|By Nickp on Friday, September 20, 2002 - 04:36 am:|
Any of you guys seen / used the EVO race upgrade kit for the airbox? It's basically a big rubber gasket that seals the bottom half of the airbox to the tank and places a rubber disc on top of the air filter to seal that. The top is then left off, so basically you end with a large sealed airbox retaining the original filter (similar to the factory SP apparently).
EVO sell this as an upgrade to their "large" airbox kit, using the alloy spacer to clamp the gasket to the 'box and holding the filter in place by the tank pressing from above onto the rubber disk (it'll all make sense if you look on their website). I don't like the sound of the tank holding the filter in place though. The large airbox kit is pricey and I reckon the same could be achieved by removing the majority of the airbox lid (where's mi dremmel), just leaving enough to hold the filter in place so the tank doesn't need to hold it anymore.
I'm not trying to step on anyones toes and I'll probably end up getting a RENE kit anyway, but I just fancy having a bit of a tinker.
So if anyones got a spare lid I can have when I've completely b*ggered mine up it'd be much appreciated.
Think it'll work or have I got my head up my ARSe ?
|By Nickp on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 06:19 am:|
Well I've done it now and I reckon it's worked pretty well. Not had chance to road test it yet, but have read some good reports from Mille owners that have it fitted so fingers crossed for a nice boost in the mid-range.
If it works well I reckon its a simple good value (£25 for the upgrade kit)mod, especially if you already have the EVO filter as I did.
I'll post again once the old arse dyno's taken some readings.
|By Tokas on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 11:44 am:|
|By Tokas on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 12:02 pm:|
|By Tokas on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 12:04 pm:|
I've also done my own variant of airbox uppgrade. Basically it's very much like the Evoluzione oversize air box upgrade kit, but I don't fancy paying $160 for an aluminum spacer ring!
I make it myself!
First I went to my local car tuning shop (BSR to get me a free flow sport air filter. I ended up with a JR Filters R95138.
Specifications (compared to original) :
Outer diameter 125 (124) mm
Total height with flange 140 (118) mm
Filter body height 132 (118) mm
Material: 4 layer of specially oiled chirurgical cotton, which are hold together by 2 layers of steel wire mesh, all folded between rubber top and bottom (folded paper between rubber top and bottom)
I had to remove the flanges of the new filter with a scalpell to get a tight fit in the outside of the hole. See pictures. The marginally wider filter make it fit even tighter than original.
After removing the flanges on both sides of the filter, it now has a total height of 132 mm, wich is 14 mm more than the original filter. => the airbox will have to expand 14 mm on the height.
The fit between the upper lid and lower bottom of the airbox fits inside each other, with a 4 mm overlap. I.e. I need a distance ring with a height of 10 mm. I searched for waterproof plywood in 8-10 mm thickness but didn't find any, so I had to suffice with standard quality of plywood (which is pretty weak). I took my power saw (?) and roughly sawed out the form of the airbox. Then i mounted the plywood ring to the airbox lid with screws and nuts, this way it was a lot easyer to work with the fragile plywood ring, and realy easy to file out the exact shape. I didn't want to leave too much extra material inside the airbox because it might hamper air flow, and I could not leave much extra material outside the airbox because it is a real tight fit underneath the tank. This is what the result looks like:
The plywood i got has a thickness of 8.5 mm, which I consider pretty ideal although I want a thickness of 10 mm. Because I don't have the waterproof type of plywood and because I want the distance ring to have a somewhat soft surface to get a good seal, I carefully wrapped the plywood ring in a couple of layers of silver tape and insulating tape. The result is a thickness of 10 mm, with soft gasket like surface which is also waterproof.
I choose to keep the insulation under the tank, beacause I think it's so soft it will deform while fastening the tank. Just as in the Evoluzione kit I had to get longer screws. To be more precise, 7 x 30 mm M5 and 2 x 40 mm M6, I choose stainless steel. It takes 2 distances (12 mm) around the M6 screws that hold the tank to the frame. This means the distance between tank and frame are bigger. It doesn't look bad at all, but if the extra distance is more than 15 mm it doesn't look good.
And the best of all: It really works! I really feel the extra torque and power over the whole rev range. And the power delivery is smoother than before, not as rough in low revs as standard. I don't know if it is better or worse than Evoluziones kit but at a total cost of only �48, of wich �42 are for the airfilter and the rest for plywood, screws, etc, it's without a doubt a find!
|By Befbever on Saturday, September 28, 2002 - 01:04 pm:|
Hey, nice article, Tokas. It would suit Daz's site very well.
A simple solution to your plywood problem would be an aluminium spacer ring. I see you like filing anyway.
Something like this perhaps?
As you said , variations on an airbox theme. Nicely done, so what about dyno's?
I haven't seen one of the Evo, Notoil or Pure Tec kit, you're our only hope!
|By Tokas on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 03:36 pm:|
Gee thanks Bef...
It would be an honour to be cited at Daz's site! Although I'd like to make a few small changes to the text. For example pointing out the fact that the free flow filter I am using must be bigger than that in the Evoluzione kit. The Evo filter fits inside the standard airbox! I.e. mine is 14 mm higher and should breathe even better!
I'm sorry to disappoint you Bef, but I don't have any plans to do any dyno runs just now. But my bum-dyno says it works!
The distance ring sure looks a lot better in aluminium! What make / brand is the ring and filter in the picture?
I don't know where I could find aluminium in the correct dimensions and I'm sure it would cost more and weigh more.
So I'll stick to my cheap one!
I had never before heard of the brands No-Toil and Pure Tec before so I searched for them:
Airfilter and further parts for exhausts RSV Mille/R/Falco at Ducati-Kaemna
No-Toil Nassluftfilter - Aprilia RSVMille at Mobil-Tech
It sure looks interesting!
|By Befbever on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 08:21 pm:|
The dyno's shouldn't be much different from yours I reckon. They're also variations on the airbox theme.
If you want to know more, you could always look up the thread 'Pure Tec Airbox Kit' over on General Aprilia Chat on this site. But watch it, things get nasty real soon!
Why don't you just ask Daz to post your article?
|By Nickp on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 12:02 am:|
Good work Tokas. It's nice to know that you've sorted a solution yourself isn't it ? And nice to have a tinker.
I presume you've left the lid on your airbox then ? If you wanted you could now get the race upgrade (only £20 or 30 euros-ish) and clamp it down with your spacer. Could be worth trying to see if there is a noticeable difference.
Anyway, I'll post some piccies of my airbox soon and report on the arse dyno once I get chance to ride the bloody thing.
|By Tokas on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 11:43 am:|
I checked the thread out, but wish I hadn't, 120 postings!
And what did I learn about the Pure-Tec / No-Toil kit? Nothing about how it stands up against the competition anyway!
So, Bef, what do you and your friend think about it? (I suppose you've tried it!) Just you personal, objective opinion, please.
(By the way I wrote to Daz. Let's see if he wants the article.)
Yes thank you very much, I DO like to do it myself! DIY?!
It's not difficult in any way, but getting the "exact fitting" is always time consuming. But I've got plenty of time so no problems there.
Yes it would be very interesting to see what kind of difference "the oversize air box race upgrade kit" would make.
But firstly my distance ring in cheap plywood is to fragile to be trusted for that kind of job (plyfa or aluminium would probably work), it's fine enough though to be passively pressed between air box bottom and lid.
And secondly I'm a bit paranoid about filtering; I wouldn't trust the seal to be 100%, thus risking the engine sucking in unfiltered air... Neither would I trust a foam filter in the long run... (No harm ment!)
But I'm curios as always on the result of different ideas. So let us know what you think about it!
Isn't this great? A lot of happy Aprilia owners sharing ideas and experiences!
|By Befbever on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 12:05 pm:|
Yeah, Tokas, no dyno's were ever taken with the No-toil filter so I don't know how it stands up against the competition. But I've got a fair idea as the Powermaster has tried every variation possible until he came up with his airkit.
The person who rode with it briefly said it made a big difference in performance, this was with the stock chip and Carbon Co cans. I'd get an Arrow or RSV-R chip if I were you.
I can't offer you an opinion based on my own experience as time was too short to test it myself. Also, I wasn't really inclined to because as long as the bottom half of the stock airbox is used, you're always gonna get too little air in and the air that you get in will be heated quickly, thus decreasing the amount of air that can get in. This has been covered in earlier threads, I forget which but I'm sure someone out there still remembers.
Hope this helps in any way.
|By Nickp on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 12:56 am:|
Finally got to take it out for a quick blast last night. The thing just seems to pull harder everywhere, with a big meaty growl from under the tank !!
I'm gonna try to get it dynoed ASAP to check that the air / fuel mixture's good right through the range, just in case.
Now I need to readjust my own head for the extra pull
|By Tokas on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 11:43 pm:|
What do you suggest, Bef? That I'd get an Arrow or RSV-R chip? Or that somone with the No-Toil filter would get these chips?
For your information I've got Renegade SS round highmounts and (+2) chip as you might remember (For sale : Renegade round stainless highmounts!). Do you mean that the Arrow or RSV-R chip would be better than Renegades +2 chip?
|By Befbever on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 04:18 am:|
D'oh! Completely disregard my comment about the Arrow or RSV-R chips. I forgot about your ex-Hansie Rene's, Tokas. The Powermaster's wrath will be upon me now...
|By Powermaster on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 07:41 am:|
I understand about someone wanting to play with their bikes and enjoying DIY, what beats me is reading about the above for the sake of saving some bucks. After all the Prilla is not a cheap bike.
Don't get me wrong (yes you will), this has nothing to do with the Airkit or anyone, what worries me is that with trying to save a buck or two, one may end up spending a lot more due to overlooking a situation.
I just strip the rear hub of a Ducati only to find out that due to a missing washer in the DIY assembly, the unit was about to seize.
The amount of times a bike comes in for some work and I notice, broken fairing lugs or missing bolts are too many to count, bringing this to the client's attention, normally ends up with the same answer "it was me while..."
Oil top ups are another issue, overfill? Are you kidding, it's typical.
|By Befbever on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 12:30 pm:|
Oil top ups are another issue, overfill? Are you kidding, it's typical.
because I want the distance ring to have a somewhat soft surface to get a good seal,...
|By Litre1 on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 01:54 pm:|
I agree with Powermaster. The way I see it, manufacturers put a lot of time, money, and man power toward creating better solutions for airkits, clutches, and exhausts. I know I couldn't take a Pringles can, add insect screen, and call it a superior exhaust product just to justify my technical prowess. At best, I can buy the products that are manufactured and install them myself--and I use the word "install" loosely. I save a lot of blown gaskets, rubber washers, and trips to my local hardware store by spending a little more dough. And it's simple trade off--more time in the office making the money that will allow me more time on the bike and less time under it (actually beside it, but under it sounds better).
Besides, there are plenty of bits on the market to choose from for the Falco. Fortunately, its cousin (I still refuse to call it the big brother) has lost of toys that will fit it.
|By Daz on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 01:26 am:|
Hi Tokas - sorry for not replying... soooooo busy as a mate of mine would say!
It would have made a great article I agree but sadly the falco site isn't maintained any more, just don't have time for it.
As for people messing with their bikes - well, it's their bike and they (hopefully) understand the risks. Life is one big (semi)calculated gamble so what the hell!! Do what makes you happy! (I used to be a hedonist but I found I didn't like it. )
I'm happy - I bought a Fazer 6! LOL! Certifiable me?! Er...
|By Oldgit on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 01:59 am:|
Hay if only all dealers where like Powermaster, true enthusiasts
The real problem is many owners work on their own bikes becaouse they don't trust there dealers.
It's true to say if you ask them to fit extras cans, chips etc it's usually ok.
I have had two services on my Aprilia at differant dealers and they have shown a total lack of care, overfilled engine oil at both, one even used the old oil filter, anything that took more than 15 minutes was past over, as for Aprilia service recommendations they were ignord completly. Most dealer's seam to be multi franchised these days and it dosen't apear to be any better if you ride another bike.
|By Befbever on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 10:27 am:|
...and that's why Jorge decided to get someone in house who knows what to do. And he's a Leo, just like me! We Leo's take pride in our work.
But if we can't, we don't even bother to start the job.
|By Benw on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 02:35 am:|
Ha, I'm Leo too!
|By Biggums on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 06:21 am:|
I tried the evo kit and don't like it. How can it filter properly with that questionable seal of the tank and the rubber thingy? It reminded me of a back yard hop up set up some kid would try. My bet is the seal is weak and if you were to travel in a dusty situation you will suck dirt right into the engine. No thanks I'm snding it back.
|By Nickp on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 09:08 am:|
Looks like I may have opened that dreaded can of worms again. Not intended, I just reckon it's good to share ideas and after all they are our bikes.
Can see your point biggums, I wouldn't ride across the Sahara with it fitted !!
Anyway onto business, the bikes been run up on a dynojet erm...dyno and is putting out a very healthy 118.1 BHP at the back wheel, which I reckon ain't bad. The torque curve is nice and flat with over 60 ft-lbs from 4000 to 10000, peakin at 72 ft-lbs at about 7400. Unfortunately I don't have electronic copies of the run.
I didn't really get it done to see what the power figures were (although it's interesting) but to check the fuelling. The fuelling seems good right through the rev range with no nasty dips anywhere.
I know all dynos are different but as a guide he'd just run up a Firestorm c/w race cans and that made 105bhp after some tweaking.
So I'm happy and the bike feels great
|By Nickp on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 01:47 am:|
|By Nickp on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 01:53 am:|
|By Befbever on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 05:38 am:|
Boy, I see what Biggums means now. I sure hope that seal works perfectly, Nick. Those velocity stacks have nothing on!
I suppose Evo wouldn't be selling it if it would be a questionable seal. At least I hope so.
Thanks for the pic!
|By Nickp on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 06:20 am:|
Naked stacks, scary huh !
If I lived in dusty conditions I definately wouldn't use this set-up. I don't do that many miles and it ain't often dusty or sandy around the Barnsley area . Even so I'll be checking the film of oil in the airbox regularly for any tell tale signs of dirt getting in.
Ideally I'd like to get an endoscope and look up the side of the tank to see how the seal looks. I've tried mirrors but no joy.
Anyway the bike feels great and seems to produce the goods on the rollers.
|By Crmc33 on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 12:59 am:|
...and if the dust doesnt get past that rubber seal, what stops small mammals from nosing their way thru?
Living a quarter of a mile from a beach, I wouldnt like to try it and I'll stick with my 'Runny gay' airkit.
Nick, how about getting some engineers blue on the rubber to check its eal against the tank. Sgotta be worth doing I think.
|By Litre1 on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 09:44 am:|
I say duct tape!
|By Tokas on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 03:28 pm:|
Wow, how high aren't the discussion going here!
I believe it's up to everyone to do whatever modifications they wish to do on their own bikes, whithout anyone else judging over them.
Hopefully the mods are well thought through and well done. If so there are no reason to worry.
I for one won't take it for granted that only because a company made the design it has to be good! The same apply on services as we have seen with companys overfilling the oil etc.
This motorcycle is worth a lot of money, and its my pride and joy. I would never for the sake of saving a few bucks take any kind of risk with my bike. On the contrary I've carefully scrutinized different ideas on the airbox theme and have made a couple of observations:
* FILTERING: There are different materials, size and positioning. I believe oiled cotton filters are superior to foam and paper filters. Bigger size = less resistance = always better. I don't know what positioning is superior (air intake or over the volocity stacks), it also depends on general design, closed or open airbox. Off course the fitting must be presice so nothing can past by beside the filter...
* VOLUME: Bigger is better. Standard airbox < enlarged airbox < airbox with tank as top cover < open airbox.
* CLOSED OR OPEN AIRBOX: Well here's an old tricky question! There are plenty of pros and cons; Ram air, Maximum possible flow, Warm/cold air at standstill and/or moving, turbulence and so on... I don't really know what's the best.
MY OWN conclusion is to use extra big (+14 mm) oiled cotton filter for best filtering & flow, retain the sealed airbox for convenience and ramair effect. This is a low cost, high performance, no risk solution.
This is my DIY solution and it works fine for me. I don't urge anyone to do as I did. Everyone has to make their own decision on what they want and take the responsability of that decision.
|By Rsvroger on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 04:49 pm:|
Here is a better and simpler Evo style airbox modification.
I loosened the rear bolts that hold the back of the tank in place so that I could lift the tank back further to get a better look under it. I noticed the underside back section of the tank on my 2001 Mille was not an even shape and therefore the Evo race kit style rubber ring is very inlikely to seal it properly. This is probably the case with mose of the new bikes.
As a result I have just made a very simple variation of the Evo SP airbox. It seals better than the rubber ring, its much simpler to make, it took just 25 minutes to make, its cheap and it works well. It also avoids trying to make alloy or plywood 'rings' to hold rubber strips in place.
It produced a lot more midrange and it revs harder at the top end from a seat of the pants perspective. I will get it dynoed this week, and can simply slip the airbox lid back on for a comparison dyno run. I can also put the lid back on when it goes in for a service so they dont get touchy with the warrenty.
All I did was remove the airbox lid and glue some medium density rubber foam around the SIDE of the bottom half of the airbox. It is a 2 inch wide strip that goes all the way around the rim of the airbox and it butts up to the top edge of the open airbox. It is about 25mm thick. Just make sure it is 5-10mm wider than the space around the edge of the airbox. That way the tank has to 'squeeze' over it and compress the foam in order for it to fit back over the open airbox. This ensures a good tight seal that is nice and wide.
In the uneven section at the back it needed to be 40 mm thick in one section. So I cut a peice of the foam back to about 15 mm thick and glued it in place first, then glued the main strip over the top of it, therefore making the total width much wider in this section. [The main strip is the one that goes all the way around the airbox].
This seals well as there is about a 2 inche wide foam rubber strip that is in contact with the side of the tank all the way around, instead of a thin rubber seal like on the evo kit.
I bought an Evo filter for the early model RSV as it is taller and flows more and it comes with a rubber ring to seal the top of it. I held it in place with a section of 1 inch foam rubber which I stuck to the top of it. The tank very firmly holds it in place.
I do not have a camera so cannot take a picture to show you. But if you have questions I will try and explain in more detail.
I hope this is helpful.
|By Nickp on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 01:46 am:|
Nice one RSVroger !!
Another variaton to solve the problem. We're just full of bright (or sometimes sh*te) ideas us Aprilia types aren't we.
|By Tokas on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 02:10 am:|
Well done Roger! It sounds as a well thought through design!
What kind of rubberfoam do you use, what's it originally made for, and where is it sold?
What kind of glue do you use?
You just have to get some photos taken and post the dynos! I'm really curious!
(Your workshop probably have a digital camera! You know, for damaged bikes and second hand bikes... Ask them to take som photos!)
Just for info; the underside of my Falco -01 tank is also uneven.
...and I think I'll stick with my current mod.
I don't want the underside of my tank to get all messy with oil spray if my workshop overfill the oil...
|By Rsvroger on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 06:29 pm:|
I just went to a car upholstery company looking for the medium density foam you often see stuck to the underside of car bonnets to keep the heat of. The stuff I wanted was similar foam to what is stuck to the underside of the RSV tank now.
But you need it twice as thick (25-30mm instead of 10-12mm).They didnt have it but did have a black foam rubber which they gave me a strip of when they realised all I needed was a small piece.
It is NOT the sort of foam that foam mattresses or sponges are made from. It was more high density and doesnt really absorb water. Not as high density as one of those camping ground mats. Sort of in between.
It was soft enough to compress about two thirds to half its thickness when given a squeeze between thumb and forefinger. One side of it was smooth and the other side rough.
I used an all purpose glue and held it in place with a strip of electricel tape around the airbox till it dried. But Ados or a contact glue would do fine.
I will see what I can do to find a digital camera for some pictures. But I will need to email them to someone as I dont know how to post them on the site as Im mechanically minded but PC stupid.
I have to say though that this method is very simple and seals very well. It took a firm pressure on the tank to push it down over the airbox as the foam seals so well against the inside of the tank.
Also, if you do the home job, or if you do buy the Evo kit, make sure you order the 2000 style filter as it is taller and flows more air than the 2001 filter.
Actually, If you wanted to spend some money unnessicarily and didnt care about the questionable sealing properties. I think you could simply buy and use the race kit portion of the EVO kit for $20. You dont seem to need the $159 section. All you need to do is make the plywood ring to hold it in place. (Initially I was going to try and copy the Evo style and use a 2-3mm thick sheet of Butinol roofing rubber as the seal and use a piece of plastic perspex and cut it into shape to hold it in place. Then the foam idea hit me)
But personally I'd just use the foam rubber seal around the edge as it works fine.
Doing Dyno run tomorrow.
|By Hansie on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 11:26 pm:|
For all those rubbersealers: there are 2 types of foam.Closed cells and open cells. Open cells is a sponge , it absorbs water. A closed cell type cant ,(airbubbles in the foam dont have a connection to eachother)you need that type.
Were the hell is my cape?
|By Befbever on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 11:05 am:|
Damn! Let me try again.
|By Befbever on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 11:05 am:|
Here, I got a spare.
|By Rsvroger on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 04:46 pm:|
OK plastic man. It was closed cell foam. If I squeezed it hard I would hear the airbubbles pop.
Did the dyno run this morning. Std pipe and standard airbox was 110.7 hp and 65 ftlbs. This is SAE hp not the STD or DIN hp that most of the dyno graphs show.
Slipon with new home made Evo style air kit and a 2000 Evo airfilter made SAE 118 hp and 69.3 ft lbs torque. Thats about 120-121 DIN hp.
Not bad I thought.
I will need to email the graph to someone so they can post it.
|By Tokas on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 02:16 am:|
Nice figures Roger! Are they both from the same dyno?
You can mail me Roger! (Click profile for e-mail)
|By Nickp on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 03:15 am:|
Your figures seem to match up pretty well with mine, as you'd expect really Does she GROWL now ?
|By Redlionfalco on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 03:27 am:|
Congratulations, your solution to this issue, is for me, the best I've seen so far as it maximises the volume of airbox whilst at the same time retaining the advantages of a sealed airbox. I seem to remember that someone posted that the volume of the standard airbox is 8 litres, which is a good deal less than the rule of thumb minimum of 10 litres (10 x engine capacity).According to MCM the new Ducati 999 has had its airbox enlarged to 14 litres. The Evo airbox enlarging kit adds about 10mm to the height of the airbox which equates to about 1 litre, which although an improvement still does not get to 10 litre mark. I would estimate that your solution could add 2 - 3 litres to the standard which is definitely more like it. Perhaps you could clarify a couple of details re installation, firstly did you remove the foam pad that is fixed to the underside of the tank above the airbox, also did you raise the position of the tank as required by the Evo solution - this could further increase the 'airbox' capacity. Your dyno figures certainly proves the effectiveness of this modification. Well done.
|By Powermaster on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 11:40 am:|
Red, I don't want to sound boring but
you make it sound as if it was the air mod that is causing the figures, I hope you have not failed to notice that a slip on was also fitted, so yet and once again we failed to see what all the airmods being done by individuals are achieving.
Your dyno figures certainly proves the effectiveness of this modification
|By Redlionfalco on Friday, October 11, 2002 - 01:37 pm:|
Powermaster, I beg forgiveness and meant no disrespect, however my reference to the dyno figures was meant to include the slip-on factor, although I concede that my post does fall short of making that clear. The point I was trying to make was that the dyno figures that Roger got were pretty much as good as the best that have been posted here (Ben - where are you). The surprise for me is that given the home grown nature of Roger's mods (plural) that the dyno shows it equalling the best that money can buy. Food for thought perhaps.
|By Rsvroger on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 02:54 pm:|
Ok then. Just to clarify a couple of things so you dont all start fighting. I hate the sight of scratch marks and blood.
Yes I did remove the foam which was stuck to the inderside of the tank. It doesnt take up much space but I figured every little bit counts.
I didnt raise the front of the tank because at the time I didnt stick enough foam along the top front bit of the airbox, so it wouldnt have sealed properly against the underside front bit of the tank. I also did not have a pair of bolts long enough to rebolt the front if it had been higher. But I do plan on raising the front 10-15 mm and the back of the tank 10mm, just to see the difference. I have now got the longer bolts and sticking a bigger bit of foam at the front is very easy, so will test it soon.
I did do comparison runs after every modification. With just the slipon in place and no airbox modification it increased hp from 110.7 to 112.5hp. Torque was up 1.6 ftlbs. It didnt seam a significant increase.
I then put in a chip which didnt do much for topend, but did increase the midrange by about another 2hp. It gave reasonable gains in areas that had previously dipped, but in some points the power and torque curve actually dropped slightly lower than the original. But all in all the combined slipon and chip did make ok increases.
I then took the bike for a qik ride to compare the before and after fron standard derestricted setup to the slipon and chip setup. It felt stronger in the mid and rollons were better but I didnt notice any difference in topend with my butt dyno.
The huge difference came with the Airbox and filter. It added another 5.3 hp topend and about 6-11 at various stages in the midrange. This was quite noticeable on the road in both mid and topend and she pulled like a teenager.
All the dyno runs were done on the same dyno and all but one on the same day.
|By Tokas on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 01:37 am:|
Grrr, Roger! Your nice airkit mod kept me awake tonight!
Why can't I be satisfied with what I've got, which I know is a nice mod...
Here are the figures (that I calculated myself so they are not guaranteed!) that kept me awake:
Standard airbox: ca 7,15 litres
+ My 14 mm airbox extension adds 0,85 litres (=8 litres)
+ Rogers airkit mod adds ca 1,35 litres with tank not raised (=8,5 litres)
+ Rogers with tank raised 12 mm (same as I've got) in front adds ca 1,9 litres (=9,05 litres)
+ Caplan77's airkit mod is still superior with ca +2,15 litres (=9,3 litres) with 1/4" (6,4 mm) lifted tank. But this kit isn't for me, because it is destructive and I don't trust the fit to the tank!
By the way; lifting the tank at the rear don't make much of a difference since the airbox is under the front half of the tank, as illustrated:
And Roger, mail me all of your dyno pictures and I'll post them 4 U! email@example.com
I've got to calm down, got to, got to....
|By Powermaster on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 02:15 am:|
Come on Tokas and how many litters can the Rene airkit accommodate
|By Tokas on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 02:43 am:|
Powermaster, I'm getting (more?) confused; English is no native language of mine, so it's inevidable to make mistakes... Did I?
Or was I repeating myself to much? Or was I repeating myself to much?
Litters in the airbox? For example sidestand switch, rear shock...
|By Nickp on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 03:22 am:|
Tokas, you must have been really bored at the weekend !! How did you work it all out, and manage to stay awake
Here's a question then - Does a free-er flowing air filter effectively change the size of the airbox as it becomes less visible to the engine ?????
I think maybe we should stop thinking about it too much, it's making my head hurt. Maybe I should just ride it and enjoy
|By Powermaster on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 04:56 am:|
Sorry Tokas, I was joking, "litter" is the name for dogs puppys, or Rats
|By Tokas on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 05:07 am:|
Your'e right NickP, We should just ride and enjoy!
Enjoy what? With 4 degrees celcius and rain... Let's go to Spain instead! I soon will, and I'll bring the Falco!
I've got no master in engineering, but surely a standard airbox with a free flow filter must be one step in the same direction as a bigger airbox? But the question isn't wich to chose, we all should have both of course!
|By Befbever on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 06:44 am:|
What the Pauermeister might mean is that the volume of the airbox itself isn't the only parameter to be observed. Too much air in a confined space can cause turbulence, thus preventing the air to enter the engine fast enough.
Hope this causes massive confusion.
|By Tokas on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 07:58 am:|
Isn't it more like this; Turbulence arises when flowing air passes any sharp edge. This is the reason that the velocity stacks have a rounded flange.
I.e. an airbox with a "fluent shape" may very well be better than a bigger airbox that has sharp edges causing turbulence.
|By Befbever on Monday, October 14, 2002 - 08:18 am:|
Doesn't have to be a sharp edge...
But your last comment is correct. Not that I know much about airboxes. I don't have one!
Well I do but I forgot where I put it.
|By Chuzo on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:07 pm:|
I have been reading and re-reading the last two posts.
It seems to me that probably the most important variable here is the volume of the airbox (meaning the volume comprised by the lower part of the airbox and the dome formed by the tank) and NOT the flow caracteristics in it.
The flow would be of prime importance close to and at the stacks level and downwards. The volume is more important in defining the pressure of the air charge in the airbox while it is being sucked into the stacks. The smaller the airbox volume, the more negative pressure (or less positive, if any) will develop there and hence the less volumetrically efficient will be the charge entering the cylinders.
The opposite is likely to be true, no? I plan to use the most rearward part of the tank and add it to the overall volume. After all, this part is in direct connection with the rest of the airbox and should provide a decrease in any negative pressure effect (plus a bit of an increase in volume). Note that the bottom of the lower half of the original airbox has parts that are even lower than the stacks level.
Corrections are welcomed.
P.D. Both a sharp edge or a curve could generate turbulence. The former, more likely so. The only thing needed is interruption of the laminar flow.
|By Befbever on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:25 pm:|
dyno's are welcome. Please forgive my attempt at confusing everyone. I wasn't talking about an Aprilia.
And please remember people, before you start a-fiddling with your bike, that all has been tried before, resulting in the Rene airkit. There is no better solution that I know of.
Commissions to the usual address
|By Tokas on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:04 am:|
Go for it Chuzo!
Have you been studying aerodynamics? It sounds like it anyway...
What you say makes sense to me so I'm curious about pictures and dynos!
Nothing is so good it can not be improved!
|By Powermaster on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 05:28 am:|
Nothing is so good it can not be improved!
< back to previous page
< < back to previous page
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation