449/511 communication with ECU

I adjusted my 0% TPS to about .78v and the idle to 2000rpm. The no load 0%-10% throttle surging was still there. I started evening out the fuel map between 0-10% TPS and 2000-4000rpm in small increments. After 5 map uploads, it seemed to smooth out at constant throttle. Lugging around on the street feels a lot better than before. I previously had a JD Power Surge 6 on the bike. It added power, but I was never able to adjust the surging out. I guess it was the dip in the fuel table causing the issue.
Now I'm going to start working on a map to get the power back that was lost when I removed the JD. I really enjoyed being able to keep up with my friend's YZ450f!

Mapping is a tricky business, as each engine is different.
Differences in exhaust, air filter type, different year models tunes etc all make things tricky.
The main thing would be to avoid large changes in one step.
Adjust, test, adjust again would be preferred rather than a large single adjustment that might make things worse.

I haven't spent time poking around the map in the area of the surge, as I rarely ride the engine in that area.
However, to me, it seems like the ignition timing is 'flat' in the area, rather than a fuelling issue....
Would need to view a data log and compare to the areas on the maps to confirm....
You could do that to the fuel side as well.

Data logging is not working for me. Whenever I start the bike, the tune ECU app locks up. I can only use the dashboard for a few seconds before the program crashes. Reading and loading maps is working fine. Looking at sensor voltages works fine also, until you start the bike. Not sure what's going on. I will email Tune ECU tech support again.

There is a new version of TuneECU at the Google store. New interesting feature is the map table for the second throttle.
It is a bit lumpy in places...

Hi,

yes Alain included this feature in the latest release.
I tried to set all values to 100, to keep the secondary throttle open all the time (like removing the butterfly), but I see no difference (while not riding) and feel no differnce (while riding).
Is it maybe related to the fact, that the secondary throttle manages the idling with the cam?
Have you tried tweaking these values on your CCM? I have not yet tried to disable the secondary butterfly by the other available software switch.
Also, the table of the G450X differs relatively much, as I remember correctly.

BR
Florian

I'm having a look at the 2nd butterfly map and trying to get my head around what it's showing.

I've imported the table into Excel for visualisation:


So, the initial response from the 2nd butterfly seems to only come into play at 2,400 rpm and it also only responds with a primary throttle movement of greater than 2%, otherwise it's simply on it's zero position.

I have to assume that the zero position, isn't a true zero, as otherwise opening the main throttle wouldn't result in any RPM increase, and therefore the 2nd butterfly wouldn't respond, becasue if the rpm never rise above 2,400 then the 2nd butterfly doesn't move. So, 2nd butterfly must still lets by when at zero. Primary butteerfly opens, revs increase, once above 2,400 then the 2nd butterfly starts to open, quite rapidly and as soon as you're at <5.5k rpm and >20% throttle it's wide open. I don't understand the plateau/steps at mid range RPM (3-4k) and throttle opening >15%, to me it should be smoothed out somewhat - uness that is an operating range that hardly ever happens, and therefore they didn't spend any time mapping that zone. My suspicion is that the main operating region is the area that IS somewhat smoothed out, but I still feel that there's opportunity to smooth it out further.

I would like to smooth out some of the snatchiness at low throttle positions - looking at the sharp rise I think there's scope to smooth that curve out. I really don't think there's a lot of opportunity to harm the engine with this map change, so I might try some more drastic things and see what happens... watch this space.

I like your approach at looking into the secondary butterfly, but without the butterfly plate, none off this remapping is required....
I'm not sure which model bike your file is from, but the actual operation of the crazy butterfly motor in real life on my 2011 is nothing approaching smooth, or logical, closing when it should be opening, delayed opening, or indeed not opening at all on quite wide throttle openings.

The attached video is my system in 120fps.
For reference, the painted marks on the two shafts should move apart for both to open fully. As you can watch in the video, the second butterfly often closes or does not move at all and was one of the causes of flameouts in proper Enduro riding.
Removing the butterfly was the best thing I ever did to the bike in the 5 years I've owned.


View: https://youtu.be/7Vn_9JxDOz8

Any delays in response (relative to the primary throttle input) of the secondary butterfly are going to be because the butterfly needs to see BOTH an increase in demand (primary throttle increase) AND an increase in the engine (increase in RPM). If you're idling at say 1800-1900 rpm, then theoretically if you can stroke the primary throttle fast enough from 0-100% before the revs increase by 500prm to >2,400 then the secondary will stay shut. That's an extreme case and probably unlikely in reality, but I COULD see a case where a quick blip of primary to say 20 or 30% might be fast enough to not get a significant engine response as the secondary could not respond fast enough to really allow enough additional airflow.

