The IGNITECH TCI thread

Hi all

I recently bought one of these programmable IGNITECH TCIs from Gary on a group buy here. Im opening this thread for all of you that got this setup to post any issues and things you find relevant or that you find out along the way of installation and use. I knew from Gary that one guy on the venture side is having problems firing his bike. Its a 1 pickup later model like mine. I was told by Gary that had been no issues on the 4 pickup older versions of the engines and i haven't tried mine yet. So what i request from you Ignitech users is to chime in with all the information you find to be relevant. Bazwell already did a great write up on his installation and doings on this but i think its easier to keep everything in the same place.
I pretend to run my unit with a NOS system and im wondering if the TCI has any way of killing ignition between gear changes for power shifting instead of having to bypass the coils wiring (i think it has but i don't have the CD with me now). Will also have to work with ignition advance settings to get the best performance when using NOS. Maybe even think of a toggle switch system that allow me to toggle between 2 maps for daily riding and NOS use instead of having to pull the laptop to change the maps (like Dyna has the switches for the pre-programmed curves or fooling the MAP by using a resistor circuit thus changing advance)... Im kinda new on this stuff so i expect you all to contribute to make this a better thread. Thanks in advance to you all. I'd also like to request the admins to make this a sticky for prompt access.
You can also upload your home made maps here for everyone to check and comment... Lets make this a tester thread...

You might be able to use the blocking input for killing the ignition when shifting? Great threat btw, my 85 ignition is acting up so I might be replacing it with a IgniTech unit.

Awesome stuff Gary
Im glad the issue has been tackled...
What im planning to do on the long term is to use an electric speed shifter (instead of pneumatic) to use with my lockup clutch so i need a way to cut the ignition when the shifter goes... What can be done and correct me if im wrong is to bypass the clutch switch by the shifter switch and when i go for shift (on the shifter switch on the handlebar) it operates the clutch circuit as well cutting the ignition for that moment. Regarding toggling between 2 maps i've read an article that stated that by fiddling with the MAP circuit we could fool the TCI to think that the vacuum reading is other than the real one. This is done by adding a resistor circuit to the output MAP sense lead like the schematic below (what will do is lower the output voltage on the MAP simulating an increased vacuum to fool the TCI)... Take a look and tell me if that is feasible...

This is doable. It will force you either higher or lower into the programmable timing curve on the left side of the timing graph. You could either put a resistor in series with the MAP output under normal conditions and force timing one way in window, or you could put it in only under 'special condition' and your overall operating condition would be at opposite end of window

You could initially set the MAP pressure parameters outside the normal swing for the vacuum, thus giving an extra window of range, depending on if you wanted to advance or retard timing.

There are several options for viewing the timing curve in the software. 2D, 3D, with & without the MAP or throttle position sensor.

One of the Venture guys has been experimenting with a throttle position setup instead of the MAP. I can hook you 2 up if you want.

Look at the Power Out tab on the TCIP4 V88 software. Select the Special option in one of 2 outputs. This will allow you to a range of parameters for output to be On. Don't know if you could tweak one, or both as a combination to do what you are trying.

Gary

wildweasel_pt said:

Awesome stuff Gary
Im glad the issue has been tackled...
What im planning to do on the long term is to use an electric speed shifter (instead of pneumatic) to use with my lockup clutch so i need a way to cut the ignition when the shifter goes... What can be done and correct me if im wrong is to bypass the clutch switch by the shifter switch and when i go for shift (on the shifter switch on the handlebar) it operates the clutch circuit as well cutting the ignition for that moment. Regarding toggling between 2 maps i've read an article that stated that by fiddling with the MAP circuit we could fool the TCI to think that the vacuum reading is other than the real one. This is done by adding a resistor circuit to the output MAP sense lead like the schematic below (what will do is lower the output voltage on the MAP simulating an increased vacuum to fool the TCI)... Take a look and tell me if that is feasible...

Click to expand...

Hi,

Another question. Isn't it better to use a TPS (throttle position sensor) with the Ignitech? I think it will be hard to setup the vacuum unit. Let me explain:


- When the throttle is closed at idle, there will be a high vacuum. Let`s give this a value of 50
- When the throttle is wide open at idle, there will be a very low vacuum. Value = 0
- When the throttle is closed at max RPM, there will be a really high vacuum. Value = 100
- When the throttle is wide open at max RPM, there will be a fairly low vacuum. Value = 10

And you can fill in all the remaining RPM and throttle settings. How would the TCI know now what the throttle position is based on these values? Does it take the RPM into account? If not, the values will always be a guestimate or am I missing something here?

The way i see it is that the vacuum reading is proportional to the flow on the manifolds and has nothing to do with butterfly opening and closing, eventhough that by opening the throttle will in fact increase the intake flow thus making the RPMs rise... I say again that what i know about this comes from aerodynamics and not mechanics. I have no course in mechanics just general knowledge...
In this line of thought i'll disagree with what you've said and will say that the higher vacuum will be when the RPMs are at maximum independent from the throttle position so the ignition will be advanced to the max, this change in ignition advance will be adjusted by means of MAP and TCI when the RPMs change but its not instant, the MAP needs first to sense the increase in vacuum (RPMs increasing) to give the input to the TCI and then advance the ignition, the same happens when reducing power/RPMs/throttle. The TPS as i see its a more instant output mean of sensing the progression of the engine regime for the TCI to apply proper ignition timing. If im wrong please correct me...

Hi,

One thing I did not take into account is the diaphragms in the carbs. If you would pull the throttle open from idle, it would stall without them. So they should be managing the pressure a little.

One thing I know is that when you sync carbs and flick the throttle, first the pressure drops, then slowly builds and when you close the throttle goes to max so it isn't constant to a particular throttle position. So that kills my previous story (line 2 and 4) ...

This still means that the pressure is now comprised of two factors: Allowed air through carbs (combination of diaphraghm and butterfly) and RPM.

At least in my head. Any additional input highly appreciated

wildweasel_pt said:

...and will say that the higher vacuum will be when the RPMs are at maximum independent from the throttle position.

Click to expand...

You sure?
The vacuum is caused not by air flowing through the inlet tract but by the piston trying to draw air into the cylinder on the inlet stroke.
When the throttle is closed then it can't pull the volume of air needed to fill the cylinder so a vacuum is formed.
As the throttle opens, more air can flow thus the vacuum reduces until maximum throttle when it is at its lowest.
On that basis I would have thought that the revs aren't relevant, although not sure how the inertia of the air will affect things at higher RPM.

MaxMidnight said:

You sure?
The vacuum is caused not by air flowing through the inlet tract but by the piston trying to draw air into the cylinder on the inlet stroke.
When the throttle is closed then it can't pull the volume of air needed to fill the cylinder so a vacuum is formed.
As the throttle opens, more air can flow thus the vacuum reduces until maximum throttle when it is at its lowest.
On that basis I would have thought that the revs aren't relevant, although not sure how the inertia of the air will affect things at higher RPM.

Click to expand...

We call it vacuum but in fact its static pressure on the manifold wall, the faster the flow is the less static pressure is exerted on the walls (where the "vacuum" bleed nipple is). The total pressure of the air (in fact A/F mixture) is comprised of the dynamic pressure (associated and proportional to the speed of the flow) and the static pressure and the sum of those is always constant and equal to the ambient pressure of still air (static is max and dynamic is zero). When one rises the other lowers in the same amount to maintain the total pressure constant for a given ambient pressure at a designated altitude.
When the throttle is "closed" its not really closed because it allows for air to pass through otherwise the engine would starve and stall, so that vacuum you talk about is not really a vacuum and its not sensed by the MAP. Its exactly the same principle of a Venturi.
What regulates the speed of the flow is the number of times the pistons are in the intake stroke per time unit thus RPM...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

And why do we need ignition advance? Because the flame front takes time to go from the spark plug to the piston on the TDC. That time is fairly constant but at different RPMs the piston is faster or slower so to make sure the flame front hits the piston exactly when it is at TDC it needs to be advanced more or less. The spark needs to happen always before the piston reaches the TDC, and when before??? the amount of time that takes the front flame to reach the piston at the TDC. Making it simpler. Imagine that the distance between the sparkplug and the TDC is 1" and the flame front progresses at 1" per second, the flame front will take 1 second to reach the TDC (its always 1 second). The piston travels a variable distance (or crank angle) in 1 second, depending on RPMs. thats why the ignition advance is measured in crank angles and not time, because eventhough the time is always the same (1 second) the amount of degrees varies depending on RPMs, the higher the RPMs are the bigger the degree advance has to be in order to both the piston and flame front to meet at the TDC for max efficiency. If there was no ignition advance what would happen would be that for increased RPMs the flame front would be chasing the piston down and not applying its force on it, but instead going after it and in the extreme hitting the piston when it would reverse its throw initiating the exhaust stroke.

This is the most basic perspective on it and other variables need to be taken in account.

When I write about vacuum I do not refer to it in the literal sense i.e. an absence of air but a relative sense compared to the ambient air pressure.
If you want to be pedantic then perhaps 'partial vacuum' would be more correct?

Also when I refer to a closed throttle, again, I don't mean this in a literal sense i.e. it has sealed the inlet but that it is open less than full throttle.

I also disagree that the 'vacuum' in the venturi is is due to the the same effect as the inlet manifold between the throttle and inlet valve.

The former is due to the reduction in cross sectional area within the carburettor causing the air to speed up and reducing in pressure.
That in the inlet manifold is due to the cause that I stated in my first post.

Have a look at what Wikipedia has to say about Manifold Vacuum.

You also seem to imply that the MAP sensor does not register the change in pressure within the inlet manifold?....or do I mis-understand.

Regarding your explanation of ignition advance, I would like to add the following:

You are also burning more fuel so combustion takes longer. This can be due to a richer mixture to maximise power and/ or provide cooling of the charge at higher revs and also due to positive pressure waves within the inlet and exhaust systems forcing more air and fuel into the cylinder.

Steve...
I didn't want to be pedantic. I was just looking at this in a different way. The static pressure is always less on a tube with flow regardless of its shape. Anytime the gas or liquid has speed the pressure exerted on the walls is less than when its still. I wrongly assumed the MAP senses the static pressure on the boundary layer and not by the middle of the intake manifold. Now that i think of it it makes sense not to happen that way. The readings are different on the wall and on the middle of the manifold. In fact thats why it needs to be looked at not as in a Venturi effect but in a "regular way" of the aspiration caused low pressure restricted by the throttle.

RempageR1 said:

Hi,

Another question. Isn't it better to use a TPS (throttle position sensor) with the Ignitech? I think it will be hard to setup the vacuum unit. Let me explain:


- When the throttle is closed at idle, there will be a high vacuum. Let`s give this a value of 50
- When the throttle is wide open at idle, there will be a very low vacuum. Value = 0
- When the throttle is closed at max RPM, there will be a really high vacuum. Value = 100
- When the throttle is wide open at max RPM, there will be a fairly low vacuum. Value = 10

And you can fill in all the remaining RPM and throttle settings. How would the TCI know now what the throttle position is based on these values? Does it take the RPM into account? If not, the values will always be a guestimate or am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Hey, I am the 'venture guy' Gary sent over. I happen to agree with RempageR1, in that a true TPS is bettter than the MAP sensor. I have operated v80 and v88 with both TPS and MAP. The hardest part in a TPS setup is actually interfacing with the throttle controls somehow. I have a rig, and built a second rig, but it is not the safest install and 'could possibly' jam the throttle, especially in the venture with the plastic. For this reason I will not give details of my install, but I did provide Gary a copy of it to install on his bike and test ride. If Gary agrees TPS provides better response, I do have plans for a safer install, but would require a little R&D$. Will be glad to provide any assistance I can

Brian

Thank you for chiming in Brian... So you are the dude that was having problems with the single pick-up version of the TCI? If so what was the problem afterall? Keeps us posted on news regarding this. This thread is especially for this...

Regarding what rampage and Mr midnight wrote it may be but it makes no sense to me because its logical that the ignition advance increases with increase in RPM and if so it should be following a constant decrease in vacuum and not ups and downs depending in Throttle position also. The higher the RPMs the lower the vacuum the higher the ignition advance... Am i wrong? Or am i missing something here?

BTW welcome to VMF.

NO, I am not the guy with the single input problem (91VR), but I did offer Gary some suggestions to offer that guy to resolve the problem. Not sure to date, but Gary thinks his problem was blocking inputs 1&2 options were set wrong.

I AM the guy who has installed an actual TPS (83VR).

Garys reasoning was MAP was easier to install, and would detect actual load on the engine, TPS would only detect demand

I think TPS detects actual demand, and supposed load because when you roll on throttle, it takes time for rpm to catch up, therefor the engine is loaded and boggs down unless advanced. When rpm finally catches up with throttle demand, advance decreases to baseline for set rpm.
Add the fact that the ingitech was DESIGNED for TPS(v80).
And the fact the my install allows me to switch between either MAP or TPS, and I think TPS has a better response in pratice. Now granted, the new v88 has option for IAP using a MAP sensor could rule out my DESIGNED for argument, I think an advace map would be different for each type of sensor, and I have not tried IAP of the new v88 yet.

I gave Gary a TPS rig same as mine to try. Waiting for his opinion. If he agrees TPS seems better, I have plans for a better TPS interface.

Cool. Lets get this going... Im very interested on what you guys have to say...

Fred et al.

You may already have come across these but just in case....

This
This
This
This
or
This

I hope they help rather than hinder!

Thanks Steve i'll take a look at that...

Nice thread. Thanks Fred. :biglaugh:

Seems there is a lot of reading (for me) to do with TPS and MAP sensor.
I don't think there is a right or wrong, but to me running without MAP means running without anything sensing what the engine desires. Computation of the throttle position is possible to a degree without TPS.

ie. At 4000RPM a perfect engine is trying to pump 4800 litre/min of gas. There is an estimation of the throttle position that can be made from the vacuum reading. Further mental gymnastics for me is probably counter productive! :ummm:

I guess the trick that we have to contend with is that v-boost can also be mapped for MAP and RPM which will affect vacuum. So we have throttle, vacuum, RPM and v-boost going on. Prof. Steven Hawkins claims it is not possible for the human brain to imagine in 4D. And I'm only a MONKEY! :rofl_200:

I've tried to visualise this concept, and hurt my brain meat. Good thing I don't have NOS...

Fortunately my bike doesn't have Vboost anymore (stage 7). Using VBoost will be an issue and thats why i think MAP will do a better job rather than the TPS because the TPS only senses the throttle position regardless of VBoost being on or off, in this case the MAP will have a better input due measuring the pressure or lack of independent from VBoost being on or off... I think... Thats something that the venture guys don't need to pay attention to, right Brian?...

Baz... Those 4800l/min depend on engine displacement right? A bigger engine will have a bigger flow, or are you talking about a stock vmax engine?