[SfValley335i]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

New CHRA, upgraded turbine and compressor wheels and WG rattle fix everything multiplied by 2 gets the total cost of twin turbo upgrade to $2800. Not bad though for some +150 whp.

I love how you and a few others are letting your mouths run loose.

Rob has not even tested his turbos. Where in the hell are you getting this +150whp figure from???

From the sounds of it, Robs turbos seem like a great bargin but until they are tested first by HIM and dyno proven you all should pump your brakes.

I just love how 10 people have got on the "waiting" list, without seeing any real data.

The real interesting thing will be to see if the JB3 can handle upgraded turbos. From what shiv has said in the past, the JB3 won't be able to do so.

[midlife]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

New CHRA, upgraded turbine and compressor wheels and WG rattle fix everything multiplied by 2 gets the total cost of twin turbo upgrade to $2800. Not bad though for some +150 whp.

That is exactly what he is doing PLUS he has both oil and water cooling - just like stock.

As for tuning - Terry is on board !

Fwiw, I have heard that the first batch of 10 RB turbos is already spoken for.

[GreenPlease]

New CHRA, upgraded turbine and compressor wheels and WG rattle fix everything multiplied by 2 gets the total cost of twin turbo upgrade to $2800. Not bad though for some +150 whp.

You're slightly confused. The ASRs are ~$5000, provide ~80-120hp from the dyno I've seen.

[jpsimon]

I can't wait to see how the RB's do, I also cant wait to see how multiple tuning platforms deal with it. so far the procede has proven very effective in the upgraded turbo world.

[dzenno]

well, i have procede so my RB turbos will be using that...i agree its early to speak numbers but don't shoot the messenger..Rob has stated some of these numbers on the other forum...such as 55lb/min flow of air in his setup, vs. 39lb/min on stock...40% increase over stock...these are his numbers...

[Tiago@VRSF]

Does RB have any dyno numbers up yet?

[midlife]

Originally Posted by SfValley335i

I love how you and a few others are letting your mouths run loose.

Rob has not even tested his turbos. Where in the hell are you getting this +150whp figure from???

From the sounds of it, Robs turbos seem like a great bargin but until they are tested first by HIM and dyno proven you all should pump your brakes.

I just love how 10 people have got on the "waiting" list, without seeing any real data.

The real interesting thing will be to see if the JB3 can handle upgraded turbos. From what shiv has said in the past, the JB3 won't be able to do so.

did you take the time to follow the thread on the other forum ?
I think not cause you do not seem to know much about this upgrade.

Rob even refused to take a deposit from bnk today.
Rob says he will not take anyone's money until he can show his upgrade is everything as advertised.

As for shiv's possible comments - what do you really expect him to say ?
Jeeeez

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by dzenno

well, i have procede so my RB turbos will be using that...i agree its early to speak numbers but don't shoot the messenger..Rob has stated some of these numbers on the other forum...such as 55lb/min flow of air in his setup, vs. 39lb/min on stock...40% increase over stock...these are his numbers...

the procede works beautifully with upgraded turbos. you should be excited

[dzenno]

Originally Posted by jpsimon

the procede works beautifully with upgraded turbos. you should be excited

how does procede account for the difference in the air mass? these will push more air (volume) than stock turbos at the same psi

[jpsimon]

Originally Posted by dzenno

how does procede account for the difference in the air mass? these will push more air (volume) than stock turbos at the same psi

for specifics I'd ask shiv, but the procede is already successfully powering the ASR turbos which are pushing way more air than stock as well

[midlife]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

New CHRA, upgraded turbine and compressor wheels and WG rattle fix everything multiplied by 2 gets the total cost of twin turbo upgrade to $2800. Not bad though for some +150 whp.

What rob did say is that the stock turbos are theoretically good for 390 or more whp and his turbos can theoretically push 550 or more whp.

[jpsimon]

so theoretically 160whp+?

[midlife]

Jp:
What Rob was probably referring to is stock turbos on a stock car versus adding his turbos to a stock car.

Not sure if a full bolt on 335 can expect 100+ whp delta just from his turbos.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by midlife

As for shiv's possible comments - what do you really expect him to say ?
Jeeeez

If you had a technical understanding of how the different tunes control boost, I think you'd agree with me. Even with the stock turbos, its show clear shortcomings whether they want to be recognized or not. The shortcomings of piggyback boost control (original PID signal + offsets) is going to be even more obvious with upgraded turbos at higher boost level. The factory PID settings are so far from being suitable for upgraded turbos.

Shiv

[SlicktopTTZ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

If you had a technical understanding of how the different tunes control boost, I think you'd agree with me. Even with the stock turbos, its show clear shortcomings whether they want to be recognized or not. The shortcomings of piggyback boost control (original PID signal + offsets) is going to be even more obvious with upgraded turbos at higher boost level. The factory PID settings are so far from being suitable for upgraded turbos.

Shiv

Can you elaborate on the shortcomings of the boost control logic that the JB3 uses? I wouldn't say the shortcomings are clear because based on logs and user feedback it appears to be working very well. I want to know why offsetting the signal is not going to work well. Also, doesn't your ignition retard feature just use a signal + offset formula? If not, please correct me, thanks!

[klipseracer]

Originally Posted by midlife

Rob even refused to take a deposit from bnk today.
Rob says he will not take anyone's money until he can show his upgrade is everything as advertised.

I offered rob a 50% deposit last week when he asked for a role call. He's obviously not accepting any yet.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ

Can you elaborate on the shortcomings of the boost control logic that the JB3 uses? I wouldn't say the shortcomings are clear because based on logs and user feedback it appears to be working very well. I want to know why offsetting the signal is not going to work well. Also, doesn't your ignition retard feature just use a signal + offset formula? If not, please correct me, thanks!

PID output is different from ignition advance output. The latter just being influenced by knock threshold which can be mapped relatively simply by a simple rpm x load table. With some minor IAT based compensations thrown into the mix.

PID logic is a closed loop logic system based up on 3 distinct correction components: Proportion, Integral and Derivative. The summation of all three corrections is the final output that is used to pulse the wastegate solenoid. If you log this output, you will see that it is a very dynamic signal that will have positive and negative spikes of huge magnitude. This is to compensate for mechanical constants such as a inertia, exhaust backpressure, wastegate actuator friction, etc,. An effective PID system will have all 3 components adjusted when the system is asked to operate within different parameters. One scenario is more boost. Which is why jb3 boost control isn't nearly as stable or predictable as Procede or other stand-alone wastegate control systems that have full control over the PID settings. The next step is new hardware. In the case of turbos, this changes things ALL mechanical constants to the point where the original PID settings are so far removed to what they were intended for.

Throw in the fact that the jb3 doesn't have the ability to target an specific boost pressure (it is subject to the factory IAT compensations). Which is why condition-specific custom tuning is required to target any given boost pressure. In the case of big turbos, have a 2-3psi variance depending on conditions, isn't acceptable.

I'm very familiar with the shortcomings of piggyback boost control as we were limited by it with v1,v2 and v3 software. All the turbo upgrades we saw in the horizon (along with CAN interfacing success) was the reason we took such a huge departure with v4. That, along with actually being able to control ignition timing, was the reason we've been able to adapt so quickly to upgraded turbos. In fact, they run off-the-shelf stock turbo maps with nothing more than a revised global learning gain. There is no "modeling" or guesswork involve with mapping them.

Shiv

[SlicktopTTZ]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

PID output is different from ignition advance output. The latter just being influenced by knock threshold which can be mapped relatively simply by a simple rpm x load table. With some minor IAT based compensations thrown into the mix.

PID logic is a closed loop logic system based up on 3 distinct correction components: Proportion, Integral and Derivative. The summation of all three corrections is the final output that is used to pulse the wastegate solenoid. If you log this output, you will see that it is a very dynamic signal that will have positive and negative spikes of huge magnitude. This is to compensate for mechanical constants such as a inertia, exhaust backpressure, wastegate actuator friction, etc,. An effective PID system will have all 3 components adjusted when the system is asked to operate within different parameters. One scenario is more boost. Which is why jb3 boost control isn't nearly as stable as Procede or other stand-alone wastegate control systems that have full control over the PID settings. The next step is new hardware. In the case of turbos, this changes things ALL mechanical constants to the point where the original PID settings are so far removed to what they were intended for.

Throw in the fact that the jb3 doesn't have the ability to target an specific boost pressure (it is subject to the factory IAT compensations). Which is why condition-specific custom tuning is required to target any given boost pressure. In the case of big turbos, have a 2-3psi variance depending on conditions, isn't acceptable.

I'm very familiar with the shortcomings of piggyback boost control as we were limited by it with v1,v2 and v3 software. All the turbo upgrades we saw in the horizon (along with CAN interfacing success) was the reason we took such a huge departure with v4. That, along with actually being able to control ignition timing, was the reason we've been able to adapt so quickly to upgraded turbos. In fact, they run off-the-shelf stock turbo maps with nothing more than a revised global learning gain. There is no "modeling" or guesswork involve with mapping them.

Shiv

So you are saying the JB3 alters the final signal and the Procede modifies the functions that create the final signal? By modifying them, are you leaving the original functions intact while just modifying the constants, writing entirely new functions, or using functions to offset the original 3 PID signals? Also once you create your PID signal, it goes "untouched" from there? Basically I'm wondering if you guys are using a bunch of new math or just changing the constants within those original formulas. I just got through derivatives and I'm getting into Integration in my math class, sounds fun!

[AltecBX]

[klipseracer]

"Blah blah blah PID blah derivative". I just want it to work, haha. I'm so bad at math but I understand what you said, although all the answers aren't in the explanation. Hope to hear more information.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ

So you are saying the JB3 alters the final signal and the Procede modifies the functions that create the final signal?

Exactly. The jb3 adds offsets on top of the final signal which it has no control over. Whereas the Procede (and reflashes presumably) change the P, I and D values that create the final signal.

By modifying them, are you leaving the original functions intact while just modifying the constants, writing entirely new functions, or using functions to offset the original 3 PID signals?

The function, for the most part, stays intact. Just the constants get changed. There is some subtle logic that is revised such as reset thresholds, conditions where Integral correction is activated and deactivated. And so forth. But 95% of the control comes for the PID function itself. And only 5% from how that function is implemented. It's worth noting that going from piggyback-style boost control in v3 to stand-alone style boost control with v4 eliminated over 70% of the boost control code since most of it was just work-arounds since we didn't have absolute control over the PID function itself.

Also once you create your PID signal, it goes "untouched" from there? Basically I'm wondering if you guys are using a bunch of new math or just changing the constants within those original formulas. I just got through derivatives and I'm getting into Integration in my math class, sounds fun!

The P+I+D corrections are added to the raw wastegate DC table. This final signal is what drives the solenoid. So there is some basic tuning involved with the raw DC table. But things get much easier when you just tune the table and leave the PID logic alone, knowing that it will sort little errors out. It was a nightmare having to tune both the wastegate DC table AND the PID logic. A lot of tail chasing.

Shiv

[TurboBimmer]

Would a lot of custom tuning / datalogging be involved to set up a procede to work with the RB turbos? Will it eventually be compatible with the upcoming "auto-tuning" feature?