| Author | Message | ||
     M1combat |
I have a couple questions and hopefully over the course of this thread they'll be answered and I'll be able to give my opinion... Page 26, Point 1 says that the "optimized fuel curve plot" is indeed an optimized fuel curve (Adjusted by the Direct link is what I'm assuming). Can I also assume that the information provided in the "Dyno_Runs" folder that can be viewed with WinPep are also the optimized fuel curves? I'm thinking I can assume this due to the fact that they are named ***_Best_Fueling. Lemme know if I'm wrong. To get to my point... The Blue are the two Drummers and the red and orange are the Micron and the race pipe. Sorry for the quality but I had to shrink and compress the image. You can see it in full detail if you DL the winpep software though.  I don't think I'm assuming that engines work best at a certain A/F ratio. I think certain things can affect exactly what ratio that is (the exhaust being one of them). Here's what I can't understand though...  You can see in this second pic that the pipe is running a bit rich above 4500 and that it loses power above 4500 compared to the other two runs... Now take a look at the information displayed in the upper pic. It seems to indicate that the "optimized" fuel plot for the two drummer pipes seems to fall a little on the rich side compared to the more proper looking fuel curves of the other two pipes. I spent a few hours on a Dyno with a couple different pipes a while back and I was able to get one (one of the pipes that seem to fall off in that first pic) almost PERFECTLY flat within about 45 minutes and that included some significant tuning all over the map, not just the WOT line. Another pipe I had (that was a pretty radical design) took quite a bit longer, but we were able to get it perfectly flat as well. Why couldn't the Drummer fuel curve end up flat? Why was it deemed "acceptable" to let it run too rich up there? Maybe I'm just assuming that it's too rich? That's why I point out the other plot though... The second pic shows a few Drummer runs, one being rich and that same one loses power... Maybe Kevin just said "Yeah... That looks good."? Maybe. If I was the tuner though (not that I am a tuner) I don't think I would have accepted that if I was shooting for apples to apples comparisons... That's all I'll say for now. Depending on the answers I get I may have more to say. Al... I know I owe you some margarita's due to the ones you bought for Reindog and I and I hope I didn't just •••• you off. It really does seem odd to me though. I still very much appreciate the time you put into this. Maybe it's just the fact that the Micron map is so much more developed? Please don't get me wrong... It looks to me like the Micron is an excellent pipe, but it also looks to me like someone left something on the table. Maybe there just wasn't enough time... Oh... One more thing... I noticed that there was a decent chunk more humidity and less ambient temperature with the Micron run (both of these create more power if I'm not mistaken)... Does the dyno software correct for those differences? I'm thinking one was done in the daytime and one was maybe done at night after it cooled off? Of course there was no way around that but I'm just curious... | ||
| Medic_2512 |
Stop trying to slip hairs cause the pipe you have on your bike didn`t win. Just put a Micron on your Buell and let it rip! Mine will be on this weekend! | ||
| Medic_2512 |
By the way the Jardine i`m running didn`t win either. Its time to upgrade my friend! | ||
| Blake |
There is no "winner" from what I can see. As always, which pipe you choose depends upon where you want the power curve optimized (low, mid, mid-high, high, or equal throughout) and how much you care to invest and what kind of sound and look you also prefer. If someone has time, maybe they can put together some more simulated roll-on results. You have to export the data from WinPep to a delimited text, ".txt", file format then import into a spreadsheet, but it works and produces the data for comparing head to head acceleration performance like Al already did for his reported roll-on scenarios, one for each of the XB9 and XB12. Some folks might be interested in different roll-on scenarios, like from 3500 to 5500 rpm (whatever that is in mph) for an XB12 and maybe from 4000 to 6000 for an XB9? | ||
| M1combat |
I'm not trying to slip hairs... really... I thought for a few hours before I even decided to post that but in the interests completeness, learning (maybe I just missed something) and curiosity I figured I'd ask why that fuel curve for the Drummer doesn't "look" to me to be as optimized as the Micron. If it is I'd just like to know why. Maybe they found that the Drummer makes more power at that AF ratio... But the other graph seems to show differently. Why was that AF curve settled on? I know (from personal experience) that the Drummer's requirements for fuel are "reasonably" close to the stock curve but it responds well to tuning. Did the ECM have a chance to learn the pipe first? If not then maybe the needed fuel curve near the top was outside the range of adjustment that the DL offers? I don't even know if there's a limitation like that in the DL but maybe... I hope not or there'll be NO way to tune the low end of a Force pipe. I'm really thinking that there's a logical explanation. I would just like to have that is all. It just seems to me that it could have posted better results. If you look at those two graphs it looks like the Drummer could have tied or beaten the Micron on the top. That would make it look like a good race pipe though... I know it's a good low/mid pipe. It beat my Force pipe with no baffle up top (both tuned with a PCIII to a FLAT curve)... It lost in the middle but MURDERED the Force on the bottom. It just seems to me that there could have been some more tuning done with the Drummer. and really... Looking at the fuel curve it's quite obvious. It's not hidden. It's right there staring at you saying "Hey... I'm too rich up top...". It would just make sense to me to tune a pipe to a good A/F ratio is all. I'll be the last to complain when a pipe I run makes less power than another... I'm all about lean angle where power is less useful... Makes no difference to me really, but I just think that it could have been tuned better quite easily... I mean sheesh... Terry Gallagan is the "Dyno Guy" right? No offense Terry... Just pointing out an accepted (by me anyway) fact. Al says you're good at it too and I tend to trust him... Maybe the DL has a limitation on how many milli-seconds you can pull out of the PW of the injector? Maybe they COULDN'T pull out more? That seems unlikely to me so I figured I'd ask why... I'd still like an answer... Trust me... I HATE to be the one to throw a fly in the ointment I assure you. But I can't keep my mouth shut when I see something that just doesn't look quite right, and it doesn't. I've met Al. We've ridden a good number of miles together and I ate some BBQ that was paid for by him (and had a few margaritas too) a while back. I've also talked to Kevin a couple times. They both seem like good guys. Maybe I should have just Called Al on this instead of posting but I can't see how anyone could deny the facts anyway... Only offer an explanation as to why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. I'd REALLY like one... I'm sure that's understandable. In case anyone is wondering why I have an interest... I'm going racing next season and I'm looking for a good race pipe. I want the best. To be honest I didn't expect the Drummer to be the best top end pipe (even though it beat my Force setup). I figured that the "race" pipe in the bunch would come down to the Micron, the Jardine or the race pipe. My money was on the race pipe. However... After looking over the data for a couple hours I kept thinking "something doesn't quite look right...". I finally had to build a plot with the pipes I needed to see and set it up with the data I needed and BAM... There it was... The Drummers... BOTH OF THEM... Don't seem to be tuned right... Why? I hesitate to even mention that the Micron has had HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS of tuning done to it. The reason I hesitate to mention it is because Al and Terry were just trying to tune that pipe to the max even before the idea for the shootout was hatched... Such is life. Anyway... I still want to re-itterate that I hope that I haven't insulted Al or Terry or pissed Al off in any way... But if there's an explanation I'd like to have it. | ||
| Dooley |
Isn't it SPLIT hairs? | ||
| Al_lighton |
M1, you are missing the point. This is not about absolute numbers, it is about curve shape. So I DO think you're splitting hairs. I think the data you presented above answered your own question. In your second picture above, do you see the how far the blue very rich is from the "optimized" curve? It is over twice as far from the "optimized" curve as the "optimized" curve is from the 13.5:1 target through the top end. And yet, it's power curve is still not all that far off the other "optimized" curve. There is a point of diminishing returns on trying to hit the "optimized" value. Had we taken the time to make the "optimized" curve flat as a board from 4500 up, the change in the curve and absolute values would still be very small. The amount of time it would have taken for the amount of difference in the curve it would have made, bounded by the amount of time available, dictated when we stopped on EVERY pipe. The target was 13.5:1. In your upper picture, the Buell race pipe and Micron were as much off the 13.5:1 target on the lean side as the Drummers were on the rich side. Both were within acceptable limits given how much difference we were seeing on each run. We certainly didn't work at that expanded vertical scale level, nor did we try to correlate fueling vectors to power vectors for each pipe to optimize each one even more. There was no point in it, and there was no time for it. Frankly, I really don't want to hear how Terry should've gotten it flatter faster. The overall curve, not just the top end section, was flattened as best as possible in the time we had. The pipes were done in an order that made sense with regard to muffler mounting methods (i.e. stock pipes, followed by pipes that used both the front and rear stock mounts, followed by those that used just the rear stock mount, followed by the jardine that used neither, followed by the micron with a full header swap) Time/temperature/humidity were luck of the draw. We coudn't control that. Does it make a difference? Yes. How much? I don't know, that is what the SAE corrections are supposed to take care of, and I can't tell you their margin of error. That's the data we have. It was taken as fairly as possible, without an agenda. You say your interest is in selecting the best pipe possible for your race bike. If you ask me, the data you have is sufficient to answer that question. If you don't agree, reject it and find another way to answer your question. | ||
| M1combat |
I am NOT missing the point Al. I'm NOT looking at the numbers. You'll notice that I didn't mention them ONCE. I did however mention the CURVES. Most notably the fuel curve. So... You make a fine point about running the pipes in the order that makes the most sense and if the correction factor takes care of that then it's a moot issue anyway. Thank you for clarifying. The song remains the same though... BOTH Drummers aren't tuned correctly from what I can tell (Why would it be BOTH of them? I don't get it... I must be missing something...). They drop to being too rich on the upper end. I expanded the A/F graph just so people could see it well after I jacked the image quality with XAT. I just don't see how it's acceptable to compare two pipes "objectively" and "unbiased" and not at least get somewhere near a proper A/F curve. You can see from the second pic that the curve drops off near the top as the system gets richer. It must be doing that with the dyno plots in winpep as well. Sorry Al... I really DO appreciate all the work you put into the output and the input. I do. For me... I know that whatever pipe I get will be tuned properly and I think that the Drummer will beat the Micron on top where I need it once tuned correctly. It'll also be a good deal lighter. So now... For me... It comes down to Drummer CF or the race pipe... I think the race pipe loses too much in the middle though... but I'll have to look at the tune. Really I'll probably buy two pipes, tune both and sell the one that I don't want. I really don't mean to "point a finger" as such Al... You reacted like you kinda took it that way. The data looks a little funny to me and for some reason I just have a deep seeded desire to call things like I see them. I see both Drummers as being not tuned right, and the Micron and the race pipe as being tuned "well"... Why do I stick with those pipes? Because I like them. That said... I didn't realize that the Micron was so frickin heavy. | ||
| Tpoppa |
I read through the data. Alot of expertise and hard work went into it. The test seems fair and unbiased to me. | ||
| M1combat |
The Drummer SS Fuel curve drops BELOW 13:1... Maybe I just don't know enough about the data... Isn't 13:1 pretty rich? It pretty much stays that way from 4500 to redline. There's power being left on the table from 4500 to redline at least. That's the way it is. I'm not exactly saying that the test was "biased", but I AM saying that there is power left on the table for the upper HALF of that line up there... Why? It can't bo too hard to fix. That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I'm pissing people off... BUT... That's what I see. I REALLY wish I wasn't seeing that. It sucks on at least one level... Maybe two. | ||
| Chadhargis |
In my experience, trying to get the fuel curve right on a bike has a lot to do with the injector. Too big of an injector and it won't atomize the fuel well enough. Too small of an injector and you can't get enough fuel into the cylinder in the given time. All these runs were done with no internal engine mods, using stock injectors, and stock (single) throttle body which prohibits you from tuning front and rear cylinders separately. Sometimes "close enough" is all you can get without hours and hours of tuning to gain maybe 1 or 2 hp over a given range. I'm running the race muffler with the race ECM as it comes out of the box. I honestly don't feel the dip in the torque curve although it's clearly visible on the dyno charts. My Ulysses weighs 500 lbs full of fuel and my 225# self on top of it doesn't help. I wring the bikes neck, seldom ever spinning the engine below 4,000 rpm unless I cruising around. For me, the race pipe looks to be just right. Nice top end power and torque, reasonably quiet, and affordable. Yeah, I can bolt on a Micron and get some more power, but at what cost? At some point you reach the law of diminishing return where you pay for more than you get. Kudos to Al and all involved. I had fun looking at the runs. I'm wondering how far off the software was as far as the numbers are concerned. I know it's not about the numbers, but I've been telling all those folks I leave behind on fast rides that my "Harley" is only making about 85hp. I love the look on their faces when they get back on board their R1s, Gixxers, Ninjas, etc. It's priceless.  As always...it's the rider that matters, not the bike. If you wanna go faster, get thee to a track school, upgrade your suspension, beef up your brakes. Just don't expect to do it with a muffler and a fuel map. | ||
| Al_lighton |
The curve that was the richest one was the one that yielded the maximum torque, which is why it was on the plot. It was way richer than the others, but it yielded the maximum torque (and therefore the maximum power, AT THAT RPM). So, does that mean that our target should have been 13:1 where that one hit max torque? We did multiple pulls, each time fixing the worst parts of the fueling graph. The "optimum" fueling graph wasn't selected for being optimum at one point (i.e., redline). It was selected because it was optimum over the entire length of the curve. That is also why the max output plots (i.e., max HP, max Torque, and "best" fueling) curves were presented. This is a plot of the top end of several of the Drummer runs.  The ones that are spot on at the 13.5:1 AFR target at redline (007 and 008)are way off down low (off the chart in this picture), which is why they weren't the ones that were called the "optimized" fuel curve. The one that is the furthest below the target AFR (010) is the max torque run. The one that had the max HP is 009, and it is clearly a bit richer than the ones that were on the target 13.5 AFR. The one that was referred to as the optimum fueling run (014) WAS the best curve OVER THE ENTIRE RANGE but is clearly richer at the very top than 007 and 008. I'm not going to tell you it couldn't have been brought closer to the target. It would have taken time that we didn't have. You are focusing at the very top, we were focusing on the entire curve. "It can't be too hard to fix"? No, it isn't. But it takes lots of time. Pushing the curves around is very interactive. The Micron curve was as far off on the lean side as the Drummer one was on the rich side. I don't see your point. I'm not going to debate this. I'm comfortable that the test was done fairly, and that I've presented representative data that tells the story fairly. If you don't agree, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. | ||
| Hattori_hanzo |
M1, you make my head hurt!  | ||
| M1combat |
I am looking at the top end yes... That's the range I'm looking at for my race bike. The Drummer seems to do well below that. It just looks funny to me that as the Drummer SS drops into being pretty rich, it also drops below the Micron in power...  I'm not saying I think this was intentional as such Al... I'm just saying that I really wish that the pipes could have been tuned a bit better. Especially given the fact that the Micron map (I'm assuming) was brought in with MANY hours of dyno runs into it's development. I truly believe that the Drummer would have made the better curve at the top and bottom with a section in the middle about 300-500RPM wide where the Micron would have surpassed it. Right around 5K as it were. I believe in the Micron technology. Don't get me wrong. I think that if Kevin were to design a Drummer muffler for a Micron header we would se a truly great combination. I think that Micron's muffler isn't as good as the Drummer, but the Micron header is better than the stock header (I think it's too long though). What do I know? Well... I'll tell you... I know what I see in that pic right there. Lets get to the street issue... Do you have any Winpep plots where the Drummer is pulling from 1500? I'd like to see the pipes start out lower myself. I know a lot of people don't use the very low end but I do. Not on a racetrack for sure, but on the street I try to stay at about 1700-2200 when I'm just putting around through town. I had a Force pipe intalled for quite some time and after switching back and forth from my Drummer to my Force (with both combinations of header) I've grown to hate the loss of power on the bottom on the street. It looks as though the Micron doesn't drop off ANYTHING like the Force does, but when you're talking about only having 40HP down there anyway, every one of them is important. | ||
| Bubabuell |
 | ||
| Michman |
This is an interesting dialogue. Let's have Kevin opine: Do you think if the A/F mixture had been better optimized that the SS would have closed the HP/torque gap with the Micron system in the mid-range? | ||
| Tpoppa |
M1, I think Al and everyone involved went to great lengths complete an unbiased test. After reading your posts, it seems that you are biased towards the Drummer. I think you are over-estimating the impact of the AF ratio. The beauty of this test is afterward you are welcome to purchase any pipe you choose. Better yet, you can purchase a Drummer and a Micron and perform your own test. Please share your results. | ||
| Buelltroll |
Some people... | ||
| Kds1 |
It's pretty common for a bike to show a larger # on the dyno it has to be leaner, richer shows a lower #.....looks like there was a little more tuning to be done on those 2 charts.... Kevin www.kdfab.com | ||
| M1combat |
I agree Tpoppa... whole heartedly. I VERY MUCH appreciate the time that was put into this by everyone involved. I really do. I mentioned earlier that I HATE to be the one to point out a fly in the ointment. I do. I'm sorry that I have to be the type of guy who can't keep his mouth shut when something. doesn't seem right. I'm a virgo AND a perfectionist AND a lot of curiosity. You might do well to search some archives about the time the Drummer came out. I was just as critical of that as I was of the Micron when it was developed. I'm not playing favorites here... I see a somewhat sizable discrepancy in the A/F values that directly correlate to a drop in power from the Drummer compared to the Micron and I felt the need to point it out. I took a lot of heat from the Micron thing a number of months ago. People saying that I was just bitching because the Micron wasn't a "sponsored" pipe. That wasn't the case then and I have no particularly ill intentions now. I'm just saying how I feel, and I still feel that my thoughts on the subject are valid. That said... It can't be fixed now short of a Micron/Drummer shootout. I seriously doubt that anyone would want to do that. I don't really blame them... Everyone has already spent a TON of valuable time showing us what we wanted. Yes... I wanted to see the Drummer do well (and IMO it did very well) but I truly believe that given a little more TIME at the LEAST... It could have been better. As I see it... This shootout shows the Drummer to be a better street pipe for my interests and shows the Micron to have the advantage on the track. I just think that the advantage could have been VERY minimized, possibly even overcome, had the Drummer been running closer to 14:1 instead of 12.8-13:1. It only missed the peak mark by a tiny bit for sure, and I'm not too concerned with that. I think it could have done better in the upper-mid range where it counts on the track. How many Dyno runs were put on the Uly with the Micron pipe Al? I seem to remember that it was WELL over 200? Were the spark maps optimized for the shootout? Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. I still think the Drummer did exceptionally well as did the Micron. IMO they are both stellar pipes. I think the Micron is a bit "weird" looking though, but of course that's a subjective thing... I can't say as I really like the fact that the Drummer SS has no option to attach the chin spoiler. It "does", but I know what happens to a chin spoiler at 138 without proper support of the two front bolts... It breaks. The chin spoiler brackets that you can get with the Drummer SS are useless (unless I'm mistaken and they DO support the front?). I like the chin spoiler myself... /Edited for Speeeeeling (Message edited by M1Combat on June 08, 2006) | ||
| Hattori_hanzo |
M1, you make my head hurt! | ||
| Buelltroll |
The beauty of this test is afterward you are welcome to purchase any pipe you choose. Better yet, you can purchase a Drummer and a Micron and perform your own test. Please share your results. ENOUGH SAID | ||
| M1combat |
I heard you Brian ... You've said that to me a few times . Sometimes I make MY head hurt... | ||
| Hattori_hanzo |
 Hey! Someone gave me a bad rating for stickin' ya in the ribs! | ||
| Hogs |
M1, Do you really " I try to stay at about 1700-2200 " I never and repeat never ride way down low like that even around town... Never ,never ,never 1700 is border line lugging the engine to me.. Guess I should say also so is 2200 LoL (Message edited by Hogs on June 08, 2006) | ||
| M1combat |
Yeah... It's boarder line... Sometimes I literally just idle along whiskey row. It's a 15MPH street with plenty of people and idle is about 12MPH. I'll pull in the clutch to slow down and then slowly let it out with no throttle to get going again. It'll idle along in second too. I can actually idle UP hill in first and that's with an idle set at about 900-950. You can cruise at just about any RPM you want in first and second without lugging the engine. If I need to get on it I pull in the clutch a little, feed in some fuel and then let out the clutch. If I'm up around 1700 though I don't need to use the clutch. It responds just fine with a slow roll on. No lugging at all unless I just whack the throttle open... LOL Brian ... It wasn't me... Ahhh.... You're running a Force "muffler"... I wouldn't recommend running that low with one of those either... (Message edited by M1Combat on June 08, 2006) | ||
| Whodom |
 MY BRAIN HURTS! (Message edited by whodom on June 08, 2006) | ||
| Bubabuell |
Are we all suppose to start our own thread on our opinions of the results? BubabBuell's opinions regarding the results Responding to the original threads' one thing. Starting your own is a bit pompous if I do say so myself. | ||
| M1combat |
Thanks for your opinion . Duly noted . Now go start your own thread . | ||
| Bubabuell |
Nah. I'd do so in the original thread. Seems more appropriate than to start my own. And just to be fair I gave myself a negative vote. |
