View Full Version : Baffle in vs out MPG
Due to the events of last weekend, I hastily decided to stick my baffle back in the Scorpion. :oops:
Firstly, I hated the way it sounded. At tick-over it sounded like a hair dryer. I wouldn't of minded if it was a jumped up hair dryer, but it wasn't even that! When it was running, especially at speed, I couldn't here it.
In fact, I almost cried on Sunday when I could hear petevtwin's bike BEHIND me. :( I did get some kind comments from one of the guys on Saturday, but that was because it pops & bangs, which is down to air leaks.
So Sunday afternoon, the baffle feel out again. The results of the fuel tests are now in, thanks to Monday being sunny (and it would be rude to not go to Ponderosa in the sun!).
With the baffle in, I repeatedly got around 115miles to a full tank before the flashing light. With the baffle out, on exactly the same run, at roughly the same pace (so the only thing that's changed is the baffle), I got 138miles before a flashing light. I even filled the tank at the same petrol station!!
petevtwin650
29-05-07, 08:37 AM
So.............
Loud pipes not only save lives, they save the dwindling fuel reserves.
Nice to know that I'm doing my bit to save the planet.:twisted:
Luckypants
29-05-07, 08:42 AM
But yours is so loud it is killing all the wildlife! I could hear yours above the the sound of my Renes and with ear plugs in!
Very interesting Baph. I have never noticed that before, saying that I have only had an exhaust on with a baffle in once and that was last September for the MOT.
It certainly makes it beneficial to keep it out now though!!
But yours is so loud it is killing all the wildlife! I could hear yours above the the sound of my Renes and with ear plugs in!
i must admit pete it was loud , i could here yours above mine when you were behind me. but i loved the sound :cheers:
With the baffle out, I couldn't hear sod all, just the way I like it :D
Whoever it was that commented on my can outside Pete's Eats (neo79?), you really need to hear them with the baffle out :D
Not quite as loud as pete's, and Luckypants' might be a tad louder than mine, but I definately can't hear anyone else when I'm moving, and I drown out a fair few bikes.
its a good job you wert out with me viper & squiral hunter on the weekend then
:smt020
gettin2dizzy
29-05-07, 09:07 AM
Do you worry that it could be leaning out the mix enough to damage the engine? It explains the mpg difference
Do you worry that it could be leaning out the mix enough to damage the engine? It explains the mpg difference
TBH, I'm not that worried that its enough to damage the engine, but it's on my todo list to get it checked.
I have always ran my bike with the baffle out , and had it serviced once a year properly by the dealer. not had anything back from them to tell me the engine is looking a bit worn etc. even after last years big 15K er and the shim check. the shims were well in limits
I have always ran my bike with the baffle out , and had it serviced once a year properly by the dealer. not had anything back from them to tell me the engine is looking a bit worn etc. even after last years big 15K er and the shim check. the shims were well in limits
Don't forget that I'm running with no snorkel too.
That's probably why the bike sounded half decent with the baffle in. Otherwise I wouldn't of gone out on it, I'd of been too busy hanging my head in shame. At least I had induction roar!
Whoever it was that commented on my can outside Pete's Eats (neo79?), you really need to hear them with the baffle out :D
That was me.
I thank you for posting this mpg info. BUT I'm sorry it's still subjective. You need hard figures and you need to do it for more than one tankful. I know that there's bugger all chance of that happening (certainly not with the baffle in) but without doing that the results are pretty meaningless.
Let me illustrate
Here's the start of my records for the SV (yes I'm a sad statto type)
Date Cost PPL Litres Gallons Milage Trip MPG trip MPG cum
.
05 April 2007 £10.80 89.9 12.01 2.70 4021 9 na na
06 April 2007 £8.18 90.9 9 2.02 4125 104 51.47 51.47
06 April 2007 £9.87 93.9 10.51 2.36 4229 104 44.07 47.48
07 April 2007 £7.56 93.9 8.05 1.81 4330 101 55.88 49.94
09 April 2007 £10.33 93.9 11 2.47 4451 120.8 48.99 49.67
13 April 2007 £11.91 94.9 12.55 2.82 4576 125.5 44.36 48.37
15 April 2007 £5.98 94.9 6.3 1.41 4636 60 42.42 47.71
15 April 2007 £8.83 92.9 9.5 2.13 4749 113 52.98 48.46
18 April 2007 £12.81 94.9 12.81 2.88 4885 136 47.29 48.27
21 April 2007 £10.79 92.9 11.61 2.61 5011 126 48.34 48.28
21 April 2007 £7.24 92.9 7.79 1.75 5108 97 55.46 48.84
21 April 2007 £12.64 91.9 13.75 3.09 5266 158 51.18 49.13
29 April 2007 £9.89 92.9 10.65 2.39 5385 119 49.77 49.18
The trip MPG varies from a low of 42 to a high of 55. Yes the milage was recorded over different routes and some enforced different speeds but I think my point is still valid.
The one thing the above does tell me very accurately is what my average mpg is.
Now if\when I change\remove snorkle and or change air filter then I'll record that in there, keep recording numbers and looking at the average for the new setup compared to old I should be able to give a truer idea of the effect.
See, that's exactly why I did the same run, same roads, same bike, same rider.
Yes, you could argue ambient temperature (cold day vs warmer day) had an effect, but hell, the baffle is staying out!! :D
I'm afraid one run each way even with same road, rider, speed isn't enough. You have to repeat and average. It's not like a piece of code where you can run it and record the time it takes to execute and say it's runs in xyz. But yes I accept the baffle is likely to stay snug under you seat for at least another three months :-)
the_lone_wolf
29-05-07, 11:13 AM
I'm afraid one run each way even with same road, rider, speed isn't enough. You have to repeat and average. It's not like a piece of code where you can run it and record the time it takes to execute and say it's runs in xyz.
this is turning into another maths thread...;)
:smt064
this is turning into another maths thread...;)
:smt064
Please don't lone_wolf
kwak zzr
29-05-07, 01:52 PM
when the light flashes just fill it back up, THE END.
when the light flashes just fill it back up, THE END.
It's thinking like that which ended with me leaving Ponderosa, knowing the next planned fuel stop wasn't for around 50-60miles. 10miles from Ponderosa the light started flashing. Oh balls!
kwak zzr
29-05-07, 08:04 PM
ooopppsss:rolleyes: my thou is rubbish on fuel.
ooopppsss:rolleyes: my thou is rubbish on fuel.
That doesn't supprise me :-) I can't imagine many 1000cc bikes are good. That's why I bought a 650 (and I thought that was pushing the boat out a bit) and damn glad I did too :-D
i thought some 1000cc IL4 were quite economical, well comparable with 1.6 cars?
gettin2dizzy
30-05-07, 05:10 AM
ooopppsss:rolleyes: my thou is rubbish on fuel.
They say big twins get more efficient once they're run in ;)
Loud pipes not only save lives, they save the dwindling fuel reserves.
We need to make a T-shirt!!
MiniMatt
30-05-07, 10:23 AM
We need to make a T-shirt!!
Loud pipes save whales!
or...
Kyoto can't be done quietly!
or...
Deafen your kids. They'll thank you for it in the long run.
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j5/Lissasv650/loudpipes.jpg
Sorry, I'm at home sick, and I'm bored:D
I'm just worried I saw the letters of evil...
AOL...
I'm just worried I saw the letters of evil...
AOL...
:D :D :D
I'm probably gonna regret saying this.........................but we've never, once, had a problem with AOL.
That's done it, it'll all go t*ts up now:D
kwak zzr
30-05-07, 02:00 PM
it has done 3000 miles now.
Loud pipes save whales!
or...
Kyoto can't be done quietly!
or...
Deafen your kids. They'll thank you for it in the long run.
It's hard to equate non-catalysed exhaust with saving whales.
It's more ecologically sound to fit a catalytic converter instead of blowing benzine and other carcinogens out of your free blowing tail pipe. Saving the dwindling fuel resources is still good, but let's not forget we're leaving a devastated big blue marble behind when we're gone.
Well Oiled
30-05-07, 02:59 PM
It's hard to equate non-catalysed exhaust with saving whales.
It's more ecologically sound to fit a catalytic converter instead of blowing benzine and other carcinogens out of your free blowing tail pipe. Saving the dwindling fuel resources is still good, but let's not forget we're leaving a devastated big blue marble behind when we're gone.
No - The pollution from your tailpipe is local so it kills people, who kill whales, chop down forests and create global warming. So catalytic converters are bad for the planet. See the logic :confused:
Flamin_Squirrel
30-05-07, 05:48 PM
You may find if you get your bike remapped for no snorkel/can, you'll get worse fuel economy. At least I did.
You may find if you get your bike remapped for no snorkel/can, you'll get worse fuel economy. At least I did.
That sucks :-(
I sort of wonder how.
CB1ROCKET
30-05-07, 10:10 PM
That would be that they made the bike run richer to compenstate, hence why having a performance tune up is bad for fuel ecomony but better for bike's health. I have me old bike with a race can and achieve a margainly better fuel range over a set distance topping out at 67mpg on a 10 hour non stop run.......thats 400cc to you
You may find if you get your bike remapped for no snorkel/can, you'll get worse fuel economy. At least I did.
I'm fully expecting this to be honest, but I'll aim for the low side of the perfect mix ratio for a nice balance :)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.