Snopczynski

Carb specs are: 350 main jet at sea level 5L1 Needle 2nd clip from top 175 P4 nozzle 25 pilot jet at 1 turn out on air screw slide cutout 2.5 needle'seat 2.5 float height 22mm This should be safe zone and will require tuning from there to fine it up.

Spray some windex on it.

Here is mine with the stellar arms.

Yeah, most of the twin pipes run better than the dynoport does.

Looking for a Banshee frame in any condition with title. PM me or post here if you got one.

There are also spot pinch welds on the flat area of the brackets that have to be drilled to get them loose.

X2 on any 2 into 1 pipe.

the 2 into 1 intakes definitely have to be poted to match up to vf3's. I have done a couple of those.

Yeah, one day I will get it put on.

We run custom curves on most everything, to us the programmer is worth it. You have to get the cable from dyna, then get a usb adapter that goes from their cable to your pc. You get them at radioshack.

The intake I had was match ported to my reedcages and I reshaped the center divider partition inside the intake.

Cascade single intake manifold vs stock intakes for the duals. I already went through all this in 2008 right after we did all the testing. There is a thread in the forum with all the charts, and a whole bunch of discussion. I was a big supporter of the single pipe and single carb intake until we did this test, then I was skeptical of the single setups. Once I converted to dual carbs, and then a short time after dual pipes, shortly after I was against the single setups.

The torque between the single and the twins is damn near the same. HP is the difference, and it is a mnimal hp number difference. When I switched setups and compared running them in the "real world" there was no noticeable difference in the bottom end between the two, but there was a noticeable difference in the upper rpm's. What I have always said was the single make smore power down low, but it isn't noticebale anywhere but on a dyno. However, the top end is a noticeable difference. It isn't a worth while gain for what you get. So no, the charts dont prove the opposite of what I have said, they prove exactly what I said. The single has always been peaky as well. The duals come on and work smooth all the way through the range.

Hp isn't everything my friend, compare the torque numbers. The twin carb setup accelerated alot faster through the midrange when I rode it as well. With the single, you could feel the peakiness in the power curve. The duals came on much smoother as they pulled. Just thought you might want a closer set of charts to compare over the ones that were already up.

I have crank dyno runs that show the opposite dyno results of that. It was with putting the two different intake setups on the same motor, same day, same loaded crank dyno. First Graph is single carb 35mm pwk, second is with dual mikuni tm 28mm carbs. This was on a ported 350 with pro circuits and a low-mid port job. This is the dual carbs on the same motor.

I dont know if you could classify that thing as a serval with your durations.

This is the chart we are talking about. That chart is a comparison for the same shearer pipe with stock carbs and cages vs 38mm carbs and vf3's. The red line is the shearer's with stock carbs and stock reeds. The green line is the shearer's with 38's and v-force.

What about McCoy's charts for Shearers between stock carbs and stock reedcages vs 38mm carbs and vf3's? Was that not a fair chance?

It is a good looking graph, I ask because those things effect it, and I wanted to see if he had anything done to it that we hadn't though of. The only thing to argue is the different dynos, different bikes, different day thing that has been repeated numerous times already. We have already seen small carb numbers, and big carb numbers on the same dyno, with the same pipe, with that other graph that McCoy has, and that still contradicts your theory. If you look at max rpm numbers between all three of the charts from different dynos with cpi's, they all have been different for max rpm, so comparing that curve rpm wise is a null and void point as far as where you place it on the graph. I dont really agree with your reasoning on the bigger carbs, I think you see a hp transition from midrange to up top, but not down low. The acceleration discussion is where loaded dyno runs with run times at the bottom instead or rpm comes in handy. I think your reasoning may apply more to a cub motor because of the higher durations, but not to a serval. I also want to make sure, if people are getting pro circuits for their bikes, or for testing. We got the best results with the 296 USFS approved silencers. they look liker this.

Andy, What was everything done to that bike when it was ran for that graph curve? Compression, octane, squish, flywheel weight, timing, axle, etc?????????

A big thing to consider here is how much faster the pro circuits are going to make this bike accelerate, this was one of the huge things 05stroker was looking for. We wanted the power on tap right away, and it had to do it from down low all the way up. I believe we got the winning combination for that on the bike with the pc's and the smaller carbs. Details and testing on a loaded dyno are what give you the edge in the real world.

If Pro circuits opaque CPI's on the loaded dyno runs we did by 4-6 hp on average the entire run with them beating other pipes at up to 9hp down low, then how is it that pro circuits wouldn't beat all these runs on this chart I posted if they were added to the mix and tested as well? The CPI's even with the 38mm carbs would still be under what the pc's were with 28mm carbs if you account for the pc's even following the stock carb and stock intake graph lines for the CPI's for the latest chart posted. From 5,600 rpm to 9,400 rpm the pc's produce more hp than the CPI's did on the loaded chart. How would that not still apply on the McCoy chart with the stock carb, and stock reeds run he did if the pc's had been tested at the same time? As it does apply, that means the PC's with 28mm carbs and stock cages (boyeseen reeds) would pull more hp than even the cpi's and shearers did with 38mm pwk's and vf3 reeds if the curve was on that chart. I guess it looks like my holes in dyno testing with not using the A/F sampling are quickly closing up here. So now that I have shown pc's beat cpi's on a loaded chart, and shown pc's making 80 hp on an unloaded chart. How is that an unloaded chart that shows cpi's at 86.5 hp proves your theory about a bunch of different dynos only ever being off by no more than 3 hp? It looks to me like the Dyno I used is at least 6hp different than the one McCoy uses. Those are considering numbers with 2 mm smaller ROUND SLIDE carbs.

This is the chart 05stroker was talking about from Nate McCoy. On this chart the two lower lines are T5 (blue) with stock carbs and stock reeds. The next line up was Shearers (red) with stock carbs and stock reeds. These were older high rpm shearers that were tested. Then next two lines up are the same shearer pipes along with cpi pipes ran with 38mm pwk carbs and vforce 3 reeds. There is your stock carb vs big carb compariosn chart. Run times would have been usefull on this to see if the smaller carbs accelerated faster than the larger carbs, but as you can see it is a minimal gain. The Pro Circuits were way above the CPI pipes (4-5hp, sometimes up to 9hp more at the bottom, and up to 6hp more at the top.) across the curve on the small carbs with small reeds, so it would still make more power than a bike with CPI pipes, big reeds, and big carbs. For Windy, Nate McCoy said he ran the T5 down so lean to try and get good numbers out of it, that it would never have even been rideable in real world conditions.

This motor is in the same power range as everyone elses serval. It was dyno'ed on a conservative dyno with an engine brake. You know what, here is something for everyone to read. This was an email sent to me by my mentor this morning. He is a huge name in the 2 stroke industry, and he explains something that was told to him by his mentor. Quote: My point about first liar in my text the other day is about this very thing. The industry as a whole uses unloaded dynojet numbers to claim their numbers. My two stroke mentor years ago offered this tidbit of advice. He said when developing a new engine package or new product not currently on the market- he said it was important to be the first liar. I asked huh? He said be the first liar- get your numbers out there- whatever they may be. Then you are the first liar. Because anyone else who comes along with a similar product has to lie worse to claim higher numbers. And so on and so on. I know its kind of a funny- but its the truth really. I am in no way condoning outright lying about products- but play in the game with the same set of rules. You arent going to force a paradigm shift in the market by saying that unloaded runs read artificially high and therefore are somewhat to outright invalid. Its not going to happen. So you play the game- you become the first liar- you say ok we did some dyno runs, just like everyone else. With STD dynojet correction factors(a whole nuther discussion about whats wrong there) and 5 smoothing...you're playing by the rules and are not being shady at all in posting those numbers. The guys who go and crank the barometric pressure way up and then withhold the correction factor percentage (anything around 1.0 is considered nominal and not tweaking anything) to get artificially inflated numbers arent playing by the rules nor are being ethical. So where am I going with this. You use the tool. You use the tool to post your numbers in the same manner as everyone is. You use the tool to load the engine in order to get more refined jetting off the dyno, diagnose problems, or develop partial throttle characteristics into your build. Thats all, just use the tool. Another piece of advice my mentor offered was "Run a one story whore house....That way theres no effing overhead...." I know we have a quick bike that accelerates fast off the bottom, and made the guy who built it for himself happy with the way it turned out. I know that you can't compare two different dyno's numbers because not every dyno is the same, and not everyone has them set to run the same with correction factors, and thats regardless of what Windy says, you will never convince me other wise. We compared the same parts on the same dyno for this exact reason. So everyone can see how everything stacked up on the same motor, same day, same dyno, and same conditions. I stand by that I really dont care about the "unloaded" runs we did. I am interested in the loaded numbers because that was puts the closest thing to a real world load on the engine. We made the first run on the dyno Sunday, and the dyno operator turned to me and said, "well Snope what you want to do?" "Chase a number, or tune this thing so it runs the best?" I replied to "tune it so it runs the best." There is a huge difference between the two.

Did you vote no on it? If so why?