Save your stock airboxes!!!

[Commodus]

....

First off, if it's raining you shouldn't be on a bike; it's dangerous. If you get caught on a bike in the rain then odds are you knew or should have known it was going to rain. I'm not talking misting, sprinkling or anything of the sort. Rain folks, the sky borne droplets of moisture that cause mass confusion here in Southern California like it's a first ever phenom and the next thing that's sure to happen is the heavens opening, angels singing and the second coming.

If you are in a torrential downpour of the biblical proportions that a previous poster must have encountered then yes, pods can get wet and suck moisture into the carbs. In that case please refer to my original two points about bikes and rain. I would think that wet pods would be the least of your worries if you're in that much rain. Typically in a seated position your legs cover the general area where the pods are nestled and not subject to much exposure to the elements other than air. A good puddle splash and they can still get wet though. In that event refer to point number one...you shouldn't be on a bike in the rain.

Hahahaha! Fair weather rider! *points and laughs* (just kidding!)

Buy some filtre covers you bunch of weirdoes! Keep 'em handy and when it rains slap 'em on and keep riding!

Commodus' rule of wet weather riding: The faster you go, the higher the spray!

 

[Mike McNaney]

That pretty much as I imagined. I havent had enough carb problems to worry about it. I guess my boys old honda is using a VM if thats the case.

Im really wondering whats up with all the carb jetting problems everybody complains about. i guess my upgrades have hovered somewhat around the stock parameters. 1166 and BS 36's are in the range of a stock 1150 exept for the cams. Web .340's. I only needed two steps up on the mains after the cam install. They were at 137.5. I actually tried 147.5's and the top end was impressive but I left a black trail of smoke everywere I went. The 142.5's are about perfect for my combo it seems.

Complete acceleration with no sag all the way to 9 grand.

I'll count myself lucky I guess.

By the way do all you guys change your mains and bits with the carbs on the bike? I hope so. 15 minutes total.
With all the problems zeroing in, that alone would be a huge pain.

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Road Clam,

I certainly respect your opinions but my experiences are different. My '83 1100E has run PODs for at least 15 years. I have almost 40,000 miles and the bike runs better than it ever has. I have ridden in all kinds of weather including a frog-strangling torrential downpour a couple years ago at the Brown County Rally. Anyone who has ridden my bike will tell you it is anything but a 'sackless terd' anywhere in the powerband. I can loft the front wheel from under 3K RPM and my throttle response is as crisp as any GS I have ever ridden. I think a lot of people who install PODs don't take the time to get the carbs dialed in and don't keep them clean and oiled properly. Keep in mind that a 4-1 pipe will usually also tend to add top-end power at the expense of midrange power but hardly anyone says 4-1 pipes are a waste of time and turn your bike into a sackless terd.

While I agree that there are other factors to consider, like RJ said, an engine is basically an air pump. When you put PODs on you move more air. When you move more air (and jet correctly) you also move more fuel. More air + more fuel=more horsepower, regardless of RPM.

Like you said, this is just my opinion based on my experiences. Your results may vary.............

Thanks,
Joe

Well said private....uh....make that, Sergeant!;-)

 

[Guyver]

Hahahaha! Fair weather rider! *points and laughs* (just kidding!)

Buy some filtre covers you bunch of weirdoes! Keep 'em handy and when it rains slap 'em on and keep riding!

Commodus' rule of wet weather riding: The faster you go, the higher the spray!

Commodus,

I appreciate the jest about fair weather riding. I ride whenever I can just to do so. I am anything but a fair weather rider. I have been riding for about 27 years now. When I first started riding all I had was a bike, an '82 Yamaha XT550 enduro. I rode it year round rain or shine. Same thing with the myriad of other bikes I have had. Heck, I even bought a 125 enduro and rode it home in the rain, on the freeway, without a helmet (before the helmet law was passed).

Let me tell you rain stings like heck at freeway speeds. The skies just happened to open up on my way home after I bought the bike. I'm sure that signs were there that it was going to rain in retrospect. I even went down due to the rain on my old XT550 right on Market Street in San Francisco due to A) the rain and B) stupid cable car steel inlays in the street. Even crossing at an angle didn't help. That bike was down before I could even think about it. I'm just really cautious about mixing bikes and rain. That being said I will take my mountain bike out in the rain. Mountain bike + rain + mud = fun. ~Gene

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

K&N pods and a quality pipe is the best bang for the buck you can get.
If you're concerned about some small loss of torque at lower rpm's (mostly the CV equipped bikes) then dial in your cams at about 106 to 108. If you then prepare the bike the way it should be and you re-jet the way you should, you'll have a bike with a very nice powerband, great street manners, and it will spank the same model that's identical but with stock airbox and exhaust. Spank it on a 60 mph roll on, spank it in a drag race. That's just the way it is.
Todays bikes have very good intakes. Our bikes have very good restrictors called airboxes.
Literally every case about a re-jet gone bad can be traced back to the owner not setting the bike up correctly in preparation for the re-jet, not understanding the basics of how their carbs work, not using quality parts, not using compatible parts/mods, or any combination of the above.
You can't take short cuts or throw on any pipe or not bother to check this or that and expect great things.
Too many owners have done the job right. It's not by chance that their bikes runs better than stock. Don't blame parts that are proven to work. Blame the rest of the bikes condition or tuning or blame the one doing the work.
Only thing I'll say against pods is I suppose heavy rain, in certain conditions, could cause a problem. But I'd take that anytime. I don't need to though because I see no good reason to ride in the rain. I take the Blazer.

 

[Mike McNaney]

True.
I think nowadays "performance" is thought of as how it looks. It must be faster cause it looks faster. And it looks faster cause I saw it in a magazine and they said so.

Myself, I think the coolest car is grandmas old 4 door dart with skinny tires and a quiet 440.

Case in point:

On Craigs list the other day I saw a 17 year old selling an R-1. He stated that it was faster than any other bike he knew. He listed all the "performance upgrades and not one of them involved the motor, trans or gearing. Wow! billet wheels. wowweee wavy rotors. Lowered? it must be fast. Custom paint! Holy crap I'll buy it!!
The picture he provided was of him sitting on it with a 'Im soooo cool look on his face. I'll bet he was really selling it because his buddy's gixer would blast him.
This melts down to the I want it now attitude. No patience or forthought.

Its simple. do upgrades that effect another to complement each other. This does take some learning and patience

All air/gas in must complement air/gas out. K&N's look cool but are no better than a soup sandwich performance wise without a free flowing exhaust and because of this you will need more gas.
You cant say that pods are no good unless you've installed them with their complementing parts. They arent meant to be installed "stand alone"

Its true that they are not good if installed by themselves.

 

[BentRod]

wow.. How about we start talking oil too?
like i said before, we're all very lucky to have the tough, over engineered engines that we have, becuase they can take a lot of abuse.

Kat, where I went to school, we did, on a regular basis, runa 400meter with neck ties and donuts.. seem strange? ya well, so am I.

I still stand by my air box, and if i do any engine modifications to the bike, it will be to machine down the crank shaft/fly wheel.

unfortuneately the air pump analagy, while beautiful in it's implicity, is kinda like a dumb blond. It's showing you what you want to see. If you want to ride down the street on a bicycle pump, be my guest, I'll be riding something with an engine.

oh, and by the way, more air and gas DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER!
the rate of volumetric expantion with increase temperature is quite slow at low temperatures, and fast at high temperatures. high temperatures are reach when air/gas, under the correct pressure, is allowed to complete its combustion, and then is exhausted just before it does. so in fact is it better to run a HOT engine, rather than one with too much gas.

 

[Guest]

I still stand by my air box, and if i do any engine modifications to the bike, it will be to machine down the crank shaft/fly wheel.

You don't want to lighten a gs1100 crank. Or....maybe a neck tie wearin donut eatin racer does? Just out of curiosity. Win a lot of championships did ya?

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

oh, and by the way, more air and gas DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER!

You'll have to explain that to my podded/piped bike. It doesn't seem to know that.

 

[Guest]

and the biggr carb makin people, and the k&n people. I'm not sure but I think they have made a livin out of gettin more air into the engine..or sumpthin..?..

ARE YOU CRAZY MAN!!

 

[Joe Nardy]

If the point of this thread is that airboxes are more practical for the street, that may be a valid point, depending on your situation. If the point is to argue that a stock airbox on a GS Suzuki makes more horsepower than a podded and properly jetted GS Suzuki you are simply wrong.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[Guest]

I don't know about you but I have come here for a good argument!!.

"will that be the 5 minute or the full 1/2 hr?"

I think airboxes make great donut holders.

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

I guess it's just not obvious to some.
If you make an engine flow more, or even just flow better, it will make more power. More or better flow makes more power.

 

[49er]

Amen. Let's have another beer.................
Now, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Guest]

Amen. Let's have another beer.................
Now, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Th e ch Ick i n

 

[Nerobro]

Airboxes are great. They keep fuel fumes contained. They make the bike quieter. They help keep water spray under control. They give the carbs a consistant supply of air. The stock jetting is made with the restriction of the airbox in mind. There is only one filter to take care of. They give you a place to dump the crankcase vent. So they really are great things. In the grand scheme of things at least. Notice I didn't say they made more power.

Joe, I'm only not a member of the pod crowd because I think you can get more filter aera with a simple airbox. More filter aera means less intake restriction... you know the rest. And for those not willing to fabricate, pods are the next best thing.

I still stand by my air box, and if i do any engine modifications to the bike, it will be to machine down the crank shaft/fly wheel.

To what end? Reducing rotating weight does not give you more horsepower. Yes, it can help with acceleration, but a 30hp motor is making 30hp weather or not it's got an additonal 5lbs of flywheel weight.

unfortuneately the air pump analagy, while beautiful in it's implicity, is kinda like a dumb blond. It's showing you what you want to see.

However, the air pump analogy is incredably accurate. We will get back to that in a moment because your next statement trumps this one.

oh, and by the way, more air and gas DOES NOT EQUAL MORE POWER!
the rate of volumetric expantion with increase temperature is quite slow at low temperatures, and fast at high temperatures. high temperatures are reach when air/gas, under the correct pressure, is allowed to complete its combustion, and then is exhausted just before it does. so in fact is it better to run a HOT engine, rather than one with too much gas.

So an engine works by extracting energy from fuel. That energy is expressed as heat. The more fuel you can completely burn, the more power your engine will make. To burn more fuel, you need more air. If you remove restrictions in the intake path, you have higher pressure trying to pass the intake valve. More air will get into the cylinder. That is, your pump will pump more air. Given you rejet properly, you will make more power. This is true for all internal combustion engines. 2 stroke, 4 stroke, wankel, turbine, turbocharged, supercharged... whatever.

Though it's very hard to decipher what you were trying to get at with your heat related discussion.. I'll try to pick the best parts I can from it. A fuel air mix does burn better when compressed. You get more power from that mixture if you start it off at a cooler temprature. (this is why cool air intakes help.. and they really do. And why things like DFI are really neat.. but that's for another discussion) While your statement that it's better to have a HOT engine than a cold one, isn't exactly true, it is close. The point your engine makes the hottest EGT, and (in our air cooled machines) the highest cylinder head temps is almost smack dab between the two points where we would like to run our engines. A little rich of that point and you have your peak power, a bit lean of it, you'll have peak BSFC. (and were you'll get the best fuel economy to boot!) Both spots are quite warm, to say the least.

That set of statements comes right back to the "an engine is an air pump" thing. Again, the more fuel you can burn, the more power you'll make. To burn more fuel, you need more air. To get more air, you need to make your pump move more air. Be it by turning the motor faster, making the intakes different shapes or sizes, improving scavenging, changing the carburators, changing the intake path in front of those, or pumping the air in with a turbo or supercharger.

If the air pump thing isn't true..... What is? Now that I just read your first post in this thread, I really need to suggest you do some reading. Just about any engine tuning book in your local libaray will definitely get you going down the right path. I really don't know where you're getting your ideas from.

 

[Deesel]

To what end? Reducing rotating weight does not give you more horsepower. Yes, it can help with acceleration, but a 30hp motor is making 30hp weather or not it's got an additonal 5lbs of flywheel weight.

Your wrong nerobro. If you reduce recipricating mass on any engine you WILL make more horsepower. period

Pods setup properly on a GS engine WILL make more horsepower. period

 

[Guest]

Give Falicon a call. They have done a few race cranks. Ask them why they won't lighten a gs1100 crank...

Or, call Stan Gardner, another guy who has done a few cranks I understand and ask him why he doesn't lighten gs1100 cranks.

If two of the top shops don't doo it whay would you want to again?

 

[Nerobro]

Your wrong nerobro. If you reduce recipricating mass on any engine you WILL make more horsepower. period

Flywheels don't reciprocate. They revolve. Since the advent of inertial dynos people have been under the mistaken belief that reducing rotating weight makes more power. For instance changing from 30lb wheel to a 10lb wheel will make a bike "appear" to have more horsepower. While if you used a brake dyno, you would see no difference at all. The bike will accelerate faster due to less weight, and having to accelerate less flywheel weight. (add to that you actually end up accelerating rotating mass at least twice, it does make a big difference on acceleration)

By reducing the flywheel weight, you're effectively altering the weight that the dyno is using to measure against. For an inertial dyno to give you a readout of horsepower it has to know the weight that's being accelerated. Measuring the rate of acceleration you can then calculate how much energy is being put into the accelreating weight. The problem with these systems is that EVERY bit of rotating weight counts towards the "known" weight. And most people don't know what the weight of their tire, wheel, chain, transmission gears, and crankshaft weigh. If the weight is smaller, the horsepower will read higher because the dynos "known" weight has changed. This isn't to say the bike won't accelerate faster, beucase it will. The top speed will not have changed though, as the bike is actually producing exactly the same amount of horsepower.

Brake dyno's don't have this problem. They do have other problems though. This probally isn't the right palce to go into those though. Most dynos in use today are not brake dynos. And so the legend lives on.

Pods setup properly on a GS engine WILL make more horsepower. period

That is not entirely true. If the filter aera of a pod is less than the filter aera of the stock intake, you're going to be seeing more restriction. More restriction means less horsepower. Or the pods available for your bike have a very small filter aera. Case in point would be the pods availble from emgo and K&N for the 77-82 GS550's.

 

[Road_Clam]

Many users comment with respect to the "air pump" theory is "more air in, more air out" They are neglecting another variable in the process which is "more air THROUGH" like V.E. Almost no one truly understands VE. You can slap on 44mm Lectrons, you can slap on a 3" open header, but if you don't know how to follow through with adding VE, your wasting huge money, and time........