The CI manifold revisited

[slabghost]

sgq700 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:44 am[/url]":3k08pk6b]
I think you might be on to something with a package for the old wing! a lot of folks love these old bikes but don't want the problems of the stock carb set up! in my opinion, that was our bikes only down fall! I would like to find 1 of those intakes to play with also, make a heat plate for it and it looks like a fantastic piece! however, i thought that about some i dated 40 years ago and was wrong!!

:good: :smilie_happy: Aint that the truth! :thanks:

 

[AApple]

I see the patent on the CI manifold references a 1956 patent by Duntov for the '56 small block Chebby fuel injection manifold....neat!
In reading the CI patent, it's apparent they have covered all of the bases....the manifold, on paper looks to be the cat's meow, other than being limited to the single barrel carb. I don't think it would take an awful lot to convert it to accept the popular 2bbl carbs....who knows? :good:

 

[dan filipi]

I don't know how accurate a patent needs to be but the cone shape at the plenum ramping down to the runners isn't what mine looks like.
The cone shape suggests a venturi of sorts but it's not there in the revision I have.
Doesn't matter, it's just something I noticed.

The block on top (#30) looks interesting. Hmm

 

[joedrum]

yes manifold and patent don't line up ... but in this case that's good ... expanded volume is not an oldwing motor friend .. this design would be a blogathon on a oldwing set up .. single or 2 barrel .....

 

[roncar]

dan filipi » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:00 am[/url]":1h3oepba]
I don't know how detailed a patent needs to be but the cone shape at the plenum ramping down to the runners isn't what mine looks like.
The cone shape suggests a venturi of sorts but it's not there in the revision I have.
Doesn't matter, it's just something I noticed.

I don't speak legalese but suspect vagueness is key. I noticed a couple of things.

1. I didn't see any measurements in the patent for anything.

2. Does not and never mentions "Honda Goldwing" just INTAKE MANIFOLD FOR MOTORCYCLE ENGINE.

3. Don't think the 6 cylinder version was ever made but suspect it was for the carburated Valkyries. At the time of their shutdown, they were working on a different route though.

 

[Omega Man]

That last one is a work of art, someone put some love in that one.

 

[AApple]

dan filipi » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:00 am[/url]":3fld3p80]
I don't know how accurate a patent needs to be but the cone shape at the plenum ramping down to the runners isn't what mine looks like.
The cone shape suggests a venturi of sorts but it's not there in the revision I have.
Doesn't matter, it's just something I noticed.

In this case, the patent is for a design....and measurements are not part of the patent. The design can change some from the original patented design for production purposes, but not much.
The "cone", or " funnel transition section" could be of any size...it is not specified dimensionally, only that it is part of the design being offered for the patent. Patent designs don't necessarily include engineering drawings with specs....just a basic drawing of the design.
I don't think a dimension can be patented, specifically...only a design. Fer instance, Cragar holds a patent on the SS wheel design. Ansen could not just make a 16" rim with the same design, and say "It's not the same, because ours is a different size". It is the same design, just a different size...you can't do that.
On the other side of the coin, if someone wanted to take the CI design, and make it fit a VW, or Corvair engine, they could, and prolly get away with it, because the CI manifold design patent is specifically for a motorcycle engine.

yet? :mrgreen:


btw..the "housing"(#30 in the drawing), best I can tell from the description is the carb itself...which is not part of the patent design. That's why it is just a dotted drawing.... :read:

 

[Omega Man]

Correct Joel, that is either a riser or carb. I had some mechanical drafting education before nursing.

 

[joedrum]

the whole patent thing is just rights snatching of simple things period .. there nothing new here just a mangod way of authority over everything payed for by the people getting scamed weather inventor ... caveman tech guys or purchaser ... or even the ones denied patents and then they themselfs come out with the product ... personally I don't respect direct rip off legalize scams ... to stop little people from doing stuff while the big people rip off the little peoples good ideals ... in denials of patents ... end result all little people suffer from this agency totally against the people interest and free will ...

 

[badorderbob]

The CI manifold can be converted to use the 32/36 Carb, that's what I'm using on my bike today. the Holly was ok, but not enough power on the highway for me. Mileage is about the same with both set ups, Holley set up was good, but called for everything to be in excellent working order,.. plug wires etc. And no 4 plug would always get dark even using their recommended 82GL year plug leaving you to put in new plugs if did a lot of town driving. And both set ups started very well and both got about the same MPG 32-36 with an occasional 39!! The only con about the 32/36 was you had to make room by notching out the frame for it to get a good fit ; bottom rail. :hi: Bob

 

[ekvh]

Interesting Badorderbob. I was wondering about the smaller carb keeping up too. I still think there's room for some tweaking to get performance as good as the stock configuration. I still think the 32/36 might be the better carb, but intake tract has to be modified. Needs something up the sleeve.

 

[joedrum]

yep it kind of looking that way to me ... bag of tricks to the table .. will do it nice im sure ...

 

[dan filipi]

roncar » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:51 am[/url]":272ynpw8]

dan filipi » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:00 am[/url]":272ynpw8]
I don't know how detailed a patent needs to be but the cone shape at the plenum ramping down to the runners isn't what mine looks like.
The cone shape suggests a venturi of sorts but it's not there in the revision I have.
Doesn't matter, it's just something I noticed.

I don't speak legalese but suspect vagueness is key. I noticed a couple of things.

1. I didn't see any measurements in the patent for anything.

2. Does not and never mentions "Honda Goldwing" just INTAKE MANIFOLD FOR MOTORCYCLE ENGINE.

3. Don't think the 6 cylinder version was ever made but suspect it was for the carburated Valkyries. At the time of their shutdown, they were working on a different route though.

That is one sexy piece of art!

 

[roncar]

That is one sexy piece of art!

I thought it was pretty neat. I'll have to remember to ask about it next time I visit. Here are a few pics I gathered off the net. Never seen it in person, no idea if this was the only one, whether it worked or not, but I'm sure it was going to be pricey. gallery/album.php?album_id=2154

 

[backyardtrouble]

Pics of Ci Manifold, i have other pics and also drawings of the ci maniold that i took for reference for something new.

 

[AApple]

Ya...thass purdy, but it's for fuel infection....I'd sure hate tuh hafta keep that thang kleen!

Paul, would you happen to have pics of that manifold direct from the front/back?

 

[Omega Man]

I would like to know what the wiring is for?

~O~

 

[dan filipi]

Omega Man » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:47 am[/url]":2rmvhw71]
I would like to know what the wiring is for?

~O~

It looks like for fuel injectors.

 

[AApple]

Look close, O-man...you'll see the fuel infectors on the head ends of the manifold... :good:

 

[Omega Man]

Okay so the the openings on the top are air inlets. I thought a carb went there. :doh:

~O~