Beast R intakes with CA-Cycleworks 6.4gal tank

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...

Our 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.

Ducshop said:

...the tank is too big imo, 4.5 gal would have been plenty...

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! I hope CA-Cycleworks is checking this forum for feedback

daisyup said:

I couldn't agree more! I hope CA-Cycleworks is checking this forum for feedback

Click to expand...

If anyone has any entrepreneurial spirit, I know of a potential untapped market

I don't get the 6.4 gallon tank either. Who buys the Hyper and needs a 200+mile range? It would be nice to ride with others and be able to go 150ish miles to fill up like most other bikes and not be the lamo that has to stop every time they see a gas station, but not if you have to give up performance to do it.

Maybe it is possible to delete a section of the mold, and have a smaller version, but if so they probably would have done it already. My guess is the only real chance to gain a larger tank that isn't for touring Africa at the cost of losing some pep is if some Hyper owner takes it on as a pet project for themselves and then makes some available to others. I would if I knew anything about tanks.

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. Better yet, make some of your friends with
mothership BMWs carry them.

But I agree with what was mentioned-- it IS nice not to have to worry about
stopping at every remote station. But 4.5 gallons would have been enough
for me, too (I didn't buy the aftermarket tank).

just 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.

lawin said:

just 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.

Click to expand...

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".

dave2riff said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

dave2riff said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

dave2riff said:

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. ..

Click to expand...

Oh F*#king Aye! There you go... 4.5 gallons $150 and you can have the performance too...

though lawin has a point that you must first establish the stacks produce more gusto than the pods beyond mere sales claims and forum regurgitation. Does anyone have data from same bike on same dyno comparing TPO Beast to 6.4 tank with supplied K&N pods?

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. When we ride in the tight mountain roads around North Carolina maximum acceleration is not an issue. Staying on the mountain is.

Now on the track it is different but the Hyper is too up right for a real track bike. I got a SS 1000 DS for that work and there I have all the modifications I can stand to pay for to increase it's power.

Jim
il Capo

wilmar13 said:

I don't get the 6.4 gallon tank either. Who buys the Hyper and needs a 200+mile range?

Click to expand...

I do.
I hate filling up gas (every 100 miles).

Nice discussion about the bigger the better. But than again it does not count for the tank

About replacement pods, the real power gain would come from a bigger airbox. No airbox means loss of power.

BTW I have the tank installed and am happy with it. I can stop when I want to, not because I need to.

Ducshop said:

Our 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.

Click to expand...

well there u go ducshop...make one thats4.0 to4.5 maybe out of carbon?...lol

il Capo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The soon to be in my garage Brutale 910R has 140hp, a 6.1 gallon tank, a better chassis and better suspension.

Anyone want to buy my Hyper?

wjn said:

I do.
I hate filling up gas (every 100 miles).

Click to expand...

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.

wjn said:

About replacement pods, the real power gain would come from a bigger airbox. No airbox means loss of power.

Click to expand...

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.

wjn said:

BTW I have the tank installed and am happy with it. I can stop when I want to, not because I need to.

Click to expand...

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 issue

I'm not sure why anyone would want huge air filter pods and a tiny gas tank

6.4 gallons is huge, but I'd rather have that than the little one on the bike. Even with my short commute I have to fill up every few days. Plus the quality of Chris's tank is incredible.

I think the point was not either a larger tank or pods for more power but both!
I want a 150 mile range AND the HP increase of the pods!