Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
Read the manual to see if your question is answered there before posting. Many users will not reply if the answer is already available in the manual.
If your question is about troubleshooting, configuration, or tuning, you MUST include your processor type (MS-I or MS-II) and code version in your post. If your question is about PCB assembly or modifications, you must also include the main board version number (1.01, 2.2 or 3.0).
If you have questions about MS1/Extra or MS2/Extra code configuration or tuning, please post them at www.msextra.com Such questions posted here will be moved to: a temporary MSextra sub-forum, where they will be removed after 7 days
The full forum rules are here: Forum Rules, be sure to read them all regularly.
Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
I was wondering whether anyone had any success with logarithmic TPS. It seems to make sense on some installs (I have gsxr600 ITB's on a GSXR1100) and low opening are a bit messy, and AE isn't the best.
Just wondering if anyone had any experience. I found that Webcon can supply these (see for example http://www.webcon.co.uk/Downloads/ACM-4.0a-S.pdf ) I don't know the price, which will no doubt be high. Any other vehicles fitted with them (I know Ferrari F40's are, but there aren't any of those at my local breakers at the moment).
Thanks,
Matt
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
It hangs around at the lowest ADC setting for a long time. I can get the engine up to 3500rpm before it increments (from 58 to 59, maximum is 225). Actually the car works nicely, but I think logarithmic TPS might help my acceleration enrichment, as I presently run this off the TPS dot, and it helps too little at small throttle openings, and gives too much at high throttle openings. I tried it with MAP. but that doesn't do enough just off cruise. I only have MS1, so can't blend TPS dot and MAP dot. I could invest in a daughter board I suppose.
To be honest it all works very nicely, but I am in search of perfection.
Matt
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
David
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
Sorry, poor wording.
By "messy" I meant, that the TPS ADC is not really representative of the amount of air going into the engine, and hence I have limited software control at these low throttle openings . Consequently the AFR is not as stable as I would like it to be. It isn't noisy (i.e. it is stable)
Really the TPS ADC is not sensitive enough for small throttle openings. Hence a logarithmic potentiometer (actually anti-logarithmic) that would give big changes in ADC for small openings, and smaller increments in ADC once the throttle has been opened. This seems to be available on after-market stuff (i.e. alpha webcon gear).
In my install at present I need a very small TPSdot values at low TPS to get decent AE. Whereas for higher TPS the TPSdot values that I see are very high, but the amount of AE needed is much smaller. I know there are fixes for this in later hardware (i.e. blended MAPdot TPSdot) but I don't have that.
I already have a progressive throttle linkage (it is standard on the GSXR600 ITB's, as the cable pulls on the throttle pivot which is elliptical and so does what you describe), and good throttle feel. The problem is that the ECU doesn't see enough resolution down at small openings.
Matt
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
David
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
FWIW:
I discovered a few things:
1) The gsxr600 TPS is not spring loaded, and although it doesn't appear to have any slop, the later TPS that Suzuki used were spring loaded. I have now used one of those.
2) A simple way of making the TPS non-linear (more effect at low openings) is to add a resistor between 5v and the wiper. In my case I have used 3.25k. By also rotating the TPS so that closed throttle gives 5 on the ADC, then I amplify the sensitivity at low throttle openings by around 2.5x. This was what I wanted to do (the www.locostbuilders.co.uk forum folk were excellent in providing this suggestion). There are already appropriate holes in the PCB for this resistor so I guess this is old ground than I am treading!
As stated before my engine runs and accelerates nicely already, I just think it can do better. Further, I think it is fair to say that the dotTPS approach is limited (hence why MS2 changes it). This non-linear tweak adds an additional bit of control for the cost of a single resistor. I think it should be standard practice with ITB's.
Matt
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
That certainly is simple, and a "Why didn't I think of that?" solution. Awesome! And thanks for reporting back with what you found so others can benefit.matt_gsxr wrote:2) A simple way of making the TPS non-linear (more effect at low openings) is to add a resistor between 5v and the wiper. ...

David
Re: Logarithmic TPS any experiences?
Another issue I've found is a more mechanical one though, in that when the throttle butterflies are fully shut on the overrun (or even at tickover) the high vacuum behind the butterflies seems to really grab hold of the spindles. This means you have to exert a fairly large pull on the cam to get them moving off the stop - then of course the vacuum lets go and an intended 1% rise becomes a 5% yank.....
It's almost like you need extra mechanical advantage for the first few percent of movement - the eccentric cam that operates the butterflies goes some way towards this, but it needs still more leverage to get off the stop. Spent the last half hour trying to design some sort of linkage to do this, now my head hurts so I'm open to suggestions.....
Good to see that I'm not the only one having hard to cure 'tip in' and ae issues though, starting to wonder if upgrading to MS2 might ease these problems?
Geoff.
.....interesting to see that 'j-e-r-k' got converted to 'yank' when posted - didn't realise that j-e-r-k was such a touchy word.......
msns extra HR10e, alpha-n
mlv 2.958
1.8 k-series, GSXR ITB's