[FI-saki]

I'm using Woolich system on my Gen 5. I'm very satisfied for product and the company. I have no any intention to go with any other product. Woolich RULES !

Anyway I would be interested to know and hear opinions about their new product "FTecu ActiveTune". How that would work in practice, etc...

Links for product:

https://ftecu.com/shop/kawasaki-activetune-afr-closed-loop-self-tuning-ecu-kit/

FTecu ActiveTune for Kawasaki Motorcycles released !

http://www.veloxracing.com/wp/2016/...d=00b7fee344&mc_eid=2c61eba6f1&v=75dfaed2dded

http://www.veloxracing.com/wp/product/ftecu-flashtune-activetune/?v=75dfaed2dded

 

[trackaddict]

So this system takes it one step further. It actually self tunes based on targets. I hope Woolich adds this feature. Not sure that's possible with the current setup however.

 

[gsxrvette]

I am getting the ftecu active tune added to my current ftecu setup. I hope it is as good as it looks


Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App

 

[chiffeee]

From what I read about the system the delay is 0.8 SC and that is a lot in the live adjustment. The system is just like a Power commander live tuning, I believe they are the same company. from my experience with power commander, the system was so late. the lambda sensor that they use has 0.5 delays itself.
Cars these days with OBDII and III use live fuel adjustment up to 70-80 percent of the Throttle. with measuring Upstream and downstream of the exhaust and when the different condition will meet it uses a different map, short fuel trim, and long fuel trim maps. the ECU is a lot more capable than a motorcycle ECU.
On the Gen5 ECU, this action is done with stock ECU up to 20% throttle. but FTECU is bypassing that when they are putting the system in open loop. it just doesn't make sense to me, which people make it sound like it is live tuning.
I haven't try that system and in my opinion is just an advertisement for them to sell the product.

 

[bbsteinnewyork]

From what I read about the system the delay is 0.8 SC and that is a lot in the live adjustment. The system is just like a Power commander live tuning, I believe they are the same company. from my experience with power commander, the system was so late. the lambda sensor that they use has 0.5 delays itself.
Cars these days with OBDII and III use live fuel adjustment up to 70-80 percent of the Throttle. with measuring Upstream and downstream of the exhaust and when the different condition will meet it uses a different map, short fuel trim, and long fuel trim maps. the ECU is a lot more capable than a motorcycle ECU.
On the Gen5 ECU, this action is done with stock ECU up to 20% throttle. but FTECU is bypassing that when they are putting the system in open loop. it just doesn't make sense to me, which people make it sound like it is live tuning.
I haven't try that system and in my opinion is just an advertisement for them to sell the product.

It's not just an advertisement. Ask any race team or rider using the Ftecu Active tune system. Every pro racer that has tried the system says that the small throttle transition from off to on is better / smoother and runs crisper on top. By the way this is exactly my feeling when riding any of my bikes with Active tune system addition

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[SpazOnaZX]

O2 sensor lag is a neat subject in closed loop tuning, but it's usually pretty consistent and can be corrected in the software (especially in systems that have short/long term algorithms). Also, lag time is reduced with higher rpm.... this isn't exactly sensor lag, but rather the amount of time it takes a combustion event to actually reach a sensor.

Almost all of these systems are using Bosch sensors, the newest being the 4.2 & 4.9 LSU. Using an Innovative controller I rarely see lag > .2 seconds at even the lowest RPMS, and usually < .1 above about 8K. If you're seeing .8 or greater combined lag numbers, there is something not right. I'm only sampling at ~18hz (bluetooth speed max) and my 'lag' never get that bad. If you could sample at 500hz (about as fast as a 4.2 or 4.9 sensor can sample), you can actually distinguish individual cylinder pulses in a merge collector with one sensor.... it's crazy. Add a little offset based on RPM and there is no 'lag' issue.

As far as closed loop systems for your bike go, they are all pretty neat, but experience has shown me that they can be... tricky to live with in the long term. All of these add on, no short term/long term, warning-less systems will usually work great for a while.... but once problems start to show up in the bike (fuel pumps wearing out, bad gas, dirty injectors, ignition issues) the system will mask it until it gets to a catastrophic level.... usually leaving you stranded and/or bashing your head on a wall trying to figure out a complex issue. 02 sensors can also fail in the same manner that fuel pumps will.... gradually over time. Without redundant sensors and visual failure indicators it will eventually catch you with your pants down. This can be mitigated with particular attention to maintenance and regular checks and service, but I'd say less than 5% of the population is either willing or capable there.

If you do want to run a system like that, regardless of who makes it, it's my advice that you set it up to get the tune happy, then remove it until you have the need to re-tune in the future. A decrease in performance is a great indicator that you have some unscheduled maintenance to do, and a primitive closed-loop system will hide that from you until it is inconvenient or too late. Just my honest opinion.

