ESE's works engine tuner

[ceci]

3 and 4 types is very similar, except that 3 type, with extended transfers deeper in the crankcase and with relatively higher position of intake tunnels, works in normal way.

The normal operation is that of scheme 2, it seems a standard configuration.
The operation of scheme 3 is much lower than scheme 2, I think this is due to the fact that a percentage of the charge gets trapped in the crankcase (in scheme 1 this percentage of charge if it is used and transferred to the cylinder).
You are doing a great job of research, which is revealing important questions for a better engine development.

[katinas]

Ceci, 2 scheme is not normal std cylinder. The main central intake windows are closed with epoxy and all intake goes through enlarged side tunnels directly to transfer ports, partly to trans window partly through cylinder side cutouts as they are standard, not closed.
Add two dyno graphs for comparison
RED- 2 type with closed main intake ports
GREEN- Same cylinder, just main intakes ports are opened ( brake out epoxy ) say 2.1 type.
30 minutes between tests. Piston is the same with side pockets.

[Norman]

Ceci, 2 scheme is not normal std cylinder. The main central intake windows are closed with epoxy and all intake goes through enlarged side tunnels directly to transfer ports, partly to trans window partly through cylinder side cutouts as they are standard, not closed.
Add two dyno graphs for comparison
RED- 2 type with closed main intake ports
GREEN- Same cylinder, just main intakes ports are opened ( brake out epoxy ) say 2.1 type.
30 minutes between tests. Piston is the same with side pockets.

Thanks for information. It would also have been interesting to see the 1 type without the 1/4 opening and also sensitivity to a bit of changing on the transfer channel volumes..But, a lot of work to do all this. What would you say is the "baseline" power level of the engine?

[katinas]

Norman, yes transfers ports volume, with fully blocked freeway communication between crankcase and transfers ports (just one way from crankcase to transfers ports through side reeds), very important maybe critical for 1 type schematic performance. With ¼ open free way to crankcase add little torque at mid rpm, but top end not changed as tested on the road.
Cylinder bottom wall area must be fully exploited for side reed valve with 1 type. Still tested only with two side reed petals, but still left free places on the wall to add another pair. With 1 type schematic on the road engine feels much stronger than 2 type in upper gears, maybe because of cooler charge that goes directly from carb.

Honda NS cylinders designed for 9.800-10000 rpm max power and the biggest restriction is small reed house. Reed cage is even little smaller, than usually used on MX 85 cc engines, and testing on dyno shows big improvement with CR 85 reed cage and even more with Husqvarna/KTM 85 v force3 all the way from bottom to over rev.( later add graphs )
Now start adapt Honda CR 125 1981 cylinder with so much bigger transfers ports ( that maybe wrongly left from last air cooled CR 125 and not needed for new water cooling engine) , two exhaust ports, and normal for 125 size of reed house.

[Norman]

Norman, yes transfers ports volume, with fully blocked freeway communication between crankcase and transfers ports (just one way from crankcase to transfers ports through side reeds), very important maybe critical for 1 type schematic performance. With ¼ open free way to crankcase add little torque at mid rpm, but top end not changed as tested on the road.
Cylinder bottom wall area must be fully exploited for side reed valve with 1 type. Still tested only with two side reed petals, but still left free places on the wall to add another pair. With 1 type schematic on the road engine feels much stronger than 2 type in upper gears, maybe because of cooler charge that goes directly from carb.

Honda NS cylinders designed for 9.800-10000 rpm max power and the biggest restriction is small reed house. Reed cage is even little smaller, than usually used on MX 85 cc engines, and testing on dyno shows big improvement with CR 85 reed cage and even more with Husqvarna/KTM 85 v force3 all the way from bottom to over rev.( later add graphs )
Now start adapt Honda CR 125 1981 cylinder with so much bigger transfers ports ( that maybe wrongly left from last air cooled CR 125 and not needed for new water cooling engine) , two exhaust ports, and normal for 125 size of reed house.

A big improvement over STD which should be around 21-23? It will be interesting to follow your continued work.

[katinas]

With all std stuff, stock engine 1 cylinder rear wheel power is about 16-18 at 9500 rpm.
Add video ( youtube- ESE NS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbZwRLXAmIY) from dyno tests , I cant remember what was tried in this video, so many tests, but power started to drop as temperature rise more than 70 c.

[Tim Ey]

If I recall correctly, here were som folks that needed a 60mm piston?

Well, turns out I did too.





Overrev 60mm piston (by Wössner)
A specialitiy about this piston: The delivery scope contains two wristpins. A light and short pin and a longer, heavier version. The piston has two clip grooves each side - for the short pin, you are using the inner grooves, for the longer pin you will use the outer grooves. The idea is, to change the balancing factor of the crankshaft with very little measure. (And also to have an additional groove on the outside, for a Torlon Plug whilst using the shorter pin )

Ring position: 90° to the piston pin (central over the inlet)
Piston pin: 15mm
Compression height: 29mm
Piston dome height: 3mm
Piston length (without dome height): 64.5mm
Exact diameter: 59.94mm
Piston pin length: 45mm and 50mm
Weight, with the short pin: 199g
Weight, with the longer pin: 205g


If you need one, write me a PM.
Regards
Tim

[ceci]

But maybe your words, nicely confirms test that did not work. Most interesting and informative was 4 scheme test, when engine completely stop at 5000 rpm. as positive pressure blocked intake process when arrive at wrong time.

3 and 4 types is very similar, except that 3 type, with extended transfers deeper in the crankcase and with relatively higher position of intake tunnels, works in normal way.

Type 2, the crankcase, transfer tunnels and intake port is a single plenum.
Type 3, the solid barrier creates two plenums, to be less the% of the crankcase, this has better suction power.
Type 4, the reeds become a solid barrier creates two plenums, as the% of the crankcase is greater, it loses suction power

[katinas]

Yes, maybe this is one of the reason why 4 type capitulate, but maybe not one. When 3 type firstly tested two years ago on NS engine, did not feel any big changes at low and mid range from normal scavenging, but engine revs higher.
Then tested same on the Suzuki RGV (add photo), but actually this was not 3 type, as intake was placed at the bottom of transfers ports, so we can call it 3.1 type. And engine reaction was not like on NS with 3 type. At 8000 rpm in the first gear engine nearly stopped, but if overcome this, engine revs again. Then made two 16 mm holes on separator sides to add pressure from crankcase and this immediately eliminate dip. So only the location of intake to transfers differs for 3 and 3.1 types.
Maybe in theme, add engine reaction with different, intake through transfers, timing duration.
Thank you for good point.

[ken seeber]

UHV 6 180520

So, after some thought (and being tied up on other work related stuff) I thought it’d be easier to do the Jante style flow tests, not on a motored engine, but on a simple steady state arrangement. Fortunately our shop vac, blowing thru the setup created approx the same tip lift when being motored at around 3800 rpm. Printed up a simple base plate and gantry to carry a hypodermic syringe pick up needle which is then connected to a U tube manometer. The base plate has a grid of holes on a 4 * 4 pattern that small pins in the gantry locate into, the manometer height being recorded at each position.

Then conducted 3 tests. After reading the mm H2O heights at each grid point, these were put into Excel and subsequently converted to velocity points. For each test there is a pic of the valve and head. Must point out that there could be quite some differences between these steady state flows and that of a running engine at various loads and speeds.



Could be a bit flaky and dodginess in some instances, but the general flow characteristics can be seen:

A couple of quick comments could be:
3 petal. Very high flow in outer circumference plus a high central reverse flow. Not indicated in the test is the very high swirl nature, around 30 deg helical angle.
Annular. Very high central flow with a strong reverse flow down the outer circumference.
Convoluted. Similar to annular, but with a much lower, but universal downward flow and almost no reverse flow.




Overall, I think none of these is suitable, something that I will confirm soon when I can conduct a shootout of all these plus a standard (Schnurle) engine.

[SwePatrick]

Me again with all these questions

Is there any engine that shares the same Reedcage boltpattern as TZR250 (2ma) engine?

Rgds

[F5 Dave]

I'm going to say TDR250. But you knew that.

[SwePatrick]

I'm going to say TDR250. But you knew that.

Yeah,, 1kt(tdr engine) and 2ma (tzr engine) is almost the same ones

[husaberg]

Me again with all these questions

Is there any engine that shares the same Reedcage boltpattern as TZR250 (2ma) engine?

Rgds

I'm going to say TDR250. But you knew that.

boyseen 721
Fits
YAMAHA R1-Z 90-99

YAMAHA TDR250 88-

YAMAHA TZR250 85-87

Personally i woul be surprised if a few other YZ125 or DT200 ones dont fit.
One the back old old reed packets boyseen used to have a list by part number of what fitted what.
I have an old one but it buried somewhere.

[jbiplane]

Need advice.

I used on my 2-cylinder boxer crankshaft hardened to 48..52 hrc press fit of conrod pin 0.115 mm at diameter 24mm
Am I correct or it too much? Getting hesitated. Pin hardened to 60hrc and have internal 10.8mm hole...