ESE's works engine tuner

[tjbw]

And the last picture for now (I could only upload 6 pictures per post):
Attachment 319006

Applause!

Thanks Frits

[Martin1981]

Frits, your crumb links do not work anymore. Intentionally?

[yesyes]

eager to hear the screaming engine

[bjorn.clauw.1]

And as I have said a dozen times on here, its only in lawnmowers that the dropping piston has anything to do with promoting flow
from the conventional case - thru the transfers,as there is more pressure above than there is below the piston at TPO.
The Ryger is using a very small trapped volume, that is compressed substantially by the larger diameter piston portion.
Thus it simply doesnt need a ton of blowdown to reduce the combustion pressure above the transfers, and as well it doesnt need the big negative pressure
ratio created by the diffuser to pull mixture into the cylinder when the piston is at BDC.
So a single Ex port seems entirely reasonable and expected.
The top end workings I believe we have pretty much guessed the trickery, as for the 30,000 rpm capable bottom end - darkness and guessing are really confusing
and we are not even close to reality yet.

After looking at the patent pictures I'm even more confused about the rpm claims. No immediate part/piece that made me say 'why didn't I think of that'. Everything looks strangely familiar. (besides transfers and piston offcourse).

Looking at the crossection of the cilinder there seems to be a huge obstruction in the exhaust duct (or I am misinterpreting this drawing) Seems to go along with what I have read about HCCI. With this obstruction could it be possible when the transfers open on the downstroke there is still a lot off pressure inside the cilinder which pressurizes the volume under the piston creating a high pressure cushion under the piston effectively slowing it down near bdc so the weight of the piston is taken out of the equasion. Maybe even HCCI combustion under the piston. (Cushioning on downstroke and accelerating the piston from bdc so crank doesn't have to push it up as hard / would make the choice of using 2 seal rings on the transferplate more logical in my eyes; pumping just air, one would surely be enough?). I believe the higher than normal rpm's are required to deliver power in this engine (not 30000rpm but surely higher than normal). And since the crank and rod do not look massively reinforced there has to be some clever trick to this. anyone any thoughts on this?

[SwePatrick]

Pumper carbs are alot more complex than you would think.
The 3 main tuning variables are pop off pressure, diaphragm lever height, and needle positions.
What are these variables at the moment - if you dont know, and or cant change all these,then you cant tune one.
If you can tune the top end OK with the H needle, but need the L out too far to get response off idle then you need to drop
the pop off a couple of psi.
This will then allow much less L needle but still be rich enough to accelerate off idle.
But then the H needle will need to go in some to lean off the top end.

The other issue I can see is PVL.
What is the stator coil resistance - as most of these ignitions are useless on a racing 2T as they have almost no retard at all.
If its 50 ohms you have a straight line ignition off a KZ2, useless - if its 200 ohms then you have around 7* retard, still useless.

Thanks a bunch Wobbly.
This reply guided me into tuning popoff pressure, I have ordered a lot of different springs, i´m waiting for those.
earlier this week(yesterday) I tested to modify the throttleblade a bit.
It actually became a bit better.
I also had a small fuelleak between the pumpunits, so I also ordered complete rebuildkit.

I have only run 2 pulls in dyno, 1st one reached 26.07hp only tuned it run proper above 10000rpm, it never reached any temp in pipe so I'm very curious about the final result.

And yes!
PVL is only retarding ~10degrees as is.
But I use it as it is rock solid, never any hickup.
I got Ignitech laying in a box waiting to get back on the engine when I need to fineadjust lower powercurve.

[dark art]

It can run at 30k but that doesn´t mean it does. IMO the claims were peak R&D achievable numbers, production engines may not reflect that.

[bjorn.clauw.1]

It can run at 30k but that doesn´t mean it does. IMO the claims were peak R&D achievable numbers, production engines may not reflect that.

Quite right. Was going to reply that it maybe turned 17000rpm vs 14000 for maximum hp but then I compared the gear ratios to a maxter mxo and they are nearly identical. Surely the ratios would be different if it made max hp at higher rpm's? So maybe 'normal' rpm's and 50-70bhp. That would be something else.

[tjbw]

After looking at the patent pictures I'm even more confused about the rpm claims. No immediate part/piece that made me say 'why didn't I think of that'. Everything looks strangely familiar. (besides transfers and piston offcourse).

Looking at the crossection of the cilinder there seems to be a huge obstruction in the exhaust duct (or I am misinterpreting this drawing) Seems to go along with what I have read about HCCI. With this obstruction could it be possible when the transfers open on the downstroke there is still a lot off pressure inside the cilinder which pressurizes the volume under the piston creating a high pressure cushion under the piston effectively slowing it down near bdc so the weight of the piston is taken out of the equasion. Maybe even HCCI combustion under the piston. (Cushioning on downstroke and accelerating the piston from bdc so crank doesn't have to push it up as hard / would make the choice of using 2 seal rings on the transferplate more logical in my eyes; pumping just air, one would surely be enough?). I believe the higher than normal rpm's are required to deliver power in this engine. And since the crank and rod do not look massively reinforced there has to be some clever trick to this. anyone any thoughts on this?

I don't think that there is an obstruction in the exhaust port, it looks more like a transfer port! (Obstruction should be shaded if it's on cylinder section line. Though it could be an anti detonation device, as shown by Wobbly recently)

Love the HCCI on downstroke thought. I guess that would make it a 1 stroke engine, if only there was some mixture left for the other power stroke. Also it wouldn't be a 125cc engine anymore.

[2005bully]

While contemplating the Ryger engine. If substantiated the performance numbers that have been thrown around will go down in history as legendary..... But the larger legacy Ryger has to offer is "low exhaust emissions from a competitive hi rpm 2 stroke". Being a new design surely more potential power exists with in the concept. If this first attempt is at least marginally competitive, the collective efforts of this forum alone should be enough to turn it into a winner. It just might be Goodbye to the 2 smokes.... Kermit Buller

[SwePatrick]

Might be hard to see.
But red arrow show where I´m left wondering.
How is it flowing enough to get above 5hp?
Is the homologisation papers edited to hide things?

As this 'pipe' that protrudes into cylinder goes full circle, in that way it restricts flow quite a bit.
That 'pipe' is the holder for the seal as I understand it, that seals off the crankhouse from the small 'pumphouse'.

[d2t]

Frits,
Can we have some clarification regarding terminology in the Ryger engine? Surely you guys already refer to the parts with names you've already adopted. Under-piston-pumping-area is maybe pre-compression compared volume displacement zone??? Are the lower cylinder's rings considered part of the piston or cylinder? [EDIT: obviously now it is part of the "lower cylinder," I see.] I think it would help if we all refer to these things by the same name for the sake of clarity.

[MotleyCrue]

After looking at the patent pictures I'm even more confused about the rpm claims. No immediate part/piece that made me say 'why didn't I think of that'. Everything looks strangely familiar. (besides transfers and piston offcourse).

Looking at the crossection of the cilinder there seems to be a huge obstruction in the exhaust duct (or I am misinterpreting this drawing) Seems to go along with what I have read about HCCI. With this obstruction could it be possible when the transfers open on the downstroke there is still a lot off pressure inside the cilinder which pressurizes the volume under the piston creating a high pressure cushion under the piston effectively slowing it down near bdc so the weight of the piston is taken out of the equasion. Maybe even HCCI combustion under the piston. (Cushioning on downstroke and accelerating the piston from bdc so crank doesn't have to push it up as hard / would make the choice of using 2 seal rings on the transferplate more logical in my eyes; pumping just air, one would surely be enough?). I believe the higher than normal rpm's are required to deliver power in this engine (not 30000rpm but surely higher than normal). And since the crank and rod do not look massively reinforced there has to be some clever trick to this. anyone any thoughts on this?

Is there a link to the patent somewhere ?

[wobbly]

Still nothing on the CIK site this morning, but here are the homologation papers for the Ryger.
Now the fun begins.

https://www.facebook.com/luc.foekema...9441588&type=3

Sorry - I see its already been posted, but much of the detail is hidden, when I get the CIK full version I will post them.

Edit - several new engines have just been loaded on the CIK site, Maxter,DEA,OTK and a new compulsory muffler for KZ2 and a new airbox.
So the full Ryger papers must be less than a day away.

[Flettner]

Thank you again Frits, Now would you talk us through this masterpiece. What are we missing?
For example where are the 11 transfers? Or are we saying each transfer has two ports, one in and one out. So that would be five transfer passages and one slot?
The rings certainly look like they touch the piston by the shinny top surface of the ring we see exposed.
There must be fine detail we are missing?

[Grumph]

Thank you again Frits, Now would you talk us through this masterpiece. What are we missing?
For example where are the 11 transfers? Or are we saying each transfer has two ports, one in and one out. So that would be five transfer passages and one slot?
The rings certainly look like they touch the piston by the shinny top surface of the ring we see exposed.
There must be fine detail we are missing?

I think we're looking at the version they felt comfortable homologating. The V1.0 if you like. What the V2.0 looks like and whether this or V2.0 is what Frits drove we may not see for while.
If I was in charge of the programme at Ryger, I would certainly be looking at staging the release in order to at least make money off each stage.