Everything else is wild speculation. My Powerclone just didn't perform. It killed performance, just like my other designs did. The header is just too short as well. No, I wasn't testing with the CAT. I don't have one to just slip in there and test it with, obviously. For the baffle, I didn't have one for my Powerclone. I didn't have any data on what the db killer/baffle looked like, measurements, photos, nadda. So I had to run my clone without it. -=GENERALLY=- people have reported it as being more power without the db killer / baffle. So, I ran the combination I could most accurately simulate without actually spending the $450 to buy a competitors product, just to test once and throw out. It didn't match my math predictions, and I wanted to see how it did to see what it's performance was. I might have reproduced it incorrectly to measurements provided. The measurements may have been off somewhat. From what I've read from blokes in the UK who have run it on their dukes, it's down on power from stock exhaust by about 3HP. My findings confirmed that. It was at that point I stopped cursing myself as I was seeing run after run after run coming up short for my designs. Turns out, it just doesn't work. My math was wrong, the engine tech has advanced too far from when those formulas were developed, old time racers from the 60's-80's who raced singles and hand fabricated their reverse cone megaphones were remembering things wrong, or who knows! It's all speculation. The Dyno showed, it was all for naught. The length is short, so it's not making the HP target it needs. This is likely why the Akrapovic system is as long as it is, and the stock muffler puts the cat where it does. If I move my Can1 to that point on the primary header, I expect I'll make the HP I was missing from testing yesterday. I have serious doubts I'll possibly be able to get that to fit tho.
OK, LOTS of data and developments since yesterday. Sorry about not getting back to everyone sooner... I got an INCREDIBLE migraine from yesterdays testing, most likely due to Welders Metal Fume Fever due to Zinc heavy metal poisoning. In the name of expediency and ease of material procurement I used some EMT electrical conduit for my baffle material. Well, this is Zinc coated. I'd removed all the Zinc from the OD of the conduit, but failed to realize there must have also been Zinc coating on the ID of the conduit. For the day of dyno testing, I was basically standing in direct path of the exhaust, and as the exhaust heated up, the Zinc must have fumigated, which I then breathed in... all day long. I thought I was just becoming dehydrated (due to insurance purposes I was not allowed to stand in the building while the dyno was being run, so I was just outside the bay door, in the July Texas Sun... All. Day. Long. Anyway... nobody cares about that... they wanna see results.
So, what happened?
A LOT of this:
but y'all knew that.
Show me the DATA!
So, what are the results. In summary, a failure. Failing publicly is never easy. Admitting you failed doesn't come easy to some. I don't have any ego attached to the design. It's not an extension of -=ME=- as a person. I console myself in realizing... if this was easy, anybody could do it. I do have a few options, and I'm interested in the feedback from those interested in an aftermarket exhaust as to what their thoughts and feelings are... but first, the data!!!
So what are we looking at here?
I'll explain.
- Run_003: Baseline. This is completely stock. Bone. No modifications or changes. 624 miles on the clock, initial service performed. Run in with MotoMan breakin (run it hard, seat those rings in GOOD!) This produced 39HP on that dyno. Note, not all dyno's produce the same number. The point is CONSISTENCY so while on this dyno with this test bike made 39HP (their report is that their dyno produces conservative numbers), the same bike with everything the same might make 41HP on another. It's not the number, so much as it's what does it show after changes have been performed. The point being, you can't compare Dyno X to Dyno Y results. You can really only compare Dyno X to Dyno X with run vs run. Everybody up to speed, ok, let's start making changes and testing!
- Run_016: This is with the Akrapovic ECU map applied. Nothing else changed. Stock intake trunk in place. Stock airbox lid. Stock air filter. Stock exhaust. Stock stock stock except for the ECU change. This produced more torque, and more HP. It produced +3 HP and more power across the board. The stock mapping for emissions is lean. We've seen those dyno results and know the problems associated with the stock ECU map, and with the Akrapovic map. This is why we all have been waiting, begging, for the Power Commander V. The map Chad has developed for the PCv (who I got my PCv from) is built on top of the Akrapovic ECU map, so to use his map, I needed to Akrapovic map on my ECU. We can likely consider this another baseline view.
- Run_025: This was the best of the runs of all the combinations. Well, we've got a buttload of more torque and HP down low, but peak HP is lacking. In fact we are lacking both torque and HP where it matters most. So what changed and what happened. After the Akrapovic ECU map baseline was run, the bike was taken off the dyno and a lot of changes happened. The airbox lid was modded, the intake trunk was ditched. The stock air filter was swapped for the K&N filter. The Power Commander was added. We started testing my exhaust designs. Chad (cjwell) has pointed out, rightly, that "You aren't comparing apples to apples. You need to test the stock exhaust with all those modifications against your design." and he's completely correct. To be fair, I was paying a LOT for every run, so every datapoint cost me $$$. Still, that's one I might have considered running prior to bolting on my exhaust. I should note, I wasn't trying to test a final design here. I had 7 different megaphone configurations (various lengths, taper angles, and primary big end diameter) and 3 different primary header extension combinations, for 21 total test points, plus a clone I'd made of the GPR Powercone (which I figured would be my primary competition) that I'd also welded up to match the measured size/design as I wanted to see how my designs fared against it (yes, it has a cat and db killer, and I tested without those two as it's reported removal of both is necessary for maximum power. In the end, I found the "powerclone" as I took to calling it, produced only 36hp, or 3hp down from my bone stock configuration, and 6hp down from the ECU map basline run, were as my best performing design was generally 0.5hp down from bone stock (aka Run_003) and 3.5hp down from the Akrapovic baseline (aka run_016). Total and complete failure of my designs. This is why we test tho. I have a LOT of graphs and dyno data, but in the end, it comes down to that one graph. So, where did those HP and torque gains come from? Almost certainly NOT form the exhaust. These are almost certainly due to the airbox lid mod and the K&N filter. The exhaust plays a part in that, but it's almost certain one would see this with any exhaust, doesn't matter which. Stock, Akrapovic, Powercone, Straight Pipe Header with no muffler. My exhaust design played no part of the HP and Torque improvements that we are seeing down low. That's all airbox.
What about AFR / Tune?
Some will ask (Yeah but what's your AFR) and that's been gone over by Chad and I. I did not tune for each combination. I used the "Chad PCv map" with the Akrapovic base on the ECU. All my designs were consistently running a pretty flat AFR of 13.2 to 13.7. Lean. But they were all consistently lean the same amount. Here is a data graph with AFR of my Pipe #1 with my three different header extension lengths:
So what are we seeing here.
Run_025: Can 1 - Extension short.
Run_034: Can 1 - Extension medium
Run_043: Can 1 - Extension long
The AFR for each of the can designs and lengths look all pretty much exactly like this, between 13.2 and 13.7. So, the PCv isn't tuned to the design combinations I was trying, but they were all off the same amount. So while it wasn't producing the peak HP it could potentially, it's not THAT far off from what it could do. It's low, but were talking most likely faction of a HP, not 1, 2, or 3hp differences here.
Why Test different lengths for the primary header?
The math predicted a few primary header lengths, and so I tested each can design, with all three extension lengths. In the end, Can 1 - Extension short was my best performing combination. Can 4 - Extension long had a higher peak HP, but it took a hit on torque across the board and HP down low.
In the end, the results show my primary header lengths were still too short. Why didn't I test longer. Well 1, the math predictions showed I was testing what I thought would be correct, and 2) I was limited by what lengths I could try and get it to fit in the stock exhaust location. Any longer of a length, is going to require some SERIOUS welding and labor, to try and get that extra length of header into that confined space, without impacting performance. Chad will yell at me for this (and I and NOT comparing to myself) but what it's going to take to get the extra primary header length into that confined space is something akin to the Britten V1000 exhaust. Arguably one of THE most gorgeous motorcycles ever made, light years ahead of it's time, and an excellent example of motorcycle exhaust spaghetti where John had to bend and shape his headers in twists and turns to get the header lengths correct to all be the right lengths and meet at the right location.
View attachment 842
So, what's the take-away?
Well, my designs failed to meet the design objectives of:
1) More Power
2) More Sound
3) Retain Stock Exhaust footprint and exit
Y'all on the forum want all three. What my testing has shown is, it's reasonably easy to get any two: How? From testing and various data, like so:
1) More Power, More Sound, Lose Stock Footprint - Buy the $900 Akrapovic. You don't retain the stock exit, and have a big can on the side, but you get more power, and more sound. This is the clear choice for most racers.
2) More Power, Stock Footprint, Not Louder - Gut the cat out of your stock exhaust. This is free (assuming you are or know a welder who will do it for you) and just involves a lot of cutting, banging, and welding back up.
3) Stock Footprint, More Sound, the Same or LESS Power - This is the bane of slip-on "performance" exhaust. We've all seen the squids out there with loud pipes save lives, as you pass them with your quite stock exhaust system. The $450 GPR system is effectively (at least according to my dyno runs) an expensive noise maker, which hurts overall engine performance. If someone has dyno data that says otherwise, I'd love to see it, but I've LOOKED and everything I've found seems to confirm my dyno results. The designs I tried, well... they failed. I couldn't get a combination which I've tried yet which retains the stock location, produces more sound, AND produces more power. If it were easy, everyone would do it.
More testing? Maybe. I dunno.
I'm not sure. I have some soul searching to do. There are two (possibly three) dyno tests I can still do.
1) Put the stock exhaust back on and test that with the other mods. I skipped this, but at this point ALL it will prove is that my design didn't work even more.
2) Measure and test for longer primary header. I can measure from the primary header to where the CAT in the stock can starts. This will give me a good length for the stock primary header. I also need to get a measurement from the end of the stock primary header piece to the resonant chamber on the Akrapovic. If these measurements differ, I might need to test both, thus the possibly three dyno tests. This is where my design seems to have primarily failed. The can1 design might still outperform stock, and maybe match the Akrapovic system, but the question is, what to do with all that extra header length??? Getting that all stuffed into that small a space will NOT be easy, if it's even possible at all!
Options for moving forward:
Well, as I see it, there are really only four options remaining to me:
Option 1 - Go sit in a hole in the backyard and rock myself to sleep as I cry.
Option 2 - See if I can spaghetti that extra length into the stock exhaust space/location. I don't know if this is possible... much less how much it would cost to manufacture. It wouldn't be cheap. Certainly not in the $399-450 price point. There's just too much labor in trying to get that all welded up, in a professional production process. I'm NOT going to manufacture something that looks like Billy Bob stuck it together with a battery powered stick welder! If I can't produce something that rivals the Big Boys I'm not interested in doing it. That means I'd most likely be in the realms of the price point of the Akrapovic $900 system possibly +-150. I don't know what the market will bear but, I would think if I could produce a system that matched the Akrapovic system (the best performing exhaust currently) performance -=AND=- retained the stock location, -=AND=- made more sound (but not TOO much) that would justify a higher price point. Probably not by much tho. I know racers would like it so they didn't have a can on the side to be damaged, and street guys would like it because it retains the stock profile but gains HP and sound. Is this possible. I have no idea!!! Maybe. I need to figure out if I even want to move forward in trying to attempt this.
Option 3 - Ditch the idea of retaining the stock location. Move the pipe out to the side of the bike or possibly some other location (I know some have asked about a high exit) and compete head to head with Arrow and Akrapovic. This would be a possibility if testing showed the longer primary ends up producing more HP, and if there's just no way (physically or financially) to make option 2 work. If it doesn't meet at three design goals, but it still produces a quality product that'll compete... Maybe.
Option 4 - Ditch working on exhaust, at least for now. I have to decide if I want to even try going forward with the exhaust development, or move on to my next targeted development areas for real Frame Sliders and heavy duty case covers.
So... that's it. The bare truth. I tried, and I publicly failed. I may recover the exhaust development work with more testing, and it may be possible to financially fabricate a quality product that works (rather than just makes a lot of noise)... but I also might just grab the loud handle, dust myself off, and move on to the next thing. I'm interested in feedback, and what y'alls thoughts are.
