Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No

    ATR/ATP Tuners - Workflow & Table Discussion

    Gents, as we have more and more people getting into tuning with ATR I think we could use some guidance from the vets regarding the finer aspects of the software workflow. I know there are other threads but maybe this will spark some discussion and then we can have it merged back to one of the stickies.

    We have all juiced the high load timing columns, played with the fuel scalar, etc. Now that I'm comfortable with running 50% E85 on otherwise OTS mapping, I've looked into raising boost a hair at peak, and then holding it a bit better to 6krpm. Seems easy until you start to pour through the bazillion load/limit/boost/wgdc/vanos tables. Do I need to adjust cam overlap, wgdc, a torque limit table, wait that limit depends on the intake cam degrees, no no it's a boost offset table - wait what about all these $#@!ing factors..?!

    Could any of the seasoned tuners post a table workflow? Not necessarily what you do to each table, but just a table by table workflow that could help us make sense of the process. I'd be interesting to see that tuner XYZ adjusts vanos intake degrees, then adjusts wgdc adder - something like that. Maybe another tuner always sets an offset table to 1 to remove it from the equation, who knows.

    If nothing else could you guys help a brother out with hold boost a little higher to 6krmp? I'm a single or two gear pull guy so, I don't mind ragged edge tuning.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    To add something right off the bat, I see that after about 4700 my WGDC after PID, as compared to the base WGDC, is capped at adding 7% wgdc. This tells me that my WGDC adder table (which is capped at adding 7%) is the lowest limit in this case. Is raising this table limit a typical method to increase higher rpm boost?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,059
    Rep Points
    9,036.4
    Mentioned
    637 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    91


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    And as a follow up question I was wondering if Mrs Field's could also chime in with her cookie recipes. Click here to enlarge
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    I asked the bush's baked beans dog to register too...

    It only gets interesting when helpful info becomes intellectual property, besides these threads glean good PM exchanges!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Points
    305.2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I don't mind sharing anything that I've done, but since I don't have verified results yet I don't know that anybody necessarily wants my combo yet. Also since I'm at high elevation I'm concerned that things I do to the WGDC might cause oscillation or some undesirable behavior for people at lower elevation who get boost faster and easier.

    So, having said that, here's what I've been doing to get all the boost I can at higher rpms. My WGDC is maxed out by about 5500+rpm in an attempt to get all I can. It is possible that my wastegates have issues that are causing leakage and reducing the boost I can make. Under average conditions I am able to hold about 14psi at redline with the WGDC at 57%.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    So you're also using the adder table to juice the WGDC base. Is it really that simple, raise load (thus boost target) to something virtually impossible to achieve, and throttle boost as a function of wastegate adder limits (ala the "race" maps I've seen floating around)? I mean, it does work well enough I'm just curious if the ATP tuners are doing the same, or if they are preferring to target an achievable load and then massage the various boost tables for fine tuning..?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Points
    305.2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    The problem that bothers me the most is that the boost target is being lowered by something beyond my control to something less than what is required to hit the load target. I am hitting my boost target from 4000-5500rpm but that still leaves me at 20-30 under my load target. I've gotten nowhere with Cobb when I ask them why and how I can get control of whatever de-rating is going on. Right now I'm just using the Stage1+ load target map since I can't hit the target anyway if it's set above about 150-160.

    But anyway, I don't know if you've seen the logs I posted on the other board ATR thread lately, but other than not getting enough boost to hit load targets I am happy with how the above maps are functioning. It puts me about 1psi closer to the boost target above 5500rpm than I was when I was using unmodified WGDC maps.

    One thing that I'm not understanding yet is if I reduce the target load down to what I'm actually achieving I seem to get odd behavior. Like some sort of overboost error condition that drops the timing to about 0 degrees until the ECU thinks it's under control again at about 5000rpm (this is with no knock retard recorded). So I've left it set at 186 even though I only hit 150-160 or so. All of this may be unique to high elevation use.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Carl Morris Click here to enlarge
    One thing that I'm not understanding yet is if I reduce the target load down to what I'm actually achieving I seem to get odd behavior. Like some sort of overboost error condition that drops the timing to about 0 degrees until the ECU thinks it's under control again at about 5000rpm (this is with no knock retard recorded). So I've left it set at 186 even though I only hit 150-160 or so. All of this may be unique to high elevation use.
    I witnessed the same behavior when I was radically leaning out on 100% E85, load actual was exceeding target and the DME would cut timing to 0 and the throttle would close abruptly. This is the one reason I can agree that running an unachievably high load target is actually a good/proper way to tune at higher power levels.

    It would be nice for someone to compile a list of the primary tables that directly affect target load & target boost. Not sure this thread will gain any popularity though.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    It would be a good thread. How about start with table definitions, relationships and how peeps think the log channels relate, channel definitions. etc.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Carl Morris Click here to enlarge
    The problem that bothers me the most is that the boost target is being lowered by something beyond my control to something less than what is required to hit the load target. I am hitting my boost target from 4000-5500rpm but that still leaves me at 20-30 under my load target. I've gotten nowhere with Cobb when I ask them why and how I can get control of whatever de-rating is going on. Right now I'm just using the Stage1+ load target map since I can't hit the target anyway if it's set above about 150-160.

    But anyway, I don't know if you've seen the logs I posted on the other board ATR thread lately, but other than not getting enough boost to hit load targets I am happy with how the above maps are functioning. It puts me about 1psi closer to the boost target above 5500rpm than I was when I was using unmodified WGDC maps.

    One thing that I'm not understanding yet is if I reduce the target load down to what I'm actually achieving I seem to get odd behavior. Like some sort of overboost error condition that drops the timing to about 0 degrees until the ECU thinks it's under control again at about 5000rpm (this is with no knock retard recorded). So I've left it set at 186 even though I only hit 150-160 or so. All of this may be unique to high elevation use.
    I have the opposite problem, the car is right on target with req/actual load and mirrors it near perfectly. I have RBs at below sea level though, so probably not a good test case.

    I had to yank a ton of WGDC out to prevent throttle closures.

    I logged boost setpoint factor and MAF req WGDC to find trouble areas in reference to throttle closures/trimming and adjusted the base WGDC table. I did not touch the P factor.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by themyst Click here to enlarge
    I have the opposite problem, the car is right on target with req/actual load and mirrors it near perfectly. I have RBs at below sea level though, so probably not a good test case.
    Must be nice! There's only so much fun one can have with ATR before realizing they are at the kids table with stock turbos. Solving the boost control puzzle is almost fun in and of itself.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Points
    305.2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dfv2 Click here to enlarge
    Must be nice! There's only so much fun one can have with ATR before realizing they are at the kids table with stock turbos.
    That's one funny-but-sad way to put it. I would consider a 2.0L motor underturboed with our turbos. On a 3.0 it's just pathetic. RBs should have been the factory size. I was just thinking today about how at the low factory boost pressures there was very little point in running an intercooler. It might have actually ran better with a good short pipe instead. But I'm sure that would have been a marketing faux pas.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    4.6
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    well done man!!! Cheers....
    I am wondering if you have more information with WGDC base table....
    Protune freaks told me that is the most important table....but i have no idea how to change it!!!
    Just realize that the X-axis means the MAF req value and the Y-axis means the Boost setpoint factor

    And i don't understand why cobb doesn't offer the detail about ATR/ATP
    Compare with the standback BMW by CPE .....It's really a thing

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Points
    305.2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I'll chime in. I messed a bit with the base table but ended up going back to stock with it because for my purposes it appeared that the p-factor was able to give me all the extra WGDC I needed if I just opened up the ceiling for how much it could add. And then there's the possibility that I'm totally misunderstanding how all this works but it seems like I'm on track.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    The base must be crucial for fine tuning and avoiding large corrections by the PID system. Even with the OTS base, once the PID settles the adder/ceiling tables appear to dictate how much (up to 57% WGDC = 100% WG) the WGDC PID system has authority to add.

    One of these days I'll create a flow diagram for the PID boost control for what we know from ATR. Just hope there aren't any hidden tables.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sophistkao Click here to enlarge
    well done man!!! Cheers....
    I am wondering if you have more information with WGDC base table....
    Protune freaks told me that is the most important table....but i have no idea how to change it!!!
    Just realize that the X-axis means the MAF req value and the Y-axis means the Boost setpoint factor

    And i don't understand why cobb doesn't offer the detail about ATR/ATP
    Compare with the standback BMW by CPE .....It's really a thing
    If you don't have throttle closures, don't bother changing the base WGDC. If you have massive throttle closures in your log, make sure you log those two settings (MAF req WGDC / Boost setpoint factor) and find the correlating cell where you start getting throttle closures and pull WGDC around the area. Relog, and check for throttle trimming activity, if it doesn't trim throttle and hit requested target, you're done. If it still does, rinse and repeat.

    If you want to change load, you may need to tweak the base WGDC table to account for increasing WGDC (when underboosting) and decreasing WGDC (when throttle closures) respectively. My specific set of RB turbos required a TON of WGDC to be pulled in order to stop the throttle trimming activity and I still get very tiny trimming.

    If tweaking a base map, I would log the base map first to ensure it's running properly. I would then add timing in the targeted cells slowly in 0.5 degree increments until the corrections start becoming frequent and noisy. If that's the case, back it down to the last known happy timing curve. You can change AFR bank 1/2 tables to add more fuel to compensate for the increased timing.

    My understanding is the VANOS tuning is pretty much spot on and does not require any changes. Change fuel scalar using the conversion table if tuning for E85. When logging, start around 2500-3000 RPM in 3rd gear, wind out to redline and capture a few hundred RPMs of 4th gear.

    Then again, i'm no pro tuner, but that's ATR 101 for ya. I'll leave the map creating to Jake and Dzenno.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,059
    Rep Points
    9,036.4
    Mentioned
    637 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    91


    Yes Reputation No
    One easy approach is to just multiply the entire base WGDC table by something like .9, until things get under control. The PID can do any addl lifting if you wind up going too low. On the piggyback, base duty cycle is auto learned and changes over time which is the most ideal approach. Click here to enlarge
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6
    Rep Points
    4.6
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    So the maxium value for WGDC is 57%? It's useless if i rise the value?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,683
    Rep Points
    3,335.6
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    @sophistkao, your car is seeing WGDC After PID values in the 40% range while WGDC Base is in the 20% range. You're under target in terms of requested vs actual boost heavily. You simply have a mechanical issue somewhere and you won't be able to run more boost until that is fixed. You've asked me for advice in multiple emails and I keep telling you the same thing over and again. Buddy you can't get more boost out of your car with the tune when its clearly either a boost leak or wastegate solenoids or your custom turbos being malfunctional. Something hardware wise is just simply off and you need to concentrate on that first believe me.
    Click here to enlarge

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,942
    Rep Points
    2,873.1
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    29


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dfv2 Click here to enlarge
    The base must be crucial for fine tuning and avoiding large corrections by the PID system. Even with the OTS base, once the PID settles the adder/ceiling tables appear to dictate how much (up to 57% WGDC = 100% WG) the WGDC PID system has authority to add.

    One of these days I'll create a flow diagram for the PID boost control for what we know from ATR. Just hope there aren't any hidden tables.
    Does 57% = 100%?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,089
    Rep Points
    999.1
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sophistkao Click here to enlarge
    So the maxium value for WGDC is 57%? It's useless if i rise the value?
    What custom turbos? Batmowheels?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    148.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by lulz_m3 Click here to enlarge
    Does 57% = 100%?
    Yes. WGDC reported vs WGDC position
    Click here to enlarge

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    298
    Rep Points
    272.3
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Hi,

    Great to see a thread where people discuss ATR stuff. I'm starting to like to play with it Click here to enlarge

    My boost shoots over target and stays there for a while. Currently I don't really care that it goes under target (do I have a boost leak ?) I would like to lower the overshoot part to better follow the boost target (at first).

    I logged Boost Setpoint Factor and MAF Req. in g/s and converted to Kg/hr. Should I lower the values in the WGDC Base table around the areas where the boost is higher than it should be (like, for example, when the factor is 2.4 and maf requested is 880kg/hr) ? The problem is that I don't understand what these values mean. They are low numbers like 5%-9% - what does this mean in relation to the WGDC Base logged value ?

    By the way, the log is from the Stage 2 + FMIC Linear Throttle.

    Log attached. Boost screenshot attached. Attached is the portion of the map which I have changed (slightly decreased values). Is it correct what I did, given the log ?
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Attached Files Attached Files

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    ^^^yes you are on the right track... I would reduce the surrounding cells also. You are also short of target in the top so you want to increase your base here and/or raise the adder table for PID. May want to even consider re-scaling the MAF x-axis. its always better to add DC with PID, then take it out. The base is only a portion of the total applied DC... the additional is coming from comp/correction tables like for baro... and a butt load of others. The "temp" channel is some of these comps I believe... so WGDC base=temp+base table

    NOTE: the "MAF fix" for fueling could possibly play into boost control / load targeting also... could be why in the higher loads (mainly in the top end) meeting request boost still keeps you way short of load target.

    I'll look at your log later when I get some more time.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Rep Points
    305.2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Yes Reputation No
    I thought his goal was to reduce the overshoot/overboost in the midrange? I'm not seeing how changes in the base map are going to have the desired effect. I wrote a longer reply in the other thread that he posted the same thing in...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •