TL vs. Chrysler 300C: Round 2
04-06-2004, 12:46 PM
#201
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pathetic, how many times do I have to read posts from the same people rehashing the same tired shit?
Problem solved.
04-06-2004, 12:47 PM
#202
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
P1 V1 = P2 V2
Is the Combined Gas Law where temperature is constant.
Now you're saying it's not? LOL
Let's all keep repeating articles now.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
BTW, still waiting for your Pitot Theory application to the WS6. Your continuous diversions show us all that you're full of SH!T.
Is the Combined Gas Law where temperature is constant.
Now you're saying it's not? LOL
Let's all keep repeating articles now.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
BTW, still waiting for your Pitot Theory application to the WS6. Your continuous diversions show us all that you're full of SH!T.
P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)
Instead I mistakenly wrote:
P1 V1 = P2 V2
Show me where I once said (in my own words) "Combined Gaw Law" in the context of this conversation.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.
The results will-as Doran stated in his test four years ago-surprise you. All ram-air induction systems are obviously not created equal. In the following graphs, the upper line denotes wheel speed and the lower line represents airbox pressure."
04-06-2004, 12:48 PM
#203
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct. The point that is getting lost here is that power was gained. However, it's not because of the ram-air effect, but rather lower intake temperature and denser air.
04-06-2004, 12:49 PM
#204
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Norse396
Excellent point, now I'm trying to remember how many times this point has been made but argued anyway?
For any given temp, air box pressure rises in a (well designed) RAM AIR system because:
Pstatic = .5 x r x Velocity^2
04-06-2004, 12:51 PM
#205
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show me where I once said (in my own words) "Combined Gaw Law" in the context of this conversation.
04-06-2004, 12:51 PM
#206
:lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: P1 V1 = P2 V2 isn't the combined gas law?!?!?!?!?!?
I mistakenly wrote the Combined Gas Law while I meant to write down my shopping list. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
I mistakenly wrote the Combined Gas Law while I meant to write down my shopping list. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
04-06-2004, 12:52 PM
#207
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
P1 V1 = P2 V2 isn't the combined gas law?!?!?!?!?!?
But I was never discussing the combined gas law. You ASSUMED that I was as explained below:
For the sake of this discussion (where many variables cancel), I should have wrote:
P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)
Instead, I mistakenly wrote:
P1 V1 = P2 V2
04-06-2004, 12:53 PM
#208
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tracy, CA
Age: 51
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TLover
Since HD is a proponent of links to back up arguments, here are two. Now tell me what you think about ram air.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
04-06-2004, 12:54 PM
#209
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TLover
Hello?
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.
The results will-as Doran stated in his test four years ago-surprise you. All ram-air induction systems are obviously not created equal. In the following graphs, the upper line denotes wheel speed and the lower line represents airbox pressure.
..................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
04-06-2004, 12:55 PM
#210
Yeah, when you post the Combined Gas Law, we figure you mean the Combined Gas Law. Silly us.
How can you make that mistake. They AREN'T EVEN CLOSE. The Combined Gas Law is one of the most fundamental forumlas in fluid mechanics which you claimed to have taken a year of. Then you make the Bernoulli argument, then make the exact opposite arguement with Pitot Theory (which we're still waiting for the applied WS6 mathematics for BTW).
Nope...you're simply full of SH!T.
Originally Posted by Mullethead
P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)
Instead I mistakenly wrote:
P1 V1 = P2 V2
Instead I mistakenly wrote:
P1 V1 = P2 V2
Nope...you're simply full of SH!T.
04-06-2004, 12:56 PM
#211
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
Yeah, when you post the Combined Gas Law, we figure you mean the Combined Gas Law. Silly us.
How can you make that mistake. They AREN'T EVEN CLOSE. The Combined Gas Law is one of the most fundamental forumlas in fluid mechanics which you claimed to have taken a year of. Then you make the Bernoulli argument, then make the exact opposite arguement with Pitot Theory (which we're still waiting for the applied WS6 mathematics for BTW).
Nope...you're simply full of SH!T.
How can you make that mistake. They AREN'T EVEN CLOSE. The Combined Gas Law is one of the most fundamental forumlas in fluid mechanics which you claimed to have taken a year of. Then you make the Bernoulli argument, then make the exact opposite arguement with Pitot Theory (which we're still waiting for the applied WS6 mathematics for BTW).
Nope...you're simply full of SH!T.
P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)
P1 V1 = P2 V2
While my stated equation was erroneous, my basic claim of a relationship between pressure and velocity was sound.
What is there about this basic equation that you have "issues" with:
P = .5 x r x v2
04-06-2004, 01:00 PM
#213
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
In order to revisit them, you have to have visited them in the first place. Given your nonsense thus far...that would be impossible.
density doesn't change
That leaves us with
Pstatic = Velocity^2/2
04-06-2004, 01:00 PM
#214
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The inlet temps were essentially FIXED in those tests. All one has to do is read them to see that
The WS6 doesn't care if it's in a lab, it lives on the street and in real life Ram Air does squat but have a name that was coined to sell cars.
NOBODY with a brain installs a Ram Air system thinking they are Raming air into the engine. I've talked to some guys who thought that rear wings help plant their car better for traction at high speeds with a FWD car that understood the benefit from getting fresh air into the engine more directly than the crummy air boxes installed on most cars.
If they get it, why can't you? Or are you installing a front bumber wing designed for lift at high speed on your Camaro, for traction on a RWD car? Heck, this may start a new 30 page diatribe.
04-06-2004, 01:02 PM
#215
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Norse396
How can something be essentially fixed, this is like saying it's almost a fixed temp. I digress, either way Ram Air isn't happening. Cooler/dense air is the effect of having a direct flow of air from the outside to the inside (simple terms, but makes my point I hope) and has a more direct effect regarding power made.
The WS6 doesn't care if it's in a lab, it lives on the street and in real life Ram Air does squat but have a name that was coined to sell cars.
NOBODY with a brain installs a Ram Air system thinking they are Raming air into the engine. I've talked to some guys who thought that rear wings help plant their car better for traction at high speeds with a FWD car that understood the benefit from getting fresh air into the engine more directly than the crummy air boxes installed on most cars.
If they get it, why can't you? Or are you installing a front bumber wing designed for lift at high speed on your Camaro, for traction on a RWD car? Heck, this may start a new 30 page diatribe.
The WS6 doesn't care if it's in a lab, it lives on the street and in real life Ram Air does squat but have a name that was coined to sell cars.
NOBODY with a brain installs a Ram Air system thinking they are Raming air into the engine. I've talked to some guys who thought that rear wings help plant their car better for traction at high speeds with a FWD car that understood the benefit from getting fresh air into the engine more directly than the crummy air boxes installed on most cars.
If they get it, why can't you? Or are you installing a front bumber wing designed for lift at high speed on your Camaro, for traction on a RWD car? Heck, this may start a new 30 page diatribe.
Are you claiming that ambient temp was changing significantly in the ~ 15 seconds it takes these bikes to accelerate from 0 - ~ 150 MPH?
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.
The results will-as Doran stated in his test four years ago-surprise you. All ram-air induction systems are obviously not created equal. In the following graphs, the upper line denotes wheel speed and the lower line represents airbox pressure.
..................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
04-06-2004, 01:02 PM
#216
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Of course they're close...when you're going from memory and haven't revisited the specific equations in some time....
While my stated equation was erroneous, my basic claim of a relationship between pressure and velocity was sound.
What is there about this basic equation that you have "issues" with:
P = .5 x r x v2
While my stated equation was erroneous, my basic claim of a relationship between pressure and velocity was sound.
What is there about this basic equation that you have "issues" with:
P = .5 x r x v2
How you apply Pitot Theory to the WS6 which we've all been waiting for for a few hours now. SHOW US THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS as I have done in 2 threads now.
Use THAT formula to compute the gain in pressure and then compute the pressure into HP for the WS6.
If you are so versed in Pitot Theory this should be easy. This is 1st semester fluids work. 2nd semester which you've claimed to have taken would make it very easy for you to take into accound all the bends and odd shapes of the airbox as well as impedance from filter flow.
Show us the math for the WS6 ram air system and how much of an increase in static pressure there is, and then show us how much HP is gained from that increase in static pressure.
04-06-2004, 01:04 PM
#217
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tracy, CA
Age: 51
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TLover
Since HD is a proponent of links to back up arguments, here are two. Now tell me what you think about ram air.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
04-06-2004, 01:06 PM
#218
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
The problem I have is how you got to this point. First you post the Combined Gas Law and molest it's variables. Then you go with Bernoulli, claiming that ram air works via Bernoulli's Principle by slowing the air thus increasing it's static pressure (while ignoring that it's impossible to get higher than STP from Bernoulli's Principle). Now you're on Pitot Theory. This shows me you don't know what the F you're talking about.
How you apply Pitot Theory to the WS6 which we've all been waiting for for a few hours now. SHOW US THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS as I have done in 2 threads now.
Use THAT formula to compute the gain in pressure and then compute the pressure into HP for the WS6.
If you are so versed in Pitot Theory this should be easy. This is 1st semester fluids work. 2nd semester which you've claimed to have taken would make it very easy for you to take into accound all the bends and odd shapes of the airbox as well as impedance from filter flow.
Show us the math for the WS6 ram air system and how much of an increase in static pressure there is, and then show us how much HP is gained from that increase in static pressure.
How you apply Pitot Theory to the WS6 which we've all been waiting for for a few hours now. SHOW US THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS as I have done in 2 threads now.
Use THAT formula to compute the gain in pressure and then compute the pressure into HP for the WS6.
If you are so versed in Pitot Theory this should be easy. This is 1st semester fluids work. 2nd semester which you've claimed to have taken would make it very easy for you to take into accound all the bends and odd shapes of the airbox as well as impedance from filter flow.
Show us the math for the WS6 ram air system and how much of an increase in static pressure there is, and then show us how much HP is gained from that increase in static pressure.
The WS6 has NOTHING to do with your INITIAL CLAIM, namely, that Ram Air is a myth at speeds below Mach 0.5.
This BASIC EQUATION, coupled with the ROAD/DRAG tests (forget the dyno with the "blower" clearly disprove your claim.
P = .5 x r x v2
04-06-2004, 01:07 PM
#219
Again...I'll state what I've stated from the beginning.
The gains from "ram air" in street applications don't come from a ramming effect. This is no appreciable compression of air at street speeds (even below Mach .5).
The HP gained from these kits if any is from CAI not from "higher pressure".
Still waiting for 1LE's own mathematics proving otherwise.
The gains from "ram air" in street applications don't come from a ramming effect. This is no appreciable compression of air at street speeds (even below Mach .5).
The HP gained from these kits if any is from CAI not from "higher pressure".
Still waiting for 1LE's own mathematics proving otherwise.
04-06-2004, 01:09 PM
#220
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
Again...I'll state what I've stated from the beginning.
The gains from "ram air" in street applications don't come from a ramming effect. This is no appreciable compression of air at street speeds (even below Mach .5).
The HP gained from these kits if any is from CAI not from "higher pressure".
Still waiting for 1LE's own mathematics proving otherwise.
The gains from "ram air" in street applications don't come from a ramming effect. This is no appreciable compression of air at street speeds (even below Mach .5).
The HP gained from these kits if any is from CAI not from "higher pressure".
Still waiting for 1LE's own mathematics proving otherwise.
P = .5 x r x v2
And again:
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
04-06-2004, 01:09 PM
#221
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, straight from an LS1 web site
How Does Ram Air Make HP?
This is a question we hear a lot. The answer is really quite simple and founded in science. A motor is really an air pump. The idea is to get as much air in and out as quickly as possible. However, stock motors actually do not take in as much air as their displacement indicates. This air comes into the motor under vacuum and is assisted by the weight of the atmosphere pressing down (barometric pressure). This process is not very efficient. This ratio of actual air entering the motor versus the actual displacment of the motor is called volumetric efficiency V.E.
A typical stock fuel injected motor is rated at about 85 % V.E. This means that out of the 346 cubic inches of air your motor could theoretically take in, only 85 % of that volume enters the cylinders. This translates to about 294 cubic inches of air. Some all out race motors can reach 100 % VE and supercharged or turbocharged motors actually exceed 100 % by forcing the air into the motor. Not everyone can afford a supercharger but there is definately room for improvement for the stock motor if you make it easier for it to get air into the motor for combustion. This is what ram air does.
As speed increases, the air entering through the sealed ram air kit actually becomes pressurized. This positive pressure helps to fill the cylinders more efficiency and raises the VE of the motor. As the VE increases, the motor becomes more efficient and produces more HP and also gives you better fuel economy. You will also find your throttle response dramatically improved. The motor is working less hard to fill the cylinder and is greatly assisted by the high pressure air. The faster you go, the greater the pressurization effect. This is similar to a mild supercharging effect.
The second benefit of a ram air system is that is supplies the engine with colder air than what it would normally breathe. Colder is more dense and contains more oxygen for the combustion process. For every 10 degree drop in intake air temperature, you can expect 1 % more HP. The ram air kit supplies cold air from the bottom of the car which is forced into the sealed air box. Unlike the stock system, the ram air kit does not let the motor breathe superheated air from the engine bay. Additionally, the computer detects this colder air and adds additional ignition timing. This makes more HP!
This is a question we hear a lot. The answer is really quite simple and founded in science. A motor is really an air pump. The idea is to get as much air in and out as quickly as possible. However, stock motors actually do not take in as much air as their displacement indicates. This air comes into the motor under vacuum and is assisted by the weight of the atmosphere pressing down (barometric pressure). This process is not very efficient. This ratio of actual air entering the motor versus the actual displacment of the motor is called volumetric efficiency V.E.
A typical stock fuel injected motor is rated at about 85 % V.E. This means that out of the 346 cubic inches of air your motor could theoretically take in, only 85 % of that volume enters the cylinders. This translates to about 294 cubic inches of air. Some all out race motors can reach 100 % VE and supercharged or turbocharged motors actually exceed 100 % by forcing the air into the motor. Not everyone can afford a supercharger but there is definately room for improvement for the stock motor if you make it easier for it to get air into the motor for combustion. This is what ram air does.
As speed increases, the air entering through the sealed ram air kit actually becomes pressurized. This positive pressure helps to fill the cylinders more efficiency and raises the VE of the motor. As the VE increases, the motor becomes more efficient and produces more HP and also gives you better fuel economy. You will also find your throttle response dramatically improved. The motor is working less hard to fill the cylinder and is greatly assisted by the high pressure air. The faster you go, the greater the pressurization effect. This is similar to a mild supercharging effect.
The second benefit of a ram air system is that is supplies the engine with colder air than what it would normally breathe. Colder is more dense and contains more oxygen for the combustion process. For every 10 degree drop in intake air temperature, you can expect 1 % more HP. The ram air kit supplies cold air from the bottom of the car which is forced into the sealed air box. Unlike the stock system, the ram air kit does not let the motor breathe superheated air from the engine bay. Additionally, the computer detects this colder air and adds additional ignition timing. This makes more HP!
I'm not an engineer but these guys are and they make points from both sides of the fence I think. Let me know what you guys think. Since I'm not an engineer I base my opinion on experience and people who I know know what they are saying. I find it hard to believe there could be a slight "super charger affect" but then what do I know. I may regret posting this...
of course they are also trying to sell something so now I may be regretting it more..
04-06-2004, 01:09 PM
#222
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
I don't give a FLYING SH*T about the WS6's "Ram Air" system; I bought the Z28 instead and performed the "FREE ram air mod."
The WS6 has NOTHING to do with your INITIAL CLAIM, namely, that Ram Air is a myth at speeds below Mach 0.5.
The WS6 has NOTHING to do with your INITIAL CLAIM, namely, that Ram Air is a myth at speeds below Mach 0.5.
Still waiting for your applied Pitot Theory there sport.
Come on...shouldn't be that hard to show mathematically in the WS6 that ram air builds horsepower.
RAM AIR ADDING APPRECIABLE HP IS A MYTH AT BELOW MACH .5.
SHOW ME THE MATH PROVING OTHERWISE. Take your Pitot Theory and show us all applied mathematics...IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what HP is gained.
Not another flawed test we've shot a zillion holes in. You're a fluids/engineer guy...SHOW US.
04-06-2004, 01:10 PM
#223
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
RAM AIR ADDING APPRECIABLE HP IS A MYTH AT BELOW MACH .5.
SHOW ME THE MATH PROVING OTHERWISE.
SHOW ME THE MATH PROVING OTHERWISE.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
04-06-2004, 01:12 PM
#224
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Posting formulas doesn't prove anything.
E=MC^2. There you go...a formuula proving you're full of sh!t. Oh, you want me to show you HOW it proves you're full of sh!t? That will come after you apply pitot theory to the WS6 which you posted an article of.
04-06-2004, 01:12 PM
#225
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
04-06-2004, 01:12 PM
#226
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
AGAIN, apply THAT FORUMULA...SHOW US THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS.
Posting formulas doesn't prove anything.
E=MC^2. There you go...a forumula proving you're full of sh!t. Oh, you want me to show you HOW it proves you're full of sh!t? That will come after you apply pitot theory to the WS6 which you posted an article of.
Posting formulas doesn't prove anything.
