Lets discuss!

[05.Banshee.SE]

The first one is kind of smooth, but peaky. The second is kind of long, but very choppy. The 3rd and best in my opinion has chop at the begining, but overall is long and smooth and makes the most power. I think the point of this is to prove to some people who want to argue certain points that they are wrong, they argue with out knowing and snop is tired of just using words... I dont think he's being mean just using proof to back up his statements. Whatever it is you've proven your point, you've got me sold!

 

"...tired of using words..." etc.; I agree with that statement.

 

I honestly can't say anything about 'em myself.

 

I'd like to know what the variables are though.

 

I'll keep lookin at 'em and see if I can find anything...

[RollinRhino]

I like the curve better on the second one.

[hercalmighty]

Ok here is my take. I could be totally wrong on this but. Chart one looks like more of a bottom to mid setup because its smooth in the lower rpm ranges then kind of falls off a little towards the top of the rpms. Chart two looks like a mid to top setup because it low on the bottom then actually dips a little right before you get into a stronge mid to top and it seems to have a higher peak HP with more over rev. The third chart almost looks like a setup for a drag bike or something. The powerband goes up real slow until about 7000 then Wam here we go and it just shoots up. But both 2 and 3 have that dip in the bottom of the chart right before the mid range hit. To me I like the chart two because I like a more mid to top bike but its not as steep of a climb in power as chart three. Plus it seems like the dip in three is much more pronouced then two.

So if Im right do I win something?

 

Thanks Snop for this. I like when people actually are able to prove a point with data and proof not just I like this or that

[hercalmighty]

Is there a way to over lay the three charts? That would make it a lot simplier to compare the three. Its hard to look at the three diferent charts at the same time.

 

Ok I 'm being a pain here but you said the cylinders are ported right? Well if they are ported they could be ported more for one setup then the other two. In that case it would be easier to prove your point. If you port for one style of riding with a certain setup then change the setup ie. top end pipes to bottom pipes or something, the charts might be off a little.

Snop I'm not saying anything bad but just throwing that out because I can bet that someone will bring it up. If you really want to prove your point I think the best thing would be to base line a totally stock bike (stock pipes,carbs, everything) then do whatever you did to your bike on the stock bike. But just keep it to the bolt ones (pipes, carb setups, or whatever)

Just my little insight. You can yell at me if you want. I'm not an expert so I dont care. I just ride and race and like how my bike runs so.......

[locogato11283]

2 carbs are better than 1.

[dragbanshee]

[Snopczynski]

so chart 3 is a completely diff set up then the other 2?

 

Some similarities to one of the other charts.

 

You cannot pay attention to max numbers, these dynos are completely different. If I was to run the other 2 setups from the crank dyno on the dyno jet, the hp and torque numbers would be lower like chart the added chart as well. The hp and torque curves always cross at 5,252 rpm on any dyno if its been set up right. You just dont see it on the other two charts because the sampling range is higher.

 

For those who think certain charts are mid-top oriented, this is gonna be false. All the setups tested were low-mid gains. If you look at max rpm on the chart, there is nothing here making max hp over 8,800 rpm. However, some of you have stumbled on to what I call a "shitty pipe" in one of the charts.

 

Not really a way to overlay charts, especially since one is off a different dyno. But you can look at the curves and get an idea of the power delivery.

 

The bike had a low-mid port job in all 3 charts. (same port job on all 3).

 

Torque backup is actually a high rpm power trait on a low-mid setup. Your basically looking to keep the torque line strong towards the high rpm, so if you let off, its easier to get back on the pipe. Some people may already have good torque backup and not know it, thats why proper jetting and needle setups is key.

[98_banshee_newbie]

With my toomey 6's it seems that it is comparible to chart three where the powerband hits at

[Snopczynski]

Ok, on the two similar charts from the same dyno, anyone pay close attention to the low end numbers on the scale? Anyone compare how far off actual numbers are at the same rpm?

 

The added chart low end looks smoother because of the correction software on the dynojet, so those dips would look alot like some of the other charts down at low rpm if that setup was ran on the crank dyno.

 

Anyone know what max rpm a set of PTR Mids, T5's, fatties, Dynoport 2 into 1, cpi's, DMC's, and Pro circuits would pull? What type of power do you consider those pipes to make. Try to answer on all of them.

[hercalmighty]

Dude, there is going to be a lot of things that will influence the rpm range of a pipe. There isnt a dyno chart for every pipe out there so its hard to say what excatly a pipe can do.

I would love to see someone do a comarison of just pipes on a totally stock bike. dont do anything else on the bike except change the pipes and rejet to the pipe.

Now I'm not saying your wrong Snop because your are a damn smart guy but

Wouldnt the porting of the bike change its character which would change how a pipe would work on that bike?

Also, carb setup, dome size and compression, timing, all of this is going to change how a motor runs.

Setting up a drag bike, duner, and a trail bike are all going to be different so finding the right combo is the key to building the perfect bike

Now with that being said that is why a good builder wants to know what pipes and carbs your running and what kind of riding your doing so he can match his port work to that setup to get the most out of it.

The porting a builder does for lets say a set of T5's is going to be a little different then a set of PT mids right?

So if you swicth the pipes on these two bikes your not going to get the full benifits of the combo because it slightly different.

 

Once again Snop, your a hell of a guy and you know your shit man. I'm just playing more Devil's Advacete then anything else. There are only a couple guys on here that I truely respect they veiws and opions. Might not always agree with them but I will listen to them and I consider you one of the few.

