Trigger Wheel Mounting Vitesse

[stitchit]

Unfortunately there is no way I know of testing these, especially on XP which is no longer supported which is a shame as it was a great system. I will endeavour to send you the brand and model of convertor as this help you.

[oldtuckunder]

Hi John

Had you spotted this pinned thread from back in 2009, from that date should be XP compatible also. Hoping to get back to getting MJ up and running next week.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/845-excell-based-ignition-calculator-megajolt /

 

Alan

[JohnD]

Thanks, Alan!

My PC downloads am '.xls' file .

But oh, horrors: Error message "The operating system is not presently configured to run this application" 

I told my PC to shut down this AM while I went away; came back to find it still "Shutting down".    Had to use the hard reset, of holding down the on-off button to get to do anything, which was shut down with a big loud click.   After an hour's rest, it took ages to restart, with the hard disk being hammered 100% of the time, a common restart phenomenon these days.   In Task manager, nothing was using the disc that mhuch.   And now this.    Is It cursed?

John

Edited April 22, 2018 by JohnD

[oldtuckunder]

The first message may be something as simple as the file type attribute not being configured, i.e. file types of .xls haven't been configured to run excell, in which case just start excell and then open the file, if you dont have excell then you are as they say "buggered"

On the second point, find a 12 years old and ask them to sort it for you 

Alan

[JohnD]

Oooh!  Yes!  Just went to my Start button or the W10 equivalent, found Excel and clicked on it - and got the same "not configured" message.    My W10 has lost Excel!   And Word!!  And PowerPoint!!!

I went online to Microsoft, and thier chatline, and they have reinstalled Office for me.    That's one advantage of their leased programmed concept - I don't have to struggle with CD-Roms anymore

And yes, I see the Excel spread sheet now - it'll need some detauled reading.  Thnaks t=for thr tip.

John

[oldtuckunder]

Well it starts and runs on Edis again, and starts and runs when I power up with the MJ connected !

However the clean tacho signal I had either from Edis pin 2 or the special Trigger Wheels gizmo wired into the coil pack supplies, both of which were giving an apparent smooth Tacho signal when I only had Edis on test, is now broken. Edis pin 2 giving no signal at all, and the gizmo holding a steady tickover signal but which drops to zero if I blip the throttle.

I bench tested the PC to MJ connection yesterday using a 9v battery and that all seemed to work fine, I could read an up load a config!   So I think next step is to take laptop to car and see what rpm signal the MJ thinks its getting, and then maybe wire in pin 7 on the MJ and see if that gives a clean tacho signal.

Just in case it is a tacho problem, I have also tried configuring the data logger to read a sensible rpm signal from either input, edis pin 2 gives nothing, whilst the gizmo cable gives a stablish tick over rpm, but then fluctuates all over the shop sometimes settling around half, sometimes a quarter, and sometimes over by a couple of hundred rpm.

Would really like to have a play actually configuring MJ, but until I have a working tacho again, it will have to wait.

Alan

[oldtuckunder]

Well taken Mountain to Mohamed (or Laptop to Car) and we have some progress!  MJ seems to be getting a stable and plausible rpm signal.  I have calibrated the TPS and that is nicely tracking 0 idle to 100 WOT, and somehow seem to have calibrated the MAP sensor into the Aux input chanel, told it is Kpa's and its given me a gauge of 0-256, and I'm getting readings of around 130 at idle and it flicks down if I blip the throttle, and goes to zero if I disconnect the pipe (not sure how I did it) but with a fighting chance I may be able to use TPS and MAP as dual inputs.   With engine running I seem to have an indicated advance that increases with RPM so I seem to have a basic working set up.

Have to abandon for day now as its Party time this evening, but seems a good point to pause before I get back to trying to sort a usable real tacho signal, as I'm not driving the car without one!

Alan

[JohnD]

Doing well, Alan!   Still, its not straightforward, but hard won experience that's needed.

John

[oldtuckunder]

OK finally got a reliable Tacho signal from the MJ unit itself, that both the Innovate LM2 and the Rev Counter itself will use, All three just about in agreement, LM2 and MJ just about spot on, Rev Counter reading a bit high (1-200rpm) at low readings but it has always done that since conversion.

