DynoJet Power Commander vs ECU

[Scrabble202]

Do you recommend changing from a Dynojet Power Commander to a ECU like Motec or some other brand? What are are the advantages and disadvantages of this course of action? (technical related - not worried about cost)

[Scrabble202]

Do you recommend changing from a Dynojet Power Commander to a ECU like Motec or some other brand? What are are the advantages and disadvantages of this course of action? (technical related - not worried about cost)

[Gary Norris]

howdy,

I have experience with the power commander and an SDS ECU, unfortunately not with motec, though we're looking into running one this year. Last year we ran naturally aspirated, and just with the power commander were able to get 80 horsies at the wheels, which is downright sufficient if you ask me.

The SDS is garbage, at least the older ones our team ran in 1997-99. I wouldn't touch them.

seems to me if you're going NA, the dynojet is sufficient, we were able to get good results tuning just with that. but it sounds like you're already running that, and looking to upgrade. So maybe none of this is useful. anyways, hope maybe it was.

Gary
VP USC FSAE

[MoTeC]

Hi Guys,
My unbiased answer: When choosing an ECU just make very sure of what you want to do first. When you take things like drivability, throttle response and fuel economy into account you really can only do this with a sequential unit.

One thing that I notice is that you guys usually want to play with every trick under the sun which the power commander may not provide (I have a customer who used to run them). And if the power commander is just a simple device it may not give you much scope for developement.

I would be looking for a full engine management system with a bit of flexibility......which ever that may be. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Donna

[Frank]

Donna,

Please explain how a "sequential unit" provides better "drivability and throttle response"

I'll grant "fuel economy" yes, but how many % would you expect over a "group fire"� unit? Donna, would you care to share some data with us?

One point people should note is that the "flexibility" from, for example, the M4 unit is achieved through additional "options" (costs) such as "lambda upgrade" and "advanced tuning option" or "traction control multiplexer"

I think the unit is great, and overall the support is ok, my only real beef with the M4 is the documentation, and lack of data export.

I must say that I was impressed by the documentation by "Performance Electronics"� http://www.pe-ltd.com/support.htm

Regards

Frank

[B Lewis @ PE Engine Management]

Hello All!

Based on my experience, these are the main differences between the Power Commander (PC) and a stand alone system.

- The Power Commander (PC) plugs inline with the stock bike ECU. With the PC you have to use, or make provisions for, all of the bike's original wiring and hardware including any safety devices or theft deterrent mechanisms. This is great for a stock bike.

- The PC is limited in the things that you can adjust. The unit will allow you to change the main fuel and ignition tables. So, for both fuel and ignition, there are only a couple of adjustable factors. With stand-alone systems there are many different individual factors that make up the fuel and ignition calculations.

- The PC doesn't have any additional features other than adjusting the main fuel and ignition curves. Our system has quite a few including but not limited to:

<LI>User configurable analog inputs which allow you to adjust the fuel and timing as a function of any 0-5 volt signal
<LI>Digital inputs that will cut the fuel or ignition based on an outside event. One example for using this would be for cutting the ignition during a "clutch-less" shift.
<LI>Digital outputs for controlling shift lights, cooling fans, wastegates, idle solenoids, variable length intake runners, fuel pumps, warning lights, automatic shifting events, etc.
<LI>Data logging to the PC
<LI>Real time data plotting capabilities
<LI>Graphical table representations


As for sequential vs batch or semi-sequential systems...
Based on experience in using both types of systems, I'm one of those people that believe that there is no measurable improvement in drivability or throttle response in using a full sequential system over a properly tuned semi-sequential unit. In my opinion, for FSAE, the added complexity and cost of a full sequential system is not warranted.

As always, if you have any questions or problems regarding engine control you can contact us. I will be happy to help, even if you are using someone else's system.

Also, we will be offering our system again this year for $798.40 for FSAE. This includes ECU, software, crank timing wheel, un-terminated wire harness, manual and un-limited support. In most cases you can use the stock crank sensor, injectors and ignition coils without external igniters.

Brian Lewis
Performance Electronics, Ltd.
www.pe-ltd.com (http://www.pe-ltd.com)
"Complete Engine Management Systems"

[This message was edited by B Lewis @ PE Engine Management on September 30, 2003 at 10:34 AM.]

[PatClarke]

Teams who used Power Commanders and similay piggyback ECU trimmers were not looked on too kindly by the Power Train judges last May. It was seen as a 'quick and dirty' solution.
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[fsae_alum]

We used the Power Commander in 02 with our F4i and the judges weren't impressed at all. We tried to point out that by using the Power Commander, it could be geared towards a weekend racer (as the rules say) and thus would be easy to program and easy to replace if ever needed. To second Suddenlee's comment, they didn't care, regardless of the fact that we rolled 79 hp at the comp and some "BIG" teams with Motecs rolled mid 60's. Hmmmm.....4 hours of dyno time vs WEEKS of wiring and dyno time....hmmmmm.... Sometimes winning big points in design isn't all that it's cracked up to be!!! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In spite of...

[Charlie]

If you think it is 'all about the horsepower' then you are very mistaken; if some 'big' teams are making mid-60s then there might veyr well be a reason. I got to see a few design boards this year, and most of the top teams were gaining little to no horsepower (there were a few exceptions) over thier previous year.

RIT supposedly made 91 or so (output shaft) a few years back, and are reporting lower figures now. We aren't in an acceleration event only.

I believe Carroll Smith said that horsepower sells cars and torque wins (road) races. If you are using stock-style manifolding and a power commander, expect big HP, and a sloppy curve.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[fsae_alum]

Charlie.....In retrospect, I agree 100%. You are absolutly correct in that what matters most is how broad the curve is, not how high the peak is. It's the area under the curve that is good.

In spite of...

[Big Daddy]

What are the peak torque numbers that most teams see? If what Charlie says is true then why don't teams run engines that are torque monsters with relativly low hp numbers?

[Charlie]

What is your definition of 'torque monster'? Is 60-70 wheel HP high or low for these engines that make 90-100 stock? I'd consider it low.

I'm not saying I have all the answers but 'peak' numbers, torque and horsepower, are IMO for the bench racers and magazines.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Big Daddy]

the stock 600 engines are rated around 100 HP and 45 ft-lbs of torque, MAX!

From another thread. What I meant was there are engines out there that have torque numbers that are above 45ft-lbs but they probably don't have 80 hp. I know that a 22hp lawnmower engine has 30ft-lbs in stock trim IE from you lawn mower but I have seen the same engine running 65hp on a dyno then on a cart. Just wondering what makes the Inline 4cyl better cause if torque wins races then there is better options.

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Daddy:
the stock 600 engines are rated around 100 HP and 45 ft-lbs of torque, MAX!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At-the-wheels dyno numbers from motorcycle.com (article HERE (http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mccompare/03_600s/index.motml) but you have to be a member to read the whole way)
http://www.auburn.edu/~pingiii/temp/bikecomparo.jpg

I am not saying horsepower is not a good thing. More horsepower is always better, which means the highest revving engine with equal torque is the better. If they have equal torque amounts and curves then the vehicle with the most HP is still better off.

Maybe you are right, find the torque curves and do the calcs, it is not rocket science. All I am saying is don't look at peak numbers, especially horsepower, as a goal.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We used the Power Commander in 02 with our F4i and the judges weren't impressed at all. We tried to point out that by using the Power Commander, it could be geared towards a weekend racer (as the rules say) and thus would be easy to program and easy to replace if ever needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am starting to really feel that the weekend racer aspect of the competition is really starting to be overlooked by the judges in favor of the cars that incorporate the most new technology and real race industry technology. I think if the competition was really for the weekend racer the market share these cars would compete with would be ATV's, snowmobiles, jet ski's, etc...... Something that costs as much as many FSAE cars would in a production situation could simple not compete in this price bracket.

I realize that many people will disagree with this, but look at a few examples from this years competition. Please do not take offence to this if you are on one of these team because I really believe that these designs were quite well done and truly accomplished what your teams set out to do. I am simply saying that the design goals behind the designs were meant to do well the way the competition currently is, not the original "weekend racer" concept.

Delft - Individually woven Carbon fiber drive shafts I feel are quite a bit too expensive in manufacture for the weekend racer. This also goes for complex CNCed parts that are very high on the material wastage (my team is very guilty of excessive reliance on teh CNC machines)

UMC - I read and saw pictures of the front uprights on this car in the Racetech artice. Racetech praised the one piece front upright with integrate steering arm. Although this design has a great strength to weight ratio (I would think) it requires the removal of quite alot of aluminum only to incorperate the steering arm.

Many Many teams - Using custom parts in favor of parts that would fit the application and can be purchased locally for cheaper and recived faster. My team is also very guilty of this. A great example is the bearing we use. We use bearings ordered straight from SKF and NTN in order to get the exact bearing that will take the stress at the required safety factor. If I were a "weekend racer" I would much rather have a slightly oversized bearing that is sized for a longer life and that I could run down to an automotive or other store and pic up for cheap. I'm not going to want to wait 4-5 weeks for delivery and miss a bunch of races or spend tons of money.

I don't think that using stock parts or heavier materials is necessarily poor engineering. What I feel is that the role of an engineer is to weigh the performance advantages with the added cost, manufacture time, complexity, and even the hassle created when parts break. If I were managing a business that manufactures FSAE vehicles I would welcome the use of stock and easily accessable parts as it would mean that I could cut manufacture time and cost because I no longer had to run everything from a CNC machines to in house wiring harness manufacture.

Brent Howard

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[PatClarke]

At Pontiac in May, the powertrain judges took the dyno sheets from the four design finalists, ruled a big line across the graph, and measured the power below the curve. Big spikes, or curves with holes in them gain the criticism they deserve. It is probably fair to say that the shape of the powerband stopped one of the tied second place finishers from finishing outright second, and both these teams had more peak power than the winner!
PDR

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[dr47watson]

Having driven Fsae_alum's car I must stand up for the "quick and dirty" engine management. From a drivers point of view the motor in that car was absolutly brilliant. It quickly and cleanly reaches its peak power and stays there for 5,000 rpm. An autocrossers wet dream.

Brent I totally agree with you.


Rich

[John Gregor]

I know it is a little off topic, but teams seem focused a lot on power and torque and not a lot on fuel economy. Look at the results careful. Having good fuel economy is so important for an overall result.
You don't need a lot of power to go fast. Having 60hp is more than good enough if you can put it all to the ground.
It's all about the complete package.

[Charlie]

Addressing Bren'ts comments:

Regardless of its supposed 'market' this is still an engineering design competition, and the points system pays for on-track performance. If a team comes up with a better part by designing it too meet thier purpose, using engineering tools and methods, then they have learned a lot.

A team that does this is a better team than one who can simply find a good replacement off the shelf. I personally believe that if you have designed your own part for your vehicle and it is really no better than something you can purchase, you've done a poor job, and your team a disservice. It should always be better because it is specific to your application. Of course you begin to reach the point of diminishing returns.

I do very much understand your point. There are cars out there that are built just to last the competition, which I think is very wrong. I'm proud to say that NOTHING has broken on our 2003 car after competition. I hope I don't jinx us, but it has been dead reliable, and we designed & built it that way. Sure it might give an inherent disadvantage in weight, interia, etc, but then again, you can't learn, tune, or test a broken car now can you. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Ryan Schoffer]

I thought i would just throw my 2 cents in.

If there is one thing i learned this summer, it is that optimizing the total delivered horsepower is much better than going for high peak numbers. What i mean is, if you take the maximum RPM range of the engine (the range between the optimum shift points) and calculate the area under that curve, you should aim for a maximum (obviously!). This is far more important than striving for a high 'peak' that is only 100 RPM wide. Having an engine with good torque numbers (and a flat torque curve) will help you achieve this - and I feel either the stand alone units (like the motec or autronic) or piggyback systems (in this case the PC3r) can accomplish this, although the stand alone systems allow for a higher degree of customization and more functionality.

For me, it all comes down to a question of cost - if the PC3r can do what you want, and you dont feel the need to spend the extra money on a stand alone system (or dont have it), and dont want to devote the extra development time, it is a waste. Better to do a good job with a simple project than shit the bed on a hard one!

Remember also, that most of our cars are very traction limited so squeezing 2 extra horse out at the expense of drivability is a bad idea. Having a smooth curve with good throttle response is very appealing to both judges and drivers.

As far as the 'off the shelf' discussion goes, I think the main thing is to realize when not to reinvent the wheel - we are now using a chain roller for a motorcycle instead of trying to fabricate our own system for preventing chain rub.

Vehicle electronics leader

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Brent Howard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regardless of its supposed 'market' this is still an engineering design competition, and the points system pays for on-track performance. If a team comes up with a better part by designing it too meet thier purpose, using engineering tools and methods, then they have learned a lot.

A team that does this is a better team than one who can simply find a good replacement off the shelf. I personally believe that if you have designed your own part for your vehicle and it is really no better than something you can purchase, you've done a poor job, and your team a disservice. It should always be better because it is specific to your application. Of course you begin to reach the point of diminishing returns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the point that I was trying to make as well Charlie. What I feel is that as a huge part of our engineering competition we need to look at every part in terms of functionality and decide based on that what is the best solution based on many more aspects. A formula one engineer has a specific set of constriants put on his/her design based very highly on performance. As FSAE designers, If for the weekend racer, our constraints involve cost, manufacture time, weight, reliability, etc... It seems to me that the judges are currently judging mostly on perfromance....which is fine if that was the stated goal of the competition. Basically what I'm trying to point out is how much is 1 lb worth in FSAE??? $1000? $10000? 1 hour manufacture? 10 hours? 100 hours???

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Charlie]

The problem is, the 'weekend racer' definition is FAR too broad. So you might look at it as an inexpensive vehicle for someone to SCCA with once a month. But there are 'weekend racers' that race $60k Formula Fords as well. They aren't professionals and it is simply a hobby.

Because of this broad definition, you simply have to look at point structure to determine that level of diminishing returns. Basically you should build a car that meets cost requirements that has maximum performance in all events. Don't be fooled by ambiguous 'mission statements', they are easily misinterpreted. Look at the rules and points distribution, the same people that write the 'mission statement' write those rules and so they are a far clearer definition of what an FSAE car should be.

If I sound like I know what I'm talking about here it is purely a mistake on my part, I am just rambling. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[MoTeC]

Hi Frank,
It's Mark actually, Donna signed herself in and I hijack it every now and then.

Ok, A sequrntial unit will increase the efficiency of your fuel usage (ie better use of what you are putting in). A non-sequential unit has a fairly random intake of fuel (rough generalisation). Basically if you have more control over the fuel you put in with things like end of injection and sequential firing you will naturally make gains in engine transient response. I don't have any dyno charts with before and after as I unsurprisingly do very little group fired stuff but from my own experience changing from a group fired ECU to an M4 in my own car the seat of the pants gain was undeniable. Most torque increase was in the mid range and top end horsepower torque will not change (much). Most of this can be brought down to better control of the amount of fuel flying around.

As for you comment about the flexibility you are pretty much wrong, couldn't really put it any nicer than that. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even the M4 Clubman has more than enough felxibility to do most things with out the upgrades. While on the subject of upgrades why does it seem that people take the view that we are trying to rip everyone of buy not having fully enabled ECUs for a bargin basement price? If you go to Holden and ask for a cheap Commodore do you winge when you don't get the leather seats or the HSV engine? We could sell all the ECU's with everything but that obviously means the price will go up.....am I wrong in my thinkings. Then the problem would be that people would complain that they are paying for the advanced tuning or the lambda when they may not want to use it. It is probably the same reason Macdonalds let you buy a Big Mac buy it self or as a meal deal. If my thinking is off could someone please let me and just about every other business on the face of the planet know. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh and as for the documentation we prefer to do the ECU and ADL seminars..... and yes we charge you money to do it, aren't we a mean bunch of people. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Can't please everyone I suppose.

Mark
mark.mccoy@motec.com.au

Donna

[Frank]

Thanks for that Mark,

A little story for you.

In my first year of FSAE, 2001 (I was manager of first year team), there was no MoTeC ECU seminar in Qld that year.

So I rang and eventually spoke with Richard Bendell. I asked "oh.... since there's no ECU seminar in QLD this year, do you think we could possibly get reduced rates to the Claude Roulle seminar"

"if your buy three seats, we'll give you a 20% discount"

I'm very glad MoTeC started the "student Claude Roulle seminars".

It was a little hard that first year though, without a seminar.

Regards

Frank

[Fergus Wilson]

Wollongong has run an M800 since 2002. The documentation is adequate to get started with, but not outstanding. A basic knowledge of EFI also helps when starting out.

Wiring diagrams and the software area available online, and the technical support could not be better.

Why do we use a MoTeC and not a piggy back unit? Because it gives us precise control over the fuel injection, as well as data logging and advanced analysis functions.

All this comes at a price, however. What we won't use we don't buy.

Fergus Wilson
Project Manager
UOW Racing 2003

fw01@uow.edu.au
www.uow.edu.au/eng/racing/ (http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/racing/)

[MoTeC]

Hi Guys,
There was no FSAE seminars in 2001 I know, it was a little unfortunate as I was a student once and know what the money situation is like. No one needs to fear as both Claude and I are very supportive of the FSAE program. The other thing abouts Claudes seminars is that they are usually very small (15-20 people) and it would not have been that easy to sneak in a few students at discounted rates, can you imaging the problems if we only offered two/three spots a year for students?

Mark

Donna

[MoTeC]

Oh and Frank,
What was the problem with "no data export"? Are you talking about sending logged data out to another program or are you talking about live data export?

Donna

[Frank]

Mark/Donna?

how long has the CSV file export been available?

regards

Frank

[MoTeC]

Frank,
AFAIK it has always been a feature of MoTeC Interpreter, I have looked back as far as version 1.10 (very old, before I started working here) and it has it.

Donna