Well you certainly went to a lot of work..
Yes, three days worth. But, I'm still willing to compare notes and data you may have.
Its not convincing me for a few reasons..
Its theory, and theory works well on paper, and should work well on the bikes.
However in the real world, it us not always so..
What look like it should work does not alway & what looks like it should not work, sometimes does..
And Honda sold how many bikes with theory forged into working product?
When first sold they were among the fastest production bikes on the planet. Were you unconvinced back then, too?
Besides, far more engineering work has taken theory to functional product than has failed. The odds are solidly in the engineer's favor. Who doesn't see the technological advances today that were only theories beforehand? The list is staggering. And that's just the products you are aware of.
Its cumbersome and a pita to work around..
You don't have to work around it. It works fine as it is.
You want hard to work on, try working on a performance airplane!
There is a lack of accelerator pumps on the carburation on most CB 750s, when they did finally try to address this they came up with a puny system that did help.
Prior to the EPA carbs, accel pumps weren't necessary with the stock induction.
Are you damning their carbs because your changes made them work worse in your new application?
In my personal experience, the aircleaners I changed to seemed to help performance, certainly got quicker with the changes, not slower... reached my goal and expectations.
Thanks for adding something quantifiable/measurable to the discussion. Oh wait...I do research and present findings you clearly don't like. And you counter with conjecture and opinion. Pardon me if seem...perplexed. But, in the end, there really aren't any points to argue your statement, are there?
In my experience fuel mileage suffered with the stock box.
I've recently been told by a forum member that to make the bike faster the fuel mileage must get worse. With the added implication that poor mileage was proof of increased performance. Interesting that this was from an adamant POD filter proponent (no brand or type specified, naturally).
No, of course I didn't believe it. As there was no data or science to encourage such belief. Regardless, I have no complaints about the fuel mileage of my stockers. Perhaps the 550 induction system is better than the 750's for some reason. Next time I take it off, I'll take some internal pictures. But, at the time these bike were first sold, I don't believe fuel mileage was a major point in the sales of SOHC4. Mileage and speed were kind of contrary features of the day. Still is today. But, adaptive systems and complexity narrow the balance. However, for comparison, would you say the SR-71 is an inferior machine because it got bad fuel economy? Of course, I'm not saying that any theory was put into practical use for that project. It's just an assemblage of parts they had laying around, really.
The stock carbs have limitations, I chose to use other carbs that have far greater tuneability, and are FAR easier to change jetting.
Why would you need to change jetting in the carbs if the induction is stock?
It seems you are blaming the stock air box because it no longer functioned well with modifications you made to the bike. And instead of changing the stock air box in concert with those changes, you tossed the entire induction, and made something else up in it's place. I have no idea how much engineering you put into it. Or, if you just kept trying and tweaking parts until you decided to live with the outcome.
None of us here can tell if the changes you made were actual improvements or not, as there is no data on the changes to show there was improvement or detriment.
Whatever it was, you seem happy with the result and that is what is important to you. However, it does not have a mass market ability, or any performance numbers upon which to compare to anything else. Sitting here, maybe I assume your performance actually did improve. But, can you say why? Or, did you just assemble and tweak parts until you felt no need to go further? How does the possibility that you have the fastest bike on the planet help the forum if you can't explain why it works so much better?
A word about K & N's, They are still using the same basic design or fitration media that they did 35 yrs ago.. it appears their basic product could be working as they did not see fit to make radical changes to it.
Wait, you don't see the fallacy of that logic?
1. Of course it "works". It is how well it works and where placed that is in question. Remember, I do use the K&N filters. I don't hate them. I just noticed a fatal flaw in their sales pitch.
2. Why would they change the product if marketing and sales can sell what they have on reputation and brand loyalty in a non-competitive market area?
Does Honda still use these (described on here) induction designs from the 70's..?.. or have things evolved..?
I haven't taken a new one apart to check. But, I expect the same principles apply. Other than inuendo, do you have any technical data to share with us? Or, is your sole goal to simply denigrate someone else's work without actually providing any contrary data?
Oh another thing wrong with stock induction, air cleaners dont last long, other types last decades..
Well, I can partially agree with that, actually. Although it is tertiary to the basic induction design. The stock filter design does not clean during maintenance well. But, it does a far better job of stopping smaller particles, than almost any aftermarket "free flowing" type. So, although it actually has better "filtering performance", it comes at the cost of more frequent changes/replacement. Perhaps that is another benefit of the stock induction, as you can change the paper to a foam reusable, to allay expenses (I have). For around the world operation of the bike, the stock filter provides the best engine protection. It's aggressive filtering it not actually required in all locations of the world. So, it's not so much wrong, but better than it needs to be for many areas of operation, I think.
I appreciate the effort you have made to explain your preferences, but I think I will stick to what I, like.. apparently its good enough for some OEM manufacturers as well.
Why doesn't it not seem like you appreciate the work from where I sit? Perhaps because you casually discarded all presentation summarily?
Anyway, it was not my personal goal to convince those who have no interest, in changing away from their own personal belief system.
And thanks for the non-fact relaying innuendo that OEMs are "on your side". But, it's just not enough to sway me to your cause, sorry.
So, the goal was to help a particular forum member understand how better to make an induction system of his own design, work as well as possible by taking design cues from a proven and well working example. And then, to share that free info with the forum membership.
If you don't like it or wish to receive it in the spirit intended, then I'll just have to live with your disappointment, I guess. I note there do seem to be others that appreciate it for what it is.
Oh well, my monetary compensation is the same in either case.
Somewhat sad that the time expenditure now seems ill spent on my behalf.
