znod

Great. I am glad it is working out well for you. Actually, my Step is shifting smoothly too, but it also was shifting smoothly under 19.01.01.

SolarFactory

Great. I am glad it is working out well for you. Actually, my Step is shifting smoothly too, but it was shifting smoothly under 19.01.01 too.
[/quote]


Do you notce a difference in the Active Steering Znod?

znod

No, it feels the same to me. But, I only updated from 19.01.01. I am not sure what you updated from; your update definitely could have affected AS more than mine.

grogan545

I am following up on the above points in orange. What I am doing below is complicated so ask if you have a question. I am leaving out some calculations to keep the data from being too detailed.

1. There are 807 revs per mile given 275 / 30-19 rear tires.
2. At 60 mph one would do a mile a minute, or 807 tire revs per minute.
3. If the effective rear-end is 1:1, then a mile a minute would take 807 engine RPM.
4. Given an effective rear-end ratio of 2.3322:1 (as for my car in 6th gear), then 60 MPH would take 2.3322(807)] = 1,882.0854 RPM
5. Given the above, it the car could turn 6,500, then its top speed would be 60(6,500 / 1,882.0854) = 207.216952

Thus, given the effective 545i rear-end ratio of my 545i (2.3322--not calculated here) and assuming that a 545i actually gets to 6,500 when shifting:

Pattern A:
Top speed in 1st gear would be 207.216952(2.3322 / 14.0946 (i.e., my first gear ratio) = 34.288
Top speed in 2nd gear would be 207.216952(2.3322 / 7.9092 (i.e., my second gear ratio) = 61.102

However, let's say a 545i only gets to 6,375 when shifting--which might be consistent with my recollection/observation in orange above. Then:

Pattern B:
Top speed in 1st gear would be 6,375 / 6,500(34.288) = 33.629
Top speed in 2nd gear would be (6,375 / 6,500)61.102 = 59.923

Now, consider the RPM and torque decreases for the two patterns--noting that there are too many calculations involved to explain everything.

RPM and Torque Decreases--Pattern A:
RPM Decrease for First to Second Shift: 6,500 X 2.34 / 4.17 = 3,648. Related Torque Decrease: 311 ft. lb.
RPM Decrease for Second to Third Shift: 6,500 X 1.52 / 2.34 = 4,222. Related Torque Decrease: 112 ft. lb.

RPM and Torque Decreases--Pattern B:
RPM Decrease for First to Second Shift: 6,375 X 2.34 / 4.17 = 3,648. Related Torque Decrease: 345 ft. lb.
RPM Decrease for Second to Third Shift: 6,375 X 1.52 / 2.34 = 4,222. Related Torque Decrease: 128 ft. lb.*

(*Actually, these decreases are a tad too large. I used the values for 6,400 RPM, rather than, 6,375 RPM because I didn't want to go back to my torque graph and recalculate.)

So, the final calculational points are that if the Step actually is shifting early at about 6,375 RPM, then when it shifts to second it loses about 18 ft. lb. [(345-128) - (311-112)] more torque than if it had shifted at 6,500 RPM. Similarly, under the same conditions, the Step also would lose about 8 ft. lbs. [(128-46) - (112-38)] more torque when shifting from second to third.

The above calculations imply several things. First, shifting at redline is optimal for a 545i. Second, if the Step shifts early then some torque definitely is lost and acceleration times and speeds will suffer accordingly. Unfortuantely, it is difficult to quantify how such loses might translate into reductions in 0 to whatever times, etc. But, it probably wouldn't be unrealistic to think that possible losses calculated above might cost several tenths in 1/8 mile. Maybe grogan can help here. Third, if the step shifts so early that it shifts before 60 MPH, then 0 to 60 times will be hurt noticeably IMO. Fourth, the discussions imply that I was premature and had not thought completely about the issue when I said above: "But, it would not explain my very poor 1/8 times." That is, as shown, premature shifting defintely would affect everything beginning with the shift from first to second.
[/quote]


Hi Znod
I have been studying your post#66 and have come up with the following thoughts:
1-Time to speed & time to distance are similar but not the same.It appears your 0-10,20,and 30 times with 20.01 are very close to the times you got with 19.01.Other than your 1/8 times I don't see other time to distance figures for 20.01.I am curious what your 60' times are with 20.01.I have had some poor 60' times due to wheelspin but still registered decent 0-60 times.
2-The speed at which the car shifts to the next gear only affects the increment where the shift occurs(50-60,60-70)If the shift occurs before sixty,your 0-60 time will be affected but your 60-70 time should not show the effects of the shift.
3-However the the period of time the trans takes to start & complete the shift is relevent.For example if the shift times for 19.01 took .3 sec and now with 20.01 the shift time is .5 sec,the .2 sec diff is lost time and cannot be made up.It is also possible that 20.01 more agressivley reduces torque during the shift which would temporarily reduce your acceleration rate.
In summary my best guess is that the quickness & firmness of the shifts with 20.01 are not as agressive as with 19.01.Note that other posters are reporting "smoother" shifts.Smoother is not conducive to faster times.
I don't know if there is a learning curve with the new software since we did no testing after previous updates.

grogan545

Great. I'll look forward to what you have to say.
[/quote]

I just noticed your post again in the Parts & Mods forum where you forgot to change your settings in the GT2 back from yourZ06.Did you change the settings after getting 20.01? I realize I am grasping at straws but we need to cover all bases.The diff doesn't look like it should affect your times very much but maybe some of the info we got from the instruction manual is guesswork.

znod

I just noticed your post again in the Parts & Mods forum where you forgot to change your settings in the GT2 back from yourZ06.Did you change the settings after getting 20.01? I realize I am grasping at straws but we need to cover all bases.The diff doesn't look like it should affect your times very much but maybe some of the info we got from the instruction manual is guesswork.
[/quote]
Hi g:

Yes, I remembered to change them back and forth and back, etc. And, right, as I recall, if my pitch was too low, then my 20.01.00 times would be biased towards too fast by a bit (i.e., a conservative bias). Thanks for thinking of this factor. And, did you very recently receive the two spreadsheets, related to my post #66, that I PM-ed you? I should have thought of doing so earlier.

grogan545

I just noticed your post again in the Parts & Mods forum where you forgot to change your settings in the GT2 back from yourZ06.Did you change the settings after getting 20.01? I realize I am grasping at straws but we need to cover all bases.The diff doesn't look like it should affect your times very much but maybe some of the info we got from the instruction manual is guesswork.
[/quote]
Hi g:

Yes, I remembered to change them back and forth and back, etc. And, right, as I recall, if my pitch was too low, then my 20.01.00 times would be biased towards too fast by a bit (i.e., a conservative bias). Thanks for thinking of this factor. And, did you very recently receive the two spreadsheets, related to my post #66, that I PM-ed you? I should have thought of doing so earlier.
[/quote]

Hi Znod
I did receive your pm but no attachments.Please try again I'll be on the lookout for the spread sheets.

After reading your post#66 again I realized I didn't address the speed & torque calculations you derived.All your calculations look essentialy correct,but I don't think they are directly responsible for your decreased performance.
As I said in my previous answer the point at which your shift occurs should only affect the segment where it occurs(50-60,60-70).All else being equal the time should be made up in the following segments(60-70 or 70-80).Even if the shift is made at a 200 to 300 lower rpm,it should only minimumly affect your times.The 545 has a very broad torque curve thanks to "Vanos".

Your torque calculations are interesting but since the engine management system reduces torque during a shift it is impossible to know how much torque is being generated at the shift point.

Since your lower speed times are minimumly affected(those before the shift toM2)it appears that the shifts themselves are the cause of your decreased performance.It does't make it any easier to solve but if this assumption is correct a shift program from Dinan would certainly solve the problem.

It is possible that 20.01 has a less agressive shift program for smother operation.

Sorry for being somewhat repetitive but I think I ignored a good portion of your post 66.I know you spent a lot of time on your calculations and I did comprehend them.

znod

I would think that there is a little bit more to consider. I get the feeling that my car may be starting to shift before 60 and not completing the (possibly too slow shift) until above 60. So, then, couldn't the shift affect both intervals?
Exactly. The whole issue simply may be shifting. Still, it is troublesome that I consistently get somewhat lower HP readings--by 20 HP or so. In this regard, I have been thinking about another, possibly concomitant, possibility. What if 20.01.00 is failing to load the more aggressive fuel map in DS? I mentioned this possibility once long ago, but now I am thinking about it again. Maybe!

grogan545

I just noticed your post again in the Parts & Mods forum where you forgot to change your settings in the GT2 back from yourZ06.Did you change the settings after getting 20.01? I realize I am grasping at straws but we need to cover all bases.The diff doesn't look like it should affect your times very much but maybe some of the info we got from the instruction manual is guesswork.
[/quote]
Hi g:

Yes, I remembered to change them back and forth and back, etc. And, right, as I recall, if my pitch was too low, then my 20.01.00 times would be biased towards too fast by a bit (i.e., a conservative bias). Thanks for thinking of this factor. And, did you very recently receive the two spreadsheets, related to my post #66, that I PM-ed you? I should have thought of doing so earlier.
[/quote]

Hi Znod
I did receive your pm but no attachments.Please try again I'll be on the lookout for the spread sheets.

After reading your post#66 again I realized I didn't address the speed & torque calculations you derived.All your calculations look essentialy correct,but I don't think they are directly responsible for your decreased performance.
As I said in my previous answer the point at which your shift occurs should only affect the segment where it occurs(50-60,60-70).All else being equal the time should be made up in the following segments(60-70 or 70-80).Even if the shift is made at a 200 to 300 lower rpm,it should only minimumly affect your times.The 545 has a very broad torque curve thanks to "Vanos".

Your torque calculations are interesting but since the engine management system reduces torque during a shift it is impossible to know how much torque is being generated at the shift point.

Since your lower speed times are minimumly affected(those before the shift toM2)it appears that the shifts themselves are the cause of your decreased performance.It does't make it any easier to solve but if this assumption is correct a shift program from Dinan would certainly solve the problem.

It is possible that 20.01 has a less agressive shift program for smother operation.

Sorry for being somewhat repetitive but I think I ignored a good portion of your post 66.I know you spent a lot of time on your calculations and I did comprehend them.
[/quote]

I am in the process of making the"supreme sacrifice" Znod.My 545 is being updated to 20.01 as I write.It's a long story but a computer module has been replaced to repair my adaptive headlights and requires reprogramming.After much discussion the dealer insists that they must use the latest CIP version per BMW.I decide not to continue to fight and will look at it as a way to prove or disprove if 20.01 is the reason for your lower performance problems.No one else with 20.01 has GT2 data except you.I will do some runs as soon as weather conditions improve(50 deg or above)and compare data to my runs with 17.03 software.
I refuse to believe this is a permenant situation and it will be rectified in due time.

znod

I still think they could be partially responsible. In effect, I used the technique for determining optimal shift points in deriving my conclusions. So, assume the shift program has changed in no way except that the shifts occur earlier. Then, non-optimal shifting has been introduced into the "equation"--which would yield attendant excessive torque losses when shifting--even given no change in the Step's shifting except earlier shifting.

As explained above, it seems to me the effect of shifting too soon can never be avoided pretty much no matter what the engine management system does. It seems to me that there is no getting around problem of lost torque from being in any gear too soon. And, of course, engine management may exacerbate the problem.

Thanks much for the time you are spending on all this. Excellent colleagues and critiques always always are needed.