Torque Model editing functionality now in beta!

[Ben Charles]

I'll share some info on a build I was part of a month or so ago... F1x C7 z06.... had to play with the torque coifficients quite a bit to get the car to respond.... anytime the ECU sees a 640 ft lbs of delivered Tq it will use tq management spark to pull timing. Only way to fix it was to decrease tq coifficients which reported less tq
Delivered tq was still a nice linear curve . The Pro shop that had it first the delivered tq look like a EKG....

[Engineer@HPT]

We apologize for the inconvenience. There is a new build up that should fix the saving issue.

[Keith@HPTuners]

Sorry for the issues guys.

3.5.81 seems to be fixed.

[Higgs Boson]

hopefully that would be 3.5.81

[GHuggins]

Just got a email saying the latest 3.5 had a serious bug too and needed to update? Updated and now on 3.5.82 - anyway, if you haven't gotten the email and using the earlier one - might want to update - at least I assume this was talking about the 3.5.81 update and not the previous that just said 1.something?

[veee8]

Yes, I tested this mornings Beta, and everything seems to be back to working well.
Made 855 rwhp on a C7 this morning and the torque editor did do it's job. It does make it easy to visualize your torque tables, and was able to see a couple of dips. All and all my coefficients were pretty close before, but having the editor will make it much simpler from here on out.

[Ben Charles]

Yes, I tested this mornings Beta, and everything seems to be back to working well.
Made 855 rwhp on a C7 this morning and the torque editor did do it's job. It does make it easy to visualize your torque tables, and was able to see a couple of dips. All and all my coefficients were pretty close before, but having the editor will make it much simpler from here on out.

Great!! Plan to mess with one this weekend! The factory tables are not very smooth, did you or anyone else noticed that your tables are much more linear and smooth after modding!???

[veee8]

After modding yes, much more linear and reasonable, I did have some valleys between rpm breakpoints, a little bit of interpolating was able to fix it. Being able to see what the "tables" look like, makes total sense.

[GHuggins]

Knowing this and without having the ability to test on any gen 5 vehicles at the moment - I would have to agree with Higgs where MBT / "maximum brake torque" or simply put optimum ignition timing would have to be assumed to be the "0" ignition timing table and the "+" tables would have to be the retarded ignition equivalents... If this is truly how it's designed then the most important table to dial in would then be assumed to be "0" ignition timing tables - right? This would make things lots easier I would think... Jarrah seems to have the most time invested in all of this and the most understanding of them - hopefully he'll chime in to confirm this...

If this holds water - then would the false knock and timing retards be fixed with this or would we want to dial in a couple of the other tables by pulling increments of timing out of the timing tables after finding mbt?

[GHuggins]

But then looking at the tables themselves - this also doesn't make any sense unless something is really wrong with how the spark numbers are attached to the tables? Why would a fully retarded engine make more torque? I know in the perfect world - a engine is most optimal with ignition timing near 0 - is this really how these tables are setup?

[GHuggins]

The other question I think that would lead to is Checking or Unchecking "Link Selection." It looks like if you just apply a % error then it applies to all anyways, in which case I am almost inclined to just put Spark Min and Max at 0 / 0 so there is only one table. Any issues with that?

Looks like we would also need to log cam angle and apply for each one. (actually, changing the cam angle doesn't change the values)

Also, when I change the axis values they don't save. Is this something planned for upcoming versions?

I think there's just some things wrong with the editor in these cases - I specifically remember the cam angles changing the values before - they are different in the main torque model coefficients after all / the error corrections also weren't previously "always" modifying all of the tables - we were able to modify each individually before - unless everything is supposed to be this way?

I am still questioning whether or not we just need to dial in one table - the (0) mbt table for every cam angle and map value and leave it at that?

Unless I'm seeing things - the rpm axis is wrong now too.

[Higgs Boson]

yes the airmass defaults to like 800 as well. it changed after .81 i think

[Chris@HPTuners]

The spark values are the absolute values, not referenced to MBT

[Higgs Boson]

The spark values are the absolute values, not referenced to MBT

lol, it's like a roller coaster. is there any other info that you guys can share regarding the new torque tool so we can use it most effectively?

[Keith@HPTuners]

At this point, we need users in the field to use it and report back their findings.

[GHuggins]

The spark values are the absolute values, not referenced to MBT

Well, that actually better explains the higher torque numbers in the higher spark tables... Kind of liked the idea of only needing to alter one table - oh well...

[GHuggins]

It's still modifying all of the tables if you use the smooth and interpolate functions - the main box edits aren't anymore, but smooth and interpolate are...

Also I know this is really minor at the moment, but would it be possible to get it to where you could select entire axis rows or columns via the header cells and to where it modifies the B, C and D tables at the same time so you don't have to copy and paste all of them individually?

Thank You

[Keith@HPTuners]

Uncheck the Link Selections.

Remember though, you probably want to scale your changes to all the tables, not just one. Every table is taken into account when recalculating the new coefficients.

[GHuggins]

Posting a picture - unchecked - modifying top box only - it modifies the entire boxes below...

This is honestly with this mornings update and in a gen4 I'm using for another threads reference - the gen 4's have been working the same in the tool up until now if that's the issue?

[GHuggins]

Verified it's not just gen4's - gen5's do the same