Jump to content

roulli

Members
  • Content count

    125
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About roulli

  • Rank
    Just passed my test!
  1. Altitude Correction

    Hi Roger, That's weird so the PW is ok and then it goes rich, when you suck into the barometer sensor, whether you use factor >100% or <100%? slightly off-topic Since you're using FW 3.4.1. find this quote, which might be of interst for you, if you're using EDIS. Re: MS2/Extra firmware 3.4.1 released - use thisby jsmcortina » Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:31 pm 9th April 2016: Critical EDIS bug discovered in 3.4.1.Please revert to 3.4.0 or use pre-3.4.2 beta 2 or later. James Patrick
  2. Hi Alan, I've been looking at the pictures again. What tire pressures have you been using? It seems that your rear 185/70 could do with some more. I would try to add another 0,3bar. Also if I compare your car with Martin's GT6, it seems the Vitesse is a bit higher on the rear. On the second picture the car appears to be almost free of lateral forces, so no reason to induce "transfer leaning" from rear to front. But pictures may also be misleading, as it could be a hill down...or you might have tipped the brakes before the next bend Patrick
  3. Isn't the choice of the front ARB a function of the rear spring type? I thought the thicker ARB would only be used to compensate the roll-softness of the swing spring? I bought a GT6 swingspring and a thicker ARB one year ago for my 13/60. But I don't know if I should fit them, as I like actually the car's original handling, with 155 Dunlop tyres on 4,5" Vitesse rims (1,9 /2,0 bar though ). The car seems nicely balanced with slight positive camber at front. Never experienced jacking & tuck under, when chasing modern cars on A roads... Patrick
  4. Altitude Correction

    Roger, have you enabled the "old style" baro calculation? Patrick
  5. Altitude Correction

    Andreas, Does MSL stand for Meeres Spiegel Luftdruck, the ambient pressure at altiude 0m? I'm astonished that you only seem to play around with the 147/-47 settings and never mention the curve under: Basic / Load settings --> Barrometric Correction This curve should, as a default, be flat at 0% over the whole Barometer range ( if the settings in Calibrate Map/Baro are 147/-47). I thought you had to adapt this flat curve to your engines need for altitude. How does this curve look like in your case? You write: "1.) The correction works right out of the box If I reduce outside pressure with the poti to 80 the fuel amount rises ca 20%" Does that mean, that if you have 80KPa ambient pressure, your MAP sensor will also measure about 20% less MAP than it would at sea level --> and your SD algo will command a VE that is about 20% lower and thus a lower PW. --> this lower PW is then risen by your Baro correction by 20% ? Did I get that right? Patrick
  6. Altitude Correction

    Hi , Well it should work the same way it works with 2 sensors, it's just not continuously adapted to the correction curve, but only at startup. When the engine starts to misbehave, as you climb the hill, you have to stop and restart the engine and move on until it misbehaves again... and so on. Is that the case for every 500m ascension, I don't know. But I think your case and Andreas' case seem to show a bit how the FWs evolved in terms of altitude correction. It seems that the latest FW (3.4.x) is more intuitive to set up, as it worked rather straight forwardly with Roger's set up. Whereas Andreas' had to struggle around more to get things running. P.S. nice planes in the pictures. The big one looks a bit like a mini Dakota. Is that, what you use to go to the Goodwood revival? Patrick
  7. Altitude Correction

    Hi Andreas, My understanding with BaroCorr is that it does not correct the PW by default. The Baro curves are laid out to generate no correction out of the box. The user has to adapt this curve, since each engine requires specific Baro correction. What may have happened, when you were using the single MAP sensor at startup for Baro measurement, is that the Baro value was well measured and displayed, but it had no impact as the Baro correction inf the Baro curve for any measured Baro value is 0, Unless you changed the curve... So no wonder you had to increase the fuel in the VE table to pass the alps the first time, as SD depends only on MAP and will be for instance only be 80kPa at WOT. This will then also command only a VE for 80kPa load at WOT It's good you have "Multiply MAP" switched off, otherwise it would have been even leaner. For your latest setup, with discrete Baro sensor, you tweaked the Baro curves, if I understand well. Don't forget, that with pre MS 3.4.x FW, the Baro correction is not a muliplier, but it devides the PW, by the Baro correction value. Below are quotes out of the release notes from the 2 latest FW families. MS2/Extra 3.4.x firmware Key changes and Gotchas ======================= 1. Baro Previously the code used to divide by the barometer when calculating the fuel pulsewidth. If using an old tune you need to enable the "old style" baro calculation to enable the old behaviour. MS2/Extra 3.3.x firmware Key changes and Gotchas ======================= 2. Barometric correction The recommended settings for baro correction in 3.3.x have changed. 100% means un-altered fuelling. If you are upgrading from a previous firmware version, to change you settings to the current method: a. Basic/Load Settings -> barometric correction is typically all 100% with small adjustments up or down as required. b. Tools -> Calibrate MAP/baro "At total vacuum" = 0 "Rate" = 0. You must perform steps a AND b. See also the tooltips [?] on those pages. Cheers Patrick
  8. Altitude Correction

