SF Sizes

Orifice Style bench discussions
Post Reply
1960FL
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: SF Sizes

Post by 1960FL »

Chad Speier wrote:
1960FL wrote:
Chad Speier wrote:How about more "fuel" for this fire! :)

The exhaust port above flowed on the SF and PTS. The SF used the original calibration markings. The PTS used a 2.054 plate with a .605 cd and all factory settings.

SF #3 hole= 159.6
SF #4 hole= 318.9

4.155 fixture
1 7/8 pipe: 6" long

LIFT SF/PTS

.200 112.7/110.9
.300 161.0/156.5
.400 197.7/195.2
.500 225.4/227.7
.600 241.7/243.6
.700 253.9/253.8
.800 262.7/263.4
.900 267.5/270.4
1.00 271.2/273.6

Chad look at how much closer these numbers are this ;is what i was talking about.

Rick
I totally agree! You think the Audie software is correcting this with more cd at higher lifts? That was my thought.

Yes,

Do you think you could mount an orifice plate from the bottom side for a simple stupid test?

Rick
jfholm
Posts: 1628
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: Grantsville, Utah 45 min west of Salt Lake City

Re: SF Sizes

Post by jfholm »

Thanks Rick,
that is much appreciated.

John
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: SF Sizes

Post by larrycavan »

Chad Speier wrote:Here we go!

SRHv2.50BI/23º SBC head
4.060 Brezenski fixture
1206 Brezenski radius plate
2.055/1.600 valve

Calibration plate = 2.375 plate (2.375x2.375=5.641x13.29=74.96x5.29= 396.6 cfm)

PTSDM w/Sharpe edge 3.200 plate = .605 cd, 396.8 cfm
PTSDM w/Square edge 3.213 plate = .615 cd, 396.8 cfm

LIFT sharp/square
.200 153.4/152.2
.300 204.9/205.3
.400 253.1/253.2
.500 287.4/286.2
.600 303.5/302.6
.700 309.4/308.7
.800 314.8/314.2
.900 324.1/322.7
1.00 328.8/325.2

Superflow SF600 w/factory calibration = #3 149.4, #4 294.9, #5 442.2
Superflow SF600 w/re-calibrated = #3 149.5, #4 298.0, #5 451.8

(Range/Percent) //FAC/RE-cal
.200 (#3/ 98.4)// 147.0/147.1
.300 (#4/ 67.2)// 198.2/200.3
.400 (#4/ 83.4)// 245.9/248.5
.500 (#4/ 96.1)// 283.4/286.4
.600 (#5/ 66.9)// 295.8/302.3
.700 (#5/ 69.0)// 305.1/311.7
.800 (#5/ 70.2)// 310.4/317.2
.900 (#5/ 70.5)// 311.8/318.5
1.00 (#5/ 70.7)// 312.6/319.4

I tried to make this as legit as possible! Nothing fudged, lifted the fixture and put on the other bench.
The data was imported into Excel, Rate Of Change, Averages and Standard Deviations were calculated. The graph below is R.O.C.
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: SF Sizes

Post by larrycavan »

..
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: SF Sizes

Post by larrycavan »

Been pondering the situation between the PTS bench and the SF600 readings on that one particular head where the PTS shows a flow increase at .600 lift but the SF600 shows a flow loss. Nobody seems to want to touch that for some strange reason........ I don't view this particular discussion the way it seems to be directed either. I'm not out to slam SF benches nor here to promote DIY benches. I'm trying to be objective.

As I see it, both benches may well be correct. What each is showing is the actual conditions of flow inside their particular flow chamber. I don't believe either manometer is incorrect. If anything, this scenario should lend credence to not letting a flow bench be the last word when it comes to engine building. Flow must be measured, for sure. It's crucial to have some numbers to put into formulas. It's also crucial to never assume that what you think you understand today won't be called by your own self into question by the very next thing you learn either....

We all want to add up 1 + 1 and have it always be = 2. Well, perhaps there's more than one "2" in certain circumstances. I've got more that I could say on this so if someone wants to debate it, I'm game... Perhaps that discussion could be more productive than SF bashing. YES...we all know they're way over priced so let's just skip that part altogether... ;)
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
Brucepts
Site Admin
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: SF Sizes

Post by Brucepts »

larrycavan wrote:Been pondering the situation between the PTS bench and the SF600 readings on that one particular head where the PTS shows a flow increase at .600 lift but the SF600 shows a flow loss. Nobody seems to want to touch that for some strange reason........ I don't view this particular discussion the way it seems to be directed either. I'm not out to slam SF benches nor here to promote DIY benches. I'm trying to be objective.

As I see it, both benches may well be correct. What each is showing is the actual conditions of flow inside their particular flow chamber. I don't believe either manometer is incorrect. If anything, this scenario should lend credence to not letting a flow bench be the last word when it comes to engine building. Flow must be measured, for sure. It's crucial to have some numbers to put into formulas. It's also crucial to never assume that what you think you understand today won't be called by your own self into question by the very next thing you learn either....

We all want to add up 1 + 1 and have it always be = 2. Well, perhaps there's more than one "2" in certain circumstances. I've got more that I could say on this so if someone wants to debate it, I'm game... Perhaps that discussion could be more productive than SF bashing. YES...we all know they're way over priced so let's just skip that part altogether... ;)
Well stated Larry!
Bruce

Who . . . me? I stayed at a Holiday in Express . . .
Chad Speier
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:48 pm
Contact:

Re: SF Sizes

Post by Chad Speier »

I'd love to see that debate. I'd like to sit back and take it all in. However, I just want to know what I'm seeing is right. I want to know what I'm doing is proper. Having two quality bench options and seeing different results puts a dark cloud over things.

I do know, and it sucks, is owning a big blue gives you instant credibility in some circles. That part I HATE. However, it is what it is..

What I would really like to see is software for the PTSDM much like how you use Performance Trends. Have a section you can enter already calibrated factors (not cd's), able to change the range with a click (range 1-6), and see how it compares to the PTS bench. I think the SF bench is inadequate to use one single orifice for flow testing.

Image

Image
Brucepts
Site Admin
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: SF Sizes

Post by Brucepts »

Just putting this out here for those people who are wondering in here to the forum; the original intent for the PTS DM was to fill the void of lack of support for my PTS Flowbench Plans product by the other vendors already on the market. Had they offered support we would not have the PTS DM we now have :mrgreen:

We modeled the DM to work for the PTS Flowbench application from the start and to what we felt we needed to support PTS and the low cost market to make this viable for everyone to go digital and own a flowbench.

That being said the DM is now being looked at to work on other flowbenches so we need to look into that aspect also. As I said before, the PTS market is my first concern and does keep PTS DM product going out the door. I'm not down-playing the other markets out there but we/I need to keep in mind we do not want the PTS DM to be modeled after other products on the market now. They have the luxury of working with the "other" market directly and are given access to their engineering we have not other than Chad taking this project on.

We are looking into what has already been discussed and welcome all input on how it makes the PTS product even better than it already is. We also need to keep it low cost for everyone to own :)

Imagine a fully professional package that works with every style flowbench and can be purchased by anyone . . . what a flowbench world that would be!
Bruce

Who . . . me? I stayed at a Holiday in Express . . .
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: SF Sizes

Post by larrycavan »

Chad Speier wrote:I'd love to see that debate. I'd like to sit back and take it all in. However, I just want to know what I'm seeing is right. I want to know what I'm doing is proper. Having two quality bench options and seeing different results puts a dark cloud over things.

I do know, and it sucks, is owning a big blue gives you instant credibility in some circles. That part I HATE. However, it is what it is..

What I would really like to see is software for the PTSDM much like how you use Performance Trends. Have a section you can enter already calibrated factors (not cd's), able to change the range with a click (range 1-6), and see how it compares to the PTS bench. I think the SF bench is inadequate to use one single orifice for flow testing.

Image

Image
I could make that happen with FSE. A drop list with your preset orifice specs could be added. It would be more than just their flow rate though because of the way the coding works to pull the config file to setup the formulas for flow. HOWEVER, I've decided to stop further development on FSE for two reasons.

1 - Zero feedback from end users
2 - I read that Rick has something in the works for an updated version of Flow Soft Basic.

With regard to the situation you've gotten yourself drug into with some of your customers........ That's just a bitch no matter how you look at it. People are people. I think you've addressed with situation with the purchase of the blue bench. If that's what they want to believe, then fine. You're covering that base for those particular people.

Don't misunderstand me Chad. I get where you're coming from. But also don't loose sight of the fact that what you're doing works!

Like I stated before. Each bench is telling you what the flow conditions are inside their own chamber. Neither duplicate the engine exactly. If it were me, I'd leave the blue bench as is and work the PTS unit for as much DP as you can make it pull. Believe what it's telling you and carry on with your porting development. What you need now is time to build more flow bench data along with more customer results data. Over time, armed with that information, you're going to go another mile down the road with your advancements.


I think you're aggravating yourself because you lost site of one simple fact.... YOU don't follow the crowd! You're strong on your opinions. Some people might not understand that type of personality. Oh Well.... It's people with those characteristics that break new ground!! Just keep doing what you're doing. It won't always make sense. It won't always be easy to justify to everyone you talk to. Some will roll their eyes..... Just let them and keep going forward..... It's dam frustrating sometimes when you're trying to figure out how something you cannot see is actually behaving.... I have wondered what a transparent front panel with some threads taped at various locations inside the benches top chamber might quickly show us.....

JMO

Larry C
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
65mustang393
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:25 am

Re: SF Sizes

Post by 65mustang393 »

larrycavan wrote:
Chad Speier wrote:I'd love to see that debate. I'd like to sit back and take it all in. However, I just want to know what I'm seeing is right. I want to know what I'm doing is proper. Having two quality bench options and seeing different results puts a dark cloud over things.

I do know, and it sucks, is owning a big blue gives you instant credibility in some circles. That part I HATE. However, it is what it is..

What I would really like to see is software for the PTSDM much like how you use Performance Trends. Have a section you can enter already calibrated factors (not cd's), able to change the range with a click (range 1-6), and see how it compares to the PTS bench. I think the SF bench is inadequate to use one single orifice for flow testing.

Image

Image
I could make that happen with FSE. A drop list with your preset orifice specs could be added. It would be more than just their flow rate though because of the way the coding works to pull the config file to setup the formulas for flow. HOWEVER, I've decided to stop further development on FSE for two reasons.

1 - Zero feedback from end users
2 - I read that Rick has something in the works for an updated version of Flow Soft Basic.

With regard to the situation you've gotten yourself drug into with some of your customers........ That's just a bitch no matter how you look at it. People are people. I think you've addressed with situation with the purchase of the blue bench. If that's what they want to believe, then fine. You're covering that base for those particular people.

Don't misunderstand me Chad. I get where you're coming from. But also don't loose sight of the fact that what you're doing works!

Like I stated before. Each bench is telling you what the flow conditions are inside their own chamber. Neither duplicate the engine exactly. If it were me, I'd leave the blue bench as is and work the PTS unit for as much DP as you can make it pull. Believe what it's telling you and carry on with your porting development. What you need now is time to build more flow bench data along with more customer results data. Over time, armed with that information, you're going to go another mile down the road with your advancements.


I think you're aggravating yourself because you lost site of one simple fact.... YOU don't follow the crowd! You're strong on your opinions. Some people might not understand that type of personality. Oh Well.... It's people with those characteristics that break new ground!! Just keep doing what you're doing. It won't always make sense. It won't always be easy to justify to everyone you talk to. Some will roll their eyes..... Just let them and keep going forward..... It's dam frustrating sometimes when you're trying to figure out how something you cannot see is actually behaving.... I have wondered what a transparent front panel with some threads taped at various locations inside the benches top chamber might quickly show us.....

JMO

Larry C

Larry, here's the problem with that line of thinking if you sell port work.

If a foot is 12 inches but the Big Blue machine says a foot is 13 inches then everyone has to be get on board and say a foot is 13 inches!

Is Big Blue right. Hell no! But there's a problem... Big Blue beat everyone else to the market and set a foot at 13 inches.

So if you come out and port and get big time numbers that don't replicate on a Big Blue machine, what are you? A liar who inflates numbers.

Is this the truth? No. Big Blue is messed up, but it doesn't matter because they beat everyone else to the market (by about 5000 benches), so by default they are the "default". Right or wrong, this is reality. Prove to me I'm wrong. Ask 100 hot rod enthusiasts who might have port work done which bench they want their stuff flowed on. I bet the answer 99% of the time is SuperFlow.

It's a brand name. Like it or not, it's a brand name.

I don't sell port work (not more than 1 port job every six months) so I have no dog in this fight, so when you go to crush me just keep that in mind... but I think I have a good idea of what the customer wants because I used to be that customer.

I only bought a Big Blue bench (twice) because I wanted to see how my port work compares to other port work I've seen flowed on other Big Blues.

I will be the first to say that some of the numbers that I've seen on home made benches I could NEVER see on my bench with the same CSA and short turn work. Those number are so high that I could never achieve them with a Big Blue bench so I automatically discount them to a certain degree. And it's not beause I don't know how to shape the short turn or widen the area over the turn or use the pitot to make sure it's not too fast over the turn. It's because a foot is 12 inches on those machines and it's 13 inches on a SF machine.

It's the same for the AFR, TEA, and other heads on my SF machines. They flow close to what the advertised numbers are... but are no where close to what some of the home made benches say, so how can you compare?

I'm not saying the small company heads don't make more power. Quite the contrary, the work I've seen here is quite amazing and I hope the trickle down gets to the end user sooner rather than later but if you're comparing numbers to numbers it's no comparison.

320+ cfm from a 195cc SBF Twisted Wedge head??? Really??? You have a company (TEA) dedicated to making the TFS TW head better and the best they can get is 315 cfm at 206 cc and 120 cfm/sq inch of area but someone can take a box stock TW head and make it move 128 cfm/sq inch of area???

See the point I'm trying to make? If it's too good to be true, it's probably too good to be true.

Again, not trying to piss anyone off so please take the above with an open mindset.
Post Reply