ESE's works engine tuner

[ken seeber]

Like many I am sure, I have looked at the pic and am not sure what I am looking at. Is it a reed block housing on the cylinder, which looks very much like VM’s current engine? Or is the housing in fact not a housing, but a part of the return of the beading of the seat behind? The crankcase looks like their standard crankcase with the forward facing reed block. As Wob says, there is a thick spacer under the cylinder. Maybe they are getting the thing ready for the 2016 homologation. Never any good at this forensic stuff.

Where's Ken. Get him out of Bed.

Husa, out of bed, we need more pics and info.

Another thing. If it was revving to 17k, there would be two noticeable external features:

1. The exhaust would be shorter. Does this one look any different to a regular KZ exhaust?
2. Assuming the gearbox internal and primary drive ratios were generic KZ stuff, the secondary chain drive ratio would be 17/13 = 1.3 times greater.

Husa, we need more info!

[husaberg]

Like many I am sure, I have looked at the pic and am not sure what I am looking at. Is it a reed block housing on the cylinder, which looks very much like VM’s current engine? Or is the housing in fact not a housing, but a part of the return of the beading of the seat behind? The crankcase looks like their standard crankcase with the forward facing reed block. As Wob says, there is a thick spacer under the cylinder. Maybe they are getting the thing ready for the 2016 homologation. Never any good at this forensic stuff.

Husa, out of bed, we need more pics and info.

Another thing. If it was revving to 17k, there would be two noticeable external features:

1. The exhaust would be shorter. Does this one look any different to a regular KZ exhaust?
2. Assuming the gearbox internal and primary drive ratios were generic KZ stuff, the secondary chain drive ratio would be 17/13 = 1.3 times greater.

Husa, we need more info!

Most of it has seemingly been scrubed from the Internet. It appears to be a mop up and clean excersize. just saying............
http://forum.pyrotherm.rs/forum/inde...ge__pid__91798
Pretty sure it is not 30000 RPM though maybe the rev counter is in lira?
There seems to be a mention of it in the Search for this page but maybe only for Friends. bet lozza is a facebook friend of his though
https://www.facebook.com/luc.foekema...&type=3Special

Ryger engine 125cc, more than 80% less emission 30.000 rpm 70 bhp A................

Again? the same info
http://www.rygerengine.com/index.emissions.htm
its all German to me.......

http://www.rygerengine.com/
I had another page but I can't find it (I think I looked under cached pages)
....... have you looked on pitlane Ken?
I do know how to find obsolete and deleted information.. but not tonight.
Frits will be along soon to explain all.......... LOL


I haven't either?

Marketing
Create a buzz
Peak peoples interest
Limit information available.
What better advertising than word of mouth.

Just saying...........

[F5 Dave]

Most of it has seemingly been scrubed from the Internet. It appears to be a mop up and clean excersize. just saying............
http://forum.pyrotherm.rs/forum/inde...ge__pid__91798
Pretty sure it is not 30000 RPM though maybe the rev counter is in lira?
There seems to be a mention of it in the Search for this page but maybe only for Friends. bet lozza is a facebook friend of his though
https://www.facebook.com/luc.foekema...&type=3Special
Again? the same info
http://www.rygerengine.com/index.emissions.htm
its all German to me.......

http://www.rygerengine.com/
I had another page but I can't find it (I think I looked under cached pages)
....... have you looked on pitlane Ken?
I do know how to find obsolete and deleted information.. but not tonight.
Frits will be along soon to explain all.......... LOL


I haven't either?

Marketing
Create a buzz
Peak peoples interest
Limit information available.
What better advertising than word of mouth.

Just saying...........

Sounds like a job for the waybackwhenmachine

[wobbly]

Just noticed that the emissions tests on the KZ2 engine and the so called Clean 2T were done at 5000 rpm - what a joke.
Makes me wonder about the whole thing when you see that sort of skewed ,make it look good at any cost bullshit.

[husaberg]

Sounds like a job for the waybackwhenmachine

Yes but I might be an advertising bot for them.
But yes that and some similar stuff was what I was going to use.

[RAW]

The Ryger 125.
I'm under the impression that the crankcase is sealed from the cylinders transfer ports ( thus the spacer ) also the crankcase is oiled like a conventional 4 stroker ( note puke can ) now if i recall correctly there was some trickery with pressure balancing the crankcase with some other part of the engine, this again if I recall correctly freed up some form of resistance.

