The IGNITECH TCI thread

[bkuhr]

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?

Normal venture does not have boost, and I am unfamiular with it, but Gary, I beleive, was adding boost, we had talked about how to have the advance map trigger the boost using the servo output. I think Gary has a plan for that. I think we found a way to use % boost rather than just full on or off as in stock.

The links from Maxmidnight were quite interesting, but for the most part seem to deal with auto advance with fuel control(injection). The MAP install did talk about need to tie 'all rails' (our carb joints) together, which our current ingitech MAP install is not doing. This may account for my seat of the pants feeing that TPS is better. Maybe if all joints were tied together maybe seat of pants feeling would say MAP is better.

 

[dingy]

Bazwell has successfully hooked the vboost to the Ignitech TCI.

http://www.vmaxforum.net/showthread.php?t=22733

My one concern about the direct hookup method is the Vboost motor turns slower at the TCI's 5vdc output. It is really a 12vdc motor. It will function at 5vdc though.

I am still considering using a relay driven system, which was suggested by BKuhr in order to be able to drive the vboost motor at 12v. This will result in a quicker response time.

Attached PDF shows circuit that I have at this point, nothing built yet. The variable resistor in the Servo feedback pot is an effort to be able to manipulate the feedback signal. All this could fit on a circuit board that would fit in the VBoost controller housing. PDF attached of circuitry.

I have taken readings on the Vboost & an EXUP exhaust servo motors shown below. These readings were taken with good quality equipment. Coil ohms were with a Fluke meter.

EXUP 3.54 ohms coil

5.0vdc input
.25 amps run current
.79 amps locked rotor
2.5 seconds full rotation of output shaft.

12.0vdc input
.344 amps run current
.925 amps locked rotor
1 seconds full rotation of output shaft.


VBoost 14.5 ohms coil

5.0vdc input
.075 amps run current
.51 amps locked rotor
4 seconds full rotation of output shaft.

12.0vdc input
.103 amps run current
.79 amps locked rotor
1.5 seconds full rotation of output shaft.

Gary

 

[bazwell]

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?

Yes. When I typed it I was thinking 4000 x 1.2. Whatever size motor, at a certain RPM, the "perfect" motor will try and pump a specific amount of gas.
So things that affect vacuum is throttle position, and whether the engine is accelerating or decelerating. As the first affects the second (they are directly linked), there is some relationship between throttle and vacuum. I think a decelerating engine is much less perfect than a well set up motor with WOT, and therefore tries to pump less gas, if you get what I mean.

I think there is merit in what you are saying, because vacuum is measuring the engines reaction to the throttle, which is a form of feedback.

BTW I guess you know I don't mean gas=benzine or petroleum. ;-)

Edit : Another BTW, I meant to say that using vacuum is a good idea, because TPS doesn't give the same amount of feedback... what the engine is doing isn't being measured. Only the riders reaction. Or saying it another way - with TPS you still need a MAP sensor to see how the engine is reacting.

 

[bkuhr]

Attached PDF shows circuit that I have at this point, nothing built yet. .

Gary

Gary, need to flip one of the diodes. As drawn if pin 4+ and 5- both relays would activate.

 

[bazwell]

My one concern about the direct hookup method is the Vboost motor turns slower at the TCI's 5vdc output. It is really a 12vdc motor. It will function at 5vdc though.

I am still considering using a relay driven system, which was suggested by BKuhr in order to be able to drive the vboost motor at 12v. This will result in a quicker response time.

I respectfully disagree with this.

I determined that the output from the TCI unit was 12v, using Pulse Width Modulation to control voltage/speed of motor.
This is the conventional way of driving a DC motor using a microcontroller coupled with a H-bridge.

This video is of a boring guy who goes into depth about how the circuit works. If you can follow it for 14 boring minutes, he is giving a pretty good explanation of the circuit that I think is at work here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_JNjAFo1f4


To show what I mean I took this video this afternoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uML3suywCt8&feature=youtu.be

The volt meter is way way too slow to capture what is going on, but it still registers over 7v one way, and over 8v the other. The scope is a bit better.
The scope shows the motor being driven backwards and forwards. In between, you can see the signal oscillating. (Or at least, the high, low and 0v points, the scope isn't fast enough to keep up with the microcontroller in the TCI unit. It is a 10mhz scope.)

The oscillation could be caused by PWM or it could be oscillating due to hysteresis. So, I can't from this prove the use of PWM to control the motor, but I can show 2 other vital points.

i) The voltage in this setup is averaging +10v when the motor is being driven forward. So, you don't need to worry about constructing a circuit to boost the voltage. It most certainly isn't 5v.

ii) The circuit you have shown will not work for long. The oscillating voltage is equivalent to AC power, and it will burn out the relay.

I'm sorry but my other cam had a flat battery. The one I used is a bit crap, and there is no audio. Audio would have been good because you could hear the servo motor and see the scope at the same time.

 

[MaxMidnight]

So things that affect vacuum is throttle position, and whether the engine is accelerating or decelerating. As the first affects the second (they are directly linked), there is some relationship between throttle and vacuum.

I think there is merit in what you are saying, because vacuum is measuring the engines reaction to the throttle, which is a form of feedback.

Other variables that will affect manifold depression would be coolant and ambient air temperature plus ambient air pressure.

I think of the TPS indicating what the motor wants and the MAP as what it is getting, i.e. one looks forward in time the other backward.
In my 'ideal' world I would thing an advance based on both reading would be optimum?

 

[bazwell]

Other variables that will affect manifold depression would be coolant and ambient air temperature plus ambient air pressure.

I think of the TPS indicating what the motor wants and the MAP as what it is getting, i.e. one looks forward in time the other backward.
In my 'ideal' world I would thing an advance based on both reading would be optimum?

Agreed. I think we are thinking the same.

You are right about temperature and pressure.
I think that during one full rev of the engine (a second or so), TPS and MAP would probably have gone full cycle up and down, and the temps and ambient pressure would be almost constant. So I was focusing on things that have a more instantaneous affect.

I'm thinking the TPS gives us an idea of what the rider wants, which would be looking forward in time, and the MAP tells us what the engine is doing, which is slightly in the past.

 

[bazwell]

Bloody hell. I almost got away from the PC. I got as far as the fridge with the Beam and cokes in it and then I remember something else.

Fred, that idea with the resistors and the switch seems pretty clever. I don't know if those values of resistors are the correct ones, but the theory is good. :biglaugh:
If someone has tested those values then I'd give it a go too.

I want bourbon...

 

[bkuhr]

I'm thinking the TPS gives us an idea of what the rider wants, which would be looking forward in time, and the MAP tells us what the engine is doing, which is slightly in the past.

Not quite. MAP is measuring the vacum in the manifold which is directly based on throttle plate angle and indirectly based on how well the engine is breathing. RPM is a better indicator of WHAT the engine is doing.

For discussion I provide below my thoughts and reseaoning for going to the trouble of installing an actual TPS. My Ingitech harness sensor input comes out to a 3 pin connctor. Matching connector on both TPS and MAP Sensors and I created a 'plug and play' system to switch from one to the other.

First and foremost RPM is the most necessary indicator of what ignition advance is required for proper engine operation. The spark and burn time MUST keep up with the RPM. This forms a BASELINE advance curve. Ingitech allows operation without any sensor in in 2D mode based on RPM.

Second, Ignitech only has 1 additional input to cause MINOR changes to the BASELINE curve. They call this input TPS. What is actually installed on this input is up to us, the installers, and will most likely be based on personal preferance and ease of install. In many applications TPS already exists and would be easiest to use. Not so on our ventures. MAP has been shown to be an easier install.

It has been mentioned here, and I did consider that it would be desirable to have BOTH TPS and MAP, and went so far as to start designing a combining electrical circuit (to combine signals from both sensors into 1 input). When I started getting confused how MAP really worked, I gave up design and considered again that we are only after the afore mentioned MINOR changes. I considered that TPS is a very linear indication of operator demand of RPM, vs actual RPM of LOAD OF THE ENGINE.
Example: If climbing a hill, the operator DEMANDS higher RPM than produced and increases TPS. The ignition map senses that TPS is higher than BASELINE and adjustes advance accordingly. Coming down the hill RPM starts climbing and operators cuts the throttle, TPS is lower that BASELINE and adjustment is made.

Of a interesting note, some may not know that a PC can be left attached to the Ingitech unit to observe real time operation. The actual POINT of advance is displayed on the 2D or 3D map while the throttle is operated.

Using a true TPS, sitting on sidestand in Neutral, with no engine load, idle-redline, fast or slow, uses next to nothing of the enchanced 3D map, or additional advance other than BASELINE.

The MAP sensor is simular, not using the additional advance programmed into the tps input. The problem I saw with the MAP, is at idle it is bouncing all over the place, and programming 0&100% limits (on TPS program v80) could only be done on sudden throttle blip, holding throttle open MAP actually reads nearly the same as idle. It seems to measure ONLY the instant change.

Now the above is based on a non realistic non-loaded engine. Not able to monitor PC on the road, so based on 'seat of the pants' both sensors seem to preform well in CRUISE.(probably just BASELINE based on rpm). During takeoff, fast or slow, stumbles and other problems become apperant. I have been detecting slight problems, fast or slow takeoff, and come back and program a change to compensate. This program is a guess of where the detected problem is in the curve,(based on degree and speed of throttle operated, and rpm displayed at the time issues detected) and where it needs to be. Over time I have a programmed a ride that feels pretty well, but could still use a little help. My 'seat of the pants feel' was that TPS had a better response over the MAP sensor, so I stuck with it programming better and better advance curve. A simular, better, curve could also be made using the MAP, but I have not done it. Also the v88 allows IAP, which may have corrected some of the issues I mentioned above using MAP, I have not played with it yet.

Would be great if programing could be made while on dyno, simulating all load conditions. I also believe the health of an engine will cause 1 advance map to not be perfect for all engines. My compression is not as high as it could be, (should have bored and reringed while I had it out), and the map I have created would be very close, but likely not perfect for most. Assuming perfection is desired. For some just a replacement ignition system simular to stock is all that is desired.

Sorry for longwinded, but summs up my thoughts on the matter, and look forward to discussion to follow

 

[wildweasel_pt]

I think of the TPS indicating what the motor wants and the MAP as what it is getting, i.e. one looks forward in time the other backward.
In my 'ideal' world I would thing an advance based on both reading would be optimum?

Exactly what i was thinking Steve. TPS works has foreseeing what the rider will want from the engine and MAP actually measuring what is going on regarding engine performance. So as i see it the ignition unit can work out the ignition advance relying on TPS sensing first and then adjust it when getting the input from MAP all this happening at the same time but on this order... :biglaugh:. Am i seeing things right here?... :ummm:

 

[MaxMidnight]

Fred, I agree and that would be my way of thinking.

That said, I do wonder in the world of carburettors and where mixtures aren't being pushed as lean as possible if the timing as critical as in a modern motor?

Being a simple lad, it is probably easiest to stick with something we know (MAP sensor) although changing it for one that operates on 5 volts would seem prudent.

 

[wildweasel_pt]

The MAP sensor that we are using with the Ignitech is not the stock one... Gary thought of that and got a new one... Look at first post...

 

[dingy]

This is to make VMax members aware of an issue that 5 out of 14 of us that have the new V88 version, on the Venture side are having with the V88 Ignitech TCI.

Copied and pasted here.

*********************************************************

I experienced the TCI dropout yesterday first hand. Didn't post till today because I was wanted to find a set of pick up coils I had & devise a plan to narrow down root cause of failure.

Road about 140 miles yesterday, within the 1st 5 miles, I had 3 dropouts, and that was it, no other dropouts the rest of the day. I did not see if the tach dropped at the same time on any of them. The best way I can describe this dropout is as though the TCI completely shut down for about a half second.

I did notice later in day that the tach did drop out one time that I happened to see, but with no dropout in the power. This leads me to believe that there is either a pickup coil issue or poor connections somewhere in the related circuits. The reason I say this is that if it were the TCI, it would be a multiple failure scenario in order to get the 2 different conditions. The same reasoning does hold true for any other cause, but I want to try and rule them out 1 at a time.

I have a new exact replacement for the pickup coil connection. I am going to borrow a crimp tool tomorrow & as a 1st course of action replace this connection.

Due to the very sporadic nature of this problem, I don't have a clue as to say how long before I decide if that fixed it, if ever. I do know if it drops out again, as a plan B, I will replace the pickup coils with a spare set I have. I have a stator cover gasket on hand.

Plan C, will be to eliminate the adapter harness for the TCI. I have an extra cable end for the TCI plug.

I am not sure if the TCI is blameless or not. In one way, it is very suspect, as I have not heard of this problem with any of the V80 units I resold, nor any of the older V75's. Ignitech's statement that the 2 units function the same is somewhat meaningless as this is a revised version of the previous releases. There are many electronic issues that will not show up under standard testing. My company is going through many of these problems right now as we try to introduce new PC board equipped products to the market.

Any suggestions as to other courses of targeted testing/component replacement are welcome.

I do not believe until we have eliminated any existing component problem possibilities that Ignitech will admit any culpability.

On a related note, the single pickup coil equipped unit that I had a programming problem is on its way back to me. It failed and left the member with a no start condition. He replaced stock unit & it started. I intend to put it in mine when it arrives to see if it functions as a 4 pickup setup.

I really am trying to get this issue resolved, it is very much a concern that I to me, due my involvement with this project and using one.

Gary

 

[dingy]

Change in plan about 1st thing to try with TCI. Detailed below.

****************************************************

After swapping some messages with BKuhr last night, I swapped the program out in my V88 unit to the V80 version I was using last year. I used the TPS option instead of the IAP. When the older version IGN file is loaded, only the user adjustable settings are uploaded into the current firmware in the module. A V80 version of the software will not work with the V88 hardware. The IAP option is still there, as it is hard coded into the TCI, but it can not used. Other 2 options are TPS & none.

On my bike I used 3.2V to 0% TPS & 4.2v for 100% TPS. Screen shot attached.

Previous post questioned if any one had put different program in bike, which has been done by at least one person.

Took bike out and rode about 20 miles with no dropouts. This is not validating this fix at all. I had about 250 miles on bike so far this year and only had 3 dropouts within minutes of each other Sunday.

I still have some other issues to address with bikes running. Going to go back to a more stock version of the mufflers. With the Marks collector on, it is to loud for me.

Also getting a popping in exhaust tone. I am going to pull the carbs & replace the 8 rubber joints to the VBoost unit & the head~intake o-rings in the next day or so. I have the new parts here, just been avoiding pulling carbs. Not real easy with Vboost on. The bike is getting a slight increase in idle when I shoot ether around intakes, I know about downside of using ether, but I prefer it over other options. Also idle is not steady, so I have other issues beside TCI.

I really need the bike running smoother to help notice any variations from the TCI.

Gary

 

[RempageR1]

Hi,

First of all, check the attached pictures for my TPS setup. I`ve used a TPS sensor from a FJR1300 but I think the same unit is also used on a number of other Yamaha bikes including R1:

1. I`ve drilled a hole in the rear left carb`s throttle axle (M3) and tapped threads.
2. Put an M5 nut in and locked it into place with some loctite and the M3 countersunk screw.
3. As you can see, this bolt fits nicely into my TPS. It`s a snug fit, will not move but also will not damage the unit.
4. Attached a plate to the TPS and connected it to the carbs
5. Same, other angle.

As the Ignitech unit will only allow a maximum of 5v from TPS sensor, so the +5V sensor (pin 17) is used instead of the 12v that was used on the map sensor.

After the unit is connected, it`s really simple to setup the TPS, just hit 0% at closed throttle and 100% at WOT.

