Dual LC-1s Installed on Camhead

[roger 04 rt]

For the past year or so I've been working on Wideband O2 installations on my R1150RT. This past weekend, terryofperry completed the installation of a dual Innovate Motorsports LC-1 on his 2011 R1200GSA. Here is a link to the main thread I've got going in the other forum: Wideband O2 Sensors.

 

And here is the last post in that thread:

 

Over the past couple of weeks I've been working with the riders of a 2007 R1200GS and a 2011 R1200GSA (terryofperry) to help them with their installations of dual Innovate Motorsports LC-1s. To my knowledge they are the first to install the LC-1 systems on the R1200. I'm taking this opportunity to preview the results.

 

There has been a lot we've learned about the installation and there is probably a small amount of fine tuning that will get done over the next month. The R1200 required different program settings but terryofperry has a GS-911 and was able to rapidly create the data that was needed to debug the installation. He's in Georgia and I'm in chilly Massachusetts so the work was done by phone and e-mail. I'm surprised by how quickly this was accomplished. (And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that DR was there, in the background, helping.)

 

The bottom line is that the 2011 R1200GSA has two Innovate Motorsports LC-1s installed and fully operational.

 

Just as a reminder, using the LC-1s results in a fully-functional Closed Loop integration with the BMS-K and requires no Dyno tuning to make it work, it leverages the full capability of the R1200, as designed.

 

Below is a chart of the two LC-1s, logging AFR data simultaneously, with histograms showing distributions of each independent cylinder's combustion, as measured by the LC-1, in the exhaust stream where the Wideband O2 sensors get installed in place of the stock Narrowband unit. From the results we have so far, the BMS-K is working, without the knowledge of the shift in Lambda (that's good), delivering richer fueling, and performance improvements similar to those of the R1150 installations.

 

[terryofperry]

I am indebted to Roger for his help, expertise, and patience during the install and programming of the units. Thank you to any behind the scene also. From start to very good data was accomplished quickly thanks to Roger's perseverance. As Roger stated there will be a tweak or two as I continue to send him data but I am very pleased with the outcome so far.

 

Terry

[racer7]

Be interested to hear what you think the benefits are after going to all this trouble.

I've used widebands in setting up track cars running on aftermarket computers but haven't ever contemplated the cost or effort for a street machine (though if it integrates well with the factory computer that sure saves a bunch of the work.)

 

Hunting driveabilty or simply ability to optimize some accessories? Major power upgrades require ways to move a lot more air into the motor and that normally means some serious machine shop time or boost.

[roger 04 rt]

This mod is not about adding horsepower at the top end, its about getting the boxer to run its best as far down the performance curve as possible, where we spend most of the time riding.

 

On the 1150, its not so much work to do the install now that it has been figured out. For me the benefits are vastly improved driveability from idle to 4000 rpm or so—and especially so between 2000 and 3000. The three installs I know of have transformed the feelling on the bike. As you know, the 1100s and 1150s don't have dual O2s so you can balance the air but not the fuel. However by richening the mixture and sopping up the last unburned oxygen you make the combustion less sensitive to fueling imbalances side to side and make the engine smoother.

 

The 1200 cam heads with adaptive spark advance, idle control and dual O2 sensors already run well but also seem to have more pull at low RPMs.with the fueling richened.

 

Since we're not adding air at the top of the rpm curve this doesn't add a bunch of top end horsepower, as you said. However it does take advantage of the benefits of moving toward toward Best Power Mixture: lower exhaust temperatures, better torque at every TPS/rpm combo, smoother response to throttle changes.

 

One of the other possibilities is that since the LC-1 has two analog outputs you can program one pair of settings toward best power (lambda of 0.94) and the other to a lean cruise (perhaps lambda 1.04 or 1.06) for greater cruise range—just starting to look at that.

 

It's a little hard to explain just how much better some of the Oilheads run when you move them richer than 14.7:1. As more riders try it I think the picture will be clearer.

 

[racer7]

Roger,

Thanks for the response.

I've ridden enough oilheads to know their quirks a bit though the only one I still service, an R1100S, has no particular vices and runs pretty well.

 

I do have an 08RT (hexhead) that get primary miles (as 1 of 3 BMWs I ride) so am interested in following that install and data as it develops.

Any chance of seeing any dyno data from the driveability rpm ranges or do you think trying to get a reproducible difference on the dyno would be iffy?

 

As you note, R1200s generally run pretty well when in good condition so I;ve got a bit of a hard time figuring out what enrichment might actually do that is a benefit. One thing I can think of is that the 08 RT has a too tall first gear for two up riding in the mountains, making avoiding clutch burn a fine art when 2 up on steep slopes. If enrichment added a bit to low end otrque to offset the gearing screwup, that would be useful. The hexheads like earlier boxers are also very slow to rev up and build power compared to most other common motorcycle configurations except V Twins- if it speed rpm build that would be useful. A bit more torque at 6th gear roll on would also be useful.

[roger 04 rt]

I haven't put it on a dyno but have done something equally as good. I used my GS-911 to calculate acceleration and then worked out the other variables to carefully calculate torque. Then I looked at many dyno plots for the 1150 that have been posted by tuners and added the data from one that I thought was representative. Other than the lambda change there is nothing unique about my bike, it's stock. The plots are below.

 

Given that my riding experience—and that of others who added LC-1s—seems to back up the plots (really great 4th, 5th and 6th gear roll on power), I think they are fairly close. The rider who added the LC-1s to his bike found that it had more pull at lower RPMs but has no measured data. The cause of improvement, extra fuel to consume the unburned oxygen that's left over in a 14.7 bike, is fairly well documented.

 

The only other thing worth noting is that I put effort into setting up so that I could measure the torque at low rpm, carefully letting the bike stabilize at 1800 rpm and then quickly opened the throttle. Perhaps tuners, who seem to care more about the top end, don't set up so carefully. Still my riding experience and the data seem to track,

 

[racer7]

Thanks again!

 

Little bit of apples and orangers but it matches the butt dyno descriptions well and looks like a pretty if not exactly completely controlled comparison.

 

Be interested to see it for an R1200

 

Those are pretty significant differneces for a fueling change with no changes in bike metal.

 

Next obvious question. What would happen if one of Lennie's sprocket sets was popped into the mix?? If I was going to be tempted to do this on my 1200, I'd want the additive benefits, I think..

[roger 04 rt]

It is not a controlled experiment, that's true, but the measurements are sound. It seems to me that BMW must have had to push the Oilheads to run at lambda=1 and the combustion must be more complete at lower lambda settings, but I'm specutaling on that.

 

I can vouch for the accuracy of my acceleration data and torque calculation. If you study the acceleration data plot you can see that it is relatively constant at 12 ft/sec-sq from 2700 rpm to 5500 rpm. And still 10-11 ft/sec-sq at 2300 rpm. That means that if you are rolling along in 4th at 2300 rpm (About 30 mph) and crank open the throttle, it accelerates about as well as if you did the same thing at 4000 rpm. How many R1150RT drivers would expect performance like that in the mid-2000 rpm range? All I've heard from most riders is how these bikes are meant to be ridden at high RPMs.

 

On the highway 55-60 mph in 6th is fine at lower lambdas, and the bike is ready to go when you open the throttle. In 5th gear expect 10 ft/sec-sq and in 6th 8 ft/sec-sq—not drag racing numbers but not bad. Not many 1150s comfortably cruise in 6th at 60 mph.

 

The more I study the Bosch DME systems (Motronic and BMSK) the more I am impressed by them. My goal now is to find the smallest changes that improve driveability. On the 1150s that means 4-6% richer lambda and a small boost in fuel pressure if you want to speed adaptation—always using the stock coding plug.

 

Which brings me to the sprockets. I've read that advancing the cams boosts low-end torque in principal but there is very little data that has been taken on Oilheads so at best I'm on the fence. My thought for anyone considering sprockets is first try a small boost to fueling and then see if you still think sprockets are needed.

[terryofperry]

Cannot help ya there Racer7, the sprockets are not available for the Camhead.

 

Terry

[roger 04 rt]

There is an interesting possibility for the R1200 with two LC-1s since each LC-1 has two analog outputs.

 

There could be a switch for a rich setting and a lean-cruise setting. Both the rich settings could be at lambda 0.94-0.96. The lean cruise could start at 1.06 (or higher) but one of the LC-1s could be tweaked up or down to get the engine well-balanced at the lean setting.

 

Food for thought.

[FlyingFinn]

Another way to improve the low- and mid-RPM torque at the expense of peak HP has been to use GS intake tubes on the RT.

I'm not sure if this works also wih the Hexheads but with 11x0 motors this has been a well established mod. I did it with my ex 1150RT and it was for sure the best bang for the buck I ever spent on that bike.

The GS intake tubes (between the TB and the airbox) are slightly smaller diameter and bit longer. They give a very noticeable boost in mid RPM torque.

I absolutely loved the change, the 2500 to 4000 RPM range became much stronger.

 

That mod in addition to Roger's richer CL Lambda would be the bee's knees.

 

Mikko

[dirtrider]

Afternoon FlyingFinn

 

Thos tubes are way different on the heaxhead/camhead. Not even a close fit.

 

[FlyingFinn]

But how about camhead RT vs camhead GS.

Are those interchangeable?

 

 

 

[dirtrider]

But how about camhead RT vs camhead GS.

Are those interchangeable?

 

 

 

Afternoon FlyingFinn

 

Should be as they use the exact same part.

 

[FlyingFinn]

Ah, well that was a nice mod for the oilhead RTs. Too same thing can't be done with the camhead RT.

[racer7]

Roger, Terry

Thanka again guys.

When the details of the install for the R1200 get written up I might try this or a product you decide to market and then, as Roger suggests, think about the sprockets.

I don't doubt the math and as you note, no boxer rider I know would expect low rev and hi rev accleration to be comparable. I'm certainly in the habit of a routine downshift for passing for exactly that reason whereas on a K bike I just roll on power- the K's have a much wider powerband than the a stock boxer...

 

[roger 04 rt]

Terry's in the midst of a several hundred mile trip into the mountains and has sent me hours of very impressive data that I've been going through. I'll add some of it to the thread later today or tomorrow. A few things stand out:

 

1) The BMS-K spends much more time in closed loop operation than the Motronic MA 2.4. After acceleration or deceleration it returns to closed loop rapidly.

 

2) After the Adaptation Values are reset there are very obvious imbalances between the AFR of the Left and Right cylinders. It seems to take quite a bit of time and driving for the BMS-K's full adaptation matrix to be populated. During that time the L/R imbalances persist.

 

3) After hours and a hundred miles or more of riding, the L/R cylinders seem nearly identically matched. The BMS-K has a very potent ability to balance the two cylinders through it Adaptation Strategy.

 

4) The quality and consistency if the data is high and the BMS-K is not issuing any error codes. The BMS-K is fully functioning and fueling the motorcycle at the programmed lambda of 0.93 (as Terry has programmed it).

 

Overall I'm very impressed by effectiveness of dual LC-1s on the R1200 and also the power of the BMS-K to manage fueling and to balance the L/R cylinders.

 

There are some implications: 1) if you change the intake or exhaust, the BMS-K will fuel to the set-point of the O2 sensor; eventually adapt to it fully. There could still be different exhaust resonances for aftermarket systems which would result in richness or leanness at specific engine RPMs and loads. 2) Simple attempts to alter fueling will be negated by the BMS-K over time. However, reprogramming the value of lambda through the O2 sensor are not negated. In fact the BMS-K is fully engaged in the process of shifting fueling. 3) The BMS-K with adaptive fueling and adaptive spark is so powerful that Closed Loop should not be disabled without a lot of consideration. Disconnecting the O2 sensor, as with a Power Commander, will leave the motorcycle without its most important cylinder balancing tool.

 

RB

 

 

[roger 04 rt]

Here is Terry's 2011 R1200GSA bike with dual LC-1s and Notebook PC connected for datalogging.

 

 

Next, a plot of about 80 minutes of data logged from his LC-1s. The important thing to see is how closely the bike holds to his 13.65:1 lambda target. The spikes on the chart are his accelerations and decelerations. There are actually two plots, one on top of the other for the left and right cylinders. The LC-1s and BMS-K have worked perfectly together to pinpoint Terry's fueling at 13.65:1. The small inset boxes show the data distribution of the fueling pulse AFRs. These are great, statistically normal, AFR distributions.

 

 

The next plot shows, in very fine detail, just how well the two LC-1s and BMS-K work together to deliver highly syncronized fueling. The LC-1s provide the fueling shift from 14.7 to 13.65 (lambda 0.93) and the BMS-K has used it's strong adaptive capability to nearly perfectly match the cylinder AFRs.

 

 

[racer7]

Impressive result.

What's next- this could be business venture...

[roger 04 rt]

Impressive result.

What's next- this could be business venture...

 

I've been working with Steve Mullen at Nightrider.com to build a device that would extract enough usable information from the stock Narrowband O2 sensor to shift mixtures up to 6% richer. That device prototype has been shown in the Oilhead thread.

 

It is simpler to implement than an LC-1. All the user has to do is unplug the stock sensor from the wiring harness, plug the new "device" into the harness and O2 sensor and attach a ground wire.

 

The first devices will be for 1150s and other motorcycles that use Motronic MA 2.4 ECUs. Next will be R1100s. And then shortly after a device for bms-K bikes like R1200s.

 

A full LC-1 solution will always offer more precision and full datalogging but the "device" will offer afr adjustability between 0-6% richer, with quite good specs.

[racer7]

Roger,

I'm not sure whether your best market will be the older Motronics or newer bms-k models. The older models had more issues for sure but I'd bet that bms-k models may on average have younger riders who are more comfortable with messing with the fueling aspects of FI..

 

Anyway, will look forward to seeing the stuff become available. So far I've personally stayed away from the various spoofers. I ride a K1200RS with a RhineWest chip and exhaust but all of bms-k bikes are stock, still. (But hmmm-the SOs R1100S might benefit from your first efforts) The possibility of improving drivability in the 2-4K rev range on my hexhead RT is interesting and you're right that I wouldn't likely go to the effort/cost of the dual LC-1 install though, especially if a simpler cost effective device such as what you propose appears.

 

Good luck with your efforts..

[terryofperry]

Borrowing Roger's thread for a moment:

 

After following Roger’s wideband O2 project and researching many alternatives, I have completed an install of dual wideband controllers on my 2011 R 1200 GSA. I have logged many hours of data over a few thousand miles both in the mountains (HeleNBack 2013) and in the flatlands of Central Georgia. I feel I finally have enough information to comment as some have requested.

The install was completed a few days before HeleNBack. It went very well due to Roger’s previous work and tremendous help by e-mail as well as phone.

 

We started with conservative settings, progressing in small increments based on data Roger was seeing and how I felt the bike was responding. Each day leading up to HeleNBack 2013 I would add 1% to 2% of fuel. I left for Helen with a setting of 0.93 Lambda (13.67/1 A/F R) in one switch position and 0.96 Lambda (14.1/1 A/F R) in the other. I logged data throughout the day, each night I would send Roger the data from the day to analyze and recommend changes. The bike performed very, very well.

 

Would I do it again? Yes, without a doubt. Does it transform the Big Pig into an S 1000 RR? No. The Camhead 1200’s run pretty good out of the box, add some fuel and they are wonderful to ride. The throttle is smoother, the motor response to throttle change is more linear, both on accel and decel, less hesitation, very responsive to small inputs. Adding fuel results in a cooler exhaust, cooler valve face, longer lived motor. The biggest change is in the higher gears. I can stay there a little longer without lugging the motor. Or shift up a little sooner with pulling power available. Based on my research and some knowledge of motors I expected some of these changes, one I did not expect was the ease with which it starts. Cold, warm, or at temperature it fires right up where before it did not. Upon returning I continued the programming changes. I am now at 0.91 Lambda (13.38 A/F R). The roll on power in 6th gear from 60 to 95 is surprisingly much stronger. Although best power may be down around 12.8 +/- I am looking for best ride-ability, best throttle response, best feel for me, not racetrack performance. I am very pleased where we are now.

 

Fuel mileage is still up in the air. I keep a record of every drop of fuel, I have information from Little Switzerland, HeleNBack 2012, and F.A.R.T. before the LC-1 install. Preliminary tabulations from HeleNBack 2013 indicate two tanks got less mileage than a year ago, 2 tanks got slightly more. Too many variables to reach an accurate conclusion. I will monitor it in the flatlands here and have a better idea but I gotta say it is a lot more fun to ride.

 

Do I recommend it? It works through the entire RPM range, open loop and closed, plays very well with the BMSK ECU. For those wanting to log data, program precise control, and do not mind the wiring, it is ideal. My install and set up went extremely well because Roger knows what he is doing. The fact we spoke the same language with regard to the data and the motor helped the process proceed swiftly. Roger’s groundwork has resulted in bikes running very well quickly. Most settings have been tested, the 1150, 1200, and now an F 800 are pretty much good to go. If you want all of the benefits without the wiring involvement I would recommend the device Roger is working on. It will do everything the LC-1 will except log data, not really necessary now. I have owned a Techlusion, I have a lot of experience with the Power Commander, I have a Boosterplug device, the O2 sensor device is the correct way to go about it. Tell the ECU what you want and let it accomplish the task.

 

Terry

[roger 04 rt]

This past week Terry and I worked to obtain some data on the BMSK and R1200 which was reported here: BMSK and R1200 .

[roger 04 rt]

The OEM cables for R1200 are now in production. Several sets have been installed the reports are good.

 

Here is a report from an R1200GS rider who has been running an extended beta test (note that he is riding to full adaptation before his plans for a Dyno run):

 

"Hey ...

IF I can get enough miles on the bike I may shoot for a dyno run this coming Friday. If not it will probably be mid to latter part of the following week. I've got company coming to stay a few days this coming weekend into the first part of the following week.

 

I started at setting 7 on the AF-XIED's which was very good and a great improvement over stock then went to 8 after a couple of tanks of gas.

I haven't gotten enough miles yet to try setting 9. Based on what I feel at 8 I believe it will be too rich at 9 but I want to try it anyway just to be sure. The broad torque and power the bike is producing is just fantastic! It is so smooth with gentle throttle applications but yet when you twist it quickly it responds crisply and with such authority! I can even tell the difference in the sound coming out of the stock muffler! It has a deeper growl now, most pleasing to my ears and not too loud at all.

 

I usually ride solo with my wife on her own bike but we rode double on the GS the other day and put it to the test. It passed with flying colors! It will pull down to as low as 1500 rpm in 6th gear now although I wouldn't recommend it. From 2000-4500 rpm the bike is pure pleasure, almost dare I say, like a well tuned Harley! Yet when you wind her up to 8000 it feels, dare I say again, almost like a sport bike! Talk about the BEST of both worlds, this bike has it. I'm having a harder and harder time thinking of a reason to by a new water cooled GS!

 

Feel free to share with the forum if you want."

[roger 04 rt]

A couple of months ago the rider of an R1200GS decided to add an AF-XIED to his bike. He took his bike to a dyno before the modification and afterwards. The results and analysis of that testing can be found starting here: R1200GS Dyno Tests. Or you can jump to the end and see the results here: R1200GS Dyno Results.

 

The chart of the results is below but it's worth at least following the Acceleration link above to put them in context.

RB

 

Average Acceleration: 19% better at 13.8:1

Two Best Accelerations: 14% better

Best Before (lean) to Worst After (richer): 8% better

 

[Bud]

Borrowing Roger's thread for a moment:

 

After following Roger’s wideband O2 project and researching many alternatives, I have completed an install of dual wideband controllers on my 2011 R 1200 GSA. I have logged many hours of data over a few thousand miles both in the mountains (HeleNBack 2013) and in the flatlands of Central Georgia. I feel I finally have enough information to comment as some have requested.

The install was completed a few days before HeleNBack. It went very well due to Roger’s previous work and tremendous help by e-mail as well as phone.

 

We started with conservative settings, progressing in small increments based on data Roger was seeing and how I felt the bike was responding. Each day leading up to HeleNBack 2013 I would add 1% to 2% of fuel. I left for Helen with a setting of 0.93 Lambda (13.67/1 A/F R) in one switch position and 0.96 Lambda (14.1/1 A/F R) in the other. I logged data throughout the day, each night I would send Roger the data from the day to analyze and recommend changes. The bike performed very, very well.

 

Would I do it again? Yes, without a doubt. Does it transform the Big Pig into an S 1000 RR? No. The Camhead 1200’s run pretty good out of the box, add some fuel and they are wonderful to ride. The throttle is smoother, the motor response to throttle change is more linear, both on accel and decel, less hesitation, very responsive to small inputs. Adding fuel results in a cooler exhaust, cooler valve face, longer lived motor. The biggest change is in the higher gears. I can stay there a little longer without lugging the motor. Or shift up a little sooner with pulling power available. Based on my research and some knowledge of motors I expected some of these changes, one I did not expect was the ease with which it starts. Cold, warm, or at temperature it fires right up where before it did not. Upon returning I continued the programming changes. I am now at 0.91 Lambda (13.38 A/F R). The roll on power in 6th gear from 60 to 95 is surprisingly much stronger. Although best power may be down around 12.8 +/- I am looking for best ride-ability, best throttle response, best feel for me, not racetrack performance. I am very pleased where we are now.

 

Fuel mileage is still up in the air. I keep a record of every drop of fuel, I have information from Little Switzerland, HeleNBack 2012, and F.A.R.T. before the LC-1 install. Preliminary tabulations from HeleNBack 2013 indicate two tanks got less mileage than a year ago, 2 tanks got slightly more. Too many variables to reach an accurate conclusion. I will monitor it in the flatlands here and have a better idea but I gotta say it is a lot more fun to ride.

 

Do I recommend it? It works through the entire RPM range, open loop and closed, plays very well with the BMSK ECU. For those wanting to log data, program precise control, and do not mind the wiring, it is ideal. My install and set up went extremely well because Roger knows what he is doing. The fact we spoke the same language with regard to the data and the motor helped the process proceed swiftly. Roger’s groundwork has resulted in bikes running very well quickly. Most settings have been tested, the 1150, 1200, and now an F 800 are pretty much good to go. If you want all of the benefits without the wiring involvement I would recommend the device Roger is working on. It will do everything the LC-1 will except log data, not really necessary now. I have owned a Techlusion, I have a lot of experience with the Power Commander, I have a Boosterplug device, the O2 sensor device is the correct way to go about it. Tell the ECU what you want and let it accomplish the task.

 

Terry

 

That sounds like what I need.

 

Not interested in logging, just riding.

[walton66]

me too

[terryofperry]

"That sounds like what I need.

 

Not interested in logging, just riding."

 

me too

 

Yeah, I get that. The AF-XIED's were not a reality when I installed dual LC-1's.

 

They certainly are the way to go now.

 

Ride safely.

 

Terry

 

[Eddiet204]

I've been following this thread for awhile. I see graphs for AFR and acceleration, but no data on HP and Torque. I've ridden both the 1150 as well as the 1200 (Hex/Cam) and find the differences in engine performance to be negligible. Both bikes are RTPs and I spent a lot of time doing zero to WOT. Emissions aside, I find it hard to believe there are any serious gains to be had tweaking this platform. The Wet Head only makes 15 extra HP from a substantial revision while other bikes can make similar gains with simple bolt ons.

[terryofperry]

If you have been following the threads then you know the purpose is not to add substantial horsepower at peak rpm.

 

You are correct, the platform is what it is. If the 1150 GS put out 85 +/- hp, the 1200 oilhead 100 hp, the 1200 hexhead 105 hp, the camhead 110 hp, and the wethead 125 hp, percentage wise it is not a bad improvement.

 

Don't forget the HP2 was putting out 130 hp stock, not bad for an ancient horizontal twin.

 

Terry

 

 

[roger 04 rt]

I've been following this thread for awhile. I see graphs for AFR and acceleration, but no data on HP and Torque. I've ridden both the 1150 as well as the 1200 (Hex/Cam) and find the differences in engine performance to be negligible. Both bikes are RTPs and I spent a lot of time doing zero to WOT. Emissions aside, I find it hard to believe there are any serious gains to be had tweaking this platform. The Wet Head only makes 15 extra HP from a substantial revision while other bikes can make similar gains with simple bolt ons.

 

I would say it differently based on my measurements, while there appears to be only a small increase at wot and high rpm, the improvement at part throttle acceleration and rpm between 2000 and 4000 is significant. The main reason for the improved accel chart above was faster times in the first part of the dyno pull as it was going from 1700 to 4000 rpm.