That would certainly make the unit more user friendly. From what I understand, the 2000 will have a much better user interface where it comes to being able to quickly come up with a boost curve, but the 1000 will still be able to come up with any sort of boost curve that the 2000 can come up with. It will just be more work with the 1000 to figure out the settings that will give you the desired boost curve. If someone is already used to dealing with the 1000 to come up with complex boost curves, then switching to the 2000 would not result in a performance advantage. Just easier to make changes.
Although, I have to say that the controller settings that I'm presently using can be changed easily to come up with some pretty strange curves, if they were needed. That's mainly why I have all six stages being used. Even though now, the target control curve could be made with less stages, the timer points for the stages are set at strategic spots so that if there is a traction problem in a certain part of the run, I can quickly adjust the control curve to battle the problem without having to start adding stages in and having to figure out the timer issues. With the stages already present and the timer settings for those stages roughly set already, it makes for slighty quicker changes when a traction problem comes up. A problem with a different track and/or condition is a good example.
Like what happened to me at Firebird. The controller changes I had to make at that event went smooth and quick. It would have been a different story if I had to start adding stages in and figure out the correct timer settings.
No, I don't know if the control pressures are being met exactly. I do a rough look at it, but I don't get that critical with it. I'm more concerned with the boost curve that the settings are creating than if the control pressure curve is matching the settings exactly.If you do this, then you already know if your target boost settings were possible, which was all I was asking from the beginning. Looking at your 3rd and 4th stages I wasn't sure it was possible to reach the traget settings. Once again, I was not talking about your car or the mechanical ability for the CO2 to reach a traget which you keep coming back to, I was talking about the strategy itself.
How long did you have to stay on the TC during staging up to launching?There really is no breakpoint. Obviously you want it loose enough to make staging the car as easy as possible without burning the fluid.
As far as track conditions. I had a really loose converter for the smallblock combo that I used in Reynolds a couple years ago. It only dropped 400 on the gear change but would 60' in the 1.34 range and the car would still run 5.0's. I could make 6-7 passes on it before the fluid needed to be changed.
Timing? I think most traction control systems like to use ignition timing.The 2000 will not just be a time based system. Although the 1000 is more controller than most will ever need, I can see some of the benefits of the 2000 that would be almost like cheating :biggrin:. I can only imagine some of the ideas Cal already has thought up.
I gave up on all the stages of boost control as I was fixing the chassis I was eliminating boost stages and found other methods of controlling the power rather than boost control that were more precise, predictable, and repeatable.
What program are you using to open this file?Here is a log of the only 1/4 mile pass. It stalled at 3200@0psi and did a 1.44 60ft. The launch was set @ 8psi on the boost controller. The NOS shuts off @ 149kpa.
what program are you using to open this file?
Is it different than CCom WP rel ver. 1.02, the free downloaded software? I can't open it.
No, I don't know if the control pressures are being met exactly. I do a rough look at it, but I don't get that critical with it. I'm more concerned with the boost curve that the settings are creating than if the control pressure curve is matching the settings exactly.
I'm still not exactly sure what you're looking for. Are you wondering if the control pressure can jump from 23 to 27.9 in '?.??' time span? You know as well as I do that there is no way to save a data capture with this unit, so I don't have any reference to go back to so that I can dissect it more carefully for you.
I am asking if that strategy is even possible for the controller to accomplish, nothing to do with your combination or anything to do with your car whatsoever. I am beginning to think your defensive attitude is because you don't have a basic fundamental understanding of the boost controller, otherwise, why not answer my simple question?
Is it different than CCom WP rel ver. 1.02, the free downloaded software? I can't open it.
Do I need to save the file with a different extension?
I've actually worked with it before on a customer's engine build on his laptop. Very user friendly.You can open a log with that program, but the data will be 90% wrong
For the correct program, you need to go to: Fuel Air Spark Technology - C-COM XFI? 1.340 Free download
WARNING: The XFI software might be a little nicer than you are used to j/k :biggrin:
I think I've already stated that any change to the settings does affect a change in the boost curve. I did read the directions. Thank you.When all else fails, read the directions. On page 15 of the AMS directions it says "Note-It is possible to set a Target PSI value that can NOT be reached........."
If you have a program doing this, you may make changes to your target boost settings and have no effect whatsoever to your boost curve. This is what I have been trying my best to convey. Hence my statement:
When all else fails, read the directions. On page 15 of the AMS directions it says "Note-It is possible to set a Target PSI value that can NOT be reached........."
If you have a program doing this, you may make changes to your target boost settings and have no effect whatsoever to your boost curve. This is what I have been trying my best to convey. Hence my statement:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a bracket situation, I would imagine they're not staging at the line at full stall, but rather on the 2-step at a lower rpm. Along with a high stall TC, this would cause the hit to be softer on transbrake release.
You are right about the tires. Bracket racers like the big rubber.
How long did you have to stay on the TC during staging up to launching?
How much boost are some of you guys getting away with through the 1-2 shift?
I think I understand what your concern is. The target drop that I have programmed to reduce boost for the 1-2 shift is set below what is actually needed.(snip).
Wow. A lot of time. I understand that once the other person has staged and you are pre-staged, you have 7 seconds to stage. Is this correct? Is it a universal rule, or can it be different at different tracks? Longer time? I ask this because I know someone that feels the time was longer than 7 seconds and it caused him to ruin his trans and TC.I stage with a 3 step and 2 step. In the 1st beam I have a 3800 rpm limit where the car will build 2-3 psi of boost, once it hits that rev limit I give it a couple seconds before I roll into full stage. Once I hit the transbrake it's ready in half a second so it's basically immediate once the brake is engaged.
It all depends on the other racer on how long I have to sit on the converter. I sit at 3800 anywhere from 2 seconds or as much as 10-15 depending on what's going on at the starting line. Same goes for the 4200 rpm limit. It can be 1-2 seconds if the tree comes down quick or as much as 7 seconds if the guy in the other lane is trying to burn me down.
LOL If you think the user friendliness is bad now, you should have worked with some of the earlier versions.Donnie - would you be willing to share one of your TEC datalogs? You're the only person I know of running this system. I'd like to take a drag strip log and load it on some new PCS software I have and see how it compares to a XFI. I really like the ignition strategy of the TEC as well as the staged injection BUT the lack of user friendliness has me on the fence.
