[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

LOL why don't you break it down for me then. If 4 degrees didn't eliminate the drops, and 6 degrees didn't eliminate the drops, and even 10 degrees didn't eliminate the drops, your big plan is what? 2 degrees? The big fly in the ointment here is the drop with 10 degrees offset at 6500rpm.

Also the runs with the most "knock" according to "e90post pro tuners" proved to be the smoothest and most powerful on the dyno. Hmmm.

Mike

Too much timing early will ruin the run up top. Take it away earlier and the engine will perform better up top.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Mike...

Please stop trying to sell this as the nail in the coffin when its hardly a true representation of the final product nor the ideal use of the product.

Many things need to be changed and learned.

First and foremost.. CPS offsetting is not the IDEAL way of tuning, Period. Its another band-aid, but a band-aid many would rather see then leaving an open wound.

2nd- Reading 1 cylinder of ignition doesnt tell the whole story. This car has the ability to drop timing or raise on a individual cylinder to basis so 1/6 of the ignition timing is not a full representation. (yes other tunes do follow the same practice and yes its not ideal).

3rd- Tuning for max power is not the ideal practice of a street tuned vehicle, especially a tune that is used around the world for many octane levels, elevations, ambients ETC So if a tune is going to be "generic" then it needs to be conservative.

There is a large misconception that more power is better. Power is great, but so is safety and consistency day to day, pull after pull.

4th- The sarcasm is not all helpful to the discussion or the point of this whole business. If you think adding quotations and talking against the people "of e90 post" is smart, just remember where the majority of all your business comes from and which forum that is.

5th- You know as well anyone else Cobb came out with stellar dyno graphs. Take a look at their AFR and Ignition tables. You will notice they are are applying ignition directly opposite of the CPS offset Terry was using. I.e. Ideally CPS offseting more ignition early and ramping ignition back up by redline would be the ideal choice.

Keep the ignition lower from the get -go and it should keep any timing drop outs later from occurring.

I look forward to a more mature discussion and hope you realize this is LARGELY in its infancy.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by dzenno

Clap are you saying that this is in some way a more crude application of CPS offset than what procede did in v5 prior to dynamic ignition timing release (current)? Personally wouldn't think so as procede would apply a static CPS offset prior to DIC, no?

Weather they are limited by hardware or knowledge their way of applying the offset is ass backwards.

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Weather they are limited by hardware or knowledge their way of applying the offset is ass backwards.

I know what you're trying to say but then I don't understand how procede's pre-DIC ign correction worked...i thought when you specified 100% ign correction it'd apply a 3-3.5 deg retard across the board...it sounds like you're saying this isn't the case, just looking for a real explanation

[Clap135]

No clue as I never ran offsets but I remember Shiv pulling 3-4 degrees dropping to 1-2 towards redline. This was simply mapped out based on rpm and boost. I might be wrong but I remember seeing that in some people logs. As for dic....that's kind of a.joke anyway but that's for another thread.

Originally Posted by dzenno

I know what you're trying to say but then I don't understand how procede's pre-DIC ign correction worked...i thought when you specified 100% ign correction it'd apply a 3-3.5 deg retard across the board...it sounds like you're saying this isn't the case, just looking for a real explanation

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by Clap135

No clue as I never ran offsets but I remember Shiv pulling 3-4 degrees dropping to 1-2 towards redline. This was simply mapped out based on rpm and boost. I might be wrong but I remember seeing that in some people logs.

I actually think you're right on that one...

Originally Posted by Clap135

As for dic....that's kind of a.joke anyway but that's for another thread

So where's the new thread then?

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by Clap135

Don't worry once I get home I will educate you and terry. It's simply too much to type using my phone. Hates a hint though. If you drop timing in the low rpm range you will knot knock up top where as before you did. Do you actually understand how that works? Elimination of timing at exact drop outs is not the solution. Also pick up a book and understand what happens to egts as you drop timing....

good point, reduced timing will take some heat out of the cylinder and create a better combustion environment.

