Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 24
Author Topic: ME7.9.10 - Understanding the torque model  (Read 41397 times)
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +289/-29
Offline Offline

Posts: 3513


« Reply #150 on: April 05, 2018, 03:25:01 AM »

LOL
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #151 on: April 05, 2018, 04:29:49 AM »

hello I can not activate the launch control on my grande punto tjet 120cv, can you tell me which curves to go to enable? thanks

Since this is the same as my bin, software wise, I attach the variable and location data that you need to patch it up to make it work. If you cannot, you have to ask somebody else to do it.
Logged
asso81
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #152 on: April 05, 2018, 04:35:04 AM »


to activate the lanch mode I wanted to raise the rpm value nmax 4000rpm, and then put vmax in stationary mode at 40km, and the right way?
Logged
asso81
Newbie
*

Karma: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #153 on: April 05, 2018, 04:44:34 AM »

thank you woj Wink
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #154 on: April 05, 2018, 05:14:11 AM »

to activate the lanch mode I wanted to raise the rpm value nmax 4000rpm, and then put vmax in stationary mode at 40km, and the right way?

You first need to match the code to your software version, the bins / patches I provided earlier won't work (and they will screw up your ECU almost for certain). Otherwise the default parameter values should be more or less sane and usable for first tests.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #155 on: April 06, 2018, 12:34:00 AM »

And of course I opened a can of worms posting this launch control patch. Please do not take the following personally, but I have to say this:

1. You are solely responsible for your actions and consequent damages when you decide to test this patch. The mod is dangerous for your engine and gearbox. And for you!

2. You have to have a basic understanding of the underlying process of patching and parameter calibration of bin files. You have to have a good working knowledge of your tuning and flashing software. (Example here: cloned MPPS will not work). Do not flash files that you are unsure of and pray that it will just work (it's not Windows ffs). This is not a click and go process (it can be, but turns out it's not for most).

3. The posted patch is only for one software version of the ECU, it will not work with other versions without extra work.

4. And remember: you are taking software from somebody that (a) you don't know, (b) is doing it for free and have little interest in your success, (c) is coward enough not to test it on his own (stock) car.

End of disclaimer.

But please, do not be afraid to ask questions when you get stuck, but not ones of the sort "I clicked through and it does not work."
« Last Edit: April 06, 2018, 12:36:57 AM by woj » Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #156 on: April 06, 2018, 04:17:02 AM »

I got a message that a version with retard also works, but there is some fine tuning and additional tests for NLS needed. Result so far:

https://youtu.be/WPlf6sJ-Xm8
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +289/-29
Offline Offline

Posts: 3513


« Reply #157 on: April 06, 2018, 10:15:38 AM »

Yes, but you need to check boost, the more retard there is the more boost.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #158 on: April 06, 2018, 10:28:40 AM »

Teo will report on it when he tests more, the retard you see on the video is 6 degrees ATDC.

On a different note, just came back from my desk, doing some physical work with the casing I f-ed up my bench ECU :/ Not sure what could have happened, will triple check all connections, but it seems like a search for another reasonably priced one. If anyone has one floating around, let me know.
Logged
teobolo
Full Member
***

Karma: +7/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #159 on: April 07, 2018, 04:23:37 AM »

Yes, but you need to check boost, the more retard there is the more boost.

Boost is at 0.6 bar , assuming that the car is a big turbo ( it has fitted a turbo from Nissam GTR ) and LC rpms are set to 4000rpm i think is good for hard LC starting point.
With -10 retard i think i can easily see 1.2 bar boost ...

Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #160 on: April 08, 2018, 12:45:08 PM »

Had some fun today doing my first attempts at stage 1 tune for my 120hp tjet. Successful so far, I got the ECU to raise boost until reaching KFLDBHN without ill effects. Would post logs, but proper ones are yet to be done pending fixing of my logging software which had a very bad day on two different devices (incomplete logs, unable to connect, all kinds of crap).

I have to hand it to Mr. prj about his endless comments here and there about repeatability of results on road (which I never doubted, but now got to experience it in the Bosch context). And I am not even talking about power indications, just getting the same actual/requested/max torque figures in logs between pulls is impossible.

To be continued...
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +289/-29
Offline Offline

Posts: 3513


« Reply #161 on: April 08, 2018, 03:07:42 PM »

Of course.
And even on dyno you have to make sure your temperatures, ramp rate and so on is bang on.

It's actually doable when you don't have to worry about the road going up/downhill, wind blowing, cooling being different due to different speeds and so on.
Logged
gt-innovation
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +42/-23
Offline Offline

Posts: 367


« Reply #162 on: April 10, 2018, 06:27:01 AM »

Yet again I was clearly not precise enough asking my question Wink Still useful info, and a follow up question - changing zwgru will also affect torque calculations, would it not? Not better to slip in the retard later in the chain (close to zwout)? (BTW the RPM margin gt-innovation quoted elsewhere was 160 rpm, but this will be a configurable parameter anyhow).

What I really asked: if I have LC at, say 4000, and NLS at 5000, is it practically sufficient to have one retard value for both, or should I make it the particular rpm dependent?


I didn't follow the complete thread or checked your code but i use 2 different variables for lc and nls since dsg gearboxes do not like big retardation values however i choose to cut spark as well directly from szout_w.Unless you are willing to use this code on automatic gearboxes your method using the same variable is fine.

Further more i regulate the boost and maximum requested load to keep the ecu sane while you are on lc.

As prj wrote an rpm dependand lc is the ultimate case as per Med17.1.62 ttrs/rs3 2.5 but that is not always enough.
I have found several ways to cut spark on different ecus but the dwell times serves me well on late m7 and med9 without any issues so feel free to test. if you regulate boost you can use higher retardation values.

I use zwgru on my st10f based ecu but the ignition array is also a choice.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 07:03:41 AM by gt-innovation » Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #163 on: April 10, 2018, 06:53:56 AM »

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, the current version is now 2-stage, retard and then shortly after cut through szout_w, with a configurable margin. Good hint on the two values for retard (though right now I have a f(RPM) map for retard, so if LC and NLS have different RPM levels I can achieve the same effect).

Duty cycle for turbo is also now implemented (probably a good idea to have two different ones for LC/NLS?), but not yet tested at all, I still wait for results from a prior version. With load limiting - I can do it, but then I have to return the question to you that you asked me in another thread "why bother?", perhaps in not that strong form Wink How does the ECU insanity in this situation manifest itself? I did not get any ill-effect reports from Teo (yet), so I wonder if it's worth the effort. (And also playing with requested load may effectively mean throttle plate interventions). I have the difficulty here of not being able to test it myself with my own logging and all, so I work half blind - with your support and report of test results from geographically distant places.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #164 on: April 10, 2018, 10:58:48 AM »

So the logs from my first stage 1 tune attempts. This is essentially only raising MDMAXNMOB (I have the extra boost only in sport mode) to hit KFLDHBN. (Note that in the actual logs there is all kinds of data that is not actually being logged (Zeitronix is disconnected), just dummy values, and also the conversion for requested torque is off by factor of 2, it should be 120% during full throttle pulls, not 60%, need to fix my software).

But my point, look at the pictures, what a crappy stock boost controller, prj already warned me about this and slickkon has continuing problems with it too, I just found it hard to believe that a stock setup can also cause trouble. On the picture this is the first time (out of 5-6 pulls or so) that the boost overshot so much (typically it was hitting only ~230kpa, this time good 240) the throttle had to cut it, nevertheless. If you look at the normal run (this is stock calibration), it also overshoots strongly, but not as much. And I can promise you from my foot feelings from the past, that even on stock pulls there happens to be a very feelable torque dip telling me there is a throttle cut too occasionally. And the DC does not seem to care to do anything. I need to find the parameter that defines the allowable overshot (I know it is somewhere), because I do not intend to tune this boost controller, not for a stock stage 1 tune.

(I also have a 2nd gear pull till red line, all is good there, no overshot, no throttle cuts, but 2nd gear pulls are worthless).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 24
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.022 seconds with 18 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)