ESE's works engine tuner

[karter444]

So here it is as simple as can it be made - NO STEP IS BEST - but this does NOT mean grind the duct to make it round OR bigger in any way.
If its a 3 port or a T port, then the duct exit should be around 75% of the total effective Ex area, then the spigot should transition to 100% round diameter.
If its a single port, the duct should be around 90% exit area, with no step and the header the same diameter if its round.
If you have a really dumb 3 port or T port with a round exit, THEN CHANGE IT.


Re the angle area of the RSA.
The answer is all to do with finely balancing all the variables to optimize the end result.
Do you REALLY think that if going to 204* was actually better then why the hell wouldnt Jan do exactly that.
We have had the same question on here about the pipe dimensions,why not simply make it shorter and fatter, well if that was better
do you really think that it would not have been done.
I have been running thru pipe designs for a 250 KTM for a road racing kart, and discovered in the sim that going over 132mm belly diameter makes
NO MORE power.


Aprilia under Jan would have actually thought about this and built the pipe - I dont need to waste my time, its called diminishing returns, proven easily now
by a major step forward in computing ability.

Wobbly you say that the pipe didn't make any more power with a dia over 132 mm but did it make less power , we are running a pipe that is 147 mm dia ???

[jonny quest]

I'm not Wobbly, but when I built pipes that were too big, yes they lost power. And more noticeable the motor revved slow and was just lethargic and flat.

[husaberg]

Aprilia under Jan would have actually thought about this and built the pipe - I dont need to waste my time, its called diminishing returns, proven easily now
by a major step forward in computing ability.

Yes but I remember Frits saying a few times that Jan Thiel had to develop the cylinders to suit the Great leaders pipes, This may have changed later of course.

My thoughts is that you are jumping to conclusions, Dutch. But you are forgiven because I will admit that it is logical to assume that Jan developed that pipe.
In reality he didn't; technical director Witteveen (or The Great Leader as he was called) did; pipes were his hobbyhorse. And each time Jan Thiel had to adapt the cylinder to get it running with Witteveens pipe designs; not a great way to commit development.....

... never needed anybody looking for things to do, Wob; there were always more things to do than time, equipment and the Great Leader permitted.

Changing something in a highly-developed engine will almost invariably lead to a power loss and it will take quite some development to establish whether the change was worthwhile, but Jan Thiel did not get the opportunity to carry out this small-bore development because it was aborted by the Great Leader when there was no immediate improvement.
I expect that at the very least the axial scavenging angles would have to be adapted to the altered bore/stroke-ratio.

[wobbly]

Maybe Jan was under the thumb somewhat with the pipes, but still they were up to Tubo 120 or something so plenty of
experimental ideas were a failure.
But something he did say was that they didnt pay enough attention to the changes in fueling when trying out the new pipe ideas.
In that many pipes with changes to dimensions made little difference, but may have been better/worse if the carb tuning was strictly optimized to suit.
I have taken this onboard and find now that I need to change jets for nearly every single small change in any part of the engine, just to get back
to my baseline peak power egt on the dyno.

Re the KTM road racing pipe.
My best pipe so far has a diffuser end ( belly front ) of 135 diameter and a rear cone diameter of 132.
Going up to 138 with either steeper diffuser angles, or a shorter or longer rear cone to suit, was always within no more than 1.5Hp everywhere across the powerband.
Sometimes a bit more down low and less on top or visa versa.
The 135/132 has the best average everywhere, and as these things have a wide spaced MX gear ratio split with something like a 1500 rpm drop when running to 10800
and selecting 5th, the front side power slope is just as important as the overev.
As I have stated before I believe that we have finite energy available from the advancing wave front, and in this case the best result I could get from the engine
involved a slightly steeper diffuser, but as soon as I shortened/lengthened ( reangled ) the rear cone I lost power - thus I ended up with a slightly tapered mid section
just as the Aprilia had.

[TZ350]

And now for a sideline question. It's been a little quite from the ESE boys for a while now and I suspect that means great things are happening.
Give us a little progress snippet while we wait for the patient office & FIA.

No not much happening, work (the real work) has been keeping us pretty busy so not much being done on the bikes at the moment.

I am looking forward to learning more about the Ryger engine and hope that combined with the other clean technology's like direct fuel injection that it will herald a new era for 2T's.

Hi Rob, how's the fuel injection project going? North island series is just around the corner and I'm looking forward to seeing the beast in full flight.

The old Beast has been stripped and the rolling chassis is destined for a new venture as Flettners F4 supercharged 100 or maybe a test bed for his 700cc twin or maybe the 1000cc triple two stroke track bike project he is thinking about.

That is right, 1000cc's of triple cylinder, highly tuned, insane two stroke power, soon you might be able to buy an engine from Auto Flight, fit it to whatever you like and go full on all out Track Day Kamikaze with more power than the legendary Yamaha TZ750.



I am confident about 2T's and EFI and expect to use EFI and a Plenum on the new Beast, but as much as I am looking forward to riding it, the new Beast is probably not going to be ready for the start of the season because the team is trying to get a brace of 14+rwhp 50's ready for F5 this year.

If the Ryger engine concept is easy enough to adapt to an existing 2T engine then I will definitely be trying that too.

[lodgernz]

Try this for another rule of thumb - I have found that most full noise RACE engines built with single exhaust ports, like the exit area at the flange ( and thus the header diameter ) at 90% of the EFFECTIVE port area.

Never mind, I found it.

[TZ350]

Some of the work I am doing on my RG50



The crank on the left has been machined right back to the thrust washer surface. An original RG50 one is on the right.



Original RG50 crank at the top, modified crank at the bottom. The object is to un shroud the bigend eye for cooling and lubricating reliability. Remove stagnant pockets that damp the resonance effect in the crank case and reduce aerodynamic drag as the rod passes between the crank webs and also move as much as possible of the crankcase volume to be directly below the transfers.



Most of the original volume below the old reeds will be filled in and shaped to direct the airflow coming in through the lower set of reeds up into the transfers.

The reed block is going to be divided into two functional halves, an upper half serving the inlet and boost port and the lower half serving only the crankcase volume. Basically there will be two separate inlet tracts.



The rear boost ports have been opened up so they can function like one big Yamaha RD style boost port. The reed block and inlet tract is being divided into two separate tracts because I want a ram effect when the inlet closes. I want this ram effect to drive up through the boost port like the RD's did.



The lower reed inlet tract will feed the lower transfers like Boyson ports do and also the greater crank case volume, while the upper reed inlet tract will feed the boost port and the changing volume under the piston through the original inlet ports.

After the reed experiment will be a 24/7 conversion. It should fit nicely into the old reed block housing.

I am looking for 18 rwhp at 15,000 rpm. Anyway that is the plan. I guess the dyno will tell us if it was a good plan.

[Flettner]

No not much happening, work (the real work) has been keeping us pretty busy so not much being done on the bikes at the moment.

I am looking forward to learning more about the Ryger engine and hope that combined with the other clean technology's like direct fuel injection that it will herald a new era for 2T's.



The old Beast has been stripped and the rolling chassis is destined for a new venture as Flettners F4 supercharged 100 or maybe a test bed for his 700cc twin or maybe the 1000cc triple two stroke track bike project he is thinking about.

That is right, 1000cc's of triple cylinder, highly tuned, insane two stroke power, soon you might be able to buy an engine from Auto Flight, fit it to whatever you like and go full on all out Track Day Kamikaze with more power than the legendary Yamaha TZ750.




I am confident about 2T's and EFI and expect to use EFI and a Plenum on the new Beast, but as much as I am looking forward to riding it, the new Beast is probably not going to be ready for the start of the season because the team is trying to get a brace of 14+rwhp 50's ready for F5 this year.

If the Ryger engine concept is easy enough to adapt to an existing 2T engine then I will definitely be trying that too.

1050cc, 3 x 350cc

[ken seeber]

I know the feeling Neil. I'm very glad to be involved with the Ryger engine, but it has also made me very reluctant about everything I thought I knew about two-strokes.

Frits, haven't asked you any questions of late, so by saying "...............everything I thought I knew about two-strokes", did this mean specifically 2 strokes or engines in general?

[Frits Overmars]

So - if you had a super ceramic fit, no piston rings. Piston sides are spherical with no gudgin pin (fixed) so that the piston is forced to rock forward and aft through the cranshaft rotation (like these silly little chinese compressors). On the way down there would be more blowdown time because the piston would be rocked forward as the crank turns around BDC the piston would rock the other way giving more transfer time. Substantial asymmetric timing.
How the underside of the piston would shut the exhaust off at TDC I can't say...

Could you say how the underside of the piston would shut the exhaust port off at any position, Neil?
We did some playing around with this type of piston too, but it's no good for a two-stroke.

If I had a R&D dept with 100 people all looking for things to do i would be testing the relationship of the duct length,its exit area and the optimum transition length.

I'd have them all changing tyres cause I hate changing tyres and it turns out I'd be a vindictive power tripping control freak of a boss.
Ohh the things you find out about yourself in a moment of fantasy.

Let alone the things you are about to find out about people in R&D departments. They don't change tyres. None of them (in the glory days when Aprilia was ruling the roost in the 125 and 250 cc classes, there were not 100 but 150 people working in R&D).
Taking care of the tyres was the responsibility of the racing teams, that were completely separate from the R&D dept. And they didn't change tyres either; they just dropped the wheels at the Dunlop, Michelin or Bridgestone service trucks, went for a glass of Lambrusco a cup of coffee, and picked them up again.

I know the feeling Neil. I'm very glad to be involved with the Ryger engine, but it has also made me very reluctant about everything I thought I knew about two-strokes.

When you first saw / heard of the numbers, what was your reaction? And how many times did you double-check that everything is just as it seems and that there is no miscalibrated dyno, rpm gauge etc?

When I first heard the numbers, I was very sceptical. When I first got acquainted with the engine, this was my reaction:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130866554
There was no need (but a huge desire) to double-check the feeling of that first ride.

If the Ryger engine concept is easy enough to adapt to an existing 2T engine then I will definitely be trying that too.

You may have to farm out some of the work, but you will be able to keep using most of your current parts.

I am looking for 18 rwhp at 15,000 rpm. Anyway that is the plan.

You should be looking for 20 rwhp at 13000 rpm. That is more realistic. And faster. PS: I love your crankshaft.

Frits, haven't asked you any questions of late, so by saying "...............everything I thought I knew about two-strokes", did this mean specifically 2 strokes or engines in general?

Are you pulling my leg Ken? When I wrote 'everything I thought I knew about two-strokes', I meant two-strokes. Is there any other kind?
I think I know what you wish to hear. The laws of physics haven't changed but I am beginning to realize that I neglected some aspects of the gas dynamics in an engine as being unimportant, until Harry Ryger showed what can still be found there. I'd really love to be more specific, but that will have to wait until I get the green light.

[RAW]

Frits. I'm looking for a RSW 125 engine that is unless you have an RSA 125 lying around under the bench. Any help would be greatly appreciated

[husaberg]

Frits. I'm looking for a RSW 125 engine that is unless you have an RSA 125 lying around under the bench. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Pretty Sure Riley Will had one for sale a while back.
http://brceng.com/brc-motorsports/
Had an idea Francis Payart was making some singles to.

Someone was doing CNC dual rotary valve singles but can't remember where.

[Frits Overmars]

Frits. I'm looking for a RSW 125 engine that is unless you have an RSA 125 lying around under the bench. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Don't look at me. Both Jan Thiel and I always steered away as far as possible from anything commercial. We don't buy, we don't sell, we don't mediate.

[Frits Overmars]

Someone was doing CNC dual rotary valve singles but can't remember where.

That was dutchman Thijs Hessels, but he stopped work on his twin disc engines when the 125 cc GP-class was killed.

[Flettner]

Could you say how the underside of the piston would shut the exhaust port off at any position, Neil?
We did some playing around with this type of piston too, but it's no good for a two-stroke.


Let alone the things you are about to find out about people in R&D departments. They don't change tyres. None of them (in the glory days when Aprilia was ruling the roost in the 125 and 250 cc classes, there were not 100 but 150 people working in R&D).
Taking care of the tyres was the responsibility of the racing teams, that were completely separate from the R&D dept. And they didn't change tyres either; they just dropped the wheels at the Dunlop, Michelin or Bridgestone service trucks, went for a glass of Lambrusco a cup of coffee, and picked them up again.

When I first heard the numbers, I was very sceptical. When I first got acquainted with the engine, this was my reaction:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130866554
There was no need (but a huge desire) to double-check the feeling of that first ride.

You may have to farm out some of the work, but you will be able to keep using most of your current parts.

You should be looking for 20 rwhp at 13000 rpm. That is more realistic. And faster. PS: I love your crankshaft.

Are you pulling my leg Ken? When I wrote 'everything I thought I knew about two-strokes', I meant two-strokes. Is there any other kind?
I think I know what you wish to hear. The laws of physics haven't changed but I am beginning to realize that I neglected some aspects of the gas dynamics in an engine as being unimportant, until Harry Ryger showed what can still be found there. I'd really love to be more specific, but that will have to wait until I get the green light.

Oh, the bloody green light, when?

Would the FOS concept, if it were fitted on the Ryger engine, be better or worse? Gas flow wise.
https://youtu.be/htukflbiqSE
Might Ryger be up to something along these lines (or have we already coverd this)