REVIEW: Ric Shaw Controller - Fitted
Shifty Bastard.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia.
Originally posted by wallerc
What I don't understand is, if the computer is so good controlling the AFR within tight limits, how come Mazda (factory "E") are so conservative? Why do they want to cool things down? What's the risk they are not willing to take? With all the bucketing they have got on fuel consumption, there must be a compelling reason.
Chris
What I don't understand is, if the computer is so good controlling the AFR within tight limits, how come Mazda (factory "E") are so conservative? Why do they want to cool things down? What's the risk they are not willing to take? With all the bucketing they have got on fuel consumption, there must be a compelling reason.
Chris
Gomez.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: Australia
hymee tuned ecu
Hymee,
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?
regards
George "rexi" Thomas
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?
regards
George "rexi" Thomas
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Re: hymee tuned ecu
Originally posted by rexi
Hymee,
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?
regards
George "rexi" Thomas
Hymee,
Congratulations on your hymee tuned piggyback unit, seems very promising indeed.
Will you be offering this hymee tuned piggyback for sale to fellow Rx8 owners complete with the modified plug in wiring loom that you have developed?
If so ,when? and how much?
My rx8 was built in october 03 deliverd november 03.
I have not as yet checked to see whether I have "E" or "F" flashed ecu. Does this matter ?
regards
George "rexi" Thomas
There are no fixed plans at this stage, although a number of members have contacted me expressing their interest.
If you check the sticker on the PCM, make sure you update that thread where I am trying to keep tabs on Calibrations v's VINs.
It it not known whether the F calibration alters any of the tune, or addresses other things. There is certainly a difference between the state of tune between the D and the E cal. The only real way for us to tell is when we get a F cal car all plugged in and we do some comparisons to determine the difference. Unless of course Mazda release "version info" like software comanies do!
Cheers,
Hymee.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
Originally posted by Lock & Load
Paid $ 66.00 for the re:flash which i felt was a rip off but my car does seem that MAZDA kept most information closely guarded and even he had problems accessing it .
MAZDA you are a F%^^&ing joke as far as a company is concerned your products are good but your service and customer relations suck .
Even people that work for mazda have twice stated this to me .
CHEERS
Michael
Paid $ 66.00 for the re:flash which i felt was a rip off but my car does seem that MAZDA kept most information closely guarded and even he had problems accessing it .
MAZDA you are a F%^^&ing joke as far as a company is concerned your products are good but your service and customer relations suck .
Even people that work for mazda have twice stated this to me .
CHEERS
Michael
Great product, r_tt_n company
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
No we haven't. The unit we have does not allow for that to be controlled as far as we know. There is no reference to that in the tuning software we received with the unit. But yes, it is something that we would like to be able to control.
And perhaps there has been an update. I will endeavour to find out more.
Cheers,
Hymee.
And perhaps there has been an update. I will endeavour to find out more.
Cheers,
Hymee.
New Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,944
Likes: 2
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by Hymee
I have not had the time to scratch since my car was re-tuned. It happened last Tuesday, and the car was serviced Wednesday and I went on The Big Drive on Thursday - Sunday.
I submit my report on the Ric Shaw piggy back controller:
The RIC SHAW controller has a mild tune in it, and it only was programmed to take effect at mostly heavy throttle settings.
Firstly, we ran a base dyno run with the controller off to check against the previous baseline. (Note, the car has the HymeeEnhanced Catback fitted). The results were very comparable - which is what we wanted,
Second, we did a run with the RIC SHAW unit turned on. This showed some gains (See "COLD / WARM" dyno chart).
Thirdly, GTP (Guru Tuner Partner / Guru Tuner Phil) spent about an hour or more adjusting the mixtures at practically every RPM and load point (aka throttle setting) above about 25% throttle. The "Standard" RIC SHAW tune only effected about 70% throttle and above. The changes made at each of these load points was done to get the mixture to the ideal power making ratio of around 12.8 - 13.2 range. This was checked at each RPM/Load point using a wideband O2 sensor in conjunction with the dyno holding the RPM's at each desired setting, and applying full load - The operator (GTP) stepped through the throttle positions.
This is very time consuming, and really puts some heat into the drivetrain.
The result --- Wait for it --- An improvement of around 18HP at the tyres.
DON'T STOP READING - IMPORTANT INFO FOLLOWS
To check a measurement like this, it is normal, if possible, to change back to the "baseline" configuration and re-measure. Fortuneately this is easy with the controller being tested. So we turned it off, and - wow a ~9HP improvement over stock. Wait a minute - it is stock! WTF??? WTF??? WTF???
So the car had heated up more than normal, the oil in the tranny and the oil in the diff would have been runnier than normal. The crap in the cat probably got a good burn-off, and the plugs probably cleaned up a bit as well. Letting the car get really hot let us make more measured power.
So the car probably gained ~10HP at the wheels comparing apples to apples. Something to think about...
Also - my car did go into "safe mode". Not that it made it any worse. The ABS and TC lights came on. But we still made good repeatable power. We "reset" the ABS/TC lights, and tried again. Without "safe mode" the car makes LESS POWER. With "Safe Mode" triggered the car makes MORE POWER! It goes against everything we have painstakingly learnt up to that point. Go figure.
But the car does drive much better with the Hymee Enhanced Tune. It is crisper, and pulls stronger. This is noticable on full throttle, and even on part throttle. I feel it even "feels" crisper with cruise control activated. That is a real weird thing to say in public, but I believe this is due to the extra spark advance dialled in, as a feature of the RIC SHAW unit.
The Hymee Enhanced tune-up was to suit my PCM, which is currentlt the "E" flash. I have spent some time experimenting with the unit on a car with a "D" flash. There were issues (as expected) but Wildcard did say he felt the car was more responsive.
Attached is about the most honest dyno chart comparisons I can give. I could also give you the "cold / stock" run v's the "hot / tuned" run for you to see the amazing power gains. But I won't - I am trying to give an honest and accurate results as possible. Like GTP said, "There are too many variables on a chassis dyno. The engine dyno reduces those variables considerably." Thank goodness GTP has access to a engine dyno facility. I have seen him tuning a 1000HP triple-turbo 20B on it.
For best comparisons, I will give two charts. A "Cold" chart comparing the Standard Tune with the RIC SHAW piggy back "as is", and a "Hot" chart comparing the Standard Tune to the RIC SHAW piggy back with the [i]Hymee Enhanced[/b] Tune.
"COLD"
"HOT"
Notice the useable power increase right through the rev range, except for the very bottom. What the graph doesn't show is part throttle. As stated above we have improved things noticable on part throttle as well.
The only other info I have is that we ran out of time, and GTP thinks there is more refinement to be done.
All the best,
Hymee
I submit my report on the Ric Shaw piggy back controller:
The RIC SHAW controller has a mild tune in it, and it only was programmed to take effect at mostly heavy throttle settings.
Firstly, we ran a base dyno run with the controller off to check against the previous baseline. (Note, the car has the HymeeEnhanced Catback fitted). The results were very comparable - which is what we wanted,
Second, we did a run with the RIC SHAW unit turned on. This showed some gains (See "COLD / WARM" dyno chart).
Thirdly, GTP (Guru Tuner Partner / Guru Tuner Phil) spent about an hour or more adjusting the mixtures at practically every RPM and load point (aka throttle setting) above about 25% throttle. The "Standard" RIC SHAW tune only effected about 70% throttle and above. The changes made at each of these load points was done to get the mixture to the ideal power making ratio of around 12.8 - 13.2 range. This was checked at each RPM/Load point using a wideband O2 sensor in conjunction with the dyno holding the RPM's at each desired setting, and applying full load - The operator (GTP) stepped through the throttle positions.
This is very time consuming, and really puts some heat into the drivetrain.
The result --- Wait for it --- An improvement of around 18HP at the tyres.
DON'T STOP READING - IMPORTANT INFO FOLLOWS
To check a measurement like this, it is normal, if possible, to change back to the "baseline" configuration and re-measure. Fortuneately this is easy with the controller being tested. So we turned it off, and - wow a ~9HP improvement over stock. Wait a minute - it is stock! WTF??? WTF??? WTF???
So the car had heated up more than normal, the oil in the tranny and the oil in the diff would have been runnier than normal. The crap in the cat probably got a good burn-off, and the plugs probably cleaned up a bit as well. Letting the car get really hot let us make more measured power.
So the car probably gained ~10HP at the wheels comparing apples to apples. Something to think about...
Also - my car did go into "safe mode". Not that it made it any worse. The ABS and TC lights came on. But we still made good repeatable power. We "reset" the ABS/TC lights, and tried again. Without "safe mode" the car makes LESS POWER. With "Safe Mode" triggered the car makes MORE POWER! It goes against everything we have painstakingly learnt up to that point. Go figure.
But the car does drive much better with the Hymee Enhanced Tune. It is crisper, and pulls stronger. This is noticable on full throttle, and even on part throttle. I feel it even "feels" crisper with cruise control activated. That is a real weird thing to say in public, but I believe this is due to the extra spark advance dialled in, as a feature of the RIC SHAW unit.
The Hymee Enhanced tune-up was to suit my PCM, which is currentlt the "E" flash. I have spent some time experimenting with the unit on a car with a "D" flash. There were issues (as expected) but Wildcard did say he felt the car was more responsive.
Attached is about the most honest dyno chart comparisons I can give. I could also give you the "cold / stock" run v's the "hot / tuned" run for you to see the amazing power gains. But I won't - I am trying to give an honest and accurate results as possible. Like GTP said, "There are too many variables on a chassis dyno. The engine dyno reduces those variables considerably." Thank goodness GTP has access to a engine dyno facility. I have seen him tuning a 1000HP triple-turbo 20B on it.
For best comparisons, I will give two charts. A "Cold" chart comparing the Standard Tune with the RIC SHAW piggy back "as is", and a "Hot" chart comparing the Standard Tune to the RIC SHAW piggy back with the [i]Hymee Enhanced[/b] Tune.
"COLD"
"HOT"
Notice the useable power increase right through the rev range, except for the very bottom. What the graph doesn't show is part throttle. As stated above we have improved things noticable on part throttle as well.
The only other info I have is that we ran out of time, and GTP thinks there is more refinement to be done.
All the best,
Hymee
HEY sorry to dig up this old thread.
Is that what I am dreaming about. As how I understand it, this is exactly how Unichip tune it. Tell me if I am wrong. Or I need APS to say something??
Sound like I was after Ric Shaw unit but no one is going to tune that for me
Registered
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
I guess this is a bump, any updates?
Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?
Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?
Originally Posted by Hymee
Chris,
When I say lean, I should say "less rich". When you are cruising along, the computer is chasing 14.7:1 AFR (this is closed loop). I have proved this with my OBDII monitoring of the wideband O2 sensor. 14.7:1 is the ideal, or stoichometric AFR for petrol/gasoline. The RX-8 does a very, very good job of this when in closed loop mode.
When aiming for power and the computer has come out of closed loop into open loop, we try to get a richer AFR than "stoich". A number lower then 14.7 is richer. Around 13.1:1 is what is typically aimed for. The factory "E" tune gives AFR's in the 12's and even dips into the 11's at times. This is what some term "pig rich". So even though we are getting a leaner mixture, it is still richer than ideal - just less rich than factory.
Does that make sense?? If not I can try to explain some more.
Cheers,
Hymee.
When I say lean, I should say "less rich". When you are cruising along, the computer is chasing 14.7:1 AFR (this is closed loop). I have proved this with my OBDII monitoring of the wideband O2 sensor. 14.7:1 is the ideal, or stoichometric AFR for petrol/gasoline. The RX-8 does a very, very good job of this when in closed loop mode.
When aiming for power and the computer has come out of closed loop into open loop, we try to get a richer AFR than "stoich". A number lower then 14.7 is richer. Around 13.1:1 is what is typically aimed for. The factory "E" tune gives AFR's in the 12's and even dips into the 11's at times. This is what some term "pig rich". So even though we are getting a leaner mixture, it is still richer than ideal - just less rich than factory.
Does that make sense?? If not I can try to explain some more.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by Zaku-8
I guess this is a bump, any updates?
Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?
Also, I am somewhat curious. so 14.7:1 is stoich and the ECU stock does a good job of keeping near this at idle. However, 14.7:1 is an ideal stoich ratio, correct? How complete is combustion at this ratio in reality? If complete combustion at idle is the goal, should this be retuned for more lean?
AFR for best power is around 13.something:1. My RX-8's stock fuelling in open loop has gone as rich as 11:1.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by truemagellen
I too would like an update on this, so bump
We will be using it on my twin-screw supercharger project, so that is probably the fist time we will really be using it in anger. We have not done any more tuning with this unit since I last reported results here. And I have not been running the unit for 2 reasons - he first being that my car was re-flashed with the "G" calibration, and the second reason being we decided to wait for our FI project.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Theoretically it's 12.6:1
It has been demonstrated and bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to see and thermodynamic science for it.
14:1 is the ratio at which maximum energy is released from gasoline under any condition.
Why is it that vehicles produce more power at a point where some of the fuel is actually wasted? (I do realize that it is often the case, I just don't think it is anything more than a way to compensate for bad tuning.)
Is it a charge cooling thing? In that case, the numbers should lie in the equation for efficiency since we are just counteracting waste latent heat.
Is it fire-front suppression? In that case it is a spark timing issue.
Is it just for "safety"?
Please elaborate.
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Theoretically it's 12.6:1
Originally Posted by MazdaManiac
I'd like to see a cogent argument for this, please.
It has been demonstrated and bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to see and thermodynamic science for it.
14:1 is the ratio at which maximum energy is released from gasoline under any condition.
Why is it that vehicles produce more power at a point where some of the fuel is actually wasted? (I do realize that it is often the case, I just don't think it is anything more than a way to compensate for bad tuning.)
Is it a charge cooling thing? In that case, the numbers should lie in the equation for efficiency since we are just counteracting waste latent heat.
Is it fire-front suppression? In that case it is a spark timing issue.
Is it just for "safety"?
Please elaborate.
It has been demonstrated and bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to see and thermodynamic science for it.
14:1 is the ratio at which maximum energy is released from gasoline under any condition.
Why is it that vehicles produce more power at a point where some of the fuel is actually wasted? (I do realize that it is often the case, I just don't think it is anything more than a way to compensate for bad tuning.)
Is it a charge cooling thing? In that case, the numbers should lie in the equation for efficiency since we are just counteracting waste latent heat.
Is it fire-front suppression? In that case it is a spark timing issue.
Is it just for "safety"?
Please elaborate.
- Tuned the first 200+ MPH pass for a Rotary in the world.
- Just designed a new intake manifold for 13B / 20B. This change alone took a 20B drag racer from a 175MPH pass to a 196MPH pass. ref: http://ausrotary.dntinternet.com/for...ic.php?t=52936
Respectfully, in this regard, theory means nothing. I thought any fair-dinkum tuner knew that slightly rich of stoich was for maximum power. And I know that in practice it is not 12.6:1
Cheers,
Hymee.
Thread Starter
Race Steward
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,430
Likes: 2
From: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Hence the use of the word "theoretically".
Perhaps that is how they got the original power figures
Cheers,
Hymee.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I realize that more power is often made at rich A/F ratios.
I just wanted an explanation.
That said, I found maximum power on my Miata at 13.9:1. This was at 12 PSI.
That combination made more power than 14 PSI and the 12.5:1 or so that was needed to keep it from pinging.
I realize that more power is often made at rich A/F ratios.
I just wanted an explanation.
That said, I found maximum power on my Miata at 13.9:1. This was at 12 PSI.
That combination made more power than 14 PSI and the 12.5:1 or so that was needed to keep it from pinging.
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
I have seen the 12.6 number a couple of times but did some searching on the net. Check this site out. Look at the first definition. It seems to support the mid 13's as best power. I wonder if 12.6 is what it is when not under pressure as it would be in a combustion chamber? I'm not that great at Chemistry so I have no clue.
^ Link? ^
Pressure makes no difference to the formula.
A given number of gasoline molecules requires an exact number of air molecules to burn completely into CO2 and H2O.
Obviously, the ICE is not completely efficient to begin with because things other than carbon dioxide and water come out of the tailpipe.
I want an explanation for that and why the efficiency apparently goes down when we add boost.
Pressure makes no difference to the formula.
A given number of gasoline molecules requires an exact number of air molecules to burn completely into CO2 and H2O.
Obviously, the ICE is not completely efficient to begin with because things other than carbon dioxide and water come out of the tailpipe.
I want an explanation for that and why the efficiency apparently goes down when we add boost.
Registered
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
I would guess incomplete combustion and competing reactions at stoichiometric or *ideal* mixtures leave some oxygen unaccounted for. Rich mixtures then would mean that more fuel is available to combust this leftover oxygen.
Incomplete combustion presumably would be the result of non-ideal conditions- the mixture is not as homogenous as we would like due to turbulence and incomplete carburation after fuel injection. I would also guess that these elements do vary with pressure, although I don't know how.
Gasoline itself isnt a pure substance, it is a hydrocarbon mixture with a particular octane number. Also, oxygen isn't the only gas consumed in an engine either... air is, which includes significant quantity of nitrogen. Hence competing reactions take place. Gas additives apparently complicate this even more.
I'm not a chemist so consider this "hypothetical articulation"
Incomplete combustion presumably would be the result of non-ideal conditions- the mixture is not as homogenous as we would like due to turbulence and incomplete carburation after fuel injection. I would also guess that these elements do vary with pressure, although I don't know how.
Gasoline itself isnt a pure substance, it is a hydrocarbon mixture with a particular octane number. Also, oxygen isn't the only gas consumed in an engine either... air is, which includes significant quantity of nitrogen. Hence competing reactions take place. Gas additives apparently complicate this even more.
I'm not a chemist so consider this "hypothetical articulation"
Registered
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
as far as why efficiency decreases under boost, I think that there is probably some fundamental thermodynamics argument. I dont know it, though
this site seems informative
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
Richer mixtures slow combustion flame front (why?)
>> later peak pressure in comparison to TDC >> less probability of knock and more torque as the result of peak pressure being later and so having more leverage on crankshaft.
This situation might be required under boost, since boost increases flame front speed
This might be a tangent but how does one calculate e-shaft torque for a given pressure and crank angle?
this site seems informative
http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/resources/rich.php
Richer mixtures slow combustion flame front (why?)
>> later peak pressure in comparison to TDC >> less probability of knock and more torque as the result of peak pressure being later and so having more leverage on crankshaft.
This situation might be required under boost, since boost increases flame front speed
This might be a tangent but how does one calculate e-shaft torque for a given pressure and crank angle?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TotalAutoPerformance
Vendor Classifieds
12
Oct 17, 2018 09:00 AM
hufflepuff
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
6
May 30, 2016 10:45 AM
