SF Sizes

65mustang393 · Post by **65mustang393** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:10 am

I'm off to measure the airpseed of the 100 cfm plate.

Chad Speier · Post by **Chad Speier** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:11 am

blaktopr wrote:
Chad Speier wrote:
You know that your pitot tube will tell you if your numbers are low or high... That is if it has been calibrated as well.
There it is. Thats how I know. Calcs out to the CSA with proper radius as measured.

I wonder.....was it a turkey sub or just a ham/salami/provolone?

exactly..

This is how all these type discussions go. The reason is because the lack of true knowledge of this subject.

65mustang393 · Post by **65mustang393** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:15 am

Chad Speier wrote:That flow around WAS a joke!

Many of your professional peers were part of it. Larry Meaux and others. What does your comment say about their participation?

Cursing doesn't become you Chad.

blaktopr · Post by **blaktopr** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:16 am

Just watch out with that small of a plate the pitot tube area inside and with the location of it between the sharp edge and the vena contracta.

Post by **1960FL** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:18 am

hey don't match many SF benches that haven't had their calibration altered. You could've proven that by joining the head flow test. You chose not to. It makes sense. It's also very clear why you bought an SF bench. A fair amount of work and financial investment for someone who's not worried...

Gerald is this what it is all about the F***&^g stupid flow around? it proved nothing the math is poor at best and some of the number on certain peoples results do not correlate to prior number they posted. Keep the Flow around crap on ST unless you are talking about testing benches then I am all in. As my grandfather the Tool And Die maker allays told me "Rick It's not the tools that make the machinist it's his education, talent and skill"

Just because one can afford an SF bench it does not make them "Educated, talented or skilled"

To all the rest I truly am sorry this thread had to sink to level of other unnamed Racer forums.

Rick

Lets get back to talking about calibration.

blaktopr · Post by **blaktopr** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:20 am

65mustang393 wrote:
Chad Speier wrote:That flow around WAS a joke!
Many of your professional peers were part of it. Larry Meaux and others. What does your comment say about their participation?

Cursing doesn't become you Chad.

He calls it a joke because the true test would have included the head bolted to the same bore adaptor with the same machined inlet radius. It would have been sent, bolted, tested, unbolted, and sent all as one piece.

Chad Speier · Post by **Chad Speier** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:27 am

If I truly understand the concept of the PTS bench. Then I truly understand the concept of a Superflow bench. Then I use my new learned information in helping me design and make better ports. That is my exercise here. I want to know why they read different. I want to know why they are calibrated like they are. I want to make it my business.

I'm not scared. I'm not hiding something. If anything I was able to afford a bench, so I decided to learn. Hell that alone is saying something!

This had nothing to do with faking numbers. I've stated it from the word go, I trust my PTS bench. I have validated it, and I have even had a few offers on it!

Post by **1960FL** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:33 am

Chad i could not agree more, it is a shame these benches are hermetically sealed and we cannot measure the actual bore on each scale. What i do find kind of humorous is now the 1020 has a deck plate on the front to change orifice stoppers...

Rick

Chad Speier · Post by **Chad Speier** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:38 am

1960FL wrote:Chad i could not agree more, it is a shame these benches are hermetically sealed and we cannot measure the actual bore on each scale. What i do find kind of humorous is now the 1020 has a deck plate on the front to change orifice stoppers...

Rick

Let me do some research on that! Darin was telling me he had his orifice disk out because he put like a 3.600 hole where the #2 hole was so he could flow a 700cfm Pro Mod head. He hooked 2 SF600's together! Maybe he measured them out. BUT I'm sure they are all different, they are cude. He also mentioned the earlier ones were lazer cut and the newer were stamped. Maybe the other way around??

I hear you on the 1020.

jfholm · Post by **jfholm** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:54 am

Chad Speier wrote:
1960FL wrote:Chad i could not agree more, it is a shame these benches are hermetically sealed and we cannot measure the actual bore on each scale. What i do find kind of humorous is now the 1020 has a deck plate on the front to change orifice stoppers...

Rick

Let me do some research on that! Darin was telling me he had his orifice disk out because he put like a 3.600 hole where the #2 hole was so he could flow a 700cfm Pro Mod head. He hooked 2 SF600's together! Maybe he measured them out. BUT I'm sure they are all different, they are cude. He also mentioned the earlier ones were lazer cut and the newer were stamped. Maybe the other way around??

I hear you on the 1020.

Chad,
This directly supports the comment I made earlier about what happens when they are worried about profit and mass production. Sometimes the focus is on what is the fastest and easiest to make and not always the best. I cannot see how a stamped orifice could be anywhere as nice as one of Bruce's machined ones.

And bottom line Chad is "Proof is in the pudding" and if I remember correctly you have done some heads that have been on a record setting racer! I do not think you are being hurt a bit by your "inflated" numbers as them seem to be adding to that inflated horsepower figures the car seems to have.

John

PTS Flowbench Forum

SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes

Re: SF Sizes