|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Kamikaze II intake /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1243199945 Message started by diamond jim on 05/24/09 at 14:19:05 |
|
Title: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/24/09 at 14:19:05 After Guy left this afternoon I threw this intake together and went for a ride. I like it. The pipe is 2 1/2" OD (2" ID) 30 degree bend electrical PVC (gray) with a 4" Uni filter with 2 1/2" opening. The fitting for carb to intake pipe I already had. Total cost for all 3 is about $24. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022099.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by Yonuh Adisi on 05/24/09 at 14:24:19 That is pretty nice, and I love the way it follows the frame. Very unobtrusive. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by High-Def on 05/24/09 at 14:28:07 Impressive Jim. So is it done yet or you still tweeking on it? The Kamikaze I mean. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by JohnBoy on 05/24/09 at 15:10:12 Is the pvc with the 30 degree bend standard or did you bend it? Also, do you have your Turbulator installed? I also like the fact that the bend follows the frame. How did you support the filter? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by Ed L. on 05/24/09 at 15:26:31 That's really quite nice, where did the battery and electronics end up? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by verslagen1 on 05/24/09 at 15:31:11 How big a tour tank can you fit in that open space D'jim? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by diamond jim on 05/24/09 at 16:13:34 High-Def: Kamikaze 1 is about as tweaked as can get. I had been reading up on intake dimensions and have been wanting to try one that was just a little narrower than the tube I used with the K1 to increase velocity. My concern was if it would start to suffer at top speed. My run earlier was after it rained and streets had dried but just before another shower hit. I took it out on a section of open road and opened her up. I shifted from 4th to 5th at 75mph indicated speed then made it to 85mph before I had to slow due to traffic. She still had some go left in her but I wasn't able to find out. Indications so far is that it's it's not high flow limiting on my bike. Maybe so for an engine that revved to 12k-14K but not one that revs to 6500. I was reading another site last night about a guy who had set up his bike on a dyno with an intake adjustable for length and made several runs with varied intake tract lengths. He registered an 8hp gain when the intake length was at optimal length. Those runs were all made with the same jetting setup. This setup is pretty impressive thus far but don't forget that it works in conjunction with my exhaust pipe. The calculations we did on the other thread shows my exhaust puts my peak higher in the rpm range than stock. A tuned intake improves the lower end torque. Combined I get a strong pull that starts maybe 1500 rpms and seems to get progressively stronger through and to redline. I don't have a tach so can't be more specific. But the intakes seem to increae both the breadth and depth of the powerband. I'll try to do the dyno later this week or early next week. Also, the shaped metal under/behind the filter catches and puts cooler air at the intake area. Here's a pic of what I discovered a few months ago: http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/1-27.jpg The air in the blue area was noticeably cooler than the air right behind the engine. The plate seems to catch the air that goes around my legs and pushes it up. JohnBoy- it's a pre-bent piece from Lowes. It looks like this: http://www.mclendons.com/img/products/10/10073990.jpg No turbulator in it. The rounded the mouth of the intake tube though to reduce flow problems. The filter and intake tube together have so little weight so support is not really a factor. V1- I could fit a 2 gallon tank there, couldn't I? Hmmm... I'm not sure which intake I'll use for the dyno. Both seem to work pretty good but I want to do my acceleration-up-the-big-a$$-hill-not-far-from-my-house test. I know how the bike does on that long, tall hill in stock form, with pod filter and with the K1. BTW- this is a great read. http://bmwmotorcycletech.info/InExTuning.htm |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by verslagen1 on 05/24/09 at 16:37:15 212C24282A2B212F2C28450 wrote:
Sounds perfect to me. There's a spot on the petcock where it looks as if you can add another port to attach the lower tank. Which would need to be vented into the main tank. I would only have to tee into the CA vent tube. The petcock port would need a separate valve. Electric pump to refill the main tank. Hmmm... when I wanted to remove the main tank, I'd just have to plan on an empty tour tank and let the main tank drain into it. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by diamond jim on 05/24/09 at 17:09:01 Would a fuel pump be needed? Regarding this intake design, I used the Uni filter cause I was at a Cycle Gear shop and it was just sitting on the shelf with a $15 price sticker. I could do it with a pod filter as well. It looks to me that it I had kept the battery box in the stock location (with airbox removed) that this intake would still fit. The battery box would likely also act as a blocker to the air coming across the engine therefore supplying cooler air. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by High-Def on 05/24/09 at 17:14:00 Jim, Yes, I have been following your Kami I thread and was impressed to see this Kami II thread. Thanks for the detailed reply. I guess it's important for me to remember that it's all about tuning (pipe, carb, intake) ballance. Looking forward to reading on. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by Moofed on 05/26/09 at 09:49:55 Are you planning to put a anti turbulator in it? I've got a rental car (Chevy Aveo) for a bit due to unexpected engine failure of my '95 Buick Regal. :( BUT, I noticed that the air vents on the Aveo have a device similar to the turbulator behind the aimable vents. It uses little triangles instead of circles though. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II Post by diamond jim on 05/26/09 at 22:01:14 It's funny how we start to notice little things like that. No turbulator planned for the K2. I'm wondering if the narrower, uniform pipe will have less natural turbulence as compared to the stock tube. Don't know yet. I'm experimenting with 3 different lengths of the K2 intake. All 3 are 2" ID and all 3 are longer than the stock tube I used with the K1 intake. With the longest one on today, I hit the rev limiter three times today. Don't ever recall doing that before on this bike. Twice in 1st and once in 2nd during medium acceleration from stopped. It surprised me. The engine kept pulling and no obvious power plateau before redline. My hill test verified that a 2" diameter intake moves sufficient air to maintain 75mph up a steady 0.7 mile 14% grade hill when it is no longer than 6.5" from carb mouth to pipe fresh air inlet. It's pretty amazing how a 1/2" change in intake length moves the peak and effects the powerband A 1.25" length difference, same diameter, moved my normal riding shifting points. Here's a pic of the shortest one held up next to the longest one tha's mounted. Sure doesn't look like much difference in the pic. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022123.jpg Here's the parts of the smallest K2 intake minus the filter. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022113.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/26/09 at 22:14:01 did you deliberately lengthen it to get a ram effect off your heatshield that sits where bat box and airbox once did? if not, then you just kind of stumbled into a near ideal placement... not only is the air there cooler, but it would appear to be like the windshield of a car, and that's where you get the highest airpressue on a run, at the windshield... gonna idealize it without the anti-turbulator, and then try it with? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/26/09 at 22:34:56 Yep, you got it on the ram effect. That's why I initally did the wind ramp. Plus it looks better to me than just open frame and wires. With these experiments, I wanted to try the longest intake I could but didn't want the filter right up against the wind ramp. I figure I can get more air around the filter circumference and into the filter end with that little bit of space left there. Kinda hard to tell but in the top pic in the thread, the filter is touching the top lip of the ramp. In the pic in the post you responded to you can see the filter has about a 3/4" space between filter end and lip (in the pic the tube is actually longer than the first pic- but the filter is shortend by an inch so it kind of looks the same). I might make a new ramp designed specifically for this intake setup. It is certainly cooler air at the very back. There's not much of a gradual temperature change from just behind the engine to the top of the ramp. Rather, it's a consistent warm air behind in the front half of the opening then the back half is cool. It's like there's an invisible line splitting the airspace. But the air at the filter is both pressurized and cooler. Too bad I can't easily duplicate that on a dyno. I do have the money set aside for the dyno eval. Gonna try to do it later this week or early next week. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/26/09 at 22:40:53 im still betting on 39.6 hp at 5200 rpm....lol on the dyno, is his inertia, or strain guage? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/26/09 at 22:50:35 No clue. Let me see if he mentions it on his website. BTW, the most frequently printed info for the stock LS650 is 33 ft/lbs and 30hp. Crunching the numbers for shifting the peak up to 5200 I get 32.6hp. (33 ft lbs X 5200rpm)/ 5252 I know I'm getting more so what am I doing wrong, not considering, etc? Is that the sum total result estimate of better air in and out as well as fuel delivery? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/26/09 at 23:02:56 5C51595557565C525155380 wrote:
i thought it was (PxRPM)/3100 for theoretical HP... been a long time since i peeked at the formula though... if the dyno slips only list MPH and HP, it's inertia if it lists engine RPM, torque, and HP it's strain guage(the modern equiv of a prony brake).... strain guage variety is obviously much more informative.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/26/09 at 23:25:46 I've seen both 5250 and 5252. http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html/ http://www.elec-toolbox.com/Formulas/Motor/mtrform.htm |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/26/09 at 23:53:39 434E464A4849434D4E4A270 wrote:
A horsepower is a unit of power equal to 746 watts or 33,0000 lb-ft per minute (550 lb-ft per second). i cut and paste that from the second link... i also saw the torque formulas... the article in the first link also listed 550 lb-ft/second.... so, our 33 ft-lb of torque motor would have to spin at 16.5 rps to produce 1 pony?? that's 1000 rpm... that makes no sense.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by SV og LS on 05/27/09 at 01:17:19 5C50434259505D5D0002310 wrote:
All dynamometers measure torque from which power is derived. Inertia dynos such as DJ 250 and its clones can print out a lot of information depending which sensors are connected and included on a printout. I part timed on a major dyno shop from 2000 to 2002. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/27/09 at 05:48:26 So am I using the wrong formula? I like your results better using 3100! Regarding dyno type, here's the link that shows some pics of it: http://www.rodsperformance.com/services.htm |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 10:58:41 53566F674C53000 wrote:
All dynamometers measure torque from which power is derived. Inertia dynos such as DJ 250 and its clones can print out a lot of information depending which sensors are connected and included on a printout. I part timed on a major dyno shop from 2000 to 2002. [/quote] inertia dynos cant measure torque.... they calculate HP by how quickly the wheel can accelerate a large mass... if you track rpm during the run, you can interpolate torque fairly accurately, but you cant "measure" it... the dyno sheet Jim posted previously in this thread is an inertia dyno run.... road speed and HP only, no engine speed or torque figure.... a strain-guage dyno works like a prony brake... as the dyno spins, a load is applied to the roller(a brake is applied)... the restraining arm for that brake has a strain guage on it.. that supplies the torque figure(accurately measured, not estimated by formula), that is then interpolated to HP by keeping track of engine rpm... all engine dynos are strain guage type, but chassis dynos can be either.... needless to say, any mis-calculation or measurement of the rollers mass will effect the accuracy of the inertia dyno... strain guage type can be tested for accuracy with a torque wrench.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 11:05:18 5F525A5654555F5152563B0 wrote:
his torque curve is lumpy enough to be a strain guage dyno... the plumbing in the pic points to one also.... do venetian blinds and capet blowers equal "climate control"?.... rofl |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Rocco on 05/27/09 at 11:07:43 off the horsepower subject but related to the intake the stock intake i assume has a filter that sits under the seat right? so all u gotta do to free up some horses is get the hose that he showed, a filter that fits @ the end and connect it to the carb right? if i want to leave my battery the way it is would i leave the filter in the stock location or am i not doing anything then? and i read somewhere about removing the airbox? is that like on a car that the filter goes into? i know eliminating that and making a "cold air" setup frees up horses, but i'm just unsure about the whole thing. i'm a little nimbly bimbly on dew right now, so if i seem more a.d.d then usual that's y!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 11:17:37 6D505C5C503F0 wrote:
pretty much all correct, except that just changing the intake alone wont have a ton of effect... it WILL move your torque peak in the rev range, but increasing inhale efficiency without doing the same for exhale wont give alot of difference... imagine trying to run while breathing through a mcdonalds straw... wont get far... ok, now inhale normally, but still exhale through the straw... not much improvement to your 440 time that way.... get the picture? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Rocco on 05/27/09 at 11:24:00 makes sense! so you're saying an exhaust and intake upgrade would be better 2gether! now if i leave the filter in stock location that will still show gain right? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/27/09 at 11:48:46 Improved intake and exhaust will give you gains. But where those differences are will determine how much of a gain for you. For instance, if 90% of your riding is downtown, stoplight-to-stoplight, then gains in the low to mid range would be what I'd first shoot for. Mods taht improved the top end wouldn't seem much like gains due to the type of riding and lack of use of the upper rpm ranges. If the majority of your riding is highway and some interstate, then I'd focus more on increasing midrange and highway cruising power. You really can't do both equally well but you can find a happy medium between the two. Assuming all parts can move sufficient air for all rpms, a longer intake and a longer exhaust will improve low to midrange torque but the engine won't be quite as strong on the top end. In the opposite, a really short intake and short exhaust will improve mid-upper mid range and top end with the trade off being less torque on the low end. That's when you start experimenting with velocity, pressure waves, turbulence reduction, etc,. to fine tune, to minimize the trade offs and to get the most for the fewest $$$. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 11:50:30 1E232F2F234C0 wrote:
so long as the flow path is reasonably unrestricted (no real tight bends, nor excessively long) you can place your intake anywhere... Jim is trying to "tune" his intake and exhaust for max efficiency... just like changes in exhaust, intake diameter and length effect the "sweet spot" where the engine most efficiently packs the cylinder with air/fuel mix.... by balancing the 2, you get the most efficient packing of the cylinder for a particular rev range.... but, what gives Jim good results with his longshot wont do the same for a guy running a sporty muff, or a stock muff, because the "exhale efficiency" is different..... just like with a civic, you have to match your mods to gain power... flowmasters thrown on the end of the stock exhaust dont do alot for the civic, nor would just changing the filter... do both, and you get some gain... put in headers, a high flow pipe system, and the flowmaster with the lower restriction filter, and you see more.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Rocco on 05/27/09 at 11:50:39 i'm an around the towner, and i love the low end torque. whatever increases that for cheap, sign me up! |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by SV og LS on 05/27/09 at 11:51:47 434F5C5D464F42421F1D2E0 wrote:
inertia dynos cant measure torque.... they calculate HP by how quickly the wheel can accelerate a large mass... if you track rpm during the run, you can interpolate torque fairly accurately, but you cant "measure" it... the dyno sheet Jim posted previously in this thread is an inertia dyno run.... road speed and HP only, no engine speed or torque figure.... a strain-guage dyno works like a prony brake... as the dyno spins, a load is applied to the roller(a brake is applied)... the restraining arm for that brake has a strain guage on it.. that supplies the torque figure(accurately measured, not estimated by formula), that is then interpolated to HP by keeping track of engine rpm... all engine dynos are strain guage type, but chassis dynos can be either.... needless to say, any mis-calculation or measurement of the rollers mass will effect the accuracy of the inertia dyno... strain guage type can be tested for accuracy with a torque wrench....[/quote] Even with inertia dynos I always think it as torque which is inertia times acceleration and horsepower comes only when torque is multiplied with engine rpm. Is the strain gauge similar to old water brake dynos, measuring at a constant rpm? Around here (Denmark and northern Germany) I think most if not all dynos are inertia dynos. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 12:07:05 3F323A3634353F3132365B0 wrote:
checked about 20 sources, they all list the (PxRPM)/5250 formula, so im guessing the brain damage done in the 70s will have to explain my 3100 number... rofl |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 12:32:15 595C656D46590A0 wrote:
