Marc Salvisberg
Registered
Looks nice!
Feel different?
Marc
Feel different?
Marc
Velocity Stacks
- Thread starter B@DA$$08BUS@
- Start date
Fastmax32168
Registered
I am going to post a positive for Marks stacks as well, even though it isn't on a Busa. I have a set sitting here for my Bking but haven't yet installed them.
I did however install a set of his 35/70 stacks on my Suzuki V-strom. As a test, before installing them on my bike, my buddy (who has an identical bike) and I went out and tried several roll ons in different gears and a few acceleration runs. Our bikes ran nearly identically as they always have. We have ridden thousands of miles together, ridden each others bikes many times, and these bikes were two peas in a pod performance wise.
After installing the stacks, and with no other changes, we went out and re ran the bikes off. My bike consistently leaps in front of his from roll ons now, putting several bike lengths on him before the first shift point, it is not even close. On wide open acceleration runs from low gear I end up so far ahead of him I can see him behind me in my mirror. Both of us were aghast at the difference they made, it was much more than I ever expected to get. It didnt matter how many times we repeated the test, we kept getting the same result.
If I get results of 1/2 this magnitude on my Bking, I am going to be a very happy camper.
Sorry, but those of you think this is snake oil and refuse to believe stacks can work, just dont understand the basic principles of filling the chamber. I cannot yet vouch for the results on the gen 2 busa, but I can tell you that the theory of using them to increase power is based on solid principles, not some made up hoka yoka.
Roy
I did however install a set of his 35/70 stacks on my Suzuki V-strom. As a test, before installing them on my bike, my buddy (who has an identical bike) and I went out and tried several roll ons in different gears and a few acceleration runs. Our bikes ran nearly identically as they always have. We have ridden thousands of miles together, ridden each others bikes many times, and these bikes were two peas in a pod performance wise.
After installing the stacks, and with no other changes, we went out and re ran the bikes off. My bike consistently leaps in front of his from roll ons now, putting several bike lengths on him before the first shift point, it is not even close. On wide open acceleration runs from low gear I end up so far ahead of him I can see him behind me in my mirror. Both of us were aghast at the difference they made, it was much more than I ever expected to get. It didnt matter how many times we repeated the test, we kept getting the same result.
If I get results of 1/2 this magnitude on my Bking, I am going to be a very happy camper.
Sorry, but those of you think this is snake oil and refuse to believe stacks can work, just dont understand the basic principles of filling the chamber. I cannot yet vouch for the results on the gen 2 busa, but I can tell you that the theory of using them to increase power is based on solid principles, not some made up hoka yoka.
Roy
Marc Salvisberg
Registered
Thank you, Roy and Suzie, for bucking the sometimes rough water and posting.
It's tough to spend thousands to design, test and manufacture products, only to get assassinated in a forum. :-)
While it's always possible that a product may not work on a particular, single bike, I promise you that if we posted a dyno chart from an EC997 dyno, we DID do it and we DID get the loaded dyno test results that we published - and in the case of all of the Suzuki type velocity stacks, we also have test results from other stack lengths that worked less optimally than what was decided on for a stock engined bike -
If a particular set of stacks "didn't work" on a properly tested and properly tuned individual stock engined bike, it would be in the area of "no gain" amounts and not a 5-10 hp loss. A 10 hp loss is funky testing or tuning.
I'd wager 2 free EC9997 dyno tests that even taking the stacks completely out won't lose 10 hp, when properly tested. (chuckle... I "might" lose that one - but, what the heck, I'm curious) :-) and if it's not 10, you still don't have to pay. (I was never good at gambling) Email me (not PM) from the site.
Thanks again -
Marc
It's tough to spend thousands to design, test and manufacture products, only to get assassinated in a forum. :-)
While it's always possible that a product may not work on a particular, single bike, I promise you that if we posted a dyno chart from an EC997 dyno, we DID do it and we DID get the loaded dyno test results that we published - and in the case of all of the Suzuki type velocity stacks, we also have test results from other stack lengths that worked less optimally than what was decided on for a stock engined bike -
If a particular set of stacks "didn't work" on a properly tested and properly tuned individual stock engined bike, it would be in the area of "no gain" amounts and not a 5-10 hp loss. A 10 hp loss is funky testing or tuning.
I'd wager 2 free EC9997 dyno tests that even taking the stacks completely out won't lose 10 hp, when properly tested. (chuckle... I "might" lose that one - but, what the heck, I'm curious) :-) and if it's not 10, you still don't have to pay. (I was never good at gambling) Email me (not PM) from the site.
Thanks again -
Marc
Last edited:
Man, I've been reading some bizz are you kidding me? I'm going to explain something real sim pull is not pull your leg over your head like I've been reading.
I'm self trained and FI is new to me. Old fundamentals are not new is too tongue tied to show you a clue. Say we have a ladder that is 9 feet tall. Say we have a step stool is the stack height.
OK, simply stated, how fast do you think you answered your own question? I'm going to run up the ladder and you are going to step on a stool.
Someone say, "Jump!" When you step on the stool and fall off the building, we make a suicide pack we throw the elixirs overboard.
So, I'm still climbing the ladder, you made one step and started to fall. Who is going to die faster or more like, who is going to enter the engine sooner?
Air has to climb over that bell and then down the long tube. Long tube says the event happens slower. There is your bottom end grunt.
Since things travel in a linear arc, we use the shorter stack for the upper band attack. Here is the clinker. We just moved the same amount of air a little sooner... Is your quote.
We made no hp but to speed the event. Rob from pee tear to pay paul leaseeeeeeeezzzzz! Did you not lose HP at the top with the longer stack but gained at the boom-boom bottom?
Man says "more air." Nature says 'equal pressure.' You want to add or force pressure, you up the 14.7 past that pressure; you have forced induction.
You normally assp an engine, she is going to gulp 14.7; Not more air! You get more air if it is condensed = NOX or liquid oxygen. Same day, different month said another way. January makes more HP is a cold set. Summer air has expanded and this enters equally but with less air is the same cylinder fill.
Same fill no matter the stack size is the timed event 360°. Someone needs a reschooling like rewrite the text along with the TRE mess is my guess.
E Licks Her Ear. Come get year.... Just bring a spoon and I'll feed you some fluffacts. If I weramafm only racing again is bring out Mule2.Ever see that tiny spit at the intake close? That's how zero-perfect the air enters at speed is hardly leaves a wake 1Atmo.
???
Marc Salvisberg
Registered
Are you saying that air pressure in a tube kind of acts like a full size, real metal Slinky?
If you hold the Slinky out in front of you and bounce each end at exactly the right time you can "bounce" the tight coils back towards the other side - and when those "tight coils" reach you hand, they "smacks" your hand?
If you hold the Slinky 1 foot apart, the tight coils reach the ends quicker.
Hold the Slinky ends out further - it takes longer.
The strokes of the engine take longer at low rpm, so if you want denser air (tight part of the Slinky coils) to cram air into the combustion chamber, you use a longer Slinky (or longer port) to smack the higher density air into the combustion chamber, right before the intake valves close.
Kind of like your ladder and stool idea.
As far as always being a trade off - well - usually, yes, but on some engines, there is a length that just works better everywhere - like the Yamaha 98-01 and 02-03 and 04-06 R1's - longer was always better - at all rpms till the stack got too close to the airbox interior top.
Marc
If you hold the Slinky out in front of you and bounce each end at exactly the right time you can "bounce" the tight coils back towards the other side - and when those "tight coils" reach you hand, they "smacks" your hand?
If you hold the Slinky 1 foot apart, the tight coils reach the ends quicker.
Hold the Slinky ends out further - it takes longer.
The strokes of the engine take longer at low rpm, so if you want denser air (tight part of the Slinky coils) to cram air into the combustion chamber, you use a longer Slinky (or longer port) to smack the higher density air into the combustion chamber, right before the intake valves close.
Kind of like your ladder and stool idea.
As far as always being a trade off - well - usually, yes, but on some engines, there is a length that just works better everywhere - like the Yamaha 98-01 and 02-03 and 04-06 R1's - longer was always better - at all rpms till the stack got too close to the airbox interior top.
Marc
dmrowe
Registered
I wasn't going to post anything until someone else chimed in but...
Let's see, he is using a DYNOJET dynomometer (which you say is worthless) he spends $250 plus and gains only 1.96 HP? Sounds like a good investment to me! His Gen II is producing 179.30 HP and I got 178.32 out of my Gen I and only spent $12 on stock short stacks.
Let's see, he is using a DYNOJET dynomometer (which you say is worthless) he spends $250 plus and gains only 1.96 HP? Sounds like a good investment to me! His Gen II is producing 179.30 HP and I got 178.32 out of my Gen I and only spent $12 on stock short stacks.
dmrowe
Registered
Fastmax32168
Registered
Roy,
You went faster because your wallet was lighter!!!
I doubt that. My wallet still weighs more than his.
Roy
Ah no, WATTime saying is that the sensors would have to rotate we run a larger whack of air. That is one reason the sensors run the 0.0 to 5.0v range.
No matter how slow the crank turns, the volume is a constant = So goes the volt range is that constant. It's just running in a linear rise is time the rise as in you rheostat the throttle and that linears the rise to the same valve close on the 1Atmo.
1Atmo = 1000 rpm idle.
12,500 rpm = 1Atmo on the close.
Knows your sheet is you be running wit the big boys now.
No matter how slow the crank turns, the volume is a constant = So goes the volt range is that constant. It's just running in a linear rise is time the rise as in you rheostat the throttle and that linears the rise to the same valve close on the 1Atmo.
1Atmo = 1000 rpm idle.
12,500 rpm = 1Atmo on the close.
Knows your sheet is you be running wit the big boys now.
mestona
Registered
Marc Salvisberg
Registered
Couldn't I just super glue tin-foil, shiny side out onto my airbox ???
Don't even need Super Glue - they make flexy peel 'n stick sticky back insulation.
Though, insulating the fuel is probably more worthwhile - when riding.
dmrowe
Registered
You see my concept [yes or no?] and I did not make the rules. You need to dispute there is not 14.7 on the close each time that valve closes. I don't care what rpm, your choice.
If I throw in more fuel, did I not close on the 14.7, yes or no? Nature changed not one pressure on that close. I just filled the ratio a bit different is yes or no is the close still 14.7 is YOU SAID, "MORE AIR" [would be leaner, reading your website] is yes or no or am I distorting the facts of OTTO, FI, N/A? Normally aspirated, remember, is not forced as if blowing up a balloon. All we did was blow up the pro flow lack dack is that hot air filled that void and that was all she wrote, N/A. Like, close the lid on an empty coffee cup and that is all she wrote 14.7 slash 1Atmo.
Formulate that in the rule books is no way! I am bad at math. I keep that for those that can walk that logic. You have to have the fundamental concept before you build the analog system to gather all that input so the output is the constant. How they do that is a mystery to me.
Get this out of the way and we can move along to the TRE theory. I can hear the seats moving closer to the screen just about now...
You wanna talk about rules of engagement. I'm still learning about this... ButtDyno, I think I got enough to hold a conversation or 2.
If I throw in more fuel, did I not close on the 14.7, yes or no? Nature changed not one pressure on that close. I just filled the ratio a bit different is yes or no is the close still 14.7 is YOU SAID, "MORE AIR" [would be leaner, reading your website] is yes or no or am I distorting the facts of OTTO, FI, N/A? Normally aspirated, remember, is not forced as if blowing up a balloon. All we did was blow up the pro flow lack dack is that hot air filled that void and that was all she wrote, N/A. Like, close the lid on an empty coffee cup and that is all she wrote 14.7 slash 1Atmo.
Formulate that in the rule books is no way! I am bad at math. I keep that for those that can walk that logic. You have to have the fundamental concept before you build the analog system to gather all that input so the output is the constant. How they do that is a mystery to me.Get this out of the way and we can move along to the TRE theory. I can hear the seats moving closer to the screen just about now...
You wanna talk about rules of engagement. I'm still learning about this... ButtDyno, I think I got enough to hold a conversation or 2.
Last edited:
We want to keep discussing the velocity vs. the stack attack? Or, what's the deal? It's like showing up for a race and now where did the competition go? LAP... I'm wondering about that TRE deal and that Suz engineer sworn to secrecy spilling the beans or just the generic explanation?
Think the deck is 'stacked' against you?
Come on, Marc... Lettuce Race! Can you feel year heart pounding someone throw the flag... Paz'inn the ass sass inn is ate chore swerve is use is next.Ivan, wear out is eye van is LAPiss ass around the track is ask Ivan.
My buddy!Fastmax32168
Registered
Well if Marc is anything like me, he is probably still staring at the disjointed mess you typed trying to figure out what the hell you are trying to say......
Roy
Roy
Marc Salvisberg
Registered
I explained somewhat how stacks and air work in an intake tract and a guy is sure that I don't know how stacks work - and someone else wants to keep haranguing anybody who is happy.
