Honda Africa Twin Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of MAY's Ride of the Month Challenge!

221 - 240 of 246 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Mmmmm....almost bought the rapid bike evo but haulted at the question if i wanted a map preloaded which was €50 extra?!....would I need that for the AT or would i be fine with the software and uploading a map myself? Noticing i'm having doubts anyways...
Mapped are preloaded , that´s why there are different part code numbers , like for the wiring harness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
there may be different policies in different countries. In the UK the RapidBike Evo does come with a map preloaded, but it's not the one most of us would want. However it's easy enough to swap it for one suited to the standard equipped bike because the Rapidbike Evo is supplied with a cable and various maps are provided free with the downloadable software.
BUT ..... in the UK there is a cheaper model available - the RapidBike Evo Exclusive, which is supplied with a map installed (no idea which one), and you can't change it unless you buy the cable - they do this to keep the initial cost down. as I understand it, if you fork out the 60 or 70 quid for the cable then you can use the Exclusive model just the same as the normal model. But that might not be right because if you buy a different bike you cannot transfer over the Exclusive's box of tricks to the new bike, whereas with the full price module, all you would need to do is buy the harness for the new bike.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
exclusive it´s available only for few models , yes the cable in that cae will cost round about 60 euro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Results of fuel consumption test:
With Rapidbike Evo standard map for the 2018 DCT crf1000L tank range 186 miles
With standard OEM Honda map 232 miles

This is 20% worse fuel consumption using the EVO map. (Calculations done by running the bike from full tank until there were about 45 to 50 miles left in tank then checking actual consumption by filling up and using the Trip mileage. That mpg was then used to calculate how may true miles were left in the 18.8 litre tank.)
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #225 ·
Results of fuel consumption test:
With Rapidbike Evo standard map for the 2018 DCT crf1000L tank range 186 miles
With standard OEM Honda map 232 miles

This is 20% worse fuel consumption using the EVO map. (Calculations done by running the bike from full tank until there were about 45 to 50 miles left in tank then checking actual consumption by filling up and using the Trip mileage. That mpg was then used to calculate how may true miles were left in the 18.8 litre tank.)
Mike
Hi Mike, yes it seems I have pretty much the same type of fuel consumption if I look at my latest tank range using the trip counter.. it is something I can live with for the sweet power delivery I experience.. Does your map switch drop consumption to normal now, I guess you still have to check this.. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Hi Mike, yes it seems I have pretty much the same type of fuel consumption if I look at my latest tank range using the trip counter.. it is something I can live with for the sweet power delivery I experience.. Does your map switch drop consumption to normal now, I guess you still have to check this.. ?
I'm pretty sure that map2 is the 'normal' fuel consumption (Dimpsort showed me how to store a zero map in Map2), so one tankful was run on map 1 and the other on map 2.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
However, their map as it comes from Dimsport is very much more geared to your kind of requirements and for what I want it hardly works at all. Their standard EVO map for our bikes does very little richening up at the bottom end. It does however do quite a lot between 3000 and 4000 rpm and so even though I am not needing that (and not even noticing it), it's wasting fuel. If I rode it hard I suspect the fuel consumption would be significantly more than 20% worse than the way I normally ride.
My next experiments are to try and create an exclusively bottom end map leaving the 2500rpm and above range untouched compared to the Honda OEM map. Hopefully that will achieve the smoothing out of urban travel whilst retaining the economy of long distance touring. I'm awaiting a response from Dimsport before I try to create that map.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #228 ·
However, their map as it comes from Dimsport is very much more geared to your kind of requirements and for what I want it hardly works at all. Their standard EVO map for our bikes does very little richening up at the bottom end. It does however do quite a lot between 3000 and 4000 rpm and so even though I am not needing that (and not even noticing it), it's wasting fuel. If I rode it hard I suspect the fuel consumption would be significantly more than 20% worse than the way I normally ride.
My next experiments are to try and create an exclusively bottom end map leaving the 2500rpm and above range untouched compared to the Honda OEM map. Hopefully that will achieve the smoothing out of urban travel whilst retaining the economy of long distance touring. I'm awaiting a response from Dimsport before I try to create that map.
Mike
Hi Mike, is the standard setting working for you? Is the fuel consumption normal again with the other unmodified map?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Hello to all,

I was searching for this.... And i realize i needed something like a few monthes ago.

Explaining it properly takes a bit of time and my english sometimes may sound funny... Well.

On december 2020 installed k&n air filters ( with stock heads and exhaust). Felt a big difference, has more air and the increase on rpm felt faster.

2 month ago i installed a decat headpipe from Mivv...wow! What a blast, even with low preload on front fork , front wheel seemmed full of helium! It was a new bike with a lot of power! Finally had my africa twin!

2 days after, or maybe less, the same old pig with not enough grunt.... **** me, this is not fair!

Pushing through the fallen dream i bought an o2 eliminator for the this model....sometimes work, others not, and check engine light pops on if i forgot i can t rev too much when start the bike. So, no good.

Anyway, in the search i found the RB Evo....but i m confused, should i go for the exclusive or not, what should be the right reference for my atas 2019 abs? Usually i get this code KRBEVO-136, but sometimes it is different....

Thanks

Paulo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Hello to all,

I was searching for this.... And i realize i needed something like a few monthes ago.

Explaining it properly takes a bit of time and my english sometimes may sound funny... Well.

On december 2020 installed k&n air filters ( with stock heads and exhaust). Felt a big difference, has more air and the increase on rpm felt faster.

2 month ago i installed a decat headpipe from Mivv...wow! What a blast, even with low preload on front fork , front wheel seemmed full of helium! It was a new bike with a lot of power! Finally had my africa twin!

2 days after, or maybe less, the same old pig with not enough grunt.... **** me, this is not fair!

Pushing through the fallen dream i bought an o2 eliminator for the this model....sometimes work, others not, and check engine light pops on if i forgot i can t rev too much when start the bike. So, no good.

Anyway, in the search i found the RB Evo....but i m confused, should i go for the exclusive or not, what should be the right reference for my atas 2019 abs? Usually i get this code KRBEVO-136, but sometimes it is different....

Thanks

Paulo
Hi Paulo. My advice would be to not go for the Exclusive. You seem like a guy who tries many changes to the bike, so you will probably want to try different maps. I think it's possible to do this with the Exclusive but you need to pay extra for their USB cable which comes as standard with the RapidBike Evo regular module, so you would not be saving any money.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Hi Mike, is the standard setting working for you? Is the fuel consumption normal again with the other unmodified map?
Hi Africano. No the standard map is not working for me, but I am developing my own map. I think I'm winning but it's time consuming. If it works out I will post a step by step guide for anyone wanting to do it for themselves. This will be for people who are only really concerned about the lumpy fuelling at the bottom end, as the standard map provided by RapidBike works fine for guys who are looking for extra power higher up.
I realised that where RapidBike (and Powercommander) are coming from is tuning maps for racing, and those guys are not the slightest bit interested in what their bike is doing around 2000rpm and low throttle openings. However, anyone who has to regularly ride in congested urban traffic is VERY interested in what's happening down there. So I am developing a map that concentrates on small rpm intervals starting at idle (1200rpm) and small TPS (throttle) intervals of just 1% (the standard map goes 0%,5%,10%, 20% etc and I have discovered that the 4 one percent intervals between 0% and 5% require surprisingly different fuel/air ratios. And it's my belief that a 1000cc motorcycle trying to tootle through traffic at 10-20mph is using less than 5% throttle. (Dimsport disagree with me but we'll see).
One of the problems in dicing the map so finely is that you quickly run out of cells. So for instance if I wanted to use 1% intervals for the Throttle position sensor, I run out of columns at 7%. Similarly if I want to use (say) 100rpm intervals down the left, I run out of cells at about 4000rpm.
But that's OK ..... If I can develop a map that smooths it out at the bottom end, I can develop another map that does the mid range and top end .... then I can work on some compromise that covers the whole range .... or I can just leave the mid and top as per Honda OEM map which is OK for me.
By the way the reason it's time consuming is that each iteration of the developing map has to be done over about 70 miles of autoadaptivity .... and if I want it to develop for the bottom end it means I've got to do 70 miles of tootling about in urban areas 😄
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Hi Africano. No the standard map is not working for me, but I am developing my own map. I think I'm winning but it's time consuming. If it works out I will post a step by step guide for anyone wanting to do it for themselves. This will be for people who are only really concerned about the lumpy fuelling at the bottom end, as the standard map provided by RapidBike works fine for guys who are looking for extra power higher up.
I realised that where RapidBike (and Powercommander) are coming from is tuning maps for racing, and those guys are not the slightest bit interested in what their bike is doing around 2000rpm and low throttle openings. However, anyone who has to regularly ride in congested urban traffic is VERY interested in what's happening down there. So I am developing a map that concentrates on small rpm intervals starting at idle (1200rpm) and small TPS (throttle) intervals of just 1% (the standard map goes 0%,5%,10%, 20% etc and I have discovered that the 4 one percent intervals between 0% and 5% require surprisingly different fuel/air ratios. And it's my belief that a 1000cc motorcycle trying to tootle through traffic at 10-20mph is using less than 5% throttle. (Dimsport disagree with me but we'll see).
One of the problems in dicing the map so finely is that you quickly run out of cells. So for instance if I wanted to use 1% intervals for the Throttle position sensor, I run out of columns at 7%. Similarly if I want to use (say) 100rpm intervals down the left, I run out of cells at about 4000rpm.
But that's OK ..... If I can develop a map that smooths it out at the bottom end, I can develop another map that does the mid range and top end .... then I can work on some compromise that covers the whole range .... or I can just leave the mid and top as per Honda OEM map which is OK for me.
By the way the reason it's time consuming is that each iteration of the developing map has to be done over about 70 miles of autoadaptivity .... and if I want it to develop for the bottom end it means I've got to do 70 miles of tootling about in urban areas 😄
Mike
Well, I'm on the fence on this one. 2 weeks back I went for it anyways and ordered the evo. Took ages to get here and in the mean time I went to some motorcycle dealership and got offered a used 790r - after 2 days of thinking and 2 test rides I said yes to it at 5 in the afternoon....only to call them early the next morning and tell them no. Duh.
So now I've decided to go and install the evo and see where it all ends up. Same goals as you.
62710
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #233 ·
Hi Africano. No the standard map is not working for me, but I am developing my own map. I think I'm winning but it's time consuming. If it works out I will post a step by step guide for anyone wanting to do it for themselves. This will be for people who are only really concerned about the lumpy fuelling at the bottom end, as the standard map provided by RapidBike works fine for guys who are looking for extra power higher up.
I realised that where RapidBike (and Powercommander) are coming from is tuning maps for racing, and those guys are not the slightest bit interested in what their bike is doing around 2000rpm and low throttle openings. However, anyone who has to regularly ride in congested urban traffic is VERY interested in what's happening down there. So I am developing a map that concentrates on small rpm intervals starting at idle (1200rpm) and small TPS (throttle) intervals of just 1% (the standard map goes 0%,5%,10%, 20% etc and I have discovered that the 4 one percent intervals between 0% and 5% require surprisingly different fuel/air ratios. And it's my belief that a 1000cc motorcycle trying to tootle through traffic at 10-20mph is using less than 5% throttle. (Dimsport disagree with me but we'll see).
One of the problems in dicing the map so finely is that you quickly run out of cells. So for instance if I wanted to use 1% intervals for the Throttle position sensor, I run out of columns at 7%. Similarly if I want to use (say) 100rpm intervals down the left, I run out of cells at about 4000rpm.
But that's OK ..... If I can develop a map that smooths it out at the bottom end, I can develop another map that does the mid range and top end .... then I can work on some compromise that covers the whole range .... or I can just leave the mid and top as per Honda OEM map which is OK for me.
By the way the reason it's time consuming is that each iteration of the developing map has to be done over about 70 miles of autoadaptivity .... and if I want it to develop for the bottom end it means I've got to do 70 miles of tootling about in urban areas 😄
Mike
Hi Mike, seems you have some tinkering to do here, at least you have some options left to try.. What i actually meant was, does the other map (no modifications map) give you the same fuel consumption as if you did not have a EVO installed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Well, I'm on the fence on this one. 2 weeks back I went for it anyways and ordered the evo. Took ages to get here and in the mean time I went to some motorcycle dealership and got offered a used 790r - after 2 days of thinking and 2 test rides I said yes to it at 5 in the afternoon....only to call them early the next morning and tell them no. Duh.
So now I've decided to go and install the evo and see where it all ends up. Same goals as you.
View attachment 62710
several years ago I test rode a KTM (I think it was a 690 single?) and it was a very exciting and well specced bike which I nearly went for. They had just introduced ride by wire and were boasting that their computer handled everything below about 3500 revs to make it ultra smooth .... but it wasn't, and I realised that I would soon get very annoyed with the jerky ride at the speeds I ride for 95% of the time.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Hi Mike, seems you have some tinkering to do here, at least you have some options left to try.. What i actually meant was, does the other map (no modifications map) give you the same fuel consumption as if you did not have a EVO installed?
Oh sorry - yes it does - tank's range was up around 230 miles. By the way after a few iterations the EVO is putting 18% more fuel in at 1600 revs and 1 % throttle - other cells are not so drastic. The other thing I need to think through is erratic behaviour. For an hour the other day the new map was very nice and markedly different through the towns and villages of North Yorkshire in quite heavy traffic sometimes, then in one village it behaved like a pig - or more like a kangaroo -then it was OK again. It got me wondering whether the EVO module can be relied on to perform faultlessly 100% of the time - we tend to assume that because it's electronic that will be the case but it's an algorithm working to code developed by humans so maybe it misbehaves sometimes. I might ask the factory but I expect their answer would be 'it must be something wrong with the bike'. And it might be, as even with the mods I'm doing it's having no effect on the irregular idle.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #236 ·
Oh sorry - yes it does - tank's range was up around 230 miles. By the way after a few iterations the EVO is putting 18% more fuel in at 1600 revs and 1 % throttle - other cells are not so drastic. The other thing I need to think through is erratic behaviour. For an hour the other day the new map was very nice and markedly different through the towns and villages of North Yorkshire in quite heavy traffic sometimes, then in one village it behaved like a pig - or more like a kangaroo -then it was OK again. It got me wondering whether the EVO module can be relied on to perform faultlessly 100% of the time - we tend to assume that because it's electronic that will be the case but it's an algorithm working to code developed by humans so maybe it misbehaves sometimes. I might ask the factory but I expect their answer would be 'it must be something wrong with the bike'. And it might be, as even with the mods I'm doing it's having no effect on the irregular idle.
Mike
HI Mike, cool thanks, good to see that the other map returns your fuel consumption to pre EVO install. To answer the other questions & statements in my opinion, this could be a number of things:

1. It could be a UK thing..(Are there some AT owners in the UK that do NOT have this issue at all?)
2. Your bike has either an issue with a slightly clogged injector or injectors.
3. The valve/s clearance/s are not correct for some reason
4. Throttle body Calibration issue
5. O2 sensor a bit fouled or contaminated
6. Slight air leak between the throttle body & head intake.
7. Spark plug/s fouled or not set correctly although not likely since you have 2 sparkplugs per cylinder
8. The bike had some oil pass through to the combustion chamber & pitted a valve(this requires a valve lapping procedure) A proper Compression test..
9. Some grooving in one of the head cylinder walls.
Yes, so this unfortunately means happy hunting, unless you can somehow get the compensation right to overcome some of these issues with the EVO not all these issues can be resolved with the EVO since there is a imbalance between the cylinder workings which leaves the cpu struggling to get a good fix for low rev control & idle. Anyway these are my thoughts with the knowledge i have working on some issues i had on motorcycles..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
HI Mike, cool thanks, good to see that the other map returns your fuel consumption to pre EVO install. To answer the other questions & statements in my opinion, this could be a number of things:

1. It could be a UK thing..(Are there some AT owners in the UK that do NOT have this issue at all?)
2. Your bike has either an issue with a slightly clogged injector or injectors.
3. The valve/s clearance/s are not correct for some reason
4. Throttle body Calibration issue
5. O2 sensor a bit fouled or contaminated
6. Slight air leak between the throttle body & head intake.
7. Spark plug/s fouled or not set correctly although not likely since you have 2 sparkplugs per cylinder
8. The bike had some oil pass through to the combustion chamber & pitted a valve(this requires a valve lapping procedure) A proper Compression test..
9. Some grooving in one of the head cylinder walls.
Yes, so this unfortunately means happy hunting, unless you can somehow get the compensation right to overcome some of these issues with the EVO not all these issues can be resolved with the EVO since there is a imbalance between the cylinder workings which leaves the cpu struggling to get a good fix for low rev control & idle. Anyway these are my thoughts with the knowledge i have working on some issues i had on motorcycles..
Thanks Africano, I will use that list as a basis for discussions with the service manager - I'm hoping I can persuade him to let the head techie sit in. It's a puzzling one because the engine produces plenty of power and is very smooth at anything above idle revs.
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #238 ·
Thanks Africano, I will use that list as a basis for discussions with the service manager - I'm hoping I can persuade him to let the head techie sit in. It's a puzzling one because the engine produces plenty of power and is very smooth at anything above idle revs.
Mike
Yes, the bike shall not perform noticeably worse but everything must be more spot as you get closer to idle, else you shall have these noticeable issues..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,516 Posts
Thought I would provide an update on my progress. As a reminder - I'm trying to use the Rapidbike Evo to develop its own improved map at the bottom end to eliminate the jerkiness in round-town traffic. The EVO can do this using it's autoadaptivity feature. So you start with a base map, ride for 60 or 70 miles and the autoadaptive records the fuel air corrections it thinks it should make. But it doesn't do anything dramatic, so you can then add these to the base map and repeat the process. I have been through about 5 iterations now, each time adding the results to the base map (which in my case started with all zeroes). The other unusual thing I'm doing is ONLY working on the bottom end - you can see along the top of the table that I'm only working on changes between 0% and 9% throttle opening. (Please note that the 0% column is something I have created manually - this will be returned to later).
Now the issue I would like people's opinion on is why the 1% column is soooo different from the 2%,3% etc ..... and here's the nub. If Honda have set 1% so ridiculously lean, have they set 0%-1% similarly so, and should I copy the 1% column into the 0% column. The reason I would have to do that is that Rapidbike say that the autoadaptivity function does NOT attempt to correct that 0% column. But you can see that after previous iterations I had already put quite high values in that 0% column .... and it has made no difference to the feel of the bike and I'm wondering whether the EVO module is ignoring even my manual entries (Rapidbike says it will be using them but I'm not convinced).
The results of this process are nice - smoother than the OEM Honda map through town ..... but ..... much more fuel being used (tank range down from about 230 to 180 miles) and it's not right yet in the one area I'm really trying to correct. That is trying to maintain very slow urban speed between 20 and 30mph on flat ground where the throttle opening required is absolutely tiny. The bike can behave like a kangaroo in these circumstances (with and without the EVO dialled in). And the transition from off to on is a thump. I think these two issues are connected and I don't think my bike has a problem (although Africano has suggested it might have), because my previous 2107 AT behaved the same.
Here's a pictorial representation of how the EVO is richening up the fuel delivery, and I have a another question about the line graph shown beneath. This line shows how much the EVO is richening up the mixture at different rpm ranges but ONLY for 1% throttle. Do people think I should manually enter figures in the cells so that the curve looks smooth ie rising quickly up to 20% at 1300rpm (idle really) then a gentle decline from 3100rpm onwards?
Thanks
Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Mike, thanks for the update. Again, very much appreciate the updates you post. I have no answers but the extra fuel use is quite high I think. There's some crappy weather coming so I might finally install the evo on my AT but the more I think it over the more I doubt things will really improve but then again...who knows. Kinda regret buying it....impulsebuyingaddiction...
Is there a good reason the EVO doesn't show true fuel/air mix and throws out just numbers?
 
221 - 240 of 246 Posts
Top