The secondary exhaust is really a quarter wave resonator, which suggests that the bike flows enough air to experience drone at a key rpm. The big advantage of long wave resonators is that they have proven to increase mid and top end power in high flow applications.
Didn't the later Tubers have a "Helmholtz Resonator" in the intake to assist high flow? Erik's team probably has someone very knowledgeable about that aspect. On the other hand, someone could adapt some Sportster shorty duals; everyone knows they make lots of HP. /sarc
Nearly all modern vehicles have air boxes that are too small for the ideal application. Often the use of a high flow air filter and cold air intake help improve the situation, but the trade off is increased induction howl. That can be fun as it will make the machine sound mean, to a point. If have the the correct or near correct airbox volume to cc ratio and the engine is making big power and has a free flowing exhaust, you can get bad drone which can be FELT as much as is heard. No issues on a race machine, but on a street machine it can wear your nerves thin. A Quarter Wave kills drone without adding back pressure, or restrictions. The length of the capped pipe is determined by the rpm frequency of the drone. The added benefit is that it stabilizes the gas flow and increases the engines ability spin up or down (mid range response) and breathe at high rpm. Its basically a tuned pipe for 4 strokes that lets you make big power without race pipe sound levels. Some of night fighters in WWII used it to great affect. Its gets you a sound level and quality you want without choking the engine with a standard exhaust design. From what I've seen it can be removed easily for track, but knowing the Elves engineering team, and Erik's passions on the subject of where to put the exhaust, I'd say try it first, you might find like the folks at EBR, that you actually like it.
I hope the SX doesn't have the same exhaust as the RX though.. It just looks bad (my opinion.) at least the Panigale in the US looks good... It is really what I expected out of EBR - tucked under the bike.
I don't think it looks all that bad. It looks fairly normal, but the actual muffler on the RX is under the tank. I would be inclined to keep it since is smooths out the power band. If they make a race exhaust that keeps preserves the stock'ish torque curve, I'm in. You have to think, just about every other maker uses a valve of some sort to do the same thing. Its pain to pull all that out and add a Power Cmdr to get rid of dips in the curve. With this, no muss no fuss. I guess its grown on me.
The RX is 50 state legal right out of the gate and beats EPA and Cali testing by a mile, all while smoothing the torque curve and sculpting sound. Like I said from a weight, CG, and looks perspective it must have took some real persuading, knowing how Erik feels about the subject to get it into the design. In the end the engineering appears to have won out. That fact lends a certain beauty of its own.
A few RX owners are already trying the bike without the second resonator and I admit both the sound and look is very nice indeed. Trouble is I just can't bring myself to give up the flatness of the torque LINE. If you haven't ridden on you have to demo one to know what I mean. The other thing is the quality of the note itself. The bike is quiet but the note is so distinct you can still clearly hear your own bike even when surrounded by other much louder ones. Aftermarket is going to have to work hard to beat this one.
Still a work in progress, but I did get some stuff done. Sound is pretty much identical to an 1125 RT-3 pipe. Hearing senstitive people need not apply, it will wake the neighbors for sure, possibly the dead (or undead if you're a zombie fan).
Stock pipe is 25.75 lbs, this one is 8 lbs.
No performance data as of yet, I haven't even made it in for a stock power run on it.
Nope, not yet. The canooter valve was inoperative, probably due to not having a race ecm yet.
Going on the assumption that this performs anything like the other stuff I've built, it should show at least a small gain in power. Won't know until I get a programmable ecm for it though. I've been told that Tunerpro RT will not work on the RX ecm, I have not attempted it myself to find out. At this point, I'd rather have the factory race ecm to play with.
Posted on Friday, May 02, 2014 - 10:47 am:
You really need to be aware of the risks "hot-rodding" the EBR 1190RX motor. It is not like starting with an engine making 90HP per liter stock, where mods are easy. This engine comes with 185 crank HP using high CR, sophisticated mapping, and of course it has TC. To that end it is CRITICAL that a precision map be done for any exhaust modifications. For example, if you simply remove the secondary the following happens:
•Spark and fuel are dramatically different everywhere, especially mid-throttle, to the point of being very concerned with engine damage should a customer remove the secondary and continue to use the production calibration. It is kind of the perfect storm, close enough to run sort-of okay, but way too lean and over-advanced so there will be damage.
•Because fuel and spark are dramatically different, the traction control work on the back end of this calibration development to make it work properly is a calibration effort on its own.
We are not trying to discourage tuning, but want people to know that on this engine, it is NOT an easy bolt-on procedure, and the people tuning will need time, expertise and sophisticated tools. Knowing that owners want to take these to the track, EBR will try to get race ECM's out for a few race exhaust options, but we will not have them for many (as it takes weeks on the dyno to get everything right for each calibration), and it will take time. Obviously the first tunes we will do will be for race exhaust options that we will have in our catalog,
Anonymous ... If you're taking request: A lightweight or carbon fiber exhaust hanger for those of us who will be keeping the the resonator would be nice.
An ECU Race programming kit and key so we don't have to send in or replace our ECU's
Race ECU maps for: *Secondary Throttle control solenoid Delete & Stock Exhaust with resonator. *Secondary Throttle control solenoid Delete & Stock Exhaust without resonator. *Secondary Throttle control solenoid Delete & Race (No/Cat) free flow Exhaust with resonator. *Secondary Throttle control solenoid Delete Race(No/Cat) free flow Exhaust with out resonator. *Secondary Throttle control solenoid Delete & aftermarket Slip on Exhaust with out resonator.
I personally like the quarter wave and the way it smooths the mid range, it fairly light as well.Its the main exhaust that is too quiet, and too heavy. So we really need TWO race exhaust options, one with and one without the resonator.
Hope fully you guys will release the race catalog by mid summer, I could use a taller wind screen and race plastics and exhaust for track days. PLEASE... Go EBR
I like the secondary. It embodies what this while bike is about.....being different from everything else while applying function. That secondary helps this thing reach the ungodly torque we all desire and it looks good imo.
Generally in the world of engine tuning changing the exhaust doesn't usually affect engine management. Normally it changing the intake that requires tuning changes. The RX already has a K&N filter so its tuned for that.
Any ideas why removing the resonator (NOT THE MUFFLER) would impact engine management and require tune adjustments??
My thunderstorm s2 is MUCH happier with stock muffler...although the race muffler I had on it was hooked to the stock 2" header by way of an adaptor. Probably didn't help.
I don't have issues with my s1 or m2 with the full race kits...but the m2 was definitely more midrange-punchy with the stock setup. My s1w had a v&h on it when I got it, so anything is better than that was! My uly? Thousand times better with the stock muffler.
And the factory xb race muffler was not stainless. Some were silver ceramic coated, but none were stainless.
Dmhines - research "quarter wave tuner" here on badweb, and on Google, and you'll see why it changes things. Think "two stroke exhaust tuning"...and to a lesser extent, the muffler valve on the xb12.
RatBuell .. just read through a truck forum and a car forum. Little bit of math invovled to find the optimal length but it seems a 1/4 Wave Tuner is for eliminating exhaust drone. There is no mention of it having any effect on the engine performance or characteristics. Most folks call them J-Pipes.
Don't misconstrue the RX's apparently conventional-looking exhaust pipe, though; the twin pipes run down to a Buell-esque under-body resonator. One pipe is shorter than the other and enters the under-chamber at a different place, making up what EBR calls a Quarter Wave Tuner. Benefits include improved midrange performance and the opportunity to say your bike has a 2-into-1-into-2-into-1 exhaust system.
I know there was a slide floating around from the expo showing it, but apparently google is filtering some of the images from it and I can't find it now. Might have been a take-down notice filed for that one and the one with the dealer prices. I recall it being $15,500 dealer price, so there was (roughly) a $3k mark-up for dealer profit.
Bazzaz has their own TC system, so it would just get turned off in the factory ecm. They've also got a logging setup for tuning to a specific air/fuel ratio at any cell, although it's an extra $300 for it. Just got off the phone with them, they do not have a plug-in kit for the RX yet, although they have a bike available to them for setting it up.
This, with the self tuner would make using any aftermarket exhaust a viable option. I'd give up some fuel economy for the extra power, but I'd bet with individual cell mapping, you wouldn't lose much if any at all. Bad part about it is, it would be over $1200 for the whole kit, fuel map changer, traction control and quick shifter with the add-on self tuner. I still might do it anyway, I have a fair bit of time into the bike as is.
Bazzaz still lists it, I talked to one of the tech guys there again yesterday and they have an 1190RX lined up for building their kit, so now it's just a matter of getting it done.
It's a bit rich for some, but I've already dropped $20k to get the bike, another $1200 isn't going to kill me. I paid more than that in sales taxes on it.
The charts don't say what exhaust was on the bike either, so it could have just been all stock. Not a huge increase over the baseline numbers, so it's not the best bang for the buck, but at least it's an option for tuning it when it becomes available.
Court ,Yes you are right ,these are such great bikes and it is a shame the word is not getting out. I have posted several times that the dealer's I have been to or called are absolutely clueless and have no information to give or were not paying attention to any thing they might have been told by EBR dealer reps when they became dealer's. You look at the EBR Face book page and see an awful lot of positive post's but how many of these people will actually by one is a big question. As for my self I have been waiting since last Friday to hear back from a dealer about a trade in # and a price on a 1190 SX .
They (Bazzaz) do not have a kit or package for the RX/SX yet. They said it would take them a week or so to build out the kit once they have the bike in hand. I don't know who's bike will be the loaner, but they do have one lined up for it.
The RX has a different, in-house designed fueling system, different from the RS. That's why exhaust and maps for the RX, SX are a lot harder to come by. The new fueling system was mentioned in a video I watched, I believe by EBR. The video was taken at EBR. They did this so they could change the stuff like the offset intake valve opening times to get better atomization for midrange and overall power, hence why the RX and SX have 10 more horsepower than the RS.
That said, (without actually seeing the front header on that bike) the muffler has quite possibly been adapted to fit the headers, just like what I did 7 months ago. Yes, still waiting on a tune. I may have a power commander one available soon, but it will only be a dyno tuned one.
I find it some what funny that even with their race exhaust option EBR is still the greenest liter bike on the paddock. If the fueling and power delivery remain the same I may just bite the bullet as this does clean up the bike nicely.
strange that a non-ebr shop is listing the ecm and exhaust tips kit yet it is not shown on the official EBR site.
Perhaps that is intentional...possibly as a ham-fisted attempt to get folks to do what the EBR storefront tells them- "See your dealer."
I'm just guessing, of course, but much was made of the partnership with PUnlimited, so I can certainly see EBR being more than happy to get away from slinging parts online...especially considering the bulk of what they sell online absolutely has to be items that aren't even going to end up on an EBR product.
The exhaust is not available yet ... I think that product info was released at AIMEXPO. According to EBR the ECM/Pipes should be available Mid-November. Perhaps they will put them on their website then. I already have my order in with AF1 for it.
Well the Slash cut tips and new ECU are mounted. 105.8db at 5500RPM so JUUUUSSST under the wire for being legal for out tracks. DEEP rumble now. The but dyno says its got same power, but it goes on the real dyno tomorrow. Initial thoughts are fueling feels about the same, a touch richer in spots but the sound is MUCH improved for more visceral experience overall.
Side note: It strikes me that its basically the 1125 exhaust with much larger outlets for better flow. Race exhaust with a CAT, still the greenest bike on the grid! LOL Vibrations in the pegs seems less to me now too.
Installed today. Took a quick ride .. it was only 40 degrees this morning.
Install is simple .. remove Resonator and install slash cuts. Disconnect Battery. Swap ECU. Clear Fault Codes. Perform TPS reset and go. EBR recommends to let the bike idle and warm up for a while with the new ECU before riding to let it learn.
Race Map in the new ECU seems nice. Runs smooth even at low cruising RPM's. Butt Dyno feels same no different than the original ECU.
It does not seem much louder at all than it did with the resonator.
I did a quick walk around video of first start and idle as per EBR directions.
Or something. It says right on the ecu "Race Use Only" When it is revved it overwhelms the little diaphragm on most camera mic so you don't get the rumble you do in person just distortion, while the resulting eargasm has been known to send the videographer into spastic pleasure resulting in dropped cameras.
2009 Honda S2000 - 107.72 hp/L 2009 BMW E90 M3 - 103.5 hp/L 2009 BMW E90 M5 - 100 hp/L, 2009 Chevrolet Corvette 69.35 hp/L 2010 Ford Mustang GT - 68.48 hp/L 2010 Ferrari 458 Italia - 123 hp/L 2014 Corvette 74 - hp/liter
If the 2014 Vette had 155 hp/L it would have 963 hp!
That should illustrate what Anonymous is talking about. 155 hp/liter is about as close to the edge as a naturally aspirated pump gas engine can be and still allow for variances in gasoline quality, air quality, etc. When messing with a 155 hp/L tune there's no room for error.
(Message edited by Jesse_lackman on November 23, 2014)
At 155hp/L I kind of doubt there will be substantial power increases with anything anybody does - unless someone converts to E-85 or methanol or something like that. Even with that the compression ratio would have to be changed to take advantage of the higher octane.
One way to raise HP is carry torque to a higher RPM. For that reason the Thunderstorm engine actually has more tuning potential - it's a relatively low RPM engine for a motorcycle.
(Message edited by Jesse_Lackman on November 24, 2014)
"Preliminary numbers show increases in torque of 2ftlbs at peak and 4rwhp to 171hp@ 10,500 rpm from my last run on that dyno. Will post up the sheet once I get file."
It's pretty easy to get caught up on peak numbers when the average numbers probably matter more. I have to remind people of that all the time when I'm dyno testing. I try to use the same RPM band from test to test so average numbers can be compared. You can make changes that increase the peak numbers but actually drag down the average. It's pretty easy to make changes that crank out good peak numbers the engine can survive on a dyno that it might not live through in the real world.
Then there is the issue of repeatability, when the changes in HP/TQ are a very low percentage changes is the change real? The only way to know that is repeat the tests, or know for sure the dyno's repeatability characteristics. Theoretically "corrected" numbers from different days and different locations can be compared but that does not hold true in the real world. To be accurate and believable small change testing needs to be done in one day.
Here are a couple links that show how hard small change dyno testing is;
So what's the general consensus on weight loss for a perceived hp gain? 4 lbs/ hp? 5 lbs? Dropping almost 18 lbs is a fair amount is it not?
Ditching the noid(2.5lbs)the Resonator, pillion pegs and brackets only netted me just over an 11 Lbs weight savings. Full tank of fuel on the office truck scale shows 434lbs. Its scary, I weigh a little more than half what the bike does.
This was done at the Dynojet facility in Vegas on Monday of this week.
Stock run, 160 hp, final run, 174 hp at the wheel. 92 ft/lbs with no less than 75 on tap to start. As I recall, mine made around 162 hp, so this is in line with what I was expecting. Some make more, some less.
I've been thinking about the current layout and I may make an additional change. Still going to mull it over a bit longer. The RS has springs connecting to the head pipes. I may do the same with the RX/SX, although that means there will be a few more pieces to the pile of parts required to make them.
Dean, I want one for my SX with the spring attachment and the short turn outs, only slightly longer than the ones EBR was offering. Are you ready to sell those with a tuned ECM for the pipes? I removed mine to replace the starter and a few other maintenance items, now that I have it off I don't want to put the lead weight back on, it weighs a ton! LOL
The spring hook setup is for the 1190 RS only. It already has the hooks on the headers. The RX/SX uses clamps everywhere on the short version.
The last one I posted (the long version) has springs, although I don't know if I'll leave it that way for production since it's only in the middle. Clamps are still in place at the headers, so there's no real advantage to using them.
Dean, is there any reason not to have the spring version for the road, is it a safety issue? I can get the spring attachment welded to my headers, not a problem! It would seem to be a time save for other maintenance items on the engine extremities. Anyhow, let me know $ and where to send it to get on the list for your exhaust and ecm program. Have you had any success with adding a silencer core like Barker Exhaust has? My neighbors already don't like me, just cause I ride! LOL
www.deanadamsdesigns.com to order one direct. I can put the spring hooks on it, but I don't recommend it for the RX/SX. The clamps and the way it's set up is sufficient for retaining it in place, removal doesn't take all that long either. No quiet core for it, although the long version is definitely quieter than the short one. I've been testing with it since last week, it's relatively mild in my opinion. Good bark to it when you drop the hammer on it, but nice tone cruising along at pretty much any speed, 10 mph or 90.
Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2015 - 07:33 am:
Finally got a chance to get to a reputable dyno shop, Cycle House Performance off of Watson Rd in St. Louis. They've got a Bazzaz Principia dyno which apparently reads 15% lower than what Dynojet shows, so it's similar to a Superflo dyno in numbers. That said, it made 155.5 hp and 82.9 ft/lbs of torque. In Dynojet numbers, that equates to 178.8 hp and 95.3 ft/lbs of torque. As I recall, mine made 162/85 on a dynojet in stock trim. That dyno isn't available now, so eventually I'll have to put mine back to stock and take it to Cycle House again for a "stock" run. Jerry (the owner of Cycle House) saw the air/fuel display on my bike and watched it at the end of the runs, it was reading 11.6:1 or so and he'd mentioned if I leaned it out up top I'd see another 5-7 hp easily since it was so rich. Well, there's a wrinkle to that. My bike was initially dyno tuned, but for the last couple of months, it's been ROAD tuned at speed, as in logged at whatever I was riding at. On occasion (more often than not) I did exceed the posted speed limits in an effort to capture valid data. Apparently the RAM air effect does work. The logs showed an AFR of 12.5-12.8:1, which is what I was after on the road. I guess what this means is, even though it shows as running extremely rich on a dyno, it's not rich while out on the road, and is potentially making even more power than what was observed on said dyno. It's possible I broke 183-185 hp, but without that forced air induction to prove it out, I guess I'll never really know for sure. I will say this, the bike was fast before, now it's even faster. Looks like it's a solid 10% gain in power from the exhaust and tuning. I'll take it.
It's similar in sound, maybe not quite as obnoxious? Haven't done any real testing as of yet, although there are now a couple of them out there just for that purpose. I'm only sending these out with programmable ecm's. Mounting is the same. No plans for Ti as of yet, although I do have a source for it now. I think it's a couple of pounds weight difference at most for the whole thing, but getting the merge collector done in Ti will be difficult.
I wouldn't call it a canned tune per se. We spent a couple of months developing it, and yes, it works quite well. Very rich on a dyno, but it's spot on for what I wanted to target the air/fuel ratio at out on the road. It *could* be leaned out for slightly better fuel mileage and not be detrimental, but the hp gain was just a side effect based on corrected fuel trims.
To answer the question though, yes, there is a tune specific to this exhaust.