View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:32 pm



Reply to topic  [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy 
Author Message
TO220 - Visibile

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:27 am
Posts: 14
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:
Nah, they definitely have their own patent/tech.

But, it doesn't seem to match up with those numbers. Unless they have something completely new.

It just seems like announcing it now, before it is available, is only going to depress current sales. Even worse, if it turns out to be vaporware.


I'd hope they would have new hardware in this lineup.


Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:10 am
Profile
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am
Posts: 109
Probably.

Though, at least if it is a firmware update, they can maintain current sales; if they let people know, in advance.


Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:28 am
Profile
QFP80 - Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Los Angeles
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:
Quote:
The phrasing chosen makes it sound like it just just increasing the analog frequency. Will have to see how it affects sensor response on that output (if any).


They specifically mentioned increasing the sensor frequency to 300Hz ( from their current ~20Hz ). Even the old, faster LC-1 was only around 150Hz. So, this would be a huge upgrade.

... and resolving an actual measurement in under 4ms.

At least that's what was in their handout flyer. Which... BTW seems an odd move. As in "Don't buy our current product. Wait for the new one." I thought that lesson was learned with the Osborn 2 ?


I think it's more of "Don't buy anyone else's product. Wait for our new one." I guess the independent testing showing the MTX-L and the LC-2 being some of the slower units available (~85ms) must have hit a nerve. I think it's just now hitting home that the current Innovate offerings are not rockets by any measure and were even slower than the Glowshift gauge :lol:. Even with the instantaneous mode, the discontinued LC-1 still only managed a 37ms response time in the independent testing.

I spoke to them at SEMA as well and they confirmed it does require new hardware.

On another note, I question the 4ms time for a few reasons.

1. When does the time start? 4ms from when?
    When the signal to introduce the gas is made?
    When the signal from the solenoid introducing the gas is received at the logger?
    When the sensor output starts moving at all?
    When the sensor output moves past a specific point? (like 20:1 afr)

2. When does the time end, 4ms until when?

3. The line drawing shows 4ms from 20 to 12 but the line is already moving downward from some higher number. Why is the entirety of the earlier graph missing? That is the most important part of the response! How can you claim a response time but then seem to measure your units response by using your own units response as the trigger point to determine when the response timer should start? Really?

4. What pressure/flow is the changing test gas running at? is is realistic or is it slamming the sensor with a shock wave just to get a reaction?

Without independent testing of an actual unit, this stuff is just marketing fluff. Waving hands in the air saying don't look behind the curtain. with an actual unit seeming to be at least 6 months off, what is all this based on?

_________________
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.


Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:14 pm
Profile
QFP80 - Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Los Angeles
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:
"The Innovate "Direct Digital" technology can make a complete lambda reading in one cycle.
With a typical pump frequency of 300Hz, the Innovate wideband can produce a valid reading in less than 4ms."

Sounds pretty specific.


I don't get that logic. If the source signal is updating at 300Hz, then that's the fastest, or the ceiling, of the theoretical refresh rate of the sensor, thats not how fast you are actually doing it!

At AEM, the X-Series Digital UEGO controller runs the LSU4.9 sensor at 1Khz, so if we used the same logic, should we claim a 1 mS response time and draw a graph illustrating it? Our internal sampling system runs that fast so in some alternative bizarro-world I guess we should, if thats the low bar being used to make claims nowadays. We wont, we'll claim the ~19-20 mS the 3rd party testing found the entire system to respond at and we will define and stand behind that number fully. To do less would be shady (at best).

If the DirectDigital LC-1 runs at about 150Hz, then why did the independent testing find it to have a response time of 37mS and not the 8mS their current logic would dictate? Personally I think it's because most of the response time lag (29mS) is elsewhere and this is a red herring. If they double the sensor speed (150hz to 300hz) which could reduce the sensor driven A2D lag by half (8ms to 4ms) then that would result in a savings of only 4mS. That still leaves them with a 33mS response time. Dont get me wrong, that's loads better than the MTX-L and LC-2's ~85mS time but it would only be incrementally faster than the long discontinued LC-1.

But all this really doesn't matter as the product doesn't even exist. When it does, it will need independent 3rd party testing to determine whats reality and whats marketing b.s.

Remember, up until just last month, Innovate was advertising the Digital MTX Gauge as the "Worlds Fastest Wideband" and its only been since then that they have stopped claiming that. They are STILL (as of today at least) claiming a "< 25 mS typical" response time on the LC-2 despite only having a maximum analog and serial output rates of 83 mS and the 3rd party testing that found it to average in the ~85mS range. How is it even possible to claim a response time of "( < 25 mS typical)" when the device outputs are only updated every 83 mS!!

So I guess you can figure out how much weight i'm giving their latest claims.

_________________
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.


Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:59 pm
Profile
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am
Posts: 109
Since you talked directly to them, bottom line, are they claiming the MTX-L+ is faster than the x-series devices?

However it is measured ?


Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:37 am
Profile
QFP80 - Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Los Angeles
HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:
Since you talked directly to them, bottom line, are they claiming the MTX-L+ is faster than the x-series devices?

However it is measured ?


I didn't ask. They just said the new hardware wouldn't ship until 2nd quarter. I just spoke to them briefly when I finally got a chance to walk around the show. The guys over there are cool and we just commiserated over how slammed we both were and that we were glad it was just about over.

_________________
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.


Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:00 am
Profile
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Posts: 120
Location: Chicago, USA
OMG 33 pages?!?

Thought I'd comment here. I have an LC1 been using it for 11 years! Every so often it looses calibration. If I try a free air recal, it will not do it. The result is oscillating between 10 and 20 AFR. I thought it was an old sensor. Got a new sensor. Same thing. Tried a hot recal (burned wrist getting it out) and power cycled the LC-1 then let it recal until the led stopped flashing. Put it back in the exhaust. Same oscillation 10-20. Tried it again, but this time from cold. Now it is holding and seems OK, but am convinced it will 'go off' again. Thing is, I have 2 good LSU 4.2 sensors and alan does not have a spartan cable for them any more. Don't want an LC-2 from what I read here. Alan's current cables that use the 4.9. Looks like i'll have to get a spartan2 with a new 4.9 sensor. They are on Amazon.com, but not with sensor. Have to go to Alan directly for that.

Wish I would have known that last summer and I could have dropped by on our way back from Casa Loma to where we were staying in Roncesvalles. :-)

Keith


Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:47 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Posts: 14825
Location: Home sweet home!
Ghost from the past! :-D Welcome back!

I've seen that rail to rail behaviour recently, and it turned out to be a bad connection in the power feed that would cause it to shut down as soon as it powered the heater. Took a while to diagnose as everything seemed OK on the surface. Solid after that was fixed, though. My LC1 from 2006 or 2007 or so is still going strong, too, but it has limited mileage at high heat :-)

_________________
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!


Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:52 pm
Profile WWW
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Posts: 120
Location: Chicago, USA
Fred wrote:
Ghost from the past! :-D Welcome back!

I've seen that rail to rail behaviour recently, and it turned out to be a bad connection in the power feed that would cause it to shut down as soon as it powered the heater. Took a while to diagnose as everything seemed OK on the surface. Solid after that was fixed, though. My LC1 from 2006 or 2007 or so is still going strong, too, but it has limited mileage at high heat :-)


Thanks! I have over 70kmi on my MS setup on the mighty Saab and I think it is 60+kmi with the LC-1 WB.

Is this power going into the cable or power distributed on the board of the LC-1? It just did it again yesterday. Finally get it to calibrate then the next time I power up it comes to temp then goes 10-20 over and over. I may look for a used or so spartan-1 this is ridiculous that it needs to be re-calibrated weekly or more.

Gearhead


Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:12 pm
Profile
LQFP112 - Up with the play

Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am
Posts: 109
Sounds like the old LC-1 may have developed a thermal intermittent. Probably dried up tantalum caps, or such.


Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:41 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF. ColorizeIt.