You are completely correct. I think I will use one switched wire for the heated grips for the GPS and radar detector. The current draw on either one of those is very low.
Speculation. According to their respective web sites the DNA flows more air/minute than the K&N which in turn flows more than the stock filter.
I do not have the stock windwhield. I have the Givi AF6401 (http://www.giviusa.com/My-motorcycle/?ma=TRIUMPH&mo=Tiger-800---Tiger-800-XC). The Givi comes with some extra mounting hardware that barely fits with the Tourtech gps mount (this was a fear of mine when I ordered it but I was able to make it all work). The Tourtech mount does not make the Givi adjustable like the stock screen would be. So, I can not really comment on how adjustable the stock screen could be with the Tourtech mount. I can say that the way I see it is that it is only adjustable back and forth not up and down. Only the two side mounting points are adjustable. I may try to mount up the stock screen just to see how it all works. I really like the Givi screen. I have about 3,000 miles on it now and have had no issues. I like that the top piece is adjustable while on the move. It also keeps the wind clear of my shoulders. The wind hitting my shoulders was my biggest complaint about the stocker. The GPS mount part of the Touratech is perfect. The mount is just the right height. I had to mount it in the low position because that big aqua box is pretty big and it fits best in that position without touching the wind screen. If it was any lower it would start to cover your instrument cluster. It has no vibration at all that I can tell. Regarding the RAM mount aqua box (http://www.ram-mount.com/EmptyPages/AQUABOXES/AQ6MAIN/tabid/1538/Default.aspx). I had an older Garmin Nuvi laying around that I really wanted to use because it is paid for and so far has been flawless. I wanted to keep it on the bike at all times. I have another newer nuvi that I wanted to use for my long trips. Its a little nicer but it has a wide screen on it. So I wanted an Aqua box that would fit both. Because my newer Nuvi has a wide screen I had to go with the "medium wide" aqua box. The box is constructed well however it is very "thick". The problem I was finding is that they did not have a "thinner" box (that's what she said) that would still be wide enough (that's what she said). So I was stuck with the Medium/Wide size. I then had to make a rear mount to hook up to the Tourtech cross bar. Also I am happy with the plastic/rubberized screen on the box. I was worried that while touching the screen through the rubber that it would be like touching several buttons at a time. Not the case at all. It works perfect. Just FYI. After looking at other screens, like the Madstad, the Tourtech GPS mount will not work with it. Did I miss anything? Hope that helps.
With all things being the same (porosity of the filter material and surface area of the filter element as its flattened out), it would make sense to me that if one filter has the filter element squeezed into a tighter space (which is evident on the K&N) then that filter would have a more restricted flow than the other. I'm no expert but it seems logical to me. I'm sure there is a lot more to these filters than just what meets the eye.
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion based mainly on the fact that K&N filters are shite. I know, it's like oil and what people swear by but I'll never have a K&N filter on any of my bikes. In fact, my Speed Triple had one fitted by the PO and I removed it.
I'd agree, with the disclaimer that I'd be OK running a K&N on a street bike in a non dusty environment. I ran one on my cruiser for 4 years and 40,000kms with no ill effects, but I'd never run one on my DR or any bike I rode on gravel roads etc.
I apologize! I certainly wasn't trying to draw any overall conclusions. I just wanted to address the comment about the filter surface area vs filter element surface area. The original question was asking about one filter having a smaller/larger surface area than the other (K&N is smaller) and the discussion led to the surface area of the element (??). Too many variables to conclude anything with a visual inspection. Real testing is the only answer. Everything else is speculation! I've heard the same thing that Blacktiger mentioned about the better air flow rate of the DNA
To me that seems counter-intuitive - unless I'm mis-undersanding. You put on a K&N and since it's flow more air (and hence, more dirt/dust) you put on a pre-filter -do I have that right ? If so...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense old bean
Except that if he was going to uni filter it anyways, the K&N kinda makes up for the added uni restriction.
My point was that if the engine draws less than either is capable of flowing, then which one CAN flow the most is moot. If the possible CFM of the filter is less than that of the engine, the engine, not the filter, is the limiting factor. Figure 800cc x 5,000rpm (redline RPM/2 for a 4-stroke) = 4,000,000cc/m Convert that to CFM and you get 141.25cfm. According to K&N (the "more restrictive" of the two) their filter will flow 176cfm. The air filter is not the limiting factor. It is capable of flowing more air than the engine is capable of drawing at redline. If you judge filtration efficiency by airflow alone, then both are worse than stock and neither should be considered. There's a lot more to it.
Well, firstly you need to read my post properly. I put in a DNA filter. The reasoning is that the air filter is buried under the tank and takes an hour to get at. So I put a low maintenance filter in there and put the pre-filter to take out the worst of the dirt. I never said, wrote or quoted that it was for performance. For me it's purely for ease of maintenance.
Not sure if they have or not. I was able to get a prototype from them. No real fitment issues. They are a little difficult to install. You need two people. But they are very stout!!!
In a perfect world you could gain a little extra effective flow from head velocity and a little precompression, but that also assumes perfect exhaust scavenge. For the filter to become the limiting factor, you're talking 20% increase in efficiency from exhaust tuning. That would be pretty impressive.
That will increase the exhaust flow but not necessarily increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine beyond what the engine could otherwise pump.