Mikuni

CDHE said:
wow. the fcr's require a lot more modification. nice work on the carbon!
Click to expand...
They would have been a much simpler fit had I not A: steepened the inlet port angle and B: added extra length to the intake manifold ... (and probably C: because I really wanted intake flex and large filters that aren't directly bolted over the Sudco stacks). I also had to recess under the tank ... as you can imagine, nothing was particularly straightforward with the SFQ! And that's just one of many, many mods that required considerable thinking and countless hours of work. But I do LOVE the results :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jo
piranha-bro2 said:
Good thinking. I opted for remote filters. I used a my sheetmetal version as a mould for a carbon mid-piece (airbox replacement). Flex tubes JUST squeeze through and the BIG DNA filters are under the seat (not shown. Didn't like the look of the SF sidecovers once the airbox was gone.

View attachment 91635View attachment 91636View attachment 91638
Click to expand...
Would be fun to see the performance difference between these tubes and some straight ones with a smooth surface... ;-)
 
Laverdalothar said:
Would be fun to see the performance difference between these tubes and some straight ones with a smooth surface... ;-)
Click to expand...
True Lothar. I've had two dyno runs, one with the open Sudco oval intake stacks (74hp) and one session after I fitted the flex over the stacks and with the DNA filters (71hp). Not a lot of difference felt on the road. If I could have a still airbox I would have it in a flash. Just not possible with the std twin frame ... and I wanted it to still be fundamentally an SF-based bike.
 
piranha-bro2 said:
True Lothar. I've had two dyno runs, one with the open Sudco oval intake stacks (74hp) and one session after I fitted the flex over the stacks and with the DNA filters (71hp). Not a lot of difference felt on the road. If I could have a still airbox I would have it in a flash. Just not possible with the std twin frame ... and I wanted it to still be fundamentally an SF-based bike.
Click to expand...
Could be that with smooth surface tubes, you get better results... Even putting in some Inlet-stubs like these could smooth out the airflow...:

1723472257025.png

take the midsize one, make an adapter to mount it into the tube and test again. Bett the results are better... 😉

And/or: what about making an airbox in the rear of the seat...? ;-)
 
Quentin, Laverdas produce no power and have no sales value but cost a fortune to maintain and rebuild and are mostly owned by people who never ride them. If I have told you once .....
 
Paul Marx said:
You're obviously not attaining maximum power with those curved inlet tracts.
Quarter of a mile times will be down.
Paul
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing your own bikes and riding style with what Lothar and I are talking about, Paul. If you rode my bike the way I built it to be ridden it would scare you shitless - guaranteed. I actually DO ride it that way.
 
piranha-bro2 said:
I think you're confusing your own bikes and riding style with what Lothar and I are talking about, Paul. If you rode my bike the way I built it to be ridden it would scare you shitless - guaranteed. I actually DO ride it that way.
Click to expand...
The only thing that scares me on a bike is cars.
Otherwise , only the dyno knows.
Paul
 
I think the robot arm intake tubes look cool but you can get convoluted tube that is smooth internally- you might get a liquid fuel build up in the corogations. Performance loss will be negligable . Velocity stacks work at certain RPM but you get fuel standoff at other RPM- K&Ns work incredibly well at all revs, but I would say that .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top