FOAM PODS

TWO SMOKE SMUT · Post by **TWO SMOKE SMUT** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:45 pm

Was thinking about getting some foam air filter pods mainly for ease of maintainance but also whatever benefit they could bring, what can I expect sticking them on a triple are they more if a pain than its worth, I know ill need to upjet but will it be an endless mission getting it right on these old triples...

Basically is it a case of sticking a +5 or so jet in or am I gnna be COMPLETLY setting my carbs again.

Also are any other rear sprockets available for these either..

BIG H · Post by **BIG H** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:33 pm

Sprockets for your H1,
fronf--JTF 508
14,15 & 16 teeth

rear--JTR-481
38,40,42 & 45 teeth

http://www.jtsprockets.com/catalogue

downpipe3 · Post by **downpipe3** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:43 pm

if your looking for a bit of performance change to a 520 conversion Rob you might have to get a rear made but there are others that will fit front i think its z400 i can find out if you need to know mate 15 works best on h1 and h2 due to ratios in gearbox,fit a 14 if you want to wheelie everywhere or a 16 if you go touring expect about 3-4 hp gain :smt023 with chain conversion

TWO SMOKE SMUT · Post by **TWO SMOKE SMUT** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:54 pm

I was thinking of a chain conversian but mainly i just wanted to loose a tooth on the rear or 2 just for better motorway speed to rpm...

What about the pods chaps..

J54156 · Post by **J54156** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:07 pm

Sorry guys, but chain conversion? Can someone enlighten me?

Cheers,
Nick.

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:22 pm

520 chain lighter and thinner than 530 chain therefore less friction and power loss.

Chain designation is in 1/8ths of an inch. i.e. '5' is 5/8" pitch and 20 is 2/8" tooth width (1/4"), 25 is 2.5/8" (5/16") and 30 is 3/8" ....if that makes sense!

Sure there's an easier way of saying that.

downpipe3 · Post by **downpipe3** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:31 pm

Mitsui Spy wrote:520 chain lighter and thinner than 530 chain therefore less friction and power loss.

Chain designation is in 1/8ths of an inch. i.e. '5' is 5/8" pitch and 20 is 2/8" tooth width (1/4"), 25 is 2.5/8" (5/16") and 30 is 3/8" ....if that makes sense!

Sure there's an easier way of saying that.

you got it :smt023

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:01 pm

I still don't buy the powerloss Gary. As I think I've said before the figures don't add up.

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:13 pm

I ran pods on a 400 just fine. The chambers seemed to be dictating the engine performance so the pods seemed less of an issue. It was on big jets anyway so maybe just got lucky and a more presisely set up motor would require more attention. I'm sure others have their own experiences.

TWO SMOKE SMUT · Post by **TWO SMOKE SMUT** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:16 pm

It has been done for years spy with sprockets and chains, race teams and so on unsprung weight, rotational forces and losses and stuff I don't understand but it does make a difference I have done it with my last 4 bikes also, my last bike was a BMW s1000rr and it made a difference mate....

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:51 pm

Unsprung weight - yeah.
Inertial resistance - a bit.
3-4 Hp - no chance.

At least not in real terms. Dropping 2 chain sizes might 'feel' like 3-4 Hp, but there is no way that a 530 chain actually loses 3-4 Hp over a 520.

downpipe3 · Post by **downpipe3** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:54 am

Mitsui Spy wrote:Unsprung weight - yeah.
Inertial resistance - a bit.
3-4 Hp - no chance.

At least not in real terms. Dropping 2 chain sizes might 'feel' like 3-4 Hp, but there is no way that a 530 chain actually loses 3-4 Hp over a 520.

do you know how much is lost from crank to back wheel ?
15-18%
so reduce that loss and bingo

thats your opinion and your welcome to it , i dont need to add anymore my track record speaks for itself :smt023 denco used to sell the kits back in the 70,s
i could always tony nicosia to confirm it ,the original founder of denco along with dennis dean i have his number :smt023

but then again i am only trying to help you dont have to listen to me

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:45 am

With your experience you're much more likely to be right than me so maybe I just don't understand it but let me explain why I don't get it.

If you drop from 530 to 520 chain (3/8" to 1/4") you're reducing the width of the rollers by 33% and saving 3-4Hp.

The remaining 66% chain is also losing power - lets say for the sake of arguement another 3-4 Hp. That would imply that the full width chain was losing 6 - 8 Hp. Call it 7Hp.

Convert that to Watts so we can visualise it. 7Hp = about 4.5 kW.

Think of a 1kW electric fire and the heat it gives off! Dissipating 4.5kW through a motorcycle drive chain would have it smoking!

Maybe chains get hotter than I think they do?

The same applies to the powerloss from crank to rearwheel. The only significant loss is through friction as heat. If you were to lose 15% on a 100Hp machine that would be about 10kW of heat from the primary drive, gearbox and chain at full chat. Maybe it does but it just sounds a lot that's all.

But then again it wouldn't be the first time I've spouted a load of bollox!

SAM · Post by **SAM** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:09 am

This chain thing rather too involved for me, but i know it adds to power at back wheel.

666rog · Post by **666rog** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:19 pm

if its any use or relevance: A 500 triple gives a ball park 58 to 60 hp at the cranshaft. On a well set up standard engine you will do well to get 47 hp at the rear wheel. Now then, I just know someone is going to correct me on these figures

Post by **Wolfie** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:38 pm

Yep Rog yer rong......

It's only 498cc :smt023

Neil the Don · Post by **Neil the Don** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:32 pm

M.S. Just stop thinking too hard about it.

A 530 to 520 is standard racing practice. HRC and all the others do it . It just works.
But I DO think the Earth is flat. How on earth would we stay on it if it was round ? ( And don`t tell me about gravity. Bee`s prove thats all a sham !! )

TWO SMOKE SMUT · Post by **TWO SMOKE SMUT** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:45 pm

Put a renthal chain and sprockets on my triumph 675 and a bmc air filter, dynoed it 3 hours apart gained 11hp there is no way an air filter did that, I know for all you know I'm lying, you'll just have to take my word...

Chains can get to About 65C and more in incorrect circumstances.....

Any who air filter foam pods guys, any more opinions stick or swim????

Mitsui Spy · Post by **Mitsui Spy** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:21 pm

Okay, I'm clearly off the mark here. So help me out.
Take Rog's measurements:

59 - 47 = 12Hp

12/59 * 100 = 20% loss (wow!).

12 Hp = 9kW lost mainly as heat at full power.

Some will be lost to the transmission oil and through the casings, the rest lost in the drive chain, tyre, wheel bearings, tyre. Also I expect the spinning wheel may lose some energy in disturbing the air. Owt else?

Okay if Gary and Rog & Smut say that these are the losses then I've got to respect that. In which case it's interesting how the heat is lost. Imagine having a 3kW immersion heater fitted in your gearbox - it wouldn't be long before it was smoking. There's a limit to how much heat can be lost from the gearbox oil, especially when it's also receiving conducted heat from the cylinders.

Tyres can get quite hot and have a fairly large surface area so I expect they can dissipate a couple of kW.

Does the chain really dissipate 5kW of heat? That would make it about 88% efficient on the 500 - 88% is terrible! Chain drives are usually quoted at 95 - 98% efficient.

Of course, other than racing engines, most engines operate at much below their full power most of the time so the losses are much less. Perhaps the airflow around a motorcycle carries more of the heat away than I imagine. Interesting though innit? No? Just me then.

All said, I know it is a benefit (done it myself), I just can't get my head round the figures. I must be missing something (a life before anyone else says it).

And someone help Smut out with his pods to stop me waffling on.

Sorry Neil I'd already written this before your last advisory.

h2bchris · Post by **h2bchris** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:44 am

The air filter pods or foams, which are well made and stay on the carbs well when clipped up , are called uni filters from the States, they are foams , www.uni filter.com, all different sizes, just measure carb external size etc and give them a bell, i have them on my h2 so cannot quote your size !

ps there is a British firm that make foams called Ram filters but they had a problem slipping off carb when tightening clip, but they might have modified them now, because i spoke to them about it and they where aware of the problem, so it might be worth giving them a ring and stay British !

husson73 · Post by **husson73** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:29 am

http://www.unifilter.com/

BIG H · Post by **BIG H** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:49 am

I have K & N RC-2490 filters on my H2 & KH400 with the next size up main jets.
I can not say which K&N filters will fit your H1,anyone help here?

http://www.knfilters.co.uk/universal.as ... tAodRX4A3Q