u/_le_slap

Funny that this happens a couple weeks after the WadKosti meltdown...

---

Anyway, the sub claims to invite discussion. I'll quote one of their mods here: "الصب دا بيسمح النقاشات بجميع أشكالها لكن لو انت داير تسيئ ل الإسلام ب اي شكل اي ما بيسمح وغالبا حتاكلها طوالي"

But therein lies the most capricious caveat. For example, commenting on a silly virtue signalling post about crosses on European soccer jerseys

Commenting 3 words: "This is stupid" apparently earns a wildly disproportionate permanent ban with little explanation: https://i.imgur.com/cXeL9J5.jpeg

So it's clear the sub is strictly moderated to a comical standard of Islamist apologia. But there's a unique irony in performative religious zealotry. Behind the display is almost always insecurity and fragility.

Oh and gore. You're free to indulge in discussions about gore too if you're a mod at least.

In any case, if you enjoy that sub, be careful what you say. End rant, جزاكم الله خير

Follow up on my posts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Triumph/comments/1mr14rb/diy_tuning_my_daytona_at_home/

and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Triumph/comments/1oq73bl/latest_tuneecu_update_unlocks_previously_hidden/

So after 8 months of iteratively tuning my Daytona 765 Moto2 on the street I think I finally understand what the torque limit table/s do.

In summary: the main fueling logic is a combination of “alpha-N” and “speed-density” fueling models. However, even before the Torque Limit tables were made accessible via TuneECU there was clearly another layer of logic that limits power on the basis of RPM and throttle. No matter how savage I made the Sport throttle map there was clearly some "fuse" that would trip and clip power pretty aggressively.

I believe the Torque Limit tables are akin to virtual "Governor" or a redundancy/safety layer for the base “alpha-N” and “speed-density” fueling models. There is no sensor for the ECU to actually "read" torque output so this has to be some derived calculation in the ECU. My evidence of this is the ECU will output a calculated "Engine Load" percentage in the "Sensors" page of TuneECU. So I'd bet good money that there is a real-time virtual torque model running in the black box.

Let's got from theory to application....

---

Current bike setup is a Hindle full system exhaust, stock air filter, VenturiSystems +10mm taller velocity stacks, SAI/EVAP/O2 deletes, Power Commander + Autotune wideband module. Some mods increase midrange torque, others increase top end... I chose to assume uniform torque gains along the entire RPM range. This is likely inaccurate but I can live with that. I can't afford a dyno lab.

Take a look at the stock Torque Limit table here: https://i.imgur.com/1M1eJKc.png

See the peak torque value at 9500rpm and 100% throttle = 79.8Nm. I'm fairly certain this is a straight Nm value because it matches the rated peak torque and RPM reported here: https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/triu/triumph_daytona_moto2_765.html

Also make note of the negative torque values in the overrun quadrant of the Torque Limit table. It makes sense that these are Nm values corresponding to engine braking.

• I then smoothed the stock table via the algorithm in this prompt:

>smooth using a Gaussian filter on each column to establish a base trend. σ=1. Then use a Cubic PCHIP (Piecewise Cubic Hermite Interpolating Polynomial) correction to ensure the final values match the original data exactly at every local maximum and at the endpoints (the boundaries of each column).

• I then took the result and added the peak negative torque value to every cell to re-anchor the whole table to 0. Just a global offset to temporarily get rid of the negative values.

• After dialing in the fueling (F/L/AFR) tables the bike now dynos 122hp at the wheel vs 112hp stock; approx 9% peak horsepower gain (all runs done with traction control disabled). I multiplied the whole table by a factor that corresponds to those horsepower gains (122/112). Keep in mind that the entire table has been re-anchored so it can't just be multiplied by a factor of 0.09 as that will overshoot the likely peak torque estimate of approx 79.8*122/112 = 86.9 Nm. Per my math I had to multiply the re-anchored table by a factor of 0.063.

• As an extra step, I reduced the factor near redline just for safety. The RPM rows above peak power are multiplied by an additional ramp-down factor (0.0635/5, 0.0634/5, 0.0633/5... 0.0630/5 at redline). This is just my way of convincing myself things are safe near redline.

• Lastly I added the result of the above steps to the stock torque limit values. The end result looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/0j5ewkN.png

Note the new peak crank torque value of 87Nm which corresponds well to 122 wheel hp at 10000rpm. And note that the negative torque values aren't affected much at all by the math. Only the positive torque values have been scaled up. But everything transitions much smoother everywhere.

---

So how does it feel? Well, it seems the mysterious torque wall/fuse is gone! The power is no longer being aggressively clipped at random. It still not possible to climb to redline at 7% throttle but torque limit logic feels much less intrusive and much more intuitive. The handlebars get pretty light even when pulling in 3rd and 4th gear.

2 strange observations: The traction control seems to interfere less frequently. Also, the quickshifter seems to not "hate" short-shifting as much. I had always assumed that traction control on this bike without an IMU was a simple wheel slip detection loop and the quickshifter was a simple ignition cut trigger. But it seems that these systems tie into or are affected by the virtual torque model in some way... More investigation needed here.

Are there tradeoffs? Possibly clutch longevity? Counter-shaft sprocket seal? Chain and sprockets? Rear tire life? I guess time will tell.

I must emphasize that modifying this table alone probably wont do anything unless fueling, VE, AFR are already in the ballpark. Could one simply set the entire Torque Limit table to a super high maximum to effectively disable the "Governor"? Maybe. If someone wants to try that on their bike and report back I'd be curious to see the results!