Topic: For your consideration, flowbench data

[Cormac]

I didn't find it, but I wish I had.
Search
Flow Bench Data - Article by Kevin Bracken

 www.ducatimeccanica.com/flow_bench_data.html

So, unless you all want to say that the engineers at triumph are just idiots (as well as limeys) this info is pretty conclusive.
 
 
 
 

[scottly]

Good stuff there! Confirms my suspicions about stacks! I only wish they had data for Webers, but it's ok, I can read between the lines.
Thanks!
Scott

[kghost]

I read that as flowing better across the board when theres at least some stack involved.

Meaning a length of tube no?

[scottly]

It looks to me that they are saying that the "bell" shape of the stack is the most important feature. (Doesn't appear to matter WHAT they do with the inlet to a Bing!! )

[Cormac]

As long as the length of tube is flared and terminates in something with less restriction than a K&N RU-114...

[754]

What is interesting is how much the stock Triumph box flowed vs the stack

 And that nothing seemed to change the Bing.

 I ran my R 100RT at the drags at Sturgis, when I pulled out the air filter I picked up  3 tenths.. , in the 1/8 mile(be near 1/2 sec in the 1/4!).. The crowd loved the front wheel popping up hitting 2nd and 3rd...

[MickeyX]

Why not just go to the flow bench forum?   Much more comprehensive info there.

[scottly]

With 30mm amal, there was no diff between RU-115&114 (which were only slightly below the short stack), and the RU-132 was slightly better than the short stack. Anybody know anything about these K&Ns? Do they have built-in bells? Also, this is only a cfm test; the length of "tuned stacks" is a dynamic, RPM related thing.