 

[chiffeee]

O2 sensor lag is a neat subject in closed loop tuning, but it's usually pretty consistent and can be corrected in the software (especially in systems that have short/long term algorithms). Also, lag time is reduced with higher rpm.... this isn't exactly sensor lag, but rather the amount of time it takes a combustion event to actually reach a sensor.

Almost all of these systems are using Bosch sensors, the newest being the 4.2 & 4.9 LSU. Using an Innovative controller I rarely see lag > .2 seconds at even the lowest RPMS, and usually < .1 above about 8K. If you're seeing .8 or greater combined lag numbers, there is something not right. I'm only sampling at ~18hz (bluetooth speed max) and my 'lag' never get that bad. If you could sample at 500hz (about as fast as a 4.2 or 4.9 sensor can sample), you can actually distinguish individual cylinder pulses in a merge collector with one sensor.... it's crazy. Add a little offset based on RPM and there is no 'lag' issue.

I think That is true if you just reading the A/f,but when you are sampling then the lag time will go up, If the the O2 is upstream then sampling time will come down but when the O2 is downstream that lag time gets higher, according to them it is .8 sec. you can not just sample one time and adjust A/F you should have many sampling at one point to adjust. This is just my understanding.

 

[bluedevil]

I don't understand what the problem is in this thread.....anyone that knows electronics and programing you CAN'T PROGRAM AN ECU ON THE FLY...SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Yes another Piggy Back like DynoJet....intercept and adjust Fuel Injectors nothing new you can do that with a PowerCommander 5.

Bloo

 

[FI-saki]

I don't understand what the problem is in this thread.....anyone that knows electronics and programing you CAN'T PROGRAM AN ECU ON THE FLY...SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Yes another Piggy Back like DynoJet....intercept and adjust Fuel Injectors nothing new you can do that with a PowerCommander 5.

Bloo

I agree above.

 

[SpazOnaZX]

I think That is true if you just reading the A/f,but when you are sampling then the lag time will go up, If the the O2 is upstream then sampling time will come down but when the O2 is downstream that lag time gets higher, according to them it is .8 sec. you can not just sample one time and adjust A/F you should have many sampling at one point to adjust. This is just my understanding.

...if at any point in the exhaust pipe of a zx10r @ 6000+ rpm anyone thinks it takes .8 seconds for an exhaust event to reach the sensor from the combustion chamber, they are higher than a giraffe's ass. Maybe at the end of a 15' exhaust pipe in an engine turning 600 rpm, but not in this discussion. Any system worth a damn will have enough processing power to write the sample to a log way, way faster than the next sample is produced... processing times in modern microprocessors are measured in Ghz... we are talking -billionth's- of a second here, and read/wrtites to RAM are still in the Mhz range. Even if you cut that down by several thousand times it's still faster than any combustion event. Combine all of that with an offset curve based on RPM (which is fairly predictable), and you can make a system that will very accurately project adjustments into the appropriate places. It takes a little practice, and it's likely a bit different from vehicle-to-vehicle, but I'm sure that 'close enough' gets it there in this case.

You make a good point about multiple samplings, and that's why OEM's/sophisticated ECU's use short term/long term trim strategies. They take many readings to adjust short terms, and many short term samplings to adjust long term... it works very well. When we talk about "sampling", though, you have to look at the datalogging & correction speed (Hz). Even in one pull, a good system is logging at anywhere from 50-200 HZ (faster for some, worse for others)... that's a lot of samples per second. To put it in perspective, at 12000 rpm the piston is essentially moving at 200hz; the sensor/system is capable of seeing each individual combustion event at peak rpm. Dat's fast. One fourth gear pull from bottom to top would last about 10 seconds; that's 1000 samples @ 100hz... plenty of data points to start making corrections. I know from experience that you can get it done at 15hz without a lot of heartache, so I have faith in a system like these to zero in on it fairly quickly.

But I still call these sort of auto-tune systems 'primitive'; they typically are very aggressive and have no failsafe or short term/long term strategies. If you have the appropriate off-set figured out they will auto-tune a bike nicely, but it's best to disable them after that..... there is no need to have it aggressively tuning 24/7.... it just opens up the door for complications. If you don't fully understand how they work, they can (and eventually will, if you ride enough) cause more problems than they fix.

Short version: they work, but they are not a good permanent solution. Caveat usor.

 

[mpp12]

I had in my heavily modified gixxer one called Motty AFR, was like a piggy back but built profesional (al case, data loger ), a bosh sensor and you could wire it up to any bike. (still have 2 of those in my shelf) and you could put a adapter for 4 lambdas, nice thing but the problem was that the company closed.

Had the same problem you mentioned, if your pump, injector, filter, etc... It would mask it...

the solution.. you mood, make a map. and then autotuner Off... simple. the beauty about the motty was that you could data log, all the bike was doing just conecting to the line...

me personally, Im not crazy about the autotune thing, maybe Im just old.

In my second bike (when wife lets me) I will put one motty to it....

 

[sdiver68]

It's not just an advertisement. Ask any race team or rider using the Ftecu Active tune system. Every pro racer that has tried the system says that the small throttle transition from off to on is better / smoother and runs crisper on top. By the way this is exactly my feeling when riding any of my bikes with Active tune system addition

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

OK I'll ask myself, Self...what was your experience with FT-ECU when you were prepping your 2013 Moto-America ZX-6r in 2015?

Their software was buggy as hell. Just 1 example of at least 3, they delivered a full exhaust map with only 1 of the 4 cylinders with any fueling adjustments. After multiple support tickets and calls each bug or issue I discovered was verified. I offered to work with them on that on a couple of occasions with no response. Eventually, they told me to put a Bazaaz or PC-V on it since all their "sponsored" pro racers do that for fueling. I talked to 1 of them directly, got his map and he verified that he was running a Bazaaz.

In contrast, Woolich was very informative and patient in walking through all the issues as I contemplated eating my $700+ with FT_ECU and switching to them.

BTW, I won't directly call him out but there is another well respected expert racer forum member who bought FT-ECU for his GEN 4 ZX-10R and got so frustrated he also contemplated eating the investment and switching to Woolich.

 

[SpazOnaZX]

That's the kind of stuff right there that's worth far more than the entry price... customer/tech support.... one of the big reasons I won't run AEM products any longer either.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[LDH]

O2 sensor lag is a neat subject in closed loop tuning, but it's usually pretty consistent and can be corrected in the software (especially in systems that have short/long term algorithms). Also, lag time is reduced with higher rpm.... this isn't exactly sensor lag, but rather the amount of time it takes a combustion event to actually reach a sensor.

Almost all of these systems are using Bosch sensors, the newest being the 4.2 & 4.9 LSU. Using an Innovative controller I rarely see lag > .2 seconds at even the lowest RPMS, and usually < .1 above about 8K. If you're seeing .8 or greater combined lag numbers, there is something not right. I'm only sampling at ~18hz (bluetooth speed max) and my 'lag' never get that bad. If you could sample at 500hz (about as fast as a 4.2 or 4.9 sensor can sample), you can actually distinguish individual cylinder pulses in a merge collector with one sensor.... it's crazy. Add a little offset based on RPM and there is no 'lag' issue.

As far as closed loop systems for your bike go, they are all pretty neat, but experience has shown me that they can be... tricky to live with in the long term. All of these add on, no short term/long term, warning-less systems will usually work great for a while.... but once problems start to show up in the bike (fuel pumps wearing out, bad gas, dirty injectors, ignition issues) the system will mask it until it gets to a catastrophic level.... usually leaving you stranded and/or bashing your head on a wall trying to figure out a complex issue. 02 sensors can also fail in the same manner that fuel pumps will.... gradually over time. Without redundant sensors and visual failure indicators it will eventually catch you with your pants down. This can be mitigated with particular attention to maintenance and regular checks and service, but I'd say less than 5% of the population is either willing or capable there.

If you do want to run a system like that, regardless of who makes it, it's my advice that you set it up to get the tune happy, then remove it until you have the need to re-tune in the future. A decrease in performance is a great indicator that you have some unscheduled maintenance to do, and a primitive closed-loop system will hide that from you until it is inconvenient or too late. Just my honest opinion.

That is the single best explanation I have seen on this subject in any forum ever. I've been saying the same thing for years in terms of tuning the bike then removing the tuner until it is needed again, but I never managed to detail it in the same manner that you have here nor to the extent of reason. Very well done sir!

 

[SpazOnaZX]

Thanks man, that means a lot from someone like yourself. I'd like to say that you can pick up all that in a book/forum somewhere, but I honestly had to just try it with one (or half a dozen...) of these type of systems and pretty much drive myself crazy breaking and fixing shit before I started to really figure it out..... I have a lot of time, miles, money, and hurt feelings invested in figuring this stuff out on my own. I don't think people realize how much of yourself you have to invest in these types of things to truly be proficient in their adjustment and use.

I can say one thing with absolute certainty, though: If there was a perfect system out there, no one would keep making new shit, right? No matter how great they make it sound on the front page, all things engine and engine management have quirks and maintenance issues that make them more involved than just "plug N play". Sometimes you pay the piper up front, sometimes after the mileage stacks up..... but he always gets paid. Frankly, I'm floored by how reliable and relatively maintenance free OEM's make these damn things with the performance they have available. THOSE are some smart sumsofbitches right there.