Dyno Results of Paper v. Gauze

[Greg Field]

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.

 

 

This was because the paper filters would clog whereas the K&Ns did not. Guess where all that volcanic dust ended up? I was out here that summer and remember it well.

[Guest ratchethack]

I am familiar with that Duramax diesel study, but there are some points of contention with it. In the interest of not having an online debate, I'd rather not go into it.

. . .

Goin' into it ain't much evidence for rather not goin' into it, my friend. . .

 

I didn't want to re-open this and you clearly didn't want a challenge.

 

Sorry, I don't always get wot I want, either. Well... you got wot you wrought regardless, my friend.

 

This is gonna be a painful re-run over old ground for many here, myself included.

 

Think of it this way -- NO PAIN, NO GAIN!

 

IMAGINE THIS! The most significant finding for me in the ensuing Forum clusterfest in the wake of presenting the Duramax study was the LENGTHS that "The K&N Faithful" will go to in ignorance of unbiased, scientifically derived PROOF (vs. OPINION). An absolutely incredible number of posters completely failed to separate the two wotsoever in order to justify the leap of faith they'd long since committed themselves to. Their opinions had long been cast in low maintenance concrete -- very evidently on the basis of sales hype ALONE! It's been a truly astonishing -- and fascinating! -- thing to behold. . . I STILL marvel at the sheer volume of extreme sub-logical contortions and distortions. . .

 

Did I expect "converts" as a result of presenting this study, and many other apparently credible studies with parallel results (there are no credible exceptions that I'm aware of)?

 

Though there actually were a few "epiphanies on the road to Damascus" on the aforementioned thread at the link, for the most part, HELL NO, I didn't expect it to change anyone's mind! After all, to many, (as so actually stated by a Forum poster lo these many months ago) any scientific analysis (in other words, anything over one's head ) is naught but "gibberish"!! THEY REFUSE TO READ THE TEST! -- But this doesn't seem to stop 'em in the slightest from repeatedly explaining HOW WRONG THE RESULTS ARE!!

 

When one disagrees with the results, yet can't find ANYTHING LEGITIMATE wrong with the testing, this puts one in a bit of a sticky cognitive bind. . .and yet, this is exactly wot we found repeatedly. . .

A K&N filter will continue to flow acceptably under severe dirty environments, whereas a paper one can become clogged & may affect engine performance under similar conditions.

Um, I'm afraid not. Quite the opposite, actually. At least not if you're familiar with the Duramax study (as you indicated you were) and ALSO believe it to be the most comprehensive, objective, scientifically conducted, significant, and comprehensive comparative analysis of its kind in decades, (as you clearly do NOT, but I do, having read a pile of 'em -- all quite consistent with each other WRT K&N's being out there on their own in most significant parameters measured, BTW). . . I've also asked for examples of "better tests" by any credible measure from the most rabid defenders of the Great Virtues of K&N (of which no one can seem to find any at all, let alone any that stand up to analysis) and still have ZIP in response after 18 months.

 

I note that in the Duramax study, contrary to wot you've stated above, the following were compellingly demonstrated aspects of the K&N relative to the competitive field of filters tested. In ALL of the following, the K&N was ranked at or near the extreme end in the LEAST DESIRABLE direction in the spectrum of test results relative to the other filters:

 

LOWER accumulative capacity (dirt holding/loading capacity before reaching the maximum restriction limit).

HIGHER accumulative gain (amount of dirt that passed through the filter over total test time).

LOWER time to hit restriction limit.

HIGHER overall air flow restriction due to loading.

Paper filters simply STOP dirt from entering the air intake. K&N filters TRAP dirt in the oiled cotton gauze filter medium.

Stopping dirt from entering the air intake is different from trapping it?? No comprende, mi compadre.

With our litigious society, do you really think K&N would still be in business if their air filters ruined engines?

Has someone suggested that K&N filters "ruined engines"? This is really a matter of degree, isn't it? Does riding your Guzzi ruin it? If you extend the window of analysis out far enough, I reckon you'd have to say, YES. Now if your analysis period is THAT LONG, d'you think the filter that passed more dirt and loaded up earlier would be the better choice for engine health over anything approaching the same period, or vice-versa?

We're splitting hairs here.

Yep. That's kinda wot many of us actually do lots o' the time on the ol' Tech Forum. Fun stuff, ain't it?

Ever noticed that the old Guzzis didn't even have an air (or oil) filter? Just V-stacks. Ever considered that an air/oil filter is just another item for the dealer to sell?

Yep. Ever notice that Guzzi (along with hundreds of other marques) put air filters on 'em many decades before they put oil filters in em?

 

Could be they all thought air filters were lots more important, eh?

 

As you said, just thoughts & ideas. Good forum, good folks, good responses.

 

Carry on!

 

--Cdr. Chet Hatracket, Clustermudgeon

[emry]

Ratchet - you really do live here don't you.

[Guest ratchethack]

Yeah, pretty much. Since I have to watch another screen all day, which involves waiting for stuff to happen much of the time, I find it's slightly better than single-handed solitaire. . .

 

I reckon it's kinda like Heli-Jim waiting for his next log lift -- without the helicopter. And the logs.

[richard100t]

I just cant imagine that a regulary cleaned & oiled k&n filter would pass enough dirt to make a damn bit of difference. We are all changing our oil at regular intervals anyway...right?

[Guest ratchethack]

That's exactly the type of exchange I was and am trying to avoid. Oh well.

Neither of us started the thread, and who knew it would turn down this road?

 

I figure if I don't start 'em, I don't get to pick which way they go, and no one else does either. Sometimes it's that way even when I start 'em. Fair enough all the way around in an Open Forum, seems to me. Such is the nature of the thing, yes?

 

In any case, you gimme an opening like THAT, my friend, and I'm likely to jump in the breach if someone else doesn't. No apologies. Fair enough?

FWIW I am a trained scientist (Biologist) and can and have dissected more than just a few bits of "scientific" research in my day.

It's likely then that we have nearly identical undergrad degrees. Making no hard assumptions about wot school you attended, I b'lieve I'm safe in at least strongly suspecting then that you no doubt have an appreciation and respect for the Scientific Method, and (unlike a great many who posted to the linked thread above) no doubt a solid grasp of the full meaning of words like fact, logic, deduction, significant data, evidence, proof, conclusion, theory, etc. -- and can both recognize a legitimate analysis when you see one, and similarly reject a flawed one by finding weaknesses up front in its structure and/or execution.

 

In this case, based on what you've obviously concluded about K&N filters, I deduce that you take very specific exceptions to at least one, but more'n likely multiple methodologies and procedures employed in conducting the aforementioned set of analyses. Otherwise you couldn't possibly have meant wot you said above. I'd be pleased to know exactly what those exceptions are, because in all the extended aftermath of the Duramax thread, (of course, other than the broken sewer main of ridiculous pedestrian-grade folly that spewed forth in objection, which was easily enough ignored by holding the nose) we had not one iota of legitimate, intelligent analysis finding ANY FAULT with any aspect or overall nature of the series of tests themselves.

 

I DO, of course, make the assumption that you've actually read and understood the series of tests.

 

Back to you now. You know you want to respond. I can tell. . . C'mon now, Kevin. It'll be fun.

[dlaing]

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.

 

While this is true, your statement below attacks all the fine Guzzi owners who have the common sense to value a bike more that makes more power.

If the only thing we valued was maximum peak HP the Guzzi would not be in the game, and we would be lobbying Guzzi for a V8.

But we, the enlightened Guzzi owners, have the sense to value peak power at every RPM, AND most of all, we value the marvelous V-Twin engine.

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.)?

[badmotogoozer]

Neither of us started the thread, and who knew it would turn down this road?

 

 

I did the second I read the title of the thread last night. Run away Kevin. Rat has no interest in any argument that does not fit into his preconceived halucinations.

 

I've already been down this road with him and he has done nothing except ignore the serious flaws in that study, which I'm certain you also see. Others have also pointed it out but it is like arguing with a 5 year old who keeps coming back with "I know you are but what am I?".

 

I am tickled with laughter to discover after all our bickering in that thread to learn that the great Rat himself uses a BMC (which is absolutely identical to a K&N) in his Guzzi. Epitome of hipocrasy.

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

I am tickled with laughter to discover after all our bickering in that thread to learn that the great Rat himself uses a BMC (which is absolutely identical to a K&N) in his Guzzi. Epitome of hipocrasy.

Now Ryan. Can you provide this Forum anything, ANYTHING AT ALL to back this up?

 

Any article, any test, product data sheet, -- anything??

 

Wot you say is of course absolutely false, as has been discussed several times in the past. [. . . sigh. . .]

 

For your benefit alone, Ryan, I'll go through this again. Please TRY to pay attention this time. Why is it that I so often find myself repeating myself over and over for your benefit alone? Pay frickin' attention, Ryan. This is the last time. I'll use lots of CAPS to make it easier for you with your severe reading impediment. . .

 

I've read a lot of research on filters, Ryan. Now I know that someone with a severe reading disability such as yourself will automatically be suspicious of anyone who reads -- but it's a tough world out there, isn't it, Ryan -- especially when you're an idiot who for whatever reason won't READ. You really oughtta work on that. It'd be the kind of thing that could finally elevate you out of your miserable high-school drop-out mentality.

 

Do you understand, Ryan, that nearly all manufacturers of filters -- both air and oil, but many many other kinds -- specify filter media from a low number of high volume suppliers who specialize in nothing but filter MEDIA? Well, of course you don't. You don't even read the threads that you post on where people post their research, let alone do any research of your own. But how do I know this? I've read lots of specific source material on the subject, including dozens of filter test studies and dozens of manufacturer data sheets. That's how I know.

 

If you'd either researched wot you're wildly guessing about and blindly accusing me of here, OR if you'd paid any attention to several previous discussions on this Forum, I wouldn't have to do your reading for you now. I know you've ignored most of the threads and discussion that you've posted in, because your posts have been so memorable as absolutely Forum-capping, standout grade turn-your-head-away embarrassing. At least one trail of illiterate posts you've left behind is STILL there at the link provided above. You'd understand if you'd actually read about wot you're posting about that filter MEDIA manufacturers have not only many different customers, Ryan, but they offer many GRADES of filter media, typically sole-source, and under exclusive contracts for each customer.

 

Now it so happens that the mfgr. of media for K&N is THE SAME COMPANY as the mfgr. of media for BMC. They provide media for dozens of OTHER filter mfgr's, too. Again, this has been covered several times here on THIS FORUM. If you took your head out of your anal pore long enough to pay attention to wot you're spewing nonsense about, you'd already have read that the GRADE of media is DIFFERENT in the BMC than it is in the K&N -- and in all other filter OEM's. In fact, ONLY K&N uses the grade that they use -- NO OTHER FILTER MFG'R HAS IT! IT'S A CONTRACTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, SOLE-SOURCE ARRANGEMENT! This is wot separates K&N from ALL OTHER FILTERS, AND ALL OTHERS FROM EACH OTHER, RYAN! This is why K&N filters test like NO OTHER FILTER, as so dramatically demonstrated by the Duramax series of tests -- and every other filter test. Now THE DIFFERENT GRADES OF FILTER MEDIA FROM THE SAME SUPPLIER LOOK VERY SIMILAR! They SHOULD -- they're made out of the SAME MATERIAL arranged, formulated, woven, etc. differently to different specifications. It might be hard to tell any difference AT ALL by looking at them -- even side-by-side, but the TESTING tells the tale, Ryan.

 

That's right -- but then it's the TESTING that's always seemed so incomprehensible to you, isn't it, Ryan? Here's a hint, Ryan: You have to ACTUALLY READ THE TESTS to know anything about them, and trust me on this, Ryan -- It REALLY HELPS to actually read and understand tests before posting specific claims against a test's validity! You posted at least a half-dozen objections to the Duramax test without reading as much as the first sentence of it, and I seriously doubt if you've ever read it, even now. Your posts on this were one of the most pathetic and embarassing series of posts I've ever seen on this Forum. Yes, Ryan -- I'm referring to the DURAMAX TESTING that YOU said was BULLSHIT because, (as I recall):

 

*YOU SAID that any test published on the Internet was bullshit, and everything on the Internet is bullshit, therefore the Duramax Test is bullshit.

*YOU SAID the Duramax Test was "obviously" conducted by AC Delco because their filters tested so well. (It was independently conducted, as anyone who'd actually read it would fully comprehend without question within 15 seconds).

*YOU SAID one of the bar charts had accuracy to too many decimal places, therefore all the tests in the series were bullshit.

*YOU REPEATEDLY SAID the tests were conducted by filter testing on a truck motor and this has nothing to do with motorcycles, therefore all the testing was bullshit. This is false, as I repeated at least 3 times to you specifically -- EACH TIME YOU REPEATED THIS GROSSLY MISTAKEN CLAIM. As I had explained each time, all tests in the series were conducted on a test stand specifically built for the purpose -- NOT on a truck motor, as explained very clearly in the SECOND SENTENCE of the text of the test itself. Take a look now, Ryan, f'er cryin' out loud.

*YOU SAID more ridiculous crap that indicated you hadn't read as far as the first sentence of the beginning of the test, but I'm too disgusted, I tire of dealing with a moron now, and I certainly don't care enough to re-read your crap again.

 

Ryan, you're a sad, sad man with something very very wrong upstairs. Take something very powerful to quell the manic psychosis attacks (I suggest thorazine), stick your head in a toilet, and flush it several times. The voices are BOUND to disappear eventually. . .

 

Hey Ryan -- here's another word of advice for you. If you actually read for the purpose of educating yourself, as most adults do every day, you'd not butcher the word "hypocrisy" like a 12-year-old as you did above. In addition to picking up some knowledge by reading, I suggest you at least learn this one. You're obviously gonna need it.

[badmotogoozer]

Bullshit.

 

I have a BMC on my bike. I also have several K&N's sitting in my garage. Clean your BMC and take it in to your favorite WallyMart and hold it up to the light right beside a K&N. THEN YOU CAN TELL ME THAT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. PROVIDE THIS MAGICAL SOURCE YOU KEEP REFERRING TO THAT SAYS BMC IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT THAN A K&N.

 

I know you can't.

 

There is no way in hell that a BMC is keeping more crap out of an engine than a K&N. I can see perfectly well with my own two eyes. Have you ever looked at yours?????

 

Piss off.

 

Rj

[dlaing]

Now Ryan. Can you provide this Forum anything, ANYTHING AT ALL to back this up?

 

Any article, any test, product data sheet, -- anything??

 

Wot you say is of course absolutely false, as has been discussed several times in the past. [. . . sigh. . .]

 

For your benefit alone, Ryan, I'll go through this again. Please TRY to pay attention this time. Why is it that I so often find myself repeating myself over and over for your benefit alone? Pay frickin' attention, Ryan. This is the last time. I'll use lots of CAPS to make it easier for your reading impairment. . .

 

I've read a lot of research on filters, Ryan. Now I know that someone with a severe reading disability such as yourself will automatically be suspicious of anyone who reads -- but it's a tough world out there, isn't it, Ryan -- especially when you're an idiot who for whatever reason won't READ. You really oughtta work on that. It'd be the kind of thing that could finally elevate you out of your miserable high-school drop-out mentality.

 

Do you understand, Ryan, that nearly all manufacturers of filters -- both air and oil, but many many other kinds -- specify filter media from a low number of high volume suppliers who specialize in nothing but filter MEDIA? How do I know this? I've read lots of specific source material on the subject, including dozens of filter test studies and dozens of manufacturer data sheets. That's how I know.

 

If you'd either researched wot you're wildly guessing about and blindly accusing me of here, OR if you'd paid any attention to several previous discussions on this Forum, I wouldn't have to do your reading for you now. I know you've ignored most of the threads and discussion that you've posted in, because your posts have been so memorable as absolutely Forum-capping, standout grade turn-your-head-away embarrassing. At least one trail of illiterate posts you've left behind is STILL there at the link provided above. You'd understand if you'd actually read about wot you're posting about that filter MEDIA manufacturers have not only many different customers, Ryan, but they offer many GRADES of filter media, typically sole-source, and under exclusive contracts for each customer.

 

Now it so happens that the mfgr. of media for K&N is THE SAME COMPANY as the mfgr. of media for BMC. They provide media for dozens of OTHER filter mfgr's, too. Again, this has been covered several times here on THIS FORUM. If you took your head out of your anal pore long enough to pay attention to wot you're spewing nonsense about, you'd already have read that the GRADE of media is DIFFERENT in the BMC than it is in the K&N, and in all other filter OEM's. In fact, ONLY K&N uses the grade that they use -- NO OTHER FILTER MFG'R HAS IT! IT'S A CONTRACTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, SOLE-SOURCE ARRANGEMENT! This is wot separates K&N from ALL OTHER FILTERS, AND ALL OTHERS FROM EACH OTHER, RYAN! This is why K&N filters test like NO OTHER FILTER, as so dramatically demonstrated by the Duramax series of tests -- and every other filter test. Now THE DIFFERENT GRADES OF FILTER MEDIA FROM THE SAME SUPPLIER LOOK VERY SIMILAR! They SHOULD -- they're made out of the SAME MATERIAL arranged, formulated, woven, etc. differently. It might be hard to tell any difference AT ALL by looking at them -- even side-by-side, but the TESTING tells the tale, Ryan.

 

That's right -- it's the TESTING that seems so incomprehensible to you, Ryan. Here's a hint, Ryan: You have to ACTUALLY READ THE TESTS to know anything about them, and trust me on this, Ryan -- It REALLY HELPS to actually read and understand tests before posting specific claims against a test's validity! You posted at least a half-dozen objections to the Duramax test without reading as much as the first sentence of it, and I seriously doubt if you've ever read it, even yet. Your posts on this were one of the most embarassing series of posts I've ever seen on this Forum. Yes, Ryan -- I'm referring to the DURAMAX TESTING that YOU said was INVALID because, (as I recall):

 

*YOU SAID that any test that was on the Internet was bullshit, and everything on the Internet is bullshit, therefore the Duramax Test is bullshit.

*YOU SAID the Duramax Test was "obviously" conducted by AC Delco because their filters tested well. (It was independently conducted, as anyone who'd actually read it would fully comprehend without question within 15 seconds of the start).

*YOU SAID one of the bar charts had accuracy to too many decimal places, therefore all the tests in the series were invalid.

*YOU REPEATEDLY SAID the tests were conducted by filter testing on a truck and this has nothing to do with motorcycles, there for all the testing was invalid. This is false, as I repeated at least 3 times to you specifically -- EACH TIME YOU REPEATED THIS GROSSLY MISTAKEN CLAIM. As I had explained each time, all tests in the series were conducted on a test stand specifically built for the purpose -- NOT on a truck, as explained very clearly in the SECOND SENTENCE of the text of the test itself. Take a look now, Ryan, f'er cryin' out loud.

*YOU SAID more ridiculous crap that indicated you hadn't read as far as the first sentence of the beginning of the test, but I'm too disgusted, I tire of dealing with a moron now, and I certainly don't care enough to re-read your crap again.

 

Ryan, you're a sad, sad man with something very very wrong upstairs. Take something very strong to quell the manic psychosis attacks (I suggest thorazine), stick your head in a toilet, and flush it several times. The voices are BOUND to disappear eventually. . .

 

Hey Ryan -- here's another word of advice for you. If you actually read for the purpose of educating yourself as a matter of course, as most adults do every day, you'd not butcher the word "hypocrisy" like a 12-year-old as you did above. In addition to picking up some knowledge by reading, I suggest you at least learn this one. You're obviously gonna need it.

I think I'll print this out and frame it.

Classic Hatchet!

PTL it ain't aimed at me this time

I wonder if they hired Ratchet to break Jose Padilla?

[badmotogoozer]

Rat's done a marvellous job of misquoting me in his favor. I also see he is back to "editing" his posts so as not to let anyone see him for what he is. Also nice to see that he's giving spelling lessons after chastising others for doing exactly the same thing to him in another thread.

 

Hipocrasy, hipocrisy. Who the feck cares. Rat is it.

 

Ever notice the people with the most to say are the ones least worth listening to?

 

Let's have another look at the bullshit Duramax study. These are my actual points:

 

1. This "study" claims to have tested to a standard. Only a few of the tests were performed or at least reported. This in itself is enough to discredit this study. Rat has never responded to this point.

 

2. This "study" was performed using ONE engine. This is stated as a note in either the synopsis os conclusion - I don't care to remember which. Rat has extrapolated this data to apply to all engines and all filter arrangements. Ridiculous.

 

3. I said it was suspicious that testing of a GM engine would favor the GM part, especially in a "study" so poorly written and giving only vague reference to who has commissioned it.

 

4. My problem with the bar graph was that it is a very poor way to present this type of data. In fact it is quite misleading, as is their analysis of the data. Eg - the scaling of the graphs leads the reader to believe that there is a HUGE difference between the filters when in reality they are not that different. In their analysis they claim one filter to better by a percentage when this is again a poor analysis of the data. One filter does not allow X% more dirt, it allows that percentage of slightly larger particles.

 

Rat has also "concluded" from this study that there is "no benefit whatsoever to using a K&N filter". Again, this study has NOT done any testing or obtained ANY results that could possibly lead to this conclusion

 

I too could go on at length. I am not the only educated professional who has remarked about the methods of testing and reporting in this so called "study". It is waht it is - words on the internet. To be taken for no more that that certainly.

 

And now I'M quite tired of dealing with a moron. Rat, you may continue with your self righteous, self congratulatory verbal masterbation. Just please scurry away from the keyboard and clean the screen once in a while.

 

Rj

[dlaing]

Ever notice the people with the most to say are the ones least worth listening to?

Hey!

<_>

Watch it there buddy

[badmotogoozer]

No Dave, when you've got something to say you get to the point. It's only when you get sucked into a pissing match with Rat that it gets to be not worth reading...

 

Rj

[dlaing]

No Dave, when you've got something to say you get to the point. It's only when you get sucked into a pissing match with Rat that it gets to be not worth reading...

 

Rj

If it weren't for Ratchet, I'd only have 3000 posts