WHAAAAT? A DOWNSIDE to K&N filters?!?!

[DeBenGuzzi]

I just like it for the looks and the sound it gives me. Who gives a shite about anything else. Look at all the old bikes that don't even have air filters I don't think dust particles are going to make my baby blow b4 I make it happen.

[badmotogoozer]

Fer God's sake Ben! The filter goes on your bike, not your baby!!!

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

I regard Science and Law as best guesses to date.  My education into Science, Mathematics, Electronics, Mechanics and Engineering have led me to the belief that we know fook all about most things we think we've figured out.

 

Rj

71344[/snapback]

Sorry, Rj. I deleted my last post after deciding it wasn't contributing any value.

 

Sorta left you hanging, huh?

[badmotogoozer]

Hey, I hardly ever contribute any value, and I leave my posts up...

 

 

I stand by that though...

 

Engineering taught me to calculate everything to the nth degree, and then double it just to make sure...

 

Statistics taught me that you can take data from any study and manipulate it to say/prove exactly what you want it too.

 

Electronics taught me that what I learned last year is no longer applicable this year.

 

Trying to get a new medical device to pass the FDA requirements taught me that you ONLY mention the things your study discovers if they prove what you want them to prove. If you get results you don't want, find some way of discrediting the study, and design a new test that will give you the results you want.

 

The truth may be in there somewhere...

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

Statistics taught me that you can take data from any study and manipulate it to say/prove exactly what you want it too. 

Hmmmm......Very true. But would you say that dozens of studies conducted over many decades from diverse credible sources that generally keep coming up with the same kinds of results might be statistically significant?

Trying to get a new medical device to pass the FDA requirements taught me that you ONLY mention the things your study discovers if they prove what you want them to prove.  If you get results you don't want, find some way of discrediting the study, and design a new test that will give you the results you want. 

Ack! The FDA... See prior comment on the brilliance of getting voters to support a government that actually creates problems it purports to solve by taking more and more taxes to do it...

[badmotogoozer]

Hmmmm......Very true.  But would you say that dozens of studies conducted over many decades from diverse credible sources that generally keep coming up with the same kinds of results might be statistically significant?

 

71364[/snapback]

 

Might be. Yes, I'd go so far as to say that, provided there was not a number of studies which come up with different results...

 

For me to consider the validity of a study, it must be published by a credible body, and not an internet page.

 

In this air filter study I see a few things that are misleading (graphically) unless one takes a close look. eg. the first bar graph at a glance appears that there is a massive difference between the filters, but if you look at the scales, the difference between the best (99.93%) and the worst (96.8%) is a marginal at best difference. Yet this is indicated as a huge difference in the graph. I also have to question their ability to differentiate to 2 decimal places...

 

I also find it extremely suspicious that the test vehicle (of which there was only ONE) is a GM product, and the best filter in all tests was aslo a GM PRODUCT! Hmmmm.

 

This is hardly a study to claim any kind of definitive results from.

 

Rj

[jimbemotumbo]

Obviously there ARE upsides to K&Ns, or UNIs, or whatever you like, as opposed to OEM paper filters.

 

Bottom line, there is a trade-off in filtering efficiency versus air flow. You have to make the choice. If you have a motor that can benefit from increased flow, you WILL see the upsides. And there's the stickers. But Ratchet is right ... you should also be aware of the downsides.

 

But let us not get too intrigued with this "test". It is after all only half a test and measured only once.

 

Read the ISO requirements and you'll find they did not report a number of required tests including seal testing, workmanship, collapse and failure testing etc. Seal is especially important and is tested repeatedly over time. A 100% efficient filter with even a speck of a seal break would fall rapidly off the scale. Most aftermarket filters have much better workmanship and higher quality synthetic seals than OEM type filters. This sort of testing was apparently not done. Also, the "test" here apparently fails to adhere to ISO requirements in that all filters are tested using the same dust type. Based on the graphics, the K&N and UNI were tested with fine dust, not coarse. as stated in the text. If true, this would skew the efficiency results considerably, and probably does.

 

You will never see a worn motor due to air filtration issues unless somebody failed to install the filter properly, or the filter seal failed and no-one noticed. Nothing new here.

 

Whatever your choice, I wouldn't worry over it. I really doubt it matters. Changing your oil regularly has much more impact on your motors life.

 

Oh yes! Let's start an oil thread!!!

[Guest ratchethack]

In this air filter study I see a few things that are misleading (graphically) unless one takes a close look.  eg.  the first bar graph at a glance appears that there is a massive difference between the filters, but if you look at the scales, the difference between the best (99.93%) and the worst (96.8%) is a marginal at best difference.  Yet this is indicated as a huge difference in the graph. 

I don't think there's been any intent to mislead here. Would it appear more credible to you if the scale on the bars reached zero, but the differences between the bars were then indistinguishable? It appears that the relative differences within a critical range are what's important, and that's what's being illustrated per the objective of the test...as with any similar bar graph comparison, including many that I've done myself for business purposes. Standard comparo stuff for bar charts.

I also have to question their ability to differentiate to 2 decimal places...

Hmmmm.....The data was too accurately measured to be credible then? Should they have rounded off for greater credibility?

I also find it extremely suspicious that the test vehicle (of which there was only ONE) is a GM product, and the best filter in all tests was aslo a GM PRODUCT!  Hmmmm.  

Well, if you read the test setup information provided, they didn't use any vehicle at all for the test. They used a test bench. They used a filter model that happened to fit one tester's GM truck. If they had used filters designed for the other tester's truck (a Ford), would this help you be less suspicious? Seems to me it's the filters that are being evaluated, and the vehicles used by the testers are irrelevant. What's significant is that they used what was independent and otherwise valid for the purposes of the study. What vehicle the filters were designed for is irrelevant.

This is hardly a study to claim any kind of definitive results from.

Well, I've been doing Web research for 10 years now as an increasing part of how I spend my time in my business. I guess if everything that appears on the Internet is assumed to be without sufficient credibility to be of any use to anyone, we haven't much to talk about here. But it's the primary medium by which most research is both conducted and published these days in business. Sources and corroborating evidence are what add up to credibility when using the Web for research.

 

I've seen many air filter tests and several sites that are dedicated to the comparative study of air filters. But if everything that's on the Web is perceived to have no value in terms of truth, I reckon it'd be pointless to collect 'em all. I reckon many of the most credible filter studies that've been done in the past 10 years are on the Web. Are they all relatively consistent relative to each other - and all useless because they're on the Web?

 

Speaking of credibility of things you find on the Web, it's too bad you went with those Yamaha fork springs. Per my post here at the time, I happen to be the one who called Jason at MI about this and got him to delete his incorrect post at GuzziTech that he had left up for nearly a year. I had been interested myself, but you see - since Jason was the sole source for the information, I checked it out before placing my order.

 

"Trust but verify" I use this principle to glean LOTS of truth on the Web, including a VERY large amount of truth that I've used to keep my Guz well n' happy. I get the lion's share of that truth right on this here Forum.

 

BAA TJM & YMMV

[jrt]

Um, what kind of oil do you use on your K&N's? Dino or Synthetic?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Guest mtiberio]

Still having perfect cylinders after 66K. and "open" filter.

 

 

Its intake valve guides that suffer most from un/underfiltered air...

[dlaing]

I think Todd Eagan's dyno tests showed pods and air box lid, were both bad for power.

Open airbox lid was best, and it did not matter if the filter was paper or K&N for power or flow.

Nobody spends much time at WOT, so pods are probably fine, so maybe someone should start making paper pods, hmmm, I am going to talk to Melitta and Mr. Coffee about adapting their coffee filters. I'll bet a pair of Melitta No. 4s would look sweet! OOOOooooo and the stickers, so Italian!

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks for your input, Dave. Always appreciated. Melitta #4's are Classic favorites of Yours Truly, I reckon they might give the K&N's some serious competition.

 

Box of 100 for....$1.98? Damn - maybe I'll go to pods...

 

Mmmmmm....Jose's Vanilla Nut 100% Arabica.

[dlaing]

Peet's Major Dickensons

 

I am a big fan of UNI filters.

Better filtration than paper, and more consitant flow over a year of service.

Eventually I am going to rig up a cage to put the UNI universal filters in the open airbox.

The one thing I don't like about them is that the foam (polyurethane?) eventually disintegrates.

So it is best to have some mesh under the foam, just in case, and to replace the filters every few years.

My other concern is that they might act like a big sponge in the rain and bog down the engine.

I might have to go back to snorkles.

But the sewerpipe fix, might make that more exceptable.

EDIT okay that is two things I don't like about the UNI.

[bigbikerrick]

Eh?  Is that all y'got?  No bile and venom? 

 

Ain't you at least gonna take any shots at the results of the test? 

71314[/snapback]

Ratchethack, Ive done my own unofficial K/N test and it Failed! I used to go bass fishing deep into Mexico alot( I live right on the border) . I pulled my bass boat with a 91 Isuzu trooper, many times following friends pulling their boats for many miles down dirt roads with fine silt like dirt. it was like driving for hours in a thick dirt storm. after reading all the "baja proven" stuff I put a K/N in the trooper. I was shocked after returning from a trip to find the 2 ft long intake tube between the filter and throttle body coated with fine dirt on the inside walls. I cleaned and oiled the K/N per instructions ,used sealing grease between the filter and the housing,etc. After another trip the tube was coated with dirt inside again. I threw the K/N in the garbage and went back to the Isuzu paper filter,and guess what?.... no more dirt in the tube at all! I would never use a K/N again. I have had good service from Amsoil oiled foam filters though. I live in the dust capital of the southwest, it never rains in this desert ,and I live 2 miles from a Mexican town of 160,000 people with mostly unpaved roads, and tons of cars and trucks, Talk about dust!!!

[mdude]

gentlemen. this must be THE classic Guzzi-thread. The diamond amidst absurd Guzzi-discussions. Deeply impressed and amused. Ratchethack clearly needs a hobby, or is this it?

 

(by the way, what mr Hack says I've also read other places, so I wont go the K&N path)

 

Cheers to all