follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Delicious Tuning
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB > 1st Gens: Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 / Subaru BRZ > Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum

Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum The place to start for the Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 | GT86


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2023, 05:12 PM   #29
RedReplicant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: None
Location: Arizona
Posts: 943
Thanks: 1,506
Thanked 1,285 Times in 541 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by geraldjust View Post
might have a go on reading the eeprom then.
well the voltage does not dip but ive learned that for engine swaps that VSC and PS are sensitive to it. On the stock system, the current draw sensor on the battery knows when too much current is bring pulled. ie, PS or VSC pump. Then the ECU request the alternator for higher current.

But il be looking into this further then and so a full diagnosic read on the system then since it peaked my interest now.
FWIW, the K swap cars run high output mode at all times.

Anyway, curious to see what you find here.
__________________
RedReplicant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2023, 02:25 AM   #30
geraldjust
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Drives: MR2, Sliver BRZ
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 309
Thanks: 5
Thanked 259 Times in 121 Posts
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedReplicant View Post
FWIW, the K swap cars run high output mode at all times.

Anyway, curious to see what you find here.
you peaked my interest so ima give it a look forsure!
__________________
Always looking to tinker with something..
geraldjust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2023, 04:44 AM   #31
TRS
Senior Member
 
TRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Drives: 2013' Toyota 86 (EU spec)
Location: Germany
Posts: 160
Thanks: 32
Thanked 139 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
@geraldjust Yes, my car is swapped. But the test decribed in my last post was done on a factory 2018 BRZ. The behavior of this car and my swapped one is fully identical for the test in stopped condition. Ofcourse driving wise it is easier to provocate the cut off in my LS swap due to the higher weight.

I monitored the thermistor temperature during repeating that test on the standing vehicle. I kept the steering torque all the time pretty high to stress the system and also changed direction multiple times. The thermistor temp rised constantly over several minutes, but behavior was same. The cut off jumped in, and as soon as the steering was released slightly, support came back.

It was same when starting the test at 30°C thermistor at the beginning as it was at 40°C in the end. I was provocating cut offs against lock for about 5min. So I highly doubt a mechanical or thermal limitation, since during the complete test run nothing in the basic behavior changed. (Again note: The change request would not be to further increase support, everything needed is to keep that thing running...)

I also was able to define the limits further. The cut off jumps in as soon as the measured steering wheel input torque reached 6Nm. The requested current is reduced to zero in that second.

Then the value just instantly jumps to 7Nm, what seems where the sensor itself tops out, since one still is holding the steering wheel while the motor quits, what inturn results in a instantly higher input torque.

Then, once the steering input torque is slowly reduced, the support kicks in as soon as 5.5Nm is reached. The requested current is then set to the value (or at least ball park) which could be seen during the way towards lock.

This game can be played quick or slow. Means exceeding 6Nm and holding the input torque above 5.5Nm for 10s results in a 9s cut off (about 1s system reaction time...). If you stay above that 5.5Nm for 1.5s, the result is 0.5s cut off. The whole procedure can be repeted in close to 1Hz frequency or any frequency lower then that.

One more observation: The highest current values of above 40+ amps was seen during fast turning of the wheel. Highest current when hitting the lock was about 30-35. So my conclusion: the motor driver is also able to provide even higher amps.
Also the temp is not instantly freaking out, since internal temp sensing keeps in acceptabel range even over longer stress periods and, most important, behavior and values dont change all over the stress test.

The behavior is a simple reaction towards input torque and pretty much doesnt care about any other conditions. Not temp, not current requested, not current controlled, not steering angle nor steering speed. It's a simple and clasic one-variable-condition with hysteressis.

I cannot make any other conclusion but the intension was to create a steering lock overload protection (what absolutely makes sense, no doubt about that), but nobody cared about giving this function a little more then absolute basic logic. This results in a unneccessarily low marging of the EPS system support and the possibility of suddenly losing EPS support during harsh turns and as well the possibility of sudden return of the support, what from my personal expierience, is the far bigger issue towards vehicle stability/control and safety.

The driver is still turning the wheel to stay with the turn, then suddenly support returns and the steering wheel gets "light", what results to a sudden, short inwards turn of the steering wheel due to driver reaction time. This is pretty much like a forced mid-turn-scandinavian-flik.

What actually might be a limitation by physical Design ist the fact, that I was not able to read a steering wheel angle. This somehow triggers me, since the zero position can be calibrated, what draw me to the conclusion that the system must have some kind of knowledge about the steering angle. Though, there is no readable value for that. Only available angle it motor angle. But this can not be easily transfered to a steering angle, since the motor does multiple turns and there is no turn counter. So the absolute position is unknown.

If there actually is no steering angle measured, what somehow makes zero Sense in my head, it's clear that a lock protection has no other option then to relie on input torque only...
__________________

Last edited by TRS; 05-08-2023 at 05:06 AM.
TRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2023, 08:51 PM   #32
geraldjust
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Drives: MR2, Sliver BRZ
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 309
Thanks: 5
Thanked 259 Times in 121 Posts
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRS View Post
@geraldjust Yes, my car is swapped. But the test decribed in my last post was done on a factory 2018 BRZ. The behavior of this car and my swapped one is fully identical for the test in stopped condition. Ofcourse driving wise it is easier to provocate the cut off in my LS swap due to the higher weight.

I monitored the thermistor temperature during repeating that test on the standing vehicle. I kept the steering torque all the time pretty high to stress the system and also changed direction multiple times. The thermistor temp rised constantly over several minutes, but behavior was same. The cut off jumped in, and as soon as the steering was released slightly, support came back.

It was same when starting the test at 30°C thermistor at the beginning as it was at 40°C in the end. I was provocating cut offs against lock for about 5min. So I highly doubt a mechanical or thermal limitation, since during the complete test run nothing in the basic behavior changed. (Again note: The change request would not be to further increase support, everything needed is to keep that thing running...)

I also was able to define the limits further. The cut off jumps in as soon as the measured steering wheel input torque reached 6Nm. The requested current is reduced to zero in that second.

Then the value just instantly jumps to 7Nm, what seems where the sensor itself tops out, since one still is holding the steering wheel while the motor quits, what inturn results in a instantly higher input torque.

Then, once the steering input torque is slowly reduced, the support kicks in as soon as 5.5Nm is reached. The requested current is then set to the value (or at least ball park) which could be seen during the way towards lock.

This game can be played quick or slow. Means exceeding 6Nm and holding the input torque above 5.5Nm for 10s results in a 9s cut off (about 1s system reaction time...). If you stay above that 5.5Nm for 1.5s, the result is 0.5s cut off. The whole procedure can be repeted in close to 1Hz frequency or any frequency lower then that.

One more observation: The highest current values of above 40+ amps was seen during fast turning of the wheel. Highest current when hitting the lock was about 30-35. So my conclusion: the motor driver is also able to provide even higher amps.
Also the temp is not instantly freaking out, since internal temp sensing keeps in acceptabel range even over longer stress periods and, most important, behavior and values dont change all over the stress test.

The behavior is a simple reaction towards input torque and pretty much doesnt care about any other conditions. Not temp, not current requested, not current controlled, not steering angle nor steering speed. It's a simple and clasic one-variable-condition with hysteressis.

I cannot make any other conclusion but the intension was to create a steering lock overload protection (what absolutely makes sense, no doubt about that), but nobody cared about giving this function a little more then absolute basic logic. This results in a unneccessarily low marging of the EPS system support and the possibility of suddenly losing EPS support during harsh turns and as well the possibility of sudden return of the support, what from my personal expierience, is the far bigger issue towards vehicle stability/control and safety.

The driver is still turning the wheel to stay with the turn, then suddenly support returns and the steering wheel gets "light", what results to a sudden, short inwards turn of the steering wheel due to driver reaction time. This is pretty much like a forced mid-turn-scandinavian-flik.

What actually might be a limitation by physical Design ist the fact, that I was not able to read a steering wheel angle. This somehow triggers me, since the zero position can be calibrated, what draw me to the conclusion that the system must have some kind of knowledge about the steering angle. Though, there is no readable value for that. Only available angle it motor angle. But this can not be easily transfered to a steering angle, since the motor does multiple turns and there is no turn counter. So the absolute position is unknown.

If there actually is no steering angle measured, what somehow makes zero Sense in my head, it's clear that a lock protection has no other option then to relie on input torque only...
ah ok now im seeing the bigger picture. seems like its a limitaiton on the actual sensor used for torque. The thermal issue is still a possibility in my mind because the actual module isnt measuring the important part in my opinion. but thats more of a side note. But i get your point about those numbers. i will try and see what can be done. i retired the eeprom data and i have a feeling it could be calibration data, if so, their a chance to atleast change the upper limit if im correct.

As for the angle sensor, thats actually done on a clock spring. And sent via canbus to the EPS. If anything ima start messing with my car. And start logging and doing some gateway to mess with the data going in and out.
__________________
Always looking to tinker with something..
geraldjust is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to geraldjust For This Useful Post:
TRS (05-10-2023)
Old 05-10-2023, 03:48 PM   #33
TRS
Senior Member
 
TRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Drives: 2013' Toyota 86 (EU spec)
Location: Germany
Posts: 160
Thanks: 32
Thanked 139 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
That Info about the steering angle measured at the clock spring leads me to a possible idea for a solution: Of IT would be possible to intersect the Connection between the torque sensor and the actual EPS module/ECU, why not crating a little addon-box, which takes the steering angle via CAN and is between the actual ECU and the torque sensor. It should be a easy logic to simply limit the maximum torque (Sensor voltage) to the equal of 5.9Nm as long as the steering angle is between +/-400° (Just as a example under the assumption that Lock is at +/-445°). This should erase the actual issue and just limit the support to a maximum instead of sending the unit into cut off mode.
__________________
TRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2023, 09:38 PM   #34
RedReplicant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: None
Location: Arizona
Posts: 943
Thanks: 1,506
Thanked 1,285 Times in 541 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I don't know how it works, but this is what the torque sensor looks like out of my spare BRZ column. The column has to be dropped and the front half of the case has to come off to remove the sensor.



__________________
RedReplicant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2023, 01:14 AM   #35
geraldjust
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Drives: MR2, Sliver BRZ
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 309
Thanks: 5
Thanked 259 Times in 121 Posts
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRS View Post
That Info about the steering angle measured at the clock spring leads me to a possible idea for a solution: Of IT would be possible to intersect the Connection between the torque sensor and the actual EPS module/ECU, why not crating a little addon-box, which takes the steering angle via CAN and is between the actual ECU and the torque sensor. It should be a easy logic to simply limit the maximum torque (Sensor voltage) to the equal of 5.9Nm as long as the steering angle is between +/-400° (Just as a example under the assumption that Lock is at +/-445°). This should erase the actual issue and just limit the support to a maximum instead of sending the unit into cut off mode.
Seems like the torque sensor is a active type. That on the ring their active circuitry that then puts out to voltages that correspond to the torque. so im thinking some sort of voltage divider but then its a fixed rate and doesnt taper off. You would also lose more "help" that the rack gives.

Second option would be a op-amp and a external chip controlling the curve. i think that more "programmable" but would be more complicated.

Third, maybe some zener diodes to always max out right before the limit. Simple, wont cut the PS, and it will leave it the feeling of its operating range the same.

I dont think the angle data or speed would be needed. if people are calming that this still happens at speeds out at the track i think.
__________________
Always looking to tinker with something..
geraldjust is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to geraldjust For This Useful Post:
DocWalt (05-12-2023), RedReplicant (05-12-2023), TRS (05-14-2023)
Old 05-14-2023, 08:54 PM   #36
TRS
Senior Member
 
TRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Drives: 2013' Toyota 86 (EU spec)
Location: Germany
Posts: 160
Thanks: 32
Thanked 139 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by geraldjust View Post
Seems like the torque sensor is a active type. That on the ring their active circuitry that then puts out to voltages that correspond to the torque. so im thinking some sort of voltage divider but then its a fixed rate and doesnt taper off. You would also lose more "help" that the rack gives.

Second option would be a op-amp and a external chip controlling the curve. i think that more "programmable" but would be more complicated.

Third, maybe some zener diodes to always max out right before the limit. Simple, wont cut the PS, and it will leave it the feeling of its operating range the same.

I dont think the angle data or speed would be needed. if people are calming that this still happens at speeds out at the track i think.
Thanks for those pics. This makes things clearer. Im pretty sure the two rings are not the actual sensor but a rotary union/lead through. I would assume that there is a strain gauge sensor on side of the shaft, which is supplied with the measuring signals/voltage by those two rings.

Nevertheless, the actually important point is, that there is a cable with connector between the sensor and the ECU unit. So it should be absolutely feasible to put an additional unit in between which limits the output voltage and in this way avoids the cut off. Using the correct connectors and pins, this could be a Plug&Play solution.

Angle data would only be needed to still keep the "lock overload protection". Means, If more then eg 90% of max steering angle is achieved, the system behaves as normal/factory. All the add-in unit needs to do is to just hand through the actual signal of the torque sensor without touching it if this angle over 90% condition is met. If the angle is below that (condition is not met), the max torque sensor output is simply limited to the equal of 5.9Nm by that hypothetical add-in box.

This would keep the behavior of the system in Standard driving conditions Like factory. Under Racing conditions, where the problematic higher loads are supplied to the steering rack, the maximum available support is limited to the value which is anyway the maximum allowed by the factory electronics. Only difference is that the cut off is avoided by never exceeding the 5.9 respectively 6Nm.

It could be kind of a "voltage limiter", which allows only voltages below {voltage equal to 5.9Nm} to pass. Everything above that value would be limited to {voltage equal to 5.9Nm}. This unit is pretty much always on and only bypassed (means actual torque sensor voltage is delivered to EPS ECU) if steering angle is above 90% of maximum.

As said, Im no expert in electronics and programming. Im the mechanical guy. But I would guess that such a box/logic should not be that big deal.

CAN hi/lo should be anyway present at the main connector of the EPS ECU and a power supply for the add-in unit is anyway needed, what I guess can also be found in this connector. So there would be two points where the add-in unit is connected inline the factory harness. Once at the main connector for power and can, and once between the torque sensor and the EPS ECU unit.
__________________

Last edited by TRS; 05-15-2023 at 04:47 AM.
TRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2023, 12:49 PM   #37
Nmstec
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Drives: Frankenstein of parts
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23 Times in 11 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I'm pulling the eep and will see if they have limit set in eeprom, or in flash. Should be eep, if this was a lemon law recall.
Nmstec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2023, 02:54 PM   #38
RedReplicant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Drives: None
Location: Arizona
Posts: 943
Thanks: 1,506
Thanked 1,285 Times in 541 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
After speaking with DCE a little bit more they were able to offer a slightly cheaper kit that changes the connectors from Autosport and uses a more budget (but still extremely nice) enclosure.

They explained that the reason they can't currently build a cheaper BRZ retrofit is because the torque sensor in the BRZ column isn't compatible with their cheaper EPAS controllers.

Price is still not cheap at $4175.
__________________
RedReplicant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RedReplicant For This Useful Post:
TRS (05-17-2023)
Old 05-17-2023, 09:30 PM   #39
TRS
Senior Member
 
TRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Drives: 2013' Toyota 86 (EU spec)
Location: Germany
Posts: 160
Thanks: 32
Thanked 139 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Thanks for doing that request and sharing the information. Im still hoping for a simpler solution that keeps the OEM system, though with no higher EPS support. But as said, Im fine with the amount of support, it Just has to stay and Not cut off. Maybe the idea of that add-in box is adopted by someone capable of doing that kind of stuff...
__________________
TRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2024, 12:38 PM   #40
Nickel
Nick
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Drives: 2013 10 Series GT86 #182 of 2500
Location: NC Mountains
Posts: 94
Thanks: 39
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Well.. I FINALLY found the solution to this. A lot of people on this forum over the years abandoning posts after saying they are going to start working on a solution, but I have found a company in the UK that will send you a modified front subframe with a BMW hydraulic rack, pump and pulley for your 86. Pre check out is 2,135 Euros. I think I am going to be the guinea pig on this one.


https://www.hgkshop.com/products/gt8...44300395381032
__________________
2013 Scion FR-S 10 Series MT #182 of 2500/2007 BMW Z4 3.0si Coupe/2016 Yamaha FZ-09/2022 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Handling Package MT Recaro 700A (#N3956)/2023 Toyota Camry XSE

Instagram: @the_white_comet_of_zion
Nickel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nickel For This Useful Post:
blsfrs (10-31-2024), Ohio Enthusiast (10-31-2024)
Old 10-31-2024, 04:53 PM   #41
Ohio Enthusiast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Drives: 2018 BRZ
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 980
Thanks: 1,425
Thanked 835 Times in 478 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
That's an impressive solution, but I wonder if you're going to make such extreme changes to the car, wouldn't something like a standalone EPS be easier? Prius rack or something?

Also, unless it's from an E90 M3 (which has its own issue of the speed-sensitive variable assist solenoid), it'll probably be a pretty slow rack (regular 3 series is 16:1; xDrive is 18:1; M3 is 12.5:1 (faster than Twins' 13:1)).

Finally, for track use I wonder if it might be even easier to just remove the assist motor (i.e. not just pulling the EPS fuse, but outright removing the gears and motor, potentially welding anything that has intentional play, like when depowering hydraulic racks)?

You'd be losing assists and probably have a Christmas tree dash with any of these solution anyway, unless tuned out.
Ohio Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adjusting AFR with Engine Load Compensation (instead of Load Limits) Tor Software Tuning 33 08-17-2021 09:58 AM
ISSUE: 1900-2000 RPM Shutter/Shaking (Free load) Neurytic Issues | Warranty | Recalls / TSB 29 11-22-2020 11:19 PM
Steering issue? edrokone BRZ First-Gen (2012+) -- General Topics 6 05-16-2020 03:58 AM
Possible Steering Issue ? TJB_902 Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 5 06-24-2015 02:38 AM
Steering wheel issue Khalis Issues | Warranty | Recalls / TSB 1 05-04-2013 02:19 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.