Jestr anti-lag
I can see both sides of this argument. True anti-lag (as i understand it) allows rally cars to build boost off throttle and in between shifts (hence the a/f being injected into the exhaust manifold).
They also itilize the 2-step, which is what allows us to build boost at a dead stop. I didn't know that the 2-step will pull timing (which i find very interesting), but as far as I have learned, anti-lag is for off throttle, "backfiring" out the turbo to keep it spooled between shifting.
I dunno, perhaps it splitting hairs. I mean, i had a 2-step on my honda, but it didn't pull timing. Still built boost though.
Any rally experts? We do all drive them!
They also itilize the 2-step, which is what allows us to build boost at a dead stop. I didn't know that the 2-step will pull timing (which i find very interesting), but as far as I have learned, anti-lag is for off throttle, "backfiring" out the turbo to keep it spooled between shifting.
I dunno, perhaps it splitting hairs. I mean, i had a 2-step on my honda, but it didn't pull timing. Still built boost though.
Any rally experts? We do all drive them!
Trust me i will know better than most how the stock ecu two step works.
If you were to look, I was the first person to be bored enough to log the 2 step to see what was going on. I made my comments about the timing based on the data that I had already collected. The section of the timing map where you first engage the 2 step is approx 12* BTDC (advanced) and it drops 20* to -8* (retarded).
Anti-lag was developed to eliminate lag between shifts, not launch control. Plenty of cars have used a 2 step for launching but not have antilag (my father's Chevelle has it for instance through his MSD).
What you are terming "drag style" anti lag is completely and totally electronic. It drops spark in each cylinder rotating through the firing order. This same system is also the type of antilag employed in standalones like the AEM or Autronic. Some rally cars also employ purely electronic anti-lag, some dont. The pictures of the WRC Evo that are floating around and any JDM Evo show what the physical hardware looks like if you havent seen it already.
#3 and #5 dont actually argue with each other. That represents an on/off switch in the electronic control mechanism of physical hardware. That map doesnt affect the 2 step launch control (I know I experimented with this all last summer, again I posted all of this and you can read the research if you want to understand it better) it will only affect hardware if you have said hardware and wiring harness on your car.
The actual map that controls the launch control (in reality its not a 2 step, because that would work between shifts as well) is under "limits" and is called stationary rev limit. Currently there is no way to get more timing retard in the system with the stock ECU that I am aware of. No add'l map has been found that controls the amount of timing that is pulled. There are ways to trick the system (covered in the thread) that will pull add'l timing but cause issues all of its own. The stationary rev limit has to control features that it looks for: VSS says the car is moving less than 5km/h and the clutch microswitch has been depressed.
There might be some other tricks that can be accomplished to build more boost at lower rpm with the stock ECU that dont have side effects, but I havent been able to test them at the track yet to see what happens.
signed
Mr Pot.
Cliffnotes- What Eficker said.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Jan 29, 2007 at 11:43 AM.
Sorry, but apparently you dont. The reason your motor blew totally has to do with you standing on it too long and the resulting spike in EGT and detonation in the cylinder, not the 2 step itself.
If you were to look, I was the first person to be bored enough to log the 2 step to see what was going on. I made my comments about the timing based on the data that I had already collected. The section of the timing map where you first engage the 2 step is approx 12* BTDC (advanced) and it drops 20* to -8* (retarded).
signed
Mr Pot.
Cliffnotes- What Eficker said.
If you were to look, I was the first person to be bored enough to log the 2 step to see what was going on. I made my comments about the timing based on the data that I had already collected. The section of the timing map where you first engage the 2 step is approx 12* BTDC (advanced) and it drops 20* to -8* (retarded).
signed
Mr Pot.
Cliffnotes- What Eficker said.
Thanks for clarifying why my engine went. Too late now
I figured it was due to sleeping on the two step.Now i am going to assume that you have a USDM EVO. Above you just stated that you logged the ecu during two step.
Which i am assuming us evo and stock ecu.
Now you just solidified my argument in agreeing that the usdm evo has anti lag.
I just refer to the styles or reasoning to use anti lag as drag or rally because it helps differentiate exactly what im talking about and the reason its being used.
I did say more than most not all.
I did not bring up the different setups for anti lag whether its done by the ecu or hardware, you did. You every time agreed that it can be done electronically so everything else on you above rant concerning the hardware portion means nothing to me.
The Kettle.
p.s.
I am very aware of what launch control is. The newer BMW's have it with their SMG transmissions as well. Since the car is NA there is no anti lag. Its just used for launching thus called lauch control.
I also in three post said it is not a true anti lag, but it gets the job done at a stand still. So what is your point.
Last edited by Jean; Jan 29, 2007 at 04:52 PM.
Pot meet Kettle. This is the ultimate example of comic irony if ever I were to witness it in the real world.
#1 The stock ECU does retard timing when using the 2 step.
#2 Therefore the bang bang isnt just the rev limiter. It is igniting fuel nearly in the exhaust manifold (up to -8* ATDC).
#3 Drag cars and Rally Cars both use similar methods of antilag. Some Rally cars are completely electronic (i.e. standalone) and retard timing up to 25* ATDC. Other rally cars have hardware (like the JDM Evo for instance) that also injects A/F into the exhaust manifold.
#4 Before you tell people they need to know what they are talking about, I suggest you do some serious reading.
#5 The screenshot that you showed from a stock ECU is the electronic counterpart of the hardware that USDM Evo's lack. Yes the code is there, but that isnt what controls the 2 step.
#1 The stock ECU does retard timing when using the 2 step.
#2 Therefore the bang bang isnt just the rev limiter. It is igniting fuel nearly in the exhaust manifold (up to -8* ATDC).
#3 Drag cars and Rally Cars both use similar methods of antilag. Some Rally cars are completely electronic (i.e. standalone) and retard timing up to 25* ATDC. Other rally cars have hardware (like the JDM Evo for instance) that also injects A/F into the exhaust manifold.
#4 Before you tell people they need to know what they are talking about, I suggest you do some serious reading.
#5 The screenshot that you showed from a stock ECU is the electronic counterpart of the hardware that USDM Evo's lack. Yes the code is there, but that isnt what controls the 2 step.
Jean, this would all be avoided if you just use the right terminology.
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
Last edited by codgi; Jan 29, 2007 at 11:25 PM.
Jean, this would all be avoided if you just use the right terminology.
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
The question was. Is two step w/ anti lag avaiable in the USDM EVO? The answer is YES.
He stated he has even data logged while using it, so he also agrees. Not sure what his intention was on his agruements of comic irony.
Everything else related to hardware and or the rally style anti lag was not in my interest to talk about. ( i only stated that there are different ways of using it and they are similar)
It was also stated the true anti lag can also be used like the rally style to keep from going out of boost. The USDM lacks the hardware to do so or the electronic ability to do so as well.
From a stand still it does boost so it does have some sort of anti lag.
Once again i refer to anti lag in rally and drag so everyone understands when and why its being used when i speak of it.
I also state its not a true als system since he feels so strongly that since it cant be used in the rally style its not true anti lag. Which i do agree.
Jean, this would all be avoided if you just use the right terminology.
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
I don't like this concept of "True" and "Un true" anti-lag...either it is or it isn't.
Launch control is not anti-lag no matter how you look at it. While you are stationary and you hit the stationary rev limit it may exihibit similiar properties to anti-lag...but that doesn't mean that it is.
To put it plainly...some flus have symptoms simliar to Pneumonia but somehow I've never heard anyone diagnosed with the flu say "Hey I have Un-true Pneumonia"
What John forgot to add in his post is that the rally cars that do use electronic ALS work in the true sense of an anti-lag...i.e when the driver is off throttle they keep the turbo in boost. Since this is the key part of ALS (and not the making of noises or the shooting flames as you write in your earlier post), if launch control doesn't do this it can't be considered any type of anti-lag (untrue or otherwise)
Although the rally community may state it as being this, it seems very similar to a 2-step that has a similar effect. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, but the majority of the drag racing community has also adopted the term "anti-lag" for a 2-step that uses late ignition and extra fueling to spool the turbo.
Anti-lag is now a term that is being used incorrectly. The word "drift." How many people here have heard of a FWD or AWD drifting? Drifting by definition is a controlled slide that is controlled and maintained by counter-steering and maintaing the car's yaw, once the end of the car has been pitched around using the scandinavian flick or e-brake, by controlling the rate that the rear wheels are spinning out.
From what I can see, this is a debate about the true definition of the term "anti-lag." Based on the origin and definition of what true anti-lag is, John is correct while Jean is not. If you're car ever experiences lag, you do not have an anti-lag system. A car that experiences turbo lag cannot have an active anti-lag system as just the fact that you have lag cancels out the term anti-lag.
Just because a community is adopting the terminology incorrectly does not make it correct. How many of us have ever used the word "b!tch" before? The correct definition of this word is a female dog. We as a society have adopted this word to be a vulgar swear word, but does it make it correct? No.
Also Jean even without anti-lag, true or not, it is possible to make boost while at a standstill just bouncing off the rev limiter. Your engine is still creating exhaust gases which spins the turbine which in turn spins the compressor thereby creating boost. With an anti-lag system, it is possible to create full boost at a stand still or whenever you're off the throttle. Unfortunately aside from the rev limiter boosting method, the Evo cannot maintain a certain boost level off the throttle because it does not have an anti-lag system.
The codes may be in the ECU of the USDM Evos but the hardware is not for an anti-lag system.
From what I can see, this is a debate about the true definition of the term "anti-lag." Based on the origin and definition of what true anti-lag is, John is correct while Jean is not. If you're car ever experiences lag, you do not have an anti-lag system. A car that experiences turbo lag cannot have an active anti-lag system as just the fact that you have lag cancels out the term anti-lag.
Just because a community is adopting the terminology incorrectly does not make it correct. How many of us have ever used the word "b!tch" before? The correct definition of this word is a female dog. We as a society have adopted this word to be a vulgar swear word, but does it make it correct? No.
Also Jean even without anti-lag, true or not, it is possible to make boost while at a standstill just bouncing off the rev limiter. Your engine is still creating exhaust gases which spins the turbine which in turn spins the compressor thereby creating boost. With an anti-lag system, it is possible to create full boost at a stand still or whenever you're off the throttle. Unfortunately aside from the rev limiter boosting method, the Evo cannot maintain a certain boost level off the throttle because it does not have an anti-lag system.
The codes may be in the ECU of the USDM Evos but the hardware is not for an anti-lag system.
Anti-lag is now a term that is being used incorrectly. The word "drift." How many people here have heard of a FWD or AWD drifting? Drifting by definition is a controlled slide that is controlled and maintained by counter-steering and maintaing the car's yaw, once the end of the car has been pitched around using the scandinavian flick or e-brake, by controlling the rate that the rear wheels are spinning out.
From what I can see, this is a debate about the true definition of the term "anti-lag." Based on the origin and definition of what true anti-lag is, John is correct while Jean is not. If you're car ever experiences lag, you do not have an anti-lag system. A car that experiences turbo lag cannot have an active anti-lag system as just the fact that you have lag cancels out the term anti-lag.
Just because a community is adopting the terminology incorrectly does not make it correct. How many of us have ever used the word "b!tch" before? The correct definition of this word is a female dog. We as a society have adopted this word to be a vulgar swear word, but does it make it correct? No.
Also Jean even without anti-lag, true or not, it is possible to make boost while at a standstill just bouncing off the rev limiter. Your engine is still creating exhaust gases which spins the turbine which in turn spins the compressor thereby creating boost. With an anti-lag system, it is possible to create full boost at a stand still or whenever you're off the throttle. Unfortunately aside from the rev limiter boosting method, the Evo cannot maintain a certain boost level off the throttle because it does not have an anti-lag system.
The codes may be in the ECU of the USDM Evos but the hardware is not for an anti-lag system.
From what I can see, this is a debate about the true definition of the term "anti-lag." Based on the origin and definition of what true anti-lag is, John is correct while Jean is not. If you're car ever experiences lag, you do not have an anti-lag system. A car that experiences turbo lag cannot have an active anti-lag system as just the fact that you have lag cancels out the term anti-lag.
Just because a community is adopting the terminology incorrectly does not make it correct. How many of us have ever used the word "b!tch" before? The correct definition of this word is a female dog. We as a society have adopted this word to be a vulgar swear word, but does it make it correct? No.
Also Jean even without anti-lag, true or not, it is possible to make boost while at a standstill just bouncing off the rev limiter. Your engine is still creating exhaust gases which spins the turbine which in turn spins the compressor thereby creating boost. With an anti-lag system, it is possible to create full boost at a stand still or whenever you're off the throttle. Unfortunately aside from the rev limiter boosting method, the Evo cannot maintain a certain boost level off the throttle because it does not have an anti-lag system.
The codes may be in the ECU of the USDM Evos but the hardware is not for an anti-lag system.
Whatever you want to call it you can build boost at a dead stop to help launch the car.
[B] Or how did i activate it? Unless just banging on the stationary rev limiter lets me build boost and keep at 10 psi with out going higher or falling off.( if so i appologize). But then how does it know when to retard the timing or by how much unless there is some map or control to tells it to do so, since you do state that it retards the timing. If you know where it is or how to get there please let me know. It maybe able to help some people out.
Once again if i am wrong and you can prove it then i appologize, i am no expert .
Once again if i am wrong and you can prove it then i appologize, i am no expert .
Just clarifying the terms because it seems to be an argument about terminology.
I just call that nice feature launch control and the boost part is just a nice bonus.
You accused someone of not knowing what they were talking about when they said how the factory launch control functioned and that they "needed to read up". It was ironic because you didnt know how it worked at that time, that it did in fact retard the timing some.
Jean its really quite simple as far as I am concerned. The US Evo doesnt have anti lag, though it can build boost by bouncing off the rev limiter. All most all rev limiter will cut spark and/or fuel to limit rpm. That doesnt mean that its antilag just because it does this. If you change the rpm points in the US map for start/stop rpm of anti lag it in NO way affects the launch control function. I pointed out that I had tried this and it didnt affect anything. I then pointed out that it was only a left over for controlling absent hardware (which you dont feel corresponds) that is needed to have antilag.
If you have never used or experienced true electronic antilag control (or hardware antilag for that matter), use of that term should be limited. True Antilag is always off throttle (never WOT) wheras the launch control has to be WOT. The launch control doesnt retard timing to the point where the fuel is ignited in the exhaust manifold rather than the cylinder. Antilag ignites fuel in the exhaust manifold. The launch control and Antilag both retard timing so in that they are similar but far from the same. Antilag is more akin to a Jacobs brake in operation (I am not going to argue about this, its purely an analogy) than the launch control is to antilag. Launch control is limited by VSS signal and clutch microswitch, antilag would never have such a limitation.
I have owned a car equipped with an Autronic, played around with one equipped with a Link, and am an active Rally nut. I can name 3 cars that I have been near or under that are equipped with some form of antilag. I know of what I speak in this matter. No feelings have to be hurt here, but your use of the term and understanding of how the factory ECU works was initially or possibly still incorrect.
John
Oh by no means am I arguing about that Jean; it's a proven point. Hell I use that feature to my full advantage when trying to shoot out of the hole like a bat from hell.
Just clarifying the terms because it seems to be an argument about terminology.
I just call that nice feature launch control and the boost part is just a nice bonus.
Just clarifying the terms because it seems to be an argument about terminology.
I just call that nice feature launch control and the boost part is just a nice bonus.
This is entirely terminology.
You accused someone of not knowing what they were talking about when they said how the factory launch control functioned and that they "needed to read up". It was ironic because you didnt know how it worked at that time, that it did in fact retard the timing some.
Jean its really quite simple as far as I am concerned. The US Evo doesnt have anti lag, though it can build boost by bouncing off the rev limiter. All most all rev limiter will cut spark and/or fuel to limit rpm. That doesnt mean that its antilag just because it does this. If you change the rpm points in the US map for start/stop rpm of anti lag it in NO way affects the launch control function. I pointed out that I had tried this and it didnt affect anything. I then pointed out that it was only a left over for controlling absent hardware (which you dont feel corresponds) that is needed to have antilag.
If you have never used or experienced true electronic antilag control (or hardware antilag for that matter), use of that term should be limited. True Antilag is always off throttle (never WOT) wheras the launch control has to be WOT. The launch control doesnt retard timing to the point where the fuel is ignited in the exhaust manifold rather than the cylinder. Antilag ignites fuel in the exhaust manifold. The launch control and Antilag both retard timing so in that they are similar but far from the same. Antilag is more akin to a Jacobs brake in operation (I am not going to argue about this, its purely an analogy) than the launch control is to antilag. Launch control is limited by VSS signal and clutch microswitch, antilag would never have such a limitation.
I have owned a car equipped with an Autronic, played around with one equipped with a Link, and am an active Rally nut. I can name 3 cars that I have been near or under that are equipped with some form of antilag. I know of what I speak in this matter. No feelings have to be hurt here, but your use of the term and understanding of how the factory ECU works was initially or possibly still incorrect.
John
You accused someone of not knowing what they were talking about when they said how the factory launch control functioned and that they "needed to read up". It was ironic because you didnt know how it worked at that time, that it did in fact retard the timing some.
Jean its really quite simple as far as I am concerned. The US Evo doesnt have anti lag, though it can build boost by bouncing off the rev limiter. All most all rev limiter will cut spark and/or fuel to limit rpm. That doesnt mean that its antilag just because it does this. If you change the rpm points in the US map for start/stop rpm of anti lag it in NO way affects the launch control function. I pointed out that I had tried this and it didnt affect anything. I then pointed out that it was only a left over for controlling absent hardware (which you dont feel corresponds) that is needed to have antilag.
If you have never used or experienced true electronic antilag control (or hardware antilag for that matter), use of that term should be limited. True Antilag is always off throttle (never WOT) wheras the launch control has to be WOT. The launch control doesnt retard timing to the point where the fuel is ignited in the exhaust manifold rather than the cylinder. Antilag ignites fuel in the exhaust manifold. The launch control and Antilag both retard timing so in that they are similar but far from the same. Antilag is more akin to a Jacobs brake in operation (I am not going to argue about this, its purely an analogy) than the launch control is to antilag. Launch control is limited by VSS signal and clutch microswitch, antilag would never have such a limitation.
I have owned a car equipped with an Autronic, played around with one equipped with a Link, and am an active Rally nut. I can name 3 cars that I have been near or under that are equipped with some form of antilag. I know of what I speak in this matter. No feelings have to be hurt here, but your use of the term and understanding of how the factory ECU works was initially or possibly still incorrect.
John
No feelings have been hurt on my side, the same should go both ways.