Cheap Carbon B-pipe

I don't see any benefit on the carbon chamber (unless you are some lbs counter, trying to hack every bit of weight possible) and it also depends on what setup you are running. I believe mod is better for bigger bore/ported motors.
 
seen those chambers break too..... never seen an fp one break

We tested 3 off these pipes 2011. They dont break!!!

But fit only in our TriXstar hull.
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966337.535085.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966337.535085.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 181
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966370.655158.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966370.655158.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 148
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966431.540085.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1318966431.540085.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 165
Location
Ohio
I would the think the very old original B pipe design was limited by space...I mean they for sure took every friggin centimeter they could..but they were still limited...
 
So they're bigger than a standard FPP chamber? What drove that design decision?

Matt,you dont must love me or my products..... That do many others.
The FP chamber is a agreement to the small place bitwen hull and gastank, or you have seen a dirtbikechamber looks like b-pipechamber. Good friend of me is a good dirtbike enginebuilder and he helped me to redesign the chamber.

And it works......
 

Matt_E

steals hub caps from cars
Site Supporter
Location
at peace
Cool, I was just curious why you made it bigger. Figured there was a good reason.
Does it work noticeably better than a standard FPP chamber?

EDIT: Me asking questions doesn't mean I don't like you or your products.
I don't think your dirt bike chamber comparison is particularly meaningful. Bikes have a transmission and clutch. Pipes for bikes are designed to develop peak power at one particular RPM spot.
Ski pipes (wet pipes in particular) are designed to give power on a very broad RPM range.
 
Last edited:
Cool, I was just curious why you made it bigger. Figured there was a good reason.
Does it work noticeably better than a standard FPP chamber?

Last year we tested a prototyp with 12mm dasa. More bottom end torqe. Mid and high rpm neary same. First chamber build top/ bottompart and glued........ Breaks after 3 testdrivedays. New chambers build as 1 part without glueing.

But no chance to build it into pre08 Sj.


Thanks, Andy
 
Cool, I was just curious why you made it bigger. Figured there was a good reason.
Does it work noticeably better than a standard FPP chamber?

EDIT: Me asking questions doesn't mean I don't like you or your products.
I don't think your dirt bike chamber comparison is particularly meaningful. Bikes have a transmission and clutch. Pipes for bikes are designed to develop peak power at one particular RPM spot.
Ski pipes (wet pipes in particular) are designed to give power on a very broad RPM range.


Hallo Matt, you are rigth........ Increasing the angle of cone/contercone gives you more peakpower on smaler RPM range. But the chamber ist designed for PV engines, they have wider powerband if PVs working.
We have to compare it 1:1 in 1 pv and nonPV ski next spring.


Andy
 
Here some pics of my ski i sold 3weeks ago. Engine is 700 62t ported with Matts foruminstructions. Oem 38s, milled stockhead (13,5 bar/100oktanfuel), stockpump with 13/17, stock ignition , b-pipe with my carbonchamber. First thy to flip a ski in flatwater. No setup wake........ Pull the trim, prejump und then open throttle. I think it looks like powerfull engine????
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048293.207651.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048293.207651.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 111
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048319.490054.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048319.490054.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 111
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048350.202250.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319048350.202250.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 100
Top Bottom