Stainless Steel Headers - M900

[Yorkie]

Managed to get another bit of bling-ish stuff from Mark at MADASL http://www.madasl.co.uk/
great bit of kit:





Yorkie

[Yorkie]

A few more:







Yorkie

[Yorkie]

They do look quite nice:



The SS project is nearly done, then its a 15 year strip down for the Monster.

Yorkie

Looks really good

[gary tompkins]

looks well made

[Dukedesmo]

Nice but you need to get some colour into them;

[Yorkie]

Just got the bike back, need to find some time to ride it now.

Really good fit as well.

Yorkie

[Darren69]

Are they a tangential manifold? Eg like full Termi

[Yorkie]

Originally Posted by Darren69

Are they a tangential manifold? Eg like full Termi

I'm not sure buddy?

Yorkie

[Darren69]

So what is the benefit over the standard system?

[utopia]

I've seen Dukedesmo's set of these headers in the metal, and they look like they're well put together.

As for the benefits, I'm certainly no expert but I could make a few semi-educated guesses.
Looking at Yorkie's third picture, it seems like the restrictive (?) std crucifix (where flow from each header divides into two channels of reduced cross section, and then exhausts equally through both cans) is replaced by an arrangement where each header "favours" its own individual can through a single main pipe of constant dia, but has an additional smaller "bleed" to the other can, which also means that the total flow area is increased at this point.
I'm guessing that by having each cylinder favouring its own path to a single outlet, the reflected wave can be used more effectively as it is not confused (at least not as much) by the reflected wave from the other cylinder.
I also kinda suspect that the pipes are arranged so that the front and rear headers are of a more equal length, and therefore perform more equally.....the rear is a fair bit shorter than the front in the std system.
Perhaps also since the flow is less disrupted along its full length to the can outlet, maximum use is made of the effect of exhaust length on power and torque curves....ie the pipe is effectively acting like a longer system, which I think would tend to favour performance at lower revs.

But I repeat, the above is just a bit of semi-educated reasoning.
And a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Your cans look very close together, Yorkie, unless its a photographic illusion.
Any chance of a rear shot ?
My interest is cos I'm building a 2 into 1 and I'm wondering how close I can tuck the can in to the frame without fouling the rear suspension (tyre) movement.

[Yorkie]

The cans are from a Monster 620 and don't suffer from the wheel barrow effect and are nice and tight to the seat.

This is an older photo, they are tighter still now:



I will take another picture tonight.

It made a little more power on the dyno when tested against the standard system so I am not sure about it being restrictive (I may be wrong though).

Yorkie

[Darren69]

Originally Posted by utopia

I've seen Dukedesmo's set of these headers in the metal, and they look like they're well put together.

As for the benefits, I'm certainly no expert but I could make a few semi-educated guesses.
Looking at Yorkie's third picture, it seems like the restrictive (?) std crucifix (where flow from each header divides into two channels of reduced cross section, and then exhausts equally through both cans) is replaced by an arrangement where each header "favours" its own individual can through a single main pipe of constant dia, but has an additional smaller "bleed" to the other can, which also means that the total flow area is increased at this point.
I'm guessing that by having each cylinder favouring its own path to a single outlet, the reflected wave can be used more effectively as it is not confused (at least not as much) by the reflected wave from the other cylinder.
I also kinda suspect that the pipes are arranged so that the front and rear headers are of a more equal length, and therefore perform more equally.....the rear is a fair bit shorter than the front in the std system.
Perhaps also since the flow is less disrupted along its full length to the can outlet, maximum use is made of the effect of exhaust length on power and torque curves....ie the pipe is effectively acting like a longer system, which I think would tend to favour performance at lower revs.

But I repeat, the above is just a bit of semi-educated reasoning.
And a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Your cans look very close together, Yorkie, unless its a photographic illusion.
Any chance of a rear shot ?
My interest is cos I'm building a 2 into 1 and I'm wondering how close I can tuck the can in to the frame without fouling the rear suspension (tyre) movement.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Jeff. As for how tight in they are, that is an issue I have had with my High level Termis in that the hugger would rub against the back of the can and mine are no where near as tight in as those look to be, so just something to check for.

[utopia]

Originally Posted by Yorkie

It made a little more power on the dyno when tested against the standard system so I am not sure about it being restrictive (I may be wrong though).
Yorkie

Yes, but no, but yes.....I was trying to say that the new header system was probably LESS restrictive than the std system, not more.

Thanks for the can pics/info, both.

[Dukedesmo]

Originally Posted by utopia

I've seen Dukedesmo's set of these headers in the metal, and they look like they're well put together.

As for the benefits, I'm certainly no expert but I could make a few semi-educated guesses.
Looking at Yorkie's third picture, it seems like the restrictive (?) std crucifix (where flow from each header divides into two channels of reduced cross section, and then exhausts equally through both cans) is replaced by an arrangement where each header "favours" its own individual can through a single main pipe of constant dia, but has an additional smaller "bleed" to the other can, which also means that the total flow area is increased at this point.
I'm guessing that by having each cylinder favouring its own path to a single outlet, the reflected wave can be used more effectively as it is not confused (at least not as much) by the reflected wave from the other cylinder.
I also kinda suspect that the pipes are arranged so that the front and rear headers are of a more equal length, and therefore perform more equally.....the rear is a fair bit shorter than the front in the std system.
Perhaps also since the flow is less disrupted along its full length to the can outlet, maximum use is made of the effect of exhaust length on power and torque curves....ie the pipe is effectively acting like a longer system, which I think would tend to favour performance at lower revs.

But I repeat, the above is just a bit of semi-educated reasoning.
And a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Your cans look very close together, Yorkie, unless its a photographic illusion.
Any chance of a rear shot ?
My interest is cos I'm building a 2 into 1 and I'm wondering how close I can tuck the can in to the frame without fouling the rear suspension (tyre) movement.

Sounds about right to me, plus they are 45mm rather than the standard 40mm.

I do intend to get to the dyno sometime soon to see if there's any more power, my gut (butt) feeling is that there is...