WHAAAAT? A DOWNSIDE to K&N filters?!?!

[dlaing]

Al, I checked my maintenance record, and I hadn't recorded the model number.  But I trust Dave's Web site, which lists the BMC number as F45740.

 

Dave, RE: comparo tests including the BMC, sorry now that I didn't archive the tests. 

71620[/snapback]

I got the BMC number off the box that my FBF airbox lid removal kit came in.

I figured the BMC was about the same as a K&N, but if it is good enough for you(Mr. Picky) and Ferrari, that is good enough for me.

Still I spent two hours googling unsuccessfully.

Why can't I find tests? is K&N suing people for defamation?

EDIT I thought trust but verify was your moto, John!

Sorry to force you to live by it.

I checked my box and it said 164/01 not F45740, so I lied!, sorry.

F45740 WAS the FBF part number for just the filter in the 2002 catalog.

The current FBF number is F33705 $49.95US

The airbox kit with filter is F45700 $79.95

The airbox kit, without filter(for those who already have a BMC or want paper or K&N) F45701 $32.95

The number also appears at Guzzitech.com, which may be where I got the number from.

Anyway if you need the dimensions, the BMC is listed at 134 x 224mm

[Alex-Corsa]

I got the BMC number off the box that my FBF airbox lid removal kit came in.

I figured the BMC was about the same as a K&N, but if it is good enough for you

 

What kind of same? Same build quality -and or- material used-Airflow abillities?

I have seen that BMC has 2 types of filters at least fot Guzzi) Normal and racing with more air flow which one you think you have COMPARED TO THE k&n?

[Guest ratchethack]

...I spent two hours googling unsuccessfully.

Had your prostate checked lately?

Why can't I find tests? is K&N suing people for defamation?

Ack! D'ya s'pose I oughta "lawyer up"?

[belfastguzzi]

A dirty filter is an effective filter. As the dirt "cake" builds up, the efficiency of the filter as a barrier to finer and finer particles gets better, at the expense of pressure drop. This is the case for all filters.

(here endeth the lesson)

71579[/snapback]

well yes. Cut the neck off an empty coke bottle and clamp it round your air inlet. A 100% efficient filter. It doesn't even need to be a dirty coke bottle.

(post script to the lesson)

[Lex]

Wow, I haven't been on this site for a while but some of you guys must be really bored. Six pages on air filters?

 

Being just as bored...*

 

First, Cycle magazine proved to my satisfaction 30 years ago that the deference in effectiveness between the types of filters is pretty much irrelevant. Simply measuring the volume of material the filter allows to pass is a false test, knowing the size of the particle passing through the filter is as important knowing how much passed the filter. The reason is that a particle less than the thickness of the oil film has no effect, they are suspended in the oil and never gets a chance act as a grinding compound in your engine. This material is either caught in the oil filter or goes out with the next oil change. I don't recall the size and I'm much to lazy to look it up. All the filters in the test, oiled gauze (K&N,) oiled foam (Uni), paper, worked well enough to do their jobs. A special consideration (e.g. oiled foam is good in very wet conditions) might push you in one direction or another, otherwise they are all about the same. None of the filters I am aware of, properly installed and maintained, will have a measurable effect on engine life. In some cases a less restrictive air filter might add a little power, in other cases it will not.

 

My point? Simply that if you want maximum performance the only way to get it is to try everything on a dyno (or copy someone who has) and put the bike together based on model specific, empirical data. Approaching this as religion (brand X good, brand Y bad) will just waste money and time. If you just want to ride the silly thing, use what you like (paper is cheap, Uni, K&N and most other aftermarket filters release some of the cool intake noise and maybe a little power) and don't worry about it.

 

Except maybe when you can't ride and screwing with the bike, or talking about it on the internet, is better then no bike time at all.

 

Lex

 

Waiting with less then total patience for the March ride to Death Valley to signify the end to Central California's short "can't ride much" season.

 

*Weather here is the worst, not raining right now but everything is wet from the last rain and more is coming. Besides the water most roads have nice piles of sand at various points to make riding more adventures than I really enjoy. Great weather for a dirt or dual purpose bike, which I don't have.

[dlaing]

Welcome back to the Forum!

First, Cycle magazine proved to my satisfaction 30 years ago that the deference in effectiveness between the types of filters is pretty much irrelevant.

71641[/snapback]

Maybe for a disposible motorcycle, as that rag seems to favor. <_>

Guzzis average many miles more than the average bike...even with K&Ns. And many of if given a choice between a filter that would give us a 200,000 mile engine vs. a 190,000 mile engine, the choice would be obvious. I don't think anyone can prove the difference in miles, but common sense indicates less crud in, is less crud in.

Who knows, maybe the increase in silicates neutralizes the oils acid build-up, and decreases wear But I'll go with less dirt in is better.

Simply measuring the volume of material the filter allows to pass is a false test, knowing the size of the particle passing through the filter is as important knowing how much passed the filter. The reason is that a particle less than the thickness of the oil film has no effect, they are suspended in the oil and never gets a chance act as a grinding compound in your engine. This material is either caught in the oil filter or goes out with the next oil change. I don't recall the size and I'm much to lazy to look it up.

71641[/snapback]

 

What about valves, valve seats, valve guides and fuel injectors and throttle slides.

(e.g. oiled foam is good in very wet conditions) might push you in one direction or another,

71641[/snapback]

 

My point? Simply that if you want maximum performance the only way to get it is to try everything on a dyno (or copy someone who has) and put the bike together based on model specific, empirical data. Approaching this as religion (brand X good, brand Y bad) will just waste money and time.

71641[/snapback]

Dyno evidence of our bike seems to indicate that the open airbox lid allows for the most power production...but there are exceptions.

But most of that testing was done before individual cylinder mapping was available, from which Pods may benefit. But the power differences are not great between the options. So, use what you will.

I'd like to design a better intake box, but that would just waste time and money, or it could be kicks and grins

 

Except maybe when you can't ride and screwing with the bike, or talking about it on the internet, is better then no bike time at all.

 

71641[/snapback]

Glad we can be here for you through cabin fever season.

[Skeeve]

I'd like to design a better intake box, but that would just waste time and money, or it could be kicks and grins

71646[/snapback]

 

Actually, so would I. The Guzzi is a natural for using a scale model of a standard industrial cyclonic dust filter, what with that big V between the cylinders. Of course, it wouldn't work on the new quotards, or the spineys: only the T-frames. Hmmm...

[dlaing]

Actually, so would I. The Guzzi is a natural for using a scale model of a standard industrial cyclonic dust filter, what with that big V between the cylinders. Of course, it wouldn't work on the new quotards, or the spineys: only the T-frames. Hmmm...

71649[/snapback]

Like a Dyson® vacuum cleaner?!?

No more paper filters and

No more power robbing fur balls!

[dlaing]

And I'll bet it even has super-charging effects!

Like this,

but sans filtre!

[Guest ratchethack]

FYI, Dave & Al,

 

Following my own advice to "trust but verify" , the F45740 number on your site, Dave, must be a FBF number.

 

The following is the stock replacement filter from BMC's select-o-'rific feature on their Web site for:

 

Moto Guzzi

 

V11 LeMans

V11

V11 Sport

 

Code : 164/01

 

Width x Length

B (mm) A (mm)

134 x 224

 

BMC REPLACEMENT FILTER - FLAT FILTER

 

BMC has developed a particular production system based on soft rubber moulding which produces the familiar BMC red filters. They are made in one single piece with no welded joints in the corners, thus avoiding breaking risks.

 

They also have a selection of Pod types.

[Lex]

Maybe for a disposable motorcycle, as that rag seems to favor. 

 

Sorry? First Cycle has been gone for 15 years so I don't see how it could favor anything. Second, Cycle was most defiantly not a pro Japanese bike mag when it was in print. You might remember Cook Nielson, the first person to win a US Superbike race (Dayton, no less) on a Ducati. He was Editor in Chief. How about (senior editor) Phil Schilling's heart rending story of re-restoring his late fifties Ducati 175 after it was destroyed in a fire? More to the point here, nobody covered the V7, Le Mans, etc. Moto Guzzis in the Seventies like Cycle. My buying my V11 was, to a degree, the result of the seed Cycle planted in the early seventies. Maybe you should read things more carefully before you respond, I can only assume you are thinking of Cycle World, a different situation altogether.

 

common sense indicates less crud in, is less crud in.

Who knows, maybe the increase in silicates neutralizes the oils acid build-up, and decreases wear  But I'll go with less dirt in is better.

 

Common sense is, often, another word for someone's opinion. Everyone is fee to have one, even me. If you can show me an example of an engine worn out prematurely as a result of contaminates passed by the air filter while running a K&N I'll change my opinion. As it is I've seen engines with plenty of miles running K&Ns. One example was friend who put 80K very hard miles on a K100RS. By very hard I mean commuting in heavy traffic, frequent top speed runs on certain roads in Nevada and the less populated parts of California and a fair number of miles on dirt roads. At 80K it would pull similar bikes on top speed runs, used no oil and had required a single valve shim replacement after the 600 mile adjustment. We didn't take it apart but the bike's performance would indicate the rings, cylinder walls and valves were in pretty good shape. This is backed up by both independent testing and the opinions of people who know a lot more then me about the subject. Personally, I have the paper filter in all three of my bikes but I've run K&Ns in the past and never seen any unusual wear. If you prefer to run paper filters you certainly are not hurting anything, and if it gives you piece of mind that alone is a good reason to use them.

 

Lex

[dlaing]

Maybe you should read things more carefully before you respond, I can only assume you are thinking of Cycle World, a different situation altogether. 

 

71675[/snapback]

Hey!

Just because I am lame at reading does not mean I should be censored.

So, what did I mis-read?

And by the way....my recollection of every bike rag that I looked at the pictures of and skimmed the words of, is that they have a bias other than MINE....Cycle included.

Which is why I have not bought an american bike rag since early 1980 something when I discovered British bike rags to be far superiour....which did not last long and I gave up on rags all together...except when in the waiting room.

Maybe you should.... uh let me think about that and get back to you.

Maybe you should....tell me what I mis-read.

[Lex]

Hey!

Just because I am lame at reading does not mean I should be censored.

So, what did I mis-read?

And by the way....my recollection of every bike rag that I looked at the pictures of and skimmed the words of, is that they have a bias other than MINE....Cycle included.

Which is why I have not bought an american bike rag since early 1980 something when I discovered British bike rags to be far superiour....which did not last long and I gave up on rags all together...except when in the waiting room.

Maybe you should.... uh let me think about that and get back to you.

Maybe you should....tell me what I mis-read.

 

Ok, so I enjoyed picking on you because I've done the same thing on this very forum.

 

FWIW, I've seen the comment about the British magazines being better than the American equivalents several times. In my opinion they are both pretty poor, just poor in different ways. I still miss good 'ol Cycle. The only magazine I have any faith in these days is Motorcycle Consumer News and they seem to be slipping. With all that I still buy them. It seems I'm just a junky. I guess it is better then being hooked on booze or other some other drug.

 

The weather cleared, I'm going for a ride.

 

Lex

[DeBenGuzzi]

I really like british bike and two. basically the same mag. but you just have to get past the part if it aint a super bike they don't think its very super. Read between the lines a little and you can get what you need. Most US mags are nothing but ads and fluff bs.

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey Heli-Jim, FYI - Roger your concern on the effect of humidity on paper element air filters. As mentioned previously, I've been snooping around the Web a little for more air filter comparison tests and found the following by "Bob the Oil Guy" (see link below). I thought you might be interested in this because it was conducted in your neck o' the woods on the "wet coast" - Western Washington State. Though Bob didn't include a record of humidity, the filter media of the filters in the test included foam, fiber, and paper.

 

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm

 

Though this was a far simpler, smaller, entirely different kind of test than the Duramax test, and it's much more of a home-style or "shade tree" approach, it appears to me to have been fairly rigorously prepared and well conducted from a scientific perspective, and I found it to be evidently as independent and free from commercial influence as the Duramax test. I likewise found no reason NOT to consider the results valid, regardless of the relatively limited scope. The results aren't as strong as stronger tests, but they do point in the same direction.

 

The methodology used in this test may appear to be lacking in many areas, even "crude", because (compared to the Duramax test for example) it lacks the level of capability, thoroughness, depth, precision, etc. of a more comprehensive higher-budget study. Like any well-conducted test, however, I found it to be well documented and the setup considerations and disclaimers seemed complete.

 

I'm not addressing the following to you Jim, but for those reading who may be tempted to denegrate the validity of this test for whatever reason, in many ways it's like any other well-prepared comparison, so I think it needn't be dismissed for not including aspects of filter comparison that are not within its scope (particle size analysis or dirt passed by weight, for example). Like any test that adheres to scientific methodology, It measures only what it says it measures, and the test itself implies nothing more nor less. IMHO, the results seem to be as valid as any I've seen in other tests, but it must also be understood that the significance of the results may not exactly reflect every aspect of air filter use in some, many, or even all real-world applications.

 

Nevertheless, I believe the comparison results have value in their own right, and I think that like other tests, including the Duramax test, its results have legitimate real-world implications for the use of many kinds of air filters used on the road - including Guzzi's.

 

Coupla other things:

 

Like many other air filter tests I've seen, the results of Bob The Oil Guy's test have a positive correlation with the results of the Duramax test regarding the K&N and Amsoil filters' relative air flow and dirt that they pass. K&N's and Amsoil seem to stand out from the pack here, too.

 

For any others who've actually read this far into this post, but can't or won't read the tests, by all means please feel free not to read any further, but please don't condemn or criticize the test without actually reading it , preferrably with some semblance of open-mindedness, if at all possible? If you read only part of this post or part of the test with the idea that you don't like the results, or it doesn't apply or make any difference to you, and you're just skimming it for any reason to find fault - why not just throw it out and save yourself the trouble of posting an objection? If it doesn't apply to you, this doesn't mean it might not hold value for someone else.

 

OTOH, if you've actually read the test(s) and for any reason still have a disagreement of any kind with either the way it was conducted or the results, I more'n welcome your point of view, and I'm sure others would as well!!!

 

For those who don't believe that anything that's published on the Web is valid, why bother going to the link or reading any further? But if this is the case, what're you doing on this Forum, reading THIS?! Enquiring minds struggle to understand and marvel in wonder.

 

Oh yeah - One more thing. This IS my hobby - one of many, as a matter of fact, that I'm not focused on right now. Just happens that I've got some time to throw at this one over the holidays, as I noted in my opening post in this thread...

 

Again as I noted in my opening post, I had an idea there'd be some controversy here. Sorry if all of this seems so threatening or just plain irritating to anyone, this was not my intent.

 

May you & your Guzzi breathe the healthiest air possible in the New Year, Gents! Heh, heh...

 

P. S. Chuck Dickens no doubt would've had Ebeneezer Scrooge croaking, "Bah, Humbug!" to the idea of cleaner air for a Guzzi...