Cal has recently brought up, in another thread, that my settings are not mathematically perfect so I corrected my settings.
Understand that the previous settings still created the EXACT SAME control pressure curve to the wastegate as the mathematically correct settings, but I decided to clean up the math for Cal.
The latest controller settings used at the last Barona test and tune were:
0.00, 0.05, 1.15, 0.40, 1.15, 1.80
0, 19, 19, 2, 1, 2
22, 24.5, 20.5, 24.5, 26, 26.5
The new mathematically correct settings are:
0.00, 0.05, 1.15, 0.40, 1.15, 1.80
0, 19, 19, 2, 1, 2
22, 24.5, 20.5, 22.8, 24.6, 26.5
Keep in mind that either settings will create the exact same control pressure curve, so neither setting is better than the other in terms of creating the desired wastegate control. The important question is, are the settings creating the desired control pressure curve? That can easily be checked by inspecting the graph view of the settings.
As you can see, the difference between the two settings are the stage 4 and 5 target psi settings. I studied this a little because Cal made me curious as to how the target numbers got so far off from being mathematically correct. I realized that a previous quick track change of the ramp settings was responsible.
During an event, I was lowering the boost rise rate after the 1-2 shift and through the 2-3 shift for traction reasons. The reason why the math ended up not correct was due to the fact that I had changed some ramping speeds to slow down how fast the boost built after the 1-2 shift and through the 2-3 shift. The old setting targets may have been mathematically correct with the previous ramp settings, but now with the slower ramp settings, the old targets couldn't be met in time before the next stage timer. Does this mean that I had an inferior control pressure curve? No. The point was to lower the ramp up speed of the boost, and in doing so, lower the control pressure at a particular point in time during the run. Simply lowering the ramp speed accomplished that, without me having to take the time to recalculate to the 'mathematically' correct new psi target for that stage.
In fact, the old target pressure number could just as well be left alone so that the user has a reference of what the past target psi was at a track that did have better traction. All he would need to do is change the ramp speed back to what it was for those stages and the target numbers would again be mathematically correct. No paperwork involved.
If you use enough stages and strategically place the stages at time points that are useful, then you can make simple changes such as just lowering ramp speed to give a quick change to the curve without having to get the pencil and paper out to see if the math is correct or not. Just remember that checking the graph view of the settings is a very popular option and a quicker way of checking your settings than trying to figure the settings out on paper.