New version of ATR (1.9.1.0, Sep 27 2012) with Load Tuning > 80% IDC resolution...

[BigjohnB20]

Originally Posted by rfinkle2 So you aren't open to the idea that one of the tables may be limiting your boost to 25 psi? (Please see apology to cld12pk2go below) To ensure you are always targeting load per David: RPM comp A - RPM comp B = highly positive number. http://www.mazdaspeedforums.org/foru...2012-a-121094/

Did you mean to link to the Nator PA dyno day thread? I wanted to go revisit what David said about the Comp A and B tables.

My recollectoin was that it is indeed a trigger to switch from boost to load targeting. The context I recall from David was that it is compared to the current "WG ramp" and if the ramp exceeds the difference it switches to load targeting. In Davids early example, Boost tuning was relatively new and these tables werent' initially available. People were zeroing the LEC tables and trying to use BEC only. However, in a large overboost situation the WG ramp would exceed -10 and the map would switch to load targeting. Only thing was that all the LEC tables were zero so the ECU would then do nothing to reduce WG in during the overboost.

[David@COBB]

Sorry, I think I forgot to include a critical piece of information guys!

This only fixes the targeting of the WGDC/Boost target tables.

Remember that your actual WGDC is then compounded with dynamics from WG Duty Load Error Course/Fine before it is finally stored.

What is actually happening is that the Load Error (VE Calculated - Actual) is forcing your dynamics into the negative side.

So what you'll need to do is change the output values of the VE Table in the trouble areas of load (change the values in Engine Volumetric Efficiency (VE) )

Thanks,

-David@COBB

[David@COBB]

Emailed Lex and Cld12pk2go to test out some alternate fixes.

-David@COBB

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by David@COBB Emailed Lex and Cld12pk2go to test out some alternate fixes. -David@COBB

Email heading your way soon with map and logs...

Did I mention you rock?

Seriously, if we can overcome this last LCV3™ hurdle, then I think we are pretty much unrestrained for load tuning...

However, it would be a very nice upgrade if we could also have a scalable load axis on the DBW tables for controlling load in 3rd gear properly (I am right at 2.0 load often in 3rd gear logs, which requires way different throttle values than the 2.5 load I want in 4th gear).


Edit: Email sent at 8PM EST.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by BigjohnB20 Did you mean to link to the Nator PA dyno day thread? I wanted to go revisit what David said about the Comp A and B tables. My recollectoin was that it is indeed a trigger to switch from boost to load targeting. The context I recall from David was that it is compared to the current "WG ramp" and if the ramp exceeds the difference it switches to load targeting. In Davids early example, Boost tuning was relatively new and these tables werent' initially available. People were zeroing the LEC tables and trying to use BEC only. However, in a large overboost situation the WG ramp would exceed -10 and the map would switch to load targeting. Only thing was that all the LEC tables were zero so the ECU would then do nothing to reduce WG in during the overboost.

Shit... No. I'm doing a bang up job of fucking this thread up something awful. (thanks BigJohnB20 for pointing that out. I must've had the wrong link on my clip board.)

RPM comp tables explained here:

MAZDASPEED AccessPORT and AccessTUNER Get Big Updates

[NoLeftTurn]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Email heading your way soon with map and logs... Did I mention you rock? Seriously, if we can overcome this last LCV3™ hurdle, then I think we are pretty much unrestrained for load tuning... However, it would be a very nice upgrade if we could also have a scalable load axis on the DBW tables for controlling load in 3rd gear properly (I am right at 2.0 load often in 3rd gear logs, which requires way different throttle values than the 2.5 load I want in 4th gear). Edit: Email sent at 8PM EST.

Any luck yet? I was curious if you being in full time CL could have an impact? Have you tried OL tuning to see if it goes away? Just a thought. I am following this thread as I really want to Load Tune instead of Boost Tune.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by NoLeftTurn Any luck yet? I was curious if you being in full time CL could have an impact? Have you tried OL tuning to see if it goes away? Just a thought. I am following this thread as I really want to Load Tune instead of Boost Tune.

David's first modified map did not impact LCV3™. He said he has some other ideas, but that was Friday afternoon so no map to test yet.

I have had the same issue both in CL and OL.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go David's first modified map did not impact LCV3™. He said he has some other ideas, but that was Friday afternoon so no map to test yet. I have had the same issue both in CL and OL.

So WGDC still dropped? Still at the same 80% IDC and by the same amount?

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Lex So WGDC still dropped? Still at the same 80% IDC and by the same amount?

My V110B1 map:




Same map after David's special sauce was added:



WGDC was still at min allowed up top on both (flat lined at 80%) while well under the 2.5 load targets...

[Lex]

When speaking with David he mentioned that as WGDC tops out, the car starts to look at boost targets as well as load targets. Just for fun, set your boost targets well above what is required by the load targets (1-2 psi above) if you haven't already done so.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Lex When speaking with David he mentioned that as WGDC tops out, the car starts to look at boost targets as well as load targets. Just for fun, set your boost targets well above what is required by the load targets (1-2 psi above) if you haven't already done so.

Boost targets in those maps were 26 PSI at 6000 RPM and 27 PSI at 6500-7500 RPMs...

Until recently, I had them about 1 PSI higher. It didn't seem to matter either way.

[David@COBB]

New maps sent to you, Cld12pk2go.

Test and get back to me so we can get your stuff figured out

-David@COBB

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by David@COBB New maps sent to you, Cld12pk2go. Test and get back to me so we can get your stuff figured out -David@COBB

Just got them. I expect to have you logs by tomorrow evening EST.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Just got them. I expect to have you logs by tomorrow evening EST.

Email sent about 1 min ago...

Originally Posted by David@COBB New maps sent to you, Cld12pk2go. Test and get back to me so we can get your stuff figured out -David@COBB

Email sent.

[NoLeftTurn]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Email sent about 1 min ago... Email sent.

Well? I am thinking that it didn't help as I would have expected that you would have reported so. Anything interesting happen with the logs?

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by NoLeftTurn Well? I am thinking that it didn't help as I would have expected that you would have reported so. Anything interesting happen with the logs?

The last two maps' purpose was to try to identify where the issue is originating from in the complex control logic, not to resolve the issue.

I am awaiting another map based upon what David learns from the datalogs.

Patience.

[cld12pk2go]

Got 100% WGDC tonight...

Looks like David has found something...





VD after filtering out the bump in the road at ~5300 RPMs (still working on widening my 400ft-lb torque plateau, currently about 3200 RPM within 5% of 400ft-lbs):

[atvfreek]

Fuck yes!!!! That is great news man. Hard to see IDC, but how high did it go?

Freekn tappin

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Fuck yes!!!! That is great news man. Hard to see IDC, but how high did it go? Freekn tappin

87.15% peak

That is with 0.87 injector phasing multiplier too.

[superskaterxes]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go 87.15% peak That is with 0.87 injector phasing multiplier too.

speaking of, have u seen any negative effects of this? im down to .92 but im worried about spraying into the exhaust stroke esp with the new web cams. thoughts Tomas?

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by superskaterxes speaking of, have u seen any negative effects of this? im down to .92 but im worried about spraying into the exhaust stroke esp with the new web cams. thoughts Tomas?

Pulls like a raped ape on crack up top...

So I cannot say I have experienced any issues so far.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Pulls like a raped ape on crack up top... So I cannot say I have experienced any issues so far.

We can see that! Power climbs like an n/a v8 and doesn't stop.
First post, but have been watching this thread since day 1, as well as your other threads. Kudos man. That's perseverance. You seem to be THE ONLY one with this issue though. Or are there others waiting in the wings?

[atvfreek]

Originally Posted by Tokay444 We can see that! Power climbs like an n/a v8 and doesn't stop. First post, but have been watching this thread since day 1, as well as your other threads. Kudos man. That's perseverance. You seem to be THE ONLY one with this issue though. Or are there others waiting in the wings?

Everybody else trying to make big power has pretty much moved over to MBC so not too many/if any are trying to make 450hp on an EBCS and load tuning

Freekn tappin

[silvapain]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Everybody else trying to make big power has pretty much moved over to MBC so not too many/if any are trying to make 450hp on an EBCS and load tuning Freekn tappin

Most people don't want to put in the work to load tune.

I commend cld12pk2go for pushing the load tuning method.


Tapadatass

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Everybody else trying to make big power has pretty much moved over to MBC so not too many/if any are trying to make 450hp on an EBCS and load tuning Freekn tappin

I still have stock rods, so I cannot manage 26 psi at 3500 RPMs...reverse taper boost curve FTW!

[atvfreek]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go I still have stock rods, so I cannot manage 26 psi at 3500 RPMs...reverse taper boost curve FTW!

I hear ya man. That's why I do a reverse taper as well and just hold 390tq as far as I can with the BNR.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by atvfreek Everybody else trying to make big power has pretty much moved over to MBC so not too many/if any are trying to make 450hp on an EBCS and load tuning Freekn tappin

This. Many people would LIKE to be able to load tune at high power levels. They have simply migrated to MBC b/c it was the only easily workable option.

[ms3blackmica]

cld12pk2go

That is pure awesome. I salute you (and David!)

Way to work out the kinks for this platform!

[Lex]

Even people on stock turbo will experience this issue when it's cold enough or with E85 and load tuning.

