[s-cars] Fuzz logic vs adaptive learning

[Mark Strangways]

I will have to chime in at this point and agree with you Scott.
I don't really see how limiting the boost by a few PSI does all that much to
reduce tranny wear.
I spend so little time in first, that it is NOT an issue for me.

If you are drag racing on the track, then limiting boost is counter
productive.
If you are drag racing on the street, then short shift outta first, second
is a better gear anyways.
I will keep my motronic, and use some software tweaking, some hardware
tweaking and the basics of building performance to get where I want. The
answer is not always with in software.

Just my 2 cents worth, I may be full of it. Like I care :-)

Mark S
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <QSHIPQ at aol.com>
To: <kirby.a.smith at verizon.net>
Cc: <s-car-list at audifans.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [s-cars] Fuzz logic vs adaptive learning


> I don't believe it's premature to argue the point at all.  More plots in a
> three dimensional map makes a more sophisticated controller by definition.
You
> might be able to argue that more plots (output) isn't necessary to
acceptable
> function, but that would require that the number of inputs are the same.
They
> aren't.
>
> WRT first gear issues.  I solved that problem for many of my customers
years
> ago.  Short shift out of first (do you really need a boost controller if
you
> *know* first gear is an issue?).  WRT detonation, when you hear it Kirby,
the
> damage is already done.  When you hear it, that means that the computer
has
> already taken all the steps to retard the timing and trim the boost.  In a
boost
> controller, retarding the timing and trimming the boost are oxymorons.
The
> motronic may retard the timing, but that just means the controller adds
more
> boost.  I Hope your radio isn't on.  No driver is a good wastegate
controller.
>
> HTH and my o2
>
> Scott Justusson
>
> In a message dated 1/26/2004 8:48:22 AM Central Standard Time,
> kirby.a.smith at verizon.net writes:
> Thanks, Scott, for your insight.
>
> I think it premature to argue that Motronic is more sophisticated than
> the A'pexi, for example, without our knowing just what functions are
> embedded in the A'pexi.  A large-valued n-dimensional table is not
> necessarily more sophisticated than an n-dimensional high-order
> function.  Unfortunately, I don't know what is in the guts of the A'pexi
> programming.  If you have some specific knowledge of the A'pexi inner
> workings, feel free to enlighten us.  For now, I will accept that it
> cannot know, or at least react to, engine degradation, but as a WG
> controller for a functional engine (running Hoppen Stage 1), IME it does
> very nicely.
>
> Do I agree that optimized Motronic code with your favorite waste gate
> valve (whatever that is) can do as well or better with less engine risk
> -- Yes.  But to argue for engine protection over tranny protection is
> short sighted, IMHO.  It would cost me a lot more for a replacement
> tranny than a valve job.  And burned valves would require a lot of
> detonation, which I would hear early and my right foot would then become
> the overriding WG controller.  Now when running with an open exhaust in
> competition, I agree the driver is not a good WG controller.
>
> kirby
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list