Re: Re: Re: rhetoric


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lessee, here... on March 14, 2003 at 18:27:27:

In Reply to: Re: Re: rhetoric posted by Frank on March 14, 2003 at 17:10:46:

Let's look at it from the manufacturing standpoint.

On a normal "long-stroke" cluster, valves 1 and 3 and 2 and 4 can be the same part, so you really only have to make 2 parts.

On a short-stroke, the ports between the valves are oval, while the entry from the leadpipe and the exit to the tuning slide are round. (All tuning-slide hookups are also round). So, for 3 and 4 valve clusters, you have to make 5 separate parts--valve 1 with a round entry and an oval exit, valve 2 with oval entry and exit, valve 3 for a 3 valve cluster with an oval entry and a round exit, and valve 3 for a 4-valve cluster with an oval entry and exit. Finally, there's valve 4 with an oval entry and a round exit. All 5 valves require different machining, requiring the manufacturer to keep a larger inventory. And then there's the matter of the 2-piece top cap, special valve guide and the nasty job of the ports (some are oval-oval, some are oval-round).

Maybe things could be simplified if all valve ports except for the tuning slide ports could be made oval, allowing the transition from oval-to-round to be performed in the exit knuckle and the leadpipe.

So, if I were a manufacturer and I had to choose between a simple valve that would keep my inventory low and a specialized one that more than doubled my inventory needs and appealed to only a few "boutique" customers, what do you think I would do?



Follow Ups: