You need to study velocity stack design more. There are lots of articles and engineering papers on the proper design. The bell mouth needs to be a certain percentage of the throat diameter. There is an optimal curve for the design as well. The opening lip cant be sharp like you have it or it causes turbulence at the lip opening which restricts air flow and velocity into the carbs. They need a thick radius opening that curves back on itself to minimize this turbulence. This is because the air is drawn not only directly in front of the carb stack but it is also pulled from around to behind the opening.
I knew there would be at least one naysayer to come out of the woodwork.
I am not an engineer, but I have done enough research to understand the elements of velocity stack design and their functions (i.e. increase laminar airflow, minimize turbulence, etc). I do agree with your assessment of my design to a certain extent. The stacks are not a perfect solution, and they are not finished yet. I plan on a few more modifications before calling them complete, namely some more sanding to take any remaining hard edges down. However I don't agree with such an unequivocal assessment of v-stack design.
My stacks are based on the design and dimensions of the Honda factory plenum stacks. I am aware that a fully radiused lip reduces turbulence and improves laminar airflow. But to say that a velocity stack "needs" to have such a lip in order to function is simply incorrect. A simple bell mouth design may not render the absolute maximum airflow/minimum turbulence, but it is not fundamentally flawed as you seem to have alluded here, and it is certainly a cheaper/more functional alternative to aftermarket velocity stacks or pod filters. To quote Tintop (designer and manufacturer of the Antipod device mentioned below): "Honda (500/550/750), Keihin CR & FCR, Weber, and Dellorto, all use a bell mouth shape. As an ultimate example of why it is not nessescary, look no further than the no holds bared CanAm injected big blocks. If a fully rolled lip would have made any extra power those cars would have had them."
Running filters with velocity stacks then get into the minimum recommended distances from the velocity stack openings. But then you run into issues such as the frame tubing intruding into that recommended space. so you have design constraints for retrofitting the stacks and potentially the/a filter.
Have you looked at the velocity stack antipod design with the ITG filters that another forum member has designed and produced for other SOHC/4 forum members to buy?
Yes, I am familiar Tintop's anti-pod design. As beautifully engineered as Tintop's product is, this is rather a moot point as I have no qualms about running filter-less stacks.
I appreciate the input, and I will update this thread when the design progresses
-Davis