So dont think I'm being a douche just trying to put stuff out there to get some answers man

Thanks Snop :beer:

[Snopczynski]

Pipes have working rpm ranges. If you per say barely raise an exhaust port, and put a set of t5's on the bike, then your only going to be using part of that pipes working power range. The biggest things that will limitate max rpm are pipes, and port height.

 

I would say if you use an independent builder who is not associated with like toomey or fmf then you stand a much better chance of having the motor built to what you want and the builder recommending a pipe that will work better than anything else. I say tell the builder what you want, then run what he suggest for pipes, carbs, reeds, compression, etc......

 

A T5 will not do the same things down low that a set of ptr mids will do. However, the ptr mids will not rev as high as the T5 will. The T5 will tend to make more power toward the top of its peak rpm range, with the sacrifice of power towards the bottom of the range. This is a constant that will alsways stay true, no matter what, the pipe you choose, it will dictate the power you make.

 

Every little bit counts, and all the small things make a difference to some sort of extent. When a guy says I ride tight trails, I want to run a 2 into 1 carb, I also run FMF fatties and vf3 reeds. This is not a very good balance of low-mid range power making parts to put together. The point to making a bike work well in a range of the powerband is to line up all the correlating parts and make a substantial amount of power where its going to help you most.

 

All low-mid port jobs will have low port heights, the power is made through the port shape, widths, and velocity. All low-mid pipes will peak at around 9k rpm or lower. The key is to get a nice broad and smooth powerband, good torque backup, good overall torque numbers, and some strong hp numbers. Powerbands with narrow windows that come on quick and peak fast are a handful to handle in tight and technical riding situations. You can end up doing this to yourself with the line up of even all low-mid parts that are not matched together properly.

[hercalmighty]

Hey Snop. I total agree with you 100%. You have to build a complete package or you will never have the absulte best bike you can.

But you said my point to sense.

 

I would say if you use an independent builder who is not associated with like toomey or fmf then you stand a much better chance of having the motor built to what you want and the builder recommending a pipe that will work better than anything else. I say tell the builder what you want, then run what he suggest for pipes, carbs, reeds, compression, etc......

 

 

Now I have this motor build with all the components matching perfectly with each other and I change one thing, the motor is going to be just a little off right?

Your right in that your power curves might not change much but there might be a slight difference in the curves between a motor ported for a certain pipe and one thats ported for something different.

Ever pipe made is different and it has a certain "timing" to it. That makes them different. Plus chamber size, stinger size and length, everything will make a difference and a port job to match all of that will make a difference in what the power curve looks like.

If you port matched to the one pipe thats a little jumpy in the curve it might smooth it out and make the curve better

I think my biggest problem is if you want to compare pipes and their curves doing it with a stock bike would be the best thing. You want to eliminate as many varibles as you can. Porting is a varible that can make a difference. I'm just looking at this like I'm doing a science experiment and you always have to provide a base test before you do anything else. And everything you do to that bike will influence the final result.

 

Ok. Enough bitching. What the hell are the setups you did. Who knows you might actually change my mind on my setup

[Snopczynski]

Hey Snop. I total agree with you 100%. You have to build a complete package or you will never have the absulte best bike you can.

But you said my point to sense.

 

I would say if you use an independent builder who is not associated with like toomey or fmf then you stand a much better chance of having the motor built to what you want and the builder recommending a pipe that will work better than anything else. I say tell the builder what you want, then run what he suggest for pipes, carbs, reeds, compression, etc......

 

 

Now I have this motor build with all the components matching perfectly with each other and I change one thing, the motor is going to be just a little off right?

Your right in that your power curves might not change much but there might be a slight difference in the curves between a motor ported for a certain pipe and one thats ported for something different.

Ever pipe made is different and it has a certain "timing" to it. That makes them different. Plus chamber size, stinger size and length, everything will make a difference and a port job to match all of that will make a difference in what the power curve looks like.

If you port matched to the one pipe thats a little jumpy in the curve it might smooth it out and make the curve better

I think my biggest problem is if you want to compare pipes and their curves doing it with a stock bike would be the best thing. You want to eliminate as many varibles as you can. Porting is a varible that can make a difference. I'm just looking at this like I'm doing a science experiment and you always have to provide a base test before you do anything else. And everything you do to that bike will influence the final result.

 

Ok. Enough bitching. What the hell are the setups you did. Who knows you might actually change my mind on my setup

 

Well testing different parts on the same setup does give you a baseline for gains no matter what you start out with. So some of the different things ran on these test shows you what a power curve for a certain pipe or carburetion combo will do for you. The idea is to look at the charts, notice the good and the bad before you kow what it is. That way you dont have a biased opinion. You have some hard evidence to support claims (1/2 of it) the other half is the riding part where you see what the bike does with a real world riding load on it. If the power curve looks more appealing in chart 3, but chart 3's hp numbers are not off by much down low compared to chart 2, then what else do you look at? what will the small peaks do to the powerband when your riding the bike? Will you notice a 1.25hp difference at 6,000 rpm? What are you actually doing on the bike at that rpm range, is it even usable power being that low?

 

Heres a fun Question: Out of all 3 charts which one do you think made the bike wheelie more?

[hercalmighty]

Yeah I got what your doing. You want people to say I like this so you can go Ha this is what you like suckers :biggrin:

If I say what I think about the wheelie thing will you say which one or are you going to let it hang for a while?

 

I'm thinking 3 only because it has a hell of a torque curve to it and torque is what give you that umph. Thats why 4 strokes are great wheelie machines because they have a better torque to hp ratio then 2 strokes.

[hercalmighty]

By the way. Its nice to have a great conversasion with out a bunch of name calling and arguing. This is a fun little quiz. I wish the motor gurus would pipe up.

I would like to see some more opions on the subject