• The Roadster Factory Recovery Fund - Friends, as you may have heard, The Roadster Factory, a respected British Car Parts business in PA, suffered a total loss in a fire on Christmas Day. Read about it, discuss or ask questions >> HERE. The Triumph Register of America is sponsoring a fund raiser to help TRF get back on their feet. If you can help, vist >> their GoFundMe page.
  • Hey there Guest!
    If you enjoy BCF and find our forum a useful resource, if you appreciate not having ads pop up all over the place and you want to ensure we can stay online - Please consider supporting with an "optional" low-cost annual subscription.
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this UGLY banner)
Tips
Tips

Velocity Stacks

G

Guest

Guest
Guest
Offline
I have a set of 3 Kas Kastner-designed velocity stacks that I will use on my triple ZS carb setup. The stacks are primarily for shows. My question is, will the tuning of the carbs be any different from when I will be running the carbs with my usual 3" K&N filters in place? Also, is it "safe" to run the car with the velocity stacks installed (no filters)? Is it that dust or other debris will possibly get sucked into the carbs and heads if an errant love bug decides to commit Seppuku in my intake?
velocitystacks.jpg

Bill
 

bobh

Jedi Warrior
Country flag
Offline
You will suck junk into the engine if you don't have the filters in place. Dust is harder than the metal in your engine so it can scratch the metal.
On the other hand I would have a hard time resisting an occasional tromp on the load pedal with no filters installed. The snort of the stacks sucking air is music to my ears.
Can you install the stacks inside the filters? In other words can you run both at the same time? If so you will get the benefit of the stacks and filtered air.
Some setups are designed to do exactly this. I don't know if it is possible with the combination you have.
I suspect the tuning will be affected by the presence or absence of the stacks. theoretically the stacks will increase the air speed and (I think) the amount of air. I don't know if the difference will be large enough that the needle and seats can't compensate.
I believe you mentioned having a Goodparts air box. His airbox has a mini stack machined into the mount. Does Richard say anything about changing needles?
 
OP
G

Guest

Guest
Guest
Offline
The K&N filters offer no ability to accomodate the stacks. There are sock-type filters out there, more like foam covers, not the ideal filtering setup. I had the air box but I don't really recall them having mini velocity stacks built in. Unless Richard changed his design.

Bill
 

Alan_Myers

Luke Skywalker
Offline
Hi Bill,

There are different size filters to accomodate velocity stacks. It sort of depends upon the stacks themselves, how tall they are and their diameter.

Most Kastner stacks I've seen are "full radius" design and would require a pretty large filter box, of the usual designs, possibly more than the engine compartment can accomodate. Sock style filters, one per stack, might be the only choice. I agree with BobH that this probably isn't the best method of filtering, if there are alternatives.

With K&N and others similar filters that have a solid cover, there should be a min. of an inch clearance, between the outer edge of the velocity stack and the inside face of the filter cover, a little more would be even better. I've got 3 or 3.35" deep K&N filters fitted over 40mm stacks on 40DCOE Webers. That should be adequate clearance.

There might actually be some advantage to running velocity stacks under filters. To be as effective as possible, air around the carb intake/stack should be relatively still. I believe filters will help with that. This is why many carbs fitted with velocity stacks often have a roomy air box covering them.

Those you see pictured without any sort of air filtration are either full race engines that get rebuilt every couple thousand miles, or are for show. I wouldn't run a street car all the time without some filtration to protect the engine. There is just too much danger of damage to the engine, as BobH described.

There are two primary purposes to velocity stacks, besides looking and sounding cool. One is to "clean up" air flow and channel it into the carb. The other is to capture "stand off" fuel/air mixture that might gather around the mouth of the carb, that might be blown away without the use of stacks.

If those velocity stacks truly increase flow in your engine, you may need to enrich the carbs slightly to dial them in. In other words, adding the stacks to a carb tuned to work without them should cause mixture to be a little lean. Best test might be an exhaust gas analyzer up the tailpipe of a fully warmed up engine, tested at various rpms, after the stacks are installed.

Overall, velocity stacks seem to be useful on DCOE and certain vertical hihg performance Webers. There are various lengths available. With Webers, a longer stack has more effect on low rpm range, shorter is more effective at high rpms.

I've heard, but not seen any real proof, that SU efficiency sees little improvement with velocity stacks. In fact, I've seen advice to use only very short or to simply shape a radius on the inlet side of the carb itself, to get about as much benefit as possible.

ZS carbs are very similar in design and function to SU carbs, so maybe this info applies to them as well. Then again, maybe not.

Velocity stack effectiveness also depends on other tuning that's been done to the engine, increasing the engine's breathing in terms of volume and the speed of the fuel/air mixture. An engine with porting, gas flowing, increased compression, headers, a hot cam and other improvements will see more benefit from adding a set of stacks of the right length. How much? Well, likely just a little.

Racers do a lot of tweaks and modifications trying to get the last little bit of performance out of an engine, with no regard for long term reliability and street manners. Unfortunately, a lot of cool "racy" stuff ends up installed on street cars where some of it has little or no benefit, might actually cause problems in the long run. I don't think velocity stacks on a street car are likely to do any harm, so long as a filter is still used. But, I also wouldn't expect a big performance increase.

Heck, have fun, give em a try and let us know what you think!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 

Bugeye58

Yoda
Offline
Alan, as to your velocity stack on SU's comment, you are 100% correct. Many, many, hours of dyno time on my engines found that on a full race 1275 "A" Series engine, modified HS4 carbs, the optimal length of the stacks was about .937", with a gentle radius on both the inside and outside of the stack.
The results were consistent with both bare naked stacks, and K&N's installed.
Jeff
 

vettedog72

Jedi Knight
Offline
Jeff
I sure would like to hear about anything your found on the 1275 that would/should generally transfer to the 2.5 TR6. If you have done work on the 2.5, I would be very interested in reading it.
 

vettedog72

Jedi Knight
Offline
In the late '70's it seemed most of the SCCA "racers" were using some foam rubber (from flat sheets) wraped around the stack for filters; cheap and easy to change. You would have no problem with setting that up and removing same when you "get your show to the show". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 

SkinnedKnuckles

Jedi Trainee
Offline
Picture if you will air off to the side of the carb being sucked in. It has momentum so when the flow makes that sharp bend it separates from the wall of the throat. A small eddy then forms in that zone which effectively decreases the area in the throat for flow. The rounded end of velocity stacks eliminate the sharp transition and prevent the eddy formation. The air is then at a slightly higher pressure (density) so more pounds are pulled in.

A confounding proplem with ZS's & SU's is the air valve and the "dam" - too bad there are sharp edges there.

The "full radius" stacks probably are best with designs that don't flare open much. I made mine using the bell from bicycle horns which have a nice big parabolic flare. These are mounted inside the K&N covers which are shimmed apart to compensate for the 3/8" or so height of the horn.

BB
 

swift6

Yoda
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
The K&N filters offer no ability to accomodate the stacks. There are sock-type filters out there, more like foam covers, not the ideal filtering setup. I had the air box but I don't really recall them having mini velocity stacks built in. Unless Richard changed his design.

Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

I think R.G. offered them as an extra cost option on his airboxes. He gave me a good deal on my airbox. I bought his "old airbox" in the summer of 2001 that he used for dyno testing. It has the short velocity stacks built into it. The sort that just smooth the airflow into the carb. He considered it an "old" design because he was in the process of enlarging the overall volume of the airbox by making them taller.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 

bobh

Jedi Warrior
Country flag
Offline
My reference to mini stacks is based on this excerpt from the Goodparts site;
...A spacer assembly is placed inside the box at each carb to prevent the bolts from distorting the box when tightened. It consists of a 3/8" aluminum plate on the carb side with a tube reaching to the other side for each bolt. The plate has a 3/8"radius around the air inlet to enhance airflow into the carb.
 

Bugeye58

Yoda
Offline
Vette, I haven't done anything directly related to the 2.5, but my 2.0 in the GT6 responded well to the short stack treatment. No dyno figures to back it up, just subjective "seat of the pants" stuff.
I ran a single, highly modified, SU HS4 on my full race 1500, and the short stack worked extremely well. The power band on that engine was from about 3500 to 7650 RPM.
If someone wants to donate a 2.5 for further development....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Jeff
 

Similar threads

Top