
Established ‘tuning’ methods thrown into disarray?

Let me know what you think: https://youtu.be/SxQV0xz4q6E
In the video mr clare alludes to knowing, something about 1000% of a ratio. But it seems DT wants to keep his hard-earned tuning secrets to himself. Fair play to him if that's the case.
I think the crux of the matter, is that these tuning principles (as outlined by Bell, Jennings, Robinson etc) do work. But as Darrell Points out in the articles, is that you should never assume that what works on a 50cc rotary valve, liquid-cooled, 14000rpm GP race bike, will also apply to a 7000-8000rpm 252cc reed inlet, air-cooled, vintage machine, which has vastly different restrictions and design limitations. The question isn't 'do these tuning methods work'... the question is, WHEN do they work. On what applications?paul d wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:10 am I've often wondered do a gas and liquid flow in the same way? Maybe traditional tuning makes a mistake by assuming they do? Matching openings and removing edges which obstruct a pathway definately helps a liquid flow along that pathway better. Smooth edges are good for liquid flow. I'd love to see an experiment where the casing transfer inner surfaces and the transfer channel surfaces up the side of a barrel were given a dimpled non smooth finish just to see if it made gas flow with less drag and maybe make more power. I"ve often wondered where pistons don't clear inlet ports at the bottom of stroke or anywhere the piston edges interupt flow, is it deliberate on the part of the manufacturer to aid piston cooling? Did the matched cylinder/piston set up run hotter or cooler?