Wow, I still have to wonder where you have been all these years Marc to suddenly come on the scene and start calling peoples dyno results "funky". Last I checked there are 204 Dynojet tuning centers in California
alone and you have only sold 39 EC997's in the entire United States with
none in California (according to your website). Personally I think everyone has an opinion and they are usually worth what you pay for them. In my case it cost me a couple of hundred $$'s for some really pretty velocity stacks that did
nothing for my performance. I have no doubt that you are a very educated and skilled individual but I think that there are any number of people in the country that can claim equal results without spending the big $$'s. Personally, it still sounds like snake oil to me and I'm not buying it....no matter how hard you try to sell it.
No need to wonder where we've been - for better or worse, posts live on forever.......
You don't have to agree with me or the other people who used the Gen 1 stacks and got good results - that something is very curious about the both dismal and overly optimistic Lee's dyno tests.
On the other hand, I and the other guys don't have to just accept that the tests you've posted multiple times in multiple places, are pertinent to the real world.
It's your opinion that your testing was valid and my opinion that something was funky about the tests - I supply my testing (ok, you can call that an opinion) and even supply an unsolicited dynojet test that someone sent me when you first posted your charts that backs up my "opinion" that the Lee's test or bike or ? was likely, well, "funky".
Somebody who you consider qualified, do the tests - and got extremely out of scale results.
I generally consider Lee's to be reputable, too.
I would find it surprising if a lot of people found 6 hp with short suzuki stacks, even on a dynojet.
So if the "+ 6 hp" is funkily optimistic, why would anybody believe the 6 hp loss with our stacks on a stock cammed bike?
As far as number of dynos sold - I kinda sell dynos to people who know tuning and know about dyno testing. Most of the guys who buy EC997 dynos have already owned, leased or used dynojet dynos previously and know about loading and EGA use.
Our website doesn't say that we've sold "39". It's more like maybe 39 places want to pay to be listed for contact info?
I don't do a good job selling dynos to people who don't know much about engines and tuning. There are other dyno companies who are 20x better at that than we are.
As far as the Lee's dyno test on your Gen 1 bike (posted in a Gen 2 forum), my opinion is that something was funky in the testing (because of the both overly optimistic and overly dismal results) and your opinion is that you are 100% sure that it's not funky, (because your bike got 6 hp from the short stacks).
That just about sum it up?
Thanks,
Marc
When I first saw pics of these stacks I thought they were a joke just based on the absurdly long intake length. While there is merit to obtaining maximum usable power under the curve, that whole argument breaks down if your always above 9.5k. Get this crap off the Gen II site were its only going to confuse people looking for real information. 
