• Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

The iBeat Thread

Stujam said:
After Will helping me with iBeat settings here is what i found .
I have power up done , snorkerkel removed , twin barretts with spark arreestors .
Bike was running lean , a little rough to start and running hot .

We went with 108/110/118

The test ride and subsequent rides has to big running well to me ( i can only compare to pre i beat ) .
It starts easy and pulls hard.

My question is around mpg . It is chewing 6ltr per 100km si just under 40mpg . This is testing on mostly twisty mountain roads .
Does this seems a little thirsty . I do want to maximise economy without loosing too much power as i am trying to avoid going down the safari tank route .

Thoughts ?
Might see will and bring back setting a tad ? Or get jd tuner .
Click to expand...

Looks like we might need to get the 20 metre usb out again;)
I get around 5ltr per 100 ,i think yours goes harder.


 
ye thanks Will,

its a balancing act trying to get it running sweet without loosing to much power and juicing mpg. Considering I am trying to stick with stock tank ( I do have a few 1 ltr primus fuel bottles I can carry ) - I ideally want to be able to achieve 250 from stock tank and bottles. As it stands if I ride it hard I may not. Might come see you and try pull it back a bit and see how it goes.
 
What AFR have you been targeting Dynobob for performance and fuel economy?
Are you using a tailpipe sniffer or putting a wideband in the mid pipe O2 sensor location?

I wish I knew more about fuel mapping as there seems to be very conflicting information on the internet in terms of target AFR's for performance, fuel economy and engine longevity. It seems that an AFR down to 12:1 is permissible for max performance though some seem to say going below 13 or so is just a waste of fuel. For economy some say you can go very near, or right up to, stoichiometric at the O2 sensor....I've even read people saying you can go above stoich and safely achieve lean cruise at lower throttle openings and rpm without running the cylinder to hot.....I'm just not willing to try that without some better feedback since I don't have any way to monitor cylinder temp; I'd rather burn a bit of excess fuel than run the cylinder lean and heat the liner, rings and valves excessively.
 
SimpleOne said:
What AFR have you been targeting Dynobob for performance and fuel economy?
Are you using a tailpipe sniffer or putting a wideband in the mid pipe O2 sensor location?

I wish I knew more about fuel mapping as there seems to be very conflicting information on the internet in terms of target AFR's for performance, fuel economy and engine longevity. It seems that an AFR down to 12:1 is permissible for max performance though some seem to say going below 13 or so is just a waste of fuel. For economy some say you can go very near, or right up to, stoichiometric at the O2 sensor....I've even read people saying you can go above stoich and safely achieve lean cruise at lower throttle openings and rpm without running the cylinder to hot.....I'm just not willing to try that without some better feedback since I don't have any way to monitor cylinder temp; I'd rather burn a bit of excess fuel than run the cylinder lean and heat the liner, rings and valves excessively.
Click to expand...


My iBeat recommendations are based largely on what Dynojet has found for two different maps (stock and FMF/Leo?). Both show that we don't need to add much if any fuel down low, just a little in the mid, and a bunch up high. Their results up high (WFO - high rpm) mirror what I found on my dyno (that is, we need to add 16-20% fuel). I have the older Dynojet 150 inertial dyno, not the newer load type 250, so I can't map low/med throttle openings very easily. I'm relying on their results looking very similar on two different bikes/two different days for that.

If you read back on my dyno thread, you'll see that I got wonky AFR numbers with my Innovate LM-1 (with the sensor in the O2 bung) on the dyno. It really didn't matter because I'm always going to put the fuel settings where I get the best power, that's where the motor is the happiest and what the AFR shows is irrelevant. There's a lot of things that can skew AFR numbers anyway and have you chasing your tail, the old "one clock, two clock" thing. Luckily, for our bike, Dynojet has put numbers out. Those guys have the newest dynos and sniffers, and do dozens of vehicles a month, so I have pretty high confidence in their results.

IMO, I wouldn't sweat this too much or get bogged down w/ AFR numbers. I'm confident saying if you're near my numbers you should get decent economy and be safe at WFO. Beyond that find a good dyno shop that you trust (to have a sniffer that didn't just get used on a motor running leaded race gas, etc) and look for AFR and hp numbers. If you have Autotune or Bazazz then build a map and at least go confirm that your WFO numbers are making best power on a dyno. I don't mess with sniffers enough to offer advise on specific target numbers but you're on the right track, a little rich at WFO and leaner at cruise. I'm sure Dynojet is tuning along those lines. Hope this helps...

.
 
Thanks, I realise it's a complex game, so whilst I was hoping for a definitive answer; I appreciate your candid response even more.

I'll stick with my original plan (and your advice) - generate a performance fuel mapping on a professional dyno using maximum power output as the quantifier, then, use autotune to generate a relatively lean map in the cruise zones to improve fuel economy. Then I can swap between them as appropriate (and maybe update the lean mapping every so often via autotune again).
 
Stujam said:
After Will helping me with iBeat settings here is what i found .
I have power up done , snorkerkel removed , twin barretts with spark arreestors .
Bike was running lean , a little rough to start and running hot .

We went with 108/110/118

The test ride and subsequent rides has to big running well to me ( i can only compare to pre i beat ) .
It starts easy and pulls hard.

My question is around mpg . It is chewing 6ltr per 100km si just under 40mpg . This is testing on mostly twisty mountain roads .
Does this seems a little thirsty . I do want to maximise economy without loosing too much power as i am trying to avoid going down the safari tank route .

Thoughts ?
Might see will and bring back setting a tad ? Or get jd tuner .
Click to expand...

6L / 100 is about right for me too. Best efficiency I got was 5.5L riding like an old woman (no offence you old women!).
I've just changed from standard exhaust / ecu etc to one gutted standard can with standard ecu. Only done 200km like this and fuel is down to 5.8L so maybe only slightle different, I'll try and dyno it the next few weeks and bump the ecu setting up to 102, 106, 116 and see what happens.
Looks like Will's setup is a lot better than most.
 
A comment on fuel economy... I did a 200mi highway run to go camping last week. Running 70mph (and into a 20mph headwind half the time) I got the worst mileage I've ever seen - 38mpg per gps miles (36 against the odo). I haven't changed any settings since I avg'd 48-49 on a 2600mi off-road trip last Sept.

- Shows how much different riding affects things -

.
 
DYNOBOB said:
A comment on fuel economy... I did a 200mi highway run to go camping last week. Running 70mph (and into a 20mph headwind half the time) I got the worst mileage I've ever seen - 38mpg per gps miles (36 against the odo). I haven't changed any settings since I avg'd 48-49 on a 2600mi off-road trip last Sept.

- Shows how much different riding affects things -
Click to expand...

That explains my lower mpg then. If I'm riding on the highway burning pavement up to get to my ride start location I'm using doing 80 mph.

_
 
Hi guys, I tryed the link to download iBeat but it does'nt seams to work anymore. Can somebody give me another link or send me a copy of the program? It would be nice and appreciated. Thanks.
 
To the guys running power command. When you plug into ibeat are you able to adjust the co2 settings with the power command connected?
 
Yes 630.I will try that and if that fails I will try the version on my desktop.Had a few issues with installing drivers on laptop but they are working now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top