Great read on the myth of "Ram Air"

Joined
19 May 2003
Messages
1,393
Location
Green, New Jersey
This is a great read explaining the common misconception and myth behind "Ram Air". It's an excerpt from another forum, but it's great info.

Source= http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=458678&page=1&pp=20

"Marketers just can't resist it. Ram air! The words themselves summon up images of rushing wild beasts, or of secret military aircraft operating on futuristic principles.

Unfortunately, on most perofrmance cars, ram-air is as functional as tail fins were on cars of the ’60s.

What is it? Ram air just means using a forward-facing air intake to gain some extra intake pressure. We have all, as children, felt the pressure of moving air on our hands when we held them out the window of the family car. When moving air is brought smoothly to rest, the energy of its motion is converted into pressure. Motorcycles went through a "ram-air" period in the early 1990s, during which street bikes were equipped with the forward-facing "rocket-launcher" engine air intakes seen on many road-racing machines.

While it's appealing to imagine the forward velocity of a car being converted into free supercharge, the actual air pressure gain is extremely small at normal speeds. For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable automobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent.

In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent.

Therefore, at normal speeds, ram air is a myth. However, something much more interesting lies behind it, ignored by the advertiser's busy pen. That something is airbox resonance.

In order to implement ram air, the carburetors or throttle-bodies of our engine must seal to an airbox whose volume is large enough that the intake cycle of one cylinder cannot pull its internal pressure down significantly. Box volume is typically 10-20 times the engine's displacement. Then the forward-facing air intake is connected to the box. When this assembly is tested on the dyno — even without an external fan to simulate the high-speed rush of air past the intake — it is discovered that the engine's torque curve is greatly altered, with new peaks and hollows.

Why? The answer is airbox resonance. If you hold the mouth of an empty bottle near your open mouth as you loudly hum scales, you find that at certain “hum frequencies” the bottle reinforces your humming, which becomes louder. What is happening is that the springy compressibility of the air in the bottle is bouncing the slug of air in the bottle's neck back and forth at a particular frequency — higher if the bottle is small, lower if it is larger. Your humming is driving a rapid plus-and-minus variation of the air pressure inside the bottle.

The same thing happens inside a resonant airbox. The volume of air in the box is the “spring” in this kind of oscillator. The mass of air in the box's intake pipe is what oscillates. The “humming” that drives the oscillation is the rapid succession of suction pulses at the carb or throttle-body intakes. If the volume of the airbox and the dimensions of the intake pipe(s) are correctly chosen, the airbox can be made to resonate very strongly, in step with the engine's suction pulses. The result, when this is done correctly, is that the engine takes air from the box only during the high-pressure part of its cycle, while the box refills from atmosphere through its intake between engine suction pulses. This produces a useful gain in torque.

Using this idea, motorcycle engines have been able to realize torque increases, in particular speed ranges, of 10-15 percent. In race engines, it is usual to tune the airbox to resonate at peak-power rpm to increase top speed. For production engines, it is often more useful to tune the box resonance to fill in what would otherwise be a flat-spot in the torque curve, resulting in smoother power and improved acceleration.

Early resonant airbox systems used long intake pipes that terminated in forward-facing intakes. More recent designs do not connect the ram-air pipe to the box at all, but terminate it near the airbox entry. The actual entry pipe is a short piece of tubing with bellmouths on both ends. This is done because (a) the potential gain from actual ram air is too small to worry about, and (b) it's easier to tune the airbox with a short tube.

Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes.

Intuition suggests that a forward-facing intake made in the form of a funnel, large end foremost, should somehow multiply the pressure of the air, resulting in a much larger pressure gain at the small end. Sadly, intuition is wrong. In order to convert velocity energy into pressure, the air has to be slowed down, and this requires a duct that widens rather than narrows. Next time you fly on a commercial airliner, note that its engine intakes widen as the airflow approaches the compressor face. Such widening passages are called diffusers, and they are universally used in the conversion of velocity into pressure.

Language often plays tricks on us — especially when language is used by product advertisers. "Ram air" sounds much more appealing than "resonant airbox." Nevertheless, it is airbox resonance that actually generates a significant power gain.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffnotes:

-Ram Air a myth? = NO
-Does it work on a road car = NO
-At 150mhp there is next to no gain.
-Significant gains arn't seen until 300mph+
-The air box is the key, not the ducting.
-When buying a CAI/induction kit look for the one that uses air box resonance


Edit: Additional Reading

Intake temperature is a whole different ball game.

The simple rule is:

'Cool for power (maximum charge density), hot for economy (minimum charge density to reduce losses due to throttling).'

Although in many cars the under bonnent temperatures are no where near as bad as many people beleive. This refers to a 5.3 liter Jguar XJS V12. So a big engine in a small engine bay.

The under-bonnet air temperature at idle can easily get up around 70 C but the faster the car goes the lower the air temperature falls - simply because the radiator is passing its heat to a much larger quantity of air per second - so at 80 mph. the engine is breathing air at around 45 C. That's still a bit higher than the ideal but not nearly so bad as many people think. Obviously the standard arrangement helps to maximise economy in moderate speed urban cruise without compromising top end power too much.

In setups that duct cool air from outside. The power gains from such a system are almost certainly attributed to the filter, and less restritive intake (meaning quite simply a bigger opening), and a form of air box resonance coupled with a 'cool air intake' from outside the engine bay. Sadly even at very high speeds (well over 100mph) I doubt that it has any form of 'Ram Air' effect. If you reconfigured the system to take air from the inside of a wheel arch it would produce the same results as having the intake ducts at the front of the car. The source of the air, not the location of the ducts is the important factor.

Remember the only way to get a greater volume of air into the engine is to compress it. This is what turbo and superchargers do. An air intake scoop either on the front of a car or on the bonnet will not compress the air at any speed most people are likely to travel at.

Taking the airbox resonance theory futher with the intake manifold itself by optimising the length and entry profile into each of the tracts to better exploit induced harmonic resonances in the air as it flows towards the cylinder. Any tube containing air can be made to resonate at certain critical frequencies in the manner of an organ pipe. Such is the case with the inlet tracts of an engine and if the natural resonance frequencies can be matched to the engine speed then a mild supercharging effect can be induced. Get it wrong and the reverse will apply, resulting in a loss of performance."
 
This information now lends some credence to the horsepower gain claims of different air induction systems. Obviously they all have different resonant frequencies. However I've never seen any of them mention resonant frequencies in their marketing efforts. I guess that could change now. :)

This post makes me thing of the oval tubing used on road bicycles and the silly claims about their aerodynamic advantage. Considering that air resistance doesn't really being to affect the average automobile until it is traveling at about 60 MPH, those silly bicycle claims are just that. Silly.
 
I don't believe that ram air story. Apparently that writer has never seen the infomercial about the TORNADO... which SPINS the air into your engine like a power drill just by placing it in your intake... effectively CUTTING OFF THE AMOUNT OF AIR YOU CAN PULL!!! :wink:
 
Very nice find.
If I am reading this right, the popular mod on Honda's, the disconnecting or complete removal of the intake resonator, while making the intake louder, actually may rob the motor of some power. I've always thought that Honda engineer's had the intake right when it left the factory and that the adding of cone shaped filters and boxes, like on the NSX,had little if any positive impact on performance. Sounds nice on the car, looks cool, but are the hp claims genuine or was it just that day at that dyno?
 
Doh! And I just ordered the Downforce intake.
 
Any real life tests to prove this?

While the post sounds like it was a lab research published by a distinguished PhD, until actual research is done to conclusively prove his post I take it with a grain of salt.

And, yes, it's very easy to slam "marketers" - aren't they all bad bad people?

Nothing like hating on someone else to build credibility.
 
I was under the impression that "Ram Air" was actually a function of the intake runner length on ITB's. By tuning the length for certain RPMs and cam profiles you can actually get pressure waves that form and "ram" a bit more air into the cylinders.
But "ram air" as in - if I drive fast enough I can cram air into my motor... ya, I don't believe that...
 
That article makes perfect sense to me. The physics of compressing air should be well known by now.

I think a lot of folks look at the Cantrell horn and then look at the stock air tube and think it's just got to be better and I'll be the first to admit that the stock tube doesn't look very efficient.

I was swayed by the hope of even more/louder intake tract roar but as I said in the other thread, the opposite has happened for me.
 
That article makes perfect sense to me. The physics of compressing air should be well known by now.

I think a lot of folks look at the Cantrell horn and then look at the stock air tube and think it's just got to be better and I'll be the first to admit that the stock tube doesn't look very efficient.

I was swayed by the hope of even more/louder intake tract roar but as I said in the other thread, the opposite has happened for me.

Making sense and actually proving them are different things.

A lot of myths on mythbusters seem to make sense as well until they're proven busted.
 
A lot of myths on mythbusters seem to make sense as well until they're proven busted.
Ya know, I love Mythbusters. It's an entertaining show and those guys have the best job in the world, but I wouldn't use them as evidence of anything. They are the first to admit that they aren't a science show and that they don't follow scientific methodology.

My point is physics don't change. You don't always need to conduct an experiment to know what will happen.
 
Ya know, I love Mythbusters. It's an entertaining show and those guys have the best job in the world, but I wouldn't use them as evidence of anything. They are the first to admit that they aren't a science show and that they don't follow scientific methodology.

My point is physics don't change. You don't always need to conduct an experiment to know what will happen.

What I love about mythbusters is that they're willing to re-test if they get enough feedback about the flaws of their methods.

I also understand your point about physics. It's all well and good, but until it has been actually borne out in actual tests it's not good as fact. There are far too many variables in many of the scenarios to state one simple physics law and come to a conclusion.

Actual testing will reveal which variables actually impact the results, which is the root of all scientific study.
 
The article has a "few" valid points but it greatly downplays the value of ram air, especially in a racing environment where a few HP makes a big difference.
I have tested many different air intake set-ups and ram air tubes on a dyno and in the real world. To say they are not effective in "street cars" or have little or no affect is BS. Now don't take that as go throw a big scoop on a vehicle and its going to help, its probably not, but with proper design, including all the other factors , Intake tract length, velocity stack length, DESIGN, etc etc. Ram air is a plus. Is 2,5 or 10 hp a plus if with all other factors being equal it comes from a properly designed ram air system.
We helped test and modify ram air tubes for our and other race bikes and we were able to gain almost 5 hp on the dyno alone. But everything has its price. Typically a stock car or bike creates as much intake noise as it does exhaust noise- epa, dot etc , keep these noises low as do the oem's for the obvious reasons. The air flow resonance is a factor in this noise and has to be controlled for all Rpm/speed etc. Once you buy the car the noise levels are then up to you.
The differences in having ram air and not are more in the design of the intake than anything else, it is free HP but it has to be designed for it to get much out of it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your input Mike.

You know, reading this thread and the other AIS thread, I've really learned that there are a lot of pretenders with big egos who pretend that they know everything, and don't have to provide any evidence to their claims of "truth".

At the end of the day, none of us know everything. There is always someone somewhere who knows more than us, and only through scientific testing can we discover the truth under various circumstances.

It's quite amazing the fact that a very "authoritative" sounding post referenced above was never challenged, but passed on as Gospel.

The more collective facts we have, and the less of the ego BS that has been plastered online, the better off we are.

Cheers.
 
I wasted the time to re-read this article and I had to laugh at

"Unfortunately, on most perofrmance cars, ram-air is as functional as tail fins were on cars of the ’60s."
He must be speaking of GM cars, Kings of fake intakes, or ram air's that ram air into the engine compartment. It is a true statement because most performance cars dont have true ram-air, or at leat a ram air system worth talking about. But it shouldnt read like ram air isnt beneficial, because it is.
The fact of the matter is when all other factors are equal a properly designed ram air system will make more power than without.
Just FYI- Every modern sportbike has ram air, without it they would be left in the dust by the ones with it.
There are many other factors that make it dificult for a car manufactuer to produce a car with a good ram air.
Where is air pressure the highest- front nose-
Where is the most debris thrown?-
Rain, salt, bugs, etc 100K miles worth???? :(
Personally I think the all front license plates should be replaced with ram air intakes. even fake ones would be ok.
 
i may be damn wrong...but intake for me have no special secrets...

get the air as fast as you can to the engine...the same space get's more air as it is fresher...so...the fresher the air, then more of it enters by intake valves in one crank cycle...more air, more powerfull combustion..

what we got to do is to unobstruct and simplify the OEM intakes, so we can get the air to the engine as fast and straight as possible...ence ITBs are the best....straighter as it gets....:biggrin: :biggrin:
 
Such widening passages are called diffusers, and they are universally used in the conversion of velocity into pressure.

This line makes the most sense to me as it directly reflects what we see on the rear underside of undertray/diffuser cars like Ferraris, et al. Admittedly, aerodynamics is a "black art", as we're often reminded on F1 broadcasts. But it's surprising to me how many posting here have wholly discounted all or most of the article's content, like a kid clamping his hands over his ears and singing, "lalalala!" to keep from hearing an unwanted truth.

JMO
 
i may be damn wrong...but intake for me have no special secrets...

what we got to do is to unobstruct and simplify the OEM intakes, so we can get the air to the engine as fast and straight as possible...ence ITBs are the best....straighter as it gets....:biggrin: :biggrin:

But, take this example to it's extreme of having the absolutely shortest intake tract, say 1mm, and we know that that conclusion is wrong, hence longer, tuned-length TBs.
 
yeah...but because i know that they have to have a specific lenght...i didn't talked about lenght...i only talked about being straight, the most direct as you can :wink: you can have straight 10 feet long or 1 inch long ;) but either way...the fewest curves it have, the more efficient it gets...
 
This line makes the most sense to me as it directly reflects what we see on the rear underside of undertray/diffuser cars like Ferraris, et al. Admittedly, aerodynamics is a "black art", as we're often reminded on F1 broadcasts. But it's surprising to me how many posting here have wholly discounted all or most of the article's content, like a kid clamping his hands over his ears and singing, "lalalala!" to keep from hearing an unwanted truth.

JMO

Can you specificy exactly which posts that discount the article in the fasion you describe? I just don't see any such posts... :confused:

I don't think anyone's discounting it, but rather questioning it's sole reference as a holy bible to discount other things like the AIS and other products.

It's not an article either, it's a very well written forum post on ram air or the lack of its effectiveness, which while may make sense, has yet to be linked with real world tests / research on actual models / tests.
 
Can you specificy exactly which posts that discount the article in the fasion you describe? I just don't see any such posts... :confused:

I don't think anyone's discounting it, but rather questioning it's sole reference as a holy bible to discount other things like the AIS and other products.

It's not an article either, it's a very well written forum post on ram air or the lack of its effectiveness, which while may make sense, has yet to be linked with real world tests / research on actual models / tests.

Post #12 seems to discount it in its entirety.

I didn't know it wasn't an "article" per se, since I only read the pasted potion of it in post #1
 
Post #12 seems to discount it in its entirety.

I didn't know it wasn't an "article" per se, since I only read the pasted potion of it in post #1

Well, the poster of #12 didn't give any reasons why, so I don't think it's fair to conjecture that he's acting like a little kid with fingers in his ears. Perhaps he'll post why he disagrees with it later... Either way it's not fair to disparage his response like that.

Yes, the original "post" was quoted as if it was an article, when it was just someone's well written forum post. Fooled a lot of people, I think.
 
I think what makes the most sense to me is the portion of the 'article' about air-box resonance. If you think about the ability of the engine to ingest air, it would be limited by the suction of the pistons during the intake strokes, FI not withstanding. It would take an awful lot of pressure to overcome the constant vacuum of the engine's intake strokes IMO (as suggested by the RR airplane example). I would think that any "ramming" of the air is limited by the size of the TB inlet and the engine's own vacuum.
 
I think what makes the most sense to me is the portion of the 'article' about air-box resonance. If you think about the ability of the engine to ingest air, it would be limited by the suction of the pistons during the intake strokes, FI not withstanding. It would take an awful lot of pressure to overcome the constant vacuum of the engine's intake strokes IMO (as suggested by the RR airplane example). I would think that any "ramming" of the air is limited by the size of the TB inlet and the engine's own vacuum.

Well he does make some interesting points.

If you read the entire thread that is linked, it is clear that:

1. There are alot of smart people in that thread who have a lot of interesting input on this area.
2. There is also a lot of flaming between these "so-called" experts about the benefits of Ram-Air.

For an uneducated neophyte like myself, I just try to learn the area as much as possible, and not take any one source as gospel.

I also learn that even smart people can make mistakes, so nothing substitutes for real life tests.
 
Back
Top