I'm done... doesn't matter what I say.... you're gonna say I'm hung up on it, when in fact I state several times that I have no concrete proof.. I'm the first to state that. Never said any of it was gospel. As to the placebo effect... nope.. it is a fact the bike runs differently at low rpms now. Can I measure how much... nope.

I just try to get some of ya think... 'course a couple of ya can't... and resort to sarcasm and such, because you have no further argument to make.. but that's okay. It's not like you were starting out well armed in the first place.

For anybody else with an open mind... there is lot's more info to be had. Just do some searchs on 'velocity stacks', or 'tuned induction' or 'ram tubes'.

Here's a couple of links to get ya started:

http://www.hilborninjection.com/tech...bes_length.asp

http://hemrickperformance.com/induction.aspx

As for this thread ...I'm done.

... and AZ... you're not worth my time.

 

Good articles, I concede to your point. While I don't believe they are true representations of what exactly we are discussing (arguing) here I do appreciate the info and the fact that you took the time to make your points based on some factual literature. This pissing match is drawn to a sad end but I do hope others have learned at least something, be it not about airflow and filter design...maybe how to effectively conduct an internet forum argument lol.

 

I'd consider neither, because each allows a vacuum to induce oil out of the rocker boxes. That oil then goes into the combustion chamber - something I'd rather avoid.

Instead, find an arrangement that vents to atmosphere (pressure). The higher on the bike the breather is located, the better, although I put mine down low.

 

I have performed a lot of experimenting with induction wave tuning on Harleys and I can tell you that it does work. Any time you change the length, diameter and shape, it will change the induction wave timing whither the results are positive or negative. This Rule includes any part of the induction system from the intake valve to the end of the air filter. The velocity stack that I used in one of the articles listed above had the best results at a length of six inches. This doesn't mean that this length will be the best length for anyone else engine. Also note that the velocity stack used had a negative taper. The stack was larger on the T/B end and smaller on the open end (probably around 38mm).
Here is a link that helps explain the theory: http://www.team-integra.net/sections...?ArticleID=466

 

I dont know man, to me an acura is a COMPLETELY different monster altogether

 

They are both normally aspirated engines. Both have intake valves, and induction systems.

I could care less what anyone believes, I know for a fact and have shown a lot of people the increase while they were standing there watching me tune there engine. I challenge anyone to try it themselves. Like I said in my article: http://hemrickperformance.com/induction.aspx the example showed an increase of 10 TQ.

I did the same experiment using the same velocity stack on a customer's Jims 131 engine where it gained over 14 HP. How much does the average customer pay to gain 10 TQ? This is old technology developed in the 60's but hasn't been popular on HD's. Nascar is using this technology and is targeting the third reflection wave.

The automotive industry tries to manufacture automobiles as cheap as possible. They wouldn't spend the extra money on variable and tuned induction systems if they didn't help.

 

yet you take the time to post YOUR article and a bunch of pictures. all Im saying is show me a dyno chart of a V-TWIN (i.e. not an acura) where the ONLY variable is the air cleaner assembly. I would like to see one dyno pull with each type intake discussed in the thread (90*,and something like a big sucker) Im not trying to compare I.Q.s man, but its gonna take a little more than your article and some acura dyno charts to prove to me that a long aircleaner port trumps any other low restriction air cleaner.