TPS and MAP sensor giving good readings in MJ, but unfortunately now not in LM2 datalogger, which insists the voltage returns are all zero, even though with a meter I can measure the voltages at the plug into it. I'm suspecting the LM2 is going bad as there are few other oddities, but we will see wasted most of Sunday on that getting nowhere.  But anyway with a reliable Rev Counter so I could drive it, onwards to setting up an ignition map.

This is where it started getting interesting about 90% of the MJ ignition maps out there were created for setups using a MAP sensor, whereas I went for TPS option as I think for my requirements its better than MAP, I do also have the MAP sensor installed and running into the MJ Aux input channel so when I get clever I can use map to adjust advance on top of TPS and RPM if I need to.

But anyway found a few TPS ones that weren't for 10,000 rpm bike carbed screamers, but for more sensible engines, and with a bit of reference to the standard curve, Des Hammill's distributor tuning book, and a following wind got a map together. Also found a GT6 one where the creator had ignored all throttle setting below 40% (or rather it means at all lower throttle opening the same curve is used). So after finally working out how to load my chosen map into the MJ and checking with a strobe that I appeared to be getting advance in-line with the rpm buckets and what MJ was telling me it was time for a test drive!

OH interesting aside after playing with voltage signals etc trying to sort out LM2 I concluded that  the voltage range I calibrated into, or rather that the MJ had calibrated for the TPS  initially were not correct, so decided to redo it. This involves hitting calibrate with throttle closed, clicking OK, opening throttle wide and clicking OK again, unfortunately this time as I pushed the peddle into the metal, there was a bang! and the throttle cable snapped. Easy to change as I had a spare, but narrowly avoided an embarrassing moment at MIRA this coming weekend as I exit the long left hander and literally stamp on the accelerator pedal.

Anyway test drive, starts nicely, feels nice tooling along, (bit dangerous as you keep wanting to look at the displayed advance and gauges on the Laptop on the passenger seat.  Must say starting to like it (I only ever ran mechanical advance no vacuum) lift of a bit at higher revs and advance jumps up to something economical, floor it and watch the active cell hurtle to the bottom line to something sensible and then climb, decided after a few WOT pulls from 2-3K that the bottom load lines in mid range were a tad retarded from where they would have been with pure mechanical advance so upped them on the fly. 

So now comes the difficult bit, working out what a good table is for my engine, and especially the use I put it to and the number of times I really do hold it at WOT!  I notice that most of the tables out there both for MAP and TPS tend to look a bit uncared for in the WOT areas, but have obviously had a lot of work done in the cruise area's but I guess that's where most normal fast road driving is done.

One interesting thing I have spotted is that my engine is running is running cooler by about 10deg!  which given that a lot of the test drive I was at lower throttle settings (other cars on the road!) so was spending time with advance 8-10 deg more than I would have been with purely mechanical advance, shows that the engine not under load likes more advance, would it like more under load?  

Can I get this good enough in a few days to risk at MIRA or do I switch back to Dissy and play safe?

Alan

    

[rogerguzzi]

20 minutes ago, oldtuckunder said:

One interesting thing I have spotted is that my engine is running is running cooler by about 10deg!  which given that a lot of the test drive I was at lower throttle settings (other cars on the road!) so was spending time with advance 8-10 deg more than I would have been with purely mechanical advance, shows that the engine not under load likes more advance, would it like more under load?  

Hello Alan

                 With a longer burn time that's what you would expect!

This is the beauty of full electronic ignition with map and tps (just like moderns!) 

Roger

[Nick Jones]

I would say that your part throttle results are what would be expected.  At low throttle openings the engine will take astounding amounts of advance and becomes much perkier - too perky to drive smoothly in fact, which I found to be the real world limiting factor at low rpm/low throttle.

However, at WOT your basic mechanical advance figures (as calculated and tested by Triumph) are going to be be pretty close to what you need and adding much advance above 3k is fraught with the risk of melted pistons.  It is highly unlikely that you will want more than 32º total advance anywhere on the WOT line and even that may be too much.  A good rolling road (with speed hold) is the only (relatively) safe way to find the boundaries on this.  It doesn't take long - probably longer to strap the car down!

Nick

[oldtuckunder]

This is the map I'm playing with and yes the heavy load advance has been pegged back to 32.

Alan

 

[rogerguzzi]

Hello Alan

                   This what I use in Spitty and as nick says you can have more advance on light throttle(good for economy)but of no use to you?

But pegged back to Triumph table under load.

Roger

[oldtuckunder]

Well Vitesse did first competition on MegaJolt yesterday at MIRA, pulled like a Train and new sticky tyres gave me the confidence to use it, not the faintest thought I wanted to switch back to Dissy and Points, went very well, very pleased, and I think there could be a tad more to extract as I had only had a couple of days and only a few road miles to set up my MJ advance table.  Running using TPS as load seems to suit engine as I'm using it!, but have now managed to calibrate MAP sensor in on Aux MJ input (although not using yet) so this may just allow a bit of extra correction to advance in transient conditions.

Think I'm now very glad I did it, although at one point when I looked at the amount of time it seemed to be taking to install (TPS is more complex than simple MAP version) I was having doubts.   

Alan

[rogerguzzi]

56 minutes ago, oldtuckunder said:

Think I'm now very glad I did it, although at one point when I looked at the amount of time it seemed to be taking to install (TPS is more complex than simple MAP version) I was having doubts.   

Hello Alan

                 I bet we would be hard pushed to find Anyone who has swapped back!(maybe konkers type!)

Roger

ps I ran it on Spitty for 5 years and did nothing to it!

Edited May 6, 2018 by rogerguzzi

[oldtuckunder]

My worry about swapping back was more to do with finding my initial map wasn't good enough when pushed, as at an event there is no time to experiment, only 2 60sec (if your lucky) practice runs.

Also given that is all new, the likelyhood of failure is also higher, and given that if it doesn't work I think diagnosing why in an hour between runs might be pushing it, I wanted a fall back that will allow me to switch back in couple of mins, possibly why my wiring is also a bit more complex!

Alan

[rogerguzzi]

Hello Alan

                 It will be interesting to see if your times come down on courses you know well

Roger

[oldtuckunder]

That was my 4th visit to MIRA, and a 4 sec (circa 6%) improvement on previous PB there is quite a lot, how much was tyres, and/or how much better torque I don't know, my suspicion is that probably a combination of the two working well together.

Alan

[oldtuckunder]

Had an interesting few hours with the Vitesse and Nick at the RR last week seeing what we had with both Dissy and Points or MegaJolt, can now swap between the two in a couple of mins, so were able to do a back to back test of the two.  For those of you hoping that full digital crank driven ignition will give more top end power the results are disappointing, although expected, you cant get a quart out of a pint pot, if your dissy was giving you the correct advance at high rpm's (which mine was) then there is no more to be had.

Interestingly the initial back to back power runs were as near as identical as you can get, meaning the base MJ map I had created wasn't far off what the dissy was doing.

However the good news was that after that we managed to pull about 8-10 ftlbs of torque increase most of the way back down the rev band, from about 2K upwards.

This was on WOT power runs, which is my prime interest area.

We started to see what we could do in the cruise range to see if improvements could be made, but time and a few technical gremlins that made the MJ reluctant to accept updates whilst engine was running (of course miraculously cured the following day when no RR!) meant we didn't get very far.

So will do some road testing data logging to see what improvements can be found.

Twas interesting in that Nick is used to mapping ignition timing to MAP, whereas I has set my Megajolt to run from TPS, although I do also have it using MAP as a secondary input (although not using it to apply corrections yet).  So the question arose what is the difference between MAP and TPS in relation to RPM.

Realised I had some logs from  last year using the same MAP and TPS sensors, which I had actually done for my AFR tuning, but realised that they would make a nice comparison set with the AFR noise edited out.

So thought I'd post them here just in case they are useful to someone else pondering the difference.

Alan

Red = RPM,  Blue = MAP,  Yellow = TPS

Circa 4.9v is atmospheric (WOT) anything below is vacuum!

TPS shut (on these) is just over 1v and WOT about 4.75v

[oldtuckunder]

PLUGS and MEGAJOLT.

After recent RR session it was suggested that maybe I ought to switch to Resistive Plugs with MJ, as whilst the leads probably are, it could do no harm. Not that things didn't seem to be working OK with the non restive NGK BP7ES plugs.   Nick has always said how his 2Ltr liked the Bosch three electrode WR7DTC plugs, so I thought I'd try some. However tracking them down was hard as it appears that Bosch stopped making them over a decade ago, so those around are NOS and currently the last supply seems to be from Germany at around £6 each. So thought I'd do some research and found that Bosh are now pushing Super4  four electrode plugs for Classic Engines.  So dead easy find out what the Bosch current replacement is for the WR7DTC.  Turns out this is a single electrode Iridium plug!   OK so NIck recons the Triumph engine likes the three electrode, but the replacement is a single electrode.

OK time to talk to Bosch, on the lines of I have an engine that likes three electrode WR7DTC plugs, what is the direct replacement in the Super4 series. This causes some consternation at Bosch UK support,  firstly they want to know what engine it is for, I politely explain that they don't really want to go down that path, but the script demands it and we end up with some non resistive single electrode plug. That out the way, I explain that's not what I want I'm using Bosch WR7DTC but you no longer make them, what is the Super4 replacement. Ah you want a single electrode Iridium Plug then! Stop Bang Head on Wall, But I say you are saying that your new Super4 plugs  are ideal for Classic Engines, "Yes they are!" OK then if I was using a WR7DTC in a classic engine what is the Super4 equivalent?  Well there isn't one listed. How about we get someone from technical to call you?  "I thought I was talking to technical!!!"   Anyway do get a call back, with advice that as best they can guess a WR78X would be the best Super4 equivalent, Is it the same temperature plug?  "Well sort of but we don't really grade Super4's the same way.

OK In for a pound, Super4's are only about £2.50 a pop including delivery, so I ordered a set.

Fitted about a week ago, Cold start OK, Hot Start OK, but no time for further testing as life got in the way. 

Sprint event at Abingdon tomorrow, so thought I'd best do a shake down run today. Good A/B road blast engine felt sweet, better than the NGK's hard to tell, but engine really sounding good and pulling really cleanly. Now a lot of this I think is the recent MJ conversion, I think I can really feel the torque we have pulled back down the rev band, but certainly first impressions of the Super4's isn't bad.  The NGK's though are carefully boxed and being taken tomorrow just in case!

Alan 

[rogerguzzi]

Hello Alan

                  I have WR78 in Spitty and have done about 6500 miles on them with no problems (photo on my other post)

I am not sure if the X makes any difference mine are just marked WR78

I have just checked one and gap is 0.030" and using an 8x eye glass there appears no wear but I suppose with 4 electrodes they should wear slower?

Roger 

[Nick Jones]

Ah, monkeys reading from catalogues.....  no substitute for technical sales people who actually know what they are talking about....... So just ask what the super4 listing is for a Golf Mk2 GTI 8v..........  Haven't travelled this way yet as I've not (so far) failed to get WR7DTCs.  The whole reason for these multi-electrode plugs is long life, not performance and supposedly good for 30 - 40,000k - I've got under 10k on the current lot and they look new.

My theory is that it is the fact they are effectively side-electrode plugs that the Triumph engines like and the number of electrodes is irrelevant.  They just seem to consistently add a keener edge to the engine, crisper and making it's "happy sounds" more of the time.

Nick

 

[JohnD]

Agree with Nick!   Multi-electrode plugs are just fit-and-forget plugs, as only one gap will ever spark the one that is fractionally smallest or is in the most favourable position. When that erodes, the next one fires, every time.

Iridium is almost un-erodable, so one gap is sufficient.   That's all, and despite the cost of a rare metal probably cheaper to make than multi-electrode and that's all that a manufacturer, Bosch, VW or Ford need to know.

John

[oldtuckunder]

On 6/9/2018 at 9:46 AM, Nick Jones said:

My theory is that it is the fact they are effectively side-electrode plugs that the Triumph engines like and the number of electrodes is irrelevant.  They just seem to consistently add a keener edge to the engine, crisper and making it's "happy sounds" more of the time.

Well the WR78X's stayed in at Abingdon, and re happy sounds had several complements about how sweet the Vitesse sounded at full wail, was pulling around 6K in fourth at a couple of spots before rapidly approaching corners spoilt it! It ran sweetly and a handful! of seconds off PB over the combined two courses for the day. Of course a lot to do with Tyres, probably increased MJ torque lower down the band. But no complaint about the plugs the engine certainly didn't dislike them!

Alan

[Nick Jones]

Good - sounds like you had an excellent day!

Nick