ridingslow
Bicycle
My dad and I decided to do some 2nd and 3rd gear roll-ons and to my surprise he waxed my ace ever time....Guess its time to remove the flys >
2005 FJR1300 stock vs 2008 C14 stock
2005 FJR1300 stock vs 2008 C14 stock
-
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO POST? REGISTER FOR COG MEMBERSHIP
All registration must be done through the club's main webpage: To register / join COG, click here
For instructions to convert to full membership, click here
-
Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
FJR1300 VS C14
- Thread starter ridingslow
- Start date
Bourne2Ride
Mini Bike
I'm fine with my stock Connie. I thought about removing the flys, but then I figured, "I'm not trying to out pull another open class bike. That's not what I brought her for. I'm trying to out pull a cage". So as long as I can smoke a cager on the merge or passing lane (Truck or car) I'm good with the bikes acceleration. And it's not like another bike is going to smoke me hard. I can hang with 'em.
The FJR has a bit more low/mid range torque that the C14 lacks due to the restriction of the secondary butterflies. When I first started riding the C14, I noticed that it just didn't have the mid range rpm torque that my FJR did.
A Guhl reflash will fix that and will turn the tables around.
A Guhl reflash will fix that and will turn the tables around.
ConcoursKZ
Sport Tourer
I have not rode an FJR. Have you tried swapping bikes and are the results the same. Are the RPMs the same at speed when you go? Try rolling at 5500 rpm in 2nd gear.
Tim
Tim
Tim said:
No need to. Fred, Marc and I have all owned and rode many miles on each. In my case, I went directly from my C14 to a brand new FJR with in minutes. The FJR has better low end! But as stated already. The C14 can be improved by either fly removal and PC addition, or ECU re-flash.
I actually owned both bikes for almost 6 months and rode them back to back many times. There was no question that the FJR had better low/mid range torque than the stock C14. I put about 15K miles on the FJR before I sold it, so I became pretty familiar with how it performed. It didn't have the top end HP of the C14, but it had better throttle response and low end grunt. But once I pulled the butterflies on the C14, it felt like it had at least equal if not better torque as the FJR. This is what has driven me for the last two years to try to get an ECU reflash developed to reprogram the butterflies. After riding the FJR, it was very obvious to me that the C14 had been electronically neutered at the factory.
adamdrum
Tricycle
Ok so what is the negative effect of removing the butterflies? Kawi had to have a reason to put them in there... if it makes the bike less efficient then I wouldn't want it... But if it aids in efficiency since you dont have to rev it as high to get it going then I may conider it.
I rode an FJR before I bought my Connie, yes I felt it did pull a little harder at the bottom end. I didnt like the way the tank felt between my legs (like I was straddleing a barrel) and I prefer the dash and the sixth gear on the connie.
I rode an FJR before I bought my Connie, yes I felt it did pull a little harder at the bottom end. I didnt like the way the tank felt between my legs (like I was straddleing a barrel) and I prefer the dash and the sixth gear on the connie.
The negative effect with butterfly removal is an abrupt throttle. A G2 throttle tamer helps. But you don't realize how abrupt it is until you reinstall the throttle butterflies. But I would rather have the low end power and abrupt throttle over smoother and almost gutless (yes a little exaggerated).
If you have a 2010 or newer, you should not remove the butterflies, but should instead get the ECU re-flashed, because the traction control system uses the butterflies.
You can remove them on a 2008/2009 bike, but then you really also need to add a Power Commander, and by the time you pay for that, you could have just had the ECU reflashed instead. The tiny screws that hold them in have thread lock on them and this makes them hard to remove. Several folks have broken them off trying to get them out, and this can cause issues later down the road if you ever need to put them back in. Personally, I'd recommend getting the ECU reflashed instead of pulling the butterflies out on any year bike. Call Guhl Motors, they can turn your ECU around in a day and they have a very good reflash, and the end result is more low end torque, but you still have a very smooth and controllable throttle response curve. I think this is the best solution out there. http://www.guhlmotors.com/
As to why Kawasaki put them in there in the first place, my gut feeling is that they did it to intentionally reduce the throttle response of the bike to make it seem less aggressive for new riders. I asked them point blank when I went to the roll out in Palm Springs, and their answer was that they did it to meet noise restrictions regulations both in Europe and the US. Though I'm not sure I buy that, and other similar bikes are able to meet those same noise regulations without them. I suspect it was simply a move by the Kawasaki legal department and bean counters to try to reduce the product liability of the bike when a new rider jumps on it and opens the throttle wide up and has a crash and then sues Kawasaki. The action of the secondary butterflies serves to greatly "tone down" the throttle response, and it seems it was deliberately programed to have this effect.
You can remove them on a 2008/2009 bike, but then you really also need to add a Power Commander, and by the time you pay for that, you could have just had the ECU reflashed instead. The tiny screws that hold them in have thread lock on them and this makes them hard to remove. Several folks have broken them off trying to get them out, and this can cause issues later down the road if you ever need to put them back in. Personally, I'd recommend getting the ECU reflashed instead of pulling the butterflies out on any year bike. Call Guhl Motors, they can turn your ECU around in a day and they have a very good reflash, and the end result is more low end torque, but you still have a very smooth and controllable throttle response curve. I think this is the best solution out there. http://www.guhlmotors.com/
As to why Kawasaki put them in there in the first place, my gut feeling is that they did it to intentionally reduce the throttle response of the bike to make it seem less aggressive for new riders. I asked them point blank when I went to the roll out in Palm Springs, and their answer was that they did it to meet noise restrictions regulations both in Europe and the US. Though I'm not sure I buy that, and other similar bikes are able to meet those same noise regulations without them. I suspect it was simply a move by the Kawasaki legal department and bean counters to try to reduce the product liability of the bike when a new rider jumps on it and opens the throttle wide up and has a crash and then sues Kawasaki. The action of the secondary butterflies serves to greatly "tone down" the throttle response, and it seems it was deliberately programed to have this effect.
Suzuki and Kawasaki's seem to have them more than other models.
It's also not just a fact that a bike has them, but how they are actually programmed or mapped. They can be mapped in such a way that they will actually increase performance by acting to "tune" the velocity of airflow in the intake, but that isn't how Kawasaki mapped them on the C14. The way they are mapped on the C14 makes them act like a restrictor plate at low and mid range RPMs.
It's also not just a fact that a bike has them, but how they are actually programmed or mapped. They can be mapped in such a way that they will actually increase performance by acting to "tune" the velocity of airflow in the intake, but that isn't how Kawasaki mapped them on the C14. The way they are mapped on the C14 makes them act like a restrictor plate at low and mid range RPMs.
Fred,
I don't see the ecu re-flash for the concours listed on Guhl's site
What is the cost for the re-flash and will it void the bike's warranty?
In your opinion, is there any downside to having this done?
thanks,
Bill
I don't see the ecu re-flash for the concours listed on Guhl's site
What is the cost for the re-flash and will it void the bike's warranty?
In your opinion, is there any downside to having this done?
thanks,
Bill
What Kawasakis other than the ZX12R don't have em? All the GSXR's have em don't they? When doing my EFI research to set up my C-10 I purchased a number of Throttle bodies and every bike from which I purchased had secondary flies. THis included the Z750, Z1000, FX1100, all ZX600 and 636s, R1, GSXR 600, GSXR 750, GSXR 1000, VStrom 1000, EX 650, ZX14, ZX10R. All of these have secondary flies and a bunch of early Yammies kept the slides for a while instead. Not sure about Busas, but I think they did not have flies. I have little twin experience or knowledge either so I cannot say much about them... or Hondas. I know a wing doesn;t have em, but I expected most all I4s did. I know all of these I listed have flies as I own at least one or more sets of throttle bodies from each, some, like the ZX636, the Z1000, and the GSXR750, I have several generations of. And because each of these DO have flies, it prompts me to ask what bikes you know of that don't. I'm just taken aback by the "very few do" comment. Not my experience. Not saying you're wrong. since if V-twins don't have them then that would certainly constitute a majority I suppose. BUt because of what I have laying around the shop is 100%, I naturally ASSUMED (hate that word) that most all of em had flies.
Well, the FJR is one I can think of right off the bat. The Honda ST1300 is another. I'm not sure, but I don't think BMW used them on the GT1300 either.
Maybe they are on more bikes than I'm aware of, but the only ones I can think that use them are either Kawasaki or Suzukis.
Maybe they are on more bikes than I'm aware of, but the only ones I can think that use them are either Kawasaki or Suzukis.
Looks like most Yamahas do not have flies. FZ8, FZ1, Some models of R1, and a few other newer ones do. Mostly no flies though on others it appears. Looking at T-bodies on ebay I've never noticed anY Hondas with them, but didn't give it much thought either, but a cursory look says they don't have em. It seems Mikuni kept the carb slides for a lot of years with Yamaha EFI and then went to no secondary flies, but used secondary squirters on some models like Suzuki did. Appears to be a number of ways to skin that EFI cat.
My point was that the flies are being used mostly on bikes that do NOT have traction control. The traction control would likely be the only thing that would prevent one from removing them I suppose. My guess is that they are being used in an attempt to regulate airflow at lower RPM in order to provide MORE low end. Otherwise I can see absolutely no use for them on most of the bikes they appear on. Yamaha kept the CV slides on their EFI models for years and that is one thing that makes me think that this is the purpose for them. WHether it actually works is in my opinion largely an unknown. THe only bike that I know of to have had ANY comparisons is the C-14 and the ZX14. In both cases the butt dyno says it's great and in some of those cases an actual dyno confirmed it. But I find it hard to believe that their original intent was to "detune" the bikes they are on. It just doesn'*t make any sense to me since there is no payout for that. Your thoughts?
My point was that the flies are being used mostly on bikes that do NOT have traction control. The traction control would likely be the only thing that would prevent one from removing them I suppose. My guess is that they are being used in an attempt to regulate airflow at lower RPM in order to provide MORE low end. Otherwise I can see absolutely no use for them on most of the bikes they appear on. Yamaha kept the CV slides on their EFI models for years and that is one thing that makes me think that this is the purpose for them. WHether it actually works is in my opinion largely an unknown. THe only bike that I know of to have had ANY comparisons is the C-14 and the ZX14. In both cases the butt dyno says it's great and in some of those cases an actual dyno confirmed it. But I find it hard to believe that their original intent was to "detune" the bikes they are on. It just doesn'*t make any sense to me since there is no payout for that. Your thoughts?
Rev Ryder said:
I asked the Kawasaki Corporate folks this question in Palm Springs at the 2010 launch and they told me that they were added so that the bike would meet stringent European noise restrictions. I can tell you the bike does make a bit more intake noise with them removed, but it seems to be a small change in volume, not a huge increase. So I don't know if I buy their explanation.
Some folks have speculated it was to tune the intake for better air flow velocity at low RPM's but the dyno testing we have done has proven that wrong. Don Guhl first did a 4 cell left shift on the butterfly map to open them up more and picked up big gains in low and mid range torque as measured on the dyno. He then did an even more aggressive map which basically opens them up wide open nearly all the time, and the dyno showed a slight additional gain, with absolutely no losses anywhere else in the rpm range.
So I guess I'm as confused as you why Kawasaki put them on the bike. The only reason I can see for them is that it tones down the throttle response in the lower gears and makes the bike a bit easier to ride for a novice. That's really about the only real reason I can see for them existing. The way Kawasaki has them mapped, they act just like restrictor plates.
While it may be possible to optimize the map for them so that they really do help with the air flow velocity at low RPM, and hence help low end torque, the map that Kawasaki put in them does not appear to be doing this. Don Guhl did a lot of tuning on the ZX-12 and ZX-10 and found what he believed was an optimized secondary butterfly map for those bikes, but when he loaded it into the C14 and compared it to a wide open butterfly map, the wide open map actually did slighty better. I suppose if you spent several weeks on the dyno you might be able to tune them for better performance, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. The other issue is that you may not be able to optimize a map for them that would work in all gears and at all altitudes and all temp ranges. So you'd probably end up chasing your tail. It just seems easier to open them up all the way and be done with it.
Here is a copy of the OEM map for the secondary butterflies that Kawasaki loads into the ECU. At wide open throttle at 3K rpm, the secondaries are only open about 25% !!!
And here is a copy of one of the dyno runs Don Guhl did with the 4 cell shift. Note the gains in torque at 3K rpm.
wally_games
Mini Bike
Am I correct in assuming that removing the flies effectively deactivates the traction control?
stewarth
Scooter
Fred,
While I can't compare the maps on my phone, I did think of another aspect to this if I recall correctly. Having no secondaries or removing them does introduce an abrupt throttle, but the flash, at least from my memory, opens up the secondaries progressively and earlier, therefore less abruptness than removing or no secondaries.
Correct?
While I can't compare the maps on my phone, I did think of another aspect to this if I recall correctly. Having no secondaries or removing them does introduce an abrupt throttle, but the flash, at least from my memory, opens up the secondaries progressively and earlier, therefore less abruptness than removing or no secondaries.
Correct?
Stubby said:
Once again a note to folk's: This information is readily available in the Farkle vendors directory, in the C14 accessories section.
ECU Reprogramming
Dynotronics www.dynotronicstuning.com 866-ECU-TUNE , 678-488-1011 cell.
Guhl Motors www.guhlmotors.com 717-618-4212