SOOO went to replace air filter and.....
11-22-2011 | 02:50 PM
#32
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
The BMC gives you the ability to clean and reuse the filter, same as the K&N...
And the Street is just that, a filter for a street use bike, not a race bike... Draw the rest of the consclusion yourself...
And the Street is just that, a filter for a street use bike, not a race bike... Draw the rest of the consclusion yourself...
11-22-2011 | 03:01 PM
#33
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
Nope, I care not to share info with non-believers. I have mine tuned near perfect on Dyno (1 time to verify I might add) and to be honest I am not wasting my time digging up settings from 6 or 7 years ago. The bike runs perfect with K&N, no smog stuff, block-offs, pipes, jet kit and ignition adv.
Some owners just need to buy an FI bike.
Some owners just need to buy an FI bike.
Since you say your bike is running perfect, with one tune on the dyno to verify it... Well, then perfect in comparasion to what?
How do you compare one dynosheet to nothing? Ohhh looky, I gained here, and lost here, compared too, oh right, nothing...
Yeah, it's running "perfect" as in not missing, not backfiring, not hard to start or whatever common problems bad setup can cause... But is it perfect as in the best it can be? Well, with one set of data compared to nothing, or perhaps "stock", I don't even have to call it bullshit, you proved it yourself...
I'm not even going to claim I'm a better tuner than you, which you are infact implying you are... I can set things up decent, not perfect... If you can, start charging people money ASAP, since you are the only one in the world as far as I know...
Unless you are prepared to back up a claim of "perfect", it's pretty much useless... Just saying...
11-22-2011 | 03:01 PM
#34
Junior Member
Squid
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 15
Cat among your pidgeons, fitted within the depths of my stomping storm is........... wait for it.............. a.............K&N. Not been dyno'ed but runs OK, better than when I purchased the bike, rejetted with 50# slow 11/2 turn out on screw, washer under needles and 185/190 mains and blocked off one of the holes in the front slide, runs great till about 8.750 on the rev-ometer then tails off, this will paw air in 3rd if you sit back and wheelies like a wheely thing in 1st/2nd solid stomp from idle! Purrrr
11-22-2011 | 03:08 PM
#35
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
Oh, BTW Thumper... I never said you where wrong on anything... Your opinion is your opinon...
My initial reply was in response to when you claimed noboy spent the time to get the K&N right... I spent time on my bike, and couple of more bikes... Trying setup, after setup, after setup... Comparing a fresh OEM to the K&N in the same bike... And I still opted for the OEM in the end... But I guess I'm not as good at setting up carbs as you are... I mean you get it right the first time, and that's it... Perfect...
My initial reply was in response to when you claimed noboy spent the time to get the K&N right... I spent time on my bike, and couple of more bikes... Trying setup, after setup, after setup... Comparing a fresh OEM to the K&N in the same bike... And I still opted for the OEM in the end... But I guess I'm not as good at setting up carbs as you are... I mean you get it right the first time, and that's it... Perfect...
11-22-2011 | 03:31 PM
#37
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
Cat among your pidgeons, fitted within the depths of my stomping storm is........... wait for it.............. a.............K&N. Not been dyno'ed but runs OK, better than when I purchased the bike, rejetted with 50# slow 11/2 turn out on screw, washer under needles and 185/190 mains and blocked off one of the holes in the front slide, runs great till about 8.750 on the rev-ometer then tails off, this will paw air in 3rd if you sit back and wheelies like a wheely thing in 1st/2nd solid stomp from idle! Purrrr
So that would mean that they didn't take the time or just can't tune a SH so why would you listen to such silly advice from that person??
Or maybe I should have just kept that information to myself......
11-22-2011 | 07:31 PM
#38
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,015
2 singles - carbed
2 v-twins carbed
1 4 banger carbed
and one lil-v-twin Fi that is the misses and yes it has a non-stock air filter with a PC
Last edited by Thumper; 11-22-2011 at 08:02 PM.
11-22-2011 | 07:40 PM
#39
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,015
I wasn't out to battle with you three (8541Hawk, Tweety, Killer5280), your opinions are yours and i respect those, but hey mine is an opinion as well. You assume that others have not had better success at tuning a bike than you, because maybe you weren't satisfied with your outcome, so no one else could possibly be satisfied with a K&N installed either.
i guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
Last edited by Thumper; 11-22-2011 at 08:00 PM.
11-22-2011 | 08:07 PM
#40
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
None of this mine runs great but I'm not going to tell you how I did it nonsense.
Then I guess I shouldn't have been offended but the comment on not taking the time to jet it properly for a K&N but I am only human.
I spent 2 years messing with one and it never worked worth a ****.
So yes it is an opinion and no I don't have a stack of dyno charts.
All I can say is, that if you have the magic formula to make a K&N work on this bike, why hide the information?
11-22-2011 | 08:17 PM
#41
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,015
I do run different emulsion tube configuration than stock, I do run the FP TI needles 4th notch, i do have 48 pilots.
11-22-2011 | 08:19 PM
#42
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
It is just not worth their time, sorry.
11-22-2011 | 08:22 PM
#43
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,015
Also just an FYI as to why I can't post "positive proof" is the simple fact that I can't get either Dan Kyle (who was the engine builder for Erion Racing aka Honda USA) in the late 90's (when the VTR1000f was a race bike test bed) or the "unnamed" Moriwaki tech to post here.
It is just not worth their time, sorry.
It is just not worth their time, sorry.
Last edited by Thumper; 11-22-2011 at 08:34 PM.
11-22-2011 | 09:15 PM
#44
Thread Starter
MandownMertech
Superstock
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 289
From: Sacramento / NorcaL
It wouldn't BUT, I would VENTURE to say K&N would probably do best with their race bike setups than a street setup. (not saying eitehr is right or wrong, or that race can't run stock or street cant run k&n)
11-22-2011 | 09:16 PM
#45
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,611
From: Belgium, WI
11-22-2011 | 09:46 PM
#46
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
But like all good testing, first they started with a stock engine to see how much they could get out of it for a "base line" so they did have a bit of time on the dyno. How can you know if the engine mods you are making are correct or useful without knowing what it can do in the stock configuration.
Then with different "stages" of modifications to see what they could get out of it.
So basically they raced with 2 configurations. One with no filter at all and the other was with the stock filter.
Not saying that the bike can't be made to run well with a K&N. Just, in my experience, I could never get it to work correctly and when I asked for help and consensus between the sources that I had\have all said the same thing..... ditch the K&N.
So that is why I asked about your settings.....
11-22-2011 | 10:06 PM
#47
Senior Member
SuperBike
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,015
See we can discuss things without all the crap. I will see if i can dig up the settings if i have them somewhere. I just am not going to take the carbs off to get main jet sizes, to much work and i would rather tinker with my other bikes.
Would like to see some Dyno runs graphs of both stock and K&N filters runs if Tweety has them for comparison. He may not, but as he had so many runs i would hope he has those to share.
There are lots of other things to consider as well, altitude, humidity, temp, type of gas and so on. No two bikes even configured the same are going to run the same.
Would like to see some Dyno runs graphs of both stock and K&N filters runs if Tweety has them for comparison. He may not, but as he had so many runs i would hope he has those to share.
There are lots of other things to consider as well, altitude, humidity, temp, type of gas and so on. No two bikes even configured the same are going to run the same.
11-22-2011 | 10:54 PM
#48
Connie Demico does toad?
Superstock
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 383
From: Lakeway
F**k it, I'm jumping in. My '03(apparently the fast one) has the k/n, mystery cans and who knows jetting. Has a minor flat spot off idle but other than that runs "fine". i get the feeling it runs rich tho and could be smoother.
My only real question is, if I pony up for a stock filter, could I expect to retune for it, or might it just cap off the tuning nicely. Is it worth it to try the stock filter @ 40$.
My only real question is, if I pony up for a stock filter, could I expect to retune for it, or might it just cap off the tuning nicely. Is it worth it to try the stock filter @ 40$.
11-23-2011 | 11:25 AM
#49
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 231
From: Saint Paul, MN
Back into the K&N fray. In another thread I mentioned that my 98 came with a K&N when I bought it this past summer, and AFAIK it runs fine. But of course I've never compared it to how it would run with a stock air filter.
When I bought it, the previous owner included a dyno printout from the year 2000. He had it tuned for the K&N and Yoshimura pipes -- no other engine-related mods. Here is what is written verbatim:
DYNORUN.015 '98 VTR 1000, yosh pipe, 13,734 miles.
182/188 mains changed to 188/192, needle up to 4.0 groove (from 3.5), tune-up completed.
The max torque and power are virtually identical from the before and after jetting changes:
DYNORUN.003 Max Power = 105.6 hp, Max Torque = 70.3 (before jetting changes)
DYNORUN.015 Max Power = 106.1 hp, Max Torque = 70.1 (after jetting changes).
So, as you can see, max torque and hp remained virtually identical.
However, before the jetting changes, there was a massive dip in torque from about 3800 to 4200 rpm: from about 52 ft lbs down to 33 (!) at 4000, before climing back to about 48 ft lbs at 4200. Then another drop in torque at about 4400 rpm down to 40 ft lbs before quickly climbing up to 62 or so at 5000 rpm.
After the jetting changes, the torque "curve" is much more linear in that same 3500 - 5000 rpm range: close to 60 ft lbs at 3500, and up to about 63 ft lbs at 5000 rpm. There is still a slight torque drop at about 4100 rpm from 60 to 56 (more or less). At 4500, it's back to 60 ft lbs.
All this may be moot to this discussion because as far as I can tell, the K&N filter already was in place. But, it still shows (I think) that a Superhawk can be tuned properly with a K&N -- I'm just glad I didn't have to do it myself!
When I bought it, the previous owner included a dyno printout from the year 2000. He had it tuned for the K&N and Yoshimura pipes -- no other engine-related mods. Here is what is written verbatim:
DYNORUN.015 '98 VTR 1000, yosh pipe, 13,734 miles.
182/188 mains changed to 188/192, needle up to 4.0 groove (from 3.5), tune-up completed.
The max torque and power are virtually identical from the before and after jetting changes:
DYNORUN.003 Max Power = 105.6 hp, Max Torque = 70.3 (before jetting changes)
DYNORUN.015 Max Power = 106.1 hp, Max Torque = 70.1 (after jetting changes).
So, as you can see, max torque and hp remained virtually identical.
However, before the jetting changes, there was a massive dip in torque from about 3800 to 4200 rpm: from about 52 ft lbs down to 33 (!) at 4000, before climing back to about 48 ft lbs at 4200. Then another drop in torque at about 4400 rpm down to 40 ft lbs before quickly climbing up to 62 or so at 5000 rpm.
After the jetting changes, the torque "curve" is much more linear in that same 3500 - 5000 rpm range: close to 60 ft lbs at 3500, and up to about 63 ft lbs at 5000 rpm. There is still a slight torque drop at about 4100 rpm from 60 to 56 (more or less). At 4500, it's back to 60 ft lbs.
All this may be moot to this discussion because as far as I can tell, the K&N filter already was in place. But, it still shows (I think) that a Superhawk can be tuned properly with a K&N -- I'm just glad I didn't have to do it myself!
11-23-2011 | 11:52 AM
#50
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
Back into the K&N fray. In another thread I mentioned that my 98 came with a K&N when I bought it this past summer, and AFAIK it runs fine. But of course I've never compared it to how it would run with a stock air filter.
When I bought it, the previous owner included a dyno printout from the year 2000. He had it tuned for the K&N and Yoshimura pipes -- no other engine-related mods. Here is what is written verbatim:
DYNORUN.015 '98 VTR 1000, yosh pipe, 13,734 miles.
182/188 mains changed to 188/192, needle up to 4.0 groove (from 3.5), tune-up completed.
The max torque and power are virtually identical from the before and after jetting changes:
DYNORUN.003 Max Power = 105.6 hp, Max Torque = 70.3 (before jetting changes)
DYNORUN.015 Max Power = 106.1 hp, Max Torque = 70.1 (after jetting changes).
So, as you can see, max torque and hp remained virtually identical.
However, before the jetting changes, there was a massive dip in torque from about 3800 to 4200 rpm: from about 52 ft lbs down to 33 (!) at 4000, before climing back to about 48 ft lbs at 4200. Then another drop in torque at about 4400 rpm down to 40 ft lbs before quickly climbing up to 62 or so at 5000 rpm.
After the jetting changes, the torque "curve" is much more linear in that same 3500 - 5000 rpm range: close to 60 ft lbs at 3500, and up to about 63 ft lbs at 5000 rpm. There is still a slight torque drop at about 4100 rpm from 60 to 56 (more or less). At 4500, it's back to 60 ft lbs.
All this may be moot to this discussion because as far as I can tell, the K&N filter already was in place. But, it still shows (I think) that a Superhawk can be tuned properly with a K&N -- I'm just glad I didn't have to do it myself!
When I bought it, the previous owner included a dyno printout from the year 2000. He had it tuned for the K&N and Yoshimura pipes -- no other engine-related mods. Here is what is written verbatim:
DYNORUN.015 '98 VTR 1000, yosh pipe, 13,734 miles.
182/188 mains changed to 188/192, needle up to 4.0 groove (from 3.5), tune-up completed.
The max torque and power are virtually identical from the before and after jetting changes:
DYNORUN.003 Max Power = 105.6 hp, Max Torque = 70.3 (before jetting changes)
DYNORUN.015 Max Power = 106.1 hp, Max Torque = 70.1 (after jetting changes).
So, as you can see, max torque and hp remained virtually identical.
However, before the jetting changes, there was a massive dip in torque from about 3800 to 4200 rpm: from about 52 ft lbs down to 33 (!) at 4000, before climing back to about 48 ft lbs at 4200. Then another drop in torque at about 4400 rpm down to 40 ft lbs before quickly climbing up to 62 or so at 5000 rpm.
After the jetting changes, the torque "curve" is much more linear in that same 3500 - 5000 rpm range: close to 60 ft lbs at 3500, and up to about 63 ft lbs at 5000 rpm. There is still a slight torque drop at about 4100 rpm from 60 to 56 (more or less). At 4500, it's back to 60 ft lbs.
All this may be moot to this discussion because as far as I can tell, the K&N filter already was in place. But, it still shows (I think) that a Superhawk can be tuned properly with a K&N -- I'm just glad I didn't have to do it myself!
You can archive this with an OEM filter though you might loose a couple of HP on the top end compared to the K&N set up.
Which also leads back to one person's "it runs great" could be "it runs like crap" to someone else.
If you "feel" a power hit, then the bike is not tuned correctly. It should just pull from 3K (or lower) all the way to the 10.3K limiter. No power "hits" just a smooth, constant build up of power.
11-23-2011 | 12:20 PM
#51
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 231
From: Saint Paul, MN
Well that is kind of the whole point of this discussion. There should be no drops or dips in the torque curve.
You can archive this with an OEM filter though you might loose a couple of HP on the top end compared to the K&N set up.
Which also leads back to one person's "it runs great" could be "it runs like crap" to someone else.
If you "feel" a power hit, then the bike is not tuned correctly. It should just pull from 3K (or lower) all the way to the 10.3K limiter. No power "hits" just a smooth, constant build up of power.
You can archive this with an OEM filter though you might loose a couple of HP on the top end compared to the K&N set up.
Which also leads back to one person's "it runs great" could be "it runs like crap" to someone else.
If you "feel" a power hit, then the bike is not tuned correctly. It should just pull from 3K (or lower) all the way to the 10.3K limiter. No power "hits" just a smooth, constant build up of power.
11-23-2011 | 12:34 PM
#52
Banned
MotoGP
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,942
From: Lake View Terrace, CA
Well you might not feel it and it was more of a general statement but by your post, the dyno charts says that there are dips in the torque curve.
11-23-2011 | 12:42 PM
#53
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 231
From: Saint Paul, MN
11-23-2011 | 07:57 PM
#56
Senior Member
Back Marker
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 231
From: Saint Paul, MN
Looks almost identical to my horsepower curve, except in the dyno readout I have, the x (or y?) axis is measured in rpm, not speed. Only the torque curve shows a few dips.
11-24-2011 | 02:07 AM
#59
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,109
From: Skurup, Sweden
See we can discuss things without all the crap. I will see if i can dig up the settings if i have them somewhere. I just am not going to take the carbs off to get main jet sizes, to much work and i would rather tinker with my other bikes.
Would like to see some Dyno runs graphs of both stock and K&N filters runs if Tweety has them for comparison. He may not, but as he had so many runs i would hope he has those to share.
There are lots of other things to consider as well, altitude, humidity, temp, type of gas and so on. No two bikes even configured the same are going to run the same.
Would like to see some Dyno runs graphs of both stock and K&N filters runs if Tweety has them for comparison. He may not, but as he had so many runs i would hope he has those to share.
There are lots of other things to consider as well, altitude, humidity, temp, type of gas and so on. No two bikes even configured the same are going to run the same.
But disregarding that, I will go digging... The unfortunate effect of having a dyno available 24/7, seems to be that when you are dissatisfied with the results, you simply do another setup/dynorun... And since it's a datafile in my case, not a printout like pro machine provides, I have a few saved, and not in the best order... I rarely throw away the datafile, but I'm not always naming them either, meaning they are only marked by date...
But I imagine since this is a hot topic, and it was one when I tried to make a comparasion too, that I would have either named or separated at least the "best setups" of each airfilter, to compare them.... I just have to find them... And with my current schedule I'm not making any promises on timeframe...
11-24-2011 | 06:31 PM
#60
Senior Member
MotoGP
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,138
From: Austin, Tx
I run a set of the member's stacks that first happened here a couple years ago. The K&N with the stacks is a breathing beast. I takes a bit of tuner to get it right. 35mph to 120 in third gear - just one sweet power-on roll. No bogs, no peaks just a steady pull.
