I did extensive design and research on the Lectron carb back when they were mainly for drag racing bikes and brought them into the dirtbike world in bigger number. If you would like me to evaluate your carb and your claims I would do so. For Lectron I helped test rod grinds for low end performance on single cylinder 2 strokes, suggested the aluminum bowl bracket to eliminate leaking, suggested the "encapsulator" to eliminate the bogging from jumps and rough terrain and helped with fitment on various bikes (physical fitment and throttle cable needs). Also did custom grinds for off road use.
Hello! About six or seven years ago, when I first started working with metering rod carburetors, I had already heard of you. On my 2016 TE250, I tested almost every rod available, including 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 4-2m, and 3-2m. I was particularly impressed by the performance of the 4-1 and 4-2m on the Lectron VH. I have great respect for the work you’ve done for Lectron in the past. When it comes to allowing third parties to test our latest GEN3+ and provide their conclusions, I am currently very cautious. About two years ago, Morgan Spradling, the owner of Highland Cycles, expressed strong interest in our products. In good faith, we provided him with our products, but the process didn’t go smoothly. Without much discussion or collaboration with us, he gave us a lot of negative feedback, emphasizing his so-called objective and honest review approach. While we eventually resolved all issues, Morgan didn’t provide highly positive or widespread recognition of our product. Even though most people later agreed that the GEN3pro delivered far more low-end torque than the stock carb, Morgan still claimed that the PWK was the best. To be honest, his involvement in that test ended up causing some harm to our reputation and image. Later, I learned that he had never liked any metering rod carburetors, including both Lectron and SmartCarb. While I would love to have further discussions with you, including testing our GEN3+, we need to be very careful about such matters at this stage. I hope you understand. Regardless, thank you for watching and for leaving your comment.
@xtngcarbs1249 What would be the difference if you loaned him a carb or he bought one & found it to be good or bad & shared his findings? If it's as good as you say, having the endorsement of a known & respected tuner would help you immensely. Your denial of letting someone independently test your product gives the appearance of it NOT being what it's claimed to be. I was part of the s.t.i.c. development & I passed along what I had to a well respected naysayer on thumpertalk. He dyno tested it & as a mam of his word, he came back & posted his findings. He also paid for it & bought a second one for his rm250 vintage race bike. A side note, what I supplied him with was NOT what stic has now. I cut ties with George as he was a crook. They never got my version of metering block. More power everywhere from bottom to over rev. Gains of 4.8rwhp through the upper mid through begging of over rev bit it felt like it was right from idle. Theor setup is what I consider a bandaid on a design flaw. Thats why they run massive pilots & have the airscrew waaaaay out. I put my money where my mouth is & an independent test proved my claims. I made a nice chunk of money before i stopped selling my version as i didn't want stic (George) to steal it. Do the same & it will help you with credibility, sales & ultimately your bank account.
Almost everything you said about the billetron pro was incorrect. As the person who designed it (and no longer works at lectron so I have no stake in the game), there is not a better qualified person to say this. The Venturi design while smaller, still easily outflows a pwk38. Extensive cfd and flow bench testing was done to optimize the design along with decades of experience in nhra pro stock racing. Just because it’s smaller DOES NOT mean it flows less, shape is important. Secondly the jet tube locations offer minimal flow restriction, and the xrod give zero flow restriction, so those statements aren’t relevant. Third, the pro series makes about 2 more peak Hp than a perfectly tuned pwk on a yz250 and about 1 more peak Hp than a perfectly tuned stic carb. Lastly the rod you were testing with was not the ideal enduro spec rod. If you did any real testing, you would know all of my statements are correct. I’m not sure if you’re ripping off my xrod patent, but if you are have fun getting sued by lectron if you sell any in the US. I respect the efforts to give a different take on the metering rod carb, the electric pj is something Ive planned on adding to my personal carbs for a while now, but slandering the originators of the technology you’re essentially copying is morally bankrupt
Hello, Matt, thank you for your message. I respect the X-Rod metering rod technology you invented, and it indeed improves throttle response efficiency to some extent. It’s especially outstanding on smaller engines like the 125cc, as well as for achieving an effect similar to an accelerator pump on four-stroke engines. However, through my rigorous testing, I have discovered certain limitations or shortcomings in the Lectron Venturi design, including aspects related to the X-Rod metering rod, which affect top-end performance. These findings are not unique to me; they are conclusions that other Lectron users have reached as well. What I describe are objective, real conclusions derived from my experiments, and there is absolutely no intention to belittle the X-Rod technology. On the contrary, I strongly acknowledge and appreciate its advantages. As I mentioned in my video, the application of this technology significantly improves idle stability and throttle response in the standard Billetron, and this is evident. What I want to say is that my real research into metering rod carburetors began in 2017. At that time, you may have just graduated from high school or just entered the University of Virginia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, working towards your Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering. Carburetors and metering rod technology don’t seem to be very related to your field of study. But that’s not the point. Anyone can explore and research areas they are interested in through hard work, and that’s exactly what I did. From 2017 until today, I’ve never stopped researching and exploring this field. As for the airflow issue you emphasized, I completely disagree. The longer you work in this field, the more you’ll realize that there are only two factors in the fuel system that affect engine performance. The first is the airflow entering the engine per unit of time. The second is the diameter of the fuel particles that mix with the air entering the engine, which is what people refer to as fuel atomization. These two factors directly impact the engine’s performance. Now, there are two formulas for calculating airflow: one is the volumetric flow formula: Q = V × A, and the other is the mass flow formula: m = P × Q. In these formulas, A is the cross-sectional area of the Venturi tube, which is directly proportional to airflow-larger area, higher flow. Under the same engine vacuum conditions, a smaller Venturi tube can create a faster airflow, which helps activate the Power Jet and torque gain circuits more easily, while also providing a better fuel shear signal to the flat plane area of the metering rod, thus improving atomization. This is the original intent behind the Billetron Pro design. However, as engine RPM rises and more airflow is required, the smaller Venturi tube will quickly approach the critical point of maximum allowable airflow. This is when the advantage of a larger-diameter Venturi tube becomes apparent, as it allows more air to pass through in a given period of time. Additionally, the thicker copper tube exposed inside the Venturi tube inevitably causes air turbulence. This is why, in actual tests, we believe that its top-end performance doesn’t match the SC2 or GEN3+. But why does the Billetron Pro 38 perform better at the top end than the PWK36? That’s because the metering rod in the Billetron Pro is far superior in fuel atomization performance compared to traditional carburetors-this is a basic principle of physics. We have conducted comprehensive comparative testing on the X2-2, X2-3, B2-2, and B2-3. The claim that we used the wrong metering rods has no basis. To our knowledge, these are the standard rods that Lectron installs for the Billetron Pro on 250-300 Enduro bikes. As for the fuel reservoir design on the back of the X-ROD and whether it could cause turbulence at the top-end position, you should test this yourself in real riding conditions, comparing it with the B2-2 or B2-3. You will find the objective answer. Let me give you an example: If you're in a car traveling at 60 km/h and you stick an ice cream cone out the window, you’ll feel two different types of resistance. In the first experiment, when the sharp end of the cone faces the airflow, you’ll feel relatively little resistance. In the second experiment, when the open end of the cone faces the airflow, you’ll feel significant resistance.Inside the Venturi, this resistance becomes turbulence. All turbulence affects the peak horsepower of the engine. Regarding the Stic, when you install the Stic system on a PWK 38 version, the top-end performance you get is absolutely far superior to the Billetron Pro 38 version. There is no doubt about that, and there’s really no need for further debate on this. Every user who has used the Stic 38 PWK system completely agrees with this point of view. Finally, I want to assure you that I have no intention of infringing on any intellectual property. I will be extremely cautious to avoid any confusion. My goal is to make a positive contribution to the field of carburetor design and performance, not to unfairly compete or steal any ideas. Although some in China have started copying the X-ROD, based on current progress, it seems they still have a long way to go.
@xtng every statement you’ve made is a gross oversimplification of how things work. There is far more to fluid dynamics than simple cross sectional area comparisons and general statements about turbulence. It’s a complex subject that I’ve studied for years. Based on the basic understanding you’ve shown here on this topic I’m not going to waste my time educating you. Speaking of my studies since you felt the need to bring up my education, chemical engineering is directly applicable to fuel delivery systems (and I’ve taken most mechanical engineering courses for fun) and my degree is from one of the best universities in the USA. I’ve worked in the Motorsports industry for almost a decade and had the privilege of learning from some of the best minds in the industry. I’ve founded and sold successful motorsports businesses. I think the fact that I was able to invent something as groundbreaking as the xrod within six months of working for lectron is more than enough evidence of my mastery of these subjects. Everything on the pro series is done for a reason and is backed up by multiple forms of testing and a ton of engineering work and experience. I have always been more concerned with truth than selling products and always took the time to fully understand and master each competing product to evaluate it fairly. My ideas have always proven superior. I even had to grind my own stic needles to get optimal performance out of it and the pro series still beat it. Frankly if any of the competing carbs beat the pro series it’s bc you didn’t tune the pro series well enough, period. It has so much tunability it’s easy to make perform worse. I took the time to do detailed design of experiment studies on every combination of carb settings and know exactly how much proportion of each circuit is ideal for different applications. The rod you were showing it for enduro use in the video is the rev one for that bike, hence my statement that it wasn’t well tuned. The x rod absolutely does not negatively impact top end power, it actually slightly improves it. At high rpm airflow diverts into its passages and acts as an emulsifier, further enhancing the positive effects of metering rod technology. Again either it wasn’t tuned optimally or you got a poorly machined rod. The technology is superior in every way. At the end of the day I’ve contributed to the carb industry by contributing original ideas and you’ve copied other peoples ideas and combined them together. Don’t bother replying bc I won’t waste any more of my time on this discussion. Ps I think sc2 has a patent on their mag volt tps so you probably don’t want to sell that in the us either
@@Yz_768 Regarding the topic of airflow, you attempt to shift the discussion by bringing up rocket fluid dynamics, diverting attention from the simple fact that a carburetor venturi being too small can affect top-end performance.What was originally a simple logistical issue has been deliberately complicated by you. No one cares about complex principles from different industries.Your emphasis on over 10 years in the motorsports industry holds no significance. Mechanical fuel systems are a specialized field of study, and you can't claim to be an expert just because you’ve spent six months working in it. we only care about the real-world riding results. Is everyone’s perception wrong? I suggest you search Google for comparisons of top-end performance between these three models: SC2 38, Billetron 38, PWK 38. If the 34mm venturi you mention really performs that well, that would mean Lectron’s venturi design is the best, and it has somehow defied the laws of physics. So why did Lectron release the Big Air version, or why did William Red Edmondson leave Lectron to develop SmartCarb? Under proper tuning, everyone can find the answer when it comes to top-end performance. Speaking of tuning, you practically insinuate that I’m an idiot. I’ve had over ten Lectrons since 2017, experimented with many metering rods, and even hand-ground and modified some myself. Then you claim I don’t understand metering rod technology and can’t tune properly, or that it could be a problem with a wrongly-ground Lectron rod. That’s laughable. I remind you, I have at least five people around me who use Billetron Pro, with metering rods like B2-2, B2-3, X2-2, or X2-3, and we all have consistent riding feedback. We only speak with facts. You said: “At high rpm airflow diverts into its passages and acts as an emulsifier, further enhancing the positive effects of metering rod technology.” According to your logic, when the throttle is wide open, air will flow through the fuel reservoir and toward the bowl, then produce an emulsifier effect on the flat surface of the metering rod… Wow, I’m really curious to see how this challenge to common sense is achieved. I’ll reiterate: whether you accept it or not, the only real advantage of the X-Rod is improving throttle response and allowing a small amount of fuel to flow out of the fuel reservoir at idle. This directly contradicts your patent claim that no fuel is delivered at idle. This is why the X-Rod can improve idle stability. However, the fuel reservoir also creates turbulence at high RPMs, which negatively impacts top-end performance. This has been verified through real-world testing of the B2-3 and X2-3. Note that these tests were conducted on standard Billetron models. As you said, I’m just a "conveyor" of carburetor functionality, but after Red brought the British metering rod technology to the US in 1960, what revolutionary innovations has Lectron made based on Red’s work over the years? Until Matt came along, it was really great!! Regarding the use of a Hall sensor as a TPS system and whether it infringes on SC2’s patent, that’s a matter for the law to resolve, not something for you to worry about. My thoughts are the same as yours. At this point, there’s no need for further discussion. I’m not replying for your benefit, but for those who are genuinely interested in this topic or have real experience with it. If you believe others are ignorant, I hope you can prove your point through rigorous technical argumentation, rather than flaunting your degree or career in another industry in front of everyone.
@@xtngcarbs1249my industry experience is directly tied to fuel delivery before my time at lectron, my comment about designing the xrod after 6 months was specifically talking about lectron, not fuel delivery in general. It seems you will do anything you can to misinterpret what I’m saying to try to discredit me, which is frankly sad. you’re allowing a lot of bad assumptions to add confirmation bias to your real world testing. If the 34mm bore sizing is too small, then tell me why the 39mm bore big air adds zero top end to a 250cc engine? I’ve proven all of this stuff time and time again in the real world, on the flow bench, on the dyno, and in simulation. I’m not convinced you’ve done any testing beyond real world testing with a biased mind, especially considering most of your “results” are just parroting what other biased on uneducated individuals have already said. And don’t act all high and mighty, you started implying i was stupid with your elementary explanations of “physics” and attacks on my age and education. Ad hominem attacks are the first sign someone has lost and argument and that’s what you started with. Next, red Edmonton DID NOT invent the metering rod, that is a lie spread by sc2 to try to gain legitimacy. It was invented by Norm Quantz. red was his apprentice and did not leave on good terms. Further evidence that you will parrot whatever fits your narrative. One more thing, fuel delivery at idle with the xrod is not desirable and does not contribute to idle stability. Engineering it to minimize fuel delivery was one of the challenges of the project, further evidenced by the fact that the 4 stroke Xrods don’t even have a top slot on purpose. You don’t understand the technology, and you’ve tried to discredit the inventor of it to to gain legitimacy yourself. I used to give you some credit for trying to combine different elements of these carbs, but I have lost all respect for you; you are no better than the people that directly copied the pro series.
@@Yz_768 First of all, from the very beginning, I expressed respect and appreciation for your invention of the X-Rod, and that was my initial point. As for whether the venturi cross-sectional area affects top-end performance, I’m not concerned with why the 39mm Big Air doesn’t outperform the 38mm Billetron on a 250cc engine-that’s something Lectron should be investigating. As a user or product developer, I need to compare the differences between carburetors of the same bore size but from different brands. The conclusions I’ve drawn come from the many hours of testing I’ve put in, because, as everyone knows, practice is the only real way to test the truth. This is why many people have moved from Lectron to SC2, STIC, or PWK + JD JETTING, but there are also many who have returned to Lectron for more reasonable adjustability and bottom-end performance. Either way, SC2-38, GEN3+ 38, and PWK STIC 38 all outperform the Billetron 38 at the top end, let alone the Billetron Pro 38. As I mentioned before, the top-end performance of the Billetron Pro 38 is inferior to the standard Billetron 38 due to extra turbulence from Thick torque-boosting brass and the X-ROD. If you continue to argue this point, it’s like saying everyone who has personally tested these carburetors back-to-back is an idiot. Have you ever considered why SC2-38, GEN3+ 38, and PWK STIC 38 have better top-end performance? It’s because SC2 and GEN3+ both have fuel-boosting functions, while the PWK STIC 38 features an extreme foam tube in the main fuel circuit. These features improve fuel atomization, which is one of the conditions needed to extract maximum horsepower from the engine. On top of that, they also have larger venturi cross-sectional areas, which is the second condition needed to extract peak horsepower from the engine. In comparison, Lectron relies solely on airflow vacuum as the fuel pick-up signal and has a venturi cross-sectional area set at 34mm to achieve better fuel atomization. The difference in top-end performance is obvious, and there’s no debate about it for anyone who has personally tested these carburetors. I have never claimed that Red Edmonton invented the metering rod technology. The entire promotion and application started from copying Gardner and POSA. I have always believed that using public technology and improving its functionality is the foundation of innovation. Even if it’s about adapting and integrating, someone has to do it, and that’s exactly what Red started with. As for the X-Rod’s fuel delivery at idle in two-stroke engines through the rear fuel reservoir, and whether a relatively rich mixture is more beneficial for idle stability, I’ve proven this with the Lectron HV version, where I deliberately oriented the metering rod’s flat side toward the air filter side, and the engine still idled. This proves that even with the metering rod facing the wrong direction, fuel can still be delivered at idle. I’m done debating this point with you-just think I’m an idiot if you want. Of course, I know that the four-stroke version requires much more precision and sensitivity for fuel delivery, and I’m very clear about the struggles I went through while making the GEN1 four-stroke version. This is exactly why the X-Rod’s four-stroke version doesn’t have a fuel slot at the top.
What about KEIHIN FCR? Pretty much every 4 stroke out there thats worth a damn came with one back when bikes hard carbs and it wasnt even mentioned, But yeah for great top end (and bottom) you want an FCR with a R&D powerbowl.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I did extensive design and research on the Lectron carb back when they were mainly for drag racing bikes and brought them into the dirtbike world in bigger number. If you would like me to evaluate your carb and your claims I would do so. For Lectron I helped test rod grinds for low end performance on single cylinder 2 strokes, suggested the aluminum bowl bracket to eliminate leaking, suggested the "encapsulator" to eliminate the bogging from jumps and rough terrain and helped with fitment on various bikes (physical fitment and throttle cable needs). Also did custom grinds for off road use.
Hello! About six or seven years ago, when I first started working with metering rod carburetors, I had already heard of you. On my 2016 TE250, I tested almost every rod available, including 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 4-2m, and 3-2m. I was particularly impressed by the performance of the 4-1 and 4-2m on the Lectron VH. I have great respect for the work you’ve done for Lectron in the past.
When it comes to allowing third parties to test our latest GEN3+ and provide their conclusions, I am currently very cautious. About two years ago, Morgan Spradling, the owner of Highland Cycles, expressed strong interest in our products. In good faith, we provided him with our products, but the process didn’t go smoothly. Without much discussion or collaboration with us, he gave us a lot of negative feedback, emphasizing his so-called objective and honest review approach. While we eventually resolved all issues, Morgan didn’t provide highly positive or widespread recognition of our product. Even though most people later agreed that the GEN3pro delivered far more low-end torque than the stock carb, Morgan still claimed that the PWK was the best.
To be honest, his involvement in that test ended up causing some harm to our reputation and image. Later, I learned that he had never liked any metering rod carburetors, including both Lectron and SmartCarb. While I would love to have further discussions with you, including testing our GEN3+, we need to be very careful about such matters at this stage. I hope you understand. Regardless, thank you for watching and for leaving your comment.
@xtngcarbs1249
What would be the difference if you loaned him a carb or he bought one & found it to be good or bad & shared his findings? If it's as good as you say, having the endorsement of a known & respected tuner would help you immensely.
Your denial of letting someone independently test your product gives the appearance of it NOT being what it's claimed to be.
I was part of the s.t.i.c. development & I passed along what I had to a well respected naysayer on thumpertalk. He dyno tested it & as a mam of his word, he came back & posted his findings. He also paid for it & bought a second one for his rm250 vintage race bike.
A side note, what I supplied him with was NOT what stic has now. I cut ties with George as he was a crook. They never got my version of metering block. More power everywhere from bottom to over rev. Gains of 4.8rwhp through the upper mid through begging of over rev bit it felt like it was right from idle. Theor setup is what I consider a bandaid on a design flaw. Thats why they run massive pilots & have the airscrew waaaaay out.
I put my money where my mouth is & an independent test proved my claims. I made a nice chunk of money before i stopped selling my version as i didn't want stic (George) to steal it. Do the same & it will help you with credibility, sales & ultimately your bank account.
Almost everything you said about the billetron pro was incorrect. As the person who designed it (and no longer works at lectron so I have no stake in the game), there is not a better qualified person to say this. The Venturi design while smaller, still easily outflows a pwk38. Extensive cfd and flow bench testing was done to optimize the design along with decades of experience in nhra pro stock racing. Just because it’s smaller DOES NOT mean it flows less, shape is important. Secondly the jet tube locations offer minimal flow restriction, and the xrod give zero flow restriction, so those statements aren’t relevant. Third, the pro series makes about 2 more peak Hp than a perfectly tuned pwk on a yz250 and about 1 more peak Hp than a perfectly tuned stic carb. Lastly the rod you were testing with was not the ideal enduro spec rod. If you did any real testing, you would know all of my statements are correct. I’m not sure if you’re ripping off my xrod patent, but if you are have fun getting sued by lectron if you sell any in the US.
I respect the efforts to give a different take on the metering rod carb, the electric pj is something Ive planned on adding to my personal carbs for a while now, but slandering the originators of the technology you’re essentially copying is morally bankrupt
Hello, Matt, thank you for your message. I respect the X-Rod metering rod technology you invented, and it indeed improves throttle response efficiency to some extent. It’s especially outstanding on smaller engines like the 125cc, as well as for achieving an effect similar to an accelerator pump on four-stroke engines.
However, through my rigorous testing, I have discovered certain limitations or shortcomings in the Lectron Venturi design, including aspects related to the X-Rod metering rod, which affect top-end performance. These findings are not unique to me; they are conclusions that other Lectron users have reached as well. What I describe are objective, real conclusions derived from my experiments, and there is absolutely no intention to belittle the X-Rod technology. On the contrary, I strongly acknowledge and appreciate its advantages. As I mentioned in my video, the application of this technology significantly improves idle stability and throttle response in the standard Billetron, and this is evident.
What I want to say is that my real research into metering rod carburetors began in 2017. At that time, you may have just graduated from high school or just entered the University of Virginia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, working towards your Bachelor's in Chemical Engineering. Carburetors and metering rod technology don’t seem to be very related to your field of study. But that’s not the point. Anyone can explore and research areas they are interested in through hard work, and that’s exactly what I did. From 2017 until today, I’ve never stopped researching and exploring this field.
As for the airflow issue you emphasized, I completely disagree. The longer you work in this field, the more you’ll realize that there are only two factors in the fuel system that affect engine performance. The first is the airflow entering the engine per unit of time. The second is the diameter of the fuel particles that mix with the air entering the engine, which is what people refer to as fuel atomization. These two factors directly impact the engine’s performance.
Now, there are two formulas for calculating airflow: one is the volumetric flow formula: Q = V × A, and the other is the mass flow formula: m = P × Q. In these formulas, A is the cross-sectional area of the Venturi tube, which is directly proportional to airflow-larger area, higher flow. Under the same engine vacuum conditions, a smaller Venturi tube can create a faster airflow, which helps activate the Power Jet and torque gain circuits more easily, while also providing a better fuel shear signal to the flat plane area of the metering rod, thus improving atomization. This is the original intent behind the Billetron Pro design.
However, as engine RPM rises and more airflow is required, the smaller Venturi tube will quickly approach the critical point of maximum allowable airflow. This is when the advantage of a larger-diameter Venturi tube becomes apparent, as it allows more air to pass through in a given period of time. Additionally, the thicker copper tube exposed inside the Venturi tube inevitably causes air turbulence. This is why, in actual tests, we believe that its top-end performance doesn’t match the SC2 or GEN3+. But why does the Billetron Pro 38 perform better at the top end than the PWK36? That’s because the metering rod in the Billetron Pro is far superior in fuel atomization performance compared to traditional carburetors-this is a basic principle of physics.
We have conducted comprehensive comparative testing on the X2-2, X2-3, B2-2, and B2-3. The claim that we used the wrong metering rods has no basis. To our knowledge, these are the standard rods that Lectron installs for the Billetron Pro on 250-300 Enduro bikes.
As for the fuel reservoir design on the back of the X-ROD and whether it could cause turbulence at the top-end position, you should test this yourself in real riding conditions, comparing it with the B2-2 or B2-3. You will find the objective answer. Let me give you an example: If you're in a car traveling at 60 km/h and you stick an ice cream cone out the window, you’ll feel two different types of resistance. In the first experiment, when the sharp end of the cone faces the airflow, you’ll feel relatively little resistance. In the second experiment, when the open end of the cone faces the airflow, you’ll feel significant resistance.Inside the Venturi, this resistance becomes turbulence. All turbulence affects the peak horsepower of the engine.
Regarding the Stic, when you install the Stic system on a PWK 38 version, the top-end performance you get is absolutely far superior to the Billetron Pro 38 version. There is no doubt about that, and there’s really no need for further debate on this. Every user who has used the Stic 38 PWK system completely agrees with this point of view.
Finally, I want to assure you that I have no intention of infringing on any intellectual property. I will be extremely cautious to avoid any confusion. My goal is to make a positive contribution to the field of carburetor design and performance, not to unfairly compete or steal any ideas. Although some in China have started copying the X-ROD, based on current progress, it seems they still have a long way to go.
@xtng every statement you’ve made is a gross oversimplification of how things work. There is far more to fluid dynamics than simple cross sectional area comparisons and general statements about turbulence. It’s a complex subject that I’ve studied for years. Based on the basic understanding you’ve shown here on this topic I’m not going to waste my time educating you. Speaking of my studies since you felt the need to bring up my education, chemical engineering is directly applicable to fuel delivery systems (and I’ve taken most mechanical engineering courses for fun) and my degree is from one of the best universities in the USA. I’ve worked in the Motorsports industry for almost a decade and had the privilege of learning from some of the best minds in the industry. I’ve founded and sold successful motorsports businesses. I think the fact that I was able to invent something as groundbreaking as the xrod within six months of working for lectron is more than enough evidence of my mastery of these subjects. Everything on the pro series is done for a reason and is backed up by multiple forms of testing and a ton of engineering work and experience. I have always been more concerned with truth than selling products and always took the time to fully understand and master each competing product to evaluate it fairly. My ideas have always proven superior. I even had to grind my own stic needles to get optimal performance out of it and the pro series still beat it. Frankly if any of the competing carbs beat the pro series it’s bc you didn’t tune the pro series well enough, period. It has so much tunability it’s easy to make perform worse. I took the time to do detailed design of experiment studies on every combination of carb settings and know exactly how much proportion of each circuit is ideal for different applications. The rod you were showing it for enduro use in the video is the rev one for that bike, hence my statement that it wasn’t well tuned. The x rod absolutely does not negatively impact top end power, it actually slightly improves it. At high rpm airflow diverts into its passages and acts as an emulsifier, further enhancing the positive effects of metering rod technology. Again either it wasn’t tuned optimally or you got a poorly machined rod. The technology is superior in every way. At the end of the day I’ve contributed to the carb industry by contributing original ideas and you’ve copied other peoples ideas and combined them together. Don’t bother replying bc I won’t waste any more of my time on this discussion.
Ps I think sc2 has a patent on their mag volt tps so you probably don’t want to sell that in the us either
@@Yz_768 Regarding the topic of airflow, you attempt to shift the discussion by bringing up rocket fluid dynamics, diverting attention from the simple fact that a carburetor venturi being too small can affect top-end performance.What was originally a simple logistical issue has been deliberately complicated by you. No one cares about complex principles from different industries.Your emphasis on over 10 years in the motorsports industry holds no significance. Mechanical fuel systems are a specialized field of study, and you can't claim to be an expert just because you’ve spent six months working in it.
we only care about the real-world riding results. Is everyone’s perception wrong? I suggest you search Google for comparisons of top-end performance between these three models: SC2 38, Billetron 38, PWK 38. If the 34mm venturi you mention really performs that well, that would mean Lectron’s venturi design is the best, and it has somehow defied the laws of physics. So why did Lectron release the Big Air version, or why did William Red Edmondson leave Lectron to develop SmartCarb? Under proper tuning, everyone can find the answer when it comes to top-end performance.
Speaking of tuning, you practically insinuate that I’m an idiot. I’ve had over ten Lectrons since 2017, experimented with many metering rods, and even hand-ground and modified some myself. Then you claim I don’t understand metering rod technology and can’t tune properly, or that it could be a problem with a wrongly-ground Lectron rod. That’s laughable. I remind you, I have at least five people around me who use Billetron Pro, with metering rods like B2-2, B2-3, X2-2, or X2-3, and we all have consistent riding feedback. We only speak with facts.
You said: “At high rpm airflow diverts into its passages and acts as an emulsifier, further enhancing the positive effects of metering rod technology.” According to your logic, when the throttle is wide open, air will flow through the fuel reservoir and toward the bowl, then produce an emulsifier effect on the flat surface of the metering rod… Wow, I’m really curious to see how this challenge to common sense is achieved.
I’ll reiterate: whether you accept it or not, the only real advantage of the X-Rod is improving throttle response and allowing a small amount of fuel to flow out of the fuel reservoir at idle. This directly contradicts your patent claim that no fuel is delivered at idle. This is why the X-Rod can improve idle stability. However, the fuel reservoir also creates turbulence at high RPMs, which negatively impacts top-end performance. This has been verified through real-world testing of the B2-3 and X2-3. Note that these tests were conducted on standard Billetron models.
As you said, I’m just a "conveyor" of carburetor functionality, but after Red brought the British metering rod technology to the US in 1960, what revolutionary innovations has Lectron made based on Red’s work over the years? Until Matt came along, it was really great!!
Regarding the use of a Hall sensor as a TPS system and whether it infringes on SC2’s patent, that’s a matter for the law to resolve, not something for you to worry about.
My thoughts are the same as yours. At this point, there’s no need for further discussion. I’m not replying for your benefit, but for those who are genuinely interested in this topic or have real experience with it. If you believe others are ignorant, I hope you can prove your point through rigorous technical argumentation, rather than flaunting your degree or career in another industry in front of everyone.
@@xtngcarbs1249my industry experience is directly tied to fuel delivery before my time at lectron, my comment about designing the xrod after 6 months was specifically talking about lectron, not fuel delivery in general. It seems you will do anything you can to misinterpret what I’m saying to try to discredit me, which is frankly sad. you’re allowing a lot of bad assumptions to add confirmation bias to your real world testing. If the 34mm bore sizing is too small, then tell me why the 39mm bore big air adds zero top end to a 250cc engine? I’ve proven all of this stuff time and time again in the real world, on the flow bench, on the dyno, and in simulation. I’m not convinced you’ve done any testing beyond real world testing with a biased mind, especially considering most of your “results” are just parroting what other biased on uneducated individuals have already said. And don’t act all high and mighty, you started implying i was stupid with your elementary explanations of “physics” and attacks on my age and education. Ad hominem attacks are the first sign someone has lost and argument and that’s what you started with. Next, red Edmonton DID NOT invent the metering rod, that is a lie spread by sc2 to try to gain legitimacy. It was invented by Norm Quantz. red was his apprentice and did not leave on good terms. Further evidence that you will parrot whatever fits your narrative. One more thing, fuel delivery at idle with the xrod is not desirable and does not contribute to idle stability. Engineering it to minimize fuel delivery was one of the challenges of the project, further evidenced by the fact that the 4 stroke Xrods don’t even have a top slot on purpose. You don’t understand the technology, and you’ve tried to discredit the inventor of it to to gain legitimacy yourself. I used to give you some credit for trying to combine different elements of these carbs, but I have lost all respect for you; you are no better than the people that directly copied the pro series.
@@Yz_768 First of all, from the very beginning, I expressed respect and appreciation for your invention of the X-Rod, and that was my initial point. As for whether the venturi cross-sectional area affects top-end performance, I’m not concerned with why the 39mm Big Air doesn’t outperform the 38mm Billetron on a 250cc engine-that’s something Lectron should be investigating. As a user or product developer, I need to compare the differences between carburetors of the same bore size but from different brands. The conclusions I’ve drawn come from the many hours of testing I’ve put in, because, as everyone knows, practice is the only real way to test the truth. This is why many people have moved from Lectron to SC2, STIC, or PWK + JD JETTING, but there are also many who have returned to Lectron for more reasonable adjustability and bottom-end performance. Either way, SC2-38, GEN3+ 38, and PWK STIC 38 all outperform the Billetron 38 at the top end, let alone the Billetron Pro 38. As I mentioned before, the top-end performance of the Billetron Pro 38 is inferior to the standard Billetron 38 due to extra turbulence from Thick torque-boosting brass and the X-ROD. If you continue to argue this point, it’s like saying everyone who has personally tested these carburetors back-to-back is an idiot.
Have you ever considered why SC2-38, GEN3+ 38, and PWK STIC 38 have better top-end performance? It’s because SC2 and GEN3+ both have fuel-boosting functions, while the PWK STIC 38 features an extreme foam tube in the main fuel circuit. These features improve fuel atomization, which is one of the conditions needed to extract maximum horsepower from the engine. On top of that, they also have larger venturi cross-sectional areas, which is the second condition needed to extract peak horsepower from the engine. In comparison, Lectron relies solely on airflow vacuum as the fuel pick-up signal and has a venturi cross-sectional area set at 34mm to achieve better fuel atomization. The difference in top-end performance is obvious, and there’s no debate about it for anyone who has personally tested these carburetors.
I have never claimed that Red Edmonton invented the metering rod technology. The entire promotion and application started from copying Gardner and POSA. I have always believed that using public technology and improving its functionality is the foundation of innovation. Even if it’s about adapting and integrating, someone has to do it, and that’s exactly what Red started with.
As for the X-Rod’s fuel delivery at idle in two-stroke engines through the rear fuel reservoir, and whether a relatively rich mixture is more beneficial for idle stability, I’ve proven this with the Lectron HV version, where I deliberately oriented the metering rod’s flat side toward the air filter side, and the engine still idled. This proves that even with the metering rod facing the wrong direction, fuel can still be delivered at idle. I’m done debating this point with you-just think I’m an idiot if you want. Of course, I know that the four-stroke version requires much more precision and sensitivity for fuel delivery, and I’m very clear about the struggles I went through while making the GEN1 four-stroke version. This is exactly why the X-Rod’s four-stroke version doesn’t have a fuel slot at the top.
What about KEIHIN FCR? Pretty much every 4 stroke out there thats worth a damn came with one back when bikes hard carbs and it wasnt even mentioned, But yeah for great top end (and bottom) you want an FCR with a R&D powerbowl.
This is a 2 stroke article.
Sweet
i cant even tune the carb on my scooter why am i looking at this expert grade video
Throw away your traditional carburetor and use the latest version of GEN3+, forget about the carburetor and focus on riding.
@xtngcarbs1249 im sure considering it for my 250cc city bike someday, i really dislike the throttle response and consumption from my CV carb
@@whattheelijah I completely understand, feel free to contact us anytime.
@@whattheelijahgo for it i have gen 3 pro external ventilation and the bike is a lot more responsive etc so i wloud say go for xtng if you can