    Hi Roger, Is "multiply Map" switched on and what Firmware are you using? Patrick
  9. Altitude Correction

    Hi Andreas, hi Roger, what firmware are you using in your MS? (Does Microsquirt corresponds to MS2 extra?) Is "Map Multiply" switched on or off Roger, what algo are you using Speed Density, AlphaN, %Baro, ITB...? Cheers, Patrick
  10. Altitude Correction

    Interesting thread! I plan also to travel through the alps, but I don't know how altitude correction will react, as 1600ft is as much I can find in Luxembourg. So I tried to anticipate by reading as much as possible in the forums. I've to say that most threads are quite frustrating, as I have the impression that : very few people seem to know, what's really going on in terms of altitude compensation and BaroCorr many people are confusing / contradicting etc. i might just be too dumb to understand anyway But since I managed to map the Triumph in ITB mode, I still have a little hope that, one day, I might hunt it up the the alps, without the need to role backwards home again. So, yesterday I read in the German MS forum a note from last year, that was making sense to me. What strikes the author in most "baro correction" discussions is that : different algorithms tend to be compared impact of "multiply map" aren't taken into consideration people think that MS SW include a specific baro correction algo. This is not the case, at least not for the later FWs. The baro correction curve is nothing but a simple multiplier. 100% means no correction , 105% means 5% enrichment. etc. As an example: For a reduced atm. pressure: SD Algo --> Table will be strongly leaned out, as the load = f(Map) Baro%-, ITB- and AN- modes won't do that. For Baro% mode and ITB mode the load will hardly change apart from some minor non linear effects. For AN the load remains exactly the same. Effect of "Multiply Map": Ex.: Baro%- or ITB- or AN- algo Base: 100% load at 100kPa Instead of the 100KPa Baro we have 90kPa ambient pressure For simplification the MAP signal at WOT will change from 100kPa to 90 kPa With "Multiply Map" switched "on": The effectively injected fuel (PW - DeadTime) is proportional to the MAP-value. MAP goes down as ambient pressure goes down, inducing thus already a lean out So the engine will run 10% leaner due to "Multiply map" This might or will probablly be too lean. So we set for instance the BarCorr at 103% for 90kPa Baro The injected fuel will be: 0,9 * 1,03 = 92,7% This means, that the mixture leans out by 7,3%, although the BaroCorr curve actually made the mixture richer. Now with "multiply map" switched off: The effectively injected fuel (PW - DT) is NOT proportional to the MAP signal. Only the VE-table defines the VE value (prior all the other corrections of course...) So the engine is not leaned out via "multiply map". If we set the BaroCorr curve for instance to 92,7% at 90kPA Baro (ambient pressure) The injected fuel will be: 1*0,927=92,7% The mixture is impacted in both cases in the same manner, but: in one case with a enriching BaroCorr and with a leaning BaroCorr in the other case If the SD-algo is used instead, then one needs to "enrichen" even more via the BaroCorrcurve, in order to compensate for a mixture that would lean out even more. Food for thought, lapidary stuff, or simply bollocks? Cheers Patrick
  11. Vitesse project

    Sorry for confusing, - Nick is right! It's the dust seals, that came actually in 2 versions I wasn't aware of Alan's findings though.. However the all new calipers available these days, are said to be of low quality - at least the smaller type 14 calipers , according to Spitfirescheune I intended to buy them as well, when I switched to DOT5, but the dealer had just removed them from the list and is only offering refurbished calipers now. I refurbished them myself, no leaks since and nice hard pedal feel. Patrick
  12. Vitesse project

    Are they PB16 calipers? If so, they 've been made with 2 different types of pistons/ piston-seals, hence the need to precise the required type, when ordering. When it comes to Triumph brake hydraulics, I use to order at: http://www.girling.de/index.html Mr. Müller has been working for Girling DE before, he knows that stuff. Or: http://www.pastparts.co.uk/ or: https://www.spitfirescheune.de/ Cheers, Patrick
  13. Torque Setting Maxspeeding Rods

    Thanks Alan, whom did you actually get that setting info from? According to ARP, the rod-manufacturer should specify the torque, which appears logical to me. However, as a lead information, ARP specifies torque settings as per the link below: ARP 2000 bolts have to a tensile strength of 220.000PSI, according to ARP. This would then lead to a torque of 32 £/ft for a 5/16" bolt. http://arpinstructions.com/generaltorque.html Patrick P.S. I set my rev limiter at 5800
  14. Hi, I wanted to assemble my new MaxSpeeding - rods into the refurbished Triumph 6pot. The provided ARP bolts are only 5/16", but the torque wrench setting from the workshop manual is meant for 3/8" bolts. (says 46lb/ft for phosphated and 50lb/ft for colour dyed) What torque torque settings did the MaxSpeeding users from this forum apply ? Cheers Patrick
  15. Spa 6 Hour Race

    @ Jean Claude, Gilles will participate in a 3 stage race in Koksijde. So I won't make it for Spa... Have fun and shoot some great photos. Patrick
×