Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing?
02-10-2003, 10:33 PM
#21
TECH Fanatic
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> Found this for reference:
http://www.mtf.ntnu.no/PEOPLE/PAK/LAB/ExpFluids27.pdf </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting reference, FU. Let's see, the "rough" surface tested was made up of a wire mesh with .027 in. dia. wires on a .125 inch spacing. That's like very coarse window screen. I'd say that was rather rougher than even a stock TB casting by a factor of maybe 500, and 1000 times as rough as a typical ported TB. That may throw the correlation off a little.
The resulting boundary layer in the quoted reference, at 20 m/s velocity, about 65 ft/sec was about 75 mm thick. Since the boundry layer applies all around the TB, making it 150 mm (almost 6 inches) total, this doesn't have too much relevance to a 75 mm dia passage, IMO.
Oh well, shiny sells.
<strong> Found this for reference:
http://www.mtf.ntnu.no/PEOPLE/PAK/LAB/ExpFluids27.pdf </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting reference, FU. Let's see, the "rough" surface tested was made up of a wire mesh with .027 in. dia. wires on a .125 inch spacing. That's like very coarse window screen. I'd say that was rather rougher than even a stock TB casting by a factor of maybe 500, and 1000 times as rough as a typical ported TB. That may throw the correlation off a little.
The resulting boundary layer in the quoted reference, at 20 m/s velocity, about 65 ft/sec was about 75 mm thick. Since the boundry layer applies all around the TB, making it 150 mm (almost 6 inches) total, this doesn't have too much relevance to a 75 mm dia passage, IMO.
Oh well, shiny sells.
02-11-2003, 10:42 AM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JasonShort:
<strong> Well, I am going to have to agree with OldSStroker. There is no flow along the surface of ANY material....no matter how smooth or rough it is (no-slip boundary condition). We are only talking TBs here and there is no accurate way to calculate the Reynolds number thru a TB.
Mabye my fluids professors didnt teach me correctly tho? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Jason </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer.
<strong> Well, I am going to have to agree with OldSStroker. There is no flow along the surface of ANY material....no matter how smooth or rough it is (no-slip boundary condition). We are only talking TBs here and there is no accurate way to calculate the Reynolds number thru a TB.
Mabye my fluids professors didnt teach me correctly tho? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Jason </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer.
02-11-2003, 01:34 PM
#23
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? Fenris,
Mulitple orders of magnatude in surface finish roughness from the stock casting to a window screen. The finish on a stock casting still doesn't hurt flow.
BTW have you ever taken a polished TB and a rough ported one and flowed them on a flow bench back to back? If you did then I would guess that you would have never gotten into this debate. People don't pay for a rough finish on a ported TB, but a mirror smooth ones makes absolutely no sense, in comparison to the ones I put out. If you can't feel the surface roughness with your finger then it's more than enough. If you want I can get some surface finish numbers with a profilomemeter. Not saying I'm going to tell anyone the numbers I get, but there is alot of helpfull technology to aid in any airflow devlopment.
R&D work, machinery to do accurate work, flow bench and proper measuring equipment are the ways you get 100 TB's to be ported within a few cfm of one another.
Bret
Mulitple orders of magnatude in surface finish roughness from the stock casting to a window screen. The finish on a stock casting still doesn't hurt flow.
BTW have you ever taken a polished TB and a rough ported one and flowed them on a flow bench back to back? If you did then I would guess that you would have never gotten into this debate. People don't pay for a rough finish on a ported TB, but a mirror smooth ones makes absolutely no sense, in comparison to the ones I put out. If you can't feel the surface roughness with your finger then it's more than enough. If you want I can get some surface finish numbers with a profilomemeter. Not saying I'm going to tell anyone the numbers I get, but there is alot of helpfull technology to aid in any airflow devlopment.
R&D work, machinery to do accurate work, flow bench and proper measuring equipment are the ways you get 100 TB's to be ported within a few cfm of one another.
Bret
02-11-2003, 01:36 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer. </strong>
Let's see how that correlates:
Say the average roughness in the quoted reference was the thickness of the wires .69 mm.or 690000 micrometers (.027 in) which resulted in a 75 mm boundary layer (BL). The BL was then 75 mm/.69 mm or about 109 times the average roughness.
Say the average roughness of a "typical" ported TB is .4 micrometers (16 microinches). If BL thickness is proportional to average roughness, that would make the BL about 109 x 16/1,000,000 or maybe .0017 inch.
If that "rough" ported TB was polished to 4 microinches with no waviness, of course, the BL would be reduced to about .0004 inches. That would increase the flow area by .176%, If the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer and if flow is directly proportional to area, that would theoretically raise a 900 CFM TB flow to 901.6 CFM, all else being EXACTLY equal. Flow benches don't repeat well enough to find that, or maybe even a few times that. (+/- 1/2% is +/- 4.5 cfm).
My $.02
<strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer. </strong>
Let's see how that correlates:
Say the average roughness in the quoted reference was the thickness of the wires .69 mm.or 690000 micrometers (.027 in) which resulted in a 75 mm boundary layer (BL). The BL was then 75 mm/.69 mm or about 109 times the average roughness.
Say the average roughness of a "typical" ported TB is .4 micrometers (16 microinches). If BL thickness is proportional to average roughness, that would make the BL about 109 x 16/1,000,000 or maybe .0017 inch.
If that "rough" ported TB was polished to 4 microinches with no waviness, of course, the BL would be reduced to about .0004 inches. That would increase the flow area by .176%, If the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer and if flow is directly proportional to area, that would theoretically raise a 900 CFM TB flow to 901.6 CFM, all else being EXACTLY equal. Flow benches don't repeat well enough to find that, or maybe even a few times that. (+/- 1/2% is +/- 4.5 cfm).
My $.02
02-11-2003, 03:29 PM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston / Dallas
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer. </strong>
Let's see how that correlates:
Say the average roughness in the quoted reference was the thickness of the wires .69 mm.or 690000 micrometers (.027 in) which resulted in a 75 mm boundary layer (BL). The BL was then 75 mm/.69 mm or about 109 times the average roughness.
Say the average roughness of a "typical" ported TB is .4 micrometers (16 microinches). If BL thickness is proportional to average roughness, that would make the BL about 109 x 16/1,000,000 or maybe .0017 inch.
If that "rough" ported TB was polished to 4 microinches with no waviness, of course, the BL would be reduced to about .0004 inches. That would increase the flow area by .176%, If the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer and if flow is directly proportional to area, that would theoretically raise a 900 CFM TB flow to 901.6 CFM, all else being EXACTLY equal. Flow benches don't repeat well enough to find that, or maybe even a few times that. (+/- 1/2% is +/- 4.5 cfm).
My $.02 </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course there is no flow along the surface. What I was arguing was that the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer or region of low flow; the rougher the surface the thicker the boundary layer. </strong>
Let's see how that correlates:
Say the average roughness in the quoted reference was the thickness of the wires .69 mm.or 690000 micrometers (.027 in) which resulted in a 75 mm boundary layer (BL). The BL was then 75 mm/.69 mm or about 109 times the average roughness.
Say the average roughness of a "typical" ported TB is .4 micrometers (16 microinches). If BL thickness is proportional to average roughness, that would make the BL about 109 x 16/1,000,000 or maybe .0017 inch.
If that "rough" ported TB was polished to 4 microinches with no waviness, of course, the BL would be reduced to about .0004 inches. That would increase the flow area by .176%, If the roughness of the surface directly correlated to the boundary layer and if flow is directly proportional to area, that would theoretically raise a 900 CFM TB flow to 901.6 CFM, all else being EXACTLY equal. Flow benches don't repeat well enough to find that, or maybe even a few times that. (+/- 1/2% is +/- 4.5 cfm).
My $.02 </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point.
02-11-2003, 04:28 PM
#26
TECH Fanatic
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
<strong>It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I was being nice by not getting into the surface geometry, but since you mentiioned it.... (Un)fortunately the pics are gone, so the waviness some of us noticed on the subject TB wasn't addressed. I'll have to assume it was purposely put there to influence flow and wasn't just the result of using a small diameter tool to generate the surface prior to polishing.
My ported C5 Vette TB doesn't have that waviness. Maybe I'm missing some flow.
<strong>It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I was being nice by not getting into the surface geometry, but since you mentiioned it.... (Un)fortunately the pics are gone, so the waviness some of us noticed on the subject TB wasn't addressed. I'll have to assume it was purposely put there to influence flow and wasn't just the result of using a small diameter tool to generate the surface prior to polishing.
My ported C5 Vette TB doesn't have that waviness. Maybe I'm missing some flow.
02-11-2003, 04:50 PM
#27
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
<strong>It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I was being nice by not getting into the surface geometry, but since you mentiioned it.... (Un)fortunately the pics are gone, so the waviness some of us noticed on the subject TB wasn't addressed. I'll have to assume it was purposely put there to influence flow and wasn't just the result of using a small diameter tool to generate the surface prior to polishing.
My ported C5 Vette TB doesn't have that waviness. Maybe I'm missing some flow. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haha SStroker, I don't think he was accusing you of being mute <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> This is a fun thread, too bad more on the boards don't have input with as much substance and thought as yourself.
I think something we can all agree on is that polishing the TB will reduce the skin friction losses which are considered minor losses. The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
<strong>It is not directly proportional to area as stated above. What goes on in the boundary layer has a direct affect to the inner layer of fluid flow, contrary to what Old SStroker posted above. In other words you can not simply multiply by those ratios. Besides, if you read that entire article that Fenris posted you will see that surface roughness AND surface geometry are both important for making any accurate comparisons so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I was being nice by not getting into the surface geometry, but since you mentiioned it.... (Un)fortunately the pics are gone, so the waviness some of us noticed on the subject TB wasn't addressed. I'll have to assume it was purposely put there to influence flow and wasn't just the result of using a small diameter tool to generate the surface prior to polishing.
My ported C5 Vette TB doesn't have that waviness. Maybe I'm missing some flow. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haha SStroker, I don't think he was accusing you of being mute <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> This is a fun thread, too bad more on the boards don't have input with as much substance and thought as yourself.
I think something we can all agree on is that polishing the TB will reduce the skin friction losses which are considered minor losses. The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench.
02-11-2003, 05:56 PM
#28
TECH Fanatic
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My take is more that increasing the minimum throat area helps. Filling the big void probably doesn't hurt either. I'd ask my fluids teacher, but he retired/died. I took first fluids in the early 60's, about the time Phil Smith published Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems. As antiquated as his Brit prose is, some of what we do today is just 'reinventing the wheel' he describes.
So does sizzle sell, or is it the quality of the steak? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
<strong>The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My take is more that increasing the minimum throat area helps. Filling the big void probably doesn't hurt either. I'd ask my fluids teacher, but he retired/died. I took first fluids in the early 60's, about the time Phil Smith published Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems. As antiquated as his Brit prose is, some of what we do today is just 'reinventing the wheel' he describes.
So does sizzle sell, or is it the quality of the steak? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
02-11-2003, 06:17 PM
#29
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston / Dallas
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My take is more that increasing the minimum throat area helps. Filling the big void probably doesn't hurt either. I'd ask my fluids teacher, but he retired/died. I took first fluids in the early 60's, about the time Phil Smith published Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems. As antiquated as his Brit prose is, some of what we do today is just 'reinventing the wheel' he describes.
So does sizzle sell, or is it the quality of the steak? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Word <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My take is more that increasing the minimum throat area helps. Filling the big void probably doesn't hurt either. I'd ask my fluids teacher, but he retired/died. I took first fluids in the early 60's, about the time Phil Smith published Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems. As antiquated as his Brit prose is, some of what we do today is just 'reinventing the wheel' he describes.
So does sizzle sell, or is it the quality of the steak? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Word <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
02-11-2003, 08:41 PM
#30
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> I think something we can all agree on is that polishing the TB will reduce the skin friction losses which are considered minor losses. The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I find it hard to belive that a minimal change in Ra and Rz from mirror finish to finely polished is going to show anything. Anyways it's good to see some in depth stuff over here, even if it is a little like a tenis match.
Watch out for Engineers who probably took Fluid Dynamics w/ your physics professor or before.
Bret
<strong> I think something we can all agree on is that polishing the TB will reduce the skin friction losses which are considered minor losses. The biggest gain in flow comes in improving the tapering of the TB mouth to reduce flow separation and removing the lip in front of the blade, at least that is what I can tell from having a few throttlebodies on the flowbench. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I find it hard to belive that a minimal change in Ra and Rz from mirror finish to finely polished is going to show anything. Anyways it's good to see some in depth stuff over here, even if it is a little like a tenis match.
Watch out for Engineers who probably took Fluid Dynamics w/ your physics professor or before.
Bret
02-11-2003, 09:37 PM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
[qb] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haha SStroker, I don't think he was accusing you of being mute <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> This is a fun thread </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">FWIW, the word, I believe, was meant to be moot which means so hypothetical as to be meaningless. That was the reason for the <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I am far from mute on any forum I frequent.
PS: Sometimes I'm not a nice person. This is one of them.
<small>[ February 11, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Old SStroker ]</small>
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Old SStroker:
[qb] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
so throwing numbers out becomes a mute point. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody ever accused me of being mute before. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haha SStroker, I don't think he was accusing you of being mute <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> This is a fun thread </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">FWIW, the word, I believe, was meant to be moot which means so hypothetical as to be meaningless. That was the reason for the <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I am far from mute on any forum I frequent.
PS: Sometimes I'm not a nice person. This is one of them.
<small>[ February 11, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Old SStroker ]</small>
02-12-2003, 01:18 AM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HTownRacing.com, TX
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? now beyond the thought and processes of fluid dynamics, I've come to be a little perturbed with the fact that the pictures were edited due to the product not being the direct product of a sponser.
it was done by members of the forum for members of the forum.
whenever any product is done as such it is simply posted as a testamonial to a great job well done and for others to see. there contained within this thread was no mention of price or of the intent of distribution. the action(s) taken by Pro Stock John in attempting to moderate this thread is deemed unnecessary. perhaps the fact that he got a little burnt made the decision of more substance for him but in the end it honestly feels like LS1.com type moderater interference, which is the whole reason I reside on LS1Tech.com only. this one's to you <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
it was done by members of the forum for members of the forum.
whenever any product is done as such it is simply posted as a testamonial to a great job well done and for others to see. there contained within this thread was no mention of price or of the intent of distribution. the action(s) taken by Pro Stock John in attempting to moderate this thread is deemed unnecessary. perhaps the fact that he got a little burnt made the decision of more substance for him but in the end it honestly feels like LS1.com type moderater interference, which is the whole reason I reside on LS1Tech.com only. this one's to you <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
02-12-2003, 04:08 AM
#33
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? Since we are a sponsor, let me add something to that.
It's one thing for a Job well done to be put up here, it another thing for pics of the same TB to come back again and again. Especially in a thread asking about ported throttle body suppliers. I've seen them before, it's not a bad job. I see soem things I would fix, but then again I see these things everyday.
If it's a ported TB in a thread intended for suppliers then I would guess it would be acceptable for sponsors of this forum to post pics and product info. You ever notice that Shaner doesn't add any pics of his throttle bodies? You don't need to advertise a price or distibution to get interest in your work, I know I've been there before. Not say you guys are advertising, but if you want a pat on the back this many times then don't do it in a "where can I get a good ported TB?" thread.
There is a huge difference between here and LS1.com, it's the reason I sponsor it.
Not to be a pain about any of this, when I didn't sponsor the forum, my posts were locked and pics taken off. I choose to support the forum for our bussiness and there are rules in place to protect the sponsors. PSJ is just doing his job, policing the forums.
"you sometimes get what you pay for, but rarely do you get what you don't pay for."
Bret
It's one thing for a Job well done to be put up here, it another thing for pics of the same TB to come back again and again. Especially in a thread asking about ported throttle body suppliers. I've seen them before, it's not a bad job. I see soem things I would fix, but then again I see these things everyday.
If it's a ported TB in a thread intended for suppliers then I would guess it would be acceptable for sponsors of this forum to post pics and product info. You ever notice that Shaner doesn't add any pics of his throttle bodies? You don't need to advertise a price or distibution to get interest in your work, I know I've been there before. Not say you guys are advertising, but if you want a pat on the back this many times then don't do it in a "where can I get a good ported TB?" thread.
There is a huge difference between here and LS1.com, it's the reason I sponsor it.
Not to be a pain about any of this, when I didn't sponsor the forum, my posts were locked and pics taken off. I choose to support the forum for our bussiness and there are rules in place to protect the sponsors. PSJ is just doing his job, policing the forums.
"you sometimes get what you pay for, but rarely do you get what you don't pay for."
Bret
02-12-2003, 08:24 AM
#34
TECH Resident
iTrader: (56)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bartlett, IL
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jantzer98SS:
<strong> Wait until you guys see the TB I'm finishing up now! My latest improvements in flow and looks are just gonna FLOOR YOU! I've learned there are a lot of different ways to port/polish the housings and the finer flow enhancements and I'll get some close-ups of just what I'm doing.
You are right, the housing are ported about the same, i mean 75mm is 75mm opening. It's the extra's that seperate the best.
I'll have pics up tomorrow. So get on the edge of your seat. It's a MUST see. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What ever happened to those pictures?
<strong> Wait until you guys see the TB I'm finishing up now! My latest improvements in flow and looks are just gonna FLOOR YOU! I've learned there are a lot of different ways to port/polish the housings and the finer flow enhancements and I'll get some close-ups of just what I'm doing.
You are right, the housing are ported about the same, i mean 75mm is 75mm opening. It's the extra's that seperate the best.
I'll have pics up tomorrow. So get on the edge of your seat. It's a MUST see. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What ever happened to those pictures?
02-12-2003, 10:00 AM
#35
LS1Tech Co-Founder
iTrader: (34)
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? Those pics of that TB keep getting posted by the same 2-3 guys and I will keep deleting them.
Just like we were going after Bauer.
Let me be clear.
If you are not a sponsor I don't know you. I won't vouch for the quality. I want make phone calls to pursue delinquent orders or core charge refunds. I will not mediate in disputes. I will not steer business to you. I will not help you find cores. Is all of that worth something? It sure is.
If you guys want to have a tech chat then do it. You come across like you plan to sell them. The word 'prototype' was used in an email to me. Just be honest and then use the board in accordance to our rules.
Just like we were going after Bauer.
Let me be clear.
If you are not a sponsor I don't know you. I won't vouch for the quality. I want make phone calls to pursue delinquent orders or core charge refunds. I will not mediate in disputes. I will not steer business to you. I will not help you find cores. Is all of that worth something? It sure is.
If you guys want to have a tech chat then do it. You come across like you plan to sell them. The word 'prototype' was used in an email to me. Just be honest and then use the board in accordance to our rules.
02-12-2003, 04:10 PM
#36
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SStrokerAce:
<strong>
It's one thing for a Job well done to be put up here, it another thing for pics of the same TB to come back again and again. Especially in a thread asking about ported throttle body suppliers. I've seen them before, it's not a bad job. I see soem things I would fix, but then again I see these things everyday. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see a few things I would definately change on your throttlebody as well, but that is why TrahnZam and I port them ourselves.
PSJ: I understand where you are coming from. I wasn't asking you to vouch for the quality, I originally posted them up for other members of the boards to see what was possible. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
<strong>
It's one thing for a Job well done to be put up here, it another thing for pics of the same TB to come back again and again. Especially in a thread asking about ported throttle body suppliers. I've seen them before, it's not a bad job. I see soem things I would fix, but then again I see these things everyday. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see a few things I would definately change on your throttlebody as well, but that is why TrahnZam and I port them ourselves.
PSJ: I understand where you are coming from. I wasn't asking you to vouch for the quality, I originally posted them up for other members of the boards to see what was possible. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
02-12-2003, 09:26 PM
#37
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> I see a few things I would definately change on your throttlebody as well, but that is why TrahnZam and I port them ourselves. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fenris,
The things I see will become apparent to you once you see the new hig flow porting. I should have the pics up soon. Compared to the old TB's the new ones are a new evolution. I have 2 months of them out there now on the road, and people seem to like them.
One thing I wish is that you guys worked more on the flow bench than on the polishing wheel. This is turning into more of a polishing contest then anything to do with performance. A surface finsh done with 180 grit flows the same as a polished one I have found on the flow bench. There's a point where the law of dinishing returns comes into effect on the surface finish and it's right around a 180 grit finish. At least what I have seen.
BTW, I have seen alot of guys "home ported" units and yours is by far the best one I have seen. There are a few more tricks you can do, but then you need some machinery to get it done.
Bret
<strong> I see a few things I would definately change on your throttlebody as well, but that is why TrahnZam and I port them ourselves. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fenris,
The things I see will become apparent to you once you see the new hig flow porting. I should have the pics up soon. Compared to the old TB's the new ones are a new evolution. I have 2 months of them out there now on the road, and people seem to like them.
One thing I wish is that you guys worked more on the flow bench than on the polishing wheel. This is turning into more of a polishing contest then anything to do with performance. A surface finsh done with 180 grit flows the same as a polished one I have found on the flow bench. There's a point where the law of dinishing returns comes into effect on the surface finish and it's right around a 180 grit finish. At least what I have seen.
BTW, I have seen alot of guys "home ported" units and yours is by far the best one I have seen. There are a few more tricks you can do, but then you need some machinery to get it done.
Bret
02-12-2003, 09:36 PM
#39
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: rochester,ny
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? wow,and here i thought we were talking about an automotive throttle body?f**k!got to lay off the dope!!!!!!so if i hear you guys right ...the flow is or not........oh screw it!!how much for one of those shiny ones! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
02-12-2003, 10:56 PM
#40
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Best Ported TB? Shaner S2? Bauer? Thunder Racing? Fenris, could you please email me some pics of your TB or a link to the pics?
I'm just curious & since you can't post them here..
thanks
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
I'm just curious & since you can't post them here..
thanks
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />