08-28-2020, 01:33 AM
(08-28-2020, 12:17 AM)Jambo_imp Wrote: This thread as it relates to the cost effectiveness of the aftermarket reusable filter could be extended to a lot of other stuff we do.
The K&N air filter. Supposed to flow more air than stock filter, to which I have never seen empirical data from K&N, only claims, but the same argument could apply.
I have reused stock air filters. Just vacuum them off in the opposite direction from the normal flow to remove dirt, dust, grit. I have even used solvent, though would not recommend that. I always have filter oil on hand for a variety of machines. Then reuse. You could argue that you could get (riding condition dependent), 30-50K miles out of one. How many reuses of a K&N would it take to pay for the 1-200% premium over stock to make that filter cost effective? Maybe because it is alleged to be cleanable, and perhaps withstands that better than the OEM, you would be inspired to clean them more often and result in better filtration consistently over time.
Or, you could just say I am paying the extra money for better performance and the cost be darned.
How cost effective is an aftermarket seat. How cost effective is the Delkevic full exhaust system, or the Power Commander?
Sometimes the money isn't the only thing, but some perceived performance increase, or we just like it better.
We are surprisingly adept at justifying anything.
In my case, I already had the filter on hand, just so happens, already paid for with intention of using it on another Honda, with dubious initial value vs. upfront cost to begin with. But it looks the $hit doesn't it?
Lol.
Reason enough for me to justify a significant percentage of the farkles on my bikes. If I started applying cost-effectiveness to my motorcycle-related buying decisions...yikes. That wouldn't end well.