FMF exhaust

skysurfer2010 wrote:

And that person that votes and doesn't read this forum will vote against your rights.

That person might vote against my privileges not my rights. The tree huggers as you call them are a minority just like us. The majority will lean toward the one who left the best impression on them.

We are starting to see city banishing motorcycles from their streets these days. And the citizens that support these are not particularly on the green side. And there is only one argument supporting the bylaws and it's the noise. Our association started to take these matter in hands. Instead of fighting against the rest of the world we started to distribute some leaflets to promote less noisy vehicules. There are a minority that don't want to understand and consider it a right to make noise where they whish to. They say they pay their immatriculation and that gives them the right. Now the immatriculation costs us 300% more than 5 years ago. It's just to say that argue as much as you want it won't change the facts.

Leaving no traces from our passage might not stop some ultra sensible people to fight agains us. But it can make things harder for them to be heard.
When I see a wall coming that I can't avoid I try to slow down to reduce the impact instead of going headon thinking that I can't avoid it anyway.

Personally, whenever I've run across anybody that gave me a dirty look for being somewhere on a motorcycle, I feel it had little or nothing at all to do with noise (even though my bikes aren't loud and I dislike bikes that are rediculously loud anywhere but on a race track).

It was, I believe, that I was simply there to begin with.
Period.
Even when I've got every legal right in the world to be there, and even if I'm just riding through and minding my own business.
Wouldn't have mattered if it was with the stock muffler or not.

To me, it typically seems like it has to do with speed and that I'm on a motorized vehicle that they know little or nothing about, and, in my experience, lots of people automatically think of something negative when they see somebody approaching on a dirt bike. :)

skysurfer2010 wrote:

And that person that votes and doesn't read this forum will vote against your rights just as quickly if you have your not as loud as a Q4 stock exhaust as they would if you had the Q4. Because in the end your stock exhaust is still a hell of a lot louder than that little stream they moved next to to settle their nerves and still a hell of a lot louder than their prius.

First, riding a motorcycle on public land is a privilege, not a right. As are other activities. So it doesn't come down to enforcing your rights, it comes down to retaining an existing privilege.

There are people who are going to want to see anything they don't do removed. However, in most places they are the minority. This is not some sort of absolute yes/no thing, where your behavior out there doesn't matter anyways, so you might as well do whatever you want. I've served as a stakeholder representative on land and recreation management strategies, and behavior and participation does indeed matter. We have lost land around here, and some was in environmentally sensitive areas that did need to have access removed. Most of our access has been retained, and we have some pretty strong alliances with hunters and other outdoor groups as a result of participating.

One thing is for sure: where riders either go "doesn't matter" or show up at one meeting to bitch, call everyone an enviro-nazi, and then leave with that as their total contribution... they're just digging their own graves.

The general population is reasonably tolerant of the idea that where there aren't clear environmental issues, public land belongs and should be shared with anybody. But if you think they're going to put up with unnecessarily loud bikes, they - or their kids - meeting bikes on a trail travelling at a high rate of speed, you do so at your peril. What you do on your bike does matter where you share public areas with others. Just as it does for other groups I'm also a member of: dog owners, hunters, etc.

[/quote]
First, riding a motorcycle on public land is a privilege, not a right. As are other activities.

[/quote]

Although I am against loud pipes, Ill have to respectfully disagree with this statement. "Public Land" is just that, for the public and paid for by "The Public" which means the tax payers. So being a privilege rather than a right doesn't work for me. We paid for it, it's ours IMO. To let the government spoon feed us to believing that what "WE" own and to use is a "Privilege" rather than a "Right", goes against everything I believe in. But I lean pretty far to the right and that's just my opinion.

Of course, I have no problem with governmental controls like spark arrestors and the such.

That's the governments privilege, not their right.

GaryH wrote:

So being a privilege rather than a right doesn't work for me. We paid for it, it's ours IMO.

That's the governments privilege, not their right.

You see we pay for it collectively not individually. Even people that don"t use these spaces are paying for it. Everyone that pays for acuires a right to vote for a governement to rule the access the way they whish. If you want to gain unrestricted access you have to vote for a representative that supports your point of view or even have yourself elected. This process would work if you could convinced a majority of voters of your opinions, good luck.

Thinking otherwise is giving yourself a right to dictate based on your sole idea. The only goal you'll achieve thinking that is loosing the privilege to ride on many places and be angry for it. Living in society commands to understand each others and make compromises. Those who can't are the looseers since their lack of being able to compromise put them on the margin and nobody care about them exactly the way they don't care about others.

Here the people that ride quads and snowmobiles acquired some rights to operate on public grounds under some circomstances. Most of them are also hunters and fishermen. The Enduros, Mx and dual purposes motorcycles were not included in the deal with the governement. Some tried to challenge this law and ended up with fines and some even had their motorcyles seized. Now we are negociating with the people that manage the trails. We dealed with them in a way that we convinced them that we would help mainain the trails and have the rules followed. During the big game hunting season we don't go roaming on the trails and that way everyone shares the trails. We started that some years ago and yet we have almost half the northern trails covered. If we would have taken the way to impose ourselve that would have been impossible to achieve for years to come.

Dancamp wrote:

GaryH wrote:

So being a privilege rather than a right doesn't work for me. We paid for it, it's ours IMO.

That's the governments privilege, not their right.

You see we pay for it collectively not individually. Even people that don"t use these spaces are paying for it. Everyone that pays for acuires a right to vote for a governement to rule the access the way they whish. If you want to gain unrestricted access you have to vote for a representative that supports your point of view or even have yourself elected. This process would work if you could convinced a majority of voters of your opinions, good luck.

Thinking otherwise is giving yourself a right to dictate based on your sole idea. The only goal you'll achieve thinking that is loosing the privilege to ride on many places and be angry for it. Living in society commands to understand each others and make compromises. Those who can't are the looseers since their lack of being able to compromise put them on the margin and nobody care about them exactly the way they don't care about others.

Here the people that ride quads and snowmobiles acquired some rights to operate on public grounds under some circomstances. Most of them are also hunters and fishermen. The Enduros, Mx and dual purposes motorcycles were not included in the deal with the governement. Some tried to challenge this law and ended up with fines and some even had their motorcyles seized. Now we are negociating with the people that manage the trails. We dealed with them in a way that we convinced them that we would help mainain the trails and have the rules followed. During the big game hunting season we don't go roaming on the trails and that way everyone shares the trails. We started that some years ago and yet we have almost half the northern trails covered. If we would have taken the way to impose ourselve that would have been impossible to achieve for years to come.

Well spoken! It's nice to have a discussion on issues that can be considered controversial or heated based on ones own biased opinion without taking to a lower level like bashing. This is how intelligent people grow and the lesser, self centered group slowly sink without even realizing it.

I think you miss understood my views though. I said in the beginning I am all for "Less sound = More Ground" . My point was about using public land and it being a privilege rather than a right. I guess Canada is a lot like the U.S. in these regards, but I'm from Texas. We believe the government works for US if they are using OUR dollars and that is their privilege and not their right to dictate what is "OURS" to begin with.

And yes, I have no issue with administrative control over public lands whether it be the government or a private group as long as they represent the majority of the "PUBLIC".

IMO, that's their privilege. And as tax payers, our right to dictate what they say and do since we pay the bills.

GaryH wrote:

IMO, that's their privilege. And as tax payers, our right to dictate what they say and do since we pay the bills.

I would say the governement is us as a democraty. Us doesn't mean me or you or any individual but the majority.

When I talk about right I talk about something that neither a governement or an individual has the power on. When we talk about land, it's the basis of the laws in a society of rights. You acquire a right when as an individual you are the sole owner of the land. That's the source of the word realty which mean real right opposed to a right given by law. There is also the individual rights or human rights which we have by birth.

If I buy land, I have all the rights to do whatever I want with it as long as it doesn't limit the rights of the others on their land. That right came from the monarchy that agreed to give the rights on the surface land to their subjects. Any country reserves the right to rule on the underground.

When we vote do we give a right to the government or do we give it a privilege ?

I believe that as long as an individual, I'm not the sole owner of an object, the only right I have is one of vote or influence. Otherwise it would be impossible for anyone to know how to conduct himself about the object. Imagine as an example you and me. You obviously think that you can make noise on public land whatever they think and I don't. By that I'm not saying that thinking it is good or not, just that it is different. How in a socitety of rights do we decide what is the good way of cnoduct ? In a democratic view the goverment has the right to decide. In a dictature, only one decides. In any case it's not an individual unless he's the dictator. This right is limited in time for a democraty, since it's acquired through an election. But it is a right anyway since there is absolutly no one that has power to change the decision of the governement as long as it is in line with the charter of the country.

All that is a discussion about rights which are based on what we figure as the best way for a society to exist. Either a dictature or any other form of govrenement, the will of the largest number of people will prevail overtime.

mordicai wrote:

I have a place high up in the Western Colorado mountains. I adjoin the forest which adjoins a wilderness area. My main form of transport up there has always been a dual sport. It gives me a greater range then I can cover on foot, and a lot more fun then trying to get around in my 4x4 pickup. My nearest neighbor is seven miles away. I used to spend a lot of time in the woods on foot because it's a great way to be one with nature, and SEE things. Now I always did whatever I could to reduce my footprint on the bike. Keep it as quiet as possible; ride only on game trails or forest roads. When I walk through the woods with others I don't talk. I look and listen. When I come across an ass hole on a loud bike, blazing a new rut in a damp meadow, I want to shoot that somn of a bitch, and I will use my vote and do everything I can , to keep him and others like him out of the woods!

I've spent most of the last 30 years living in the woods with a bunch of no good tree huggers. Ranchers, farmers ,hunters and sportsmen. Pickup trucks, quads, motorcycles horses.....god damm best tree huggers you'll ever meet.

GaryH wrote:

Quote :

First, riding a motorcycle on public land is a privilege, not a right. As are other activities.

Although I am against loud pipes, Ill have to respectfully disagree with this statement. "Public Land" is just that, for the public and paid for by "The Public" which means the tax payers. So being a privilege rather than a right doesn't work for me. We paid for it, it's ours IMO. To let the government spoon feed us to believing that what "WE" own and to use is a "Privilege" rather than a "Right", goes against everything I believe in. But I lean pretty far to the right and that's just my opinion.

Of course, I have no problem with governmental controls like spark arrestors and the such.

That's the governments privilege, not their right.

Being right/wing conservative does not mean individuals own everything in the country. You may be more of a constitutionalist than I am... but I doubt it.

The problem is, public land is not "yours". That's why it's called public land, not private land. It belongs to the public, and the government that makes regulations regarding its use is simply an extension of that public - they vote them in and out as they see fit during elections. People seem to forget that bit about the government, particularly those who take little or no part in choosing candidates, being part of the policy making process, etc. Every person in "government" was, one day, just another voter who decided he/she was going to do more than just show up on voting day. They don't work FOR you, they ARE you. Or at least, those among us who decided to do at least a little bit more than show up to vote.

Second, YOU didn't pay any bills related to the management, protection, whatever of that land - the public as a GROUP paid the bill, of which you are only one small part. That pretty much removes any perceived right to do as you choose when you're not the only one footing the bills.

Third, a right is something that belongs to you and places restrictions on government - and others - from telling you what you can or can not do. A good example is the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the freedom not to have troops quartered in your house, etc. It doesn't matter if everyone else in the country thinks freedom of speech is a bad idea, your right to exercise that freedom is protected. Public land, the wildlife on that land, the resources on that land, etc belong to the body of the people. And you - and everybody else - get exactly one vote in determining the government which will make laws and policies pertaining to the use and management of public resources. That is the only right you have in respect to public land.

Therefore, a right to access public land does not exist - rights are individual, not collective. It is a privilege granted by the body of the people through the governments they elect, as they see fit. If you did indeed have a "right" to public resources, nobody could tell you whether or not you could rip the hell out of the ground mud bogging, whether or not you had to use a spark arrestor, whether you could cut trees down or not, and they sure as hell couldn't tell you when you could and couldn't hunt wildlife and fish. You could do everything and anything you wanted on that land - and so could everybody else.

This is not inconsistent with conservatism. These are principles that go all the way back to John Locke, and why we give up some of the natural rights of unfettered man to live together for the common wealth.

If what the representatives elected by the majority of your fellow citizens are doing in respect to land pisses you off, convince a majority of them to vote that government out and vote in people more in line with your thinking.

Achieving that is the hard part, and when we more often than not suddenly realize our views on things may not the same as the majority. Which is why some things are rights, and not privileges, incidentally - to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Jeez Jager, well said!

mordicai wrote:

Jeez Jager, well said!

Thank Prof. Norm Wardrop, who was one of the smartest people I've ever met, and who drove constitutional law into my head over two very challenging years. No free rides in his classes! I hope I remember a tenth of what he taught me.

He was also a good ol' former farm boy, who I once saw throw a chalk brush (no power point and whiteboards 35 years ago) at a student at the back of the room who was carrying on a side conversation, tell him to shut the F*ck up in his class, and if he had a problem with that he'd go down to the parking lot with him to discuss the matter man to man.

Ya just gotta love a prof like that!

This is one of the best conversations I have been involved in, in a very long time. Intelligent dialogue without bashing, and so well presented that anybody can view the issues from all sides. At least as long as they are willing to listen. That's how we grow as individuals and eventually into a collective group of the like. That's called socialism.

Although I am limited in my education, at least I can have a voice and I find that refreshing. (Most debates I get into is with Texas Rednecks)

I really have no debate here. I agree with most points made except the part about public lands being a privilege rather than a right. In my oppinion, give an inch, they take a mile.

Case in point, the Texas beaches. The beaches in Texas are public property but extremely valuable to the right developer. It's become a "Privilege" to access the beaches in Texas rather than our "Right" for two reasons. Those who screw it up by leaving trash behind etc, and those who sit on the fence seeing both sides and not having a strong voice one way or the other. I'm sure the same rings true with other public access issues. But regardless if it's loud pipes on motorcycles, or people leaving trash on the beach, IMO that's an "Enforcement" issue and not a indictment on the public regarding access.

For the last 14 years I have been involved with trying to keep the Texas beaches free and open to the public and have learned that you can't win. Too many people think too hard, water it down and don't take a stand one way or the other. In the end, they have a fence post up their ass, nothing gets done and those with big pockets win.

Sorry, but I will never see using public lands as a "Privilege". It's my right!

GaryH wrote:

That's how we grow as individuals and eventually into a collective group of the like. That's called socialism.

Not hardly. Socialism does not include individuals freely associating and entering into arrangements intended to allow each the greatest opportunity to prosper as far as their effort and inspiration can take them. Socialism is the old "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" crap, where collective rights supercede individual rights and the government runs around trying to "redistribute the wealth".

If we talk of a single event of coming to like minded agreement, then we are talking about consensus. And, in effect, when we vote in politicians whose position is "close the beaches", that is an enactment of a consensus of the majority - it is how they voted.

If you're talking on a larger scale, how we've come to live as we do now, and why we have public property and private property, then you are talking about a commonwealth, or a civil society if you prefer. We surrender many of our natural law rights in exchange for the protection and benefits of living under the umbrella provided by the group. Those surrendered rights would include the right to do anything on non-private property that we see fit, regardless of what rules our civil society has decided are appropriate.

Furthermore, referring back to Locke yet again, it is not of consent among men, which makes objects belong to man, but rather labour which puts a distinction on the object. Labour adds “something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right”. Labour removes the object from the common and the object becomes private property. So... if you have not put sufficient personal labour into that land to convert it to your own, then it is still public property, governed by the will and choices of the majority.

Quote :

Sorry, but I will never see using public lands as a "Privilege". It's my right!

And what if others decide that they too have a right to use public lands as they wish - rather than as regulated by the majority of their fellow citizens through their elected government?

That public beach you're trying to enjoy with your kids? Well, I think it would be an excellent place to bring some target stands down to and do transition drills with, practicing with my rifle and handgun - and it is my right to do so. I'll pay your kids a penny a piece to pick up my brass. Meanwhile, another guy shows up with a hoe and dump trucks to start removing sand for a building project back at his house - and he figures he has a right to use public lands as he sees fit as well. The trucks that are coming for sand are dumping loads of building waste on the beach first - which they can do, because after all, they have a right to use public lands as they see fit.

Obviously, as a civil society, we cannot tolerate this, and this is why neither you nor anybody else has a "right" to lands held in common. You can't be excluded from using public lands as an individual or on the basis of your race, color, religious or political affiliation, etc. But you can be regulated in how you use those lands by the will of the majority of your fellow citizens as far as activities, vehicles, noise, etc. under the institutional arrangements that the civil society you are a member of has deemed appropriate.

Finally, if you "gave an inch and they took a mile", what that essentially says is you lost the battle for the votes of your fellow citizens. If the majority sides with you on any issue and votes accordingly, you will in turn have elected governments/regulatory bodies whose decisions and policies on public land side with you - not those whose ideas and desires you oppose.

I have few questions on the technical side of this fascinating dedate.
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks!
1. If you go with an FMF system pipe and Q4 do you need to change the map or add a controller or is it plug and play?
2. What do gain in HP or Torque?
3. How is fuel economy affected?

Gee, I was hoping to read something about power gains throughout the rpm range or something cool like that

ghost man wrote:

I have few questions on the technical side of this fascinating dedate.
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks!
1. If you go with an FMF system pipe and Q4 do you need to change the map or add a controller or is it plug and play?
2. What do gain in HP or Torque?
3. How is fuel economy affected?

Anybody?? Bueler???

ghost man wrote:

ghost man wrote:

I have few questions on the technical side of this fascinating dedate.
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks!
1. If you go with an FMF system pipe and Q4 do you need to change the map or add a controller or is it plug and play?
2. What do gain in HP or Torque?
3. How is fuel economy affected?

Anybody?? Bueler???

Dont think anybody wants to comment as they will most likely be "shot", flammed or told how they should live in this world. Next I am expecting the modifications section to be deleted because modifying your bike may offend some one, some where in the world.

But from my understanding from reading forums, once you change the exhaust, you affect air flow, which requires a fuel controller (or re-mapper). In Australia our bike have a O2 sensor in the exhaust which makes the injection computer adjust itself (to what its limited cababilities allow).

After I put on my PC4 it wasnt as smooth on acceleration or free rev for the first part of the day after install. But at the end of the day I was almost as smooth as it was prior to install.

I havent dynoed mine but with the airbox opened, the PC4 zorst and tossing the air injection etc it is a different bike, where I was 1st / 2nd gear in the single trails I am now in 3rd, sometimes 2nd, but all through the gears its noticably better. I keep taking off in 2nd, expecting to be in 1st as I allways a gear higher then I was.

I used deffinately more fuel on a days ride, but its hard to put a percentage on it when you only ride trails but I would make an educated guess at 10 -20% more judging on what was left in the tank at the end of the day from what I am used to.

So I now have my flame suit on so fire away.......

ghost man,

Check out HighFive's comparison:

http://www.wrrdualsport.com/tech-guide/exhaust/69-fmf-q4

Sarah

Skip wrote:

ghost man wrote:

ghost man wrote:

I have few questions on the technical side of this fascinating dedate.
Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks!
1. If you go with an FMF system pipe and Q4 do you need to change the map or add a controller or is it plug and play?
2. What do gain in HP or Torque?
3. How is fuel economy affected?

Anybody?? Bueler???

Dont think anybody wants to comment as they will most likely be "shot", flammed or told how they should live in this world. Next I am expecting the modifications section to be deleted because modifying your bike may offend some one, some where in the world.

But from my understanding from reading forums, once you change the exhaust, you affect air flow, which requires a fuel controller (or re-mapper). In Australia our bike have a O2 sensor in the exhaust which makes the injection computer adjust itself (to what its limited cababilities allow).

After I put on my PC4 it wasnt as smooth on acceleration or free rev for the first part of the day after install. But at the end of the day I was almost as smooth as it was prior to install.

I havent dynoed mine but with the airbox opened, the PC4 zorst and tossing the air injection etc it is a different bike, where I was 1st / 2nd gear in the single trails I am now in 3rd, sometimes 2nd, but all through the gears its noticably better. I keep taking off in 2nd, expecting to be in 1st as I allways a gear higher then I was.

I used deffinately more fuel on a days ride, but its hard to put a percentage on it when you only ride trails but I would make an educated guess at 10 -20% more judging on what was left in the tank at the end of the day from what I am used to.

So I now have my flame suit on so fire away.......

Thanks for the info!!

I just bought a FMF powercore 4 and was interested in the same thing. I'm hoping it doesn't lean the bike out too much, but then again, it sounds like the computer figures out that more gas is needed and makes an adjustment. The bike really does kind of sign off power wise in the upper RPMs, so hopefully this muffler gives the bike more power where it's really needed.
Yeah, it will be kind of loud, but no worse than the open pipe harleys or header equipped sport bikes out there.

My opinion:

If you're looking for better performance and better throttle response than how the bike comes off the showroom floor, you'll need both an aftermarket exhaust muffler (and head pipe if you have the money) and a fuel injection programmer.
I believe that thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

When I had my 2008 WR-250R with an FMF Q4 muffler and Powerbomb head pipe and a Power Commander III installed, the bike was better than stock.
Then, one day the Power Commander quit working, and in order to go on a ride that day with my buddy, I had to remove the Power Commander.
This returned the bike to the stock fueling as dictated by the stock ECU settings.

So, I rode that day with the aftermarked exhaust and stock fueling.
The bike felt wierd and definitely a noticable step down in performance and, most of all, how it responded to the throttle.
It basically felt lean and hesitant, as if it were always on the verge of running out of gas whenever I opened the throttle much.

That's my findings.
You may feel otherwise, depending on your available mod money and what is satisfactory to you and your bikes. :)

YZEtc wrote:

My opinion:

If you're looking for better performance and better throttle response than how the bike comes off the showroom floor, you'll need both an aftermarket exhaust muffler (and head pipe if you have the money) and a fuel injection programmer.
I believe that thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.

When I had my 2008 WR-250R with an FMF Q4 muffler and Powerbomb head pipe and a Power Commander III installed, the bike was better than stock.
Then, one day the Power Commander quit working, and in order to go on a ride that day with my buddy, I had to remove the Power Commander.
This returned the bike to the stock fueling as dictated by the stock ECU settings.

So, I rode that day with the aftermarked exhaust and stock fueling.
The bike felt wierd and definitely a noticable step down in performance and, most of all, how it responded to the throttle.
It basically felt lean and hesitant, as if it were always on the verge of running out of gas whenever I opened the throttle much.

That's my findings.
You may feel otherwise, depending on your available mod money and what is satisfactory to you and your bikes. :)

Yeah, I may have to go that route .... but it's good to do one thing at a time in order, and I figure the exhaust is a good place to start. The next thing is to do all the flapper and airbox mods .... then probably by that time I can spring for a commander module. As is in stock form, it feels doggish under light to medium throttle positions .... almost like driving a car with slightly retarded timing.... not crisp at all. I don't know if that is the normal characteristic of the bike, or if I have a dog or what? It pulls strong under full throttle, but signs off pretty early unless I shift quick enough.

Oh well, this will be fun to play with.... the bike obviously has a ton of potential!

What about trying the CO mod (think that's what it was called) I've seen threads for recently? Adjusting the overall stock mapping richer may work, then you could always buy the programmer after if you're not happy.

A.

Brunnie wrote:

What about trying the CO mod (think that's what it was called) I've seen threads for recently? Adjusting the overall stock mapping richer may work, then you could always buy the programmer after if you're not happy.

A.

Good idea, I'll have to search for info on that one!

I don't know squat, but I've been following this topic for the past week now and what everyone seems to say is: If you do airbox mod and add aftermaket exaust and don't install a PC, your engine will be too lean and that's not good. The CO adjust in the speedo is for idle and may be the first 15% of throttle and will not help.