tsuchinoko theories
05-19-2006, 10:12 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tsuchinoko theories
I (like maybe some others) have been totally fascinated by the J's racing tsuchinoko intake, particularly with the chamber design.
Now, I've read the argument that the chamber provides better throttle response because of the large enclosed volume behind the filter. However, I'm sort of surprised that the filter would create enough of a pressure drop to make this advantageous. Unless, of course, it's the snorkel design that creates the response issue, which is a completely believeable scenario.
I've been looking at the whole thing with two other ideas, though. One is subwoofer design, the other is 2-cycle exhaust design.
If I think about the throttle body as a driver, and the filter as a port, then the whole thing looks like a ported subwoofer. In this case, the volume would be important in optimizing the sound made by this intake design. The cone angles would subsequently be determined to minimize pressure losses.
The other thing that occurs to me is that the shape reminds me a little bit of a 2-stroke exhaust, complete with header, diffuser cone, dwell, baffle cone, and stinger! Now, of course, there is no exhaust pulse, and any intake pulses would have already gone through the plenum. It is intriguing, though, and if any of this geometry was important, it would be really easy to screw up the design in such a way as to lose power (if I were to, say, build something like this myself).
Any thoughts?
Now, I've read the argument that the chamber provides better throttle response because of the large enclosed volume behind the filter. However, I'm sort of surprised that the filter would create enough of a pressure drop to make this advantageous. Unless, of course, it's the snorkel design that creates the response issue, which is a completely believeable scenario.
I've been looking at the whole thing with two other ideas, though. One is subwoofer design, the other is 2-cycle exhaust design.
If I think about the throttle body as a driver, and the filter as a port, then the whole thing looks like a ported subwoofer. In this case, the volume would be important in optimizing the sound made by this intake design. The cone angles would subsequently be determined to minimize pressure losses.
The other thing that occurs to me is that the shape reminds me a little bit of a 2-stroke exhaust, complete with header, diffuser cone, dwell, baffle cone, and stinger! Now, of course, there is no exhaust pulse, and any intake pulses would have already gone through the plenum. It is intriguing, though, and if any of this geometry was important, it would be really easy to screw up the design in such a way as to lose power (if I were to, say, build something like this myself).
Any thoughts?
05-20-2006, 04:12 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 17 ft below sea level.
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
16 Posts
Destro Posted on May 19 2006, 08:12 PM
Lets say @ 4000 rpm the F20C engine takes 66,7 liters of air a second.
In a perfect world where the cylinder is filled 100%
Thats a box of about 40 cm by 40 cm by 40 cm.
How big is that chamber?
Now, I've read the argument that the chamber provides better throttle response because of the large enclosed volume behind the filter.
In a perfect world where the cylinder is filled 100%
Thats a box of about 40 cm by 40 cm by 40 cm.
How big is that chamber?
05-22-2006, 07:29 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, good point. Moreover, the F22C at 6,000 rpm is pulling in close to 108 liters per second, a cube roughly 48 cm (19 in) to a side. I'm pretty sure it's not that big.
Though, a second is a very long time in terms of throttle response!
Though, a second is a very long time in terms of throttle response!
05-22-2006, 11:56 AM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, just kill it. I meant this to be a technical discussion regarding intake design- it obviously doesn't have anything to do with "Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it."
05-23-2006, 12:06 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 17 ft below sea level.
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
16 Posts
Wisconsin S2k Posted on May 22 2006, 11:46 PM
Isn't the car a product.. therfore all we type should be in S2ktalk?
J/K.
Destro Posted on May 22 2006, 05:29 PM
I was just trying to show how much air is involved.
Double the revs, half the time = the same amount of air.
Maybe the total flow gives the better response?
discussions about products belong in S2ktalk.
Isn't the car a product.. therfore all we type should be in S2ktalk?J/K.
Destro Posted on May 22 2006, 05:29 PM
Though, a second is a very long time in terms of throttle response!
I was just trying to show how much air is involved.
Double the revs, half the time = the same amount of air.
Maybe the total flow gives the better response?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RX8SSMike
S2000 Naturally Aspirated Forum
4
09-05-2016 07:03 PM
hygiene boy
S2000 Under The Hood
2
01-25-2004 12:11 PM