Yank'in the snorkel, or how to increase intake turbulence

[Pursuvant]

I'm curious about the perception that pulling the snorkel improves anything. In olden tymes, turbulence was a real deal that (generally) decreased performance when you yanked the lid off an airbox in isolation (no fueling enrichment). Just like throwing on a pipe without re-jetting/enriching the map, you save some weight but can pretty much forget any actual increase in engine power (more likely you get a decrease). If you do nothing to increase the quantity of fuel flowing thru the intake combustion cycle, why expect any power increase?

Wondering if the dyno tuners give intake turbulence a thought with fuel injected bikes? Is it possible that if they put the snorkel back in the box, they could actually see an improved baseline for tuning up? Because turbulence is a thing, and fluid dynamics doesn't care about perceptions.

These are golden days for moto mechanisms, and it's  fun to ask the old questions again to see what turns up in new understandings.

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Pursuvant
clarify decrease in power from pipe in isolation

[mossrider]

Here are a few threads that talk about this to some degree. At least from my antique perspective of addressing these phenomenon from a practical, real world perspective and how to overcome these issues in a manner that complies with rules or is average guy feasible. I'm not a credentialed or trained engine builder or performance technician. I have put in the time, effort, testing and failure to be successful however. My bikes and motors are competitive at all levels of racing, posting competitive lap times as well as trap speeds on a much smaller budget than the front runners. I have developed these over several years and 45 documented dyno runs with an expert tuner and builder friend. Many in the professional paddock would agree as they too now run my modifications on their machines. 

Special thanks go out to the real pros around here however:

Zoran at TWF, @twf

Matt Spicer at Robem Engineering, @Spatt

 

 

 

I've messed with airboxes up the wazoo. I've messed with ram air, cold air, scoops, magic, velocity stacks, bell mouths, turbolators, pipes, cross overs, power bombs, scavengers, resonators, expansion chambers and various other methods of performance enhancement over the years. I always do my own testing. I never take someone else's word for anything. I always come about it the hard way. If failure is the measure of learning my scrap pile suggests I aughta be brilliant soon, lol.

Bottom line I tried everything to get more usable power. I ended up back where I started, cover off a stock airbox, no filter, modified intack runners. Damn.

There's some actual great reading on here about fluid dynamics and the airbox somewhere too.

Here it is...

Good stuff that there

[cornerslider]

50 minutes ago, mossrider said:

Here are a few threads that talk about this to some degree. At least from my antique perspective of addressing these phenomenon from a practical, real world perspective and how to overcome these issues in a manner that complies with rules or is average guy feasible. I'm not a credentialed or trained engine builder or performance technician. I have put in the time, effort, testing and failure to be successful however. My bikes and motors are competitive at all levels of racing, posting competitive lap times as well as trap speeds on a much smaller budget than the front runners. I have developed these over several years and 45 documented dyno runs with an expert tuner and builder friend. Many in the professional paddock would agree as they too now run my modifications on their machines. 

Special thanks go out to the real pros around here however:

Zoran at TWF, @twf

Matt Spicer at Robem Engineering, @Spatt

 

 

 

I've messed with airboxes up the wazoo. I've messed with ram air, cold air, scoops, magic, velocity stacks, bell mouths, turbolators, pipes, cross overs, power bombs, scavengers, resonators, expansion chambers and various other methods of performance enhancement over the years. I always do my own testing. I never take someone else's word for anything. I always come about it the hard way. If failure is the measure of learning my scrap pile suggests I aughta be brilliant soon, lol.

Bottom line I tried everything to get more usable power. I ended up back where I started, cover off a stock airbox, no filter, modified intack runners. Damn.

There's some actual great reading on here about fluid dynamics and the airbox somewhere too.

@mossrider is brilliant!!! I know him on a personal level.... He does know what the f#@K he's talking about. KNOW ONE does more testing than him. He may appear to be a bit  "rough around the edges", he is truly a diamond-in- the-rough... Keep doing what you do brother - 

[stickshift]

2 hours ago, Pursuvant said:

I'm curious about the perception that pulling the snorkel improves anything. 

I can guarantee it increases the rider’s enjoyment of the induction noise! 

[Pursuvant]

On 8/6/2020 at 6:01 PM, mossrider said:

Bottom line I tried everything to get more usable power. I ended up back where I started, cover off a stock airbox, no filter, modified intack runners. Damn.

There's some actual great reading on here about fluid dynamics and the airbox somewhere too.

Here it is...

Good stuff that there

MR you are a real asset to this site, the depth and time you put into replies is assume amigo. Thank you I'll be working my way thru your info, it will take some time.

I expect that fuel injection changes all this understanding, that map (if it was created with the lid off) is going to spray whether there's turbulence or not. It was the slide carbs of the ancient tymes that had their fueling messed with by taking the lid off, now it's I suppose a non issue for FI bikes...

Edited August 7, 2020 by Pursuvant
sPElLINg