Inexpensive power/rideability upgrade

I bought my 1199 back in December of 2019. Loved it from day one. The most, I'll say 'bothersome' here for lack of a better term, thing was the 2-stroke style powerband. It hits hard at low rpm, then sags until about 7,000 rpm, then takes off like it was hit in the ... with a rocket. Very .. 'Racy', but hardly the thing you want for around town and mild riding situations, which makes up about 98% of normal day-day usage. I looked at dyno graphs . .LOTS of Dyno graphs, and then had my bike dyno'd to verify it's power curve. We all know what the curve looks like. Great off-line torque, a BIG dip from about 4500 to 6500 rpm, then monster top end power. Given the gear ratios, that power was perfectly acceptable for racing. But not for day-day life.

Enter the 'Frustrated Master Tech' mindset. I've had, at one time or another, 28 ASE certifications total, and long-term 12-15 constant, for almost 25 years, and I've built more than a few 'Hot" street car engines, but never a motorcycle setup. Well, engineering is engineering, basic designs are the same across the board, and intake/exhaust flow theory hasn't changed much since the inverntion of the poppet valve. I did a bit of research and found the only really 'good' exhaust upgrade offerings were in the multiple thousands of dollars, for a 2- cylinder engine of all things, so I decided to just lived with it. But the bug was always there, in the back of my brain, this bothersome sag in the torque curve. Even the really pricey Termi and Akro systems didn't totally get rid of the sag, though they definitely pumped top end power and lightened the bike. But the dollar/performance gain curve was incredibly bad, and then there was the tuning and dyno runs necessary to verify and fine-tune for best results. I consider that to be less than efficient. There had to be a better way. . . so I kept looking and thinking and running things around in my brain. I'm sure we all do that, right? Please tell me it's normal. .

First step, dyno run. Okay, now I know what the problem was. This was in 2021. How to get rid of the dip, and get the engine's fuel curve properly adjusted, because for sure, since 2013 the fuel has changed, but the pathetic narrow range O2 sensors and non-dynamic ECU were certainly not keeping up.

Enter Tune-Boy. I didn't want extensive Dyno-run time to get things dialed in, and they offered 'Roll-on' and Automatic tuning options in their software, as well as many dyno-tuned fuel Maps for the engine. Only problem is, they were in Australia, I'm in America, and the fuels are certainly different. They both burn, they both pour, but the chemical mixtures are certainly different. America has 'Gasohol' (shudder) of all things, which certainly changes how things work. So, Tune Boy installed, some OTR riding and changes without a dyno run to get a basic fuel curve in place, reading of spark plugs to verify the mixture, and things seemed to be working out okay for the Tune Boy system, but I still hadn't added Lambda to the equation Broke down and got a dual Innovate Lambda system, welded on bungs to the head pipes and took a look. All over the map, usually still Lean, sometimes too Rich, by a good bit, but it 'felet good' when riding it, so I spent about 2 months dialing that in as well. The bike didn't run with any more perceptbile power, but it WAS running a lot cleaner now. But still that silly sag in the low mid-range. Even with a proper fuel curve, hit the gas at 4,500 rpm on the highway in 6th and it just BOGGED...a deep-throated baaaaaaahhhhhhh sounding from the inlet noise until it got above 7000 rpm and then things took off. Well, that sagging inlet sound, on a car, means lots of air wanting to get IN, but not enough getting OUT of the cylinders, and given the short intake tracts, it was obvious the exhaust was the problem. So I thought about it a bit, grabbed a tape measure, and had a look at resonance, diameters, 2-1-2 design restriction problems, those silly stock cat/muffler assemblies. Conclusion. . the Cat Convertors cause a resonance mismatch at 3500-4500 rpm, which brings down the entire power curve, the 2-1-2 section of the system flow turbulence and inefficiency tears down the 4500-5500 range, and affects it up until the resonance points move up the head pipes by about 5-6 inches at 7,000 rpm, and then the exhaust starts to properly scavenge and compliment the cams and things just take off in glorious gut wrenching torque output. Absolutely an exhaust design/compromise problem.

How do you get rid of exhaust flow dissonance? Toss the mufflers, install tuned tube headers and a proper collector, run a decent sized collector/muffler/outlet exhaust, then tune the fuel curve again to match it. Well, it already has a pretty efficient head-pipe design, although the pipes are length mismatched and whoever thought about that under-seat tube curving mess must have been suffering from LSD flashbacks when it was made, but it works, it flows, and the last 6-8 inches actually tapers open from 51mm to 56mm right before the 2-1 flange. So, from that perspective it wasn't perfect, but it was. . . acceptable. Downstream from there, I had options. . PRICEY options. . .Termi slip-on, Akro Slip-on, several twin glasspack single pipe designs that curved around the oil pan sump, that were STILL pricey (like $1500 for an AR system. . ) The single pipe/dual glass pack designs looked promising, though. Simple, no Convertors, easy to install, and light even though made of stainless. But they all had one drawback. They all had at least one portion of the plumbing that was still limited to 56mm diameter, even though other sections were 61-64mm. That meant that for all their size and potential flow, the exhaust would increase in speed in certain areas, reduce speed in others, and the end result would be either a finite amount of flow, or one degraded slightly by the changes in diameter. And for the price, I couldn't see buying a unit that had a built-in diameter mismatch where a constant diameter system, or even one that did a gradual 'tapering expansion' of the diameter would have been very preferable.

I didn't care about material, Titanium is very expensive, and offers no overall power advantage. . Good stainless will last literally forever, is slightly heavier, not as 'pretty' as the Titanium fanboys want, but works perfectly well. So, stainless it was .. and I started looking for a proper, decently designed, efficient, good quality and INEXPENSIVE slip-on. Yeah, I'm a sucker for the underdog success stories too. But I figured that if I couldn't find one, I'd just pull out the MIG and grinder and get to work and build my own. After all, I'm retired. I have all the time in the world to do that if I wish (I still may, too. Dual straight pipes on a Ducati at 11,000 rpm . ..oh the savage beauty of that thought. . )

And here we get to the meat of the post. . I looked, a lot, and found something that piqued my interest.

Included is the original dyno run. Please ignore that silly high torque reading. . no way the bike was actually making that. instead, just look at the curves. yup. Normal, Disappointing....ugh!!

So, the solution, beyond numerous road test runs, lots of adjustments using Tuneboy, changing the throttle opening curves in the engine Map, was to install a slip-on that I mentioned in these forums a year ago, and asked for 'expert' advice about. It was poo-poo'ed by the 'Experts', called 'plumbing' adn other things, and basically trashed as the improper solution for the problem. It had to be Akro, Termi, or Competition werks, maybe AR or another 'reputable' vendor. The price was not right, the design would propbably not work, etc etc etc. . . Yeah. $2000-5000.

Nope. $425 to my door, shipped out Poland.

Dominator Exhaust 1199 slip-on:

Dominator Exhaust Ducati Panigale 1199 2012 - 2014



And here's the Dyno run I just did. These numbers are very accurate. Took it to the rev limiter at 11,432 rpm, which is the hP peak on this run.

The price has gone up slightly on the exhaust. it's now about 520GBP. But the power curve is right there with almost any other street exhaust I've seen listed, and a LOT cheaper than the big-name systems out there (looking at YOU Termi and Akro) Weight is 8.2 lbs installed, and in almost ayear of using it I've had zero problems.

The first time I hit the throttle on the 1199 all I could think was OH MY GOD!!. Finally got the mid-range working. No more bogging intake sound. The time consuming but very doable fuel mapping resulted in this graph for a full-throttle pull from 2500-9500 on the street, limited only by road condition, the LAW, and my desire to not really take it to redline on the street in 4th gear. I'm sure additional fine-runing could get the 'perfect' fuel ratios, but this is plenty close enough for 99% of situations.

bp_SFV4 said:

There were three replies to your thread last year, one of which was you. One guy said it looked like plumbing, the other said it looked like a Competition Werks knock-off.

Click to expand...

You just HAD to say something. .

Paul G said:

He always does, but trust me its a waste of electrons

Click to expand...

Well, I have him blocked, but somehow he slid into text.

Getting the Fuel Curve correct was a bit of a PITA. I had the Innovate O2 sensors with a running graph for reference, but there was no way to get an accurate Tach signal to correlate RPM in the acceleration curve. I tried using ignition pulses from teh coils but they are CDI,. so the 4-channel SSI-4 (Simple Sensor Interface) would not detect the RPM. i tried using the injector pulses with the same lack of success. I spent about 10 days trying a number of different ways to get a signal, but to no avail. This was very important, because the Fuel Trim does not follow the throttle input. It follows what the COMPUTER wants the throttle blades to do. So you give 100% throttle, and the computer limits the throttle blades to a certain percentage, which is not 100%. So, if you don't know what RPM you are at, and what Throttle Blade position percentage the computer is signaling, there is no way you can correlate which actual Fuel Trim cell to adjust for an accurate mixture change. Above about 50% throttle, on the road acceleration testing happens too quickly for the proper number of samples to occur for the Tune Boy system to do a roll-on automatic adjustment of fuel trim. Even dragging the brakes is not effective in keeping the acceleration slow enough forgood samples to be taken. What you need is something showing where in the Fuel Trim the computer is sampling, the actual O2 value at that moment, the RPM, and the Throttle input from the twist grip to signal the onset of a 100% power run to mark the beginning and end of the testing event.

Enter full screen video capture. On the screen is the Fuel Trim Map, TuneBoy Target screen showing both O2 sensors, engine temperature, and the location of the rpm/throttle position in the target screen, the Dial Gauge panel for the Innovate O2 sensors and Throttle position (.5-5VDC) to show when the testing pass begins and ends, and the running graph of the O2 Sensors and Throttle. In this way you can correlate each input and signal with the others, see which Trim Cell is being sourced, and change the value in that cell to affect the AF mixture at that point in the Trim Map. So, I make a run, recording the session and paking at least 2-3 passes, switching halfway through to show first the Front cylinder, then the Rear cylinder, Save the video and Innoivate files, transfer it to my desktop and make the necessary changes, then reflash the ECU. Time consuming, yeas. Less than perfectly efficient, again, yes, but it's a lot less expensive than 4-5 hours of Dyno time and it gives you a lot of feedback as to how sensitive those Fuel Trim Cells actually are.

There is no value correlation, that I can see, between the number in the Fuel Trim cell, and a length of time of injector pulse, or percentage of injector capacity. At least I haven't been able to find that information. So, it tok a bit of a learning curve to get a feel for how sensitive the Cell value changes were. Above about 11:1 AF ration, the cels would move a lot more than expected. +- 8-10 whole numbers could result in going from 14:1 to 11.5:1 depending on the RPM and throttle blade percentage. So, I overshot the desired the desired change a number of times. going rich, then lean, then back rich again as I slowly reduced the amounts of changes to get the Fuel trim. Eventualy I got to where I halfway understood the amount of change that would be initiated by a certain amount of vlaue change for each cell, and came up with a decently close AF curve for the full-throttle postion of the Fuel Trim Map.

Here's a short video of the Screenshot from an actual run. Note the actual Fuel Trim cell being addressed throughout the run. They are definitely not all on the top 100% row. (yes, I know its the FREE version of movie maker. . . . )

Video runs at 1/2 speed, fuel trim scell selection is yellow

SBK-SP said:

Is anyone actually reading this drivel?

Click to expand...

Obviously YOU are. And your commentary and attitude prove why Forums are always the hunting grounds for less than stellar personalities to lurk and bully at their convenience. Try saying something positive, inquisitive, entertaining, even mildly conversational instead. Wayy too many fanboy/sociopathic/bully personalities on the Forums across the Web. Surely the Ducatistas can do better than that?

This sounds personal. Sad. It's all good information, that a lot of people don't even consider. The mysteries inside the electronic functions of FI are not familiar to most people. Since I've been working with these systems for about 35-40 years, passing that knowledge, which you call 'drivel' , along to other people is 2nd nature. A bit of video show and tell never hurt anyone. So, if you and others like you don't like it, just walk on past. No need to comment or prove that what normal people think about you is still true.

Seth Vo said:

Modifications are an art and I enjoy when people try something different and then try to validate if it really helped or did not help.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea but I like the information personally as while I've built a good number of performance engines in still always open to learning.

His mod may not look pretty but you can't argue with the improvements in the power curve.

Click to expand...

Well, the MOD looks great, very light, simple and unassuming. Losing 10 ugly stock exhaust pounds at the same time is a big bonus on a bike that now weighs 397lbs wet, without breaking the bank to do it. People should learn to think outside the box to solve problems or modify existing technology to get the job done, instead of just bolting on what everyone else uses, patting eachother on the back for their accomplishment, then pronouncing the job finished. Orvile and Wilbur would never have flown if they did what everyone else did. Franky had it right.

If someone reads these posts and receives motivation to go out and do it themselves, even better. The more people who tackle these sorts of things by themselves, the broader the knowledge base and the greater the depth of ability we all will have as a group.

I'm still seriously considering the hand-fitted dual pipe exhaust, though, just to see how it works out. The tiny twin-dip in the torque curve is a direct result of the 2-1 flow area being restrictive and turbulent. It's right at the resonance point for that event in the rpm band. If it was smoothed out a bit, and retuned for better flow with a mild diverging cone of about 10-12mm following the 6500 rpm resonance point, I think the entire curve would perk up in the 3000-6500 range, as well as picking up a few more ponies in the top end. That's what the formula's and engineering specs say. Probably a project for this coming Winter.