Proposal to delete rule 24.2.1 - Alcohol based fuel or fuel additives are prohibited

**richban** · 10th April 2014, 18:08

Now thats better. People actually admitting the 2 stokes have a clear advantage.

400hp per litre and 200hp per litre simple really. Only problem is we can't make them 250 or 125. Coz then they would be to fast. So looks like it 75cc with 2 mm over size for you 2 stroke boys and 150 with 4mm over for the 4 bangers.

Nice and even.

I will get the submission in soon.

**mr bucketracer** · 10th April 2014, 18:10

Originally Posted by F5 Dave

Thats just a design fault in the 4 stroke firing only half the time. they do get some payback with a higher BMEP due to a cleaner burn, both are compromises. Yes the van is a four stroke, but packaging the expansion chambers would be a problem & the petrol bill would be a bit horrific.

and the desigh fault in a 2 stroke is they last 5 mins as you should well no lol (-: and they use shit loads more fuel (-; and i'm better on the brake's than you because you said i was no good years ago ( your fault ) lol he he

**mr bucketracer** · 10th April 2014, 18:13

Originally Posted by richban

Now thats better. People actually admitting the 2 stokes have a clear advantage.

400hp per litre and 200hp per litre simple really. Only problem is we can't make them 250 or 125. Coz then they would be to fast. So looks like it 75cc with 2 mm over size for you 2 stroke boys and 150 with 4mm over for the 4 bangers.

Nice and even.

I will get the submission in soon.

only need to look at the gp 80cc wins 160 4 at twice the size lost , but lap times nothing in it more a young mans game

**goose8** · 10th April 2014, 20:24

Originally Posted by mr bucketracer

only need to look at the gp 80cc wins 160 4 at twice the size lost , but lap times nothing in it more a young mans game

Yep young mans game for sure I think he would be a lot faster if he had a 27hp fxr , an the fact that a 22.5hp mb100 got the fastest lap Shows you don't need bigger motors For either 2t or 4t it's only 2cc more so you don't have to spend lots of money building a new crank .

**richban** · 11th April 2014, 07:44

Originally Posted by goose8

Yep young mans game for sure I think he would be a lot faster if he had a 27hp fxr , an the fact that a 22.5hp mb100 got the fastest lap Shows you don't need bigger motors For either 2t or 4t it's only 2cc more so you don't have to spend lots of money building a new crank .

I like where you are going with this G. So skinny fuckers get say 22hp and the fatter you are you get more ponies say 30 for me. Nice one.

**Buddha#81:Me** · 11th April 2014, 08:43

Originally Posted by richban

I like where you are going with this G. So skinny fuckers get say 22hp and the fatter you are you get more ponies say 30 for me. Nice one.

50hp for me , 15hp for the Hoogies, sounds fair!

**Pumba** · 11th April 2014, 10:52

Originally Posted by Buddha#81

50hp for me , 15hp for the Hoogies, sounds fair!

Pffft only 50Hp? Thought you might have wanted to win.

I am already drawing up the plans to fit a GSXR600 engine into my FXR (still cant be arsed squezing into a RS frame)

**TZ350** · 11th April 2014, 12:35

Originally Posted by F5 Dave

check your math

Originally Posted by TZ350

Check the original post

The original post was about gas wasn't it? Oh Husi's post, erm ok then. "Fine". [ask your wife for a translation]

Click image for larger version.

Name: Fine 2.jpg
Views: 30
Size: 33.5 KB
ID: 296044

Yep ... nope, I is not brave enough .......

**goose8** · 11th April 2014, 13:33

Originally Posted by richban

I like where you are going with this G. So skinny fuckers get say 22hp and the fatter you are you get more ponies say 30 for me. Nice one.

I would be more than happy to have a class based on power to weight say fully kitted up 170 to 190 kg bike an rider something like that an 22 to 25 hp max

**jasonu** · 11th April 2014, 14:09

Originally Posted by richban

I will get the submission in soon.

and if it gets in you should expect a lynching closely followed by some buggaring and then a hanging...

**F5 Dave** · 11th April 2014, 14:47

Originally Posted by richban

. . . Only problem is we can't make them 250 . . .

Past 182cc you got thru to the fins huh?

**husaberg** · 11th April 2014, 17:17

Originally Posted by TZ350

Yep ... nope, I is not brave enough .......

Didn't i say "prefer" rather than "Happy" (can't be arsed checking)

No mater what the MNZ does not everyone will be "happy" or "Fine" with it.
Most people might say there is "Nothing" is wrong with the current rules.
But i suggest (as i have done before) there is a reason to want Alcohol based fuels for AC engines. As it is a advantage in its latent heat of evaporation and as it needs to run at a higher by weight air to fuel ratio.
So it is a double wammy effect on one of the rule restrictions imposed to cover the displacement increase that they enjoy. ie "air cooled" and restricted carb(Scott alluded to this already)

But there is no cheap options for the 104cc engines pistons .(Currently)
Conversely there is heaps of cheap and freely available pistons to suit the 125 in commons sizes (But it might be more problematic in the future though)

**kel** · 11th April 2014, 18:31

Originally Posted by husaberg

Most people might say there is "Nothing" is wrong with the current rules.
But i suggest (as i have done before) there is a reason to want Alcohol based fuels for AC engines.

What are you going on about? Is this the Trojan horse nonsense again? Go read chapter 10 and appendix E there's nothing there that advantages the air coolers, but thanks for the scaremongering.