Close

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 273
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    26
    Rep Points
    60.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    If the concept is properly appreciated, Terry’s comment that you quoted really isn’t a save or even an attempt at it.

    I really don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but I have three thoughts about the BS proCEDE users utilize in their knock analysis that seems to be serving a basis for their effort to screw everyone up from understanding their "sovereign" "almighty" logic:


    1. It is overstated by the proCEDE clan. Their blanket statement that "all knock is bad" carries as much weight as saying "cranking your car to start it is bad." There are degrees of bad, and appropriate degrees of concern. If you don't want to do anything that's bad for your car, you would never get past the sinking feeling of pushing the start button in the first place and damaging your engine doing so. If you can get past starting the engine, you should never give the engine real load, because your damaging it every time you do that too. etc. etc.
    2. There IS such a thing as "light knock," and they are full of crap for claiming there isn't (I've seen some people call this pre-knock, which is wrong, but an accurate attempt to differentiate severity of knock). There is a very intelligent tuned knock sensor that BMW uses to identify this light knock at levels that people could not dream of perceiving. Tuners that claim otherwise either have no concept of the complex ignition system BMW utilizes to constantly balance many engine variables, or their logic is limited to a very basic understanding of tuning cars with much more primitive ECU's (or they're just trying to scare everyone who doesn't understand the difference). Back in the day, knock was regarded much differently and required much more concern because it was only noticeable in much larger events and with no ability for the engine to react with immediate correction or otherwise protect itself. With such systems, by the time you know your knocking, it's probably too late. But it really doesn't matter because this point goes back to the point in #1. (not to mention... you would have TONS of blown motors on BOTH of these tunes if their concerns had ANY real basis).
    3. The stock car "rides the knock sensor" just like they chastise the JB for doing. The proCEDE also "rides the knock sensor" with its autotune or when overboosting on any map (which is COMMON). Without doing so, it wouldn't know where to set it's limits.


    They claim that their faked ignition curve results in less occurrences of this, but: a) even if done correctly, there are probably only MARGINALLY less of these insignificant events, and b) there is documented problem with their implementation (which, by the way, causes real damage).

    They should be proving that their real problems haven't caused engine damage, not trying to make others prove that they theoretical damage hasn't caused any engine damage.
    One note on this. I re-read my post and want to try not to overgeneralize the procede users. There's really only a handful of people over there (at least there were before I got banned) that are fueling this whole thing. I'm sure there are plenty of users that are reasonable and that don't warrant being grouped in my my references to the "procede clan" or the "bs procede uers" that I refer to. Just to clarify, I'm specifically referring to the clan making the bs claims, not all users of the tune.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,846
    Rep Points
    31,576.2
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    ^ Edit quote tags please.

    Edit: Did it for you.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hanover, MD
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Points
    697.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    One note on this. I re-read my post and want to try not to overgeneralize the procede users. There's really only a handful of people over there (at least there were before I got banned) that are fueling this whole thing. I'm sure there are plenty of users that are reasonable and that don't warrant being grouped in my my references to the "procede clan" or the "bs procede uers" that I refer to. Just to clarify, I'm specifically referring to the clan making the bs claims, not all users of the tune.
    I think I can speak for the Procede guys that have are capable of independent thought and generalizations don't bother me. The point is understand and no insult is taken.
    Click here to enlarge

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge

    If the concept is properly appreciated, Terry’s comment that you quoted really isn’t a save or even an attempt at it.

    The concept is properly appreciated here. However, the irony of the statement before that, shouldn't be overlooked. Had he not made that statement, he would have opened up a huge can of worms with the "procede crowd". As such, it's still a save.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    I really don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but I have three thoughts about the BS proCEDE users utilize in their knock analysis that seems to be serving a basis for their effort to screw everyone up from understanding their "sovereign" "almighty" logic:

    It is overstated by the proCEDE clan. Their blanket statement that "all knock is bad" carries as much weight as saying "cranking your car to start it is bad." There are degrees of bad, and appropriate degrees of concern. If you don't want to do anything that's bad for your car, you would never get past the sinking feeling of pushing the start button in the first place and damaging your engine doing so. If you can get past starting the engine, you should never give the engine real load, because your damaging it every time you do that too. etc. etc.
    There are certainly degrees of bad. But can we agree that slightly bad and really bad are still... bad? The key there is to recognize that the effects of knock are cumulative. If I gave you two identical pistons and a ball peen hammer and then told you to TAP the ringlands in the same place on one piston 10,000 times and the other only 3,000 times and THEN told you to choose the one to put back into your car, which would you pick? Let me put it another way. I won't even mention the word "knock".

