ESE's works engine tuner

[jato]

hey guys i have some wossner pistons of 64mm and 225gram with no pin. i guess the machinist is lazy and doesnt give a shit. the same wiseco is just 185g. what do you think the extra strain on the conrod will be at 4000fpm piston speed?

I get around 1800 newtons extra load using stroke/rod length/revs of a tz 350 ,so thats most of 180 kg extra. I'd be a bit nervous at real high rpm...

[peewee]

I get around 1800 newtons extra load using stroke/rod length/revs of a tz 350 ,so thats most of 180 kg extra. I'd be a bit nervous at real high rpm...

yes im a bit nervous. i dont know why it would be that heavy. even 250cc piston with stronger conrods are less than 225g. maybe i call wossner tomorow

[jamathi]

[QUOTE=wobbly;1131150899]There is a finite amount of energy available from the Ex port generated wave front within the pipe.
In Aprilias case the diffuser action must have been more efficient than the trapping efficiency numbers.
Thus the angles needed in the rear cone gave better power the steeper they were.
Tapering the mid section allows a bias to be generated toward scavenging ( bigger front mid section ) or toward trapping ( bigger mid section end ).
I have done several designs where scavenging needed additional help , so the diffuser needed to be steeper.
The new TM KZ engine is an example - in this case I needed to make the last diffuser way steep to generate better front side power , and the rear cone could not be as steep as it limited overev ability
thus the mid taper is reversed.[

Longer and steeper rear cones were already used on the 50 & 125 Bultaco's in 1979 when I worked there. So of course the max diameter had to be bigger!
It also worked very well on the Minarelli & Garelli 125cc twins.
And in 1995 on the Aprilia!

Your TM exhaust looks really WONDERFUL!

[jbiplane]

All pistons, from Rygerised to RGV

According my experience Rugerised engine very heavy to start. Seems I have to increase piston squirt from intake side or do something else.
Sometimes we gives up in attempts to start 550cc engine witg pull starter. If launched works well, but really hard to start.

[jonny quest]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/n...ener-formula-e

[wobbly]

Andreas , the very very shallow angle of the mid section , be it expanding or contracting , has only a tiny effect in comparison to what can be achieved with the much steeper cones on one side of it.
It does affect belly volume as well , but again only marginally % wise.
In the TM design I did the bias was needed in favor of the last diffuser , as this made instant front side power, in the sim and on the dyno.
But at the same time the 3 section rear cone was overly efficient in that with the same entry diameter as the enlarged diffuser end , it shut off too hard over the top of the powerband.
I tried longer and shallower rear cone angles , and this gained some overev , but at the expense of too much peak power ( I think this came down to the reflection duration now being too long ).
The next step was to reduce the convergent entry diameter.
This helped the overev shutoff rate ( alot ), and to my delight - lost only a tiny amount of peak.

[wobbly]

Jan , as Frits would say " thank you for the flowers ".
But the TM job would not have happened without your support - to this day I cant tell if Franco is grateful or annoyed ( maybe both equally ) that the new
design was even better than he asked for.

[Pursang]

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/n...ener-formula-e

All Very encouraging.......Until: "the design would be more prescriptive in an effort to keep a lid on costs".

They want to encourage development of exciting, new, powerful and environmentally effective engines, then restrict how this will be done.

Typical of F1!!

How about just specifying a maximum engine capacity and maximum emission levels (operating output PLUS construction & environmental disposal).
Then let the greatest innovators and engineers produce their solutions.
Variety of options is what the highest levels of motorsport require, Not uniformity! I reckon 'real' F1 died in the 70's.

cheers, Daryl.

[andreas]

Andreas , the very very shallow angle of the mid section , be it expanding or contracting , has only a tiny effect in comparison to what can be achieved with the much steeper cones on one side of it.
It does affect belly volume as well , but again only marginally % wise.
In the TM design I did the bias was needed in favor of the last diffuser , as this made instant front side power, in the sim and on the dyno.
But at the same time the 3 section rear cone was overly efficient in that with the same entry diameter as the enlarged diffuser end , it shut off too hard over the top of the powerband.
I tried longer and shallower rear cone angles , and this gained some overev , but at the expense of too much peak power ( I think this came down to the reflection duration now being too long ).
The next step was to reduce the convergent entry diameter.
This helped the overev shutoff rate ( alot ), and to my delight - lost only a tiny amount of peak.

Yes ok, I follow your work with great interrest.

[jamathi]

Jan , as Frits would say " thank you for the flowers ".
But the TM job would not have happened without your support - to this day I cant tell if Franco is grateful or annoyed ( maybe both equally ) that the new
design was even better than he asked for.

Franco will be operated next week, he has a tumor in his throat.....

[TZ350]

I reckon 'real' F1 died in the 70's.

cheers, Daryl.

I absolutely agree ..........

[TZ350]

According my experience Rugerised engine very heavy to start. Sometimes we gives up in attempts to start 550cc engine witg pull starter. If launched works well, but really hard to start.

this is what I use with difficult engines.

[Frits Overmars]

They want to encourage development of exciting, new, powerful and environmentally effective engines, then restrict how this will be done. Typical of F1! How about just specifying a maximum engine capacity and maximum emission levels (operating output PLUS construction & environmental disposal).

An important aspect when drawing up rules is: you must be able to measure what you prescribe.
Measuring those emission levels would be a hell of a job; you'd have to chase those F1 cars. Or you could measure them at a fixed set of circumstances on a dyno. Just ask VW how it's done.
Joking apart, if you specify maximum emission levels, you no longer need to limit the engine capacity as well. This approach is not entirely new; decades ago Keith Duckworth of Cosworth fame proposed to limit only the fuel consumption in F1. The environment was not yet invented back then, but it would at least have limited CO2 emissions. And engine-wise it would have been a free-for-all: two-strokes, fourstrokes, diesels, turbines, fuel cells, you name it. That would really bring out the best form of propulsion (Duckworth secretly thought of a two-stroke providing the exhaust gases for a turbine that powered the gearbox).

[ken seeber]

Frits, good timing, was thinking about the same thing:

Jeez, if it was true then great. Suggest we forget all that CC stuff:

1. Fixed volume of fuel issued to all competitors prior to start
2. Must use at least 5 gears per lap (ie from 1st to 5th)
3. Regen via hybrid is ok
4. Batteries must be capacitive only and demonstratably empty prior to start of race.
5. Minimum noise level of XXX dBa past the start/finish line every pass.
6. Probably have to chuck in all the current safety stuff
7. Only one car per even per driver
8. One tyre for the total event (wet, dry or both), single supplier
9. Anything else ???

[Pursang]

An important aspect when drawing up rules is: you must be able to measure what you prescribe.
Measuring those emission levels would be a hell of a job; you'd have to chase those F1 cars. Or you could measure them at a fixed set of circumstances on a dyno. Just ask VW how it's done.
Joking apart, if you specify maximum emission levels, you no longer need to limit the engine capacity as well. This approach is not entirely new; decades ago Keith Duckworth of Cosworth fame proposed to limit only the fuel consumption in F1. The environment was not yet invented back then, but it would at least have limited CO2 emissions. And engine-wise it would have been a free-for-all: two-strokes, fourstrokes, diesels, turbines, fuel cells, you name it. That would really bring out the best form of propulsion (Duckworth secretly thought of a two-stroke providing the exhaust gases for a turbine that powered the gearbox).

Agreed, with such a varied range of propulsion solutions, individual monitoring is not a good option.

Let each Entrant determine their own emission levels.
All Measurements, assumptions and calculations to be publicly available for review by their peers, and any other interested parties.

(Propulsion Engineering) Protests to be adjudicated by an independent panel of Scientists and Engineers. Not race promoters..
All protests must be supported by appropriate Measurements, assumptions and calculations, not a "they're too quick, I think they must be cheating"
On-board management system transmissions are recorded by the race committee during events, for review by the Protest Panel, if required.
Protest process & results including all Measurements, assumptions and calculations to be publicly available for review by their peers, and any other interested parties.

Very Public Humiliation for Cheats! (ask VW what that feels like & costs)
Clever interpretations of the Rules, on the other hand, will be available for further consideration, by all entrants and interested parties.

Assumes that F1 wants to be seen as being at the leading edge of technological development, not just mobile billboards, all moving at the same speed.

Cheers, Daryl