I was planning on trying this today but ran out of time so I will do my logging on the David fix 2.1 and 2.2 tomorrow morning when it's nice and cool given the rain holds.
cld12pk2go, was it 2.1 fix or 2.2 fix that worked for you?

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by Lex Even people on stock turbo will experience this issue when it's cold enough or with E85 and load tuning. I was planning on trying this today but ran out of time so I will do my logging on the David fix 2.1 and 2.2 tomorrow morning when it's nice and cool given the rain holds. cld12pk2go, was it 2.1 fix or 2.2 fix that worked for you?

2.1.

I haven't tried 2.2 yet.

[David@COBB]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go 2.1. I haven't tried 2.2 yet.

if you aren't hitting a WGDC Cut, then you don't need to try it. The math works itself out as a ceiling.

For those that are interested, the issue at play stemmed from the target load being reduced (vs actual calculated by VE). What this did is make the WG Duty Load Error Comp (Coarse) drop into the positive error, giving a negative dynamic.

The control is based of "Injector Load", and encompasses the fuel scalar, weight, g/s , inj. phasing, and a whole slew of other models to see if the engine is running outside of its safety margin. I just adjusted the margin to encompass what a stage2+ car can run at.

Glad to help you guys out, and to finally get load tuning up to the level of our boost based tuning!

Thanks,

-David@COBB

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by David@COBB if you aren't hitting a WGDC Cut, then you don't need to try it. The math works itself out as a ceiling. For those that are interested, the issue at play stemmed from the target load being reduced (vs actual calculated by VE). What this did is make the WG Duty Load Error Comp (Coarse) drop into the positive error, giving a negative dynamic. The control is based of "Injector Load", and encompasses the fuel scalar, weight, g/s , inj. phasing, and a whole slew of other models to see if the engine is running outside of its safety margin. I just adjusted the margin to encompass what a stage2+ car can run at. Glad to help you guys out, and to finally get load tuning up to the level of our boost based tuning! Thanks, -David@COBB

Any so dies LCV3™.

So is the path forward here to add an additional table(s) to our ATR library so we can control this safety margin parameter?

Would this be a quickie update or something that needs a few months to vet prior to release?

As always, thank you for working with us to solve these annoying issues.

Hopefully, there will be no LCV4™ to worry about!

[djuosnteisn]

Originally Posted by David@COBB I just adjusted the margin to encompass what a stage2+ car can run at.

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go So is the path forward here to add additional table(s) to our ATR library so we can control this safety margin parameter?

+1. What about us "stage13+" guys? Would we have the ability to further increase the inj load ceiling?


Thanks again David. Can't wait to pull the MBC off my 6.

[cld12pk2go]

Originally Posted by djuosnteisn +1. What about us "stage13+" guys? Would we have the ability to further increase the inj load ceiling? Thanks again David. Can't wait to pull the MBC off my 6.

LOL...stage13+

If anyone is going to find LCV4™, it will probably be you...

I am out of turbo at this point.

[David@COBB]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go Any so dies LCV3™. So is the path forward here to add an additional table(s) to our ATR library so we can control this safety margin parameter? Would this be a quickie update or something that needs a few months to vet prior to release? As always, thank you for working with us to solve these annoying issues. Hopefully, there will be no LCV4™ to worry about!

Saying we just had a recent release, I will have to talk to our Mazda group at work about release options - but I will try to push sooner rather than later!

Thanks,

-David@COBB

[superskaterxes]

OT,
David@COBB

do you have a list of priorities for some upcoming releases?

[Lex]

Originally Posted by cld12pk2go 2.1. I haven't tried 2.2 yet.

It's raining cats and dogs here so I can't get out and test this ... will have to wait for a clear window and can't wait!

[ms3blackmica]

David@COBB is worth a million bucks!

[Lex]

BTW, have verified and the WGDC drop gen1 cars is there even when pure boost tuning.

Something in the code is different from gen2 cars where if you are purely boost tuning, the WGDC does not drop.

Another piece of the puzzle and this is why you see the gen1 cars go to MBC.

[David@COBB]

Originally Posted by Lex BTW, have verified and the WGDC drop gen1 cars is there even when pure boost tuning. Something in the code is different from gen2 cars where if you are purely boost tuning, the WGDC does not drop. Another piece of the puzzle and this is why you see the gen1 cars go to MBC.

The Processor speeds of the Gen1 and Gen2 ECU's seems to cause different system response when dealing with any of the dynamic systems for throttle,wgdc, etc. This is fine for most systems, but boost is kind of twitchy to changes. If you change the error comp's, you can sometimes cause the system to oscillate.

For OTS maps, its fine since we know what the setup us. Once you step up to some really big turbo's, tuning any of the systems becomes quite interesting

-David@COBB