RiderForums.com - Kawasaki Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
sounds very similar to the Two Bros on the 250R.
I guess with the twin we're kinda stuck with that blender sound...

I would go that way if I were doing a track bike, but my neighbors appreciate my stock cans.

Any improvement in MPG?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
sounds very similar to the Two Bros on the 250R.
I guess with the twin we're kinda stuck with that blender sound...

I would go that way if I were doing a track bike, but my neighbors appreciate my stock cans.

Any improvement in MPG?
Not too big of a difference, but I am sure there is one.

**videos do not do the exhausts' justice. it is a lot deeper in person. people def hear you coming (which is a reason i got the exhaust-safety)**
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
You do realise you're driving forward...your exhaust points to the rear... Cars also have nifty insulation to block road noise. Loud exhaust isn't going to help you in traffic unles your biggest worry is cars not being able to see you and rear ending you while your bike is over 5k rpms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
i didn't know there was an invisible insulation when cars drive with their windows down :-D..i was riding and i was thinking about Green Rockets comment about a blender sound...**I need to get a blender like his if it sounds like my ninja**
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
You do realise you're driving forward...your exhaust points to the rear... Cars also have nifty insulation to block road noise. Loud exhaust isn't going to help you in traffic unles your biggest worry is cars not being able to see you and rear ending you while your bike is over 5k rpms.
It absolutely helps in traffic. I often hear the bikes before I see them when there are cars in every lane. The exhaust may point to the rear, but you're not going to outrun the speed of sound in a car lol
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
I usually do louder pipes because I like the sound. Anyone that thinks "loud pipes save lives" is an idiot. Anyone that counts on other drivers SEEING them is equally in danger. The way I look at it is there are things you can do to make other drivers see you, and there are things that you can do to make drivers LOOK at you. If a driver isn't LOOKING at you, he won't SEE you, even if you are wearing a HiViz jacket, helmet, flashing lights and wearing a propeller on your head. A louder exhaust is a passive way another driver might notice you, you don't have to do anything to "use" the exhaust to get others attention, but then again it might not get their attention. A horn is an active way way might get a driver's attention, you DO have to do something to use it, and it will work well, BUT you need to see the danger and react to use the horn. After the first two methods you might employ to attract a drivers attention, the least favorable method another driver might notice your existence is FEEL.

Personally, I do what I can to stay visible (HiViz, lights, not "shadowing" other vehicles, paying attention to "blind spots", etc), I pay attention to potential hazards that might require an audible "hey look at me" (i.e. HORN), and have a louder than stock pipe that may make hazards I don't see, notice me. I figure if they don't see me, I'd at least to TRY, getting their attention through sound, instead of skipping straight to the FEEL part.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
I'm totally for, not in any way against loud pipes. But I'd never try to justify them as a safety feature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
*shrug* think what you like. But if safety was the reason for the exhaust then a better investment would've been a horn.

Loud Pipes Save Lives or The Madness Behind the Myth

Pipeburn Poll: Do Loud Pipes Really Save Lives? - Pipeburn - Purveyors of Classic Motorcycles, Cafe Racers & Custom motorbikes

Loud Pipes Do Not

Read any of these, especially the first or last one.
The third one makes me laugh it's so full of unrelated data to support their theory. What does rider training have to do with the ineffectiveness of loud pipes? Are they saying if I have rider training, ride sober, and wear Hi Viz clothing, I'll NEVER be in an accident?

They really lost me with this one
Fact is, loud pipes do more to hurt motorcyclists than help them, the attention they draw to a rider is not worth the negative public image they create.
How exactly did they establish that "FACT"? Since they have no actual numbers concerning how many live were save (or weren't) or any figures concerning the "negative public image" they speak of.

Furthermore, all their percentages ar based on "where" you hear most of the sound that comes from a motorcycle, ignoring the FACT that you CAN hear a motorcycle from 360 degrees depending on your proximity, then they RUN with their "facts" about where you can hear a motorcycle.

I DO agree that rider training would be a lot more effective than a set of loud pipes, but their message is totally lost when whey make up a bunch of B.S. to support their argument.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
You're asking for numbers that can't be attained. How could anyone possibly know how many lives were possibly saved by loud pipes vs not? Is there some place that records "almost accidents"? I think the places banning motorcycles and motorcycle exhaust noise ordinances speak for themselves as to the negative images. But I'm not here to back the article, I was just supporting my point of view that loud pipes don't save lives. Proper riding does.

Its also a bit ridicoules to assume the article meant if you wear high vis, take rider training, etc that'd you'd never get in an accident. It would certainly lesson the chances. Maybe they went over the top in their writing of the article *shrug* but where, at all are any numbers at ALL saying loud pipes have saved lives? I mean, if that were fact then why are there exhaust noise laws, and why doesn't every bike made come with loud pipes? Surely even 1 life saved would be worth it?

Like I said, I have nothing against aftermarket exhaust; I just wouldn't rely on that as a safety feature nor would I claim my exhaust was for safety.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
I bet insurance companies could clear this up. If we had the data for motorcycle wrecks broken down by age, years riding, rider safety courses or not, and after market accessories; we could make a clear data table. Insurance companies should have all that data from claims made, due to the discount you get from msf and the $2,000 coverage (going by my insurance) they have for unclaimed modifications, and because they already ask all of that when you get insurance. Should be simple enough to solve.

Shoot, if loud pipes really do save lives then you should get a discount for running after market exhaust as an additional safety feature on your bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
You're asking for numbers that can't be attained. How could anyone possibly know how many lives were possibly saved by loud pipes vs not?
EXACTLY, that's why they can't call it a "fact". When you pull "facts" out of thin air and run with them, your whole argument is nothing but hogwash.

Its also a bit ridicoules to assume the article meant if you wear high vis, take rider training, etc that'd you'd never get in an accident. It would certainly lesson the chances. Maybe they went over the top in their writing of the article *shrug* but where, at all are any numbers at ALL saying loud pipes have saved lives? I mean, if that were fact then why are there exhaust noise laws, and why doesn't every bike made come with loud pipes? Surely even 1 life saved would be worth it?

Like I said, I have nothing against aftermarket exhaust; I just wouldn't rely on that as a safety feature nor would I claim my exhaust was for safety.
Of course it's ridiculous, that's why I pointed it out. They claim
astounding 92% of all "accident-involved" riders had no formal motorcycle training
wouldn't it be safe to assume a combination of lack of sobriety and or brightly colored clothing would account for a mere 8% of "accident-involved" riders? Yes, I understand that is not how the numbers actually work, I just using them the same way the writer of this article does.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
Wow, you really are stuck on one article. Have you provided anything to support your claim that loud pipes save lives? No? Oh, well feel free to pick apart one (1) article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Wow, you really are stuck on one article. Have you provided anything to support your claim that loud pipes save lives? No? Oh, well feel free to pick apart one (1) article.
Not really "stuck", there is just SO MUCH debatable information in that one article. All three are just opinion pieces, the third is more detailed and actually tries to use "facts" and figures. All three are equally worthless as "support" for your claim that loud pipes DON'T save lives. You and I are alike in our thoughts on the subject, we both like the sound of freer flowing exhaust, neither of us believe loud pipes should be your main safety feature, and we both believe there are MUCH better ways to avoid an accident. Giving that there is no evidence loud pipes DON'T save lives, I am just exposing the pieces you posted as what they are, opinions. It seems that you are taking the opposite stance, assuming that since there is no evidence that loud pipes DO save lives, they must NOT save lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Oh yeah, and I think we both agree that riding around needlessly revving your engine, weaving in and out through traffic and acting like a general douche tarnishes the image of motorcyclists whether you have a louder than stock exhaust or not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
Its not all opinion, the third article may have been biased, but it still had facts in it. My point was more towards how little of the sound travels forward (where most of the accidents come from). Hence the horn comment. Also, for your exhaust to be effective you have to have your rpms up. The articles were actually 3 of the top 4 results from when I googled "do loud pipes save lives".


At this point I think you just want to argue. It's no longer a discussion since you've brought nothing to the table to support anything. Furthermore, you insist on trying to put words in my mouth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
Its not all opinion, the third article may have been biased, but it still had facts in it. My point was more towards how little of the sound travels forward (where most of the accidents come from). Hence the horn comment. Also, for your exhaust to be effective you have to have your rpms up. The articles were actually 3 of the top 4 results from when I googled "do loud pipes save lives".


At this point I think you just want to argue. It's no longer a discussion since you've brought nothing to the table to support anything. Furthermore, you insist on trying to put words in my mouth.

Yeah, it has SOME facts, like I'm sure a lot of Harley riders get in trouble during Sturgis. None of the facts in that article support your claim that loud pipes won't make a difference in traffic, I'm sorry you wasted your time looking that up.
What "words" did I try to put in your mouth?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
786 Posts
: the Hurt Study found that a whopping three percent of accident hazards come directly from the rear (or the "six o'clock" direction).

Hurt found that 77% of all accident hazards approach the motorcycle from in front of the rider (specifically, the eleven to one o'clock range). To have any chance of alerting those motorists to the presence of a motorcycle with exhaust noise would require that the tailpipe be pointed forward.

Spend a couple hundred dollars on an aftermarket pipe and reduce your risk of a crash with a vehicle by six percent, at best. But Hurt also found an astounding 92% of all "accident-involved" riders had no formal motorcycle training. They were either self-taught or learned from a friend or family member. Think about it: for the price of a high-performance, four-into-one exhaust system or a show-quality straight pipe, you can put yourself and three of your friends through an Experienced Rider Course and reduce your risk of any type of crash by ninety-two percent.

The [AMA] believes that few other factors contribute more to misunderstanding and prejudice against the motorcycling community than excessively noisy motorcycles".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
: the Hurt Study found that a whopping three percent of accident hazards come directly from the rear (or the "six o'clock" direction).

Hurt found that 77% of all accident hazards approach the motorcycle from in front of the rider (specifically, the eleven to one o'clock range). To have any chance of alerting those motorists to the presence of a motorcycle with exhaust noise would require that the tailpipe be pointed forward.
This ASSUMES ZERO percent of the sound travels forward, which is absolutely NOT TRUE! Stand in the middle of the street, while an unmuffled Harley approaches you and tell me you can't hear it at all. It also assumes the ONLY outside force that can cause an accident is a car or truck, completely ignoring the presence of pedestrians and animals.

Spend a couple hundred dollars on an aftermarket pipe and reduce your risk of a crash with a vehicle by six percent, at best. But Hurt also found an astounding 92% of all "accident-involved" riders had no formal motorcycle training. They were either self-taught or learned from a friend or family member. Think about it: for the price of a high-performance, four-into-one exhaust system or a show-quality straight pipe, you can put yourself and three of your friends through an Experienced Rider Course and reduce your risk of any type of crash by ninety-two percent.
This is an incorrect use of the numbers and is quite laughable if you really think about what they are saying. The "fact" that "92% of all "accident-involved" riders had no formal motorcycle training" in no way translates into take an Experienced Rider Course and reduce your risk of any type of crash by ninety-two percent it only means 92% of all "accident-involved" riders had no formal motorcycle training.

The [AMA] believes that few other factors contribute more to misunderstanding and prejudice against the motorcycling community than excessively noisy motorcycles".
TRUE, it is the AMA's OPINION and official stance that few other factors contribute more to misunderstanding and prejudice against the motorcycling community than excessively noisy motorcycles. Part of the AMA's mission is to promote the positive image of motorcycling as well as promoting safety amongst motorcyclists. I have absolutely no doubt, formal training will much more greatly increase your safety than a loud muffler. I also believe un-muffled Harleys and their corresponding dirty scary looking riders hurt the image of motorcyclist. That doesn't mean in any way a loud muffler doesn't increase your safety. It means the AMA believes you are way better off (safety wise) with formal training than you are with a loud muffler. Which I agree with.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top