Dyno Results of Paper v. Gauze

[Greg Field]

Just had a map built for the billy bob and spent some time comparing a BMC filter with opern-top box to my stock airbox modified per Phil A.'s instructions used with the stock paper filter.

 

I'm a retard, so i can't figure out a way to post the graphs, but here's what they show:

 

Peak hp slightly higher with paper, but with the BMC more torque and hp from 3,500 to just under where the paper takes the lead again at about 8,000 rpm. From 3,700 to 8,000 rpm, the BMC leads by about 5 lb.-ft and 2-5 hp.

 

All else was left the same except fo change of filter and box lid.

 

The rest of the configuration is '04 Bill Bob with PC III and Mistral crossover and mufflers.

 

Driveability is amazingly imporved after mapping. Money well spent. Time to sleep.

[dlaing]

Interesting results. I would have thought the BMC would do better at peak HP and maybe the paper better at low RPM.

It would be interesting to do the test halfway through the service life of the filters.

It would also be interesting to find out what would happen if the map were built for the BMC filter instead of for the paper map.

I think Todd Eagan did some tests comparing the K&N and the paper and found little difference in power output.

But as Ratchet has posted, paper filters out dirt better than the K&N.

Greg, didn't you also do a white glove test on the inside of a paper filtered airbox?

Thanks for the post.

[Mr. Bean]

Greg,

 

Where did you go to have the mapping done?

 

Randy

[jrt]

Not to be curmudgeonly or anything but what's the intrinsic error on a dyno? I've seen many postings where some change gives 2-5 unit changes in horsepower or torque. The absolute values are around 70ish HP or ft-lbs. That's between a 3-8% difference.

Is a dyno capable of measuring with this level of precision? My understanding from what I've read is that dynos aren't particularly accurate, and different dynos can give different values. But I've never seen the precision issue brought up- how repeatable are the measurements and at what level is a change in the value statistically significant?

Just curious-

[Guest ratchethack]

My understanding from what I've read is that dynos aren't particularly accurate, and different dynos can give different values. But I've never seen the precision issue brought up- how repeatable are the measurements and at what level is a change in the value statistically significant?

Just curious-

Jason, I do b'lieve you may've tapped into the very aorta of blood flow of those who chase peaks on dyno charts here. . . Seems the perceived "value" of a motorcycle to many can literally swing with the direction of the wind, depending on significant wide variances in dyno calibration, weather, elevation, temp., etc.!!!!

 

Best not befuddle 'em in a curmudgeonly kinda way with disturbing questions like this! Nay! It disrupts their entire concept of how they value their motorcycle, "bigger" always being "better", of course.

 

You've just gotta wonder, though, (don't you?) why anyone who measures the worth of a motorcycle by peaks on dyno charts would own a V11, since Japper Fours of half the displacement today can out-peak a V11 (relatively speaking, of course -- same dyno, same conditions, same day, etc.)?

 

Rapt in wonder, enquiring minds (well, you know). . .

 

EDIT: Not to discredit wot Greg has posted above in any way! He's evidently used relative dyno measurements to compare effects of different air filters, all other parameters on the bike (including the dyno itself) being the same. Good stuff.

 

Reminds me I've got a scheduled air filter (BMC) clean & oil coming up. NOTE: As Greg has noted previously from decades of well-qualified professional observation, most riders ignore air filter maintenance entirely, allowing them to go dirty and dry as a bone, long past service intervals. When run dry from neglect, gauze filters like the BMC are as useless as fish nets.

[Greg Field]

Mr. Bean: George Dean's Seattle Cycle Service.

 

I do not know about the accuracy, but several runs were done that were all identical in results. Seemed repetable, at least.

 

Peak numbers were 80.2 hp with paper, and 78.7 with gauze.

 

Torque peaked at 67 with paper and 70.7 with gauz, both at about 5400 rpm.

[dlaing]

You've just gotta wonder, though, (don't you?) why anyone who measures the worth of a motorcycle by peaks on dyno charts would own a V11, since Japper Fours of half the displacement today can out-peak a V11 (relatively speaking, of course -- same dyno, same conditions, same day, etc.)?

"Japper" fours have nothing to do with it.

Some of us Love Guzzis for reasons that are much greater than dyno output, but that does diminish the value of a bike with a consistently better dyno output.

If brand new show room bikes were dyno'd and all else appeared identical, only a fool would choose the bike with the lower dyno result.

Heck, I would pay extra for that bike, but I would question how they tuned the bike, dyno conditions, etc.

It would be a valuable dealer prep service accompanied by the MotoMan dyno break in method.

I am sure there would be people willing to save 100 dollars per missing torque pound for the runts of the litter, and some might pay 100dollars extra per above average pound of torque of the pedigree goose.

[Ballabio Bertie]

Mr. Bean: George Dean's Seattle Cycle Service.

 

I do not know about the accuracy, but several runs were done that were all identical in results. Seemed repetable, at least.

 

Peak numbers were 80.2 hp with paper, and 78.7 with gauze.

 

Torque peaked at 67 with paper and 70.7 with gauz, both at about 5400 rpm.

Hi Greg, will you be posting the map? I have the exact same setup on my Blobbio and a less than perfect pc111 map.

[Guest ratchethack]

"Japper" fours have nothing to do with it.

But au contraire, my oft-misguided dyno-peak chaser. . .

 

Whether you realize this or not, and whether you like it or not, it's the Japper fours that set the performance bar that every moto-journalist, every moto OEM, aftermarket manufacturer, and the VAST MAJORITY OF RIDERS OF EVERY MARQUE have become market-hype CONDITIONED to use as THE measurement by which to gauge and compare the relative VALUE of motorcycles -- of course this includes the V11 Guzzi, without any question! I b'lieve that any denial of this is simply a denial of the realities of by far and away the dominant driver of motorcycle sales & marketing today.

 

Dave, you've been more focused (dare I suggest obsessed?) on dyno peak numbers in your posts than anyone on this Forum I can think of for years. Your posts of support for Eraldo Ferracci's (entirely unfounded) claim that 140 hp for the V11 is "no problem" and your insistence in the existence of the infamous, yet entirely imaginary "V11 Hayabusa eater" come to mind. Wot d'you think sets THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD by which all moto's are measured on this scale?? Yes, my indefatigably speculative and wildly imaginative Forum Foil -- it's the Japper fours! -- such as the Modern Era Classic dyno-peak Champ, the Hayabusa!

 

Why Dave, you brought this up yourself!

 

It was YOU who conjured-up and introduced the false, non-existant hallucination of the "V11 Hayabusa eater"!

 

Need a reminder? It's only been 3 months since this thread:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...;p=120766

 

Wherein you said,

. . .yes, a V11 can be competitive with a Hyperbike on just about any road.

Ratchet, assuming you understood this simple plan to convert a V11 into a Hayabusa eater, why do you doubt this modification plan would work?

The underlying point here that you evidently fail to comprehend, along with apparently so many others, is that chasing dyno peak measurements have LITTLE TO ZERO do do with real-world "performance" on the road -- even in a relative sense, V11-to-V11!!!

 

To wit:

 

Dyno measurements as universally published throughout the entire landscape of the motorcycle market (dyno peak numbers and graphs are the common wallpaper in all directions, in case you haven't noticed ) are ALWAYS (would anyone say different?) taken at WOT!

 

Now for those of us not piloting race bikes on tracks, how much riding TIME is spent at WOT on ANY road by ANY rider?! I suggest it's less than a tiny fraction of a percent -- even for the most maniacal "Boy Racer"/future traffic statistic. Does this put the significance of dyno peaks as a measure of a motorcycle's value into perspective? Speaking for myself as a dedicated and confessed, yet entirely unrepentant Road Geez , I can literally go for thousands of miles without EVER hitting WOT -- and furthermore, I suspect I'm hardly alone in this regard, among the vast majority of ALL riders!!

 

BAA, TJM, even though I seriously doubt y'er M is EVER gonna V. . .

[luhbo]

...

I'll wager most of us won't put enough miles on our bikes to be concerned about any possible engine damage from a less restrictive air filter. There's always a tradeoff b/t performance and service life.

....

 

Perfect answer. My V11 now has 72.000 km on the clock, K+N for 60.000km, and guess what: oil consumption goes against nothing, power is enough etc. etc.

 

Hubert

[GuzziMoto]

I believe the original post was not just about peak power but also about the shape of the power curve. Dyno's don't just measure peak power but how much power all the way thru the rev range. They are a useful tool to anyone interested in improving the way their bike(Guzzi or not) runs. Whether you focus your efforts on peak power, peak torque, or size and shape of the curve, is up to the individual. Like any tool, it is up to the user to decide how they use it. I thought the original post was interesting because it did not give the results I would have expected. I would be curious to see if others get simular results.

[Greg Field]

Experiences vary, of course.

 

Everytime I change my paper filter, each valley of the pleat is 1/4 tp 1/3 full of trapped dirt. I've never seen this on a k&n. It just goes right through. Does it matter? I think it does, but that's just my opinion.

[GuzziMoto]

I think you may be confusing thru with into. When I wash out my K&N's a lot of dirt comes out. You can tell if you use a wash bucket by how dirty the water gets. The one big disadvantage of K&N type filters is that when they get wet, the water can carry the dirt that is trapped in them right on thru to your engine.

I remember reading way back in the before time about Mt. St. Helens blowing up, and that the only way you could safely drive a car around with all the ash in the air was to have a K&N type filter. Of course at the time K&N was the only major player in the market.

[Guest ratchethack]

All the testing I've seen indicates that the K&N type filters catch more dirt then paper, not less.

Hoooboy. Do we really wanna re-open this one?

 

Sure!

 

Why not?

 

I wonder wot testing you've seen, GuzziMoto? Can you provide links or other ref's to testing I'm not aware of? Wot you suggest is 180 degrees out-o'-phase from all I've seen.

 

No, I'm not merely yankin' y'er chain. I'm sincerely interested.

 

I wonder if you've seen this test. It's the most credible one I've seen (of many tests with the same kinds of results, a few of which are cited in the thread linked below):

 

http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

 

Please enjoy the ensuing Forum brouhaha (aka clusterfest ) from nearly 2 years back here:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...hl=K&N#

 

[GuzziMoto]

Statement retracted humblely.