[enrita]

here in this log i run a max of - 3.3 timing down low and - 2.5 up top. pump 94 14.5-16 psi .
Why is BMS pulling so much timing ? 6-10 degrees? no wonder it does not look good. i have seen MAX -4 on Procede.

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by dzenno

So where's the new thread then?

This new thread looks exciting... i'm curious.

[usc335]

Originally Posted by dzenno

I know what you're trying to say but then I don't understand how procede's pre-DIC ign correction worked...i thought when you specified 100% ign correction it'd apply a 3-3.5 deg retard across the board...it sounds like you're saying this isn't the case, just looking for a real explanation

That's not how the PROcede did it. If you log the pre-DIC maps, you'll see that the timing offset is variable across the rev range (not a constant retard value -- that would be silly). I'm sure Shiv must have had some algorithms to vary it based on conditions -- just not to the extent that the DIC maps do (which are, no doubt, using more sophisticated algorithms).

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaTech335coupe

Too much timing early will ruin the run up top. Take it away earlier and the engine will perform better up top.

I don't see how reducing timing at 3000rpm is going to do much to help knock at 6000rpm. Especially when reducing advance 10 degrees at 6000rpm didn't help. But I like the approach BMS is taking with this which is to setup the interface for users to be able to adjust their own offset curves. This is just early testing and definitely won't be the last test done. BMS developed this module to empower their customers to tune their cars however they'd like.

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by Joshboody

good point, reduced timing will take some heat out of the cylinder and create a better combustion environment.

The data doesn't show it though. Look at the 75% CPS run. Effective timing down low was 2-3 degrees at peak torque. How much lower do you want to go? Going negative produced a pretty funny result...

Mike

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by enrita

here in this log i run a max of - 3.3 timing down low and - 2.5 up top. pump 94 14.5-16 psi .
Why is BMS pulling so much timing ? 6-10 degrees? no wonder it does not look good. i have seen MAX -4 on Procede.

Which run are you talking about? They tested a variety of offsets which are posted in my first post. The lower offsets didn't effect the drops and the higher offsets reduced but didn't eliminate drops and nerfed power output. No one is disputing that 93/94 octane will hold timing better at higher boost levels with or without a CPS offset. This is about 91 octane testing at 14.5psi.

Mike

[Sniz]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

I don't see how reducing timing at 3000rpm is going to do much to help knock at 6000rpm. Especially when reducing advance 10 degrees at 6000rpm didn't help. But I like the approach BMS is taking with this which is to setup the interface for users to be able to adjust their own offset curves. This is just early testing and definitely won't be the last test done. BMS developed this module to empower their customers to tune their cars however they'd like.

Mike

I dont like that at all, you guys have a hard enough time keeping you users running the correct map, now you expect them to learn how to control timing?

no no no....tune it right from the get go please.

[Joshboody]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The data doesn't show it though. Look at the 75% CPS run. Effective timing down low was 2-3 degrees at peak torque. How much lower do you want to go? Going negative produced a pretty funny result...

Mike

There needs to be more tuning and testing overall. I think boost is too high in this case. flipping the cps curve is something to consider, but cps has to change in relation to other factors like actual versus fake load.

Originally Posted by Sniz

I dont like that at all, you guys have a hard enough time keeping you users running the correct map, now you expect them to learn how to control timing?

no no no....tune it right from the get go please.

Agreed. At this point the cps is global or a simple curve. The percentage should not apply to a defined value, but change in relation to other factors... rpm, load, vanos, acceleration, etc. it's NOT as simple as offset on or off. continue the testing.

[Clap135]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

The data doesn't show it though. Look at the 75% CPS run. Effective timing down low was 2-3 degrees at peak torque. How much lower do you want to go? Going negative produced a pretty funny result...

Mike

I suggest maybe rereading the thread? Dropping timing roughly 6 degree downlow and through out peak tq and gradually bringing it back up will allow you to run more timing up top. If you can't understand this, then I can't help you. Like I said pick up a book about engine tuning.

As far as dropping timing as much as you did, realize that you are raising EGTS by doing this, being that its done with offsetting and not actually rewritting timing tables, you are also changing fueling injection points.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by Mike@N54Tuning.com

Which run are you talking about? They tested a variety of offsets which are posted in my first post. The lower offsets didn't effect the drops and the higher offsets reduced but didn't eliminate drops and nerfed power output. No one is disputing that 93/94 octane will hold timing better at higher boost levels with or without a CPS offset. This is about 91 octane testing at 14.5psi.

Mike

Love how you just skip right over my post.

Might I add 14.5 PSI is what my car tunes to on 93 octane, so its a little aggressive to say the least on 91 octane but that is neither here nor their. You are just being stubborn at this point.

RE-read everything I said as well as Clap and a few other guys.

Its spot on through and through.

Originally Posted by Clap135

I suggest maybe rereading the thread? Dropping timing roughly 6 degree downlow and through out peak tq and gradually bringing it back up will allow you to run more timing up top. If you can't understand this, then I can't help you. Like I said pick up a book about engine tuning.

As far as dropping timing as much as you did, realize that you are raising EGTS by doing this, being that its done with offsetting and not actually rewritting timing tables, you are also changing fueling injection points.

[usc335]

Hmmm. BMS went quiet. It looks like they figured out how amateur this thread made them look. What was meant to make CPS offsetting look bad totally backfired and made them look clueless. Very poor marketing decision.

[Mike@N54Tuning.com]

Originally Posted by usc335

Hmmm. BMS went quiet. It looks like they figured out how amateur this thread made them look. What was meant to make CPS offsetting look bad totally backfired and made them look clueless. Very poor marketing decision.

No idea what you're talking about but the data is all in the first post for everyone to analyze and benefit from and is being discussed in more detail elsewhere.

The next step for this module is programming it to allow user definable offsets by RPM, boost, and gear, and then it will be easier for all of us to test various curves. The suggestion that offsetting more down low where there have not been problems with timing drops and offsetting less up top where there are drops is pretty counter intuitive. Especially given the data posted showing drops even with extreme offsets both down low and up top. During a 1/4 mile run the RPMs will never drop much below 5000rpm anyway. But the dyno will tell all and I'll certainly post the results here. Actually clap if you want to put together an RPM by RPM offset curve given the map 2 boost curve above I'll arrange to get that tested for you ASAP so we can all see the results.

Mike

[Ilma]

Actually, I'm still having a tough time understanding why they are pulling so much timing up top

I thought that as rpms increase, piston speed increases and there is less time for a detonation event to form.

So you want to add timing back in at higher rpms and take more out at lower rpms. How is that counter-intuitive?

Clap is right......BMS seems to have it backwards.

[Forcefed3]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Actually, I'm still having a tough time understanding why they are pulling so much timing up top

I thought that as rpms increase, piston speed increases and there is less time for a detonation event to form.

So you want to add timing back in at higher rpms and take more out at lower rpms. How is that counter-intuitive?

Clap is right......BMS seems to have it backwards.

Well more load = faster burn rate. I know the JB4 tapers boost up top so with less load and higher RPM it seems like there should be more advance. I personally dont even plan on purchasing the CPS offset. My logs look great so I dont see any point in changing anything, plus I will be installing a meth kit very soon.

[Ilma]

Originally Posted by Clap135

No clue as I never ran offsets but I remember Shiv pulling 3-4 degrees dropping to 1-2 towards redline. This was simply mapped out based on rpm and boost. I might be wrong but I remember seeing that in some people logs. .

Yup.....that's what I saw in my pre-dic datalogs.

Timing was added back in as rpms increased.

Fundamental physics?

The faster the piston is travelling the less time detonation has to form.

But then how does one explain the occasional dip at 6K?

14.5 psi is probably too much boost for 91 octane.