TL vs. Chrysler 300C: Round 2

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:46 PM
  #201  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Pathetic, how many times do I have to read posts from the same people rehashing the same tired shit?
As I tell people who complain about a person on a radio station, but still listen to it anyway. Nobody is forcing you to read/listen so change the channel or don't read the thread.

Problem solved.
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:47 PM
  #202  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
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


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."
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:48 PM
  #203  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
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.
Excellent point, now I'm trying to remember how many times this point has been made but argued anyway?
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:49 PM
  #204  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
Originally Posted by Norse396
Excellent point, now I'm trying to remember how many times this point has been made but argued anyway?
The inlet temps were essentially FIXED in those tests. All one has to do is read them to see that

For any given temp, air box pressure rises in a (well designed) RAM AIR system because:

Pstatic = .5 x r x Velocity^2
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:51 PM
  #205  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Show me where I once said (in my own words) "Combined Gaw Law" in the context of this conversation.
It's more of what you linked than what you said as you rarely speak for yourself but use copy and paste which infers your point. People take what you pasted as your opinion since you post in this manner.
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:51 PM
  #206  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
: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:
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:52 PM
  #207  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
P1 V1 = P2 V2 isn't the combined gas law?!?!?!?!?!?
For a fixed temp it is.

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
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:53 PM
  #208  
TLover's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
From: Tracy, CA
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
Hello?
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:54 PM
  #209  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
Originally Posted by TLover
Hello?
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.

..................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."
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:55 PM
  #210  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
Yeah, when you post the Combined Gas Law, we figure you mean the Combined Gas Law. Silly us.

Originally Posted by Mullethead
P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)

Instead I mistakenly wrote:

P1 V1 = P2 V2
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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:56 PM
  #211  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
Of course they're close...when you're going from memory and haven't revisited the specific equations in some time....

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
Old 04-06-2004 | 12:59 PM
  #212  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
In order to revisit them, you have to have visited them in the first place. Given your nonsense thus far...that would be impossible.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:00 PM
  #213  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
P = .5 x r x v2

density doesn't change

That leaves us with

Pstatic = Velocity^2/2
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:00 PM
  #214  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
The inlet temps were essentially FIXED in those tests. All one has to do is read them to see that
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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:02 PM
  #215  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
P = .5 x r x v2

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."
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:02 PM
  #216  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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
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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:04 PM
  #217  
TLover's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
From: Tracy, CA
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
I'm waiting.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:06 PM
  #218  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
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.

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
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:07 PM
  #219  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:09 PM
  #220  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
Again:

P = .5 x r x v2

And again:

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:09 PM
  #221  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
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!
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..
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:09 PM
  #222  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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.
Of course you ignore the WS6, after posting an article about it in support of your ram air.

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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:10 PM
  #223  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
Originally Posted by Skeedatl
RAM AIR ADDING APPRECIABLE HP IS A MYTH AT BELOW MACH .5.

SHOW ME THE MATH PROVING OTHERWISE.
P = .5 x r x v2



http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:12 PM
  #224  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Again:

P = .5 x r x v2

And again:

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
AGAIN, apply THAT FORUMULA...SHOW US THE APPLIED MATHEMATICS.

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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:12 PM
  #225  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
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

http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:12 PM
  #226  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
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."
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:13 PM
  #227  
Norse396's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Skeedatl ,

Damn, too late to kill my post, I knew I jumped the gun, crap.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:15 PM
  #228  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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've already posted the mathematics showing that the "supercharger" effect is so small that for computation it is deemed non-existant. Certainly not enough to offset all the diameter changes and bends and temp differentials in an intake. Not at these speeds. In a WWII fighter, sure...in a Slomero or WS6, no F-ing way, and I'm still waiting for 1LE to provide the applied math that says different.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:16 PM
  #229  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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."

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
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:18 PM
  #230  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
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
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:19 PM
  #231  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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
Neither of those links contain REAL WORLD test data.

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."
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:19 PM
  #232  
TLover's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
From: Tracy, CA
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
At least he posted SOME. You haven't posted ANY mathematics. And no, posting an equation isn't showing us the math.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:20 PM
  #233  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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
Actually 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.

Do the math already. It shouldn't be hard for you.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:21 PM
  #234  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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.
Sure I have.

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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:22 PM
  #235  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Sure I have.

P = .5 x r x v2
Uh, where's the mathematics. All we see here are variables...pitot theory doesn't explain ram air. Where do you account for increased intake charge temp due to compression. Where do you account for losses due to diameter changes, bends and box shape? You have ZERO clue what you're talkinga bout.

LOL, still waiting for the applied mathematics.

Holy crap, you don't even know how to use that forumula do you?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:24 PM
  #236  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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
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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:24 PM
  #237  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:25 PM
  #238  
harddrivin1le's Avatar
Thread Starter
Drifting
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth, RI
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

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.
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:26 PM
  #239  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
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
Old 04-06-2004 | 01:27 PM
  #240  
Skeedatl's Avatar
Lurker
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 1
.4 PSI ain't SH!T. And that's at a WHOPPING 150MPH!!!!!!


Quick Reply: TL vs. Chrysler 300C: Round 2



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.