ESE's works engine tuner

[husaberg]

Is there any chance anyone here could give more info about the swissauto 500? I am curious to know if the cylinders fired in pairs etc. Any pictures would be sweet.

I have read through most of this and this particular engine interests me very much so, I cant understand why it wasn't done more, the flying web crank.

I have a lot of stuff in my album http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/al...p?albumid=4833
Which it seems not everyone can see............
but I fished earlier hoping someone would pipe up.

I am pretty sure the original one fired together in each pair as two singles but I am not sure the later solos were definitely different....WOB, Frits?

I found some stuff today on pitlane that suggested it was a squashed boxer? but I am not sure how well it was translated by google
Maybe someone could translate
http://www.pit-lane.biz/t1461p40-tec...moteurs-motogp

[Frits Overmars]

If the back squats down under power it puts more weight and therefor traction on the back wheel and unloads the front.

Wrong. Squat will lower the Center of Gravity, which reduces the load transfer during acceleration and deceleration (not the weight transfer; the masses of bike & rider don't shift in a horizontal way under acceleration and deceleration, unless you're riding with a half-empty fuel tank without slosh restraining).
Summary: the more squat you have, the less the rear wheel will be loaded and the less the front wheel will be unloaded under acceleration.

Watch MotoGP today and on virtually every corner exit the front tyre is just off the deck, thus they have just enough weight transfer (and auto Hp control) to give the absolute maximum rear grip available

Let me rephrase that for you Wob: the antiwheeliecontrol gives them just enough power to make the front wheel float - any more power and the bike will back-flip.
There is no shortage of rear wheel grip; they just can't use it.
The acceleration could be a lot fiercer if the CoG was lower or farther forward, but that would give problems with insufficient roll velocity or with front-flips.
It's all about finding the right compromise (as Ducati seems to be discovering now after years of struggling).

[SwePatrick]

Study this clip:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10151671415074475

It is my MT5 in dyno, here you can se how it compresses the fork when the HUGE!!!! torque is torquing
As someone stated earlier, everything has it´s 'negative force'(dunno the word) against the force applied to the item.
In this case, compressing the fork lets the spring compress the wheel again´st the ground.
and the force to lift the moped in the rear is also pressing the rear wheel again´st the ground.
Making the chassi less prone to raise the frontwheel in acceleration.

rgds

[F5 Dave]

Meh the spring s on those are so soft I cut 6 coils off to get in the right ballpark. And damping? Only when it rains.

[wobbly]

The SA500 engine was used in the Pulse and I rebuilt the one that Bill has when it first arrived in NZ..
Its cylinders did fire in pairs, and were very cleverly triggered by a N and S pole magnet embedded in a flywheel with a single trigger.
The pistons were A Kit Honda, with the domes machined off, leaving only the squish band radiused up from the timing edge.
Made them very light, but wow I thought the dome would sink for sure - never did.
Having a flying web only supported by a pin on each side of a flat plate in essence made for hideous stress levels and the only way the cranks would live
for any reasonable time was having them made in unbelievably expensive materials and processes.
They cost in the region of E20,000 each I believe, did 1500Km and then in the bin.

The reeds were very small in area and the carbs ( mag Keihins at E120,000 for 2 pairs ) were equivalent to a 35mm area, so the design was biased toward good acceleration, but it still made
close to 180 Hp at the sprocket.
The cylinders were very close in design to an A kit Honda, the big difference being the B port hook was a smooth radius, pointing to 1/3 across the piston to bore centre ( and of course SA on the side )
Again, all designed for mid power - I have some sitting on my bench if you want some pics , but nothing to see of interest really.

I have got access to one of the Team Roberts built, Mike Sinclair designed frames from the Pulse project and its an amazing piece of alloy artwork.

[wobbly]

Well explained as usual Frits.
The main point of my rant about anti squat really was that it acts just like the old idea of using the front brake torque reaction to try and stop the forks
from compressing,with push rods and lever arms etc.
The idea is a great one, to stop the front dropping, but in execution the result is in effect the same as ramping the spring rate thru the roof - thats why no one uses it
( nor the idea of controlling front damping with brake pressure )..
Using this effect the forks wont react as " suspension " when the brakes are on, so any surface irregularity makes the front loose all wheel control.
Anti squat % in concert with the proper ride height/spring rate for the correct static rider squat is a great tool, but thinking that seeing the rear rise a heap
under acceleration is a short sighted interpretation of a "good thing".

[Drew]

Wrong. Squat will lower the Center of Gravity, which reduces the load transfer during acceleration and deceleration (not the weight transfer; the masses of bike & rider don't shift in a horizontal way under acceleration and deceleration, unless you're riding with a half-empty fuel tank without slosh restraining).
Summary: the more squat you have, the less the rear wheel will be loaded and the less the front wheel will be unloaded under acceleration.

The more squat, the less weight transfer. Kind of. But most of the time not in real life. The shock will compress until the spring is tight enough that the front comes up anyway, most of the time. On real bikes anyway, possibly not with buckets because of their low power. But in the terms of this thread, 25-35 ponies will lift the front wheel to near on zero load in the first three gears.

[2T Institute]

Well explained as usual Frits.
The main point of my rant about anti squat really was that it acts just like the old idea of using the front brake torque reaction to try and stop the forks
from compressing,with push rods and lever arms etc.
The idea is a great one, to stop the front dropping, but in execution the result is in effect the same as ramping the spring rate thru the roof - thats why no one uses it
( nor the idea of controlling front damping with brake pressure )..
Using this effect the forks wont react as " suspension " when the brakes are on, so any surface irregularity makes the front loose all wheel control.

Garelli's had that as well as a few other 80cc GP bikes, then there was the famous Preston Petty anti dive on mx-er forks. The only person I ever heard of that rode a bike with one fitted said the most difficult thing was the weird feeling of front forks rising when the brakes were applied. No wonder they went as fast as they appeared

[TZ350]

If the back squats down under power it puts more weight and therefor traction on the back wheel and un loads the front.

Wrong. Squat will lower the Center of Gravity, which reduces the load transfer during acceleration and deceleration (not the weight transfer; the masses of bike & rider don't shift in a horizontal way under acceleration and deceleration, unless you're riding with a half-empty fuel tank without slosh restraining).

Summary: the more squat you have, the less the rear wheel will be loaded and the less the front wheel will be unloaded under acceleration.

I just knew this was going to give me a headache.

[husaberg]

The SA500 engine was used in the Pulse and I rebuilt the one that Bill has when it first arrived in NZ..
Its cylinders did fire in pairs, and were very cleverly triggered by a N and S pole magnet embedded in a flywheel with a single trigger.
The pistons were A Kit Honda, with the domes machined off, leaving only the squish band radiused up from the timing edge.
Made them very light, but wow I thought the dome would sink for sure - never did.
Having a flying web only supported by a pin on each side of a flat plate in essence made for hideous stress levels and the only way the cranks would live
for any reasonable time was having them made in unbelievably expensive materials and processes.
They cost in the region of E20,000 each I believe, did 1500Km and then in the bin.

The reeds were very small in area and the carbs ( mag Keihins at E120,000 for 2 pairs ) were equivalent to a 35mm area, so the design was biased toward good acceleration, but it still made
close to 180 Hp at the sprocket.
The cylinders were very close in design to an A kit Honda, the big difference being the B port hook was a smooth radius, pointing to 1/3 across the piston to bore centre ( and of course SA on the side )
Again, all designed for mid power - I have some sitting on my bench if you want some pics , but nothing to see of interest really.

I have got access to one of the Team Roberts built, Mike Sinclair designed frames from the Pulse project and its an amazing piece of alloy artwork.

Thanks Wob so the later ones did not have the intake shielding like this? (post later)


Also were the later ones still hirth coupling? (post pic later)

[Drew]

I just knew this was going to give me a headache.

It gets more complicated when ya start fiddling, and what everyone says is the right direction takes you into worse handling. Then, to really fuck with ya the lap times don't reflect what the rider is telling you. Oh the fucken joys of it all.

Lets step back from the complicated for a moment and start at the beginning.

First step. Establish a clear vocabulary with your rider. Identify the four parts of a turn, braking, tip in, tranition from brakes to gas (apex), corner exit are what I call them.

Loads of people call difderent stuff by different names, it's frustrating and counterproductive at times. Be clear with one and other.

Riders are pricks. If thet start questioning what and why you're doing some thing, chuck the toolbox at their head and let them figure it out themaelves. Mind, since you're just learning about it that might be a touch drastic.

KSS have a booklet free for download. It's for beginners but explains a lot. Everyone should have it handy.

[wobbly]

The late model SA500 had shields but a cutaway slot allowing A/F to be "flung" upwards from crank rotation.
The latest TM125 kart engines have exactly the same idea.
I will have one apart soon so will pic this, as according to my info from Maxter its worth at least a Hp in 40ish.
Yes the cranks were Hirth assembled.
Funny how the SA case has a striking resemblance to this model.

[richban]

Pick an advance number ( I usually use 28* that is the initial straight line on the ignition graph from 2000 up to say 7000 rpm ).
Convert this to mm down the bore, and use a DTI to set the piston exactly at this number.
Then arrange a scribe or white pen line on the rotor and stator that is easy to see with your strobe.
Fire it up and strobe the lines mechanically set at 28* holding the rpm steady between 2000 and 7000.
Adding more base timing will retard the firing line and visa versa.
This will ensure you are mechanically and electrically on the money in the Ignitech.
I have found that the only strobe that is dead accurate is the old, super el cheapo ones, that are in line with the plug leads.
Used to be $12.00 at Repco.

Well I think I did it correctly. 180 divide by 54.5 = 3.302. So i figured coz I like round numbers I would do 10mm down from TDC with the dti. So 33 degrees.

So made a map that was 33 deg from 2 - 7. Fired up and looking good and quite a way out. Only problem was I just could not get it to move much at all. I tried putting in a negative value but it would not let me. This is with the P2 Race. Am I putting it in on the wrong screen. Advance screen that is. Help!

[Yow Ling]

Shields and a cut away slot, a bit like this?


Things are moving along, ports only need a couple of degrees onthe exhaust , and 1 degree on the a and b ports so getting a bit closer

[Yow Ling]

Well I think I did it correctly. 180 divide by 54.5 = 3.302. So i figured coz I like round numbers I would do 10mm down from TDC with the dti. So 33 degrees.

So made a map that was 33 deg from 2 - 7. Fired up and looking good and quite a way out. Only problem was I just could not get it to move much at all. I tried putting in a negative value but it would not let me. This is with the P2 Race. Am I putting it in on the wrong screen. Advance screen that is. Help!

33 degrees is 5.45mm with a 105mm rod so your maths is a bit off because near tdc you get lots of degrees and fuck all mm, its not a simple 180/54 job

here is a calculator http://www.dansmc.com/mc_software2.htm