TL vs. Chrysler 300C: Round 2
04-06-2004, 05:08 PM
#321
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
That's not what they said. Steve says he gets about 5 HP from every PSI increase in boost.
They even WRITE IT OUT. EXTRA FIVE HORSEPOWER.
They even WRITE IT OUT. EXTRA FIVE HORSEPOWER.
They actually got more than that.
T"he maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
04-06-2004, 05:09 PM
#322
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
The 'Vette article ignores the BERNOULLI EFFECT and the fact that static pressure rises in proportion to Velocity squared.
04-06-2004, 05:10 PM
#323
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
5% of the nominal HP rating of the bike they were testing would ~ equate to "an extra 5 to 6 HP."
They actually got more than that.
T"he maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
They actually got more than that.
T"he maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
Now you're simply REWRITING their article to suit you.
Here is what the article ACTUALLY SAYS AGAIN
Originally Posted by Cycle tards
Steve's experience with varying boost levels on his 250-bhp turbo-which churns out approximately an extra five horsepower for every 70-millibar (one-psi) increase in boost or intake pressure-suggested that if it were possible to create one psi of pressure in the airbox, we could be looking at an increase of 5 to 6 bhp. Note that pressure, in the context of this article, is pressure above atmospheric pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:12 PM
#324
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
Please, pretty please, explain this.
He neglects this reality.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:13 PM
#325
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
That's not what they said. They SAID they expect to get about same HORSEPOWER...written out...not % per cent or percent...increases Steve saw.
Now you're simply REWRITING their article to suit you.
Here is what the article ACTUALLY SAYS AGAIN
Now you're simply REWRITING their article to suit you.
Here is what the article ACTUALLY SAYS AGAIN
I don't give a sh*t what "Steve said" because THIS is what they got for RESULTS:
"The maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
2.6 HP per 10 mb increase in Pstatic is pretty decent for something making 123 peak HP.
04-06-2004, 05:14 PM
#326
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Sure.
He neglects this reality.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
He neglects this reality.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
Do the APPLIED MATH.
EVALUATE THESE FORMULAS!!!!
04-06-2004, 05:15 PM
#327
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
Sure.
He neglects this reality.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
He neglects this reality.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:16 PM
#328
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
So you focus on the one sentence that is OBVIOUSLY written incorrectly and TOTALLY IGNORE the rest of the article. :lol2:
I don't give a sh*t what "Steve said" because THIS is what they got for RESULTS:
T"he maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
I don't give a sh*t what "Steve said" because THIS is what they got for RESULTS:
T"he maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.
No I see the experiment not duplicating what Steve actually EXPERIENCES. The experiment is FLAWED.
Their OWN STEVE got different results.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
04-06-2004, 05:20 PM
#333
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
:lol1: :lol1: That would be YOU.
EVALUATE THE FORMULAS!!!!
EVALUATE THE FORMULAS!!!!
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:21 PM
#335
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
OK. I'm done; it was fun while it lasted. It's clear HD is NOT an engineer; never has been.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
Translation:
A 2X decrease in velocity yields a 4x INCREASE in static pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:23 PM
#337
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
He's certainly smarter than you are. LOL
And a 5% increase in power is ABOUT what one might expect from a 1PSIG gain in static inlet pressure.
04-06-2004, 05:27 PM
#338
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
And a 5% increase in power is ABOUT what one might expect from a 1PSIG gain in static inlet pressure.
And a 5% increase in power is ABOUT what one might expect from a 1PSIG gain in static inlet pressure.
Not according to "Steve". He saw only 2%...and that's from a full PSI which with ram air doesn't occur till 'round 250MPH.
04-06-2004, 05:30 PM
#339
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
Not according to "Steve". He saw only 2%...and that's from a full PSI which with ram air doesn't occur till 'round 250MPH.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/
04-06-2004, 05:39 PM
#340
Oh, yet another article proved B.S after you using it about a zillion times....now on to yet another article (this one split into 2 parts to sucker idiots into buying two issues of their B.S.). This is typical of you.
04-06-2004, 05:40 PM
#341
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
Oh, yet another article proved B.S after you using it about a zillion times....now on to yet another article (this one split into 2 parts to sucker idiots into buying two issues of their B.S.). This is typical of you.
And you've IGNORED them at least as often.
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/
"HONDA CBR1100XX: Well what would you rather have-115 horsepower or 122 horsepower? The CBR-XX obviously reacts well to ram-air induction. The horsepower and torque curves literally mimic the non-ram-air graphs, only with a five to seven horsepower increase and three to five additional foot-pounds of torque. It should be noted the Honda XX's ram-air system is one of the most efficient on the market, showing immediate power gains well before the 7000-rpm starting mark and posting high-pressure readings during our top-speed test. For comparative purposes, the CBR-XX's pressure reading without ram-air assist at full-throttle/top rpm was -8mb."
04-06-2004, 05:43 PM
#342
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
I've cited those same article SEVERAL times...
And you've IGNORED them at least as often.
And you've IGNORED them at least as often.
As for the other articles, Steve Burns; builder of turbocharged, trick-framed motorcycles, sometime dragracer, endurance-racing-team boss and the owner of a Dynojet Model 100 dyno, gets different results.
And 7 HP...yeah right. Their tests are so poorly done, who knows if they're accurate. Their own testing showed that the Hayabusa saw NO RAM AIR EFFECT until 145MPH. They claim that "any internal-combustion motor benefits from ram-air induction" their own Hayabusa test show this not to be the case. Of course they blame this on their compressors and airbox seal. HA HA HA. Smells like B.S.
