Pods are restrictive too. They generally have a larger filter media area. Which gives them more, perhaps bigger, holes to pass air through.
The pods do not deliver any air that the engine doesn't demand. They most certainly effect the pressure drop in the carb throat. And, that directly effects fuel flow through the carb jet orifices. I don't see how anyone can refute this with reasonable assurance. That speaks directly toward jet size selection and the reason for larger orifice sizes.
If the airbox and filter are restrictive, you can, in fact, deliver more air and fuel to the engine with pods or stacks.
Your "fact" is not substantiated with quantifiable data, which is exactly what I have been asking people to post. What you present is a belief, or conjecture, stated as fact. Furthermore, your rather wide band statement can be proven by demonstrating 0.0000000000000001% improvement, which, for all practical purposes, is meaningless to the bike "enhancers" that normally post here. I can't even establish that your offered discussion has any working or accepted theory to back it up? No personal attack intended, here. Just an observation.
I was taught that as fluid velocity increases, so do the dynamics of ducting interaction, and turbulence modal lengths. If I accept, for a moment, that J-random pod does actually result in more oxygen in the chamber at 10,000 RPM, this does not mean turbulence effects at 9500 (or some other RPM) actually cause less oxygen present. Has anyone seen pods that even attempt to keep laminar flow to/through the carbs? Most I've seen don't even match the inlet runner diameters. This duct wall step actually creates turbulence that extend "fingers" of alternating low and higher pressure areas inside the carb throat. When these fingers extend over the jet orifice exits in the carb throat, it changes fuel flow and A/F mixture ratio. I don't have performance data, either, or I would present it. But, my observations ARE based on established principles of fluid dynamics and aerodynamics.
I won't want to expand the discussion to include velocity stacks. It's outside the topic header. It also doesn't support anyone's argument, thus far, nor does it negate it. It just adds complication.
Anyway, all this discussion is just farting in the wind. If you want to put parts on your bike coincident with your beliefs, then do so. If you want to evangelize to gain converts, then follow your bliss. I do know that pods generally cause jetting headaches to users who are unfamiliar to the process and it's requirements. Many give up before overall performance throughout the engine operating range is achieved. Pods also add intake noise which can be perceived as "making more power" . But, the net result is a bike that actually performs poorer than a stock one for overall street use. Of course there are exceptions. But, I'd sure like hard data on those just to know what definitely works, separated from what "seems to" work.
Does anyone know of a filter manufacturer that shows real data (not just marketing claims) showing that pods improve performance on our bikes? Seems they ought to have a vested interest, which would help promote their product offering. Modern bikes with adaptive closed loop fuel metering, ought to show the best results, I speculate. But, on carbureted models, much will depend on the tuner's prowess and fortitude, IMO.
I think the Honda engineers did a far better job than most on this forum give them credit for accomplishing. The intake runner walls are all matched with each transition component to component. The carbs draw air from a common plenum into flow straighteners to eliminate/reduce the chance of inlet turbulence just before air enters the carb throat, and a common filter media (which inherently induces turbulence) is well ahead of the common plenum.
I'm STILL making a plea for quantifiable data. If there is any.
Cheers,
