Oddball engines and prototypes

[Grumph]

So, why is it that they don't seem keen to go for turbos and direct injection on bikes as well ?

Sales and production volumes won't support that level of tech yet.
I doubt anyone is selling large volumes of medium to large bikes now.
The biggest volumes are still sub 150cc - and we're only just seeing injection appearing on the top lines of those.

[gsxr]

Sales and production volumes won't support that level of tech yet.
I doubt anyone is selling large volumes of medium to large bikes now.
The biggest volumes are still sub 150cc - and we're only just seeing injection appearing on the top lines of those.

I doubt if there will ever be a market for turbo charged bikes again apart from maybe a small production run solely for the wank factor for a very small worldwide market.
Turbos were introduced in the early 80s but offered little if any advantage.Turbo lagwas an issue. I experienced that when I rode the first new Kawasaki turbo in Wellington straight out of the crate assembled at the Friday night pissup at Boyles.
Engine technology has advanced so much that there is no need for a turboed motorcycle cor your cafe putter or your weekend 1000k challenge.
The only advantage would be on a smaller capacity machine to match the performance of a larger capacity machine

[husaberg]

Think we might go with a Mazda 2 instead, they are "middle of the road" with already well proven mechanical parts, so now back to bikes - cars don't really interest me a lot anyway!

So, why is it that they don't seem keen to go for turbos and direct injection on bikes as well ?

Sales and production volumes won't support that level of tech yet.
I doubt anyone is selling large volumes of medium to large bikes now.
The biggest volumes are still sub 150cc - and we're only just seeing injection appearing on the top lines of those.

I doubt if there will ever be a market for turbo charged bikes again apart from maybe a small production run solely for the wank factor for a very small worldwide market.
Turbos were introduced in the early 80s but offered little if any advantage.Turbo lagwas an issue. I experienced that when I rode the first new Kawasaki turbo in Wellington straight out of the crate assembled at the Friday night pissup at Boyles.
Engine technology has advanced so much that there is no need for a turboed motorcycle cor your cafe putter or your weekend 1000k challenge.
The only advantage would be on a smaller capacity machine to match the performance of a larger capacity machine

The problem with the bikes or the early 80;s turbo era such as the CX500/650T and the XN650T was that although they had great performance for a bike their size, they ended up weighing the same as a 1000 or 1100 of the same performance that was cheaper to buy. The added weight was not noticed in a cars of the same era. there was also lag issues as it was new tec. Plus most turbos were to big (they still are)

[Grumph]

The only advantage would be on a smaller capacity machine to match the performance of a larger capacity machine

Necessary if legislation ever restricts motorcycle engines to a "safe" size....

If for instance Japan passed laws restricting bikes to 400cc and a max of 100PS, we'd see them in short order. Particularly if emission standards tightened at the same time.

But of course the Ryger is going to rescue us from that prospect....(cough)

[WilDun]

Necessary if legislation ever restricts motorcycle engines to a "safe" size....

If for instance Japan passed laws restricting bikes to 400cc and a max of 100PS, we'd see them in short order. Particularly if emission standards tightened at the same time.

But of course the Ryger is going to rescue us from that prospect....(cough)

That little Suzuki Swift RS 1L (car) with the turbo seemed to have heaps more bottom end power rather than high end (which I didn't explore but I know they advertise 108 BHP with some other 1 Litre cars advertising 120! - so I guess turbos have come a long way since the eighties at least in the turbo lag and low end torque areas.
I could see a motorcycle/car company like Suzuki, Honda or BMW etc. popping one of their little turbo engines into a bike!

BTW, car engines seem to be getting more and more "undersquare" as opposed to bike engines becoming ridiculously "oversquare" (as in fourstroke motocross bikes) - why is this?

What the hell does 'PS' mean anyway? - and yes I know that my knowledge isn't exactly cutting edge!

[Grumph]

I'm sure someone will be along with the correct answer Will, but just call it German HP....I only used it because legislators love to use technical language - even when they don't know what it means.

The undersquare tendency is explained in part by emissions. Easier to get a compact combustion chamber to pass emissions than one with large squish areas.
In part also because torque production over a wide range seems to be becoming more desirable.
Locally the rally guys are limited to a certain boost/capacity formula so they try not to over-cam in order to get that boost as low in the range as possible.
They're also rev limited - severely IMO - so they want to make as close to peak HP and torque across as much range as possible.
What this line leads to is as you discovered, small engines that make big torque.

[husaberg]

I'm sure someone will be along with the correct answer Will, but just call it German HP....I only used it because legislators love to use technical language - even when they don't know what it means.

.

I call it metric HP
As well as emmisions cars don't need as higher specific output or as higher rev range that goes along with it.
FI still has hugely oversquare designs

[Frits Overmars]

What the hell does 'PS' mean anyway?

PS is the German abbreviation for PferdeStärke. Pferd = horse, Stärke = strength.
Simple, isn't it?
Well, not quite, because 1 PS = 75 kgfm/s and 1 HP = 76 kgfm/s, so 1 PS = 0,987 HP.
Or, if we make an effort to leave the Stone Age behind:
1 PS = 735,5 W and 1 HP = 745,7 W

In English-speaking regions the PS is also known as metric horsepower and the HP is known as imperial horsepower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsep...ric_horsepower

[WilDun]

That's great, now I know the differences, next thing, I need to know which is which one of those differences to use! -
Have I become befuddled as I grow older? or is everyone befuddled with moving goalposts? - what the hell is going on ? or is it a ploy to keep us from knowing too much?
Standards (by definition) are immovable objects, but now it appears that they have invented the (handy) movable standard!

Saw on your link Frits, where HP figures given are calculated (contrived) for taxation. It appears that in the nineteen fifties, British vehicles were taxed on a figure worked out from cylinder bore diameter, so Vauxhall made the 6 cylinder LIP engine with tiny bore diameters and long long stroke to keep taxation costs down!

I have worked in engineering workshops where we had to contend with a huge variety of screw threads, from Whitworth, BSF, BA, AF, NF, NC,UNC,UNF,Metric coarse Metric fine (and all the others in between) and now the Chinese "standards" which are a real enigma!
I won't even bother to discuss all the different gear types and shapes you can have!
What is it with humans? - what a bunch of dopey bastards we are!


Here it is:-
http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...ar/?car=145728

[tjbw]

Yamaha has on foul strokes hence the later YZF450;s and R1s.

Thanks for that husa. I asked my other friend (G) about desaxe and found from wikipedia that "Early adopters of the Desaxe Principle included Henry Ford, who would fully implement the Desaxe offset into the Ford Flathead V8 engine throughout the 1930s while adopting greater offsets into the 1940s."

Wikipedia also provided this link which looks relevant to my query, though I suspect they concentrated more on friction effects: http://papers.sae.org/2004-01-0606/

Good info here too: https://rideapart.com/articles/free-...ders-explained

Thanks google

[tjbw]

That's great, now I know the differences, next thing, I need to know which is which one of those differences to use! -
Have I become befuddled as I grow older? or is everyone befuddled with moving goalposts? - what the hell is going on ? or is it a ploy to keep us from knowing too much?
Standards (by definition) are immovable objects, but now it appears that they have invented the (handy) movable standard!

Saw on your link Frits, where HP figures given are calculated (contrived) for taxation. It appears that in the nineteen fifties, British vehicles were taxed on a figure worked out from cylinder bore diameter, so Vauxhall made the 6 cylinder LIP engine with tiny bore diameters and long long stroke to keep taxation costs down!

I have worked in engineering workshops where we had to contend with a huge variety of screw threads, from Whitworth, BSF, BA, AF, NF, NC,UNC,UNF,Metric coarse Metric fine (and all the others in between) and now the Chinese "standards" which are a real enigma!
I won't even bother to discuss all the different gear types and shapes you can have!
What is it with humans? - what a bunch of dopey bastards we are!


Here it is:-
http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...ar/?car=145728

Will, your thread list is incomplete!

I bet you also worked on BSPP and BSPT, (both Whitworth) but what about BSC, Acme and square?

[guyhockley]

That little Suzuki Swift RS 1L (car) with the turbo seemed to have heaps more bottom end power rather than high end (which I didn't explore but I know they advertise 108 BHP with some other 1 Litre cars advertising 120! - so I guess turbos have come a long way since the eighties at least in the turbo lag and low end torque areas.
I could see a motorcycle/car company like Suzuki, Honda or BMW etc. popping one of their little turbo engines into a bike!

BTW, car engines seem to be getting more and more "undersquare" as opposed to bike engines becoming ridiculously "oversquare" (as in fourstroke motocross bikes) - why is this?

What the hell does 'PS' mean anyway? - and yes I know that my knowledge isn't exactly cutting edge!

Test drove a Ford B-Max with a 1 litre turbo that has replaced the previous NA 1600. I was expecting a right little screamer, but it was just like driving a 1600, lots of torque and all done by about 6000 revs.
Way off topic, but seen this? Bit like the triple engined Nazi planes where one engine just drove the blowers.
https://raceenginedesign.co.uk/the-manic-beattie/

[tjbw]

I sometimess see posts in ESE thread, which I feel would be relevant here.

For example 3 links to conrod free engine originally Posted by katinas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwwvidC8CWo

"In second video, he said that bigger engine 1600cc 45kg 200hp".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fuR3HLz-0A

"Its very very precise and too much moving parts"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LboS59_0j1w

Here's another Russian oddball that I found whilst looking at Katinas's links. Is it a "reciprocating rotating cam piston"?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzBgoDeY3Ws

It reminds me of the RCV engine, though RCV uses a bevel gear to rotate the liner/sleeve.

http://www.rcvengines.com/documents/...hE%20Paper.pdf

[ken seeber]

To me the Russion oddball is a product of naïve engineering and some CAD skills.

Now, not an engine, but a prototype from Yamaha.



Bit of as reversal of their in-production Tricity scooter.

[WilDun]

To me the Russion oddball is a product of naïve engineering and some CAD skills.

Now, not an engine, but a prototype from Yamaha.

Bit of as reversal of their in-production Tricity scooter.

Not sure if I should buy one of those or a Neander!

Update: Oh dear, looks like I didn't do something wrong about the link I posted, so I'll get rid of it till I can find the one I should have sent!