One of the reasons why an increase in idle speed to 2,000 or higher makes the bike respond better could well be because you are then operating at a range much closer to the response point of the secondary.

At the moment my butterfly is out, so I need to get it put back in before I really dig into this, but some of my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think the butterfly needs to start responding right across the RPM range, I'll probably taper things down so there's a response as low as 1,700 rpm.
2. As a trial I will start with a smoother more conservative response curve, slowing the secondary response further, it won't be what I want, but it'll help me see and visualise the results.
3. How does the cold start work, that must be a different part of the ECU/Map. We know that the upper cam holds open the primary slightly on cold start until everything's warmed up. Does that change the baseline?
4. What sort of percentage output in the secondary produces a forced opening of the primary - is that happening at <8% which is the lowest response value in this mapping table.
5. Some of the jumps are pretty big eg 47% - 71%, whereas others are quite small - imagine stroking the throttle and getting an engine response like shown below, that would result in some pretty lumpy transitions of position of the secondary (first nothing, then a bi step, then nothing for a bit, then another big jump) - another reason for a smoother curve in my opinion.

Hi This is my first post. I have a 2011 TE 449 and the flameout always catches me out at the worst of time. I ride on wet slippery clay, so I don't need power. I need to keep the gear high and lug it, but run that fine line of it stalling. I have been following these posts with interest and finally decided to buy all the cables and upload map3. I have not ridden it since doing it, so can't wait to feel the difference. I did find the biggest difference was installing a G2 Throttle tamer. However for summer I removed it and also decided to remove the second butterfly. But with winter approaching I am putting the throttle tamer back on, with map3 and not sure about putting the 2nd butterfly back. I will do the next ride with G2, map 3 and no 2nd butterfly and see what it is like to ride. I came across these videos that suggest (between the bad language), what the 2nd butterfly should be doing.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdj1QMSl3OI



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd4AKg31CyY


https://www.g2ergo.com/

The CCM problem differs from the Husky, on the CCM the motor does not suffer from flame-outs, but does have a violent surge at "technical riding" speeds ( 3000 - 4500 rpm) when hot. When the surging starts if one is careful with the throttle the lcutch can be pulled in and the engine will cycle between 3000 and 4500 by itself with about 1-2 seconds between the peaks. It will continue to do that until something chnages, i.e open or close the throttle.
Adding more ( a lot more!) fuel in the lower ranges of the CCM has improved that a lot, but there is still a bit of a stutter. I have added upwards of 30% more fuel in places. I was initially concerned, but when I cross-checked with the PCV maps intended for the CCM I saw that they too add about the same fuel in those places.
One of the biggest problems is getting to see the relationship between the F and L map points, and when the switchover between these maps occurs.These are some things I have learnt whilst "playing" around with TuneECU on my CCM, and based on a lot of work by the forum user Ama. on the ADVRider forum. There is a really great ( and sadly overly long) thread on ADVRider titled "KTM 690 E & TuneECU" http://advrider.com/index.php?threads/ktm-690-e-tuneecu.685657/. The KTM 690 uses the same ECU as our Husky/BMW/CCM, but has a second ECU to control the main butterfly. There is second set maps for that, but it cn be set to follow the twistgrip exactly. Much of what I write below is based on my understanding of that thread and my own experiences first on my KTM 690, and then on my CCM. Let me stress now that I am not a FI, nor tuning, expert. I bow to the better knowledge of others and welcome theor input to learn from them. I was (un)fortunate enough to be stuck in a boring yet well paid IT job that allowed me to indulge in my toys; and gave me hours of internet time to read articles whilst waiting for test routines to run or for senior personnel to actually make a decision...

There are 3 tables in a map set, the F (or F2 when Power Plug is fitted) map uses TPS and RPM to determine how long the injectors should stay open. Injector flow rate and fuel pressure are fixed, so the amount of fuel is directly related to the opening time.

The CCM maps have less RPM rows than the Husky or BMW. In the mid-rpm range the CCM tables do not have any rows for 3,250 , 3750 or 4250, but I believe the other two do.

The L map ( or L2), uses the Absolute Manifold Pressure Sensor on the throttle body to measure the air pressure inside the throttle. It then uses the table with pressure and RPM to determine the injector opening time.

The I map ( or I2) uses the TPS and revs to define the ignition timing. As the air/fuel mixture moves to very lean it will burn much slower, so the ignition may be advanced to get a more complete burn out of it before the exhaust valve opens. On the CCM the I map is very different to the I2 map. I think that this is where the CCM departs from the Husky/BMW camp. IIRC the latter use the same table for both I and I2? As I have been adding mor fuel, which will then burn faster, I decided to copy the I2 table in its entirety to the ! table.

The L map is generally more useful at lower engine speeds, as revs rise small changes in RPM alters the pressure less so the ECU uses the F map at higher engine speeds.

There is a table that determines at what point the ECU will switch from using F map to L map. At a few RPM positions the table defines at what TPS position the switchover occurs. E.g. At 5000 it may say "18%". That means that if the engine is running at 5000 RPM and the throttle is open only 5% (a trailing throttle on down hill section) the L map will be in operation. The ECU will take the MAP value and the revs and look up in the L table how much fuel to add. If we open that throttle to 20% open, the ECU will switch to the F map.

On my CCM, after adding fuel in the lower ranges, and even taking some away in the mid range, I found that the surging had diminished, but not gone. When the engine got hot enough to engage the fan it could be back almost as bad as ever. I then found comments from Ama. in the ADVRider thread relating to the use of the L map. He believed that he had found that the L map only comes into play when the engine has attained full temperature.

Adding more fuel had resulted in a cooler running engine, and earlier experimentation with the F-L switch had seemed to show that it had little effect. I revisited that but with a view to getting the motor hot first. My findings seemed to match what Ama. had said, the F-L switch only comes into play somewhere above 82degC. Without first hand information on how a specific TPS/RPM combination can be converted to a pressure value at the same RPM, I feel that my changes to the F-map have resulted in big differences when stepping between the 2 tables. I need access to more information to align the two tables, which is just not possible in my current circumstances. I decided to push that switchover out of the way by setting the values really low, that reduced the remaining surges further. I am comfortable with this, my Sherco 450 has lovely smooth power and torque curves from an FI system that has no manifold pressure sensor at all. The Sherco system uses RPM, air temp, atmospheric pressure and TPS only - as do many other systems. The demands of emmissions regulations require engines running to very tight specifications...

Looking at the 3-D chart posted by Padowan (neat!) I can see that there is a big step in the 3000 - 4500 region, any big changes are going to be noticeable. During the time that I have been looking at the CCM maps (and the PCV trims for those maps) I cannot help but think that soemone has been focussed only on the areas that they felt were important, mostly WOT or near-WOT behaviour, and meeting the specific targets of the EURO-III testing. I do not mean to belittle that work, I know that it must have taken a long time; but I do wish that they had been able to work on the areas outside of that.

You may wonder why I did not use the Power Plug and work on the F2, L2 and I2 maps? Well, one of the things that the power plug does is to disable the O2 sensor. "No bad thing" you may think, but the idea of the CCM is to replace my KTM 690 with RR tanks, i.e. a longer distance riding machine where fuel economy has a degree of importance.

The O2 sensor is generally ignored by the ECU unless the engine is at full temperature, the O2 sensor itself is at full temperature and the engine is running at a fixed speed with little perceptible variation in RPM or TPS. At this point, the AFR is measured and the mixture adjusted. The sensor itself is a "narrow band" type, the output swings rapidly either side of the ideal point. Small changes in AFR result in a huge swing in output, it is effectively an "on-off" type switch. The ECU can only really know that the mixture is leaner than that point, or richer. It can then either add, or subtract, from the injector opening time until it crosses that point again. I am guessing here, my assumption is that the ECU tries to work out how much to fine tune the opening time to attain stoich (AFR 14.7:1) , then reduces it by some percentage to try to get it somewhere around 15.4:1 for best economy and minimum CO2. As a feeback system it would need to keep cycling through that test and adjustment. Keeping the sensor also helps me feel that I have not entirely abandoned the thought that the atmosphere can be saved ;-)

The CCM surging seems, to me at least, to be a result of the lean mixture, advanced ignition curve and the stepped secondary throttle behaviour. Sorting out the first made the second more noticeable. Fixing that highlighted the differnce between F and L maps,moving that out of the way has left the steps in the secondary. That was the last mod that I have made, to smooth out the secondary, with gentler transition to open, and a minimum value of 3% above 2000 RPM ...

The CCM I test rode in Australia prior to their release flamed out as I tried to execute a spin turn when I went up a wrong track.
I cracked the throttle to pop the clutch and it stalled just the same as my TE449 used to do.
The second butterfly is NOT required to run the engine, Keihin are the only people to use the system
(Kymco engines, Suzuki V-Strom and Hayabusa)

It is a needless complication for a struggling ecu to try and calculate correct fuelling for a given set of circumstances.
You have conflicting primary throttle sensor data and MAP sensor readings going on when the second butterfly remains closed. I. E. Throttle signal opening, but map signal still in vacuum like a closed throttle.

I recall Tinken telling me how the engine would not cope with full throttle at idle with the butterfly removed.
Well guess what, it doesn't bog and pulls cleanly up into the rev range.
He went strangely quiet, then suddenly had his TE running on a TC ecu with single butterfly system.

This pommy guy is on drugs. Ha ha ha.

I can't watch his videos, I have no idea what he's trying to get at. It's not his accent, just he doesn't make any sense.

The TE449 without the second butterfly is perfectly controllable at very light throttle settings on Map 3.
Get familiar with good clutch control in technical terrain (slipping the clutch to assist with smooth power delivery)
.
I am able to run tight technical terrain on my own bike in first gear with very few stalls and it's not like they make crazy power and run away.
One of the smoother 450s around in my opinion.

A quick note on the Sherco comment in your post here.
If it is a newer 450 SEF-R with Synerject fuel injection, it does indeed have a MAP sensor. It is unitary with the air temperature sensor, MAP/Temp in one.
The Synerject system on my 300 SEF-R is as close to flawless as any factory efi bike I've ridden yet

I know what you mean :-)

I would still like to get a better udnestanding of this, before I rip it out. I do get his point that (in his view) the secondary throttle performs as a restrictor to increase (temporarily) air velocity in the throttle in an attempt to improve bottom end torque. It will also affect the manifold pressure, so if the L map is in play it will alter fuelling depending on the position of the secondary.

One thing I would like to know, and may need a test bed (winter project!) built, is whether the % values in the secondary throttle table are the percentage that the seocndary wil be open ( i.e. 100% = fully open), or the %age of the main TPS that th seocndr will be open by. i.e 100% secondary = secondary opens to the same % as the main, if the main is open by 73% then the seondary only opens to 73%.

It does not help that the secondary throttle is also being used as stepper to control the idle. Whilst the engine temperature is below somethng like 62degC, the secondary is closed so that the cam on it shaft opens the main throttle until the main TPS reads somewhere between 1% and 3% open...This is what I think also bites us, typically we may ride in scenario that provides a rich mixture and little load, say downhill. The CCM and BMW have huge radiators and no coolant thermostat, as the coolant temperature drops the ECU kicks the stepper open to open the main throttle by 1% - there goes the engine breaking, and in fact may give you a bit more power than your really wanted... I have been spat off by an unexpected burst of power on a downhill section of scree.

Dangermouse, to digress re the Sherco: It is 2011 450, using the SOHC motor that looks suspiciously like the 400EXC with shim valve adjustment, mechanical cam chain tensioner and a basic Magnetti-Marelli FI system. The motor is so similar to the EXC that I have fitted KTM rocker shafts in the head. The Sherco ones were out of true and binding, the KTM ones were identical , but straight and available.

To reply to your comment with regards to the YouTube guy, there's no requirement for a restriction at low rpm.
In real world riding, you can grab large amounts of throttle at very low rpm without hesitations or stalling. (something the standard dual butterfly set up can't do at times)
I have a video somewhere of the warmed up engine idling, then pulling cleanly through the rpm at 100% throttle, not a stutter.
I can categorically state, the second butterfly is surplus to the requirements of the engine.
The TC449 runs a plain single butterfly throttle body without auto idle control. Same throat size and injector, sensors etc. This is what made me remove the butterfly on my TE449 in the first instance.

With reference to the run-away idle speed, I never found the root cause, however, I don't believe it to be coolant temperature related as we ride in very warm ambient temperatures here, plus 30C often, and the hanging idle, as I call it, happens at random even just closing the throttle for a corner on a track sometimes.
At other times, the idle system failed to 'catch' the engine idle most notably after a long closed throttle downhill.
To my mind, the system was driving the idle cam closed to try to drop idle for so long down the hill, that when the clutch was pulled in to cross a ditch or log, the engine stalled.
Hence my removal of the idle arm roller, and setting of the base idle air screw to guarantee idle for off road riding.
(the system became a basic TC system and ridable)

Re the Sherco, I was of the understanding that the early bikes had the Yamaha WR motors in them....

Very early, yes. The SOHC EXC type engine ran from 2009 IIRC until it was replaced recently with the current DOHC model.

I must ask around and see if it was just a coincidence or an actual KTM engine.
I'd be horrified to discover that my beloved team Blue and Yellow were linked to those weasels over at the Orange shop. Ha ha ha.

Someone who worked as a Sherco tech. once told me that Sherco did a lot of pre-production work for KTM. If anything, the Orange is the cheaper mass produced version of the Sherco...

http://lonelec.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=57_25&product_id=86 this cable fit husq 449 ecu socket ?

with this obd https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Bluet...o-Torque-Scanner-Tool-ELM327-CD-/252812175317

thank you