Rescaling load question (ecuflash)...

[turbolarry]

Looking at the stock timing map, 10% load is the same as 0% load.
On the stock fuel map, 10% load is the same as 20% load.
If the 10% column was ellimated in all tables to allow for some rescaling, what issues could arrise?
To the best of my understanding, if I ellimiate the 10% column any timing between 0% and 20% would be the average between the two columns at the corresponding RPM, right?
If the 10% column was gone and the fuel table started at 20%, any fuel required below 20% would reference that first 20% column, right?
How much time do we really spend at less then 20% load anyways?

[superflyjmysnk]

Only one way to find out.

I don't know how well you could measure the change from eliminating the 10% value since the change to >20% happens so quickly that it probably won't change your logs much at all.

[JustDSM]

The ECU will use the closest load site that corresponds w/ its current operating condition. In the many instances that it does not exactly match either the load or RPM scaling it will interpolate between the cells.

With that said, if you were to eliminate the the 0 Load column you'd effectively run the fuel/timing values present in the 10 Load site at a given RPM. Reason being that is the closest referenced load site.

I'd be interested to hear about your findings..

[turbolarry]

I'm still new to this. A buddy of mine just got the laptop working and I still have to order the cable. Just thinking and throwing out ideas. I've read the tutorial regarging rescaling by elimnating the 70 and 90 percent columns, but that doesn't seem right to me. We spend more time in the middles of the maps then at the ends.
Eliminating the 0% column... hmmm. Then you don't have to have a corresponding/matching column or cell on the fuel table then? It just goes to the closest cell or match? Hmmm...