This evening, I took the bike out using dingy`s ignition file and I have to say it goes like the clappers :clapping:. By feel I think no HP is lost it actually responds quicker to the throttle this way. I`m not sure if this is the igniton file, my TPS setup or both but I`m really happy with it :biglaugh:.

Also, the rev limiter is briljant. Funny to see the tach go from 9.5K to 4.5 when it kicks in. I was always a bit worried for over revving the max (it`s really easy as we all know) and this way I can run it hard without worrying.

It`s awesome!

 

[wildweasel_pt]

Good job!... Glad to know its working fine

 

[bkuhr]

Hi,

First of all, check the attached pictures for my TPS setup. I`ve used a TPS sensor from a FJR1300 but I think the same unit is also used on a number of other Yamaha bikes including R1:

1. I`ve drilled a hole in the rear left carb`s throttle axle (M3) and tapped threads.
2. Put an M5 nut in and locked it into place with some loctite and the M3 countersunk screw.
3. As you can see, this bolt fits nicely into my TPS. It`s a snug fit, will not move but also will not damage the unit.
4. Attached a plate to the TPS and connected it to the carbs
5. Same, other angle.

As the Ignitech unit will only allow a maximum of 5v from TPS sensor, so the +5V sensor (pin 17) is used instead of the 12v that was used on the map sensor.

After the unit is connected, it`s really simple to setup the TPS, just hit 0% at closed throttle and 100% at WOT.

This evening, I took the bike out using dingy`s ignition file and I have to say it goes like the clappers :clapping:. By feel I think no HP is lost it actually responds quicker to the throttle this way. I`m not sure if this is the igniton file, my TPS setup or both but I`m really happy with it :biglaugh:.

Also, the rev limiter is briljant. Funny to see the tach go from 9.5K to 4.5 when it kicks in. I was always a bit worried for over revving the max (it`s really easy as we all know) and this way I can run it hard without worrying.

It`s awesome!

GREAT JOB,
and I have been waiting on confirmation that TPS is better than MAP.

Pic of my TPS, not the safest application but able to be installed without carb removal. I have been riding both v80 and v88 for over a year like this.

http://www.potentiometers.com/select_membrane.cfm?tab=Rotary
is plan for TPS interface using 'magnetic softpot' on throttle cable junction block. Waiting on confirmation that TPS is better prior to order custom softpot to fit. Plan to mount outside junction block, and modify internal rotating thimble by drill hole and install magnet.

Now you know my plans.

 

[RempageR1]

GREAT JOB,
and I have been waiting on confirmation that TPS is better than MAP.

Pic of my TPS, not the safest application but able to be installed without carb removal. I have been riding both v80 and v88 for over a year like this.

http://www.potentiometers.com/select_membrane.cfm?tab=Rotary
is plan for TPS interface using 'magnetic softpot' on throttle cable junction block. Waiting on confirmation that TPS is better prior to order custom softpot to fit. Plan to mount outside junction block, and modify internal rotating thimble by drill hole and install magnet.

Now you know my plans.

Ingenious! I didn't know these existed. Do you know how these hold up under road conditions? Are they water and dirt proof? If so they really could be a simpler solution.

I chose for TPS as it`s also used on most racers (like my R1). After the discussion earlier on in this thread I still felt TPS would be a better option so I went for it. I think it`s going to be difficult to get some actual figures for which is better... I haven't tried this but it was mentioned in the manual that you can see which timing value is selected in the advance table when the bike is running. I`m not sure how fast it will update but if someone could connect it and flick the throttle we can see what is selected.... With the TPS it should go straight to 100 and back, with the MAP it might not...

 

[RempageR1]

Hi Gary,

Rode my max with the Ignitech unit for about 300 miles today and again 100% perfect. So no drop-outs here... I have however, before testing the unit, changed both the inputs to off as I do not have the ignition cut-off relay fixed. The wire is there though so it might be picking up some interference on the bikes that have this issue....

Still really happy with it

 

[wildweasel_pt]

Thats good news. Anyone with a single pickup version to come post their experience? Mine will go in in about 2 weeks. Too much work to be thinking about it now...