[rdsport323]

its like buying M6 reps or CSL reps or BBS-LM reps or whatever... One came out first, the other came out second... it's the same shit... ones cheaper, just like with reps but they both serve the same purpose and does the same thing.

anytime you can make a product without R&D, of course it will be cheaper. look at all the imitation items that is being sold... same stuff..

get over it.

[usc335]

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

[Nikolas]

Originally Posted by aab3218

If the question is who invented the intake I think it is vishnu. If the question is who offered the intakes first to the market I think its bms. If everybody is asking for it I can see why many vendors would try to sell them.

Invention? It's a stock air filter on a stock coupler - who'd a thunk?

People have been sticking cone filters on cars for a lot longer than the 335. I have one on my 1991 Carrera4.

[VapoR]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

physics 101

FIGHT ON!

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

Finally some real analysis! Here are close up pics of each filter base
and coupler, as best as I can find. Which would you say flows more?
Assuming the turbos could suck an infinite amount of air?

Then the next question is does it really matter one way or the other?

[rdsport323]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

this is good information... trust me, this guy knows his stuff... plus, he's a USC educated man... can't go wrong there.. =) no, but in all seriousness, what he says makes sense.. last time I took Physics was 10 years ago in HS, AP Physics C... fun stuff.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by aab3218

Assuming the turbos could suck an infinite amount of air?

"suck an infinite amount of air" . . . hmmm . . . Normally I'd say that's entirely too technical for my finite brain, but . . .

Originally Posted by aab3218

Which would you say flows more?

. . . assuming those spiffy arrows are drawn to scale, and assuming you hook up a Turbonator able to handle an infinite amount of air, and assuming you have bad teeth, the pictures must show that the sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

Yes, but, both designs end up at 2.25''

So the question is does the 3" to 2.25" transition as in Vishnu's design a more efficient way to increase airflow, as opposed to BMS' 2.25" to 2.25" design.

I'd say the Vishnu design has more turbulent airflow from the transition of high pressure --> low pressure. When you go from high area to low area, the velocity of the air increases and the pressure decreases, as in Vishnu's design.

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

Sorry to jump in here... but I noticed not all the variables are considered here...

So then using that equation, since BOTH designs end up at 2.25... the larger opening wins... people think the *other* filter has a larger opening, but actually if you consider the smooth rounded velocity stack as part of the opening, bms filters actually START with an opening significatly LARGER than the 3" opening of the *other guys* and then has a smooth transition to 2.25.

Do I really think this matters? Nope... both designs allow more than enough airflow for any power levels we have seen yet... and also, both designs have the same amount of filter surface area, so technically that is where your calculation should start, since that is the actual start of the opening. Same surface area, same 2.25 outlet... you do the math... only thing left is turbulence...

Do I feel the need to defend a product that I sell. Nope.

Do I enjoy technical arguments... Yep... as long as all the facts were presented... which is what I am doing here, since some important things were overlooked(that you assumed both filters had the same velocity stacks)

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

Sorry to jump in here... but I noticed not all the variables are considered here...

So then using that equation, since BOTH designs end up at 2.25... the larger opening wins... people think the *other* filter has a larger opening, but actually if you consider the smooth rounded velocity stack as part of the opening, bms filters actually START with an opening significatly LARGER than the 3" opening of the *other guys* and then has a smooth transition to 2.25.

Do I really think this matters? Nope... both designs allow more than enough airflow for any power levels we have seen yet... and also, both designs have the same amount of filter surface area, so technically that is where your calculation should start, since that is the actual start of the opening. Same surface area, same 2.25 outlet... you do the math... only thing left is turbulence...

Do I feel the need to defend a product that I sell. Nope.

Do I enjoy technical arguments... Yep... as long as all the facts were presented... which is what I am doing here, since some important things were overlooked(that you assumed both filters had the same velocity stacks)

Yes..this is primarily why I believe there is no real difference between the two filters......I have yet to read a factual based argument over why one is better than the other.

[M3to335]

I really think everyone is reading into these "dual cone intakes" way too much. Its a set of filters on a pipe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your options are;
Buy it from company A
Buy it from company B
Make your own if you have spare time

I'd bet my third nut that no one has put these on a flow bench and actually done any scientific investigation as to why one is better or worse then the other. And do you know why... because a) its a waste of time and b) you wont be able to tell the difference between any of those three options. Its not worth arguing over or even discussing in length.

[XLR8MF]

The fact that people are trying to pick one over the other, when the performance is dead even between them, leaves price and customer service as the only valid variables. They both go to BMS just as many people in this thread never got a response from Vishnu.

And Yes, I am a fan or whatever you want to call it, of BMS. That does't make my statement any less credible just as Lawdude has a lot of posts but most is still BS!

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by XLR8MF

And Yes, I am a fan or whatever you want to call it, of BMS. That does't make my statement any less credible just as Lawdude has a lot of posts but most is still BS!

All press is good press. Just make sure you spell my name right.

[XLR8MF]

Originally Posted by lawdude

All press is good press. Just make sure you spell my name right.

Quality vs Quantity?

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by XLR8MF

Quality vs Quantity?

non sequitur

[ducati955]

well anyway... i have the bms single, no rushg to get a dual cone yet,,, it looks btter though!!!!

i will buy a v3 soon, but i must say, i have emailed vishnu in the past, never recieved an email back... hopefully someone at that co will when i want my v3

[chim15]

ducati955,

I just upgraded from the single BMS to the dual cone setup and I must say that while the sound difference between the two is negligible the increased throttle response in the low rev range is worth it, with or without a tune. At least IMHO.

[GeorgiaTech335coupe]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

True, but you aren't taking consideration the pressure of the flow upstream. If you bottleneck the flow too much without enough pressure, the flow will back up and stop until enough pressure has built up to force it through.

All in all, the differences are probably very minuscule.

[Former_Boosted_IS]

Originally Posted by usc335

My 2 cents on the coupler from an unbiased observer. There is a reason they put venturis on carburetors -- to increase the speed of the air. The basic continuity equation is (A1)*(V1) = (A2)*(V2) where A = cross-sectional area and V = Velocity. So, V2 = (V1)*(A1/A2). Therefore, as the area decreases, the velocity of the air increases. So, Vishnu's design has merit.

The problem is your equation is for static cross section areas and the Vishnu design is a tapered design. You guys must remember that the BMS uses a velocity stack style intake meaning the taper exists as well, just in the cone rather than the piping. Anyone that thinks there is a difference really wants to spend more money.

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by Former_Boosted_IS

The problem is your equation is for static cross section areas and the Vishnu design is a tapered design. You guys must remember that the BMS uses a velocity stack style intake meaning the taper exists as well, just in the cone rather than the piping. Anyone that thinks there is a difference really wants to spend more money.

That was my basic point. That they are too similar for it to matter much one way or the other so choose on price and vendor. For technical sake which do you think would flow better?

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

Do I enjoy technical arguments... Yep... as long as all the facts were presented... which is what I am doing here, since some important things were overlooked(that you assumed both filters had the same velocity stacks)

Interesting. I assumed both had the same filter base but looking at the picture one looks square and the other rounded.

[ducati955]

Originally Posted by chim15

ducati955,

I just upgraded from the single BMS to the dual cone setup and I must say that while the sound difference between the two is negligible the increased throttle response in the low rev range is worth it, with or without a tune. At least IMHO.

thanx!!!!!!! now i have to buy another intake setup!!!! jk, def want to get it, looks better too!