The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.30 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code 2 errorHandler->error_callback
/printthread.php 287 eval
/printthread.php 117 printthread_multipage



Austinsevenfriends
Ruby Tailpipe - Problem Solved - Printable Version

+- Austinsevenfriends (https://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum)
+-- Forum: Austin Seven Friends Forum (https://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Forum chat... (https://www.austinsevenfriends.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Ruby Tailpipe - Problem Solved (/showthread.php?tid=8485)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Ruby Tailpipe Length Problem - Andy Bennett - 31-03-2023

I think it is obvious. The exhaust tailpipe was specified at 6 inches and of course blokes have a habit of overestimating the true lengths of their tailpipes.

RE: Ruby Tailpipe Length Problem - Colin Morgan - 31-03-2023

But, if anything, this has shown that the regulation length is unnecessary?

Having received a new (to me) CO monitor off ebay this afternoon, I am now back on the road, with the shortened tailpipe, and non-the-worse so long as I leave the windscreen latched open and don’t drive for more than ten minutes at a time.

Of course, I can now go faster. Sawing off all that metal saves weight, reduces the exhausting backpressure - thus increasing the available RAC HP from the original regulation 7.8 to perhaps 7.99, and the fuel consumption has reduced overall even more markedly (from driving only 10 minute runs).

And there are lots of uses for rough-sawed 2” long stubs of 1” ID mild steel seamless pipe – if you use your imagination.