NefMoto

this is something i have never played with before.
how much more powerful/faster and/or lighter does a car (vehicle in general) have to be before ARMD starts to become an issue?

me17.8.5 seadoo has "Code word anti jerk function, CWARMD". 03 > 00 i assume will disable it completely.

just curious since it is such a quick revving engine if turning it off would have any type of positive gains.

It is never an issue when set up right.
I don't think most people realize what it does - it checks for drivetrain bucking and does not let it get into resonance.

On cars with light flywheels that's when for example sharply coming off throttle, taking off or coming on throttle and back on again.
Without ARMD the car will buck back and forth.

Just adjust KFDMDARO etc so that the delta torque has to be very high at high load. This will shut off the function completely at high load, as it will not trigger.

ARMD does not get triggered by a "fast car". ARMD is triggered by delta torque swing.
On a car with a lot of power, the load is very high and even a little bit of knock or timing change will already trigger it due to the delta torque being much higher than on a standard tuned car. It will then go into a feedback loop as delta torque keeps jumping up and down and it gets triggered over and over again.
You can either adjust KFDMDARO to suit or just disable the function altogether at high torque. I would not turn it off at low load though. It makes the car a lot better and less jerky to drive.

2nd. I only numb ARMD at high torque.

That said, very light cars (compared to stock weight) will trigger ARMD more than heavy cars; there is an "expected" RPM model based on integrating torque.. not just delta torque.

If expected RPM is outside of that (in this example, because the car is lighter than the RPM model expects), ARMD will trigger.

I could be wrong though, as usual, so YMMV.

thank you.

i am only mainly concerned with it on the seadoo, since it is pretty much idle or wot, not much in between, figured off all together may be ok.

I think the main problem is that everyone seems to want to disable torque monitoring everywhere, which is dumb. The whole point to torque monitoring is smooth part throttle, which is why torque modeling ECUs were designed in the first place.

yes, i understand. im just going for max acceleration here. there is no part throttle when i ride.  :)

Absolutely.

I've got a similar light stripped out track car under 1000kg with 6kg/13lb flywheel an engine conversion. DARO DAROS DADP  raised on the last lines I'm still experiencing timing swings of upto 10 deg.

As a test, I FF'd TMAR and the car came alive. Better acceleration (less numbed ) and timing showed a ripple in comparison on the logs. Wondering if it's worth just leaving it like that myself as 100 on the last lines still results in zwist = zwsol.  ???

If it's a dedicated track car - sure, why not.
But if you still want part-throttle to be tolerable - figure out what's up.

Timing is only a secondary indication. The main var that you want to log is "dmar_w" - basically it's delta torque applied by ARMD. You want it to be zero at WOT, obviously. If it's not, start back-tracing it, why exactly it's not zero. Log mkar_w (which is an input to KFDMDA* maps along with gangi) and confirm that you're hitting cells that you expect to. If you aren't - well, figure out what's up with mkar_w (something's probably wrong with your mifa_w or MDVER function).

It's really ALL in the FR. That being said, I couldn't "digest" those graphs until I went step-by-step over the code itself, taking notices of what goes where, why and when.

Id disable the whole lot, even the temperature maps.  Mines completely mapped out and dont get any bucking or jerking on part load or anything.  And mines a full on track car with 3.5kg flywheel.

Part throttle has improved since disabling it. Seems much smoother.

The problem arises when trying to log as me7logger doesn't have those variables for my ECU.
So the fault finding halts.

There are many variables I'd like to be able to log but without disassembling it can't happen.
 :-\

MDVER is what needs calibration if you've lightened the car significantly and you want to keep part throttle ARMD.

For a dedicated track (or strip) car, I don't see any reason to keep ARMD at all.

I'm pretty confident you have the ability to learn how to disassemble the code and find RAM locations :)

thanks for all the replies and info.

Great discussion. Glad to see they're still possible, as it's been a while.

You have no idea what it does. There is not supposed to be bucking or jerking on part load. There are very specific circumstances when it does something.

That said - on track cars, just turn that off. I'd turn off the entire torque model on a track car and make the throttle follow pedal. Or even better, use a proper standalone with a proper dash and proper logging.
Also I am not sure why this is relevant on a Seadoo.

Thanks.  ;)

I'll look into it.

TBH, my car runs perfect with it fully turned off, on track and on the street.  mapped by one of the leading tuners in ME7 in the UK.  Delta gains even on a STOCK map just by tuning it off are huge.  Then again, not many people on here like 'stripping down' a ECU to make it work entirely like a standalone would.    Id much rather a stripped down me7 ECU than run standalone as much more refined and more safety nets in place than a lot of other standalone systems.

this was exactly my goal. to numb down the me17 so that it only is controlling needed basic functions while still being "safe".
reduce KR, turn off other torque monitors that may interfere, etc. try to take back control from the ecu as much as possible.

The irony is in the fact, that a lot of the "safety" features are based on torque model.

EDIT: By the way, most of the current Bosch Motorsport ECUs are torque-based as well. Not implying anything, just a random fact. :)

in the boat ecu a lot seem based on load %, 100% throttle = 100% load, and intake air temp or water lake/coolant temp. limp mode from faulty brake lever i saw in a scan last night.

That's because it wasn't tuned right. If ARMD is set up correctly there is zero difference in max power with it on and off, simply because it isn't doing anything whatsoever at WOT. If it is doing something on WOT it's not working the way it was intended.
It's easy to turn everything off instead of understanding how something works, and what something does. Same goes about the torque model. If tuned right there is zero intervention from it on high load.

That's correct. But then again, they are tuned by people who know how the ECU works and what it is doing.
Most people calling themselves tuners have no idea how even the simplest features work in ME and thus lots of myths are born.
Of course when some feature is calibrated totally wrong turning it off will produce an instant result. For example - if you have something banging against the block so the ECU is registering tons of knock when none is there, if you turn it off you will get lots more power instantly. It's easy to then say that the "knock control is shit" instead of fixing your car or fixing the cal.

Completely factory tune as from the factory....

All these are completely stock maps just with the ARMD functions removed.   Makes a bit of difference I think....

Well, why do you expect stock ARMD calibrations to remain valid for whatever you changed in those cars? It has to be recalibrated, just like everything else.
As prj noted above:  "If ARMD is set up correctly there is zero difference in max power with it on and off, simply because it isn't doing anything whatsoever at WOT."

Your graphs clearly show it being active under WOT conditions, which is simply wrong.

Except your car isn't factory. DUH.
Also, IME it will trigger on dyno in conditions where it will not trigger on the road.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Again, put a car on a dyno with zero load - it is equivalent to a very light car.

Actual RPM is way higher than the ARMD RPM model predicts...

Following.  This is an already interesting read.

Are you saying on a totally stock car (the ones that Chris posted), on the road, will not experience the timing oscillations that they're seeing?  How do you calibrate it?

ARMD should not trigger stock. It should be calibrated to sense bucking, not normal WOT accel.

prj's argument is that even a stock car might experience bucking under sudden wot, and that is what ARMD is supposed to curtail.

But if you roll on, it should not.

And if you do slam on it hard, stock, it may trigger *once*, but should not go into a feedback loop (timing cut, restoration, buck detect, timing cut, etc).

Exactly, on a bone stock car you will never have ARMD intervention on a smooth road on WOT.

It's a very sensitive function. Hell, things like a lighter flywheel can affect it and make it trigger in some cases.
The thresholds should be adjusted on modified cars, so that it stays OFF when WOT.

Where ARMD is doing something is for example when you have a stiff car with stiff mounts etc and you are say in 1st or 2nd gear at low rpm just rolling.
Now if you go on the throttle, and then back off the throttle sharply the entire car will rock back and forth. With ARMD it will catch that rocking and kill the resonance instantly. If you have softer mounts it is not as noticeable.
It is meant to counter drivetrain resonance. In higher gears it is mostly unnecessary if you have good traction. It sure as hell should never trigger there - if it does it is set up wrong.
If it affects your WOT power - it is set up wrong etc.

As I said before you can say the same thing about knock control. If it was calibrated wrong for the hardware and would be randomly pulling timing then turning it off you would also make gains. Does not mean the function is useless. But that seems to be the logic of some people here "I don't understand what it does/how it works - turn it off".

to update this, tested CWARMD = 3 (stock) and CWARMD = 0.

according to customer, with = 0, ski launched harder with more lower end power. said lost a bit of top end.
the top end may or may not be an accurate account i think. only 1mph difference in top speed so maybe just a fluke.

seems disable had positive gain, at least in parts of the power band.

Why would you trust that sketchy evidence considring you can just log B_armd

im testing this on a seadoo, me17.8.5.

"B_ar" in ME7/MED9, should be the same for later ECUs?
Just a nitpick. ;)

I love the selective reading done here.
We know 50% of what that customer said is bullshit. But you choose to believe the other 50% like it's pure gold. Because it fits with what you want to believe.

The amount of fail is unbelievable.

it is not selective reading. i still need to test for myself (ski is 9hrs from my current living location). i have also given the info to others to test as well.
the person commented that it was "noticeably quicker" with that file during launch. tests were back to back, on vs off.

i also dont believe the other half is bullshit vs pure gold. my ski is not always 100% consistent on top speed, even on back to back runs like that. 1mph difference does happen often.

Either way, it would be nice to keep the "it feels like" crap off of the board.
There's enough forums where everything is done off of that and we know how that goes.

If you do not have hard data then there is no point drawing any conclusions.

i understand your point.
i would love hard data. there is just no logger available.

Uhm... So, if you change gear to use closed ratio you MUST deal with ARMD stuff... make MUCH sense

Look in a P 996 turbo file for an exampel.