[husaberg]

The Ryger 125.
I'm under the impression that the crankcase is sealed from the cylinders transfer ports ( thus the spacer ) also the crankcase is oiled like a conventional 4 stroker ( note puke can ) now if i recall correctly there was some trickery with pressure balancing the crankcase with some other part of the engine, this again if I recall correctly freed up some form of resistance.

Scotch yoke anyone? I don't want get egg on my face mind you.
It would allow the separation of the crankcase from the confines of petrol oil lubrication.
Just to be clear I have no knowledge of the internals of this engine.

[TZ350]

Page 1180 .....

here is a rule of thumb: a racing two-stroke consumes about 7 cc fuel per hp per minute.

Some good viewing in here from TechGP on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...8046078&type=3

M50-A Cylinder.

Here's the iame m50 cylinder, got it a few days ago. It's so tiny it's ridiculous!



Meassured primary volume @tdc is about 242cc, will probably end up around 250-255 if I add material to the cylinder and match the ports to my case, or around 230-235 if I weld up the case transfers. Hmm... What to do?

Here's the port map, I couldn't find my pencil sharpener, and was tired so kinda rushed it - rough and not super accurate, but should give an idea of things. I cut out the ports from the paper I used to trace the bore and transferred the "holes" onto graph paper, with the blunt pencil it didn't turn out very good, oh well.



Axial angles:
A = 25°
B = 7°
C = 55°



Radial angles:

If anyone is bored and need something to pass their time...

With those huge auxiliary exhaust ports and the conservative timing, it's going to have very good blowdown STA. As Frits and Wobbly have been saying for a long time, this is the most significant factor in an engine's performance. I'm guessing that's why it can rev so high to make that incredible power.

Here is the STA analysis of the M50. About as accurate as the drawings allow, but shows that the Blow STA is on the money, the transfers too small - but as they flow so well in the right directions this is not holding back the power production badly.

So, this engine needs an additional 21% exhaust port area to meet the targets?

Ha Ha, sorry not even close.

The Exhaust STA is basically a redundant measurement.

As it has been alluded to in many pages here, reducing the Ex duct volume,by lifting the floor and filling in the bottom corner radii at the port face has a way positive more effect - due to the velocity increase and a reduction in A port short circuiting. Same effect at the duct exit into the header, where the rule of thumb for a 3 port is 75% exit area of the total port effective, works a treat.

Its the combination of the Blowdown STA and the Transfer STA ( modified by the discharge coefficient created by the duct shape and the port orientation ) that sets the power making potential of any 2T setup.

Forget what Cameron and Blair etal said in the literature last century, and take heed of what Thiel found in the dyno cell.

Here is the STA analysis of the M50.
About as accurate as the drawings allow, but shows that the Blow STA is on the money, the transfers too small - but as they flow so well in the right directions this is not holding back the power production badly.

All the ports are actually about 1mm higher than what I managed to show in my crappy portmap, they're nice and symmetrical to Seem's to be a well made little cylinder - maybe I should leave those transfer ducts alone for now, in fear of screwing up the "harmony". I was going to widen them 5mm.

Could someone share how they manage to get an accurate port map? I obviously suck at it, though bad equipment has to take part of the blame. Do you use graph paper when you trace the bore? My graph paper was too stiff to use.

Well the port heights seemed fine in that the stroke length of 39.4 works on the graph paper as the height from tdc down to the bottom of the EX measures right on that.
So the EX timing at 23mm = 92.5 atdc = 175 duration, lift it 1mm = 22mm = 89.5 atdc = 181 duration.
But we need alot more accuracy with the transfers as lifting them all 1mm makes them way too big.

You should use a long stroke dial gauge sitting on the piston, zeroed at tdc. I took the transfer widths off the radial angle diagram, as this is the most accurate. You do realize that using graph paper in the bore and doing the old "rubbing " thing doesn't give the true chordal widths, and that the chordal widths are also not the actual " flow " widths needed.

Ha Ha, sorry not even close. The Exhaust STA is basically a redundant measurement. Forget what Cameron and Blair etal said in the literature last century, and take heed of what Thiel found in the dyno cell.

Some more reading on the subject: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130292202

Thanks for the tips! I'll be back with more accurate numbers!

Hey guys, I have a question, I yesterday measure the base advance of my engine, and it is 8*.I was discussing this with a friend and he advised me to modify it for 15*,but when I asked him why should I do this, he couldn’t answer.

So I was thinking what exactly is the base advance doing? I have an Ignitech, not standard CDI, so changing the base adv won't change the whole curve in degrees.
Also, what is happens when the lobe passes through the CPS.. why some flywheels have wide lobe and some others short?
Cheers!

This is as accurate as I can get it:

Iame m50 cylinder

Stroke = 39.4mm
Bore = 40mm
Stud pattern = 57x57mm



"Cylinder rubbing":
(to show radius of port corners)

Port heights:
Main Exhaust open = 22.4mm atdc Height = 17mm
Aux Exhaust open = 24.1mm atdc Height = 7.6mm
A-port open = 31.2mm atdc Height = 8.2mm
B-port open = 31.7mm atdc Height = 7.7mm
C-port open = 31.7mm atdc Height = 7.7mm

Axial transfer angles:
A = 25°
B = 7°
C = 55°

Radial transfer angles:

Exhaust port widths and shape of aux exhaust outer wall:
millimetre graph paper.

Transfer port widths: millimetre graph paper

Exhaust duct is 27x20mm at the flange.

Hope this can benefit others in search for a 50cc cylinder to, not just me.

In reply to the question about the base timing. This number is irrelevant to anything except that under 300rpm when the flywheel first starts moving, the spark fires, by default at the base timing. 7* or 27* makes no difference, except a big single would probably break your ankle if kicking it over at 27* firing.

This simply tells the ECU where TDC is in relation to the mechanical triggering point on the flywheel.
Changing the base advance ( without moving the trigger ) DOES change ALL the timing points.
As you increase the base advance you are retarding ALL the actual programmed spark events.

The lobe length is also pretty much irrelevant, as an Ignitech fires off the trailing edge point - its less susceptible to RF noise being a dropping trigger signal.. A very long lobe causes problems in that the waveform created by the bump upwards being closer to the trigger pole, decays to zero and you can get random misfiring, but this can be accounted for in software.



And here is the STA analysis with the better data, now we see the guys doing this were pretty close to the money.

Well here is what is easily possible with this cylinder - all the ports are widened and lifted ( except the boost port ) and the stagger increased to help widen the power spread ( no PV ).

This keeps the Ex timing in the range for good superposition resonance tuning as well to help with no PV.

Lots of detail in the mods, and that would need a full sim run in EngMod, ( like duct exit area etc ) but that doesn’t happen for nothing.

[Flettner]

The Ryger 125.
I'm under the impression that the crankcase is sealed from the cylinders transfer ports ( thus the spacer ) also the crankcase is oiled like a conventional 4 stroker ( note puke can ) now if i recall correctly there was some trickery with pressure balancing the crankcase with some other part of the engine, this again if I recall correctly freed up some form of resistance.

Sounds like a suitable scenario.

[teriks]

Fridays best use of wood in a two stroke engine...

Are you flying control line stunt?
Kind of odd things to do to an engine otherwise..

[husaberg]

Are you flying control line stunt?
Kind of odd things to do to an engine otherwise..

Not I...... did I not link it? still best use of balsa wood, it was a corker.
So its not a common glow plug thing to do then?............
http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/aer...st51-3.htm#top
ps I have no idea what control line stunt means or why it would be needed. So explain how it works and why you would block a transfer and shield a plug.

oh yeah....... the crankshaft of the week answer is 1960's 250cc Greeves Silverstone.

[Flettner]

Sounds like a suitable scenario.

I feel like another test cylinder is needed, forget the crank case althogether, I have other plans. Now where did I put that 250 fourstroke engine? Don't worry I won't be using cams or valves.

[ken seeber]

Hooser, you’ve got a lot to answer for. Couldn’t help thinking if a scotch yoke could be fitted into the VM. Well I reckon it could, with a lot of work and chomping.
So, the assumptions. 50 * 54 *100 rod in conventional format (see left side of sketch) and the spacer is 25 (rhs). Scotch crank uses a Ø20 pin, 30 square slider, 6 plate thickness rising by 12 or so at the centre of bracing (super random guesses).



Presumably the scotch yoke would need to be supported at both ends to resist the bending moment and this would be done with a Ø15 or so piston rod. This is supported and sealed at the spacer plate. Would obviously also be supported on the underside as well. The scotch mechanism would be lubricated separately from the piston.
At TDC, the scotch engine has a deck height of 25 higher (spacer thickness). At BDC there is almost this amount for the piston to clear the spacer plate of the arbitrary layout in the sketch.

Irrespective, it raises lots of points:
1. To clear the yoke, there would be lots of clearance required within the crankcase
2. The reciprocating mass wouldn’t be less than trivial
3. The “crankcase volume” below the piston would be very small, defying the current trends, but, as Wob says, it maybe could be using a 24/7 inlet
4. The motion would be sinusoidal. Could be good or bad, up to the EngMod types to make this call
5. My thoughts are that it would need a lower piston rod for support, requiring a projection housing out the bottom of the crankcase

So, in my opinion, possible but unlikely. However, as always, there are lots of smarties in the world, and maybe this is a product of them. On the other hand, maybe the whole 70 hp and 17k is bullshit and we have just wasted a lot of time

[husaberg]

Hooser, you’ve got a lot to answer for. Couldn’t help thinking if a scotch yoke could be fitted into the VM. Well I reckon it could, with a lot of work and chomping.
So, the assumptions. 50 * 54 *100 rod in conventional format (see left side of sketch) and the spacer is 25 (rhs). Scotch crank uses a Ø20 pin, 30 square slider, 6 plate thickness rising by 12 or so at the centre of bracing (super random guesses).



Presumably the scotch yoke would need to be supported at both ends to resist the bending moment and this would be done with a Ø15 or so piston rod. This is supported and sealed at the spacer plate. Would obviously also be supported on the underside as well. The scotch mechanism would be lubricated separately from the piston.
At TDC, the scotch engine has a deck height of 25 higher (spacer thickness). At BDC there is almost this amount for the piston to clear the spacer plate of the arbitrary layout in the sketch.

Irrespective, it raises lots of points:
1. To clear the yoke, there would be lots of clearance required within the crankcase
2. The reciprocating mass wouldn’t be less than trivial
3. The “crankcase volume” below the piston would be very small, defying the current trends, but, as Wob says, it maybe could be using a 24/7 inlet
4. The motion would be sinusoidal. Could be good or bad, up to the EngMod types to make this call
5. My thoughts are that it would need a lower piston rod for support, requiring a projection housing out the bottom of the crankcase

So, in my opinion, possible but unlikely. However, as always, there are lots of smarties in the world, and maybe this is a product of them. On the other hand, maybe the whole 70 hp and 17k is bullshit and we have just wasted a lot of time

Yes but fun anyway, as Frits mentioned in his normal way it was the engine, but maybe it was not the entire engine maybe it carried a FOS cylinder.
With the Scotch yoke it would need to be modified a little as to dwell longer at BDC which is readily achievable.
yes the "crankcase"volume is small but then again if there was a form of additional pumping (like the other end) it would not be an issue.
But I have scotch yoke on the mind at the moment its a burden but you will have to grin and bare with me.

Pretty sure you will have experience with the bottom end of two strokes that had pressure feed four stroke like bottom ends
They only seem to work with a form of forced induction, more food for thought. It was mentioned earlier about something along those lines.... which might account for cleaner burning and substantial power output

[teriks]

Not I...... did I not link it? still best use of balsa wood, it was a corker.
So its not a common glow plug thing to do then?............
http://www.machineconcepts.co.uk/aer...st51-3.htm#top
ps I have no idea what control line stunt means or why it would be needed. So explain how it works and why you would block a transfer and shield a plug.

Ahh, thought you had done that yourself.

No, none of them is a common thing to do if you want any kind of power to speak of

Control line, well that goes back to the days before radio control.
The plane is attached to an handle with two lines, flying in circles around you.
The two lines allows you to control the elevator, and that's the end of the control you have (when I tried I really really wanted engine shut off too ).
CL stunt is doing aerobatics with control line models, limited to a hemisphere of course.

One thing they try to achieve is constant speed, where I think is where at least the shielding comes into play.
If you place the tank a bit backwards from the throttle, you can get the engine to run rich in level flight, damn rich when diving, and lean out to a best power setting climbing.
The shield would be there to prevent the glow-plug from being drenched by fuel droplets in the rich conditions.
I don't know, but would guess the boost port is plugged for the same reason. -If you dont scavenge the top of the cylinder you wont have the raw fuel there either..