Secondary Butterflies

[Deziner]

So many variables.......
 
As far as I can tell, there are only 2 good ways to actually quantify the results of a "reflash" vs "flyectomy" test. First of all both bikes would have to be equipped with the same exhaust system, tires, air filter, windshield, etc. The only difference being the fuel management modifications. Same weight riders.  Apples to apples.

1. Have a professional rider (who has no skin in the game) do 3 quarter mile runs on each bike. Calculate the average for each bike, declare a winner.

2. Do a 20 mph roll on, side by side, and go to 100 mph or more. Declare a winner. (A professional rider is not absolutely necessary in this case since all of the "launch variables" have been removed.)

Until some testing of this variety is conducted, it's all opinion and chest thumping.  No, dyno sheets don't matter. They can be manipulated. Seat of the pants dyno testing is subjective and serves only to fuel the debate without real world data.

[just gone]

• 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
  

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

• I often regretted my speech, but never my silence.

One of these is not like the others.

Sorry big guy, in the logic area I think you and the referenced "tuners" are losing the debate.
..but that's just my opinion (and, it would seem, a few others).

[just gone]

Do a 20 mph roll on, side by side, and go to 100 mph or more.

OH OH! did someone just summon the "you're LUGGING the ENGINE!" trolls from their hidden lair?? 

[Deziner]

I hope not. I may have, however, antagonized the Life Members of the NBRA.    (National Bench Racing Association)

[Gigantor]

Which tuners keep the 'flies in?
Brian

Brian,

Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also

Joe

[B.D.F.]

An odd quirk about the secondaries in a C-14 is that they have no effect in a full- on acceleration test if done competently. They simply do not come into play. The C-14 is typically launched with partial throttle around 4K RPM but the engine passes 7K RPM so quickly that the 'flies are fully open for the large power requirement of the launch. All other gears are entered at 7K RPM or above and so the 'flies remain fully open for the duration of the run.

On a dyno, removing the 'flies shows absolutely no increase in power on the same bike under the same conditions.

The secondaries only serve to alter the bike's performance under normal riding conditions, especially between, say, 2K RPM and 5K RPM, which is where most street riding is done. Removing the 'flies is not what I consider a performance increasing thing, it does greatly increase drive-ability though, especially when the bike is loaded (two- up, luggage, animal parts, etc.). My take on the whole thing has always been that a C-14 with the 'flies removed simply performs like the 1,400 cc bike we all thought we purchased rather than the cobbled, neutered bike that is sold.

Brian

<snip>

1. Have a professional rider (who has no skin in the game) do 3 quarter mile runs on each bike. Calculate the average for each bike, declare a winner.

<snip>

[B.D.F.]

Yes, Ivan's reputation is very widely known and I will leave it at that.

I am not sure what those graphs look like but if you are speaking about max. power at high RPM then I would consider that data fictional. The usual argument for leaving the 'flies in is to increase mid- range torque. As the 'flies are fully open by 7K RPM (under high engine loading, such as full throttle of course) then removing them simply cannot increase the engine's power, and this has been shown many times with private dyno tests.

Then again, independent dyno tests show little to no power gains from changing the exhaust either although various exhaust manufacturers often show up to 20 Hp gains and sometimes more.

As always, I encourage everyone to look around, gain as much knowledge and <valid> information as possible and make their own decisions. Knowledge is power, especially when purchasing things such as performance and ability. Learn and decide rather than follow anyone or any 'pack', and that of course includes me- please do not follow anything I say blindly, but if anyone wishes to consider anything from threads like these, start off by running the info. through your own B.S. meter and that will filter a lot of it out.  Then as I said, learn a bit about these systems and how they work and logic and the physical rules will be made clear. We have spent thousands of years 'killing the virgin to grow the corn' because the crowd said it was necessary. A bit of agricultural study has resulted in my better crop yields as well as being far easier on virgins.... 

Brian

Brian,

Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also

Joe

[B.D.F.]

We usually do that in Rostra threads where some evil, evil person suggests running a C-14 at 25 MPH in 5th or 6th (GASP!) gear to damp the CC oscillations. That is when the pitchforks and torches usually come out....

 

Brian

OH OH! did someone just summon the "you're LUGGING the ENGINE!" trolls from their hidden lair?? 

[Deziner]

"Discussions" much like this are brewing on every forum relating to motor vehicles. S&S v. Kehin v. Mikuni v. SU, Thunderheader v. V&H v. Sampson, etc. I modify my motorcycles to suit ME. Period.

I currently have no plans to further alter the runability of me C14. I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise and recently averaged 40.1 mpg on a 800+ mile weekend that had a significant amount of "play" time.  The rideability, on the other hand, is decidedly in need of addressing.......

[RBX QB]

...
 I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise ...

+1

My bikes are MUCH more skilled than I am... and when I forget that fact, they remind me. So, I don't push it much anymore. A leisurely (but still mildly spirited) ride on a winding mountain or coast road is good enough for me.


Tho the evil voices in my head would like to try a fly-out bike for a few miles.

[VirginiaJim]

I currently have no plans to further alter the runability of me C14. I believe it runs better than I really NEED it to. It will comfortably cruise faster than I am willing to cruise and recently averaged 40.1 mpg on a 800+ mile weekend that had a significant amount of "play" time. 

+2 but here lately I've been averaging 45+

[maxtog]

Ivan is well known from NY, he showed me graphs how leaving the flies in produced more power than taking them out. This
was on my 2013 ZX14R. I believe Guhl and a host of others leave the flies in also

I do want to point out that I wasn't primarily comparing pulling the flies with reflashing, I was defending that removing OR reflashing (to open them very soon and fully) results in considerable/noticiable performance gains.  Deductively, I see very little difference between the two (removal or disabling via flashing).  And I see nothing wrong with doing either.

Nowhere on the Concours forums have I seen anything saying that Ghul, for example, would recommend flashing over fly removal.  He is just offering an option for those (like me) who want a quick and easy solution to the secondary butterfly performance drain.  And what he offers does exactly that- with roll-on and normal riding, it feels like a very different bike.  No hesitation area, no lag, no having to drop to a gear lower when wanting to pass quickly (which is what I didn't like before).  From what I understand, it is pretty much the same effect as removing the flies (although I have no experience riding the latter).  In any case, I highly recommend it.  It works, and it couldn't be much easier (although the convenience comes at a cost.... but much of life is like that).

Will it matter in FOT (full open throttle) launches when going like a bat out of hell or on a dyno- I have no idea.  Perhaps not.  Doesn't matter, since I never drive that way.  I want the 1400 to feel like a 1400 the way *I* drive, and the secondary butterflies do interfere with that.

Now, it absolutely increases intake noise, which is the only negative effect I have experienced.  But using my stock muffler (which looks and sounds just fine), my bike is STILL quieter than those who have not removed or disabled (flashed away) the flies and replaced the muffler with something louder.  I don't like that it is louder, but it isn't a huge burden on me and isn't annoying everyone around me, so I am OK with it.

[VirginiaJim]

+1

[jimmymac]

It's easier to sell a map or "tune" without touching a bike, than it is to remove someone's flies for them. At least if you sell said "tunes."

That's why they leave them in. They don't have to get their patty cakes dirty.

[B.D.F.]

There has been a lot of pushing a re- flash over removing the 'flies from some quarters. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I usually like to point out that the two methods (an ECU re-flash and physically removing the 'flies and adding a P.C.) are not equivalent and opinions vary on which is better. Just because someone is a fanboi of a particular mod., that does not make the particular mod. better than other, similar mods.

Reflashing the ECU does not open the 'flies as far or as quickly as removing them. It is an in- between solution, somewhere between stock and actually removing the 'flies. As I said earlier, it is not possible to code the ECU to simply open the 'flies and hold them there because that would engage the fast idle cam and the bike would no longer idle. Put simply, these are not equal modifications and they behave substantially differently.

Just as an example, let us say the C-14 as sold acts more like a 500 cc bike on the low end due to the restrictive secondary butterflies. Removing them simply leaves an absolutely stock 1400 cc bike behind. Having the ECU re- flashed will result in a point somewhere in- between those two situations; perhaps acting more like a 1,000 cc engine in a very heavy bike, improved performance at low to mid- range engine speeds but not as much as actually removing the 'flies. I have ridden these bikes in both conditions and very much prefer the 'flies removed. And this is the basis of my entire point- somewhere along the line, due to advertising and hucksterism, leaving the 'flies in somehow became represented as actually beneficial rather than the lesser performing but easier mod. that it really is. Sort of like saying the nosebleed seats are really better than the ones below because you can see more of the whole field of play or some such similar nonsense.

Again, I do not have a stake in either method but do have a preference as well as the firm belief that one is better than the other. And I really think everyone should make their own informed decision; pick any mod. you want, as well as no mod. at all but understand what you are getting and how it compares with what else is available.

Brian

I do want to point out that I wasn't primarily comparing pulling the flies with reflashing, I was defending that removing OR reflashing (to open them very soon and fully) results in considerable/noticiable performance gains.  Deductively, I see very little difference between the two (removal or disabling via flashing).  And I see nothing wrong with doing either.

Nowhere on the Concours forums have I seen anything saying that Ghul, for example, would recommend flashing over fly removal.  He is just offering an option for those (like me) who want a quick and easy solution to the secondary butterfly performance drain.  And what he offers does exactly that- with roll-on and normal riding, it feels like a very different bike.  No hesitation area, no lag, no having to drop to a gear lower when wanting to pass quickly (which is what I didn't like before).  From what I understand, it is pretty much the same effect as removing the flies (although I have no experience riding the latter).  In any case, I highly recommend it.  It works, and it couldn't be much easier (although the convenience comes at a cost.... but much of life is like that).

Will it matter in FOT (full open throttle) launches when going like a bat out of hell or on a dyno- I have no idea.  Perhaps not.  Doesn't matter, since I never drive that way.  I want the 1400 to feel like a 1400 the way *I* drive, and the secondary butterflies do interfere with that.

Now, it absolutely increases intake noise, which is the only negative effect I have experienced.  But using my stock muffler (which looks and sounds just fine), my bike is STILL quieter than those who have not removed or disabled (flashed away) the flies and replaced the muffler with something louder.  I don't like that it is louder, but it isn't a huge burden on me and isn't annoying everyone around me, so I am OK with it.

[B.D.F.]

Absolutely. And the re- flash is easier to do and accessible for more people than removing the 'flies is IMO. But no need to stretch the truth to the point of representing the easier/ faster / less complicated modification as actually being better.

Brian

It's easier to sell a map or "tune" without touching a bike, than it is to remove someone's flies for them. At least if you sell said "tunes."

That's why they leave them in. They don't have to get their patty cakes dirty.

[VirginiaJim]

Just as an example, let us say the C-14 as sold acts more like a modern 500 cc sport bike on the low end due to the restrictive secondary butterflies...

FIFY  I had a 1981 GL500 Honda SilverWing as my first bike and believe me, there is no comparison to the C14 in any respect.

[Rhino]

The primary reason I went for the re-flash rather than the remove is because of I didn't want to compromise the traction control.

[maxtog]

The primary reason I went for the re-flash rather than the remove is because of I didn't want to compromise the traction control.

Well, as we have tossed around before, we know the traction control system works with the secondary butterflies removed.  And there seems to be a wide belief now that secondary butterflies removal may not affect the traction control at all.  It seems to go against earlier info that indicated the flies did play some role in traction control, but now who knows how much of a role, if any.  The concern is certainly greatly diminished.

I would point to the re-flash advantages as the following: 1) the fastest route 2) the easiest route 3) it does tweak the fuel map a little 4) allows the user to keep the 2nd gen FEAM (fuel economy assistance mode) feature FULLY intact (reverts to the standard [untweaked] map AND standard flies usage when activated).  But it is certainly not the cheapest route and I would also NOT recommend it if one were thinking about possibly later replacing the exhaust system, since at that point it is likely one would want to install a PC (which means you don't need the map tweaking, will have the bike more fully apart, will be spending considerable time on the conversion, and could use that money for those mods instead).

[martin_14]

I may chip in here, since I have actual experience and hard data about the role of the secondary flies on the traction control of the C14. What I can say is that they do not do much regarding stopping the wheel from spinning when applying too much throttle, but their task is instead to ensure that the re-applying of the power is not too abrupt once the slippery bit of road has been cleared. Keep in mind that the column of gas (air) coming into the engine takes a while to stop, compared to the short instant that it takes to cut ignition or the injection.