Any header down at 1.4* included will achieve nothing. Never has , never will , double it.
Why do weird , when weird doesnt work.
An enclosed perforated rear cone would work well in this application , but the " muffler " tube would end up longer than a normal pipe end point - less the stinger.
But an internal stinger would help anyway.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
I don't want to go over 80mm on belly section because of size. 2,8° header would end with 43,6mm diameter. Wouldn't that weaken the difusor acting as it would need to be shallower to get length back?
These engines are old school design (small crankcase volume). Is in this case difusor action less expressed as it is can't pull from crankcase that much as modern design?
If I make perforated cone with enclosed chamber, I will put a hole in side of enclosure and make standalone muffler facing back. Or similar as on attached picture.
Wobbly, is that a design I should use? Should total exhaust length be changed or it should be same as with full (classic) cone?
I used a picture from Frits files.
![]()
The header angle increase would have more beneficial effect than any down side from a shallow diffuser. Make the diffuser 2 cones , 2/3 - 1/3 lengths.
You are dealing with no bmep here.
The vevey was originally designed for an engine pulling more than twice your design rpm , an adaption of this would need to be twice as long.
So as I said the muffler tube ends up being longer than your " ordinary " pipe design.
And the later designs that I did of this type of pipe ended up with a 3* tapered header as well.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
I had the rear cone and muffler design in mind from Vevey picture, not complete dimensions.
Will make a change. Anyway I must build it for this summer riding and make some development over winter.
If I understood, the perforated angle cone with enclosure should have smaller angle than same classic style cone?
Well its going to be shallower by making the body only 80 Diameter anyway.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
The Ignitech lobe height works at anything from 1.5 , but length can be anything from about 8mm to 25mm.
I have split a 24mm lobe into 2 with an 8mm gap to enable twin fire on a 180* twin that originally ran wasted spark.
The ECU spits the dummy if the lobe is over about 25mm , it does have a " long lobe " option but I simply shortened a longer 50mm Chinese flywheel lobe in the mill due to misfiring.
It also differs in that its recommended you use the falling edge to fire, as this is a specific characteristic of lobe triggering - whereas noise can trigger the ECU with rising voltage spikes.
This is the default situation that occurs when the base timing is set with the falling edge past the trigger pole , with the piston at TDC.
EDIT - you must use a resistor plug and cap , and note that the trigger input and the coil output are on opposite ends of the connector.
Keep all other wires well away from the coil outputs - this is the biggest cause of misfire issues people have by insisting on bundling everything together in a " loom ".
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
Compare Pornography now to 50 years ago.
Then extrapolate 50 years into the future.
. . . That shit's Nasty.
In a word yes , the input trigger wires should be routed well away from the coil wires. I always have the trigger (s) on one side of the bike , the coil wires (s) on the other.
These are on opposite ends of the ECU connector for a reason.
And the grounds for the trigger inputs , and the power grounds , are separate as well , and should also be physically routed apart.
The white and orange coil drive wires can be side by side and this has no effect on the triggering accuracy.
But be aware though , the output wires ( such as a PV drive or PJ switching ) if routed in a loom with the trigger inputs will generate errors and misfires due to EMI crosstalk.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
Its not really doing something bad by mistake , the real issue is Ignitech and others dont tell you this basic stuff , that more often than not prevents anything approaching a " plug and play " scenario.
The only solution is to spend years of tracking down the issues others have unknowingly created , and going grey and or bald in the process.
I really wish I had someone telling me how not to fuck it up 20 years ago.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
Have you polished the crank seals and the Primary drive nut?
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks