• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

2004 R1150RT Wideband O2 Sensors

I have avoided working with Alpha-N, seems to ignore so much of what is taking place on an engine. With "Speed Density" actual conditions are being utilized plus for a turbo'ed condition it is much superior, as loading and boost can be all over the map so to speak, even with a throttle setting that is constant. Some squirters have adopted the blended "Alpha-N/ S.D." tables which can help with engines having poor "map" characteristics but are boosted. Our boxer engines having two cylinders might qualify for that concern but I have found stability even at ultra low idle states such that I have no concerns.
Each item you provide here seems to help paint a picture of what the Motronic is striving to do, and how under certain conditions the unwanted oscillation might take place.
Really appreciate your informative approach.
Lorne

From what I've read, using speed-densitiy (manifold absolute pressure) on a single cylinder engine (we have two on the same crank from a fueling perspective) doesn't result in a reliable signal from the MAP whose signal can bounce all over the place at low RPMs. Are you saying that's not the case from your experience?

--At low RPMs and small throttle angles a 3% change in throttle angle requires a 34% change in the amount of fuel injected to maintain a constant AFR. That means that a small TPS sensor error, or small change in air flow through the throttle body could result in a significant mixture error, leading to the conclusion that precise Mixture Adaptation is a necessity for accurate fueling at light loads.

RB

Hello Roger,
I think the above quote from your last post pretty well sums up the reason why many of these oilheads exhibit the annoying tendency to surge at slow speeds and why the narrow band O2 sensor with its characteristic slow response time does not much to alleviate the problem. This also leads me to think that the LC-1 controller with the fast response wideband O2 sensor is the best option for use with these machines.

Hi Jim, I hear you and see your point. Bosch says the Motronic concentrates a large number of the LCF cells and Fuel Map in the lower RPM, lower TPS area--as usual we don't know exactly what that means but the chart is giving their rationale for that decision.

Even though the stock O2 sensor is slow, and it takes a bit of time to compute the LCFs initially, once computed they are available to the fueling calculation without any delay, same it true of the Mixture Adaptations.

WallyG and I each have a small amount of LC-1 data taken at light throttle during a "surge" event. It is not at all conclusive that the Motronic is modulating the fuel causing surging. The data is not conclusive that it's AFR variation causing surging. The best way for me to test that is to program the AFR on my bike to 16:1 to 17:1 and see whether I get consistent surging, and then see what the LC-1 reports. It's hard to get surging when you want to measure it. ;)
 
Beg to Differ

Widebands are fine but cost and complexity are generally going to put this approach out of the range of the average owner who probably can't handle the work let alone understand all of the technical issues. For those who can- well, why not if it interests you?

I had my first wideband as a monitor on a track car so long ago I forget when, exactly. It allowed me to keep an eye on what the very limited aftermarket ECU of that era (simple 8X8 map, no closed loop) was delivering to a motor that would grenade immediately if it got too lean. So its real purpose was to allow watching the "richness" to ensure enough for combustion cooling at the outer edge without it getting so rich it reduced power excessively- and to keep EGTs from literally melting the wastegate of that boosted motor. (It would go over 1750 degrees almost instantly even a bit on the lean side of EGT control- actually in the high 13s AFR- but that was also where it made max power)

As is pointed out by Roger the real issue especially for oilheads may be the INDIRECT measurement of a critical material, air (oxygen), by a TPS rather than by a direct air measurement device.
Its predictable that indirect measures are likely to have the largest per cent errors at low and fluctuating flows.

One obvious way to cover such imprecision- much as I did (above) for several years- is to provide some extra fuel to avoid the lean side issues, whatever they happen to be.

For myself, I don't want to repeat the work that went with track vehicles or my modified street cages on a bike. Plug and play OTOH is pretty appealing.

In case any confusion has developed: my reference and comments have tended to reflect a theme of utilization of a different strategy to ultimately go way beyond the solving of the surging issue(s) that are at the heart of this post - with a self programed device that at this point (not being commissioned "yet" on an oilhead) is not plug'n play by any means but in my opinion totally attainable. So yes, that process is not going to be embraced by many or any here. Once someone tries and tunes a Microsquirt onto an oilhead, there is going to be a means towards gaining a "plug'n play" device and that will be a remarkable paradigm shift indeed.

The strategy Roger has been substantiating with significant test data and reference material, is ultra simple and of a plug'n play standpoint. I'd venture to say an easy install for most, on a weekend and then focus on riding.

Wide band systems and costs have improved dramatically over the years and there are lots of choices now. Inovate's LC1 did let me down with reduced sensor reading characteristics after a few years in service, but LC2 seems rather more robust and has wider tolerance for being out of range and not crashing. I like a system called "14.7" which is the simplest and cheapest (unfortunately unable to work with the system that Roger is working with).
 
Last edited:
Intake pulsation and MAP

From what I've read, using speed-densitiy (manifold absolute pressure) on a single cylinder engine (we have two on the same crank from a fueling perspective) doesn't result in a reliable signal from the MAP whose signal can bounce all over the place at low RPMs. Are you saying that's not the case from your experience?
QUOTE]

Hi there Roger. Yes, I've been able to utilize "Speed/ Density" fueling tuning strategy with success, on the two lung potentially challenging boxer engine. Variation in MAP readings can lead to instability and oscillation for the ecu to digest, but with MS there are a host of lags that can be adjusted to suit particular needs, plus a few "Cheats" that I have taken advantage of. One such is a small CO2 cartridge set up with about a 0.040" orifice to act as a buffer chamber on the signal that I source from small sensor lines off each inlet runner. That allows a calming of an otherwise rippled reading, but without notable delay. Throttle response remains instantaneous but the MAP sensor signal is calm/ straight line.:brow
 
I'll now run through a full sequence of slides that show Mixture Adaptation. These are slides of Open Loop AFR, before and after an adaptation period. It is quite remarkable really and should inform everyone as to what types of fueling modifications actually make permanent changes.

The approach I'm going to take with these is that a picture is worth a thousand words. Questions are welcome.

Here is the original slide I posted showing Open Loop AFR for two scenarios: a fuel pressure increase, and a fuel pressure plus IAT Shift device increase:
adapt.open.loop.test.1.jpg


Here are the before adaptation and after adaptation results for Open Loop fueling with mixture richening caused by a fuel pressure increase. You can see that AFR was 13.0:1 after resetting the Motronic, but after a mixture adaptation period, the Open Loop and Closed Loop AFR were essentially the same: 13.8:1. To the right of the chart is a smaller one that shows the distribution of AFRs. The center is right around 13.8:1.
adapt.before.after.53psi.jpg


Next Post will be before and after Open Loop AFRs for the fuel pressure and IAT shift device scenario.
 
Below are the charts for Mixture Adaptation for the combination of the 53 psi fuel boost couple with a -20C IAT shift (using a BoosterPlug). In the first chart you can see that the reset, Open Loop AFR for the combined products were 12.1:1, that is a whopping 21% richer than stock (14.7:1). My LC-1 sets a Closed Loop AFR target of 13.8:1 and in this chart I've run Closed Loop for 15 minutes and then remeasured the Open Loop AFR. In that short time, the Open Loop AFR's mixture has been "adapted" to 13.3:1. That's not all the way to 13.8 yet but in 15 minutes adaptation has moved the Open Loop AFR by 10%.

adapt.before.after.53psi.bp15.jpg


Next I put the bike back into Closed Loop by flipping the switch on my LC-1 and rode another 15 minutes in Closed Loop at 13.8:1. Pulled over, flipped the switch to Open and measure the Open Loop AFR. I hope you're not surprised at this point that the Open Loop AFR is showing 13.7:1, nearly at the final target of 13.8.

I also hope it is clear at this point that the Motronic, has essentially fully altered the Open Loop mixture from 12.1:1 to 13.7:1 by Mixture Adaptation, and has "learned and removed" the fueling "errors" caused by the fuel pressure increase and the IAT shift device which dropped the air temperature 20 degrees centigrade. In other words, neither the FP change nor the BP had any effect on long term fueling and that it is the O2 sensor (and any shifts of it, in my case to 13.8:1) that set the Motronic's fueling.

adapt.before.after.53psi.bp30.jpg
 
R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #1

I've put together a series of fairly detailed charts on BMW Fuel Maps, Bosch Motronic Air Charge, GS-911 Engine Loading Data, and Intertial Dyno Testing. This information will only be useful to a few who read the thread but I've decided to include it because it has been hard to come by.

In particular I'd like to review the inertial dyno results from an unmodified R1200GS that was sent to me, during which they ran the GS-911 also, and got some interesting insight into what goes on in the BMSK during a dyno test. My conclusion, which I'll show in a few posts from now, is that the inertial dyno isn't a great tool, but let's park that issue for a moment.

I'm going to draw on several sources:

--Bosch Motronic Documentation for Alpha-N (RPM/TPS based fueling)
--R1100GS Fuel Table Data taken by John1100GS
--R1150 GS-911 Realtime Motronic MA 2.4 Values
--R1200 GS-911 Realtime BMSK Values
--R1200GS Dyno Data

My hope is that those riders working to improve the performance of their motorcycles will be able to review the charts in this post and a few that follow it, and use the previous Mixture Adaptation & Self Learning Cabability (post #358) from earlier in this thread, to get a good idea of what might or might not be effective improvements for their own motorcycles.

The Bosch Motronic Air Charge chart, below is the ratio of actual air charge to theoretical maximum air charge. Although the chart is typical for a Motronic Alpha-N ECU, it is a good representation for the R1100, R1150 and R1200, and is consistent with the fuel table values read from the R1100GS chip. The amount of Air Charge in the cylinder is directly proportional to the Engine Load data we captured with the GS-911 during the dyno run (coming later). Notice that the maximum air charge is at mid-RPMs and is only about 85% of the possible charge. BMW developed this type of data for every motorcycle engine it produces as part of building the Fuel tables. Anyone claiming to have a replacement chip or reflash should have measured this data for themselves (I've yet to see anyone who's done this), which is time-consuming and costly.

As an example, to get a 60% Air Charge (Engine Load) at 2000 RPM you open the throttle 14 degrees, whereas to get a 60% charge at 5000 RPM you need the throttle open 35 degrees, twice as much. (I'll come back to this later since the WOT dyno run produced only a 60% load at WOT, not nearly the 80%+ load the engine is capable of.)

Air Charge Chart
volumetricefficiency.jpg


The bottom chart below shows binary fueling values, read from an R11000GS Motronic Chip by John1100GS (ADVrider). (Although the R1150 and R1200 data will be different by degree, it will be similar in shape.) The surface map chart was produced by entering the data from the fuel table, into an Excel spreadsheet. The fuel table values look correct to me, compared to Bosch documentation for Motronic Alpha-N fuel maps. However, I believe the axis in the table that's labeled Load is for a vehicle with a MAP sensor so I've modified the labeling axis for the Surface Map below with my estimates of TPS position for those Loads using the above Air Charge chart. This data looks consistent also with a stock Bosch Motronic Air Charge diagram.

One of the most striking things in this data is that 2/3 of the data points are below 4700 RPM. Later I'll show that most of these values are within the area of Closed Loop operation, so if you were to install a new chip (or Re-flash the R1200), you wouldn't get different fueling since Mixture Adaptation and the Lambda Control Factors would bring you back to lambda=1 (14.7:1) unless you shift the O2 Sensor. Later I'm going to post a chart showing how little of the fuel table is exercised in a typical Dyno "pull" on an Inertial Dyno like the Dynojet 250i.
RB

Fuel Surface Map
r1100gsfuelsurfacemap.jpg


Fuel Table Values
john1100gsR1100GS%20Fuel%20Map.JPG
 
R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #2

Earlier in the thread, Roland (Oldpathfinder) mentioned that he took his R1200GS to a Dynojet 250i to see what it did in stock condition and we've started to dissect the information from that run. Luckily for all of us, Roland and Terry also logged data during all their dyno runs with a GS-911 and therefore we have actual engine data from that time, in addition to the large set of R1150 data that we also have.

I want to point out as I did in the last post that to get a full suite of information I've used R1100GS, R1150RT, and R1200GS data. Even though the data sets come from different bikes, the similarities for this type of analysis are far greater than the differences.

Before looking at the Dyno data, take a look at a "scatter plot" of a spirited 25 mile, local & highway trip on my R1150RT (lambda=1) and then after an R1200GSA (lambda=0.94). Every diamond on the chart is an RPM/Throttle Position data point as recorded by a GS-911. Although the throttle range of the R1150 is 0 degrees to about 80 degrees, and the RPM range is 1100 to 7250,

--2/3 of the data falls into the 0 - 20 degrees throttle,
--and 2500 to 5000 RPM range (2500-4200 on the GSA after adding LC-1s).

That's where a lot of our riding is done and ideally our Dyno tests would measure the points in this range. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Dynojet 250i inertial dyno measures.

r1150rttriptpsvsrpm.jpg


EDIT: Added chart for R1200, 45 minute local-highway ride

r1200gsatriptpsvsrpm.jpg


Below is the table of data that was read from the R1100GS by John1100GS (advrider), entered into an Excel spreadsheet (used to create the surface map in Part 1). I've added highlighting to show the area from the chart above and other areas where there's GS-911 data showing the Motronic is in Closed Loop. (Although the table isn't from an R1200GS, that model has a similar Closed Loop range of operation, perhaps larger.)

Also of note in the table is the area above 2000 RPM but below 5 degrees throttle that is NOT Closed Loop, which is a leaner area (based on LC-1 measurements) related to deceleration. This is an area prone to surging--light throttle mid RPMs.

The table has also been highlighted to show those cells that were measured during the initial R1200GS Dyno test. Of the 288 cells in the fuel matrix, the GS-911 data shows that only 9 of the fuel cells were used by the Dyno run. Only nine! This is the norm for all inertial Dyno runs.

In the next post, I'll show the Dyno information and then take a detailed look into what it measures.

R1100GSBinaryFuelValues.jpg
 
The Plot Thickens

Hey Roger, some nice info here. I'm going to copy it/ save in case I end up integrating a MicroSquirt onto an oilhead.
Lorne
 
Thanks Lorne! Here's some more ...

R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #3

It's fortunate to have several dyno runs taken on a 2009 R1200GS. What follows is one of the runs made before adding an AF-XIED. After you get familiar with the chart, have a look at several charts which follow, in this post and the next, which use GS-911 data taken at the same time the bike was on the Dyno.

The dynamometer used for this test, a Dynoject 250i, is run by a good quality operation, with a helpful and communicative operator, the shop and equipment are well maintained. It is not my objective to call their competency (which seems high) into question. Rather, I'd like to show some improvements that can be made.

The Dynojet 250i is an inertial dyno, which means that the loading of the motorcycle is created by accelerating a weighted roller driven by the rear wheel. If the rear wheel isn't accelerating the engine experiences no load, and the load doesn't change with speed. Under normal riding conditions the engine is always working to overcome the air resistance which rises significantly with speed. I believe the shop has the ability to add a brake-load to the initial conditions but it wasn't done for these runs. The testing was all done in 4th gear, a common setup. Here is one of the measured runs.

R1200GSdynamometer.jpg


Peak Measured Horsepower is 95 HP
Peak Measured Torque is 74 ft-lbs

When you first look at it, it seems that there is a wealth of information on horsepower, torque and AFR (air/fuel ratio). What we found though is that there is a lot going on inside the BMSK engine control unit, that needs to be understood, to make sense of the results, and the GS-911 data shows that only a small fraction of a bike's performance is tested. Thanks again to Terry and Roland for the data.

There are several conditions, not apparent in these results that were only evident from the GS-911 data. I'll list them here, and then in the next few posts look at them in detail. Then lastly I'll show the acceleration results from 4 runs without an AF-XIED and then four more with one attached on setting 8 (~13.8:1 AFR).

Conditions Measured with GS-911
1. Dynamometer Inertial-Load was only 50% on-road load.
2. Rear Wheel acceleration was twice as fast as on-road acceleration
3. Engine Load (measured by the BMSK) was ~0% at start of Dyno run. On-road engine load is 30% for same conditions.
4. Engine Load was ~60% maximum on the dyno. On-road engine load during a 4th gear WOT acceleration is ~70%.
5. AFR at the start of the dyno run was leaner than 16:1 resulting in a very lean initial acceleration. Due to the lean start, results on the inertial dyno don't reach operating AFR for about 2 seconds which is about 3500 RPM. This is a common inertial dyno starting condition. On-road AFR is 14.7:1 or 13.8:1 at the start of acceleration, depending on AF-XIED setting.
6. Of the 256+ Fuel Table cells in the BMSK, only 9 were stimulated by the dyno test run. None of the cells were in the usual riding area. (See chart in earlier post.) The same limited area of operation is true for the spark table.

The next post will show the BMSK data collected by the GS-911 for one of the dyno runs.
RB
 
R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #4

Here's a chart showing measured lambda sensor voltage on the right O2 sensor (the left and right sensors were nearly identical) preceding and during two successive dyno tests. In each case you can see the RPMs coasting down to about 1700 rpm just before the throttle is being cranked fully open.

During the coastdown phase, the BMSK sees the deceleration and goes into its Overrun Fuel Cutoff mode. When it does the injectors are shut off, the mixture goes lean and the intake tract dries out. This shows clearly in the very low lambda sensor voltages preceding WOT.

Once the throttle is opened you can see that it takes about 2 seconds for the lambda sensor to reach 800 mV, which signals a rich mixture. This delay is caused by the time it takes for the intact tract film to be re-wetted. As a result, the acceleration at the rear wheel is slower than it should be and as a result of that the dyno under-estimates torque and HP between 2000 and 3500 rpm, an area of critical importance to us.

A way to avoid this problem would be to have the dyno set to a 15 lb-ft torque load at the engine or a load that resulted in a 30% Engine Load as reported by the GS-911. Then the dyno operator would stabilize at 1700 rpm, wait until the BMSK reported Closed Loop, then fully open the throttle. That static load would result in normal fueling just prior to WOT, and produce a higher indicated torque and HP between 1700 and 3500 RPM.

The next post will examine Engine Load (BMSK data) on the dyno vs the road.

R1200GSafrstartdyno.jpg
 
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.

R1200GSengineloaddynoroad.jpg
 
R1100, R1150 and R1200 Alpha-N Fueling and the Dyno: Post #6

R1200GSaccelerationdynoroad.jpg


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

R1200GSaccelerationdynoroadpercent.jpg
 
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

R1200GSaccelerationbeforeafter.jpg
 
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. :clap

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!
 
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.:nod
 
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.
 
Wide Band Choice

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Back
Top