E=MC^2. There you go...a forumula proving you're full of sh!t. Oh, you want me to show you HOW it proves you're full of sh!t? That will come after you apply pitot theory to the WS6 which you posted an article of.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
04-06-2004, 01:15 PM
#228
Originally Posted by Norse396
Link - > http://www.fasttoys.net/ramairsystem.html
I'm not an engineer but these guys are and they make points from both sides of the fence I think. Let me know what you guys think. Since I'm not an engineer I base my opinion on experience and people who I know know what they are saying. I find it hard to believe there could be a slight "super charger affect" but then what do I know. I may regret posting this... of course they are also trying to sell something so now I may be regretting it more..
I'm not an engineer but these guys are and they make points from both sides of the fence I think. Let me know what you guys think. Since I'm not an engineer I base my opinion on experience and people who I know know what they are saying. I find it hard to believe there could be a slight "super charger affect" but then what do I know. I may regret posting this...
of course they are also trying to sell something so now I may be regretting it more..
04-06-2004, 01:16 PM
#229
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
P = .5 x r x v2
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
Still waiting for the math there guy.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
What's the problem. You said you're an engineer and have taken a year of fluid mechanics.
You having problems with applied pitot theory? It's not that hard for someone who is and engineer and has taken a year of fluids. Use P = .5 x r x v2 and show us the increases in pressure and temperature from compression, show us the losses from the bend and diameter changes and come up with the result. It's not hard...come on sport. Just do it.
You simply can't. Surprise surprise. :thefinger
04-06-2004, 01:18 PM
#230
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
I've already posted the mathematics showing that the "supercharger" effect is so small that for computation it is deemed non-existant.
Namely:
P = .5 x r x v2
04-06-2004, 01:19 PM
#231
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
Still waiting for the math there guy.
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
What's the problem. You said you're an engineer and have taken a year of fluid mechanics.
You having problems with applied pitot theory?
Surprise surprise. :thefinger
http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
What's the problem. You said you're an engineer and have taken a year of fluid mechanics.
You having problems with applied pitot theory?
Surprise surprise. :thefinger
This one (of two I've posted) DOES:
P = .5 x r x v2
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:
P = .5 x r x v2
We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.................KAWASAKI ZX-7R: Kawasaki was the pioneer of ram-air induction on sportbikes, and this graph shows why. Compare this graph (and the ZX-9R's) with all the others. Note that there are virtually no pressure spikes during shifts. And airbox pressure builds past ambient at approximately 60 mph, not 90 or 145 mph-just a smooth crescendo up to a peak of approximately 23mb."
04-06-2004, 01:19 PM
#232
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tracy, CA
Age: 51
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
You posted SOME of the mathematics (air compression due to velocity). That's not the whole story. You continue to neglect the more important mathematics.
Namely:
P = .5 x r x v2
Namely:
P = .5 x r x v2
04-06-2004, 01:20 PM
#233
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
You posted SOME of the mathematics (air compression due to velocity). That's not the whole story. You continue to neglect the more important mathematics.
Namely:
P = .5 x r x v2
Namely:
P = .5 x r x v2
Show us all how my mathematics is wrong. Show us how pitot theory is correct.
Do the math already. It shouldn't be hard for you.
04-06-2004, 01:21 PM
#234
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TLover
At least he posted SOME. You haven't posted ANY mathematics. And no, posting an equation isn't showing us the math.
P = .5 x r x v2
From the snowmobile link. And I agree, it's useless "at normal snowmobile speeds."
For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable snowmobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent. In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent.
Therefore, at normal snowmobile speeds, ram air is a myth.
04-06-2004, 01:22 PM
#235
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Sure I have.
P = .5 x r x v2
P = .5 x r x v2
LOL, still waiting for the applied mathematics.
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
04-06-2004, 01:24 PM
#236
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
LOL, still waiting for the applied mathematics.
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable snowmobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent. In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent.
04-06-2004, 01:24 PM
#237
LOL, still waiting for the applied mathematics.
My mathematics also takes into account temperature which "your" formula doesn't. My mathematics take into account ALL of the story. Show me where it doesn't.
Show us all how my mathematics is wrong. Show us how pitot theory is correct and completely explains HP gains.
Do the math already. It shouldn't be hard for you.
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
My mathematics also takes into account temperature which "your" formula doesn't. My mathematics take into account ALL of the story. Show me where it doesn't.
Show us all how my mathematics is wrong. Show us how pitot theory is correct and completely explains HP gains.
Do the math already. It shouldn't be hard for you.
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
04-06-2004, 01:25 PM
#238
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
LOL, still waiting for the applied mathematics.
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
From your own article.
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable snowmobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent. In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent.