My exhaust builder turned me on to this basic course in header design... I meant for inquiring minds.

http://headerdesign.com/index.asp

If you register, you can use their Header Design Program for free. It's all interesting stuff!

Remember if you want to check header sizing for a supercharged R3, use your dynamic boost compression ratio, not your static compression ratio.

walt,
yes,it's right on the money for once.thanks for posting a no b.s. site. they even give the dimensions.how much easier can it get? are you going to run a super trapp can with a reverse cone tip? i'm sure contemplating such.....


greg

My SuperTrapp has been offered a position in France. I've been given a choice between an unbaffled reverse cone megaphone (a real "earsplitter") or a correctly sized race muffler (not SuperTrapp).

Thanks hombre,
Thats a info site worth visiting!
rockenrobert
gotta see the world, it will only take a minute

If you are serious about wanting to learn more about pipe design (intake and exhaust), there are quite a few formulae that can help you to optimize your system - many found through a good Google search or ten. A good modeling software package can do all the math work for you, but you will need a good bit of information about the engine before your start... 'garbage in' and all that. Bore, stroke, rod length, cam data, compression ratio, port flow data, etc. all play important aspects in intake and exhaust tuning needs.

PipeMax is a very good (yet inexpensive - at USD $45) software package that can accurately model your needs. http://www.maxracesoftware.com/pipemax36xp2.htm The designer is working on making it able to model 3-cylinder engines, but it seems very good when modeling a 6-cylinder (at half the output).

Dynomation and Engine Pro are two other packages that are more in-depth at modeling various aspects of engine design and modification. Both are good, although I have had more experience with Dynomation over the years than other packages.
http://quarterjr.com/engine_pro.htm
http://www.motionsoftware.com/ (Dynomation)

Off topic, but related:
Prof. Gordon Blair has written a very good artice (among many) in Race Engine Technology Magazine on intake bellmouth opening shape. You can download a zipped pdf file of it here:
http://www.profblairandassociates.co.../Bellmouth.zip

I hope this helps.

Thanks guys, now I'm baffled (pun intended) I'm off somewhere else to make inane smart arse remarks.

There is more to exhaust tuning and performance than I will ever know - no matter how hard I try. There will always be results that tend to make you re-think what you think you know.

If you want to learn more about all things related to performance/racing internal combustion, I would recommend becoming a member of the SpeedTalk forums - There is WAY too much good information there from an amazing number of good sources. http://www.speedtalk.com


Then check out the following link in the Advanced Tech forum and read the thread from beginning to end - http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...t=log+manifold

There are many pages to wade through, but it is well worth the time.
To give a brief overview, a tubular log manifold with relatively short primaries, built by one of the best exhaust system builders in the industry, gave results (on a full out NASCAR engine for a well known team) within 1.4% of the very best stepped merged headers they had tested, and better than many others. The low end results were good as well.

If you really want to screw up your thinking on exhausts, do some research into the work and patents of Dave Piekarski - http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/...9/summary.html

His work with square tube headers in 4-1 and 4-2-1 designs has a lot of smart guys saying it will never work. Mr. Piekarski's work and testing in racing environments has been going on for several decades, in several forms of motorsports. I had a chance to meet the man and see some results of over 200 back to back (A-B-A) dyno tests at a respected (and neutral) friend's shop several months ago, on two different engines. More power, more torque - peak and average - at 8% (or more) lower rpm. There is definately something there. The results completely changed what I thought I understood.


Something to think about.

If you really want to screw up your thinking on exhausts, do some research into the work and patents of Dave Piekarski - http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/...9/summary.html

His work with square tube headers in 4-1 and 4-2-1 designs has a lot of smart guys saying it will never work. Mr. Piekarski's work and testing in racing environments has been going on for several decades, in several forms of motorsports. I had a chance to meet the man and see some results of over 200 back to back (A-B-A) dyno tests at a respected (and neutral) friend's shop several months ago, on two different engines. More power, more torque - peak and average - at 8% (or more) lower rpm. There is definately something there. The results completely changed what I thought I understood.


Something to think about.[/quote]


hmmmmmmmmmm,
interesting.might work better with radius' corners though.


greg

Actually, I was informed that the LACK of radius in the corners reduces the swirl in the tubing and promotes more flow through the center of the tubing than round tubes, decreasing the traveled length of the gasses (reduced friction), but not the harmonics. This is one of the advantages.

The largest disadvantage is the increase in surface area... leading to more heat lost through the tubing walls, but much of this can be recovered with coatings and/or wraps.

Definately more research and testing needs to be done. But IMHO, this could be more advantageous to street vehicles than racing.

Lot's of good info there, WT!

The SpeedTalk Forum looks as interesting as the LandSpeed Forum. The technical level of available help there is very impressive. Dave Dahlgren actually volunteered to help me with my MOTEC setup.

The data I gleaned in my expeimentation with 3 different bell mouths shapes for R3 V-stacks is consistent with Bell's article... elliptical is better.