Secondary Butterflies

[B.D.F.]

Which is why, of course, we see secondary butterflies in the induction side of race cars, funny cars, etc., etc. 

I cannot tell if you are making a joke or not here Alex. Well, you are making a joke but I cannot tell if it is on purpose or not.... :-)

I know the camp out there that sells ecu- reflashes proports that leaving the 'flies in the bike somehow produces more power, and that is all fine and well, but not only does it not withstand the test of science (partially blocking a tube will not yield MORE fluid flowing in a that tube) but it also does not pass the simple test of logic.... if closing down the intake passages yields more power, why does the re- flash open them further / sooner in the first place? Sorry, it is just the usual sales speak about how an inferior [product / method] is really better than the superior product / method.

In the end, power is derived from how much air flows through an internal combustion engine. Things that allow or cause more airflow, such as less restrictive air filters, more free- flowing exhausts, etc., as well as changes in valve timing and opening, all combine to increase horsepower. All except for the magical 'flies of course, which increase horsepower by restricting airflow.

Re- flashing an ECU on a C-14 can have a positive effect on performance, and it certainly is easy for a C-14 owner to do this but in the end it will not equal removal of the 'flies and compensatory fuel adjustment (re- flash the ECU or add a separate fuel management device such as a Power Commander, etc.). But hey, whatever it takes to sell something has always been fair game.... back in the 50's, there were doctors (bona fide M.D.'s) hawking the best cigarette for health too.

Brian

News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.

Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.


Ivan tuned my 2013 ZX14-R. . .fastest bike on the planet

[maxtog]

News flash: most tuners including Ivan from NY produced more power with the flies in.

Even Area P received 20 hp gains with flies in.

I don't believe it.  Not for a second.  That runs contrary to every testimonial I have read from those [many people] who did it [flash-disabling or removing them] on this forum, is absolutely not true based on my *personal* experience with disabling them, and doesn't even jive with my [limited] understanding of physics.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what is meant?  I will be happy to examine quantitative dyno printouts before and after fly removal and/or disabling on the same C14 that supports the claim that, to me, has no face validity.

[Gigantor]

I am not in a position to question the experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications to get the most HP & Torque they can.

There is no logical reason they would leave the flies in if it would produce more power to take them out

[B.D.F.]

Sure there is- they are trying to sell ECU re-flashes rather than pulling the 'flies and adding a Power Commander. It would not be good marketing to say that re-flashing the ECU is an improvement and yields performance somewhere between stock and actually removing the 'flies. Take a look at any margarine commercial, do they ever say 'nearly as good as butter' or anything similar? Nope, they say they are equal or better than butter. It is a lie but it is how margarine is sold....

A re-flash could simply open the 'flies all the way and leave them there except that would engage the high speed idle cam and the bike would no longer idle. So they have the physical limitation in the way that removing the 'flies overcomes.

By the way, the 'experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications' used the data collected by a 2010 C-14 owner, and he collected the data with a Power Commander data logger. Ironic, huh?  :-)

At any rate, whatever anyone wants to do to his / her C-14 is of course fine by me, I am merely responding to the advertising hype that is simply incorrect. I think everyone should put a bit of time into researching this and thinking about it before blindly following the thoughts of others with very questionable motives (read: they are trying to sell you something and will tell you whatever you want to hear so that you will purchase it).

Brian

I am not in a position to question the experts who spend countless hours performing dyno runs and modifications to get the most HP & Torque they can.

There is no logical reason they would leave the flies in if it would produce more power to take them out

[Deziner]

 

Lets do it some more, shall we? KHI has seen fit to equip some of it's vehicles with secondary "flies" for a reason. While I can't speak for KHI, I know why American Honda sees fit to use them in their automobiles. Pray, tell, you say. ok, I will.

Under certain operating conditions the velocity of the air flowing into the head needs to be increased. This is accomplished  by a controllable "restriction" in the intake tract. The higher velocity air helps to atomize the fuel, resulting in lower emissions for all of our tree hugging friends of nature.

Does anyone actually think that motor vehicle manufacturers "dumb down" their products for no good reason? Does anyone think that motor vehicle manufacturers put "extra" parts on a vehicle for no reason? Perhaps their profit margin is too high and the engineers are tasked with creating innovative new ways to complicate things and add expense? EMISSIONS is one of, if not the largest, hurdles that manufacturers have to overcome.

Go ahead and "modify" your vehicle so it "runs the way it should from the factory" and attempt to get it to pass the emissions testing required to sell that vehicle here in the EPA ridden US of A.    Tinker, modify, remap, and reflash your little brains out, I certainly will. Just don't ask why it "didn't come this way from the factory?"

[B.D.F.]

I see your logic- the factory knows best so your vehicles are bone- stock?

Under what conditions does the velocity of the air flowing into the heads need to be increased? Go ahead and explain it in as much detail as you like using partial derivatives, I will try to keep up. And of course as the velocity is increased, the volume is decreased so on what planet is that desirable? Perhaps this all helps break up the gasoline molecules from the Carter carburetor of 1930? How does the increase in velocity and resultant decrease in volume prove beneficial?   

Yep, I think manufacturers dumb down things every single day. Done it myself. Lots of stickers saying 'no user serviceable components inside and yet, there are often lots of user serviceable components inside. Want a specific example.... the tire pressure sensors on a C-14 are not serviceable and must be replaced as a unit. This coming Saturday I will solder in several sets of batteries in various C-14 tire pressure sensor senders and no, I do not think the mfg. knows best regarding changing those batteries.

In France, motorcycles are limited to 100 Hp; bikes such as the C-14 are restricted in power output by being fitted with an induction restriction. Now tell me who is wrong, Kawasaki or the gov't of France.

With all due respect, I will ask any questions I care to, and I think the C-14 should have come from the factory without the secondary 'flies.

Brian

Lets do it some more, shall we? KHI has seen fit to equip some of it's vehicles with secondary "flies" for a reason. While I can't speak for KHI, I know why American Honda sees fit to use them in their automobiles. Pray, tell, you say. ok, I will.

Under certain operating conditions the velocity of the air flowing into the head needs to be increased. This is accomplished  by a controllable "restriction" in the intake tract. The higher velocity air helps to atomize the fuel, resulting in lower emissions for all of our tree hugging friends of nature.

Does anyone actually think that motor vehicle manufacturers "dumb down" their products for no good reason? Does anyone think that motor vehicle manufacturers put "extra" parts on a vehicle for no reason? Perhaps their profit margin is too high and the engineers are tasked with creating innovative new ways to complicate things and add expense? EMISSIONS is one of, if not the largest, hurdles that manufacturers have to overcome.

Go ahead and "modify" your vehicle so it "runs the way it should from the factory" and attempt to get it to pass the emissions testing required to sell that vehicle here in the EPA ridden US of A.    Tinker, modify, remap, and reflash your little brains out, I certainly will. Just don't ask why it "didn't come this way from the factory?"

[Deziner]

Well the engineers I work with on occasion really have to dumb things down for me so I'll do what I can. Way back when, or even now, depending on your social circles, many thought that tunnel ram intakes and other racing oriented parts were hung on street cars. It is common knowledge that larger intake runners are not better in all circumstance.  If the air/fuel mixture is flowing too slowly, the combustion chamber will not fill properly. Huge volume is not always the answer. If that were the case, why not hang 100mm throttle bodies on vehicles along with 6 inch exhaust systems. Big picture, it's all about volumetric efficiency. Exhaust design has a large role in how the air fills the combustion chamber, along with the intake system.

I work with engineers that have to deal with CARB certification on a very regular basis. They have no reason to tell me anything but the truth. Is the emissions testing as stringent where you live and do you have to keep current with the constantly changing controls and government standards?  I am just another dumb azz that will never be a genius like some, but I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything about everything.

In closing, no, all of my vehicles are not stock. I never stated or implied that they were. Read the last 2 lines of my previous post. 

[B.D.F.]

Aha! There is the problem right there! Stay away from dem guize, dey is no gud!

 

And remember, "The multitude of fools is a protection to the wise."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero

Written more than two thousand years ago and still as fresh a thought as any.

Brian

<snip>

I work with engineers....

<snip>

[Conniesaki]

I'm not a smart man. I just ask questions sometimes. Isn't the thinking that a larger intake is always better kinda like disconnecting your garden hose from your home's spigot, attaching a fire hose in its place and expecting water to come out the end of the fire hose stronger / farther?

There must be a sweet spot ... ?

[Deziner]

^^^ Very good analogy!!!

[martin_14]

the K1600 beemer does exactly that: it has a long intake that does fill the cylinders very well, hence the fantastic torque delivery and similar peak power output than the C14 at 1300 rpm less.

Drawback: you twist the throttle, text a couple of messages in you phone, and just then comes the response from the engine. And don't hurry texting... 

[Gigantor]

Aha! There is the problem right there! Stay away from dem guize, dey is no gud!

 

And remember, "The multitude of fools is a protection to the wise."
-Marcus Tullius Cicero

Written more than two thousand years ago and still as fresh a thought as any.

Brian

That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog

[Gigantor]

Well the engineers I work with on occasion really have to dumb things down for me so I'll do what I can. Way back when, or even now, depending on your social circles, many thought that tunnel ram intakes and other racing oriented parts were hung on street cars. It is common knowledge that larger intake runners are not better in all circumstance.  If the air/fuel mixture is flowing too slowly, the combustion chamber will not fill properly. Huge volume is not always the answer. If that were the case, why not hang 100mm throttle bodies on vehicles along with 6 inch exhaust systems. Big picture, it's all about volumetric efficiency. Exhaust design has a large role in how the air fills the combustion chamber, along with the intake system.

I work with engineers that have to deal with CARB certification on a very regular basis. They have no reason to tell me anything but the truth. Is the emissions testing as stringent where you live and do you have to keep current with the constantly changing controls and government standards?  I am just another dumb azz that will never be a genius like some, but I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything about everything.

In closing, no, all of my vehicles are not stock. I never stated or implied that they were. Read the last 2 lines of my previous post.

That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog!

[gPink]

My bike is more fun to ride with the secondary throttle plates on the shelf than with them in the factory location.
Disclaimer: I am not an engineer or professional 'tuner'.

[VirginiaJim]

Nor did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express...most likely.

[gPink]

 

[maxtog]

^^^ Very good analogy!!!

And yet that is not really what this is about.  It is about greatly restricting airflow with secondaries.  They do not allow the intake to increase beyond what is optimal or beyond what the engine can use or the exhaust can expel.

The engineers have MANY factors they need to meet- most of them are NOT performance.  Fuel economy, noise restrictions, emissions control, speed laws, engine control, cost, safety, longevity, repairability, user friendliness... most of those factors usually run contrary to performance, and many of them are probably factors for secondary butterflies.

There is *no question* in the minds of almost everyone who has removed or disabled the "flies"- the bike performs much, much better.  It might suffer in fuel economy, much louder intake, break emissions standards, or other factors, but we don't care about those when it comes to performance...

[Deziner]

You're absolutely right, Max. That was my point in this discussion. The consumer doesn't have to concern himself with the regulations that the manufacturer does. Period.

I won't cast aspersions here but dyno results are not the final word on how a vehicle perorms in the real world. Depending on the operator, of course. Results on paper can be manipulated. 

[B.D.F.]

One of the biggest surprises after removing the 'flies was the amount of noise coming from the top of the engine. It is really impressive how loud the bike is even at low RPM and low loads; the secondaries do damp down a lot of noise, and I suspect (but I do not know) that is one of the reasons they are there in the first place. Same reason Honda uses variable blocking plates in the exhaust of the VFR1200.

Brian

<snip>

The engineers have MANY factors they need to meet- most of them are NOT performance.  Fuel economy, noise restrictions, emissions control, speed laws, engine control, cost, safety, longevity, repairability, user friendliness... most of those factors usually run contrary to performance, and many of them are probably factors for secondary butterflies.

<snip>

[B.D.F.]

Which tuners keep the 'flies in? I have never seen or heard of a bike on a dyno that still had the 'flies in it.

This whole idea that the secondary 'flies are somehow beneficial began after an person selling ECU re-flashs started shilling his product. The only other thing to compare the re- flash to was removing the 'flies and adding a Power Commander, so the natural course of advertising somehow made the 'flies beneficial..... if the ECU were re- flashed. Notice how the advertizing very carefully and cleverly has the guy re- flashing the ECU altering the behavior of the 'flies, clearly opening them earlier and farther is good but removing them entirely is bad.

There is not one shred of data or any plausible theory (based on facts, not anecdotes) that shows leaving the 'flies in a C-14 is in any way better than removing them. I do not sell anything or have any vested interest in any part of this debate, my only interest here is to shine a little light on the darkness and hopefully get people to think about this rather than swallow and repeat some of the nonsense being shoveled around.

Brian

That explains why the tuners keep the flies in. Good dialog!