what's the story here with collector exhausts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
2,020
Country flag
desn't seem to be much out there on this
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... or+exhaust
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... Y-Ch1wdAuc

exhaust-header-into-collector-science-video-t15379.html

into-exhaust-t22778.html
================================================


https://www.rbracing-rsr.com/lsr21/supercharged.html
If you want to make power on a multi-cylinder engine you have to use a collector system. Whether it's a V-Twin or a V-8 it's the same, and no less an authority than the famed engine builder Smokey Yunick will tell you that. Not using free exhaust energy to help your engine breathe is downright criminal. No matter what the conventional wisdom is, staggered duals on a Harley will not make more power. You simply cannot escape the fact that a properly designed 2-1 will give you more useable torque where you need it, in the 2000 to 4000 rpm range, which means less downshifts and less rpm to get the job done.

https://www.rbracing-rsr.com/exhausttech.htm
Not using free energy to help your engine make more power is just plain stupid. High pressure and low pressure...it’s that simple. What your engine “sees” when the exhaust valve is open will determine whether you win or lose. Of course, things are never really that simple, but, that’s really what exhaust design is really about.
 
84ok said:
desn't seem to be much out there on this
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... or+exhaust
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... Y-Ch1wdAuc

exhaust-header-into-collector-science-video-t15379.html

into-exhaust-t22778.html
================================================


https://www.rbracing-rsr.com/lsr21/supercharged.html
If you want to make power on a multi-cylinder engine you have to use a collector system. Whether it's a V-Twin or a V-8 it's the same, and no less an authority than the famed engine builder Smokey Yunick will tell you that. Not using free exhaust energy to help your engine breathe is downright criminal. No matter what the conventional wisdom is, staggered duals on a Harley will not make more power. You simply cannot escape the fact that a properly designed 2-1 will give you more useable torque where you need it, in the 2000 to 4000 rpm range, which means less downshifts and less rpm to get the job done.

https://www.rbracing-rsr.com/exhausttech.htm
Not using free energy to help your engine make more power is just plain stupid. High pressure and low pressure...it’s that simple. What your engine “sees” when the exhaust valve is open will determine whether you win or lose. Of course, things are never really that simple, but, that’s really what exhaust design is really about.

Well, that is why the Maney system works so well I guess, and why it is being copied / replicated by so many others to supply the demand!
 
tx
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... ey+exhaust

just found bub
bub-exhaust-system-t10748.html
what's the story here with collector exhausts?


https://www.google.ca/search?q=BUB+2-in ... orton+BUB+

mac 2-1
what's the story here with collector exhausts?

bub-exhaust-should-known-t10867.html
 
Be aware that some 2-1s like the BUB are more for looks or less mass than optimized to improve on factory systems power delivery. Seems quite a few people bought the several versions of off the shelf 2-1s but also seems only ones remaining on Commando long are seen in barn find choppers > as was the style back when HiRider sold like hot cakes. A proven Maney 2-1 does not resemble 2-1s - sold back in Commando hey days. Other than race systems I do not think any new old school 2-1s sold anymore. Nit picky exhaust designers talk about the merger section -of various designs - that empty into a collector section. For some reason I never find any references to using the silencer as the collector function but suspect it could yet then might not muffle much if effective collector. Low down systems must dodge center stand or run under neath w/o center stand. There are a number of ways to combine 2 or more pipes, straight ends into slight bigger collector or sliced as some angle into ventrui chamber-nozzle with or w/o a plate between the 2 pipes diagonal slices. Peels gets a separator baffle at her cleavage the occurs in a 90* 2-1 bend section, then a straight tube into a megaphone a ways for some anti-reversion effect.
 
As I understand it, when you speak of engine 'power' you are talking about the power output at maximum usable revs. A top end motor is OK if the roads are long and straight. For ultimate top end power, it is hard to beat straight pipes with megaphones. Torque is twisting power, i.e. the ability to pull high gear without revving the tits off the motor and slipping the clutch to get going. If you are going to use the bike on the bendy stuff where gear changes are necessary a torquey motor is better. On a commando a 2 into 1 with a large diameter tail pipe gives much better mid-range pulling power, and when combined with a 5 or 6 speed close box, acceleration out of corners can be superb. If you are racing and only have a 4 speed close box - you can choose where you are going to lose races by raising or lowering the overall gearing - off the clutch start or at the ends of the straights.
If the tail pipe diameter on a 2 into one exhaust is too small there might be no urge in the top 2000 RPM of the usable rev range. I don't know what to do about the noise without killing performance.
 
turns out, by following links, and with the info provided by others, there is plenty of 2 into 1 norton stuff out there,

it just so happens that if your goog search is what i tried - 'norton commando collector exhaust'
https://www.google.ca/search?q=norton+c ... or+exhaust

practically nothing came up, but now this thread does,

i could add a ton of other stuff i've since run across but easy enuff for anyone else to follow links if interested in more info

i was just mostly a bit surprised that a goog search had hardly any info, tx all for the info
 
84ok said:
Aaah! I have a set of those headers and collector sitting around in the garage, came in the box o' bits with the rest of the bike. The mega came with it too, but it was so rusted I chucked it out. Wondered if I'd ever see another set - thought the system was a one-off.
 
I had a Dunstall 2 into 1 into 2 system on my 850 long ago and it worked really well. Losing the center stand was unacceptable though, so off it came.
 
i've also read the dunstall sits quite low ~ easily scraping/smacking stuff, and some issues with the integrity of the y pipes

there's a used set for sale in my area and i wondered ( didn't get a bite here) what they went for these days
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-motorcycle-parts ... nFlag=true
are they engine size specific?

only 400 bux for the y pipe here
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Norton-Commando ... 3d&vxp=mtr
Dunstall 2-1-2 exhaust pipes. Only have the pipes as pictured.

In need of new chrome or some sort of finish. Center pipe a little dented.
 
Simply do not see how some of them can work correctly as the primary pipe lengths are nothing like the lengths i have used when designing exhaust systems for Norton twins using the formulae given in the book '4 stroke Performance Tuning in Theory and Practice' by A.Graham Bell or when having my design checked using the computer program of a certain rather well known 'tuning' company. Are many of these systems simply a case of bullshit baffling brains or if the actually give an improvement I can only assume there must be a lot wrong with the motors elsewhere. Exhaust systems are only one small part of making motors perform correctly.
 
It's all about pipe length, junctions and changes in diameter as well as volume (not decibels). Each exhaust valve opening creates a positive pressure wave that moves at the speed of sound towards the end of the muffler. At each juncture, a negative wave is created that moves back towards the valve seat at, again, the speed of sound. The timing (lengths) of these junctures is the critical factor in getting the negative wave back to the seat to help extract the next convenient pulse and create more power. A collector system takes more advantage by letting the pulses of one cylinder help extract the charge from other cylinders, depending, again, on timing (length). The same basic principle also applies to intake length and valve overlap (intake opening before the exhaust valve is fully closed) which comes into play in moving the charge through the system. Excessive overlap robs low-end power as the intake charge tends to shoot straight through, but creates more power at top end when rpm overcomes the amount of time both valves are open to increase extraction. Simple, no?
 
Danno said:
It's all about pipe length, junctions and changes in diameter as well as volume (not decibels). Each exhaust valve opening creates a positive pressure wave that moves at the speed of sound towards the end of the muffler. At each juncture, a negative wave is created that moves back towards the valve seat at, again, the speed of sound. The timing (lengths) of these junctures is the critical factor in getting the negative wave back to the seat to help extract the next convenient pulse and create more power. A collector system takes more advantage by letting the pulses of one cylinder help extract the charge from other cylinders, depending, again, on timing (length). The same basic principle also applies to intake length and valve overlap (intake opening before the exhaust valve is fully closed) which comes into play in moving the charge through the system. Excessive overlap robs low-end power as the intake charge tends to shoot straight through, but creates more power at top end when rpm overcomes the amount of time both valves are open to increase extraction. Simple, no?


Spot on. I'd like to add that those RB racing quotes over simplify a massively complex issue. To say that a collector is the only way to go with a multi cylinder engine is plain wrong. You can get excellent results with separate pipes ( in fact it's much much easier and cheaper to design a 2:2 system. Once you've got the primary pipe length right, you're nearly done! A 2:1 system, as Danno points out has many aspects that interact and make the design a lengthy and expensive process.

I've tried 2:1 systems on both my racing Commando and my racing BMW and both of them had a big hole in the torque in the mid range. Now, maybe they were poorly designed systems, but as a racer on a budget it was far far easier to make a 2:2 work well than to try to get the 2:1 to work.

If you read the link to RBR they claim that because Formula 1 engines use collectors, they must therefore be the best . Well , weight is an important factor in F1 design and even more important to them is aerodynamics. Can you imagine trying to put ten separate megaphones on a formula one car without disrupting the airflow over the rear wing? That's why they used 10:2:1 systems ( Let's not get into turbo collectors that they use these days).

If anyone has a dyno chart showing a Maney 2:1 against a 2:2 I'd be very keen to see it.
 
tried a goog of harley collector exhaust, to see what might come up, the RB site is right near the top, pretty much all there is, or the only link that get right into - 'harley collector exhaust' with one click
https://www.rbracing-rsr.com/lsr21.htm

wondered if it was a huge deal with harleys, the next sites (burns, megs, bassani) have "collector" in them so looks like they are available
https://www.google.ca/search?q=harley+c ... W8eObXgvAG

is the maney a collector type? ..just had a look at their site and didn't see any exhaust info. this thread came up
racing-exhaust-t17645.html

pommie john said:
those RB racing quotes over simplify a massively complex issue.
 
So how does the "balance pipe" set up fit in all of this? I see most people take them off, and I am curious.

Danno said:
It's all about pipe length, junctions and changes in diameter as well as volume (not decibels). Each exhaust valve opening creates a positive pressure wave that moves at the speed of sound towards the end of the muffler. At each juncture, a negative wave is created that moves back towards the valve seat at, again, the speed of sound. The timing (lengths) of these junctures is the critical factor in getting the negative wave back to the seat to help extract the next convenient pulse and create more power. A collector system takes more advantage by letting the pulses of one cylinder help extract the charge from other cylinders, depending, again, on timing (length). The same basic principle also applies to intake length and valve overlap (intake opening before the exhaust valve is fully closed) which comes into play in moving the charge through the system. Excessive overlap robs low-end power as the intake charge tends to shoot straight through, but creates more power at top end when rpm overcomes the amount of time both valves are open to increase extraction. Simple, no?
 
There appears to have not been any attempt to improve the Norton twin exhausts for road use that can be verified on a dyno and please note , I am not talking about race engines .
Well, none at least since Paul Dunstall left the scene when he got Dr. Gordon Blair of Queens university Belfast to design the 2-1-2 system for the Commando. His earlier front balance pipe system claimed about an extra 4 BHP in the mid-range-I doubt that those people taking it off would even notice the difference.
Most parallel twins that come onto the market since have a collector box which do more or less the same thing- I have ridden a pair of Honda CX650s back to back, one with the collector box and one without, I did not notice the difference of a couple of bhp at the mid-range - only on the dyno will it show up.
P.S. please note , you can screw all this up and lose BHP if you have the carb jetting wrong, the same goes for ign timimg.
 
rwalker28 said:
So how does the "balance pipe" set up fit in all of this? I see most people take them off, and I am curious.
doesn't look to me like there is much interest in the crossover deal
http://www.captain.norton.clara.net/cnn2sec24.html
Quick recall from years ago...anyone is welcome to correct me...
Exhaust tuning includes both flow and wave considerations. If you recall the text quoted about blocked off pipes there was obviously no flow through that pipe. As pulses of a gas are flowing through a pipe, each transition(change in diameter, branches, etc) introduces a new pulse (wave) some of which is reflected and goes back. Depending on where the transitions are made the pulse can be additive or subtractive at other locations varying with the cycle. So a pipe-set will have various natural frequencies for waves starting from different locations. The exciting frequency is the opening of the exhaust valve. If the exhaust is tuned properly a negative pulse will arrive as it is open to help pull exhaust gas out and perhaps a positive pulse arrive just as it's shutting to push some overflow intake back in (especially on two-stroke piston ports). The design is therefore a compromise considering the desired operating RPM, silencing, and so on. Combining the systems of two cylinders gives you another pulse(s) to play with and more variables too, as well as greater flow opportunities. (On the Norton's I personally don't think it's worth the pain to deal with the crossover - I have one with and one without - but I have no scientific data to back that up). For racing a proper length megaphone should work pretty well.

You can get a rough idea of the figuring remembering that sound travels at about 1000 ft/sec (it's different in exhaust pulses in a hot gases under pressure, but close enough for example) and the distance traveled is valve to silencer outlet and then back ( = pipe lengths of 3 ft @ 10,000 rpm, 4 @ 7200 rpm and so on)
=============================================

I was told the crossover increases midrange (could call it bottom end) grunt and this proved true on my LeMans 1. FWIW. Possibly at the cost of top end, don't knwo. Most people on Commandos, in my opinion, run the 750 style (no crossover) because they are better looking, easier to deal with, and don't have those joints to rust and break.
=============================================

I have replaced the balanced 850 pipes on my Commando and fitted 750-style unbalanced pipes. I do not consider it to be a problem at road speeds, myself.

However, if you want high speed performance from a machine a balancer pipe is a good idea. Balancer pipes on any multi generally help engines run well at higher revs, by allowing them to breath better, giving the exhaust gases room to expand into the extra space they provide. The higher up the balance-system is the better. Without the balance pipe, things can get a little restrictive up there when there's a lot of gas leaving the engine. Some people have tried remedying this by fitting wider bore pipes on unbalanced systems, but this seldom works. The problem is back-flow (a classic problem on racing singles). Back flow is caused when a partial vacuum forms on the inner curve of a wide-bore pipe. Most low-level exhaust systems turn the exhaust gases through almost 180 degrees in the space of less than a foot-distance-traveled. At high revs, exhaust gases are leaving the engine at a very high velocity, and sweep around the outside edge of the pipe. The partial vacuum on the inside edge creates vortices in the gas mixture, which allow gas to flow *back* up the pipe, *into* the combustion chamber. I know of a racing Velo-Venom that had this problem. Performance had plummeted, after fitting a bigbore exhaust. When gas analysis was done, exhaust gases were discovered swirling around inside the *carb*! The problem was remedied by the old motorcar racing trick, of fitting a dam in the inner bend of the exhaust, preventing backflow. I've never heard of anyone using this method on a racing twin with unbalanced pipes, but can't see any reason why it shouldn't be done. I believe there are one or two racing people on the list, who might have something to say.

Hmm, I've just read all that, and realized that it's a lot of gobbledygook. Never mind. What I *meant* to say, is that on a road bike I doubt if balancer pipes are all that significant, in their effect upon performance. Our type of bike isn't generally all that revvy, knohow, so I doubt backflow manifests itself all that often. Balance pipes make fitting more difficult and oft as not leak and rust and rattle anyway. Like the two Carb setup at the inlet end of things, I've dispensed with the balancer on my 850 Mando and can't say's I've noticed any difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top