Page 1772 of 2625 FirstFirst ... 7721272167217221762177017711772177317741782182218722272 ... LastLast
Results 26,566 to 26,580 of 39365

Thread: ESE's works engine tuner

  1. #26566
    Join Date
    26th April 2013 - 21:55
    Bike
    BMW R1200R 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Frits Overmars View Post
    I think I already did tell, some time ago.
    With the same obligatory 30 mm carburettor, the 24/7 engine produced 5 hp more than the standard engine, and revved 500 rpm higher.
    The injected engine had good driveability; anything more would be for Roland himself to reveal.
    I could invite Roland to tell us here but I'm not sure if he has sufficient English. We always speak German when Italians are listening, and vice versa (Roland is from Süd-Tirol, the German-speaking part of Italy). Besides, he is always pressed for time. And when he finds some time, he gives lectures to interested youngsters.
    Attachment 331785 Attachment 331786
    Frits, do you know if Roland has plans to experiment with your 24/7 system on other types of 2 stroke engines where the rules do not prohibit such a device ?

  2. #26567
    Join Date
    20th April 2011 - 08:45
    Bike
    none
    Location
    Raalte, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,341
    I don't think so; he is tied up to his elbows in kart engine development.

  3. #26568
    Join Date
    2nd August 2011 - 11:11
    Bike
    none
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    28

    Modena 24/7

    Frits....was the power curve for the 24/7 motor showing better HP and torque everywhere versus the stock Modena engine? Do you know at what rpm the reeds were opened? It would be interesting to see the results from testing the motor on a kart to see if the power improvement on the dyno yielded quicker lap times on the track.

  4. #26569
    Join Date
    20th April 2011 - 08:45
    Bike
    none
    Location
    Raalte, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,341
    Quote Originally Posted by dtenney View Post
    Frits....was the power curve for the 24/7 motor showing better HP and torque everywhere versus the stock Modena engine? Do you know at what rpm the reeds were opened? It would be interesting to see the results from testing the motor on a kart to see if the power improvement on the dyno yielded quicker lap times on the track.
    I cannot discuss the powercurves here; I will leave that to Roland if he chooses to do so.
    Like I wrote, and as you may have noticed in the pictures, the reeds were opened by a cam on the crankshaft because the use of a servomotor would not be allowed.
    So at low rpm the reeds opened and closed with every revolution of the crankshaft. At higher rpm their inertia prevented them from completely closing and at even higer rpm they simply stayed open.

  5. #26570
    Join Date
    11th October 2016 - 21:23
    Bike
    1974, Guzzi, 750s
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by wobbly View Post
    Any program for comparing ports must compensate for for both the axial and radial angles.
    Port chordal width * height is pretty much useless for anything meaningful.
    Its the effective FLOW width* height * cosine up angle* open period ( for Specific Time Area ) that is used in EngMod.
    Is that effective flow area the traditional "mean area" that is the area to the mid angle between opening and closing of the port measured from opening? Is that calculated directly from radial area (chordal not used in the calculation)? edit:with angle corrections?

    Forgetting the mean area concept, wouldn't chordal width be the effective flow width? edit:when corrected for angles.

    Edit: The way I thought the areas should be calculated:
    1. Calculate chordal width of the port
    2. Compensate that and height for axial and radial angles
    3. From that, calculate mean area (based on mean angle between opening and closing) from opening of the port

    Any help indicating where I went wrong would be appreciated.

  6. #26571
    Join Date
    20th April 2011 - 08:45
    Bike
    none
    Location
    Raalte, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jannem View Post
    Is that effective flow area the traditional "mean area" that is the area to the mid angle between opening and closing of the port measured from opening?
    There is no 'mean area'.
    The mean area was an approach, thought up by Gordon Jennings when he tried to explain the concept of time.area in his Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook of 1973,
    when mere mortals had no access to computers. The 'mean area' approach provided some insight in the matter, but it was not exact.

    Jennings based his time.area ideas on an SAE-paper written by Naito and Nomura, the engineers who developed the 125 cc and 250 cc four-cylinder Yamaha GP racers. These gentlemen did not sit on their findings but made them available to the world right after Yamaha withdrew from Grand Prix racing, which was very commendable and almost unheard of, especially for a Japanese company.

    Naito and Nomura published time.area values for inlet, transfer and exhaust, and Jennings quoted those as the optimum values.
    The inlet and transfer values were pretty close, but the exhaust value was far from optimal; it was only the maximum that could be achieved with a single exhaust port. If Naito and Nomura had thought of auxiliary exhaust ports, they would have come up with a much larger exhaust time.angle value and a big leap in horsepower.
    Returning to Gordon Jennings: he apparently neglected the importance of blowdown time.area, which still makes itself felt to this day.
    I do recomment reading his book, but one should never take anything written for granted (except when I wrote it, of course ).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook.png 
Views:	134 
Size:	314.2 KB 
ID:	331813

    EDIT: I tried to upload the whole book, but it's too big.

  7. #26572
    Join Date
    25th March 2004 - 17:22
    Bike
    RZ496/Street 765RS/GasGas/ etc etc
    Location
    Wellington. . ok the hutt
    Posts
    20,500
    Blog Entries
    2
    I must find it, think I know which stack it is at the bottom of. He makes an amusing anecdote of the calculations that may be possible if one had access to a computer at home.
    How easy it is to feel smart with the benefits of time (as I tap away at my supercomputer telephone lying in bed)
    Don't you look at my accountant.
    He's the only one I've got.

  8. #26573
    Join Date
    11th October 2016 - 21:23
    Bike
    1974, Guzzi, 750s
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Frits Overmars View Post
    There is no 'mean area'.
    The mean area was an approach, thought up by Gordon Jennings when he tried to explain the concept of time.area in his Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook of 1973,
    when mere mortals had no access to computers. The 'mean area' approach provided some insight in the matter, but it was not exact.

    Jennings based his time.area ideas on an SAE-paper written by Naito and Nomura, the engineers who developed the 125 cc and 250 cc four-cylinder Yamaha GP racers. These gentlemen did not sit on their findings but made them available to the world right after Yamaha withdrew from Grand Prix racing, which was very commendable and almost unheard of, especially for a Japanese company.

    Naito and Nomura published time.area values for inlet, transfer and exhaust, and Jennings quoted those as the optimum values.
    The inlet and transfer values were pretty close, but the exhaust value was far from optimal; it was only the maximum that could be achieved with a single exhaust port. If Naito and Nomura had thought of auxiliary exhaust ports, they would have come up with a much larger exhaust time.angle value and a big leap in horsepower.
    Returning to Gordon Jennings: he apparently neglected the importance of blowdown time.area, which still makes itself felt to this day.
    I do recomment reading his book, but one should never take anything written for granted (except when I wrote it, of course ).
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Two-stroke Tuner's Handbook.png 
Views:	134 
Size:	314.2 KB 
ID:	331813

    EDIT: I tried to upload the whole book, but it's too big.
    Thanks, that's where I got this concept from. What puzzles me is that Engmod screenshots here quote "Mean eff area" which look a lot like the Jennings mean areas and reported STA values seem to be based on those. Perhaps for "universal" comparison purposes, even if the simulation wouldn't use them in any way?

  9. #26574
    Join Date
    8th February 2007 - 20:42
    Bike
    TZ400
    Location
    tAURANGA
    Posts
    3,885
    The inclusion of Mean Eff Area,I think was just an afterthought on Neels part - due to the legacy of Jennings etal,no one uses it.
    What is important is that the STA numbers for the Blowdown and Transfers is well proven to work effectively for the vast majority of engines.
    At the extremes of very low or very high specific output the problem is that we are dealing with a single dimensional simulation and by definition
    this is ultimately limited in what it can achieve.
    In any sim the STA number for the Ex is basically useless,as lifting the port floor and increasing the bottom corner rads has way more effect ( positive )
    on eliminating short circuiting and increasing the duct velocity.
    A real good example of a very high power anomaly is the RSA Aprilia sim.
    In this the raw numbers dont seem to match what the dyno says is possible.
    This is due to the fact that the transfers are pretty much described perfectly, but the Ex in the engine has a huge radius on the timing edge.
    Thus the real Cd of this port is way in excess of what a simple EPO description would indicate.
    But I have done hundreds of sims on a huge range of race engines and the end result if one realizes and uses small fudges to more accurately reflect reality,
    has proven time and again to be very accurate.
    A factor of around 12% drop going from the crank power result in the sim, will be seen on a DynoJet ( and yes I know that rig has a big inbuilt power fudge,but the comparison works way more often than not ).
    Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.

  10. #26575
    Join Date
    3rd January 2012 - 01:25
    Bike
    -
    Location
    -
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Frits Overmars View Post
    I think I already did tell, some time ago.
    With the same obligatory 30 mm carburettor, the 24/7 engine produced 5 hp more than the standard engine, and revved 500 rpm higher.
    The injected engine had good driveability; anything more would be for Roland himself to reveal.
    I could invite Roland to tell us here but I'm not sure if he has sufficient English. We always speak German when Italians are listening, and vice versa (Roland is from Süd-Tirol, the German-speaking part of Italy). Besides, he is always pressed for time. And when he finds some time, he gives lectures to interested youngsters.
    Attachment 331785 Attachment 331786
    That sounds like a nice improvement! Do you happen to know if this is 5 hp more than an ideal kart reed setup, or if it is 5 hp more on the engine which was optimized for the 24/7 and then run with closed reed cage (and eg a crankcase compression ratio which had been optimized for the 24/7 setup)?

    Then just tell him that there are many interested youngsters here on the board (I guess some on the outside and the inside, others more on the inside than the outside but who cares really). From what I recall there are several people on the board able to translate the occasional german or italian sentences or words. Should be manageable I'd say.

  11. #26576
    Join Date
    27th October 2013 - 08:53
    Bike
    variety
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    942
    heres what I have so far, 3.5" inside the existing arm. probly start welding tomorrow. no turning back now so don't say it will break and ill wreck
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20170715_215917.jpeg 
Views:	125 
Size:	727.4 KB 
ID:	331814  

  12. #26577
    Join Date
    18th July 2015 - 16:21
    Bike
    2015 Avanti
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by katinas View Post
    Remember one test with first piston and Rygerised Ns 250 cylinder with sleeve from my racing days.

    Raised boost windows, halfway between Ex open and main transfers open. Started and it feels very different, something very reactive, and little more revs.
    Outside was cold April rain, so I cant test on road and decide to rise even more, just 1 mm after Ex open. Started it and immediately feel engine laziness. It revs, but not fast as before. On the road was slow acceleration with terrible noise. But maybe without pipe would be different. So feel sorry, that not tested with with halfway boost.
    Piston in photo from std. engine, just for better view
    With your work so far, have you equalled the power of the std 125 yet?
    Early days I know.

    Neil

  13. #26578
    Join Date
    11th October 2016 - 21:23
    Bike
    1974, Guzzi, 750s
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by wobbly View Post
    The inclusion of Mean Eff Area,I think was just an afterthought on Neels part - due to the legacy of Jennings etal,no one uses it.
    What is important is that the STA numbers for the Blowdown and Transfers is well proven to work effectively for the vast majority of engines.
    At the extremes of very low or very high specific output the problem is that we are dealing with a single dimensional simulation and by definition
    this is ultimately limited in what it can achieve.
    In any sim the STA number for the Ex is basically useless,as lifting the port floor and increasing the bottom corner rads has way more effect ( positive )
    on eliminating short circuiting and increasing the duct velocity.
    A real good example of a very high power anomaly is the RSA Aprilia sim.
    In this the raw numbers dont seem to match what the dyno says is possible.
    This is due to the fact that the transfers are pretty much described perfectly, but the Ex in the engine has a huge radius on the timing edge.
    Thus the real Cd of this port is way in excess of what a simple EPO description would indicate.
    But I have done hundreds of sims on a huge range of race engines and the end result if one realizes and uses small fudges to more accurately reflect reality,
    has proven time and again to be very accurate.
    A factor of around 12% drop going from the crank power result in the sim, will be seen on a DynoJet ( and yes I know that rig has a big inbuilt power fudge,but the comparison works way more often than not ).
    Thanks, this is helpful to compare the results. One thing I immediately noticed comparing my 60cc single ex.port to TZ's single exhaust port 125cc with similar bore/stroke ratio, that single ex.port gets progressively better with decreasing displacement. Probably not big news for the pros, but enlightening for newbie, like myself.

    Did a quick comparison between 125cc vs. 60cc with differing bore/stroke combos and ex.port widths. Used simply port width % of the bore and 10% of stroke height, assuming port position to be same vs. stroke.

    128cc with 1.08 B/S, 74% port produces same area/cc as 60CC with 1.13 B/S and 58%.
    Square would compare to 60% and 0,86 B/S to 63%.

    If both are 70% ports, area/cc is about 40% bigger in the 60CC.
    If you compare the 60CC with 70% port to square B/S 50CC with 70% port, the 50cc has 20% more ex. area/cc for only 20% less displacement. Square 40CC with 70% port would have whopping 40% more area/cc than the 60CC mentioned.

    It seems also that if you are inclined to increase displacement of single ex.port engine either by boring or stroking, the stroking would be beneficial from ex. perspective, although more challenging for other timings. From transfer flow perspective, it's not so easy to say which one would be better...
    Of course, it's been discussed here often that square with good transfers and triple exhaust is the way to go, if you get to choose. Emphasis on the triple ex increasing with increasing displacement.

  14. #26579
    Join Date
    20th April 2011 - 08:45
    Bike
    none
    Location
    Raalte, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Haufen View Post
    Do you happen to know if this is 5 hp more than an ideal kart reed setup, or if it is 5 hp more on the engine which was optimized for the 24/7 and then run with closed reed cage?
    Quote Originally Posted by Frits Overmars
    With the same obligatory 30 mm carburettor, the 24/7 engine produced 5 hp more than the standard engine...
    Quote Originally Posted by Haufen View Post
    just tell him that there are many interested youngsters here on the board... Should be manageable I'd say.
    Just what would you manage? Rolands spare time? I'm sure he will be very grateful if you can find him a couple of free minutes now and then .

  15. #26580
    Join Date
    3rd January 2012 - 01:25
    Bike
    -
    Location
    -
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Frits Overmars View Post
    Just what would you manage? Rolands spare time? I'm sure he will be very grateful if you can find him a couple of free minutes now and then .
    Just making sure I understood correctly. An increase in performance of 11% in a competition engine is not peanuts.

    I was referring to the language barrier, if there should be any. And I was thinking that, if he finds time to educate others, he might as well do it on this board from time to time. The ratio between the number of people he can reach per minute of time invested is quite good.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 21 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 21 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •