| Author | Message | ||
     D_adams |
Unfortunately I wasn't actually there.  I was a little bit busy here making stuff, the test was about 1500 miles away from where I live. If you were referring to the video of the RT-4 on the dyno, that was in WI at Erik Buell Racing during Homecoming. (Message edited by d_adams on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Crazyhawk99 |
Sorry Dean. My bad. Maybe Al can answer my questions. Congrats on the results of your RTs. Ya done good! | ||
| Pittsburgh_guy |
Great Job AL and Company! | ||
| Fresnobuell |
it appears that the Torque Hammer is quieter than OEM (baseline). Read the notes in the test. I believe they changed the recording values due to the intensity of the aftermarket cans' dB levels. I don't think what you are trying to do will work. All the aftermarket cans are much louder than stock.} | ||
| Crazyhawk99 |
Fresno, I suspected they changed the reference level, before you pointed it out. That is too bad, because the OEM can is the one we have all (mostly) heard and is the best one to compare volume against. Granted, if someone is familiar with one of the ones tested, that is also a good reference, but I have only heard OEM and HMF (which is currently on my bike). Too bad HMF didn't cough up a pipe for testing. I know a lot of guys are running them. Thanks for squaring me away though. | ||
| Dannybuell |
RT-1 and RT-3 at California with JT&S & Al. Nice showing on both pipes. Dean what pipes did you dyno at Erik Buell Racing? | ||
| Pyrogen |
Ok, first off, good job to all those involved with the test, there is a lot of data, formatting, and testing that was done. Thanks for all the hard work. Second, this may be a dumb question, but given that the "race ecm" used was tuned specifically for the FMF pipe, does that mean that there could conceivably be slight gains when using the specifically preprogrammed ecm for a given pipe vs the FMF ecm tested? (Message edited by pyrogen on July 14, 2010) | ||
| D_adams |
Dannybuell -- That one was the RT-4 that I made during the shootout. I got stuck riding with the stock pipe for a few days and couldn't stand not hearing the exhaust, so I built that one and have been using it since then. The pipes I sent in for the shootout look rough partially due to me abusing them. Both were ran on my personal bike (the RT-1 for about 3000 miles maybe?) and I didn't really clean or polish them before I shipped them off. Just a quick wipe with some wet towels, tossed them in a box and shipped them off. I didn't really have time prior to the shootout to make any new ones to ship out, so I used what I had available. Yep, they're not pretty, but they still perform the same. | ||
| Jng1226 |
Pyrogen - Test Procedure #17 on page 21: 17) Remap the ECM front and rear cylinder full throttle fuel map to optimize the fueling for an A/F ratio between 12.5:1 and 13.5:1, or as close as possible to 13:1 given the time constraints. Record two repeatable WOT pulls. So Al used the Erik Buell Racing programmable Race ECM to relatively optimize the A/F for each pipe. The results are in the table in the "tuned map" row for each exhaust. Sometimes the Race Map was better, but perhaps it was running too lean in spots for some tastes. At least you said it was dumb question!  Jeff | ||
| Al_lighton |
The revised report is up, with the corrected SAE correction factor on the chambered drummer. It's quite the ripple effect on things as it affects several graphs and tables, took a while to get it in. The Standard correction factor was 1.0240, the SAE correction factor was .9845, about a 4% difference. On the sound level questions. We took dB readings with the meter on the static SAE tests. On the drive-bys, we didn't run the meter, but when we set the input levels so that when my D&D equipped XB12 was reading 100 dbC at the microphone, the levels in the DAW were -24dB. The stock was recorded a little hotter than that, but when we ran the first pipe, it was pretty obvious that we were going to blow through 0dB, so we backed the levels down a bit and never touched them again. Digital clipping sounds BAAADD, we didn't want to run out of headroom on any of the pipes, and we were pretty much at the limit on the CES. If you look at the PDF document in the audio archive, you can see where the peaks were hitting on the waveforms. The single biggest factor affecting the dB level at the mic is how the tailpipe is pointed on the bike. The CES is pointed up and sideways, and was the loudest at the mic during the drive-bys. But it is NOT the loudest pipe as judged by human ears from all angles. The D&D, followed by the KEDA RT-3, were definitely louder to me, by a fair margin. The Torquehammer and Barker were the quietest by that same subjective criteria. Note that both of those, even though they point sideways, are angled down some. That makes a BIG difference. The second biggest mistake we made during the testing, after not running the STOCK pipe on the race ECM, was that we did the drive-bys BEFORE the bike went up onto the dyno, with the STOCK ECM fitted. If I had it to do over again, all the audio would have been on the tuned ECM, which would have had a lot less brittle sound quality. Al | ||
| Al_lighton |
There were, in many cases, significant differences between the performance levels on the STOCK map vs the race (FMF) map. But even though some pipes did better on the FMF map, and some on the tuned final map, in almost all cases, the differences were very small, some within the repeatability level of one run to the next with no change at all. I can't tell you all the differences between the stock map and the race (FMF) map we got from Erik Buell Racing, but you can bet that it is more than just fuel table changes. But we only made fuel table changes to get from the race map to the final tuned map. If I had to guess, I bet that based on where the widebands were mounted, we were getting some reversion O2 measured there, and that when we were tuning to 13:1 at the sensor, we were probably a tad richer in the combustion chamber. So the pipes that were running at 13.5-14:1 at the sensor on the FMF map may very have been almost spot on in the combustion chamber. This is all speculation, however. Al | ||
| Pyrogen |
jng1226 The reason I asked is, it was stated that the base map on the race ecm was for the fmf and that map was used for every test unless I misread that and like you said some lost performance with the tuned map due to time constraints. I figure that Erik Buell Racing has had a more time to perfect the map for any given muffler. I might be way off though, I have very much to learn still. | ||
| Jng1226 |
Pyrogen - I was joking! Please don't be offended. I agree with you that it seems that with a talented tuner like Al and his team you could optimize the map for each pipe to achieve whatever goals you want. The map could be tuned for maximum top end for the drag racer, or beefier mid-range for the street rider, etc. Every map/pipe combination is capable of some bias to one extreme or the other. I believe the point of Al's tuning to specific A/F ratios was to be on the safe side of tuning and what he would want on "his" bike/pipe/ECM for longevity. Engines make the most HP when tuned just a bit lean but given the different conditions they run in as streetbikes, it is best to not run so close to the edge. What good is a bike that makes the maximum possible HP when it pings now and then and every time you twist the grip you're wondering in the back of your mind if it will go "pop"? Not for me thanks. I'm stoked because I already have the FMF and just placed the order for the Erik Buell Racing with the tune that Al just tested and showed the biggest gains for my combo. Al - on another note, there is no doubt you will have a direct positive input on sales of Erik Buell Racing ECMs, I honestly think they should remunerate you in some way. Perhaps you could be the only other dealer for the ECMs or something like that? Jeff | ||
| Curve_carver |
One other thing I would like to square up. These bikes were tuned using a pump gas race ECM by bumping the afv numbers up and down. In my time tuning cars bikes and other vehicles . You cannot do this. Yes it is a good scenario on what you can achieve by doing such. But in all reality you can't determine a pipes max potential by doing such . Every pipe has it's own ignition curve and fuel map. One pipe might not like a ignition map . This is true . Hmf , fmf, pump gas tunes are available through ebr. Even they know that the pump gas will not work the peek potential of a pipe but will get it better results than stock. I for one have seen first hand in tunerpro different calibrations that ebr offers. The 3 they offer have different ignition maps . Some people might not understand what I am trying to put out there. So I'll sum it up again . One pipe might not like what one other does. So a pump gas race ECM used on all pipes can't be used to see a final result . It's that simple. Once again I hope I'm not raising hairs on peoples backs but bringing knowledge and insight to the table. Al has shown what you can achieve with a pump gas race ECM. Custom tunes could benefit Adams , barker and drummer or a fmf/ hmf. Along with all that said dris or is also known as easyrider on the has been shoved aside which I think is really crappy. He understands what I'm talking about. He knows every pipe has it's own tune. He has stated that his torque hammer pipe would put up better numbers and he'll prove it. He has found that the pump gas race ECM is not the right tune to be running with his setup. Bumping afr will not achieve the hammers max potential. So try not to take AL s dyno shootout as a last stand on this bike for power potential. I'll probably get bashed for saying this. But that's what's so great about forums . Acknowledging others views and making complete sense of it. I've read Easyriders articles and he has shown good numbers for the barker. He is a great asset for tuning these bikes and getting good results. His ongoing dyno shootout in a controlled tuning lab has been documented very well has shown each pipe needs it own map. And that a over the counter ECM won't cut it. He has stated that the race ECM when it first came out needed major tweaking to make it work with different pipes. The ebr calibration is a good starting point/ base but it will not work on every pipe. I have a good inside scoop from a couple tuners which I can't name. And that's what they all told me. But hats off to al for his good efforts on the shootout. But in all honesty I believe dris/ easyrider has done a far superior job. Al doesn't have the time easy has to do such. But al has done a tremendous job.  (Message edited by Curve_carver on July 14, 2010) (Message edited by Curve_carver on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Fresnobuell |
So does the reduction in the SAE correction value on the Chambered Drummer reduce it's power output in Rev.A of the Exhaust Shootout? *edited* Never mind.. I didn't realize the updated test was available already. AL, great job revising the test literally overnight. Thanks! (Message edited by fresnobuell on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Curve_carver |
http://www.twinmotorcycles.nl/artikelen.asp?aid=53 this is the kindof testing that needs to be done to get peak results. People should be sending easy pipes as barker has done. I'm not excluding ALs work or discrediting him. Easy just takes more time to get peak results. example: I could bump up the afr up and down on my bike but I know that there's areas that get hurt and others that help it. I add 5% more to my hmf tune and yes it runs smoother down low. But my high rpm suffered noticably. So I split it. I added 2% more and have some snatchyness but my topend isn't sluggy. I hope this helps. | ||
| Pyrogen |
I didn't take any offense to the comments, I just wasn't sure if I was A misunderstood or B misunderstanding. Thanks for the info though, so the next shootout would be each pipe with their own specifically tuned pump gas race ecm. Oh if that were only possible. Since I am off in dream land right now, I might as well hope for the couple of full race exhausts in there as well. Again thanks for clearing things up for me, and again a lot of great info. | ||
| Curve_carver |
Dyno shootouts should have very strict guidelines. Easy dyno tuned a ebr calibrated stock exhaust setup non emission and emmision style. And he basically showed adding fuel wasn't enough to get it right. He has done the hard work and I give hats off to him for his ongoing efforts. He is getting better on working with USA customers by teaming up with a well known tuner to get better customer service to all in the states. Everyone should take advantage of it if they want peak potential. If anything I stated was untrue I would hope dris would clear it up. I'm not affiliated with himin any way or form. Nor do I have any of his tunes. He is a sponsor I believe. | ||
| D_adams |
I think I'll go with the guy who designed/built the bike. Now to get the tuning finished for all of the pipes. | ||
| Curve_carver |
How can you say you'll go with the guy tuning /made the bikes. Easy has already proven that the tunes aren't correct??heck they couldn't get the tuning right for the street bikes? That makes absolute no sense. dris documented the ebr ECM was lean and missing alot of power? It's documented.Another tuner told me it's a great base to work off of. Is your assumption that dris's finding were false ? Can you clear that up for me . I'm kindof lost What is your tuning capabilities or credentials dean? | ||
| Daggar |
Maybe you should take this discussion to it's own thread, (Message edited by froggy on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Curve_carver |
Truth hurts | ||
| Froggy |
For someone who has no affiliation with Dris you sure do seem very defensive. | ||
| Reindog |
curve_carver: Do you have any financial interest in whether any particular pipe sells? Al has a financial interest but it lies in the selling of ANY and ALL pipes. Any unintended bias would be for all ALL pipes to perform exceptionally well. As this is not Al's nature nor the scientific method employed by the team, there is no intentional bias. The same can not be inferred of you, by your use of language in this thread. (Message edited by reindog on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Swampdog225 |
It does seem like an awful lot of hostility. When its all said an done the purpose of the shootout was purely informational. Given the parameters that were set and the test scenarios defined, data was collected and published. You don't have to necessarily agree with the results or not. The point is that the data was not in any way corrupted, influenced or tarnished by any of the people involved. Meaning that it was impartial. Some pipes faired well under the conditions defined. Some did not. If you don't like the results or the data, then you go out and spend your time and dollars to produce a volume of data such as this one. Otherwise, stop whining and enjoy the data that you have to munch on. There is no such thing as a perfect test or tester. They are only as good as the data that they produce. Al, Terry & the rest of the folks who contributed there time and effort should be thanked and we should stop this damn bickering. (Message edited by swampdog225 on July 14, 2010) | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Get lost Curve Carver. Stop polluting the thread. | ||
| Reducati |
ok, for us dummies out there...i cant seem to open the file...i downloaded adobe 9.3, yet i cant figure out how to get the file to open....for you smarty pants out there can you give me an idiot proof step by step lesson so i can see the exhaust shoot out? thx! | ||
| Jng1226 |
Curve_Carver - if you're truly a fan, if not a friend of Easyrider, then you should stop the inflammatory posts immediately. As a casual observer, you are actually doing more harm than good for the Torque Hammer product and I bet that Easyrider wouldn't appreciate it. He responded here very politely so let him continue to speak for himself. Jeff | ||
| D_adams |
The stock tune was crippled by the EPA. Try the race calibration and see for yourself. I never stated that I was an expert tuner, much less an expert exhaust builder. However, based on the shootout results and what I've known for a while now, I might know just a small amount about a few things. I also know my limitations, therefore I will leave the tuning to the experts, specifically the guys at Erik Buell Racing. I have absolutely NOTHING against Dris or his products, but if I really wanted or needed support, I CAN drive up to East Troy and see whoever I need at any time. Phone calls usually get answered, emails ALWAYS get answered within12 hours or less. As for the missing power, let me add, the race cal isn't missing much. True, each pipe does flow differently, as evidenced by the shootout results. Some obviously flow much better than others. Does that make the highest hp pipe the best? Nope. Same applies for torque. Each one is suited to a specific task, either power, torque, sound quality or even appearance. Everyone has different tastes. If you have no vested interest in Dris' work, why are you so vigorously defending it and jumping all over me? Did I do something to you? All I've done here is provide info about things I either build or have knowledge of. If you don't have either Dris' pipe or tune on YOUR bike, exactly what is your interest in this? | ||
| Curve_carver |
I'm sorry I just wanted to conclude that these results shouldn't be seen as final values. I run a hmf and a ebr tune Which wasn't tested. No biggie. It's a shame the surface was just scratched. I had the impression they were actually tuning the bikes not bumping the afv up and down. I know first hand that never works. I'll stop polluting. Name calling should not be tolerated. |
