K&N again, little differant question though

[gregvhen]

Has anybody put a lunchbox on their otherwise stock bike. stock jets and pipes specifcally?  and used something to put over the box to restrict air more so it doesnt lean out?  I ask cause having the K&N insted of the big bulky box would not only be easier to take on and off, but would free up space that could in turn be used for other stuff, say electrical or storage or something.

[centuryghost]

I've been wanting to do the same. I'm sick of messing with the air box!

[ineedanap]

I had mine on with a stock exhaust for a while.

I used the same jetting that you would use for a lunchbox and pipe and it was pretty close.  Bike ran good that way.  

EDIT I reread your post and I realized this in no way answers your question about stock jetting.  

[kylegod]

If you eliminate the stock airbox, i'm pretty sure you'd have to rejet. Thats a pretty significant change in air intake. Ff you get from buhdda its cheap and well worth it. If I could take back my Dynojet buy i would. Im sure he can give you a package that will work with a lunchbox and a stock pipe.

[Robzor]

A rejet is required.  Not speculation on my part, experience.

I eliminated my airbox as part of a diagnosis (long story), with stock pipe, stock jetting (2001+) you are very, very lean.  More than I would have expected.  You can get it rideable by setting the idle screws about 3.5 turns out, almost full rich, which will get it to behave at low speed, low revs, and partial throttle opening.  The mid and main jets are still MASSIVELY undersized - this means more than part throttle, and high rev, you are dangerously lean.  Case and point, the missing at high rev was so bad I couldn't sustain 60mph in 6th gear - how bad was the detonation, and the egt, somewhere between bad and catastrophic.

I rejetted to, can't quite recall what now, I think 20/65/142.5, which is rideable but has a flat spot in the midrange.  Not the best solution performance wise.  Sounds cool tho.