Suzuki GSX-R Motorcycle Forums Gixxer.com banner
21 - 40 of 60 Posts

Registered
Joined
74 Posts
i am not the only one - just the only one that doesn't care if people get butt hurt.
i have tons of DMs of people that are disappointed when they spend the money for them and they listened to You Tube (you can make anything look good to the camera).

to be fair - the dimpled stacks were not available when i tested them - i purchased all 3 with my own money - no one gave me them to test - so it was totally unbiased - unlike some of the above tests - there job is to sell you parts - the difference is i don't need to sell you parts

also the afr was adjusted - but there is almost no difference in afr between stacks -

you use You tube for credibility - i rely on my self and my happy customers for mine.....

jason
I don't use youtube, my customers do, and their tuners do. I don't pay anybody to make videos of my products, nor do I give away discounts or free product in exchange for any videos. The funny thing is there isn't ANY video's proving you right and me wrong. IF my stuff truly is a waste of money, than document it with a video and display ALL of the information to be fair. You claim you tuned each test, yet you only ran 7 total runs. Ask any reputable tuner, and they will tell you that you cannot tune a bike in 7 pulls.

Again, I have never had a single customer send me results that were not as advertised, and I'm talking about thousands of customers. I'm asking you to prove what you are claiming by posting the AFR values. You cannot claim one graph is better than another if the AFR values are different, and you have not proven that yet.

It's funny that you always push MWR since you have a dealer account with them, but my stacks don't work and I am direct to customer only and wouldn't give you a dealer account.
 

Registered
2019 Suzuki Gsxr 1000
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
I have found carbon Smith to be the best on the street, especially for high mph type stuff, mwr required a little more fuel in the 11-12k area and smith needed more 13k+, both are very close performance wise in real life testing.
There you go fellas, no need to argue. They鈥檙e both good. 馃榿
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,599 Posts
I don't use youtube, my customers do, and their tuners do. I don't pay anybody to make videos of my products, nor do I give away discounts or free product in exchange for any videos. The funny thing is there isn't ANY video's proving you right and me wrong. IF my stuff truly is a waste of money, than document it with a video and display ALL of the information to be fair. You claim you tuned each test, yet you only ran 7 total runs. Ask any reputable tuner, and they will tell you that you cannot tune a bike in 7 pulls.

Again, I have never had a single customer send me results that were not as advertised, and I'm talking about thousands of customers. I'm asking you to prove what you are claiming by posting the AFR values. You cannot claim one graph is better than another if the AFR values are different, and you have not proven that yet.

It's funny that you always push MWR since you have a dealer account with them, but my stacks don't work and I am direct to customer only and wouldn't give you a dealer account.
you wont find any videos of me doing any of it - these You Tubers are the first ones the EPA is going to go after when the hammer comes down.

you are the one that told me on the stacks i purchased from you that... chris moore used 2 different bikes to evaluate them. - you told me that. no one else. that would obviously be a flawed way of testing
the testing that i posted was done back to back to back - and i purchased them at RETAIL. from you.

after i purchased them you asked me to send you the results - which i did. Before i posted them in the original post.

i never asked for a dealer account from you - (after seeing the results why would i ? ) - after the test i gave them to a customer because i could not charge for them in good faith.

i do not push MWR - they just have the best results from all of the ones i have tested. - i also do not have a dealer account with them - i have a dealer account with a lot of people show me on here where i pushed any product. i just post unmolested results. Parts that i have seen work.

i stand behind my testing and my integrity. - i did not bash your stacks - i did not tell everyone what i really think - i just simply posted the results of the testing i did. - alot of people think stacks are magical - they are not.

i will not purchase another set to test if you want send me some of the dimpled stacks and i will post the results. - if they are better then i will post it. - if not i will post it. - but i will not pay for them a 2nd time.

jason
 

Registered
Joined
7 Posts
The Red_GSXR video posted by Carbon Smith (on comment #19) shows that at minute 3:56 the MWR 'baseline run' (labeled run 22) had Max Power = 202.85 hp... they subsequently pull out the MWR stacks and install the Carbon Smith Dimpled ones, and then at minute10:33 show the first and last run with the Carbon Smith Dimpled stacks (run 23 = 198.38 hp, and run 46 with 189.01 hp). MWR made 4.47hp more peak power than Carbon Smith. The poster [and I assume Carbon Smith too] seem to have misinterpreted the tuner's comments as he never overlayed MWR and Carbon Smith runs during this video. Regardless, the poster of the YT video seems to be happy with the change.

MWR vs Carbon Smith

Also, Crhis Moore used two different bikes for his conslusion, which basically tells us nothing.

MWR, Carbon Smith, Venturi, Turn 13, Stringer, etc. are all good options, but these comparisons need to be reasonable and a bit more scientific; on the same bike, in similar environmentals, and overlaying the dyno charts.
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,599 Posts
The Red_GSXR video posted by Carbon Smith (on comment #19) shows that at minute 3:56 the MWR 'baseline run' (labeled run 22) had Max Power = 202.85 hp... they subsequently pull out the MWR stacks and install the Carbon Smith Dimpled ones, and then at minute10:33 show the first and last run with the Carbon Smith Dimpled stacks (run 23 = 198.38 hp, and run 46 with 189.01 hp). MWR made 4.47hp more peak power than Carbon Smith. The poster [and I assume Carbon Smith too] seem to have misinterpreted the tuner's comments as he never overlayed MWR and Carbon Smith runs during this video. Regardless, the poster of the YT video seems to be happy with the change.

MWR vs Carbon Smith

Also, Crhis Moore used two different bikes for his conslusion, which basically tells us nothing.

MWR, Carbon Smith, Venturi, Turn 13, Stringer, etc. are all good options, but these comparisons need to be reasonable and a bit more scientific; on the same bike, in similar environmentals, and overlaying the dyno charts.
that is exactly what i did

jason
 

Registered
Joined
11 Posts
Has anyone installed/tested these velocity stacks? MWR, carbon smith, motomaxx carbon fiber, billet lightweight aluminum? If so, what were the differences? And is it really worth it? Also had someone tell me they cut the stock ones a little and reformed them and got a steady 2hp gain from 9-14rpm
Auto adjustable stacks which gave him a 5hp gain at the top end but a stronger pull right through the rev range.

 

Registered
Joined
74 Posts
These are nice, but what electronics are being used to actuate the lift, and how is that tied in to the mapping? I doubt most people are willing to spend the money to buy a custom harness and stand-alone ecu and pay someone that knows what they are doing to make it work. You cant race the bike pressing a button to lift and lower your velocity stacks, it has to be built into the ECU. Now if they developed a system that doesn't require this, then that would be awesome. Some manufactures, like Aprilia have tried variable and have gone away from it as well. Biggest thing about 3D printed stacks is the material and how they hold up against race fuels. I know for a fact that any MJF (multi jet fusion) printed stacks (MWR, BT Moto, Gabro, etc) will melt with MR12 and any high temps. These pics are from a customer who had them in his bike.
Hand Sleeve Vehicle Finger Font
Material property Automotive wheel system Automotive design Gas Circle
Shoe Automotive tire Automotive lighting Automotive design Motor vehicle
 

Registered
Joined
74 Posts
The Red_GSXR video posted by Carbon Smith (on comment #19) shows that at minute 3:56 the MWR 'baseline run' (labeled run 22) had Max Power = 202.85 hp... they subsequently pull out the MWR stacks and install the Carbon Smith Dimpled ones, and then at minute10:33 show the first and last run with the Carbon Smith Dimpled stacks (run 23 = 198.38 hp, and run 46 with 189.01 hp). MWR made 4.47hp more peak power than Carbon Smith. The poster [and I assume Carbon Smith too] seem to have misinterpreted the tuner's comments as he never overlayed MWR and Carbon Smith runs during this video. Regardless, the poster of the YT video seems to be happy with the change.

MWR vs Carbon Smith

Also, Crhis Moore used two different bikes for his conslusion, which basically tells us nothing.

MWR, Carbon Smith, Venturi, Turn 13, Stringer, etc. are all good options, but these comparisons need to be reasonable and a bit more scientific; on the same bike, in similar environmentals, and overlaying the dyno charts.
I wasn't confused. Did you miss the part at 9:55 where he says the tire is too hot and they lost 10hp? This was run #46 which was there last run that you are talking about. #29 was the best run they did at 200.79 hp peak which was still 2 hp less peak than the MWR but they picked up 2-4 hp everywhere else, also mentioned at the end of the video. Now they never actually show #22 with #29 on the video, which would show that the +2 hp is not actually real power but either a wheel hop or a spike in the trace which you can clearly see here:
Rectangle Slope Font Parallel Pattern


Computer Personal computer Output device Peripheral Computer monitor


Computer Personal computer Computer monitor Output device Computer monitor accessory

Font Terrestrial plant Screenshot Darkness Photo caption
 

Attachments

Registered
2019 Suzuki Gsxr 1000
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
These are nice, but what electronics are being used to actuate the lift, and how is that tied in to the mapping? I doubt most people are willing to spend the money to buy a custom harness and stand-alone ecu and pay someone that knows what they are doing to make it work. You cant race the bike pressing a button to lift and lower your velocity stacks, it has to be built into the ECU. Now if they developed a system that doesn't require this, then that would be awesome. Some manufactures, like Aprilia have tried variable and have gone away from it as well. Biggest thing about 3D printed stacks is the material and how they hold up against race fuels. I know for a fact that any MJF (multi jet fusion) printed stacks (MWR, BT Moto, Gabro, etc) will melt with MR12 and any high temps. These pics are from a customer who had them in his bike. View attachment 585137 View attachment 585138 View attachment 585139
Damn! I have MWR. So mines will melt too? 馃槱
 
21 - 40 of 60 Posts
Top