[kellito]

You are the one with the theory CD. Hordboy posted up facts, you have posted your opinion that seems to be based on yamaha's propaganda, and your calibrated butt dyno. Seriously how much proof will it take to make you change your mind?

Please bring some proof to the table this time.

 

[[FLUX]]

If you remove the EXVP from your Triumph....you will lose low end torque at low RPMS. That's all i'm saying...and all i've been saying from the beginning.

...and Hordboy provided the emperical tests to prove that this assumption is incorrect, to which you then called him a liar. If that's the attitude that you're going to take to any actual evidence to the contrary of your position, without supplying any empirical evidence of your own to back up your statements, then we are at a dead end here. You have your head in the sand and refuse to even consider the weight of evidence against your position.

All I've ever stated from the beginning is that the EXBV on the 675 is for noise and emissions purposes, if people care to read back into my history of posts on the matter. It is not there for low-end torque because to date there has not been one single bit of empirical evidence that supports that statement. If it were removed and remapped, then the torque is the same, as per hordboy's tests. The only thing missing from his tests is emissions testing, but since that's the only thing left, we can only conclude that the EXBV is there for noise (ride-by) and emissions purposes.

 

[kellito]

Well said flux...

 

[hordboy]

Conclusion

When I conducted this test I went into it as impartially as I could. Agenda? Not really. Yes, I had a suspicion on how it would turn out. I couldn't really help that, because over and over again, previously, I had seen results that implied it would turn out a certain way. Still, I wanted to be sure. I wanted to be sure I wasn't leading myself down a wrong path. I had an opportunity to do the test fairly scientifically, although admittedly it certainly isn't material for a doctoral thesis. Same bike, same dyno, minutes apart, maps in the ballpark, valve on, valve off. All I had to do was choose the map, hit "program," watch the blue bar scroll across to 100%, and make a run. The results were as posted. I clearly said, draw your own conclusions. I had already drawn mine from the data, and I will proceed with the information as I see fit. And so should you, dear reader.

Mods, I'd love to see this thread locked, because its really starting to circle the drain anyway.

 

[canyondancer]

...and Hordboy provided the emperical tests to prove that this assumption is incorrect, to which you then called him a liar. If that's the attitude that you're going to take to any actual evidence to the contrary of your position, without supplying any empirical evidence of your own to back up your statements, then we are at a dead end here. You have your head in the sand and refuse to even consider the weight of evidence against your position.

All I've ever stated from the beginning is that the EXBV on the 675 is for noise and emissions purposes, if people care to read back into my history of posts on the matter. It is not there for low-end torque because to date there has not been one single bit of empirical evidence that supports that statement. If it were removed and remapped, then the torque is the same, as per hordboy's tests. The only thing missing from his tests is emissions testing, but since that's the only thing left, we can only conclude that the EXBV is there for noise (ride-by) and emissions purposes.

I supplied you the evidence from Wikipedia....and from Yamaha Canada.....and you said that evidence doesn't apply to a Triumph. Which by the way...is the lamest thing i ever heard. You havn't a clue how the valve works....and have no desire to learn. Hordboy is on this forum to sell things. I am not. Think about it.

 

[[FLUX]]

I supplied you the evidence from Wikipedia....and from Yamaha Canada.....and you said that evidence doesn't apply to a Triumph. Which by the way...is the lamest thing i ever heard. You havn't a clue how the valve works....and have no desire to learn. Hordboy is on this forum to sell things. I am not. Think about it.

That's NOT evidence on the 675. That's just irrelevant garbage. We're talking about the 675 here. Not Yamaha carburetted bikes from 20 years ago. Show us one single bit of evidence that backs up your argument on the 675. Put up, or shut up, basically.

Sure. I'll have a think about it. I'll think about the dyno tests I've run that back up what Hordboy's tests show, being no power loss over stock. Only problem was that was with a Leo full system, so you clearly won't accept that either, and I'm not selling anything on this forum that has anything to do with exhaust systems. Nothing is ever good enough for you mate.

Edit: I've thought about it some more. I'm wondering if you could tell us exactly what hordboy would have to gain by proving to people that removing the EXBV provides no power loss after a remap? I can think of financial reasons for him to take your position on the matter (more products to sell), but not the other way around whereby he's proving that the stock system is still just fine with the EXBV gone. Well, I guess he could offer EXBV block off plates, but he doesn't sell those.

 

[carpel21]

I give in CD. You and your wikipedia quote, for a motor with completely different architecture are clearly right, and Hordboy with his dynographs for a Daytona are wrong. you have proved without a doubt, that if I remove my power wank valve and remap my bike, I will have a huge dip in the torque curve.I promise to leave it on there. I'm out.

 

[[FLUX]]

You want to quote Yamaha CD?

From here

while Triumph's Daytona 675 nestles one in the secondary pipe, between the collector and the end-can, just after the catalytic converter. 'We didn't want the weight and bulk of the valve and its actuator at the back of the bike,' says Triumph's product manager, Simon Warbuton. 'This location is the best place for keeping the bike compact, putting mass where it will have the least impact on handling while still giving us the effect we wanted.'And the desired effect has changed. With advanced injection and ignition systems, the role of the throttle valve is no longer about filling the midrange or chasing horsepower. 'On the 675 it has nothing to do with emissions or peak power.' continues Simon. 'There's a small effect on torque at lower engine speeds and it can improve driveability in some conditions, but it really helps on noise - a valve in the secondary pipe helps to take the edge off exhaust noise without compromising power.'

So even a Yamaha site quotes Simon Warburton, the engineer who designed the 675, as saying that the EXBV on the 675 is not really about midrange torque at all, but rather all about noise.

Oh, but hey, what the f*ck would he know, eh?

I believe that this is otherwise known as "Check and Mate". :nod:

 

[carpel21]

I'm back in! I have got to hear this. Perhaps Mr Warburton does not truly understand the purpose of the EXBV? After all, he didn't invent it did he. Poor Mr Warburton, I think he should've read wikipedia first.:itsok:.

 

[ton]

it goes much deeper than that. the quote of Mr. Warburton was obviously fabricated by the Yamaha people in order to further their agenda. almost certainly, they want potential Triumph buyers to believe it's intent was only noise related so that they will think the Yamaha remains a superior performance product. unless Mr. Warburton himself either hand delivers the same quote to me in writing or sends it via certified mail, i will not believe that it is accurate or true.

i will continue to believe and worry that my bike, without the exbv, is down on torque compared to CD's under the critical conditions of 40-60% throttle below 7000rpm.

-mark

 

[hordboy]

I thought she was dead but I guess not, heh. I was never aware of Warburton's quote or I probably never would have done the testing. :laugh: Well done.

CD is right, I am here to sell things. (Partially. The other part of the reason why I'm here is because I'm a 675 owner) I sell these:

If I have any "motivation" behind this thread, that would be it. Except, I sell very few and they're probably not even profitable, at the end of the day. So whatever. But thanks for giving me an opportunity to show it! :sifone:

I guess I have nothing further to add at this point.

 

[carpel21]

Looking back through this thread, I think you owe Hordboy an apology CD. You as good as accused him of misleading members of this forum for his personal financial gain. I think if his motivation was to make money, it would be more profitable to stock and mail order branded performance items such as LV or Arrow. His motivations appear to be for the love of tuning, and seeing what he can get out of the 675. With the time and money he must have spent on developing his bike, it is unlikely that he would recoup enough money from the products that have come out of it, in a reasonable time frame, for it to be profit motivated. Not sound business sense.:crazy:

 

[badmonkey]

Insofar as dueling wikipedia quotes go, this debate is OVER, lol.

 

[YamRZ350]

What's really a shame, is that more skilled people don't post more, mainly because of jagoff's like canyondancer. It's just too aggravating.

Thank goodness J.D. is thick skinned, and is willing to share some of his hard earned knowledge.

 

[l3uddha]

ten pages and I still can't figure out what the hell the problem is with the original test setup and why the results are being argued in the first place. :hmm:

 

[l3uddha]

I supplied you the evidence from Wikipedia....and from Yamaha Canada.....and you said that evidence doesn't apply to a Triumph. Which by the way...is the lamest thing i ever heard. You havn't a clue how the valve works....and have no desire to learn.

first of all, wikipedia and canadians are not reputable sources.

though, in all seriousness, please explain why the original poster's test setup didn't produce good data. please explain using actual evidence, not EXUP theory or the belittling of his character.

if you can't do that you're just speculating and contributing nothing.

 

[canyondancer]

Originally Posted by Simon Warburton, Triumph product manager for the Daytona 675
while Triumph's Daytona 675 nestles one in the secondary pipe, between the collector and the end-can, just after the catalytic converter. 'We didn't want the weight and bulk of the valve and its actuator at the back of the bike,' says Triumph's product manager, Simon Warbuton. 'This location is the best place for keeping the bike compact, putting mass where it will have the least impact on handling while still giving us the effect we wanted.'And the desired effect has changed. With advanced injection and ignition systems, the role of the throttle valve is no longer about filling the midrange or chasing horsepower. 'On the 675 it has nothing to do with emissions or peak power.' continues Simon. 'There's a small effect on torque at lower engine speeds and it can improve driveability in some conditions, but it really helps on noise - a valve in the secondary pipe helps to take the edge off exhaust noise without compromising power.'

Geez...i know it HELPS the noise. I never said otherwise.
And he agrees what i've been saying all along about about lower torque at lower engine speeds....and for street riding...driveability improves a little. THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING. FLUX and Hordboy both have said that the PURPOSE of that valve is noise control. Mr Warburton says it HELPS the noise. He doesn't say it's the sole purpose of the valve.
Now you have proof from the man himself that the valve has a small effect on torque at lower RPMS. If that valve wasn't there...you would have a dip in power and torque at lower RPMS. THE SAME DIP YOU GET WITH A FULL SYSTEM. That is why {ok it "helps" the noise} Yamaha..Triumph....Honda...Suzuki...etc etc put that valve on there. To get rid of the annoying DIP IN THE TORQUE curve.
For Hordboy and FLUX to say that the only purpose for that valve is noise control ...is wrong.

Maybe if I had said that the EXVP valve serves TWO purposes....we wouldn't be argueing about it.

 

[canyondancer]

What's really a shame, is that more skilled people don't post more, mainly because of jagoff's like canyondancer. It's just too aggravating.

Thank goodness J.D. is thick skinned, and is willing to share some of his hard earned knowledge.

Comment deleted.

 

[[FLUX]]

Warburton stated that the EXBV helps in some conditions for drivability, and torque by a small amount. hordboy's independent empirical tests show that with correct mapping for the absence of the EXBV, just exactly what the size of those differences are, and it's basically a gnat's dick of difference. When it comes to the torque benefit of the EXBV, the difference is about as close to zero as it possibly gets within the margins of error of dyno testing.

So, when we have two things it's supposed to do:

1) Improve torque
2) Reduce noise

...and we then measure that the torque improvement is zero (keeping in mind that Triumph would not have likely explored mapping correctly for the non-existence of the valve to any great degree as their goal was to reduce noise, so it's quite probable that hordboy has done a better job of producing an optimised fuelling map), and we all know that pulling it out makes the bike noisier at low rpms, we must therefore come to the conclusion that, in the final 675 product as shipped, the only tangible benefit that the EXBV provides is that of noise reduction.

Seriously, this is logical reasoning 101, well within the grasp of pretty much any 1st grader to comprehend and understand. Why it is being continually argued and denied when all testing and statements point to the same conclusion is beyond comprehension.

 

[EvilSteve]

Reality meet CD, CD meet reality...


*awkward*