Lasse wankel header
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 2
From: everywherez...
When the straw opens up...the negative pressure is going to suck whatever is on the other side...
Which was the conclusion of the "closed straw argument"...
Thread Starter
Lasse wankel
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Thank you! But i don't feel that kind of old when playing with my rotors... I have decide not to write anything about my header project thread that i started, but all i can say i have not given it up!
/Lasse
/Lasse
Bumping for old times sake, funny how they have all have faded away never to be heard from again. The koolaid guzzling theorists in particular should note that the long tube Renesis header idea is nothing new nor untested, just go back a page or two ...
While you're on a bumpfest .....don't forget Hymees' long tube header dyno thread ..................
Last edited by Brettus; May 17, 2014 at 03:03 PM.
You can have it now with emissions and long tubes aren"t required. All that is required is a true 3" collector and true 3" connections between the manifold-midpipe and midpipe-catback. Take any existing header and do this will pretty much get you most of the way there. Larger primaries like 2" are slightly better.
All you need are to convert the flanges to slip fittings and keep it easy, or you can just build your own true 3" system
If you really were going to build a true scavenging header then the last thing you would do is make the center siamese port tube the same diameter as the outer port tubes. Thats the same not thinking it through fully mentality as the suck the straw commentary in this thread.
.
All you need are to convert the flanges to slip fittings and keep it easy, or you can just build your own true 3" system
If you really were going to build a true scavenging header then the last thing you would do is make the center siamese port tube the same diameter as the outer port tubes. Thats the same not thinking it through fully mentality as the suck the straw commentary in this thread.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; May 18, 2014 at 12:38 AM.
you may want to re-evaluate the siamese vs non-siamese port flow differences then
otherwise we can dream up any wild @ss idea and claim the same thing, funny that my actual realized effort from 2006 still doesn't qualify as proven yet to you
I'm actually moving on to a short tube design to provide more flexure allowance at high temp, the old design has served me well but has heat fatigued and cracked/repaired to the point it needs to be replaced. It's mainly a result of being super lightweight, yet inflexibly rigid despite using T321. I had some other ides too, but my assessment is that in the end it's just a theory game that won't prove out beyond the benefit achieved by over-sized primary tubes and an over-sized non-reducing collector regardless of primary tube length. Plan is to use short Inconel primaries to allow some expansion movement without fatigue into a collector as stated.
If you really want to try an idea of potential value then IMO the thing to do is figure out the flow timing between the siamese & non-siamese port, split the siamese port into two flow streams, and bring each stream into the outer port flow at the shortest appropriate flow timing position, then work it as a two pipe system from there. Everyone who has split the siamese flow stream kept all four separate until the collector, rather than joining them back early and timed for max pulse per rotor. The problem is as stated in the first sentence, figuring that part of the equation out. So far all the assumptions I've seen about siamese port flow relative to all these alternate designs fails IMO.
However, I still say with zero overlap you are wishing for more than there will ever possibly be ...
.
otherwise we can dream up any wild @ss idea and claim the same thing, funny that my actual realized effort from 2006 still doesn't qualify as proven yet to you
I'm actually moving on to a short tube design to provide more flexure allowance at high temp, the old design has served me well but has heat fatigued and cracked/repaired to the point it needs to be replaced. It's mainly a result of being super lightweight, yet inflexibly rigid despite using T321. I had some other ides too, but my assessment is that in the end it's just a theory game that won't prove out beyond the benefit achieved by over-sized primary tubes and an over-sized non-reducing collector regardless of primary tube length. Plan is to use short Inconel primaries to allow some expansion movement without fatigue into a collector as stated.
If you really want to try an idea of potential value then IMO the thing to do is figure out the flow timing between the siamese & non-siamese port, split the siamese port into two flow streams, and bring each stream into the outer port flow at the shortest appropriate flow timing position, then work it as a two pipe system from there. Everyone who has split the siamese flow stream kept all four separate until the collector, rather than joining them back early and timed for max pulse per rotor. The problem is as stated in the first sentence, figuring that part of the equation out. So far all the assumptions I've seen about siamese port flow relative to all these alternate designs fails IMO.
However, I still say with zero overlap you are wishing for more than there will ever possibly be ...
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; Jun 6, 2014 at 07:56 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
