measurement, target (no critique)