But I feel I must add here, that my whole perception of dyno testing was changed by Jan stating that alot of the pipe testing that was originally done
was invalidated in that the jetting wasn't optimised for each change of dimensions.
What he was saying is that if a pipe affected the egt due to its design, then the power change was due to the egt change - not the actual efficiency ( or not ) of the actual pipe.
I have taken this on board and for some time EVERY run I do I aim to jet for exactly the same peak power egt.
A small change in reed stiffness will absolutely change the egt number, and if you dont then rejet to achieve the target, then the temp change is causing the power difference - not the reed change.
I shoot for 650*C on a KZ2 for example as this is what we see for best power.
Now I am starting to use Lambda, to achieve a target A/F ratio.
Both methods, are in effect approximating what should really be done to do this properly, that is measuring air and fuel flow to generate a max power BSFC number.
But anyway, what I am saying is that just doing a dyno run, making a change and then not rejetting - is a waste of effort.
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.
Bookmarks