ive been running the hd parade fan on my bike for around 6 years.. ive got it wired to a thermostat that tells it when to come on... it works great for me... i moved horn to the front faring... oem horn is crappy but 2 aftermarket horns do the trick..i

 

Thank you guys for all the positive feedback on this thread.

As many of you are, I am also surprised at how well this “parade” fan seems to work. It has exceeded all of my expectations. Because the results were so surprising, I’ve even re-assessed my test methodology to make sure I’m not missing something that may be skewing the data. As far as I can tell the test is sound.

There is no way I’d ever want to post a thread such as this if it contained any misleading information. The only SLIGHT reservation I have at this point is that the testing to date has been performed at relatively mild ambient temperatures (70-72 degrees). It will be interesting to see how well the fan performs in higher ambient temperatures.

I’m looking forward to some 90 degree temperatures as summer approaches. My plan is to repeat a portion of, or this entire test, when that time gets here. I’d expect that as the ambient temperature rises, the efficiency of the fan will decrease somewhat. I just don’t know how much yet. But that said, I also expect the results to be positive. Time will tell.

I’ll reserve my final assessment until the warmer weather testing is completed, but from what I’ve seen so far I expect this project is going to be a resounding success. I’m even thinking that the oil cooler fans I installed aren’t going to be necessary at all because the “parade” fan works so well.

I’ll revive this thread when I have the hot weather testing data to share.

Thanks again,
John

 

One thing you may want to do to improve the accuracy/credibility of your test results is reorder your test procedures to remove the EITMS from the equation. What I mean is, the EITMS is intended to provide a cooling effect by letting the rear cylinder ingest cool air while no ignition occurs to add heat. By turning on the fans with EITMS enabled the fans aren't the only thing that is providing cooling. Maybe you could start the test with the fans on then turn them off and record the temperature increase, then restart the fans just prior to the EITMS engaging

BTW, I totally believe the results of your tests. It's exactly what I would expect to see.

 

Thanks for the doing this test. Very well done.
My only concern is how much the oil cooler fans are helping. Before I spend that kind of money I would like to see what the Parade fan only with no oil cooler fans involved would do. I'm sure the motor fan only will help, but I wonder just how much.

 

Well this engineer loves your test and results. Fact is most of us want the bike cooler when at idle, personally heat on the highway has never been an issue. Thanks for the post!

 

As already mentioned, it would be a good to retest with EITMS off. There is a cooling effect in using it; although, in my experience it only "slows" the rate in which the engine temp skyrockets, not actually brings the temp down to a comfortable level.

I understand you're trying to simulate stuck in traffic. Most times that means slowly creeping along in 1-2 mile per hour spurts in less than 1 minute durations. This means EITMS NEVER comes on because you need to be stopped for more than one minute for it to come on. Another reason to remove EITMS from the equation.

I also believe that since the engine is primarily air-cooled it only "helps the issue" to cool the oil with an oil-cooler. Yes, I run one anyway. Point is your testing proves [to me] that moving air really does a much better job in cooling down the engine than heavy duty oil coolers or two coolers or billet oil heat sinks etc etc. Air-cooled engine...Move air....go figure.

So that said, I want to thank you for taking the time to perform the test and post the results. I think I'll be getting a fan now. Just have to find one that doesn't catch fire and lasts more than a week...

lp

 

I've had mine on since 07 with no problems. I do see knock-off fans that look like Lenale but i ordered mine fro Eastern Performance to be sure it's the real deal.

 

Two recurring questions from respondents are 1) what role did the oil cooler fans play; and 2) what role did the EITMS play; in the results described?

In my opinion neither of these had a significant effect but they are legitimate questions. Obviously some effect would be expected, but I think those effects would be in the "noise" level and will be lost within the accuracy and resolution of the test equipment. That's how minor I believe they are.

But for the sake of completeness and clarity, I'm going to eliminate those two variables and repeat the test next week if the weather will cooperate. I'll need to run the test at the same ambient temperature to get an apples to apples comparison.

Stay Tuned!

 

Like I said in the previous post, comments I received on the initial testing performed last week persuaded me to repeat the test. Two concerns were repeatedly identified. The first, what effect is the Engine Idle Temperature Management System (EITMS) having, and second, what effect are the oil cooler fans having?

To answer those concerns, today I repeated the test eliminating those two variables. The test process remained the same except where in the original test I turned on the LeNale fan when the EITMS activated, in today’s test the EITMS was disabled and I turned the fan on when the engine temp reached 293 deg F (approx the same temp as the EITMS would activate if it was enabled). The oil cooler fans were also disabled.

The results are very similar confirming my initial thoughts that any, if any at all, effect of the EITMS or oil cooler fans on the results would be minimal. The only characteristic of the new data vs. the old that I can see is that at the lower end the temps took a little longer to stabilize. We’re only talking a few degrees over the final minutes of each test cycle. This may be an effect of eliminating the the oil cooler fans, I can't imagine this is an effect of eliminating the EITMS since it isn't active near these temps anyway, but it may also be attributable to normal common cause variation. In any case the amount we’re talking about is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I've attached charts of both tests, and here’s the numbers for Test #2:

With fan ON 230.0 deg F baseline. Time (T) = 0 minutes. Ambient temp 68-70 deg F.
Turn fan OFF @ T+0
253.4 @ T+1
282.4 @ T+2
293.0 @ T+2’30”
Turn fan ON @ T+2’30”
296.6 (Peak Temp) @ approximately T+2’40”
289.4 @ T+3
266.0 @ T+4
253.4 @ T+5
244.4 @ T+6
240.8 @ T+7
239.0 @ T+8
237.2 @ T+9
235.4 @ T+10
235.4 @ T+11 (temp stabilized)
Turn fan OFF @ T+11
257.0 @ T+12
285.8 @ T+13
293.0 @ T+13’15”
Turn fan ON @ T+13’15”
296.6 (Peak Temp) @ approximately T+13’25”
285.8 @ T+14”
266.0 @ T+15
253.4 @ T+16
246.2 @ T+17
242.6 @ T+18
240.8 @ T+19
239.0 @ T+20
237.2 @ T+21
237.2 @ T+22 (temp stabilized)
End of Test

 

Nice job, you definately packaged the results nicely. Don't know if you are interested, but I would be curious to see the results of the same test running only the cooler fans, and one running only the parade fan. I never monitored my CHTs, so it would also be interesting to see the CHT relationship to oil temps. Again very nice project, you did a great job.