ESE's works engine tuner

[husaberg]

i'v seen the engine , very nicey made but only taken 15 years to build (-;

F-ing amateurs.........I could stretch that out to 20 easy.....

[chrisc]

What are those four things in the top of the head and where are the transfer ports?

[Martin1981]

Where are you from? Hmm, no, sorry. We'd be ok if Martin or Frits were buying.


Sorry little harsh, just kidding.

No problem Dave, if we start a 2 stroke fanatic barbeque in New Zealand someday, you will get the finest beer from Germany! if it is fine in comparison to New Zealands beer...

[TZ350]

Page ... 160

Eliminating technical development is the last thing I want. Besides, defining what is allowed will make the rulebook five times as thick and there will always be omissions. For example, you won't be allowed to change your tire pressures if the rulebook doesn't say that you can.

Oh I agree. The alternative does exist, though, there are competition classes that basically specify a standard production vehicle and a very short list of permissible alterations. The objective is obviously to remove any variables other than the pilot.

And while I don't have a problem with that I don't find such racing very interesting. Probably because I'm a singularly inept pilot. I do enjoy seeing technical innovation reaping rewards, though. I guess the trick is balancing the rules in order to penalise both skill sets as little as possible.

I agree. In Dutch moped racing there are two classes with a lot of technical freedom. Together they share one page in the rulebook with room to spare. That part of the rulebook is 'allowed unless mentioned'.

There are also two classes where the bike has to remain 99% standard. Together they occupy 8 pages in the rulebook. They also cause eight times the amount of discussion at scrutineering. This part of the rulebook is 'forbidden unless mentioned'. And let me tell you: I hate to write this kind of rules.

These standard classes came into being because of the increasing number of riders that don't know a spark plug from an exhaust pipe. They offer great racing but zero technical inspiration; they have produced riders at european championship level, but decent mechanics are threathened with extinction.

my time would be better spent focusing on handling, but that's not nearly as interesting as making hp.

Oh, but it is. Once you experience what you can achieve by turning a pair of shock absorber knobs, you'll be hooked.

Old technology is what we have to work with and the first step to making more power with the ports in the right place on these outdated engines is to organise sufficient effective cooling for the target power output.

True, and it's not only valid for old engines. Modern engines are not so prone to seizing, but they won't produce real power either without good cooling.

Originally Posted by Frits Overmars
Nowadays an engine needs a large crankcase volume, all the port area you can cram into the cylinder circumference, good ducts for efficient flow and directional control, an exhaust that sucks and blows hard at the appropriate moments, and cooling, cooling, cooling.

Nowadays an engine needs a large crankcase volume, all the port area you can cram into the cylinder circumference, good ducts for efficient flow and directional control, an exhaust that sucks and blows hard at the appropriate moments, and cooling, cooling, cooling.

[speedpro]

That engine is interesting with the 360 crank but with a 180 reciprocating counterbalance in the lower case. Sort of like the Ducati supermono idea but for a parallel twin. It looks to be properly reciprocating as well rather than pivoted like the supermono.

[chrisc]

Swoon. Proton anyone?

Kenny Roberts Collection for sale

[Frits Overmars]

An interesting side read about an engine in development with a local engineering firm. http://engrich.co.nz/?page_id=310

I must say their craftsmanship looks good, even if it's a foulstroke. But their 'unique tungsten balance system' reminds me of the 'mass compensation' in the BMW F800, so maybe it's not so unique after all. And they forgot to mention the aircooling which really must be unique these days. Can't understand why they did that.

No problem Dave, if we start a 2 stroke fanatic barbeque in New Zealand someday, you will get the finest beer from Germany! if it is fine in comparison to New Zealands beer...

I don't know about NZ-beer (yet). I hope it isn't anything like Aussie beer; I tried that and it was like making love in a canoe: f*cking close to water

[Dutch Fisher]

Swoon. Proton anyone?

Kenny Roberts Collection for sale

Roberts has been trying to sell those bikes for about 4-5 years now, still no cheque in the post.

I still can't fathom why the modesto mafia boss went with, and still doggily stayed with, the 3 cyl design (as opposed to a 4).

Frits, your a journo, any rumbles from the press pack as to why? #ijustdontgetit

[husaberg]

Kenny told the press pack at the time it was because the lap times for the 500 fours was not much better than the 250 twins (which was true)
He reasoned he could build a smaller frontal area and have a better handling bike that was easier on tyres and easier to ride.
ie more consistently fast over the whole length of the race.
He was also getting not much development at all from Yamaha. Doing most of within his own team

From memory the 500 twins could be lighter but not I believe the 3's.
I have a few articles about it. I have likely posted them eons ago.

But the main reason was he was Kenny.

I also note that Kenny lost his tittle to Freddy on a slower Honda 500 3.
The advantage was the three was more nimble and better on tires.
I think the weight of the 3 and 4 was actually similar at the time.
Plus Spencer was f-ing incredible at the time helped.

[2T Institute]

Long v's Short rod, I don't think the mechanics are the over riding factor. I think the tuning window is wider on the shorter rod, longer rods do odd things to carburation. So you have to try to disregard most of your prior knowledge. Keep going with the longer rod and you come out ahead.

That version of the V3 was the sweetest sounding two stroke ever, had such a shrill high pitched wail. The whole V3 thing was a bit of a schmozzle with the original TWR designed shitbox engine even having solidly mounted carbs. Wasn't until 2 semi retired engineers from GP's (Yoda and Oguma san) completely redesigned the engine did it go and handle as good as it should. Real tragedy was just as they got that triple hammering it was 4T time with a sad case of "deja vu all over again" and built his own 4T engine, then it started to really go when HRC gave them a RC 211V V5 engine

[Frits Overmars]

Frits, your a journo, any rumbles from the press pack as to why?

I stopped writing motorcycle articles for a living in 1981, Dutch. But if you ask me, Roberts could never forget being beaten by Fast Freddy on the Honda triple,
just like Husaberg says.

[Dutch Fisher]

I guess being beaten by the Gallina Suzukis 2 years in a row didn't hurt that much, as he wasn't driven to building a square-4 disc valver

[F5 Dave]

I must say their craftsmanship looks good, even if it's a foulstroke. But their 'unique tungsten balance system' reminds me of the 'mass compensation' in the BMW F800, so maybe it's not so unique after all. And they forgot to mention the aircooling which really must be unique these days. Can't understand why they did that.

I don't know about NZ-beer (yet). I hope it isn't anything like Aussie beer; I tried that and it was like making love in a canoe: f*cking close to water

its a mixed bag here for beer. We`re now doing a lot of really excelent beers but the main mcdonalds brands are terrible. Dont ever try the sadly named nz beer steinlager and think it representative.
The belgians, they do some unnatural things with beer.

[wobbly]

KRs reasoning was exactly the same conclusion we came to at BSL when working thru what to build for the 500GP class.
The tripple had a 10Kg weight advantage over the 4 and if this goal could be met then it would have a better power to weight
than what Mr W was trying to do at Aprilia with the big twin.
Honda were doing the 500 twin and the factory version had reportedly 140 Hp at the sprocket, so we figured around 155 was needed for a 3
and that is what we ended up getting.
Getting down to weight was quite another thing though, and even with fully CNC machined frames/swingarm parts and Ti pipes it was still over weight.
The issue KR had was that there were big ego's involved along with some very clever ideas that Mike Sinclair and others were wanting to use
like ducted cooling as seen on the Britten,but in the end what KR said went and the team went thru all manner of painful iterations of designs
that really waisted time and money.
This was exemplified by one design that was done by the guy who did Freddies tripple,that vibrated so badly it was impossible to hang onto the bars
and made less power than Hondas twin.
That engendered the typical comment from KR after he gave the BSL a throttle handful in the pits at PI,simply saying to his team " those fuckers know
way more about balance than any of you cunts".
Not so charming but sadly true at the time.

[wobbly]

Re the RZ/Banshee crank.
The best way to get what is really needed is to add the plastic inserts each side of the pin, and machine off the stepped
up area opposite.
Then rebalance it with some extra Mallory - the stock crank wheels were designed for a 250, now the same wheels are used with 68MM and bigger
pistons with longer and heavyer rods.
So its miles out of balance to start with,as you can see I have added a single Mallory slug that was intended to correct for 73mm big bore 485cc.
Machining off the step gets you some volume as well as giving the flush inner face like an Aprilia.