I find it funny how despite the Daytona having an under-tail exhaust it still gets the highest marks in most comparisons.
I still love the symmetrical look of an under-tail.
The person that wrote that makes good points and picks performance over style, which I dont blame him, the undertail is for looks and always has been. Most street riders it won't make a difference where the exhaust is, but since these bikes are made for racing I can see why everyone is going lower.
I have to say, it's nice to not have my ass fried with my low-boy exhaust. I do like the look of an undertail, but the blog makes sense. It is interesting to see just about every maker going midline/under engine these days.:nod:
For me, it torches my ass when I'm in traffic. Added some water wetter helped a bit. At PIR there is a decibel meter that's less lenient on undertails based on the location of the meter. I prefer the lowboy look not to mention the performance advantages. I've yet to go down but I'm thinking the undertail would come out better than lowboys tho. But all said and done i like the lowboy. Blasphemy!!!!
Well, aesthetics aside, the advantages of a lower, shorter, mass-centralized exhaust are undeniable.
There comes a point where improving the performance means making changes that some of us might not like. The old bike is so good already, they had to find gains somewhere. The exhaust was one of the few obvious areas for improvement.
You can be assured that if Triumph didn't try to move the bike forward, there would be a very loud outcry when the bike was finishing fourth in comparison tests.
Besides, the idea that the Daytona was somehow unique because it had an undertail exhaust is not really true. Ducati really adopted it for production bikes first. And the CBR600RR still has one. Plenty of other bikes had them and most abandoned them.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Motorcycle.com Free App
Well, aesthetics aside, the advantages of a lower, shorter, mass-centralized exhaust are undeniable.
There comes a point where improving the performance means making changes that some of us might not like. The old bike is so good already, they had to find gains somewhere. The exhaust was one of the few obvious areas for improvement.
You can be assured that if Triumph didn't try to move the bike forward, there would be a very loud outcry when the bike was finishing fourth in comparison tests.
Besides, the idea that the Daytona was somehow unique because it had an undertail exhaust is not really true. Ducati really adopted it for production bikes first. And the CBR600RR still has one. Plenty of other bikes had them and most abandoned them.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Motorcycle.com Free App
I have been curious why bikes have the intake and exhaust ports facing the wrong directions, packaging wise. Why not put the exhaust headers facing the rear? I can understand heat being a problem, but having the exhaust coming out the back of the cylinders would shorten the exhaust length significantly. And putting the intake on the front would make sense if you could put the air box and plenum where the headers used to be.
It would exacerbate the heat problems coming off the headers and roasting your ass, but isn't that a problem we could get around by now with shielding and header wraps or coatings?
While i enjoy performance i will really never need to eek out every ounce i can find, because im not the kind of guy to hit the track. The difference between undertail and low-slung exhausts will be nearly non existant to me at my level of riding, even in the mountains.
This bike is already outperforming my needs in every aspect. So i dont feel a real urge to argue over the drawbacks of exhaust placement.
How many of us REALLY ride this bike to its limit anyway?
Now i do like the fact that if i low side my bike, there is a very good chance the exhaust will come out fine because it is an undertail exhaust. I also like that fact i dont have burns on the inside of my calf/ankle like i did on my SV650s.
While i enjoy performance i will really never need to eek out every ounce i can find, because im not the kind of guy to hit the track. The difference between undertail and low-slung exhausts will be nearly non existant to me at my level of riding, even in the mountains.
This bike is already outperforming my needs in every aspect. So i dont feel a real urge to argue over the drawbacks of exhaust placement.
How many of us REALLY ride this bike to its limit anyway?
Now i do like the fact that if i low side my bike, there is a very good chance the exhaust will come out fine because it is an undertail exhaust. I also like that fact i dont have burns on the inside of my calf/ankle like i did on my SV650s.
You don't need to be riding at the peak of performance to notice a difference. I took the underseat exhaust off my old FZ-6 and it was nearly 30 pounds shed off the bike. I noticed a huge difference in handling.
I think the underseat exhaust looks cool, but it is a pain in the ass when trying to pack and travel.
I need to cut at least ten seconds off my lap times due to improving my riding skills before I have to worry about the half a second I might gain from a different exhaust position. :laugh:
Anyway, it's all personal opinion, but I like the undertail exhaust.
"I don't mind either aspect of that, except that my Kriega backpack and Aerostich fairly reek of exhaust fumes-and will likely remain that way for days to come..."
I love the smell of [exhaust fumes] in the morning, smells like.......victory.
The vast majority of us will never be fast enough to take full advantage of the incremental evolution of the bike. But that's really not the point.
The manufacturers all have to continue to make performance improvements where they can or risk becoming irrelevent. That is the unfortunate business fact.
Truth is, most of us probably couldn't get the most out of a 10 year old bike, much less the the latest and greatest. But the manufacturers must keep pushing the ball forward because their competiton will. It's a sportbike, after all.
That's how we eventually got from leaf springs, springers, hardtails,.plungers, side valves, veritically split cases, carbs, etc., etc., to where we are today.
And If that weren't the case, we'd have never had the 675 in the first place.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Motorcycle.com Free App
Agreed, which is exactly why they should offer the daytona itself as undertail and have it designed to swap easily to low-slung for those who worry about that .5 seconds or dont like the undertail anyway.
Maybe kinda like scion, design your own bike straight from the dealer!
Its not for performance or aesthetics its all about emissions, by moving the exhaust closer to the engine you can heat up the gases better to improve the efficiency of the catalysers in the exhaust.
You could argue till you're blue in the face about the performance benefits but just look at the diversity in moto gp and wsbk where there is everything from underslung to underseat.
Every design has its benefits but for production bikes the trend is to move the bulk of the exhaust under the engine to improve emissions and any other benefits it might bring is just a bonus.
Personally i think underseat exhausts work best on slim bikes like v-twin Ducatis and triple cylinder Triumphs and i think its a shame the new daytona has followed the masses because now it doesn't stand out from the pack.
So much for Triumphs slogan "Go your own way"
Yup those run both, the ducati's run a 2-1 pipe under the tail basically.
Of couse im sure those exhaust systems are feather light so there wouldnt be much of a difference. Im sure engineers somewhere working for ducati or whoever to minimize the downsides to undertail exhaust
Like others - i love the look of the undertail exhaust and having less than 10,000 miles under my belt I don't even dream of thinking I could tell a performance diff. Understand why they'd go that way though...
Definately true guys, undertail is way better for looks, and yah never thought about how the placement keeps it safe for a crash, dam that would of been a bummer on top of everything else on my slide.
Let's not forget the simplest end point to all the manufacturers.... MAKING MONEY.
The undertail exhaust use more material without a doubt, the whole underbelly has nothing to do with emmisions, but about mass centralization and whats TRENDY and costs the least amount of money to make...
Plus aside from making money, Triumph's goal is to make the fastest bike they can at a certain price point. They don't care if 99.9% of buyers can't take advantage of a low exhaust, but Disalvo can.
I'm thinking my Zard system dropped the weight by about 15 lbs and dropped it lower on the bike. Can't be a bad thing. Ducati's undertails were serious ass roasters. Who needs a headed seat when you have undertail exhaust!!
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Triumph 675 Forums
1.2M posts
39.9K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to Triumph 675 owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!