Originally Posted by
curth
Do I understand this correctly:
That folks are cranking their endbells back to reduce or eliminate the factory timing advance, then adding it back with software so it comes in at the appropriate time? If so that's exactly what I'm talking about, glad to know I'm sort of on the right track
Regarding your timing/rpm optimization comments, it stands to reason that for a given motor their should be a "family of curves" that relates torque/RPM for each given timing advance. It seems that this data could be collected and known for any given motor as a controller operates, to produce an adaptive controller, ie:
A controller could note the PW, RPM, and current timing advance and compute a velocity derivative to infer the acceleration and thereby guess the torque the motor is producing, then vary those parameters in order to maximize the desired characteristics. Store that data in a 'learning mode', then upload it for user consideration. Knowing where optimal torque and speed points are could help zero in on an optimal setup regardless of differences in motor manufacturing methods and calibrations (re: Novak vs everyone else)
I realize this might tend to bury a user in too much data, some culling/baking would have to be done, but its exciting to me (can you tell?) that we can even talk about it. I can't wait to get my hands dirty. Of course I am well aware that I am coming at this cold to an industry that has been race-testing algorithms for years now so I'm not hoping to figure something out no one has thought of before, but it would be nice to come at it from an unusual angle
I can relate a bit(though I'm more of a builder than a programmer), but I can tell you from my experience that the Ballistic motors really DON'T like retarding the mechanical timing much. I believe that 15 degrees(which is about 3 notches from the "N" mark on the timing decal) is as much as you can get away with before the motor starts becoming sluggish & running MUCH hotter. When I got my Ballistics & first tried the 203 software, I was worried about the extreme total timing, so I tried to set the motor to about the same as some of the competitors(like the Epic Duo 2, for example, which likes having the timing around 5-10 degrees & you can be VERY aggressive with the RS's settings). So I turned it down to the edge of the label(best guess of around 5 degrees), but the motor just wouldn't run right that way, I could go super conservative on the RS settings(compared to my friends, at least, like around 15 degrees lower on timing boost & no turbo, & a wider span from start to ending rpm) but it would just be slow(in fact it'd be a real pig out of corners) & the motor even got up to 222 degrees F once(how it avoided eating itself I have no idea). Oh, & this was also trying to gear it like the other motors were being geared(& what had worked before with the v200 software), but it just wasn't working. So in the end I tried turning the motor's timing back to factory spec(back to the N mark) & just regeared it(went from what we had been using, a 4.6:1 FDR to about a 5.19:1) & then went back to more aggressive RS settings, & it immediately started running great, strong acceleration, good top end & coming off the track at around 140 degrees F, just the way it should. So while some motors will respond well to retarding the timing a lot, there are others that just won't like it(like the Ballistics, & I'd also suspect the LRP X-12's & Epic Nemesis motors, all of which I've heard similar reports).....
