ESE's works engine tuner

[2T Institute]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiUr7s6LC3U

Here you go then Wob bit of reminising,your favourite rider too

[Frits Overmars]

Talking about pipes, I guess everybody here is aware of Frits' new engine design, with ports as far as the eye can see. Has anyone asked how he's going to package it, given the two exhaust ports per cylinder? No problem on a single, but where do you put all the pipes as you add cylinders? Or do you run the headers from the two ports around into a single pipe?

If you exploit the rpm potential of the FOS scavenging system, the pipes will become very short so you won't be able connect the headers into a single pipe.
Packaging the short pipes won't be a problem with a V-twin or a boxer twin, but will be difficult for other multi-cylinder configurations.

[Frits Overmars]

Being a Dutchy you can be sure several modes of serious inquiry were heavily investigated.
Nowdays I have the odd weed with my sons at Yes concerts, but being a Chemical Brother is relegated to serious testing of single malts.
My preference now is for a 16 yr old - no not schoolgirls, a Lagavulin lightly peated joy to the taste buds.

The picture below of Holland's finest products may give you some more ideas to help you through the dark winter months.
Oh no, that's over here; you will be sunbathing while we shovel snow and scrape car windows.

[seattle smitty]

That's one of their 16 year old schoolgirls, Wobbly, don't even think about it.

The thumbnail won't open for me, Frits. The problem might be here, nothing but problems for me with Windows 8.1. (Why couldn't they have stopped with XP Professional; I could mostly manage with that. Ah, but I know a kid, one of those genius computer-nerds, who's going to get me switched to some version of "puppy Linux").

Frits, I'm hoping for you to comment on my notions, above, about V-twins and V-fours as an alternative configuration for racing outboards . . .

[peewee]

hey wobbly i finished putting all the banshee info into engmod. i hear guys say they get 100hp from these things with methanol. not sure if i believe it but ill give it my best effort to see if its true. anyways i noticed something that ive seen before with other engines in engmod. the banshee cylinder as well as one of my old ktm cylinders ( and likely many other cylinders out there ) , show a undersized cylinder inlet and more so a reed cage thats far too small. have you noticed this also, where the reed cage and intake seem to be way too small ? something else, i plan to use vforce 4 reed block, although i havent input the block dimensions yet, but i suspect it will likely still be undersized. is there any modification that can be done to the vforce4 to help it be closer to the rest of the engines performance numbers or is there simply nothing that can be done, short of cutting the intake off the cylinder and welding a larger intake system back on ?

[wobbly]

Yes the Banshee reeds are way small - the VF3 that fits is alot better in port area,but to make serious power it needs a bigger reed box and the 60mm
size VF3 off a CR125 etc.
This is quite common on drag RD400s etc.
Then also it needs big Boyesen ports and the piston cutting like a Blaster to get the cylinder intake area need.
But you can make some really good power with the smaller VF3, as when really pushing the intake - the reeds just stay open longer.
Here is dyno sheet of a 400cc Banshee based road racer with CPI cylinder, on AvGas its 96RWHp.
This is 8 port transfers and 3 port Ex and powervalved, but setup to make a wide spread of power ,so I seriously doubt 100 from Banshee castings even running Methanol.

[peewee]

ill be cutting in large boyesen ports. and aux exh windows also. . replacing the entire intake with a larger one is more work than i want to get involved with.

[peewee]

wobbly if i can bother you with another question. most cylinders ive seen have a removable exh manifold. this one doesnt however. still i would think the flange piece protruding from the cylinder would be considered the manifold. for the exh passage length in engmod, i assume it would be the green arrow length ? i would get the passage end diameter from this point also ? or would it be the yellow arrow length ?

[Frits Overmars]

Frits, I'm hoping for you to comment on my notions, above, about V-twins and V-fours as an alternative configuration for racing outboards . . .

I went back 6 pages, but I can't find any unanswered questions Smitty. I assume you took a look at the Pit-Lane link?
If I missed something, let's have some specific questions. But don't hold your breath because workload is such that I really need a watercooled brain at the moment.

[seattle smitty]

I've visited that link three times and will do so again; invaluable information, fascinating!! And between what Wobbly and you have already said, I have certainly got more and better responses than I deserve to get from busy men. Thank you both, and I'm going to "lurk-mode." Like everyone else here, I do hope to hear about the development story of the new engine, when/if you have time.

[wobbly]

The code does not care about what part of the input is used to represent the duct/pipe, except to say that the duct temp is part of
the jigsaw as much as the pipe wall temp is.
Thus in this case we have an alloy spigot extension that has the slip joint around it, and water is a fair distance away.
I would opine that this alloy extension would be closer to the pipe temp than the duct wall temp, so should be considered part of the header.

Re the relative "betterness" of any one physical layout for a boat, in the case of the 4 cylinder the differences between say a twin crank
contra rotating stack ie a square 4 Vs an inline 4 Vs a V4 would all come down to the number of seals/bearings in total used to support
the flywheels.
As it would appear that balance, firing order and rotational precession have little bearing on the final result then FMEP would become important, except
maybe the inline 4 would have a much higher C of G and this may overcome any perceived frictional advantage.
Maybe the best compromise ( but problematic to implement reliably ) is a flying web setup.
Go buy a Swiss Auto, they were cheap enough in comparison to a Japanese factory engine at the time.

[husaberg]

The code does not care about what part of the input is used to represent the duct/pipe, except to say that the duct temp is part of
the jigsaw as much as the pipe wall temp is.
Thus in this case we have an alloy spigot extension that has the slip joint around it, and water is a fair distance away.
I would opine that this alloy extension would be closer to the pipe temp than the duct wall temp, so should be considered part of the header.

Re the relative "betterness" of any one physical layout for a boat, in the case of the 4 cylinder the differences between say a twin crank
contra rotating stack ie a square 4 Vs an inline 4 Vs a V4 would all come down to the number of seals/bearings in total used to support
the flywheels.
As it would appear that balance, firing order and rotational precession have little bearing on the final result then FMEP would become important, except
maybe the inline 4 would have a much higher C of G and this may overcome any perceived frictional advantage.
Maybe the best compromise ( but problematic to implement reliably ) is a flying web setup.
Go buy a Swiss Auto, they were cheap enough in comparison to a Japanese factory engine at the time.

.
LOL they were still pretty pricey.
I seen this the other day whilst I was looking for the Roarer stuff.
This was the coupling and set up on a Guzzi 4 Inline along the frame Supercharged fuel injected bike from the 40 or 50's
it had posted I think the injection or the hidden plugs stuff from it before.

Honda at the time they did the big bang for Doohan had another design they played with but kept in reserve, I am pretty sure it was a ultra close bang with shared crankcases.

[seattle smitty]

Was going to lurk but, . . . An inline four with modern wide-sweeping ports would be hugely tall, and a twin-crank four would be heavy. It seems to me that a V-twin or V-four need not be any taller or heavier than an opposed-twin or four, so that's what I was asking about (and about which I learned a lot).

Some American outboard racing history trivia: Talk about heavy engines, take another look at the four-carb Anzani in the photo above. The builder of that 322cc engine once put two of those engines side-by side on a gearbox to make an engine for the 700cc class; 1968 I think. Two engines, thus two cranks, two cast-iron blocks, and the special gearbox; also four megaphones, lots of carbs, and 20% nitro. One engine had its cylinders pointed forward, one engine pointed aft (like the single engine in the photo). In those days, ignitions were pretty weak, and to keep from fouling plugs two crew members would bodily lift the back of an alky boat to get the prop free of the water on start-up. The driver or a 3rd crewman would rope-start the engine, the driver would give it a little throttle to keep it running for several seconds to warm up slightly and clear the plugs, and then the two guys holding up the back of the boat would sort of throw it forward as the driver gave the engine enough throttle to climb on plane. Well, I had the questionable luck to be one of four crew who held up the back of the boat which carried this twin-Anzani monster. As it happened, the boat was a big and old and HEAVY DeSilva runabout, with a big HEAVY driver! I think all four of us got hernias!! Unfortunately the engine kept fouling plugs, and never got fully on-plane with several tries, so we gave up. The whole deal was a last-minute project for a single race, and there just wasn't enough time to sort it out. The project was abandoned, the powerheads were taken off the gearbox and went back to normal use. Sort of too bad the project was not tried again a couple of years later when good electronic ignitions came into use. It would have been a handful in the turns, but 120-plus horsepower would have been quite a ride for those days. This is the sort of project that far-gone 2-strokers love; not entirely practical, but wild and cool and FUN.

[husaberg]

Was going to lurk but, . . . An inline four with modern wide-sweeping ports would be hugely tall, and a twin-crank four would be heavy. It seems to me that a V-twin or V-four need not be any taller or heavier than an opposed-twin or four, so that's what I was asking about (and about which I learned a lot).

.

there is a few ways around this the Kawa Trapezoid 750/4 shorter than a square 4 narrower than a 3

.....

Yamahas OW48R or TZ500J

http://classic-motorbikes.net/wp/yam...istory-part-3/

BSL500 note how much room there is for the Transfers on both triples


NS500/RS500


Then again for a boat you could do a stacked crankcase radial.........

[seattle smitty]

Wonderful engines and photos, thanks for those! They all look big and heavy for today's outboard racing, but certainly food for thought. I think any triple has to have four main bearings, whereas an opposed-four can do with three and an opposed twin with two. One of the things I wondered about is if that also could be done with 90degree V-twins and fours; could adjacent crankcase sections (for adjacent cylinders) have a wide, flat, full-circle crank throw between them (no main bearing), with a labyrinth seal around the crank-wheel, . . . would a seal like that work at high rpm and effectively seal the two crankcase sections, and if it did would the oil retained by the seal have a lot of drag?

Rossi built a 350 triple for several years, an opposed triple, with number one and three cylinders pointing left and number two pointing right. Funny-looking thing, but it won races. Now he sells a 350 opposed twin, lower and lighter and lots of snort out of the corners, and hard on lower units.

There was at least one radial outboard, though not for racing. in the 1950s, the Riley 75 was a five-cylinder 4-stroke flathead radial, big, heavy, complex, and expensive, intended to power cabin cruisers. I don't think many were sold, and never saw one. George Riley was a talented mechanical innovator, built aftermarket hop-up heads for Model T and Model A Fords, and other stuff. Google "Riley 75 Outboard" and click on the FiberGlassics link for photos.