Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Timing Oscillations  (Read 7665 times)
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« on: June 05, 2013, 09:37:08 AM »

hey all,

Im trying to track down a timing oscillation I'm having, and I'm having a ball since I don't know how to disassemble yet. I have tried going through a ME7L .ecu file and finding all the torque variables I could, but I could only find mifa, misol, and miszul. I (think) I located KFDMDARO and KFDMDADP in my file, and set the 50% row to 100, but the oscillation still persists.

IRL is stock except for last five columns, and IOPs axis has been rescaled and the table re-interpolated using MasterJs tool.

I have attached a log to the post, I welcome any opinions. Disregard the WGDC, that is from KFLDRAPP.



« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 09:39:25 AM by catbed » Logged
ddillenger
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +641/-21
Offline Offline

Posts: 5640


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2013, 09:39:58 AM »

No log attached? Also, did you recalculate KFZWOP/2 and KFMDS? They share the axis with IOP.

Posting the actual tables is good. MasterJ's tool doesn't interpolate properly, I tried it but now tend to do it by hand.
Logged

Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your experience!

Email/Google chat:
DDillenger84(at)gmail(dot)com

Email>PM
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2013, 09:42:04 AM »

No log attached? Also, did you recalculate KFZWOP/2 and KFMDS? They share the axis with IOP.

Posting the actual tables is good. MasterJ's tool doesn't interpolate properly, I tried it but now tend to do it by hand.

lol, you got me before I could add the log from my VM.

Yes, KFZWOP/2 is recalculated. KFMDS is NOT, however. I recall reading somewhere that is only lower RPM but I could be wrong. Ill take a look for that.

EDIT: tables attached to this post.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 09:51:25 AM by catbed » Logged
nyet
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +607/-168
Offline Offline

Posts: 12270


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2013, 02:49:20 PM »

You're going to need to log a few more torque variables...

for IOP intervention, mifa/misolv and mibas/mizsolv, for ARMD mkar/nmod/B_ar/B_tvarss/ndar/dmar
Logged

ME7.1 tuning guide
ECUx Plot
ME7Sum checksum
Trim heatmap tool

Please do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own.

Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2013, 03:33:29 PM »

You're going to need to log a few more torque variables...

for IOP intervention, mifa/misolv and mibas/mizsolv, for ARMD mkar/nmod/B_ar/B_tvarss/ndar/dmar

That's where I'm stuck. I don't know the addresses of those variables for my 018CH file.
Logged
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2013, 05:25:17 PM »

Here is another log of the problem. This log really shows the problem.

I found KFMDS earlier, and am interpolating now.
Logged
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2013, 07:33:21 PM »

Since dd mentioned KFMDS, I plugged the stock values into excel and extrapolated the values two different ways. Should I follow the curve or linearize on the load axis?

The curve matching is better IMO, as drag torque still increases with RPM but decreases with increasing load.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 07:37:49 PM by catbed » Logged
catbed
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +8/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 04:01:16 PM »

I believe I fixed it. My KFZWOP table had a lower value than my KFZW in the same area. Re-interpolated KFZWOP to suit the new axis again and all is well now.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.029 seconds with 16 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.001s, 0q)