04-06-2004, 05:45 PM
#343
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 show you that they're flawed, yet you keep reposting them. After the first dozen reports, of course I ignore them.
As for the other articles, Steve Burns; builder of turbocharged, trick-framed motorcycles, sometime dragracer, endurance-racing-team boss and the owner of a Dynojet Model 100 dyno, gets different results.
As for the other articles, Steve Burns; builder of turbocharged, trick-framed motorcycles, sometime dragracer, endurance-racing-team boss and the owner of a Dynojet Model 100 dyno, gets different results.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
If you read that test you'd see why the results were valid....
The bikes CONSISTENTLY produced more power and torque when their RAM AIR systems were operational. And the shapes of the curves were VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL. The RAM AIR curves were simply GREATER IN MAGNITUDE, by ~ 6% in some cases.
04-06-2004, 05:52 PM
#346
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 evaluations of the formulas at this point...at 9 hours I'm guess we will never see them.
Steve Burns results don't show your claims to be the case.
Steve Burns results don't show your claims to be the case.
P.S.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
04-06-2004, 05:52 PM
#347
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...if you want to buy into the hype and flawed logic...go waste your money on a ram air kit.
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
04-06-2004, 05:54 PM
#348
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tracy, CA
Age: 51
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, this is really my last post on the topic. Isn't there's a fundamental scientific flaw with these "ram air" motorcycle experiments? There's no friggin' control group. They test "ram air" bikes only. They test static "ram air" bikes, then moving "ram air" bikes. Now, I'm not sure since I don't know motorcycles at all, but do static non "ram air" bikes and moving non "ram air" yield the same results? Don't we need to know something about non "ram air" bikes in order to draw any conclusions, regardless of any mathematical formulas or principles of physics?
04-06-2004, 05:55 PM
#349
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
OK, this is really my last post on the topic. Isn't there's a fundamental scientific flaw with these "ram air" motorcycle experiment? There's no friggin' control group. They test "ram air" bikes only. They test static "ram air" bikes, then moving "ram air" bikes. Now, I'm not sure since I don't know motorcycles at all, but do static non "ram air" bikes and moving non "ram air" yield the same results?
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9508_ram/
04-06-2004, 05:58 PM
#350
Yep, you're right...
Here ye here ye
1LE's list of truths
Aluminum heads don't permit higher compression over iron.
V is velocity in the combined gas law.
Bernoulli's Principle permits higher than STP from moving air.
Ram air builds monsta hawspowah.
Bernoulli's Principle states that increases in static pressure come from increases in velocity
A Slomero owners is only a cam away from running 10's.
Pitot theory is applicable to ram air.
300MPH is a street application.
HID sucks.
Cotton doesn't outflow paper throughout their life
The center of mass for a small wheel is different than a large wheel
And cutting and pastings, then reposting a thousand times the same flawed B.S. articles prove you correct.
Yep...you're right. Puff puff give.
Here ye here ye
1LE's list of truths
Aluminum heads don't permit higher compression over iron.
V is velocity in the combined gas law.
Bernoulli's Principle permits higher than STP from moving air.
Ram air builds monsta hawspowah.
Bernoulli's Principle states that increases in static pressure come from increases in velocity
A Slomero owners is only a cam away from running 10's.
Pitot theory is applicable to ram air.
300MPH is a street application.
HID sucks.
Cotton doesn't outflow paper throughout their life
The center of mass for a small wheel is different than a large wheel
And cutting and pastings, then reposting a thousand times the same flawed B.S. articles prove you correct.
Yep...you're right. Puff puff give.
04-06-2004, 06:01 PM
#351
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
Yep, you're right...aluminum heads don't permit higher compression over iron, V is velocity in the combined gas law, Bernoulli's Principle permits higher than STP from moving air, ram air builds monsta hawspowah, Bernoulli's Principle states that increases in static pressure come from increases in velocity, you're only a cam away from running 10's, pitot theory is applicable to ram air, 300MPH is a street application, HID sucks, cotton doesn't outflow paper throughout their life and the center of mass for a small wheel is different than a large wheel and reposting the same flawed B.S. articles prove you correct.
Yep...you're right. Puff puff give.
Yep...you're right. Puff puff give.
04-06-2004, 06:02 PM
#352
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Why don't you read these and FIND OUT?
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9508_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9912_ram/
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9508_ram/
04-06-2004, 06:03 PM
#353
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
Steve Burns says different.
Ask him if aluminum heads permit "vastly higher' compression ratios.
And mention this to him:
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
04-06-2004, 06:06 PM
#356
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
Steve Burns is dah man!
You're the only person on the planet who can "disprove" this equation:
P1static * V1^2/2 = P2static * V2^2/2
04-06-2004, 06:06 PM
#357
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
OK, this is really my last post on the topic. Isn't there's a fundamental scientific flaw with these "ram air" motorcycle experiments? There's no friggin' control group. They test "ram air" bikes only. They test static "ram air" bikes, then moving "ram air" bikes. Now, I'm not sure since I don't know motorcycles at all, but do static non "ram air" bikes and moving non "ram air" yield the same results? Don't we need to know something about non "ram air" bikes in order to draw any conclusions, regardless of any mathematical formulas or principles of physics?
04-06-2004, 06:07 PM
#358
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
Steve Burns is dah man! He says yes. Aluminum can run higher compression compared to iron. Guess yer wrong again. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: