|
Message
When I combined my primary and
secondary on one of my intake designs I used a 1.75" dia tube, so sounds
like your dimensions closely agree. I currently have a 1 1/2 and 1 1/4 for
the secondary and primary respectively. So that gives me a total of 2.99
sq inch runner area per rotor. So approx .45 sq inches more per rotor than you
currently have, so I would say your current design could be
restrictive.
Thanks
Ed, That's pretty much my conclusion too. While it's certainly
making good power, it could clearly be better, so it's probably worth
the hassle of making another intake.
I'm not sure
if we ever cleared up this business about whether you need a single TB big
to allow for both rotors, or just one at a time. That was at the
heart of the Ellison debate. Interestingly, if you add the sizes of
the ports on both rotors, it comes to an equivalent tube of about 63mm ID, which
is right in line with the recent discussion of TB
sizes.
Here's
another wacky idea for your entertainment- I'm familiar with the scavenging
concept used in exhaust systems. For one bank of a V-8, you
start with 4 pipes, then combine them to two bigger pipes, and
finally one even bigger pipe. The thought is that active flow
from one pipe is creating a suction on the others to help pull out exhaust of a
cylinder that's almost done with it's exhaust cycle.
Will this
work in reverse? It almost seems like it would to me. What
would happen if you start with two primaries, and two secondaries, then
combine them to make two larger pipes (one for each rotor), then combine again
for a single larger pipe with a TB on the end of
it?
Cheers,
Rusty (more
power Scotty)
|