Hilltop - is it worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
knutk said:
You are probably right. And it makes sense.


But honestly, when I bought the bike it came with a full kit Acra, headers and no cat.

Yes, I might notice a difference.

But I don't run tracks nor race, and I drive for fun, on public roads with other traffic and other people around. I hardly ever feel the need to run WOT. So, the extra noise that came with the Acra system bothered me much more than the minor gain in power that I did not feel the need for in the first place, so I put the OEM system back on and now have a complete Acra system decorating my shelf.
Click to expand...
Mines the same, but I kept the bits on it does help with either HT, or others, getting the best out of your changes.

I do take the gsa on track, the wtf look is great as you outbrake someone at the hairpin.



Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
blueranger said:
This is the part I struggle with,

Apart from them them somehow intercepting the O2 sensor signal adding a correction and I suppose they cold intercept the injector circuit and apply a correction factor to spray more fuel. This would explain the instantaneous improvement that you get without the running in period and this would leave the base maps in tact and would mitigate the dealer / manufacturer seeing values outside of normal range.

With O2 switching are you surely not at risk of the ECU learning adjusting the maps if they "shift the O2 reading".

If they have found a way to circumvent a remap then I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

I have no details about HT except for their public information.

So the following is just me "thinking out loud" based on my experience with programming in general:


BMS is a fuel/Ignition management computer used in several different vehicles, both cars and bikes.
In all of them the BMS needs to collect information from various sensors, and from the given information it decides how much fuel to squirt and the timing for ignition.
For all the vehicles, the sensors act the same way electrically speaking.

So it would be silly to develop separate software to separate vehicles as it does the same job, only different values.


Different vehicles have different needs, thus not all features are used for all vehicles.


This means the only sensible way of programming the computer would be to build up the software in tiny modules, where each module does a small job for one particular task, i.e one module reads temperature, one for throttle position etc.

Then you make a Main program that combines these modules and the Main program is different for each vehicle. The Main program is merely a boss calling upon the different modules as needed. This is the Management procedure, and it's quite small as it hardly does any calculations.


When a computer starts, any microprocessor of any brand, it starts at memory address 0.Then the built in clock increments the address-pointer, one at a time.


After the initial parts are called upon, there will at some point be an address pointer that points to the starting address in memory to the management procedure.

The management procedure does not need much space, so if you copy BMS procedure, modify it and put is at some available space and change the address pointer at startup, you are on your way.

The address pointer is a software value, but when BMW uppgrades their software, they change the modules only, not the starting point for the management, so if you change the address pointer to an alternative Management procedure, it will not be influenced by upgrades. As the adaption capability is kept, it would also be tempting to write an alternative way of handling the O2 values, as well as adjust the adaptive map for an emediat response. Since the management procedure makes all the calls you may then call the alternative O2 handler by simply calling it instead of the OEM procedure.

I'm not saying this is what HT does, but it is doable, though while it sound simple enough, it's a tedious job to search the BMS software and identify the various parts. If someone bothers to do this, they certainly have earned their money.

As for O2 shifting changing the Adaptive long term map:
Yes, that is the whole point. By giving modified feedback to the BMS, it still acts like the required fuel is what it takes to achieve AFR 14,7 +/- , as that's the feedback it gets. So the task for the AF-XIED is to read the O2 sensor and notice when the lower, selected AFR has been reached, and calculate the signals needed for AFR 14,7 and provide them to the BMS. Clever little bugger :D
 
All this wondering about what Hilltop actually does to a bike can be easily figured out. Buy an LC-2, set it to lambda=1 so it looks like a stock narrowband sensor, install it in place of one of the two sensors (both sides work the same), and then record its realtime AFR Log. With that and a GS-911 to check timing you could see exactly what the Hilltop “remap” does. Given the hundreds of HT upgrades installed, surely someone can make the test.
 
knutk said:
As for O2 shifting changing the Adaptive long term map:
Yes, that is the whole point. By giving modified feedback to the BMS, it still acts like the required fuel is what it takes to achieve AFR 14,7 +/- , as that's the feedback it gets.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Understand about it being only your thoughts, it sounds plausible though,.Clever stuff and as you say you are right into the weeds of programming here much like the registry in windows is how I interpret it. So that would take a while and you'd have to know what you are doing. I just didnt think it would be possible to get away from the base map being adjusted in one way or another.

Edit: It makes me wonder then if there is any needs to use maps at all for fuelling as in theory you could just link fuelling direct to lambda through a fixed formula, but I suppose you'd still need a reference table for throttle angle else you have a very slow responding engine just using closed loop feedback from live data alone without reference to injector pulse width tables.

knutk said:
So the task for the AF-XIED is to read the O2 sensor and notice when the lower, selected AFR has been reached, and calculate the signals needed for AFR 14,7 and provide them to the BMS. Clever little bugger :D
Click to expand...

I could be wrong again on this, but I thought the XIED was a dumb device in that it simply shifted the O2 reading to seem leaner than it was so the OEM programming then adjusted the maps to increase injector pulse width and the amount it shifted was dependant on the dial setting.
 
blueranger said:
Gotcha. Understand about it being only your thoughts, it sounds plausible though,.Clever stuff and as you say you are right into the weeds of programming here much like the registry in windows is how I interpret it. So that would take a while and you'd have to know what you are doing. I just didnt think it would be possible to get away from the base map being adjusted in one way or another.

Edit: It makes me wonder then if there is any needs to use maps at all for fuelling as in theory you could just link fuelling direct to lambda through a fixed formula, but I suppose you'd still need a reference table for throttle angle else you have a very slow responding engine just using closed loop feedback from live data alone without reference to injector pulse width tables.
Click to expand...

You very much need a map. The reading of the O2 is kind of a status report of how the mixture was, as the reading is of the exhaust. Look at it this way: BMS collects all data, find a fuel setting in the map, checks the long term trim map, corrects it for environmental variables as well as instant desire from O2 signals and the fills the cylinder. Then the O2 sensor looks at the result, and if the result was acceptable, no correction will be made. If it was too lean or too rich, BMS makes a note of it and stores the note in the Long term Trim map, so next time around with the same parameters BMS will deliver the corrected amount. It does corrections at small steps, so if large corrections are needed it will need several steps to get it right, hence it takes a while before the correct settings are in force.

blueranger said:
I could be wrong again on this, but I thought the XIED was a dumb device in that it simply shifted the O2 reading to seem leaner than it was so the OEM programming then adjusted the maps to increase injector pulse width and the amount it shifted was dependant on the dial setting.
Click to expand...

It's a mini computer that does a lot of calculations and contributes to a very accurate result making sure the mixture is neither too lean or too rich. This accuracy contributes to the gaining of drivability, yet no rise, and in some cases even reduction in fuel consumption.
 
The slight improvement in fuel economy that some see is usually below 50-60 mph. What happens is that as the rider gets used to the better engine performance, shifting occurs earlier and at lower rpms. You don't need to think about this at all, it just happens naturally. Then, you get the same HP/Torque at lower RPM where the engine is more efficient. For speeds where the top gear was always used, mileage may drop off slightly because in that mode there is no higher gear and only about half the added fuel creates added HP. On balance usually the result is about neutral, but riders have documented better mileage over many hundreds of miles.
 
knutk said:
You very much need a map. The reading of the O2 is kind of a status report of how the mixture was, as the reading is of the exhaust. Look at it this way: BMS collects all data, find a fuel setting in the map, checks the long term trim map, corrects it for environmental variables as well as instant desire from O2 signals and the fills the cylinder. Then the O2 sensor looks at the result, and if the result was acceptable, no correction will be made. If it was too lean or too rich, BMS makes a note of it and stores the note in the Long term Trim map, so next time around with the same parameters BMS will deliver the corrected amount. It does corrections at small steps, so if large corrections are needed it will need several steps to get it right, hence it takes a while before the correct settings are in force.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I understood an FI system with Lambda sensor to operate, which is why its difficult to imagine the base maps not being modified, but I suppose they could have their own maps of some kind built into their software, as you say all speculation but interesting none the less especially as its "covert".

knutk said:
It's a mini computer that does a lot of calculations and contributes to a very accurate result making sure the mixture is neither too lean or too rich. .
Click to expand...
So if you have a bad base map that is too rich in some places / too lean in others then I suppose the XIED would then seek to correct this to produce a smooth AFR. I had it my head that the 1150's ECU was quite blunt with how it applied it's corrections working more an an average across a wider RPM range, but I guess as ECU's have eveloved they may have become more accurate producing a "self correcting map" through the trims to produce a more consistent AFR for cleaner emissions.
 
If you study the realtime value data reported by the Gs-911, you can see the BMW and Bosch have used a corrective/adaptive strategy going back to the mid-90s. While not much data is reported by the ECUs in the R1100, we know that the R1150 has roughly 600 maps which is about 75 maps per Coding Plug configuration—making even that ECU quite sophisticated.

The data reported beginning in 2005 shows tables of short-term adjustments and tables of long term-corrections, on a per cylinder basis. These are called lambda control factor tables, Multiplicative Trim tables and additive trim tables. The ECUs also report when they are in Closed Loop (about 70% of the time), meaning that the AFR is being held exactly at 14.7:1.

If you ride with a realtime AFR logger placed ahead of the catalytic converter, you can see that all cruising fueling holds to 14.7, all accelerations are richer (12.8-13.5 depending on rate and amount of throttle rotation) and Wide throttle angles are about as rich as accelerations. A little more fuel helps the broad Closed Loop area, without harming accelerations or WOT.

Dyno runs frequently show WOT pulls with AFRs well above 14:1. This is never the case in the real world. Except for the leanness to meet emissions and to keep the cat working, real world data always shows the bmw bikes nicely rich, except as appropriate during deceleration.

Ignition advance is another conversation. BMW builds in wide safety margins which a remapper could choose to reduce. And there are other spots where timing is selected for emissions performance and economy. Those can be improved for performance but it’s a long process, and has to be done for each model. There’s no broad brush that can be applied to all engines.
 
Roger 04 RT said:
If you study the realtime value data reported by the Gs-911, you can see the BMW and Bosch have used a corrective/adaptive strategy going back to the mid-90s. While not much data is reported by the ECUs in the R1100, we know that the R1150 has roughly 600 maps which is about 75 maps per Coding Plug configuration—making even that ECU quite sophisticated.

The data reported beginning in 2005 shows tables of short-term adjustments and tables of long term-corrections, on a per cylinder basis. These are called lambda control factor tables, Multiplicative Trim tables and additive trim tables. The ECUs also report when they are in Closed Loop (about 70% of the time), meaning that the AFR is being held exactly at 14.7:1.

If you ride with a realtime AFR logger placed ahead of the catalytic converter, you can see that all cruising fueling holds to 14.7, all accelerations are richer (12.8-13.5 depending on rate and amount of throttle rotation) and Wide throttle angles are about as rich as accelerations. A little more fuel helps the broad Closed Loop area, without harming accelerations or WOT.

Dyno runs frequently show WOT pulls with AFRs well above 14:1. This is never the case in the real world. Except for the leanness to meet emissions and to keep the cat working, real world data always shows the bmw bikes nicely rich, except as appropriate during deceleration.

Ignition advance is another conversation. BMW builds in wide safety margins which a remapper could choose to reduce. And there are other spots where timing is selected for emissions performance and economy. Those can be improved for performance but it’s a long process, and has to be done for each model. There’s no broad brush that can be applied to all engines.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you say that BMW bikes run 'nicely rich in the real world' - Hilltop seem to claim that GS runs dangerously lean - are they being disingenuous?
 
Can’t comment on others, here’s what I’ve measured many times.

My comment was meant that they run nicely rich at wide throttle angles, 14.7 otherwise.

Below is a chart from my R1150RT, which I Lambda shifted 6% rich with an Innovate Motorsports LC-2. (I have similar charts from an R1200). I was cruising along in 4th gear and quickly went to WOT. You can see the AFR of 12.1:1 that was 12.8:1 before lambda shifting. You can see cruise at 14.8:1 (which is nice) and you can see coasting at high AFR but quickly comes back to 13.8 once the throttle is opened. This is what I see on all BMWs.

wotafrplotr1150rt.jpg
 
Roger 04 RT said:
Can’t comment on others, here’s what I’ve measured many times.

My comment was meant that they run nicely rich at wide throttle angles, 14.7 otherwise.

Below is a chart from my R1150RT, which I Lambda shifted 6% rich with an Innovate Motorsports LC-2. (I have similar charts from an R1200). I was cruising along in 4th gear and quickly went to WOT. You can see the AFR of 12.1:1 that was 12.8:1 before lambda shifting. You can see cruise at 14.8:1 (which is nice) and you can see coasting at high AFR but quickly comes back to 13.8 once the throttle is opened. This is what I see on all BMWs.

wotafrplotr1150rt.jpg
Click to expand...
What about those modified, decatted headers and can + K&N ?

Will this not cause it to run a lot leaner ? And if so, can the "standard" ecu compensate?

My Mille R sp had a different eprom fitted when you fitted the race system (which came with the bike), and Triumph install a different map on their bikes if you have the arrows can fitted.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Good questions. Often, exhausts and intakes don’t change things that much. The best (and easiest) way to find out is to replace the stock narrowband sensor with a Wideband that also has an emulated narrowband output. That allows you to leave the narrowband setting at stock (or richen it if you like) AND measure what’s going on very accurately like in my graph above.

For a remapper to do a full job, they have to run the Bike/Dyno at every cell of the fuel map with a proper load. This is time consuming and expensive, and rarely done. Power Commander Autotune is an option but it does disable many of the good features of the BMSK/X and requires looking at the auto tuned cells to make sure the correction is reasonable.
 
Engineer said:
Interesting that you say that BMW bikes run 'nicely rich in the real world' - Hilltop seem to claim that GS runs dangerously lean - are they being disingenuous?
Click to expand...

I think Roger is referring to oil heads in that statement rather than Eu3 & Eu4 LC's
 
Engineer said:
OK - would be good to see and independent result for the latest LC tested in exactly the same manner.
Click to expand...

Don't know if I qualify as independent, but here goes.


My readings are performed by a storage-scope and hooked up to the narrowband O2 sensor in my 2015 GSA LC.


This is a typical reading of an uncorrected engine:


40541376580_c7bcfc47aa_c.jpg


You can easily see that the voltage swings between 0.2V to 0.8V. At 3,75 second mark, I blipped the throttle, and you can see it stays at 0.8 V = AFR 14.0.

The voltage values corsponds to the following AFR values:
I've taken the liberty to borrow this picture from Roger 04RTs advrider article:
24852912707_711974e867_z.jpg


Reading from this graph, 0.8V = AFR 14.0, 0.2V = AFR 16.0.


This means the engine is running average AFR 14.7 - 15.0, Not extreemly lean, but a bit more fuel will do well.


Here is a graph show the O2 sensor reading when O2 is manipulated:

41625718154_f33b00b8e8_c.jpg


Blue curve is reading from O2 sensor, while red curve shows the signal sent to BMS by the AF manipulator.

Now the O2 swings between 0.8 to 0.87 V = AFR 14.0 to 13.6.




This is the setting that stopped the tiny vibrations that I could feel when straining the engine at low RPMs, and for this particular bike with this setting fuel consumption has been reduced by 7% even if fuel saving is not the objective.
If I removed the Cat there would be room for even a bit richer mixture, but I intend to keep the stock muffler. Got so freaken tired of the noisy Acra system.

I also run AF-XIED on my F800, and on that bike the consumption did not change.
 
blueranger said:
I think Roger is referring to oil heads in that statement rather than Eu3 & Eu4 LC's
Click to expand...

Engineer said:
OK - would be good to see and independent result for the latest LC tested in exactly the same manner.
Click to expand...

I have made these tests through the camhead and another rider in this forum did this perhaps on an LC. I will look. All data I have seen is similar.

I will be rigging an LC-2 on my 2017 R1200 later this year.

The best thing is to measure and plot it on the road.
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

landmarkjohn
BMSPK ECU fail. R1200GS 2008. What are my options?
Replies
3
Views
184
botus
Buying a new 1250 TE
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4,628
GSMarky
Russgas
No power to fuel pump?
Replies
0
Views
43
Russgas
Russgas
How easy is it to steal a big GS by lifting it into a van?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3,485
GSian
GSian
jasext
Travel insurance trail riding Portugal
Replies
12
Views
308
Berin
Berin


Back
Top Bottom