REVIEW: Ric Shaw Controller - Fitted
03-10-2004, 09:28 PM
#26
Originally posted by NickG
And please don't always assume that overseas forum participants necessarily search and review the entire forum database before posting replies to other participants in their local forum....
And please don't always assume that overseas forum participants necessarily search and review the entire forum database before posting replies to other participants in their local forum....
I didn't realize that users "overseas" were so lazy...
03-11-2004, 01:18 AM
#27
aka Smoothy
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to make a couple of points about the prior posts:
1) Mazda Maniac - Jeff has made some immensly interesting contributions to this forum which are worth everyone here reading your knowledge of the RX8 will be increased by doing this.
2) Nick - G There are many people here that wish to improve their car. Mazda have different aims that we as enthusiasts have.
They want to sell cars.
We want our cars to be the best they can be.
These are different motivations.
I understand your feeling that if it can be made better why didn't Mazda do it. Read the above. We have different aims for the car.
BTW I agree that if we modify the motor to make it work harder we are probably taking some life from it. Life is full of compromises. We all make choices. Hopefully reading this Forum makes us all better informed when we make those choices.
1) Mazda Maniac - Jeff has made some immensly interesting contributions to this forum which are worth everyone here reading your knowledge of the RX8 will be increased by doing this.
2) Nick - G There are many people here that wish to improve their car. Mazda have different aims that we as enthusiasts have.
They want to sell cars.
We want our cars to be the best they can be.
These are different motivations.
I understand your feeling that if it can be made better why didn't Mazda do it. Read the above. We have different aims for the car.
BTW I agree that if we modify the motor to make it work harder we are probably taking some life from it. Life is full of compromises. We all make choices. Hopefully reading this Forum makes us all better informed when we make those choices.
03-11-2004, 10:09 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mundaring, West Australia
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For most owners’ everyday driving needs our Aussie cars are well balanced and tuned, perform extremely well in daily driving conditions, and don’t urgently need improving on. But what we’re dealing with here is the endless quest for MORE that drives the dedicated Owner/Tuner car nut. We are the types who drive the car home and then immediately get out the tool-kit and start unscrewing things to see how they work and how we might change them around… just that little bit….. and then just that little bit more…. and then…
Claims that we can get better performance, better economy, better environmental outcomes etc all at the same time may sound a little over-optimistic. But, as others have said, any mass production engine can be improved with a certain amount of polishing, tweaking, tuning and general alteration etc. If the goal was to improve everything across the board with no compromises then it can still be done, although it would generally need some additional mechanical work on the engine to complement the tuning, and the gains would often be relatively modest.
But let’s be honest. The number of RX8 owners who are going to buy performance modifying equipment specifically so that they can improve their emissions (for instance) can be counted on the fingers of one ear…
Most people will be looking for more power and will be prepared to make some sacrifices in other areas, on the assumption that in stock form there are reasonably conservative margins for error that can be sliced a little thinner without causing any great problems.
But these are early days. Much of what you read on forums like this is often hot air. In amongst the good stuff is a mixture of educated guesswork and half-truths spiced up with a good sprinkling of enthusiastic bullshitting from most of us.
But the good information does slowly emerge, and it’s an enjoyable process (for the enthusiasts anyway). For most of us it’s the journey that’s fun, not arriving at any particular point of gain (which we’d immediately change when we got there anyway). :pSo don’t expect too many huge increases, major breakthroughs or 100% accurate information, especially in the first few months after release of a new engine. But do expect that the keen and knowledgeable few, such as Ric Shaw, will discover ways to make the car perform better in all sorts of ways and that gradually the useful information will filter through. Also expect that Mazda engineers are also working on improving the engine and that what they are doing and what the enthusiast are doing will have some areas of overlap.
Last edited by BVD; 03-12-2004 at 12:22 AM.
03-13-2004, 06:35 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mundaring, West Australia
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hymee
Post of the day, BVD!
Cheers,
Hymee.
Post of the day, BVD!
Cheers,
Hymee.
It was nearly my last post too…. I set out for a mountain bike ride today through some dramatically rough and hilly bushland and promptly got lost. Doh!
What was supposed to be a 12k ride turned into a 35k slog. Amazing countryside, and worth the effort though. A combination of some poor trail markers, followed later by a stupendously dumb directional decision on my part. Fortunately, two very kind young ladies (the only other riders I saw on the trip) re-directed me and led me back to a recognisable road. Good riders too.
Obviously I need a Global Positioning navigation aid on the bike, never mind the RX….
Actually, a reconditioned brain might do the trick - must check the Yellow Pages.....
