Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

For sale: Beer R - Rev Limiter

Item Condition: Good. I never got around to using it.

Price and price conditions: $240 delivered

Extra Info:

This is Bee*R’s popular two-stage ignition cutting rev-limiter. It is used to prevent damage arising from over-revving your engine. Part of the reason for its popularity is the large flames and loud bangs it produces from the exhaust when active!

The way in which it works differs from the factory rev limiter in that it is an ignition cut, as opposed to a fuel cut. The reason for this is because if an engine (particularly turbocharged) regularly hits a fuel-cut rev limit (such as in high performance driving, or particularly drifting) engine damage can arise due to the lean condition produced when the original ECU shuts off the fuel pump. The BEE*R rev-limiter allows fuel to pass into the engine still, limiting engine speed by disabling the ignition signal. The Bee*R rev limiter is fully adjustable in 500rpm increments, for safety reasons allowing only a lower rev-limit to be configured than standard. If you have spent a lot of money tuning your engine, or are running at high RPM’s for extended periods of time, it could be recommended to run a lower rev-limit to prolong engine life. Both Formula 1 and JGTC cars use ignition cutting rev limiters, so it is a fully race proven concept.

The Bee*R can also be used as a “two stage rev limiter”, as an aid for launching your car. The Bee*R is configurable for two different rev-limits. A lower rev limit can be activated by a switch, the handbrake switch often being used. This configurable lower limit, can be set to the optimum RPM to launch your particular car from in 500rpm increments. When the handbrake is released, the usual rev limit comes into action, allowing quick launches, and full performance down the strip.

The Bee*R rev-limiter has another final neat feature. The gain control knob allows you to adjust the frequency of the ignition cut. This in turn changes the frequency and sound of the flames and bangs from your exhaust!

Red wire: 12V+

Black wire: Earth

Yellow wire: RPM Signal

Green wire: Ignition signal

White wire: 2 stage ground switch

4Cyl = Cut Grey Wire

Rotary Engines: Cut Brown Wire

6Cyl = leave all wires intact.

Pictures:

img2945r.jpg

Contact Details: Reply or PM or SMS/Call 0416 143 662

Location: Adelaide

Delivery & Conditions of Delivery: Delivery included

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/382422-bee-r-rev-limiter/
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...