inertia dynos cant measure torque.... they calculate HP by how quickly the wheel can accelerate a large mass... if you track rpm during the run, you can interpolate torque fairly accurately, but you cant "measure" it... the dyno sheet Jim posted previously in this thread is an inertia dyno run.... road speed and HP only, no engine speed or torque figure.... a strain-guage dyno works like a prony brake... as the dyno spins, a load is applied to the roller(a brake is applied)... the restraining arm for that brake has a strain guage on it.. that supplies the torque figure(accurately measured, not estimated by formula), that is then interpolated to HP by keeping track of engine rpm... all engine dynos are strain guage type, but chassis dynos can be either.... needless to say, any mis-calculation or measurement of the rollers mass will effect the accuracy of the inertia dyno... strain guage type can be tested for accuracy with a torque wrench....[/quote] Even with inertia dynos I always think it as torque which is inertia times acceleration and horsepower comes only when torque is multiplied with engine rpm. Is the strain gauge similar to old water brake dynos, measuring at a constant rpm? Around here (Denmark and northern Germany) I think most if not all dynos are inertia dynos. [/quote] a water-brake dyno is pretty much a low tech strain guage type, as is the prony... though they dont run them "constant speed" anymore.. the controller applies load at a particular rpm until the engine slows, the distortion of the restraining arm at that point give the actual torque... a run would tend to start at redline, then be loaded to the torque peak rpm(engine stall point, or the threshold of it), then from low revs up to the peak torque point (or vice versa, one can do the low to peak first, and high to peak second, results will be the same)... a prony brake does the same by by using a scale at the end of a lever attached to a brake that slows the flywheel of the engine... the lever is the restraining arm, the scale the strain-guage... by running a constant engine speed, and applying the brake, one gets the "weight" measurement of the scale at the point of the engine slowing... you then repeat for each ordinate of your rpm scale... the weight registered multiplied by the arms length gives the torque.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by LANCER on 05/27/09 at 16:28:27 OK, I think I've got it; put bike on machine...run bike ... machine spits out numbers ... yep, I got it ! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 16:43:48 212C232E283F7F7A4D0 wrote:
pretty much covers it... forgot about the tie-downs though...lol |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/27/09 at 17:01:37 He said he'll do the exhaust analyzer too that will tell me where I need to go with the jets to fine tune it. I'm gonna see if he can work with me and do a couple of runs with different intakes including the Kamikaze with turbulator and the K2 with different lengths. It takes all of about 14 seconds to swap them out. I should have it all fine tuned before the Dragon trip. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/27/09 at 17:09:43 676A626E6C6D67696A6E030 wrote:
http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html check that article out... torque multiplication by the gearing, specifically... herein may well lie our answer.... also a leverage effect between the sprocket and tire diameters(though i think it would be disadvantage).... maybe this is why folks run dynos? lol |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/28/09 at 09:34:22 From: http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html "...if your camshaft is designed to peak at 4500 RPM, but your manifold and headers are tuned for 6500 RPM, your actual torque peak will fall somewhere between 4500 and 6500 RPM, and the useable torque band from 2500 to 4500 rpm will be lengthened and flattened." I think this is what I am seeing on my bike. The numbers may be a little different but the effect is the same. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Oldfeller on 05/28/09 at 09:44:12 Jim and Lancer -- are you turning over 5,500 rpm on your bikes with your head, cam and intake tract mods? Reason I ask is that would be an answer to the "do we have a rev limiter built into the black box?" great debate. Just curious .... Kelly |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by verslagen1 on 05/28/09 at 10:13:49 7F5C5456555C5C5542300 wrote:
5500 takes you up to 85, I do that uphill. A number of people have done a ton, that's 6500 rpm |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/28/09 at 11:07:50 Oldfeller- No tach on mine. And I probably often shift a little earlier than needed. Don't really care to wind out the engine. Just not my style. But I hit what seemed like a rev limiter two days ago (last time I rode) with the longest K2 intake. Never hit the rev limiter before. They were during medium-spirited acceleration from a stop and happened in 1st and 2nd gear. On high-spirited runs, the motor has always had a strong pull and then the torque starts to level out in the upper rpms, shift, repeat... (see Fig. 1) But on those three times when I hit the "rev limiter" it surprised me cause the engine was just pulling along nice and even, still getting progressively stronger.. then blah (see Fig. 2). I sensed no real strain on the motor, no flat spots, no torque falttening out, just a continuous, nice even pull then blah. It took me a second to realize what just happened and that I was that far up in the rpm range. Kind of like getting on a different bike for the first time. I know these graphs aren't scientific but just trying to capture my experience in graph form. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/revlimitergraph.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 07:19:28 Leaving now to do the dyno. Gonna use the Kamikaze 1 intake with the turbulator. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 08:39:29 434E464A4849434D4E4A270 wrote:
one buck on 39.6@5200...lol |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by SV og LS on 05/29/09 at 08:46:29 Virtual Euro on 35.5@5700 |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 08:47:55 73764F476C73200 wrote:
awright, we got a pool going!! lots more boxes available folks!! rofl |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by mikestrikes on 05/29/09 at 09:01:14 So on K2 its the longer inlet tube and the cooler air thats getting the power over K1's air straighteners.... have you ever thought about turning the tube and filter out to the side of the tank ? But I know the K2 is a much cleaner install. Good work.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 11:28:23 Well, only got it part done. Got it all mounted, sniffer in the tailpipe up past the baffle, engine on... and way too rich at idle. The stoichiometric air/fuel mixture, as you all know, is 14.7 to 1. He likes to shoot for about 12 to 12.5 on the idle circuit. Best we could get, even with playing around with the idle mixture screw, was 8.5. No reason to try to fine tune it when the pilot is that far off. We agreed that I needed to put the 52.5 back in. I would have done it right then and there but I only had the main jets with me. The 52.5 stocker is the one that I took out of my jet baggie and took to show him a few weeks ago cause I was looking for a 55 with no bleed holes. So I came back home and tore up the car, house and garage looking for it but to no avail. Crap! Gonna have to order another one, put it in and go back and try it again. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 11:33:15 363B333F3D3C36383B3F520 wrote:
just building the suspense, eh?...rofl bummer, bro, but i guess it explains the gas mileage too.... the joys of "custom".... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 12:12:27 Here's something funny- the two intakes, K1 and K2, don't work the same with the same filter on them. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022134.jpg http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022136.jpg K2, the top one, was the one I was just testing the other day doing max up a steep hill. No evidence of air restriction whatsoever. So this morning, before I head out for the dyno, I decided I'd put a foam filter on the K1 for the dyno run. Remembering how sensitive it was to the resistance of filter material when I was experimenting with it, I thought I'd reduce the resistance of the foam filter. The foam in the back of the filter is twice as thick as the sides. I flipped the filter inside out and trimmed some of the foam in the bottom/back of the filter to minimize resistance. Actually, I trimmed a little too much. The center, as you can see in the pic below, is so thin you can see the light through it. It's good enough though for a quick ride and a dyno run. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022139.jpg So, I put the K1 with foam filter on the bike. Head down the drive way- no problem. Turn on to the road- still going good. First long straight road I find I twist the throttle about 2/3rds. The rpms quickly climb then cough, sputter, cough. What the heck? Repeat and get the same result. The foam filter is way to restrictive for the K1. Yet it works great with K2. Question: does the K2 move sufficient air but the K1 moves maximum air? My first thought was that there is a little less internal airspace in the foam filter on the K1. But if should move air better with the back thinned out. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Duane on 05/29/09 at 12:21:06 Is the K1 sucking shut from the suction? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 12:24:00 your de-turbulation scheme causes very high "point velocities" in your airflow... the foam cant pass the air required quick enough.... the cylindrical shape as opposed to the hemispherical one of your original filter may have something to do with it... might be why you were so rich at idle, too.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 12:35:34 5061757A71140 wrote:
Doubt it. I ran it with the filter support. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022141.jpg Probably a surface area/decreased internal volume issue despite thinning the back of the filter. 5C50434259505D5D0002310 wrote:
I've wondered if it works too good. If maybe it's too effective at pulling the fuel up through the jets. After the bogging down experience I went back, put the filter on that I made for it originally and that's what I used for the dyno. Maybe with the K2 the idle would be closer to 12 to 12.5. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 12:46:00 but look at the installed shape... still cylindrical for the most part... imagine the holes through the filter as your de-turbulator straws on a micro scale... , now, let's also assume that the deturb actually draws the air from the filter in a linear manner (remember, the wind tunnels have the air being pushed though the honeycomb, but you have it being "sucked through").... which would have more "microstraws" pointed directly at each straws flowpath? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 13:03:43 5F5340415A535E5E0301320 wrote:
So, you're saying that the majority, if not all of the air, is entering in a linear fashion (red lines) and the sides (blue) aren't really doing much? The result, like you are suggesting if I understand correctly, is too little surface area + high velocity = not able to move enough air. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/flow-1.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by verslagen1 on 05/29/09 at 13:18:15 060B030F0D0C06080B0F620 wrote:
So, you're saying that the majority, if not all of the air, is entering in a linear fashion (red lines) and the sides (blue) aren't really doing much? The result, like you are suggesting if I understand correctly, is too little surface area + high velocity = not able to move enough air. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/flow-1.jpg[/quote] Depends on the veloscity of the air thru the duct whether it is naturally laminar or turbulent. In laminar flow, there's a veloscity distribution across the duct. Air flows faster in the center then the edges. The straws accomplish 2 things they dampen out turbulence and equalize the velocity across the duct. I'll have to find my fluids text book someday. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 13:40:39 7C6F7879666B6D6F643B0A0 wrote:
Dig them books out. Then you and Marshall can help me understand it better. And for those that don't know, it was Verslagen1 that came up with the idea of using wind tunnel technology and the name "turbulator". Giving credit where it's due. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 13:42:56 707D75797B7A707E7D79140 wrote:
So, you're saying that the majority, if not all of the air, is entering in a linear fashion (red lines) and the sides (blue) aren't really doing much? The result, like you are suggesting if I understand correctly, is too little surface area + high velocity = not able to move enough air. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/flow-1.jpg[/quote] kinda... look at it more 3-dimensionally... if you were to run a straight line from any pore of the filter media pependicular to the inner face of the media, which filter shape will have the most lines pointed at a straight flow path from a straw? the hemi-shaped one, i would think... the deturbulator is a collection of intake planes, each of which acts as an individual, that's why it deturbulates... if a shop vac will pick up a screw while being held 2 inches directly above it, will it also lift one 2 inches to the side? not usually, in my observations.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 13:50:34 What do you mean by hemi-shaped? Here's a thought. Maybe the K2, being narrower and longer and more like a vacuum hose, develops more inertia at the mouth of the tube and therefore is more effective at pulling air through the foam filter whereas the K1 has more inertia after the turbulator and thus unable to overcome the same level of filter resistance as the K2 design. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 14:07:26 0409010D0F0E040A090D600 wrote:
"hemi"-spherical...lol the inertial differences is a valid theory too... might well be a combo of many differences "stacking" minor flow changes into a major difference.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by verslagen1 on 05/29/09 at 14:15:30 4F4350514A434E4E1311220 wrote:
Hmmm ... pick up a screw while being held 2 inches directly above it ... it's that called gravity? and that's it's more a case of aiming? Or assuming (don't say it) you actually meant pick up screw 2" below it, don't you think if the drag of airflow on the screw could overcome the force of gravity, that it could also overcome the force of friction which is a function of gravity? And it's a long time proven fact that a duct with a bell mouth inlet will out perform a straight duct. It's like trying to drag a rope over a knife edge vs. the diameter of a pipe |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/29/09 at 14:30:17 405344455A5751535807360 wrote:
Hmmm ... pick up a screw while being held 2 inches directly above it ... it's that called gravity? and that's it's more a case of aiming? Or assuming (don't say it) you actually meant pick up screw 2" below it, don't you think if the drag of airflow on the screw could overcome the force of gravity, that it could also overcome the force of friction which is a function of gravity? And it's a long time proven fact that a duct with a bell mouth inlet will out perform a straight duct. It's like trying to drag a rope over a knife edge vs. the diameter of a pipe[/quote] but if it just barely overcomes the gravity linearly, will it have the "oomph" to overcome both simultanously(directly lift the offset screw), or will it drag the screw across the floor, then lift it from a position directly below the nozzle? that's with constant flow, not pulsed... if you just "bumped" the vac power switch on and off rapidly, would it overcome the offset screw's inertia at all? which shape of filter would give the pores of the media a more "bell shaped" orientation? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/29/09 at 15:36:18 Here's a good read and video: http://www.circletrack.com/enginetech/ctrp_0806_mc_part_5/index.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThmW2SW1I-k |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by SV og LS on 05/29/09 at 23:37:12 And a little background music, a couple of bikes growling and howling on a dyno room: KTM 610 Supermoto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtwUoCUgn7I) Ducati 1098S (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=YSUUqWqhGG8&ytsession=F-GtUAaRdkjIuE5SYA3BOueC3PVVhKnIrBT39PmUNFiMWp7vemAWLoVjtThzH8yi3vNcbpqU-IwtB9UdRhIwfprIRVem_KWC_KK2i0BAYkmrOWcg9L24V2XxSQQmtAm34AZJJsdY9VvUhMvbYjf4Wdk2rhYzCg8BpT-yS7CCqYMcrIiuDRE80L86rw5UXZJd0J56oNBOBUVwbFbGKtqZpH_o48b9KutqkNCHglLu5N6B8YMioQcAARq-KPC17cpeJyE96icfQInay_J6sltbL8ErsFt3d7ZJCvm-qSk8sXU) Yamaha R6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tmAU1SCaU) |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 05/30/09 at 07:26:05 Well the wife and I decided we needed some beach time so we are at her her parent's condo in Gulf Shores for the weekend. As for jets, you gotta buy 4-5 at a time on many sites. Anybody know of a site where I can buy a variety of single jets or does someone have extra jets, including a 52.5 pilot, that I could buy? |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by marshall13 on 05/30/09 at 11:29:39 414C44484A4B414F4C48250 wrote:
i liked the article, the vid take with a grain of salt, as it's somebody trying to sell his product... infomercials(even on youtube) usually contain much more "-mercial" than "info-".... bear in mind, Jim, the article deals with valve side of the carb intake runners, not filter to carb, but the vast majority of the info is extremely useful... really loving the low-budget manometer rig.... could use the same set-up to synch carbs too.... |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 06/01/09 at 09:14:24 Experimenting with a shorter intake... http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/S4022145.jpg ... resulting in slightly lower torque real low, from take-off to maybe 1600 rpms, compared to the longest K2, but added about 4-5 mph on the top end during my big a$$ hill test and accelerates a little faster from 70mph when on the interstate. Tried again using the foam filter like a direct mount pod filter- no better on the hill test but definitely less torque on the low end. It's funny how little changes in the intake length move the power and performance around. |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by Duane on 06/01/09 at 12:27:26 Man that's a big hole, looks like you need another cylinder in there now. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Kamikaze II intake Post by diamond jim on 06/02/09 at 12:25:00 Well, in using the 2" intake, this appears to be a pretty dang good setup for my bike. The intake length is right in the middle between the shortest and the longest one tested. The filter has much more surface area than the foam filter and the length of the filter puts it in position to collect air from the cool air deflector. This is the 5" K&N with the 20 degree bend that I bought a little while back. http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/k2withkandn.jpg Next I'll see about making another turbulator to go in the mouth of this intake tube. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |