Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
The bike is a 93 carb model with a 99 ie motor fitted. It was my everyday bike until an oil light problem put it at the back of the garage until I had a bit more time. The bike became a sort of running project to tailor it to my tastes. The main thing that troubled me was it was a pain round town, being a bit rough running at low speeds and did I say generally a pain the neck round town? Over the years it's been tweeked and adjusted to make it better. I always wondered why the Monster was always praised for good street manners so I looked a bit harder at my books and found that the injection system is different. It uses IWP043 Pico injectors instead of the older style IW 031. The IWP043 has 4 discharge holes compared to one on the IW031. Theoretically this should give it a better spray pattern so this might explain things. Being a curious bastard I got a complete injector set from Ebay to try. At the same time I performed a bit of brain surgery and fitted an A8 ECU instead of and A0. The later A8 supposedly has improvements in the starting and cold running maps from what I remember.

The mechanical and electrical work is now complete and I have some maps (Thanks Punch, if you are still around here) from various Monsters to try. I'll hopefully get round to that tomorrow. I was wondering if anybody else has tried this and have any pointers. Looking forward to getting her back on the road, spring is here and the roads are quiet due to this corona thing. The old Harley I've been trundling round on is great for seeing the scenery but for longer, er.....more spirited runs.....well, Ducati!
 

·
Excel Addict
Joined
·
5,245 Posts
Yes still around. Have you considered using ScanST to log data and change from there.
Happy to send you my workbook to assist with analysis and map mods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yeah, I've got a collection of bits to assemble into a data logging outfit. There is a local dyno here now with a reasonably good reputation but it would be a good idea to get the bottom and mid range straightened out first.

Well that went well! Set her up outside with the computer connected and carb balancer fitted. Loaded a std 2001 Monster bin, started her up nicely and checked the TB balance. Spot on, idle too. Let her run on a high idle, everything looking tikketyboo and just about to adjust the CO2 trim when pffshshshshshsh! Lots of smoke from the regulator. An expensive upgraded one too. That is the second one. I have a Shorai LiFePO4 battery and I'm thinking it may be dud and that might be the cause. Oh well, there go some more hard earned beer chits. Looking on the bright side the bike was very sweet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Job done. I set up the idle tonight using Guzzidiag. An interesting thing was that the A8 ECU seems to have less adjustment that the A0. The ECU was set up at 75 which gave 4.1% CO. Set it at 5% which was about 90. Maximium available adjustment was 127 witch gave 5.9% If I remember 6% was the ideal for power. 5% had the engine that little bit sweeter, higher didn't make much difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
if you make the fuel map in the idle area richer it will then require less trimmer. it's just a setting based off whatever is in the map.

it's just idle mixture, and a basic reference for the rest of the map. if you are changing the rest of the map then you make the idle what you want then go change the rest of it. i would often set the trimmer to 0 then change the map numbers to get the idle mixture i wanted and then do the rest of the fuel map.

trimmer setting is "irrelevant" to the fuelling over the rest of the map except for it being an offset as such in pulse width terms, not %. the assumption is that if the trimmer setting is right, the rest of the map will be about where it should be, all other things being equal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
When I set up the idle CO2 I close the bypass screws all the way, set the balance about idle and if the balance is way out at idle I'll tweak it with one of the bypasses (this bike didn't need any bypass adjustment). Then I set up the idle mixture on the trimmer. does the trimmer just affect the idle range or does it move the whole map up and down?
This way of adjustment I've used on my 748 as well. both bikes seem to run well after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
the trimmer does add or subtract a pulse width amount of fuel from the number taken from the fuel map across the whole fuel map. it's a correction thing done in the calcs, same as the environmental trims are corrections, but in their case they're take as %.

my point was, if you want to make the trimmer 0 you set it to 0 then adjust the main fuel map # to give the idle mixture you want. the trimmer setting # itself has no "optimum" or desired setting, it's just a number. if you make the fuel map # 10% richer, you'll then need to lean off the trimmer. you do this if you are going to modify the rest of the main fuel map, or if you are trying to offset the main fuel map to some extent in a way that any future adjustments of the idle trimmer will continue to give the result you desire. if i had a file i felt was a bit lean across all the low speed running i'd maybe lean the idle area of the main fuel map off, and then richen the trimmer to get the same idle mixture as before. so anyone who set it to 5% in the future got the result i wanted, but wouldn't know that i'd manipulated the trimmer setting.

you can do the same thing by increasing the whole main fuel map by an increment #, not a %.

maybe it's a convoluted point, but i was talking about your initial "An interesting thing was that the A8 ECU seems to have less adjustment that the A0" comment. the trimmer setting is entirely dependant on the main fuel map value. the fact you needed 90 means it really needed a larger number on the main fuel map. or something else is wrong with it, either basic set up or a problem.

if you don't understand what i'm getting at just ignore me.
 

·
Excel Addict
Joined
·
5,245 Posts
Following on from Belter's post.
Let's say the idle value is 40 and the trim amounts to a discrete value of 2.
That is 5% increase.
If the fuel value at WOT and high RPM is 160, then the discrete value of 2 represents 2/160 = 1.25%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I'm with Brad's explaination. It's how I understood it worked. It's the reason I would rather not use the air bypass when I set things up as I suspect it could mean one could end up with a nice idle but a touch rich everywhere else. I usually mark the throttle for different map positions and correlate with the rev counter and adjust individual load sites. I get acceptable results up to about 3000rpm, after that I'm concentrating on where I'm going. Eventually I'll get round to setting up proper data logging which is the way to go to do this right.

One thing I found interesting is that the different brains and maps seem to have different rpm sites around 3000 - 4000rpm. As my bike is at it's worst around there I'm thinking there is an "off-pipe" condition and the later maps are tweaked to deal with this better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
all the rpm breaks are moveable, you can put them where ever you like.

the thing about getting into it and having the ability to change everything is it gives you way more chances to fuck it right up. "tuned to a standstill" as duane used to say.

i once had an st2 come in with a wacky around 3,500 issue. i did a tps set up assuming it was just that and rode it, turned out it was really rich around 3,500. had some massively loud d&d mufflers on it, otherwise "normal". i ended up putting a trench in the fuel map up to 10 degrees throttle or so, and st2 have breaks at (better check so i don't say sumfin stupid) 3,000, 3,600, 3,800 and 4,000. it had maybe -30% at 3,600, a bit less at 3,800 and no change at 3,000 or 4,000. wacky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
That's exactly why I like not using the air bypasses. A constant starting point should I have to start from scratch. Understand about tuning to a stand still. I'm the guy my mates come too when they start putting different carbs on old Soviet sidecars. They ALWAYS make the mistake of assuming that if it isn't running right it needs "more soup". I'm a good deal older than most off them so I have the role of teacher. Trying to get people out of the "if a little is good, more is better" mindset is a never ending fight! I need to go back and have a look but if I remember right some of the later maps have a bit chunk of ignition advance dialed in at 3000rpm. This would be right if the engine was running inefficiently "off pipe". Most people tend to leave the ignition map alone but I've had some pleasant results tinkering with it. That's why I like injection, you can do things like that. Carbs just give you a snarling, pain in the arse monster when off pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I had another look at the maps. The difference I was thinking of was between Monster and 900SS. The comparison isn't really valid. It is quite interesting to see the difference in ignition maps when you consider that the only real difference is the injectors. From what I remember the silencer design is more or less the same. I'm now running the 2001 Monster map as a starting point. Hopefully the legal stuff willbe sorted out by the end of next week and I can start experimenting on the road. I have Micron slip-ons, K & N with chopped air box lid so I expect to have to do a bit of adjustment to get it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
keep in mind when comparing mapping numbers between files that lots of things vary for seemingly no reason apart from the operator involved. the ambient air temp and engine temp corrections are different between most of them, for no reason whatsoever except the person doing it changed the numbers. ignition advance tables are all over the place - when they went to the 59m lots of the maps had very little advance at low throttle openings. why i don't know, but don't try to read to much into it.

more advance will usually make them feel much better at low throttle openings, and a lack of it could be cause for comment from people who are just riding them. but don't make it a monster vs ss thing - early ss had more low throttle advance then the later ones too from memory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
That is actually quite depressing reading. Anybody got a 2002 Monster bin? If I'm going to start somewhere it probably would be best to start from a point where the mappers have had some practice! Qh well, It's going to be an even busier spring. Thanks for the info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
"lots of things vary for seemingly no reason apart from the operator involved", I like things that vary for good reasons. I have the latest 15M Monster map then which will be a good basis. Next thing I'm going to look at is what RPM and throttle positions were used for emissions checks for certification. That area is a prime candidate for improvement surely. Still waiting on the paperwork side sorting it's self out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Well the plates arrived and I FINALLY got out on the road to test the bike today. Simply put - mission accomplished. The bike is much more civilized and the hiccup at 3200 is gone. The bonus is better throttle response, it's much easier to lift the front wheel. Even when you don't mean to :D. There is a slight lumpiness about 4500 that suggests a slight richness apart from that it feels remarkably good. Starting is easier and idling more stable (I have turned about a kilo off the flywheel so this is welcome). I supposed I should start rigging up datalogging now to fine tune it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I re-routed the fuel lines to a more theoretically correct configuration. The supply line from the pump now goes to a T which then supplies each injector. The return to the pressure regulator also goes through a T. As standard the feed goes to one injector then is bridged to the next and then on to the return. This means there is a pressure drop between the first and second injectors. As the Marelli system here is batch fired (from what I understand) both injectors are 'on' at the same time. I have to say I didn't really expect to notice any difference but a lumpy region at 4000 - 4500rpm is now gone. Bike goes just as well as before. I've ordered an LC2 so hopefully I'll have a data logger rigged up before too long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
the injectors are fired individually, as the ecu has two injector drivers. that will overlap to some extent at higher throttle openings i expect if you plotted out pulse widths and cycle time.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top