03-13-2004, 06:36 PM
#35
rock-->o<--hard place
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canberra, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 3,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get this thread back on track, I was wondering if there is an optimum air/fuel mixture of the Renesis and, given the discussion above concerning perhaps a richer mix for a rotary, how this might compare with, say, an LS1?
03-14-2004, 01:02 AM
#37
Originally posted by timbo
To get this thread back on track, I was wondering if there is an optimum air/fuel mixture of the Renesis and, given the discussion above concerning perhaps a richer mix for a rotary, how this might compare with, say, an LS1?
To get this thread back on track, I was wondering if there is an optimum air/fuel mixture of the Renesis and, given the discussion above concerning perhaps a richer mix for a rotary, how this might compare with, say, an LS1?
13.2:1 generates maximum power.
9:1 is about the richest ratio that will still support combustion.
These are general guidelines.
The Renesis can be run as lean as 17:1 in parts of the RPM range and at some loads.
It will start to loose power almost across the board below 12.5:1 and very obviously so below 11.9:1 which is where the original PCM calibrations were.
03-14-2004, 03:11 AM
#40
Timbo,
I sort of have this funny feeling inside me that says the air/fuel mixture doesn't really care what sort of mechanical cycle it has gone through, as the ignition is basically a chemical reaction.
Like Jeff said, maxiumum power is generally slightly richer than ideal, pretty much for all internal combustion engines.
What I mean is the "ideal" or Stoichometric AFR is something that is dependant on the fuel. Around 14:1 for gasoline, but varies with each "type" of fuel. The O2 sensor in the car actual measure what is called "lambda" which is a number that represents if all the oxygen has been consumed in the combustion process. A Lambda of 1.0 means "stoich", and if the value is > 1.0 then this means lean (extra oxygen still available), conversely values < 1.0 are rich.
It is a neat measurement, as it is not dependant on the fuel used. The actual AFR can be computed by multiplying the lambda value by the stoich value for the fuel. So if we used 14, and we had a Lambda reading of .889, then our AFR would be 12.446:1 (12.446 parts air and 1 part fuel, which is richer than 14:1)
There are all sorts of reasons why the computer changes the mixture at different load points / RPM's.
Cheers,
Hymee
I sort of have this funny feeling inside me that says the air/fuel mixture doesn't really care what sort of mechanical cycle it has gone through, as the ignition is basically a chemical reaction.
Like Jeff said, maxiumum power is generally slightly richer than ideal, pretty much for all internal combustion engines.
What I mean is the "ideal" or Stoichometric AFR is something that is dependant on the fuel. Around 14:1 for gasoline, but varies with each "type" of fuel. The O2 sensor in the car actual measure what is called "lambda" which is a number that represents if all the oxygen has been consumed in the combustion process. A Lambda of 1.0 means "stoich", and if the value is > 1.0 then this means lean (extra oxygen still available), conversely values < 1.0 are rich.
It is a neat measurement, as it is not dependant on the fuel used. The actual AFR can be computed by multiplying the lambda value by the stoich value for the fuel. So if we used 14, and we had a Lambda reading of .889, then our AFR would be 12.446:1 (12.446 parts air and 1 part fuel, which is richer than 14:1)
There are all sorts of reasons why the computer changes the mixture at different load points / RPM's.
Cheers,
Hymee
03-14-2004, 06:11 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mundaring, West Australia
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motion seconded - it’s great information isn’t it.
Here's some more general waffle from me that might help explain some of the issues to some readers.
As most of you probably know, there’s a lot more to modern tuning than just adjusting a mixture figure and seeing if the car goes faster.
It’s a bit like the old days of rock and roll when you all you had was just a volume **** on your amp, compared with a modern sound mixing board that can shape and balance every aspect of a performance as it’s happening. You can do a lot more, and a good mixer can improve a performance, but a bad one can screw it up.
I bought my first car 45 years ago (at age 12) and it had a lever on the steering column that allowed you to manually advance and retard the ignition timing to suit conditions. On the fuel/air front you had a choke **** that pulled a cable that closed a ‘butterfly’ in the carburettor, reducing the airflow and richening up the mixture to start the car. Apart from the accelerator, that was about the extent of the variables. On later cars both functions were automated, but still in a pretty basic and linear sort of fashion.
I’m a bit rusty on the modern theory (it’s 35 years since I qualified as a Motor Engineer and I worked directly in the industry for less than 10 years). So please jump in and correct me where I’m wrong, but, if I understand it correctly these are some of the factors affecting tune and performance. Some you can change as the car is going along, others you can only change in the workshop.
Ignition timing:
This changes the point at which you fire the spark and start the mixture burning. The process is a burn and not an instantaneous explosion, so the point at which you fire the spark is important if you are to get the most power and the cleanest and most complete burn. The amount of time that you have to complete the entire process of intake, compression, burn and exhaust will obvious vary hugely between an idling engine and one revving at 9,000 rpm, so varying when you begin the process is an issue. The amount and composition quality of the mixture will also vary depending on factors such as the speed and pressure of the airflow at the time, etc.
Old engines advanced and retarded the spark using a system of springs and weights that moved a plate using the principle of centrifugal force to change the timing for different engine speeds. Modern electronic ignition (which I know nothing about) can presumably vary the choices it makes in a less linear and mechanical fashion, and also more precisely.
Fuel/air mixture
Trying to overcome the difficulties inherent in trying to keep a constant mix ratio between two different elements (a gas and a liquid – air and fuel) supplied through two separate and dissimilar delivery systems, under a wide variety of conditions has never been easy. Depending on such things as engine load, throttle setting, available air-flow, temperature, etc the mix can vary in ways you don’t want.
Many things affect the equation, including length and design of the air intake (what is optimum for one engine condition will not be for another, so it’s always a compromise), the amount of back-pressure from the exhaust system, the temperature and quality of the fuel and the air, the points at which the intake and exhaust valves or ports open and close, etc etc. Many things can only be changed in the workshop, so air/fuel mixes and ignition timing would seem to be the main interest of engine management systems.
Roughly speaking, they are trying to a) keep the mix ratios in the desired range – between too lean and too rich – and b) to balance differing requirements such as providing the best power when and where it’s needed, delivering the best economy both overall and particularly at those times that maximum power is not the main game, and to do all of this as cleanly as possible, etc. Tuning such a system is a complex and subtle art, and it involves more than just a richening or leaning across the board.
If I understand it correctly, what Canzoomer, Ric Shaw, Hymee and the other more knowledgeable guys are trying to do is:
A: Firstly figure out where Mazda have set all these variables as stock (particularly fuel/air mixes and ignition timings in all their range of combinations), and then try and get a feel for what their objectives were in setting the values they did. Presumably there’s also a bunch of stuff to figure out regarding the operation of the sensors that can contribute to or over-ride the settings.
B: Decide how and where to apply the variations in tune, depending on what the clients want – i.e what aspect of the car’s performance do you want to try and change, by how much, under what circumstances (i..e in what part of the rev range, or for what kind of driving) and at what amount of cost and risk to other elements of the car. I.e. different fuel maps for different parts of the rev range and varying engine conditions, altered timing, etc.
These are not simple issues and will be debated, experimented with and tested for a long time. The full effects of the changes you make are not always immediately apparent or easily measured. This could be a very long-lived discussion…
Good luck guys.
Here's some more general waffle from me that might help explain some of the issues to some readers.
As most of you probably know, there’s a lot more to modern tuning than just adjusting a mixture figure and seeing if the car goes faster.
It’s a bit like the old days of rock and roll when you all you had was just a volume **** on your amp, compared with a modern sound mixing board that can shape and balance every aspect of a performance as it’s happening. You can do a lot more, and a good mixer can improve a performance, but a bad one can screw it up.
I bought my first car 45 years ago (at age 12) and it had a lever on the steering column that allowed you to manually advance and retard the ignition timing to suit conditions. On the fuel/air front you had a choke **** that pulled a cable that closed a ‘butterfly’ in the carburettor, reducing the airflow and richening up the mixture to start the car. Apart from the accelerator, that was about the extent of the variables. On later cars both functions were automated, but still in a pretty basic and linear sort of fashion.
I’m a bit rusty on the modern theory (it’s 35 years since I qualified as a Motor Engineer and I worked directly in the industry for less than 10 years). So please jump in and correct me where I’m wrong, but, if I understand it correctly these are some of the factors affecting tune and performance. Some you can change as the car is going along, others you can only change in the workshop.
Ignition timing:
This changes the point at which you fire the spark and start the mixture burning. The process is a burn and not an instantaneous explosion, so the point at which you fire the spark is important if you are to get the most power and the cleanest and most complete burn. The amount of time that you have to complete the entire process of intake, compression, burn and exhaust will obvious vary hugely between an idling engine and one revving at 9,000 rpm, so varying when you begin the process is an issue. The amount and composition quality of the mixture will also vary depending on factors such as the speed and pressure of the airflow at the time, etc.
Old engines advanced and retarded the spark using a system of springs and weights that moved a plate using the principle of centrifugal force to change the timing for different engine speeds. Modern electronic ignition (which I know nothing about) can presumably vary the choices it makes in a less linear and mechanical fashion, and also more precisely.
Fuel/air mixture
Trying to overcome the difficulties inherent in trying to keep a constant mix ratio between two different elements (a gas and a liquid – air and fuel) supplied through two separate and dissimilar delivery systems, under a wide variety of conditions has never been easy. Depending on such things as engine load, throttle setting, available air-flow, temperature, etc the mix can vary in ways you don’t want.
Many things affect the equation, including length and design of the air intake (what is optimum for one engine condition will not be for another, so it’s always a compromise), the amount of back-pressure from the exhaust system, the temperature and quality of the fuel and the air, the points at which the intake and exhaust valves or ports open and close, etc etc. Many things can only be changed in the workshop, so air/fuel mixes and ignition timing would seem to be the main interest of engine management systems.
Roughly speaking, they are trying to a) keep the mix ratios in the desired range – between too lean and too rich – and b) to balance differing requirements such as providing the best power when and where it’s needed, delivering the best economy both overall and particularly at those times that maximum power is not the main game, and to do all of this as cleanly as possible, etc. Tuning such a system is a complex and subtle art, and it involves more than just a richening or leaning across the board.
If I understand it correctly, what Canzoomer, Ric Shaw, Hymee and the other more knowledgeable guys are trying to do is:
A: Firstly figure out where Mazda have set all these variables as stock (particularly fuel/air mixes and ignition timings in all their range of combinations), and then try and get a feel for what their objectives were in setting the values they did. Presumably there’s also a bunch of stuff to figure out regarding the operation of the sensors that can contribute to or over-ride the settings.
B: Decide how and where to apply the variations in tune, depending on what the clients want – i.e what aspect of the car’s performance do you want to try and change, by how much, under what circumstances (i..e in what part of the rev range, or for what kind of driving) and at what amount of cost and risk to other elements of the car. I.e. different fuel maps for different parts of the rev range and varying engine conditions, altered timing, etc.
These are not simple issues and will be debated, experimented with and tested for a long time. The full effects of the changes you make are not always immediately apparent or easily measured. This could be a very long-lived discussion…
Good luck guys.
Last edited by BVD; 03-14-2004 at 07:36 PM.
03-14-2004, 11:56 PM
#43
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 3,535
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
BVD
You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .
Great work well written , Hymee is being mentally challenged .ha ha ha .
cheers
michael
You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .
Great work well written , Hymee is being mentally challenged .ha ha ha .
cheers
michael
03-17-2004, 01:38 AM
#47
Rics Controller has been running fine on my car for a week know. It feels crisper to drive. Have not been on a proper dyno yet. When we do, it will be re-tuned.
I did some tests with the MR Dyno the other night, and found it was consistantly a little bit quicker in my 40-105km/h test. I would rather wait till we put it on the dyno and tune it up before I sprout off any figures.
Exhaust. We are having a "session" tomorrow night, and I should (hopefully) be able to start shipping the first couple on Friday, and the rest early next week. I have had the custom shipping boxes made. I have to get them from the factory 2 at a time.
Thanks for your patience, and my apologies for the delays.
Cheers,
Hymee.
I did some tests with the MR Dyno the other night, and found it was consistantly a little bit quicker in my 40-105km/h test. I would rather wait till we put it on the dyno and tune it up before I sprout off any figures.
Exhaust. We are having a "session" tomorrow night, and I should (hopefully) be able to start shipping the first couple on Friday, and the rest early next week. I have had the custom shipping boxes made. I have to get them from the factory 2 at a time.
Thanks for your patience, and my apologies for the delays.
Cheers,
Hymee.
03-17-2004, 06:46 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mundaring, West Australia
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Lock & Load
BVD
You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .
BVD
You have become very tecknically informative of late , are you going to challenge the various rotary gurus for number 1 rotary posts???? .
I'm way behind the gurus, as it's years since I rebuilt an engine or did anything other than superficial tuning.
Just supporting Hymee's cries of "Patience Grasshopper" by trying to explain why these things take as long as they do to fully explore and sort out. (Oh, and I guess we all like to show off what little knowledge we have... or think we have... :p )
However, I'm as impatient as the next guy to hear what they're finding about Mazda's settings, and where they think they can be best tweaked.
I guess we're all a bit like kids in the back seat calling "Are we there yet Uncle Hymee, are we there yet???"
Does Ric Shaw have a web site with details about his controller, cost, specs, etc?
Last edited by BVD; 03-17-2004 at 06:49 PM.
03-18-2004, 02:43 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mundaring, West Australia
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, me too Gomez. 
Maybe it's only avaliable by phone or in person. Geez, one gets to rely on the net all too easily.
Perhaps Thing could do some web-crawling and unearth some price and spec info for us ....
Maybe it's only avaliable by phone or in person. Geez, one gets to rely on the net all too easily.
Perhaps Thing could do some web-crawling and unearth some price and spec info for us ....