Is this what Hayabusa.org is all about?
Preventing people from learning?
Sheesh.
Marc
Is this what Hayabusa.org is all about?
Preventing people from learning?
Sheesh.
Marc
Last edited:
It's suppose to make you all dis come boob beer rated. It makes such common sense, no one is going to dispute it. That is why someone comes on and says, "more air into the engine" has the rest of the theory all disjointed.
FI works in the absolute. There is no dispute, you try to change something else other than fuel, spark or compression as a substitute is bring that theory here.
I think Marc understands what I said without a doubt. No matter how I come up with any type of concept, it has to walk one step after the other or you misstep the theory.
For instance, say I take one sugar in my coffee. That equals 1 HP. If we use an absolute and say that if we burned the packet of sugar [for argument sake], it would equal 42.4 BTU's or 1 HP.
Do we understand that if we use less sugar or more sugar, we spoil the 1 HP ratio. We are at peak work and the linear peaks at 42.4 BTU and there goes the diminishing returns we sway either way [from the ideal ratio], yes or no?
FI is super simple and super complex. I just watch the steps and they run in some absolute degree is like a thermometer does not jump from freezing to 98.6°F. Are we back to a linear move is each step is each degree?
We 360 the crank and are they in absolute pie cut degrees we can see 14.7 as slow as one degree slow is the close and did that not zero out to 1Atmo no matter the weather degree?
Marc Says: "More Air" is click on his signature [website] and read up.
2Busays: "Equal Air" is the 1Atmo.
How simple is the concept? Figure it out if I have both covered. We are tuning a bike engine. We need a few basics. I/we read 'more air' makes me want to richen up. I already know the cold air is condensed to make more air expand on the BTU. That is 'more air' is the same air. We head up the mountain top is less air. We have the same air but less dense at the same 14.7 psi close in said altitude.
I read 'same air' I need to do nothing is tune from there. I'm living in the mountains, read this creates more air, where do I jet now? So, mountain reader thinks this thing is going to run even leaner if there is MORE AIR?
Sound confusing? ???
FI works in the absolute. There is no dispute, you try to change something else other than fuel, spark or compression as a substitute is bring that theory here.
I think Marc understands what I said without a doubt. No matter how I come up with any type of concept, it has to walk one step after the other or you misstep the theory.
For instance, say I take one sugar in my coffee. That equals 1 HP. If we use an absolute and say that if we burned the packet of sugar [for argument sake], it would equal 42.4 BTU's or 1 HP.
Do we understand that if we use less sugar or more sugar, we spoil the 1 HP ratio. We are at peak work and the linear peaks at 42.4 BTU and there goes the diminishing returns we sway either way [from the ideal ratio], yes or no?
FI is super simple and super complex. I just watch the steps and they run in some absolute degree is like a thermometer does not jump from freezing to 98.6°F. Are we back to a linear move is each step is each degree?We 360 the crank and are they in absolute pie cut degrees we can see 14.7 as slow as one degree slow is the close and did that not zero out to 1Atmo no matter the weather degree?
Marc Says: "More Air" is click on his signature [website] and read up.
2Busays: "Equal Air" is the 1Atmo.
How simple is the concept? Figure it out if I have both covered. We are tuning a bike engine. We need a few basics. I/we read 'more air' makes me want to richen up. I already know the cold air is condensed to make more air expand on the BTU. That is 'more air' is the same air. We head up the mountain top is less air. We have the same air but less dense at the same 14.7 psi close in said altitude.
I read 'same air' I need to do nothing is tune from there. I'm living in the mountains, read this creates more air, where do I jet now? So, mountain reader thinks this thing is going to run even leaner if there is MORE AIR?
Sound confusing? ???
mike1180
Banned
Hey, my 2 cents:
I have not professionally tuned my bike or dynoed it but I did feel an improvement.
I would buy them again - they seem to work for me. JMO
On another note,
Marc the Evo shift kit works great too.
Lots of guys have installed them and love it.
Thanks for that too.
https://www.hayabusa.org/forum/general-bike-related-topics/92211-more-shifting-help.html
I have not professionally tuned my bike or dynoed it but I did feel an improvement.
I would buy them again - they seem to work for me. JMO
On another note,
Marc the Evo shift kit works great too.
Lots of guys have installed them and love it.
Thanks for that too.
https://www.hayabusa.org/forum/general-bike-related-topics/92211-more-shifting-help.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
