Oddball engines and prototypes

[Grumph]

Not necessarily,Will.

Can we agree that they do present packaging problems ?
I look at that Koenig and see the engine as far forward as it can go without the front wheel rubbing spark plug caps - and the swingarm as short as possible with the pivot hard against the gearbox.
Bear in mind here that the old man raced Douglas's - and restored one which i rode a bit too - so we had a family history of inline boxers...

I bet Kim Newcombe would have loved some of the low profile plug caps now available. Could have lost about an inch and a half in the wheelbase....

[husaberg]

Can we agree that they do present packaging problems ?
I look at that Koenig and see the engine as far forward as it can go without the front wheel rubbing spark plug caps - and the swingarm as short as possible with the pivot hard against the gearbox.
Bear in mind here that the old man raced Douglas's - and restored one which i rode a bit too - so we had a family history of inline boxers...

I bet Kim Newcombe would have loved some of the low profile plug caps now available. Could have lost about an inch and a half in the wheelbase....

Not necessarily,Will.

There is a Boxer on a 45 so rear cylinder under gearbox and front on a 45 I can't place it. It was a 125 I have posted it before it was a Euro but I don't think it was a Helmut Fath either.

found it anyone remember what it was
My moneys on Frits answering first
I would prefer it angled the other way though.


Here is an other but I like the first one better no idea what the background on this is either other than it has Yamaha bits on a CNC crankcase

[Frits Overmars]

Can we agree that they do present packaging problems ?

Not necessarily, Grumph .
OK, you can't crib, so you will have to do some thinking of your own. Like so, for example:

[J.A.W.]

We're not confusing 'boxers' here - with horizontally opposed - are we, since not all of the latter - are also the former..

& if Frits would be so kind, to offer his view of the worth of a - TZ 750 running a 90' "cross-plane" crank configuration - in place of the standard 180`..

[J.A.W.]

Please Kindly remove yourself from my thread.

Since when did you take over the forum Mr Presumptuous? My point is fair, so don't get snitty, - just because you dont understand..

FYI, a flat 12 Porsche is horizontally opposed cylinder-wise, but it is not a 'boxer'.. it is, technically a 180` wide angle V12..

[Frits Overmars]

if Frits would be so kind, to offer his view of the worth of a - TZ 750 running a 90' "cross-plane" crank configuration - in place of the standard 180`..

It would improve the sound a lot: a true screamer. It would also spread the torque pulses, so the transmission will last longer and you can use a softer (grippier) rear tire compound. It would require re-arranging the ignition pickups, but nothing fancy like grinding other camshafts. Goes for TZ500 too. So who's going to be the first to try it?

[J.A.W.]

Thanks for the feedback Frits, it does indeed sound like a reasonable prospect - for a progressive project.

[J.A.W.]

Pop down to the Bowling Club or RSA and bore them

Do you take your Porsche engines down there for a rebore do you then V? Too funny, if that's your level of technical nous.. give it a rest..

Boxer, or not? See here.. http://www.autoevolution.com/news/th...ine-85305.html

[WilDun]

Not necessarily,Will.

Or was it length? -well, one of the two!

[Voltaire]

Do you take your Porsche engines down there for a rebore do you then V? Too funny, if that's your level of technical nous.. give it a rest..

Boxer, or not? See here.. http://www.autoevolution.com/news/th...ine-85305.html

Yes your right, I'll get back to my airhead BMW's, Ducatis, Norton, Guzzi's and VW Type 2's and leave you armchair experts to it

[J.A.W.]

Yes your right, I'll get back to my airhead BMW's, Ducatis, Norton, Guzzi's and VW Type 2's and leave you armchair experts to it

Probably best V, since "airhead" is a good descriptor for you, given the sorry standard of topic contribution you make..

Have you ever wondered why a BMW boxer twin sounds like an old school Norton Commando?

Check the firing configuration.. it is the same..
..since the the boxer 180` crank pin added to the 180`flat cylinders = 360`, & gives even firing - same as the Norton running a 360`crank & 0`cylinder angle..

Inertia torque & other matters, such as actual practicability of packaging - in a motorcycle chassis are another issue, of course.. ( & BMW did go 360`vertical twin)..

[J.A.W.]

Check this high-efficiency 2T CI turbo-compound aero-engine design done by Garrett for NASA.. ~1000hp from 2.2 Ltr.. ( or a ~ 500hp/1.1 Ltr triple)..
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nas...9930001160.pdf

[Voltaire]

Probably best V, since "airhead" is a good descriptor for you, given the sorry standard of topic contribution you make..

Have you ever wondered why a BMW boxer twin sounds like an old school Norton Commando?

Check the firing configuration.. it is the same..
..since the the boxer 180` crank pin added to the 180`flat cylinders = 360`, & gives even firing - same as the Norton running a 360`crank & 0`cylinder angle..

Inertia torque & other matters, such as actual practicability of packaging - in a motorcycle chassis are another issue, of course.. ( & BMW did go 360`vertical twin)..

Really...tell me more things I don't know...Malcy and I are patiently waiting for more of your wisdom

[WilDun]

Getting back to Husa's pics (and on Husa's thread) of the flat twin two stroke, ie the first one, which I think is likely to be a boxer, was quite a good layout - wonder how it went?

[malcy25]

..... spread the torque pulses, so the transmission will last longer and you can use a softer (grippier) rear tire compound. It would require re-arranging the ignition pickups, but nothing fancy like grinding other camshafts. Goes for TZ500 too. So who's going to be the first to try it?

Spread the torque pulses better. yep.
Use a softer, grippier tyre. None. It will NEED a softer grippier tyre (see below).
It would require re-arranging the ignition pickups.....yep - and 4 of them, not two.
....but nothing fancy like grinding other camshafts. LOL, no, nothing ike grinding camshafts I would hope given it is a 2 stroke - just something fancy like building NEW crankshafts at 1100 euro or a 1000 pounds each (and there are 2 remember on top of the ignition costs).
Goes for TZ500 too. Yep, but same rules apply given they are the same engine architecture. Note, their crankshafts are not in aftermarket production like the TZ750 ones are and they are a lot trickier beast they are like little dumbells, (sort of like J.A.W) for the inner pair IIRC and mains that clamp around the shaft. The big end pins and outer flywheels then press on outside of that.

Lol, J.A.W. has missed a very key point here in his trolling. The question he asked of me a while back and I said why "would you?" being why would some one want to build a TZ750 which fired a cylinder every 90 degrees, rather than the two up, 2 down, 180 degree phasing (ie leave stock). He then attempted to dribble about inertial torque. That may all be nice but you have to ask why did Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki, Cagiva with their 500's in the 90's ditch 180 (most bar Honda who did use 90) and then in the 2000's Yamaha moved to their M1 cross plane set up and effectively a Big bang set up which closed up (not evened out) the firing order at the expense of a more even crank shaft speed/inertia?

The short answer was giving the tyre a "rest period". It didn't go any quicker, it didn't make more power, but it created better race times as the rear tyre lasted longer as the tyre had an easier time. Interestingly, Yamaha said they got a better connection between the throttle and tyre on the M1 (see link). A happy side benefit was more riders could ride the bikes with the droner motor and the racing got closer. Why did Honda go back to the screamer? One word. Or in this case a name. DOOHAN. He had the skills to survive the screamer and he did it for no other reason as he had won a few championships and wanted to screw with the order riders heads. A few Honda riders tried it and hurt themselves or scared themselves bad enough, that they said no thanks. That won Doohan another championship or 2, probably at the start of the season as the competition were buggered before they started....purely in their own heads.

Here's what Masao Furusawa had to say about this. Note this is written around 4 strokes and Yamah's M1 where the cross plane crank is phased 90 (or thereabouts) but the firing is odd ball (and closer to TZ750 at paired 180 apart). The old 180 degree crank 4 stroke would be more akin to a TZ750 at acylinder every 90 degrees.(Ie more evened out), given the TZ750 is a 2 stroke and fires every cylinder, every revolution vs the 4 stroke very second one.

"Uneven firing plays winning tune for Yamaha"
http://articles.sae.org/5586/

You only have to see what Harley has done in mile and half mile in the US for the last 40 years to get a big hint on this as well.

So, basically J.A.W. is talking shite and trying to drag you into his argument with me (plus trying to do a Helen Clark by trying to "Play the man" not the game, or in this case the discussion).

While a TZ750 which fired 1 cylinder every 90 degrees might see a benefit in crank inertia and gearbox loading, that's the only benefit I see and that is from purely an engineering sense, yep. But theory and reality are very different things. So is riding skill. I live in reality and with the knowledge of what my riding skill is. I'd rather a bike that doesn't chew tyres and want to highside me - convinienently that is the one that would give me the best lap time too. Racers don't care HOW, they care HOW FAST.

Noting also the TZ750 chassis is not the schmickest of things.....and it needs all the help it can get to get the power to the back tyre and not create tyre smoke.

Now a TZ750 with a very UNEVEN firing order (ie all cylinders over in say 100/110 degrees) would sounds like crap, be very hard on the gearbox, but create a very good racing result in comparison.

Interesing story. I buy a TZ750 years ago and I got inundated with "advice" on how to ride it etc. Was some classic stuff of 'do this", "don't do that". BAR TWO EXCEPTIONs, NONE of those people trying to "advise" me had ever ridden one or owned one - they were all basically full of shit with no first hand experience. One person that fell outside of that was the guy I bought the bike off and had skills. The other didn't try to give advice just a sage warning.

So J.A.W. what's your story? Ridden one with enough saddle time to impart actual knowledge, owned one, or.......?

Remember, it's my bat, ball and cheque book, so I get to decide what I do with my bike. By all means, spend the 65000 dollars of your own money so you can try it. Share the knowledge when you do.

Signed, the "stick in the mud" .