    The effects of metal fatigue are cumulative and irreversible.

    This is their stance (or at least it has evolved into this). Contrary to popular belief, they are not really pushing the idea that everyone will fail in the same way that enrita's engine failed.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    There IS such a thing as "light knock," and they are full of crap for claiming there isn't (I've seen some people call this pre-knock, which is wrong, but an accurate attempt to differentiate severity of knock). There is a very intelligent tuned knock sensor that BMW uses to identify this light knock at levels that people could not dream of perceiving. Tuners that claim otherwise either have no concept of the complex ignition system BMW utilizes to constantly balance many engine variables, or their logic is limited to a very basic understanding of tuning cars with much more primitive ECU's (or they're just trying to scare everyone who doesn't understand the difference). Back in the day, knock was regarded much differently and required much more concern because it was only noticeable in much larger events and with no ability for the engine to react with immediate correction or otherwise protect itself. With such systems, by the time you know your knocking, it's probably too late. But it really doesn't matter because this point goes back to the point in #1. (not to mention... you would have TONS of blown motors on BOTH of these tunes if their concerns had ANY real basis).
    You are talking about a sudden catastrophic failure. Again, that's not the point of that thread over there. Are there people that spout crap about JBs causing small nuclear explosions and irradiating their first born children? Sure, but for the most part, no. See above for the "light-knock" response.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    The stock car "rides the knock sensor" just like they chastise the JB for doing. The proCEDE also "rides the knock sensor" with its autotune or when overboosting on any map (which is COMMON). Without doing so, it wouldn't know where to set it's limits.
    They claim that their faked ignition curve results in less occurrences of this, but: a) even if done correctly, there are probably only MARGINALLY less of these insignificant events, and b) there is documented problem with their implementation (which, by the way, causes real damage).

    They should be proving that their real problems haven't caused engine damage, not trying to make others prove that they theoretical damage hasn't caused any engine damage.
    First, let's put certain facts on the table regarding riding the knock sensor and when each tune uses them.

    Procede - during the autotuning process
    JB3 - always
    JB4 - during the autotuning process - always when not on Map 5
    Stock - always

    I included the JB3 in there because that's where this argument really gained steam. I've said before that the autotuning map on the JB4 would be a huge step forward for BMS. What's the difference between the stock tune and JB3 then? Why isn't everyone falling over and throwing rocks and feces at BMW? It's relatively low boost and YES, I believe there are long term timing trims that will eliminate knock as long as environmental variables stay relatively stable. However, these trims were designed to account for normal load levels. JB3 raises boost (thereby increasing the effects of "light knock" - higher cylinder pressures) and futzes with the signals that dictate timing in the DME. The proof is in the logs posted by both JB users and Procede users. Those logs don't lie.

    One of the things that I really took issue with is the premise that Vishnu (Shiv and Adrian) are guessing at the timing curve. I just don't believe that to be true. The term "CPS Offsetting" provides a hint at to why this isn't so. They are taking the CPS feed and simply offsetting it (I'm using the word "simply" very loosely). So, in a way, it's matching the shape of the timing curve as well, just effectively making it lower.

    BTW, I probably missed some threads, but what real damage are you saying the procede causes due to their implementation?

    FWIW, this is my take on the tuner wars and you are welcome to disagree.
    Last edited by AtlHarry335; 02-24-2011 at 09:46 PM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    26
    Rep Points
    60.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I appreciate you taking the time to lay that out, and will try to respond in another post. First, though, I want to point out that this is a difficult conversation to get into because your points are grossly overgeneralized and exaggerated to a point of no practicality.

