I asked Chris from CA Cycleworks this question point blank, in person. He said that the big tank won't work with the Beast R. At a buy in of $700 I wasn't willing to try and prove him wrong...
I couldn't agree more! I hope CA-Cycleworks is checking this forum for feedback...the tank is too big imo, 4.5 gal would have been plenty...
If anyone has any entrepreneurial spirit, I know of a potential untapped marketI couldn't agree more! I hope CA-Cycleworks is checking this forum for feedback
Well, the stock airbox is just that bad. The Hyper designers admitted in ajust an fyi, the two small air filters you get from ca cycleworks with the tank actually net me 2whp up top and did not lose any power or torque at any rpm. i would be curious to see if these other intakes with bigger filters would net more than that given the same variables. the reason it sparks my interest is because my techs and myself thought i would lose power and torque by putting on the filters without a tune. we were all very surprised to see a gain.
So how are you opening the tank and dumping it in without stopping?Here's what you do if you need to go 150 miles without stopping for gas:
carry a couple 1/2 gallon fuel containers and dump them into the Hyper
after the first 50 miles.
i completely agree, but are the larger "better" intakes netting more power than the two small pods? i don't know and was wondering if that is true. If we can gather some evidence that the bigger "better" intakes net more power then we can whine and moan about the tank, but if the bigger "better" intakes don't offer any more gains than the two small pods from cycleworks then the entire premise that someone needs to put on the bigger "better" intake is completely moot.Well, the stock airbox is just that bad. The Hyper designers admitted in a
press interview that "we played with the size of the airbox until the performance
loss was acceptable". Of course, for the typical enthusiast, no performance
loss is "acceptable".
OK, you got me on my wording there...So how are you opening the tank and dumping it in without stopping?
At least for me (and others I ride with) the hassle isn't worrying about running out of fuel, it is needing to stop and refuel...
Maybe a functional, albeit hack-job, solution would be to drill and tap another port into the tank which leads to another tank you could add on? Kind of like an expansion tank. As long as you sealed it so it doesn't leak, why wouldn't that work OK? It isn't something commercially viable for liability and legality reasons, but if you did it yourself why not? Disclaimer: yeah I haven't thought this through, but just trying to come up with alternatives.
Oh F*#king Aye! There you go... 4.5 gallons $150 and you can have the performance too...Your idea has been done before (doncha hate that), for dirt bikes at least.
My brother's little company sells auxiliary side-mount fuel tanks. ..
I do.I don't get the 6.4 gallon tank either. Who buys the Hyper and needs a 200+mile range?
well there u go ducshop...make one thats4.0 to4.5 maybe out of carbon?...lolOur stacks wont fit with that tank either, there is only room for the short pod filters that I think come with the tank, the tank is too big imo, 4.5 gal would have been plenty and would have left room for the TPO's or our stacks.
Agree about the peak HP... I should explicitly state I am concerned about torque really rather than peak HP. I want midrange freight train grunt, I couldn't care less about peak HP when talking about the Hyper. You know 4K twist the throttle and feel that awesome torque, and I want more not less! If HP mattered I wouldn't be riding a 2 valve air cooled bike. I am pretty sure I have seen some dynos where the pods lose a fair amount of low and mid range power, that is the concern from me, rather than if it makes 2 HP less than TPO Beast at 8500 rpm.I looked at it this way. The bigger tank I use every ride. The extra two or five or what ever horse power I might use two or three times a year. Yes it is nice to be able to have the extra horse power but on public roads it is really irrelevant.
I do too, I just meant I would be satisfied at 150 mile range and going to 200 if I have to eat a power loss because fuel was crammed into every possible nook and cranny isn't a good trade off for this type of bike. If there is no power loss, then there is no problem at all.I do.
I hate filling up gas (every 100 miles).
Except when the airbox sucks to begin with... I do wish it was more clear if you gain responsiveness and torque in the 3-6K range with stacks over the stock airbox though.About replacement pods, the real power gain would come from a bigger airbox. No airbox means loss of power.
Honestly if I knew for sure there was no hit to ridability I would have 6.4 gallons too, but I just don't see how the engine has any chance of breathing optimally sucking air while blocked by the tank. And it seems the jury is still out with regards to actual response with pods vs stock box with lid cut; some guys claiming it is worse, some claiming better, and the only dyno I have seen was actually yours which included an exhaust change to further confuse the issueBTW I have the tank installed and am happy with it. I can stop when I want to, not because I need to.