John, I commend you for posting a very complete set of facts with respect to ECU editing capabilities that are not available to piggy back solution users, without bashing Piggy backs of one provider or in general. That's how you should approach identifying the benefits of your product over the competing piggy back offerings. You've provided insight for some who don;t know that on a new platform like this, where definitions files are not available, it takes alot of sweat equity to even identify the table limits and data sets, let alone understand what those table functions are. The work you are doing is important and lays the ground work to solutions that will make a big difference for this platform.
I fully agree with all your points and when a more convenient way of delivering ECU calibration becomes available ( IE OBD flash tuning) you will have a lot of customers.
However, the fact of the matter is piggy backs offer a compelling product with convenience, ease of use, and flexibility and customization, while attaining 95%</= of current performance of full ECU calibration at a reasonable cost. Despite alot of what you've claimed in some of your more "sky is falling" posts, they are a safe and valid way of increasing the performance of a vehicle to a limit. Beyond that limit a full ECU calibration is the safer, more complete way to attain goals. A combination of both tools for people like me is the ultimate path due to having a desire for the benefits of both.
Yes a piggy back is a "signal modifier" and not a "true ECU Calibration: but it no less a valid way of increasing performance. Consider this:
ECU Re calibration allows you to alter the control strategies directly ( in most cases ) to achieve performance objectives. However, without custom OS you are still constrained to the limits of the knowledge those strategies. In effect boxed in until a ton of work is done, or the damos gods deliver.
A piggy back ( I mean a fully integrated one like a JB4) uses base knowledge of the boost, fueling and timing strategies employed by a modern Torque Request based ECU, and leverages signal modification to use the ECU OS, and calibration features against itself. By doing this in a thoughtful and clever way, you can suppress control strategies in the OS to achieve desired outcomes. Yes you can;t just add boost and pray it works. It requires experience and testing and dedication to the platform, and that's what you get with a JB4 for example. Over a decade of experience and a proven platform across many manufactures, leveraging different base ECU platforms, but same generic approach to boost, fueling and timing.
To my mind, the product complete to a point, but are ultimately complimentary. When ECU tunes match the convenience of a piggy back, and provide a clear advantage in performance, the consumer playing field will be leveled. On most other platforms a combination of both has proven reliable and most potent. I wish more vendors in this community would take competition as a friendly challenge to provide a more compelling product, and not just shit on the other one. Would love to hear, "nice results" or "You are faster, nice work...back to the drawing board i guess" instead of you "don't know what you are doing" and aggressively pursuing perceived ( and false in some cases) deficiencies , and belittling the customers who have gone a different way.
We should all win from competition.
First, thank you for the kind comments.
Benefits of both... I am conflicted with this because optimization of one tune, just to use a signal modifier to change the values, meh... I stuggle with that. I know it works in other platforms, hopefully it will work in this one
In relation to increasing power, well... we have already seen the limitations in some resent logs that were posted that had massive ignition pull and throttle close. Not mentioning any names, but... there will be no way to get around this, other than a tune.
Big problem with the assumption that the a decade of other platforms will be the same as the Stinger. You are making this really difficult to explain without mentioning any names, lol.
I think the results that are being generated by the piggy back controllers is impressive, I am actually surprised with them.
My problem is this, I know how the ECU works, and I am very confident in the structure and as you said OS. Members in the car community, have no idea, and by no idea, I mean NO IDEA. I live in Seattle, where I can throw a rock and hit one of the big 3 software developers in the world. Not a single one of them can help me, zero help from people I have known for decades that write code for a living.
My point being... if I say look the datalog posted by Tonka Bob, and then look at the other ones (no names). Even the most basic of chart reading people can see the obvious differences between them. The smoothness transition areas, fueling, ignition, shift points, RPM curve ect. There simply is not a comparison to be had. A tune wins.
Now, when I start with my sky is falling mentality, that is because I can see whats happening inside the ECU, I know just how much is falling from the sky, which is a feat in and of itself. If you have followed my YT channel, you will see we ran the car with a piggy back for a while, a very short while. I never posted the reasons why we took it off the car, and if asked privatly or publicly why, I will refuse. I will refuse because somewhere, there is someone who will dissagree, and then start making up pathetic claims about us blowing up our engine or transmission in the shop car, lol. .
I could post all currnet maps showing correction and how the box works around these correction, problem being, maybe 1% would understand. Its the remaining 99% that will buy a piggy back, because its easy to remove. Its the 99% that will look at the logs, look at the dyno results and go, "COOL" not knowing what they are giving the thumbs up too.
That is why I made this thread, to try and help those understand in a more basic down to earth format.
Everyone does win from the competition. Look at the resent results posted by the piggy back companies, and look at what the ECU tuners have achieved. I am going on month 5 with my current record, on my origianl Stage 1 tune. I am waiting for someone, anyone to beat that record so I can start running my car again