    In fact, it's not really a conversation at all, it is just overgeneralized and exaggerated points that, when read together, are all just accusation without foundation. The only response is to defend, which isn't really a conversation. Since we're working off examples here, I will provide one (trying to harness the greatness of the posters on e90post):

    jb: Are you actually claiming that shifting an ignition table negative before appropriate is not bad for your engine?
    pf: No, I wouldn't say that. I'm just saying that it really isn't significant.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: So then you also think that holding the table negative for too long after load decrease isn't bad for your engine?
    pf: No, I wouldn't say that either. But most procede customer's engines didn't run like crap as a result of that for too long.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: You know this is probably still damaging your car and that not running like crap and not throwing codes doesn't simply mean you're running good, or are you just a fanboi?
    pf: No, I mean that everyone's car is running fine now, and I'm not aware of any problems that resulted.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: The only reason you believe anything isn't wrong with your tune/car is because you don't notice otherwise and the engine isn't throwing codes. Your an idiot. Just wait, you'll see that everyone running a procede will be blowing engines left and right. Prove me wrong.

    PS: Even though you are an idiot and wrong, and even though procede obviously sucks, don't take this as an insult or personal attack. I'm just trying to have a discussion on mechanics.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    I appreciate you taking the time to lay that out, and will try to respond in another post. First, though, I want to point out that this is a difficult conversation to get into because your points are grossly overgeneralized and exaggerated to a point of no practicality.

    In fact, it's not really a conversation at all, it is just overgeneralized and exaggerated points that, when read together, are all just accusation without foundation. The only response is to defend, which isn't really a conversation. Since we're working off examples here, I will provide one (trying to harness the greatness of the posters on e90post):

    jb: Are you actually claiming that shifting an ignition table negative before appropriate is not bad for your engine?
    pf: No, I wouldn't say that. I'm just saying that it really isn't significant.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: So then you also think that holding the table negative for too long after load decrease isn't bad for your engine?
    pf: No, I wouldn't say that either. But most procede customer's engines didn't run like crap as a result of that for too long.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: You know this is probably still damaging your car and that not running like crap and not throwing codes doesn't simply mean you're running good, or are you just a fanboi?
    pf: No, I mean that everyone's car is running fine now, and I'm not aware of any problems that resulted.
    jb: You are an idiot. How can you claim something that's bad doesn't make your tune suck?

    jb: The only reason you believe anything isn't wrong with your tune/car is because you don't notice otherwise and the engine isn't throwing codes. Your an idiot. Just wait, you'll see that everyone running a procede will be blowing engines left and right. Prove me wrong.

    PS: Even though you are an idiot and wrong, and even though procede obviously sucks, don't take this as an insult or personal attack. I'm just trying to have a discussion on mechanics.
    If you say so buddy.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Does anyone have any data on the knocking frequencies and severities of different tunes?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    26
    Rep Points
    60.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    If you say so buddy.
    That's the point. It's annoying and unhelpful. I can't imagine how the people trying to have a reasonable conversation at e90post feel when they run into that every time. Oh wait, I can.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    The concept is properly appreciated here. However, the irony of the statement before that, shouldn't be overlooked. Had he not made that statement, he would have opened up a huge can of worms with the "procede crowd". As such, it's still a save.
    No. It's not actually a save. A basketball player cant "save" a ball that isn't going out of bounds just because there is a corrupt ref calling line-balls out. He can just try to make it blatantly obvious to the corrupt. I think procede users would call this "proactive."

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    There are certainly degrees of bad. But can we agree that slightly bad and really bad are still... bad? The key there is to recognize that the effects of knock are cumulative. If I gave you two identical pistons and a ball peen hammer and then told you to TAP the ringlands in the same place on one piston 10,000 times and the other only 3,000 times and THEN told you to choose the one to put back into your car, which would you pick? Let me put it another way. I won't even mention the word "knock".
    • Make your numbers 3,000,000 and 2,900,000 and maybe you start to have a point.
    • But... then you'd have to explain to the person making the decision that the piston tapped a few less times came from a car that threw more codes and a higher rate of problems.
    • Now... With that in mind, consider that in addition to coming from a car with less problems, you were also told that the piston tapped an insignificant number of additional times came from a company that manufactures pistons that is well known for producing pistons that are more reliable.
    • Just for icing, let's just say that the piston in question is also less expensive than the one that was tapped less times.

    So... now which piston would you take? The choice is obvious and the logic is sound and easy to follow. But, the only thing the procede groupies can say is: "You're an idiot, that piston was tapped more times."

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    You are talking about a sudden catastrophic failure. Again, that's not the point of that thread over there.
    Actually, no. The people who make VERY BROAD statements about reliability. That is the point of the thread over there, and every comment I see them make in every JB thread.

    • jb meth thread: "You better be careful, that side of the engine is hotter and your meth could catch on fire." Just saying. (I hope everyone sees how stupid that comment was)
    • jb update thread: "It still knocks. You have no idea how much damage you're doing to your car."
    • etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. infinity.


    It is laughable that all of this bashing is done under the guise of, "we're not bashing." Anyone must see this, Right? What if I posted my comments above in every single procede thread? Even though the appear to me to be far more reasonable and logical, I'm sure then that you would realize that I am, in fact, bashing the tune at that point.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    First, let's put certain facts on the table regarding riding the knock sensor and when each tune uses them.

    Procede - during the autotuning process
    JB3 - always
    JB4 - during the autotuning process - always when not on Map 5
    Stock - always
    Really? Come on. No. Obviously not facts.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    I included the JB3 in there because that's where this argument really gained steam.
    Oh, well then let's throw in the older models of the procede too. I could really gain steam then too.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    One of the things that I really took issue with is the premise that Vishnu (Shiv and Adrian) are guessing at the timing curve. I just don't believe that to be true. The term "CPS Offsetting" provides a hint at to why this isn't so. They are taking the CPS feed and simply offsetting it (I'm using the word "simply" very loosely). So, in a way, it's matching the shape of the timing curve as well, just effectively making it lower.
    This is nuts. The CPS Offset does not provide a hint as to why the timing curve is guessed. The CPS offset is used to pull it back because it ISN'T natural. How in the world can you take that to mean that the numbers are right? By that logic, larger adjustments (which would put you at the edge of more tables) would mean that the timing is even more beneficial.
    Last edited by n54-5&3; 02-24-2011 at 11:14 PM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    First, let's put certain facts on the table regarding riding the knock sensor and when each tune uses them.

    Procede - during the autotuning process
    JB3 - always
    JB4 - during the autotuning process - always when not on Map 5
    Stock - always
    I don't quite follow the above. The DME is riding the knock sensor always, more or less. You can confirm this by using higher octane and seeing the increased power on a dyno.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    I don't quite follow the above. The DME is riding the knock sensor always, more or less. You can confirm this by using higher octane and seeing the increased power on a dyno.
    What I consider to be "riding the knock sensor" is running a level of boost/fuel/timing that runs the ragged edge of knock where a tiny variance will cause light knock and the DME pulls timing reactively. Like walking on the edge of a cliff. One step in the wrong direction and you go tumbling down.

    So for what I posted -

    Procede - Rides the knock sensor during the autotuning process and then proactively pulls timing a set amount where it deems necessary (I can't tell you how it figures that out, but I'm sure Adrian could if so inclined) so that you're effectively an additional step away from the "cliff". Post autotuning, you aren't riding the knock sensor.

    JB4 - If I understand correctly, this also rides the knock sensor during the autotune process. JB4 adjusts for this in a different way though. If it detects a timing drop indicative of knock, it drops boost a good bit and then incrementally increases it again during WOT runs. If it knocks, the process begins again until it finds that sweet spot. Again, one step further away from the cliff.

    JB3 - depending on the map that you choose, the engine continues to try to walk right off the edge and is saved only by the DMEs safety (retard timing). Whether or not the stock long term timing trims prevent this in the long run is debatable and disproven by the logs that I have seen.

    Stock - This is a whole lot different because in the tunes, you are maximizing boost/fuel/spark and letting the power be a product of those things. The stock DME does it backwards. There is a set load target and it will try to meet that in all situations. On bad days, that means it's gonna ride that knock sensor until the long term timing trims (based on the stock load tables) adjust. I have a feeling that even on good days it's riding it because it's also shooting for maximum efficiency (more advance to use less fuel).

    Look, I've said it before, I'm over the fanboyism and am here (and there) to learn. If what I am saying is completely off the wall, tell me. But please tell me why while you're at it.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    What I consider to be "riding the knock sensor" is running a level of boost/fuel/timing that runs the ragged edge of knock where a tiny variance will cause light knock and the DME pulls timing reactively. Like walking on the edge of a cliff. One step in the wrong direction and you go tumbling down.

    So for what I posted -

    Procede - Rides the knock sensor during the autotuning process and then proactively pulls timing a set amount where it deems necessary (I can't tell you how it figures that out, but I'm sure Adrian could if so inclined) so that you're effectively an additional step away from the "cliff". Post autotuning, you aren't riding the knock sensor.

    JB4 - If I understand correctly, this also rides the knock sensor during the autotune process. JB4 adjusts for this in a different way though. If it detects a timing drop indicative of knock, it drops boost a good bit and then incrementally increases it again during WOT runs. If it knocks, the process begins again until it finds that sweet spot. Again, one step further away from the cliff.

    JB3 - depending on the map that you choose, the engine continues to try to walk right off the edge and is saved only by the DMEs safety (retard timing). Whether or not the stock long term timing trims prevent this in the long run is debatable and disproven by the logs that I have seen.

    Stock - This is a whole lot different because in the tunes, you are maximizing boost/fuel/spark and letting the power be a product of those things. The stock DME does it backwards. There is a set load target and it will try to meet that in all situations. On bad days, that means it's gonna ride that knock sensor until the long term timing trims (based on the stock load tables) adjust. I have a feeling that even on good days it's riding it because it's also shooting for maximum efficiency (more advance to use less fuel).

    Look, I've said it before, I'm over the fanboyism and am here (and there) to learn. If what I am saying is completely off the wall, tell me. But please tell me why while you're at it.
    Good post for starting the discussion and for the tuners to chime in how the "step away" can be had.
    I believe that since the octane effects can be seen in the power in all the tunes as well as stock, the DME will go to the edge of the cliff and will not stay all the time "proactively" one step away from it. Now I'm sure that the tuners can reduce the severity and frequency of the DME going to the edge of the cliff, but how well do they succeed in it is not demonstrated by data. Anyone can show a short period of datalog that does not happen to have timing drops, so I'm talking about extensive long logs to demonstrate that the tuning actually decreases the light knocking the DME tends to do.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Reputation: Yes | No
    i like where htis is going. almost wish shiv wasnt banned here so he can take up for his side and views on the topic..

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    You can confirm this by using higher octane and seeing the increased power on a dyno.
    Well, I think in the case of race gas or meth, you start running into the maximum advance the DME will go, which is in turn limited by physics and chemistry (rate of burn and flame fronts). I believe for the tunes, this means ramping up to maximum SET boost. It would have to be an extreme situation to get the knock sensor to go off when using either of those additions.

    ie. meth failure

    Edit: Sorry, I quoted the wrong post.
    Last edited by AtlHarry335; 02-25-2011 at 12:57 AM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,915
    Rep Points
    1,353.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Running very high octane (race gas / meth) and thus maximizing the timing advance is indeed the condition when the DME is not riding the knock sensor. In this case it does not ride the knock sensor with any tune.

    I was talking about normal conditions such as having 91 vs 93 oct. 93 oct dynos have more whp no matter tuned or not and no matter which tune. The only way for the DME to know it can provide more power due to the higher 93 octane is to go to the edge and knock a bit to know how far it can go with the ignition advance.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    makes sense... but then that invalidates the "long term timing trims" theory.

    Does the car throw a code if you leave the fuel cap off? Click here to enlarge

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,846
    Rep Points
    31,576.2
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    i like where htis is going. almost wish shiv wasnt banned here so he can take up for his side and views on the topic..
    Don't understand, Shiv isn't banned here?

    Oh wait, or were you being funny in the sense of highlighting his silence?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,009
    Rep Points
    8,959.6
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    What I consider to be "riding the knock sensor" is running a level of boost/fuel/timing that runs the ragged edge of knock where a tiny variance will cause light knock and the DME pulls timing reactively. Like walking on the edge of a cliff. One step in the wrong direction and you go tumbling down.
    The state you describe is what the DME delivers out of the box. Timing is always advanced close to knock threshold and ranged over and below in small increments. Analogous to a PID targeting system.

    Procede - Rides the knock sensor during the autotuning process and then proactively pulls timing a set amount where it deems necessary (I can't tell you how it figures that out, but I'm sure Adrian could if so inclined) so that you're effectively an additional step away from the "cliff". Post autotuning, you aren't riding the knock sensor.
    This is incorrect. The procede rides the knock sensor 100% of the time. If it didn't, autotuning could not exist. How would it know to raise boost or lower boost or its CPS offset? The fact is the procede is autotuning on top of a timing system that is already closed loop. So the DME is knocking/ranging timing and the procede is listening to decide how to range based on that feedback. The CPS offset primarily serves to fool the DME in to thinking it's running close to the stock timing which in turn has an impact on how it responds to knock feedback. The higher the perceived octane the less responsive it is to increasing knock sensor noise. As perceived octane drops it becomes more aggressive with dropping timing further.

    JB4 - If I understand correctly, this also rides the knock sensor during the autotune process. JB4 adjusts for this in a different way though. If it detects a timing drop indicative of knock, it drops boost a good bit and then incrementally increases it again during WOT runs. If it knocks, the process begins again until it finds that sweet spot. Again, one step further away from the cliff.
    Roughly correct. Reducing boost long term gives the same effect from a knock perspective as reducing advance. Personally, I prefer to see less boost and more advance as in my experience it makes the car feel a lot more responsive.

    Stock - This is a whole lot different because in the tunes, you are maximizing boost/fuel/spark and letting the power be a product of those things. The stock DME does it backwards. There is a set load target and it will try to meet that in all situations. On bad days, that means it's gonna ride that knock sensor until the long term timing trims (based on the stock load tables) adjust. I have a feeling that even on good days it's riding it because it's also shooting for maximum efficiency (more advance to use less fuel).
    Incorrect. The maximum advance points are set high enough that they are rarely hit. It effectively rides the knock sensor 100% of the time as do both tunes above.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    26
    Rep Points
    60.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    What I consider to be "riding the knock sensor" is running a level of boost/fuel/timing that runs the ragged edge of knock where a tiny variance will cause light knock and the DME pulls timing reactively. Like walking on the edge of a cliff. One step in the wrong direction and you go tumbling down.

    So for what I posted -

    Procede - Rides the knock sensor during the autotuning process and then proactively pulls timing a set amount where it deems necessary (I can't tell you how it figures that out, but I'm sure Adrian could if so inclined) so that you're effectively an additional step away from the "cliff". Post autotuning, you aren't riding the knock sensor.

    JB4 - If I understand correctly, this also rides the knock sensor during the autotune process. JB4 adjusts for this in a different way though. If it detects a timing drop indicative of knock, it drops boost a good bit and then incrementally increases it again during WOT runs. If it knocks, the process begins again until it finds that sweet spot. Again, one step further away from the cliff.

    JB3 - depending on the map that you choose, the engine continues to try to walk right off the edge and is saved only by the DMEs safety (retard timing). Whether or not the stock long term timing trims prevent this in the long run is debatable and disproven by the logs that I have seen.

    Stock - This is a whole lot different because in the tunes, you are maximizing boost/fuel/spark and letting the power be a product of those things. The stock DME does it backwards. There is a set load target and it will try to meet that in all situations. On bad days, that means it's gonna ride that knock sensor until the long term timing trims (based on the stock load tables) adjust. I have a feeling that even on good days it's riding it because it's also shooting for maximum efficiency (more advance to use less fuel).

    Look, I've said it before, I'm over the fanboyism and am here (and there) to learn. If what I am saying is completely off the wall, tell me. But please tell me why while you're at it.
    Here's my input..
    The procede doesn't ride the knock sensor and then pull timing a set amount like you state, the two are actually linked. The timing is BMW's timing, you are not looking at an overlayed timing table. The only way to get a different table is with a flash tune. This is why I said in the prior posts that the concept is sound, but that I just do not think that the procede way of "adjusting" timing is helpful (in fact it seems harmful). The bad assumption here is that it is always good to simply pull timing. If it were that easy, BMW would just run it that way. By shifting the stock table the way procede is doing it, there are consequences to not correcting it on the backend as well. That is why I keep referring to the misfires and other problems that have been experienced over there. Tricking the timing path is not the same as adjusting timing through a table. The point isn't whether timing control can be beneficial, it is whether procede is actually doing it right or whether the minimal change is beneficial.

    Another point I think people are missing with the procede is that the boost is going to tune at the threshold no matter what the advance. Look at flash tune curves if you don't believe me. If the degree of advance makes a difference, then the difference is going to be in the maximum power sustained, not in the amount of knock being generated at maximum power. It's going to be scaled in either case. Your always going to be at the "cliff" analogy you are referring to.

    As to the JB3, out of fairness to the tune, you should include the prior vishnu tune as well if you are doing comparisons.

    PS: I'm new to this forum and just got the single subscription thread email. Note to the forum: it's nice to just get a summary, I like the feature.

    Goodnight!

    edit: Terry replied while I was typing, so there may be some overlap. I apologize if repetitive.
    Last edited by n54-5&3; 02-25-2011 at 02:35 AM.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,846
    Rep Points
    31,576.2
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge
    PS: I'm new to this forum and just got the single subscription thread email. Note to the forum: it's nice to just get a summary, I like the feature.
    For us, it's all about maximizing the end user experience and doing what it takes to help you enjoy the forum/community and keep you coming back.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,009
    Rep Points
    8,959.6
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Really? Click here to enlarge

    • Make your numbers 3,000,000 and 2,900,000 and maybe you start to have a point.
    • But... then you'd have to explain to the person making the decision that the piston tapped a few less times came from a car that threw more codes and a higher rate of problems.
    • Now... With that in mind, consider that in addition to coming from a car with less problems, you were also told that the piston tapped an insignificant number of additional times came from a company that manufactures pistons that is well known for producing pistons that are more reliable.
    • Just for icing, let's just say that the piston in question is also less expensive than the one that was tapped less times.
    I've heard this talking point made a few times. "Remember knock damage is a cumulative effect". It seems a reasonable enough but I also think it falls short of the reality of combustion/piston physics. The piston is a piece of metal and a certain threshold must be crossed before any damage happens. Meaning that you can have a certain degree of knock indefinitely with zero damage but once you cross the threshold then will have a high degree of damage relatively quickly. If the knock is bad enough to damage the piston it does not take much to blow out the ringland. Like a few engine revolutions normally do it. So the question becomes on what side of the threshold is this light knock we're talking about? Given the long history of tune reliability I think any reader can figure out the answer to that themselves.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    14
    Rep Points
    3.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Following this thread with great interest. Why does BMW retard timing on the tables for the iS? Is it to give the knock sensor a "head start"?

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,009
    Rep Points
    8,959.6
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Morpheus Click here to enlarge
    Following this thread with great interest. Why does BMW retard timing on the tables for the iS? Is it to give the knock sensor a "head start"?
    1) They don't. They slower the advance limiter. Timing still floats to knock threshold.
    2) BMW's goal is to set the maximum advance low enough that power is not substantially increased over their ratings when higher octane fuel is added.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Rep Points
    25.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    The state you describe is what the DME delivers out of the box. Timing is always advanced close to knock threshold and ranged over and below in small increments. Analogous to a PID targeting system.

    This is incorrect. The procede rides the knock sensor 100% of the time. If it didn't, autotuning could not exist. How would it know to raise boost or lower boost or its CPS offset? The fact is the procede is autotuning on top of a timing system that is already closed loop. So the DME is knocking/ranging timing and the procede is listening to decide how to range based on that feedback. The CPS offset primarily serves to fool the DME in to thinking it's running close to the stock timing which in turn has an impact on how it responds to knock feedback. The higher the perceived octane the less responsive it is to increasing knock sensor noise. As perceived octane drops it becomes more aggressive with dropping timing further.



    Roughly correct. Reducing boost long term gives the same effect from a knock perspective as reducing advance. Personally, I prefer to see less boost and more advance as in my experience it makes the car feel a lot more responsive.

    Incorrect. The maximum advance points are set high enough that they are rarely hit. It effectively rides the knock sensor 100% of the time as do both tunes above.
    Good information. However, if the tuners are to add their input, I would love it if they would limit their responses to how their own tunes work rather than how the competitor's tune works. I think that's fair, no?

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,846
    Rep Points
    31,576.2
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335 Click here to enlarge
    Good information. However, if the tuners are to add their input, I would love it if they would limit their responses to how their own tunes work rather than how the competitor's tune works. I think that's fair, no?
    You can't expect them to adhere to this because, well, they can't resist.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,009
    Rep Points
    8,959.6
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That is fair enough. I'll change my response:

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtlHarry335
    Procede - Rides the knock sensor during the autotuning process and then proactively pulls timing a set amount where it deems necessary (I can't tell you how it figures that out, but I'm sure Adrian could if so inclined) so that you're effectively an additional step away from the "cliff". Post autotuning, you aren't riding the knock sensor.
    That magical thing that you want Adrian to explain. It's knock. And the autotuning is learning continuously not simply when the unit is first installed.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •