ESE's works engine tuner

[Wos]

i know, i know but doesn't make much sense if standard methods can be applied (or sth was lost in translation). nor does boomforming remove material limits (e.g. minimal bending radius).

Right daniel...not without inside model...

Which sharpness is necessary?


Maybe a grinding job on Welding seam could do ...

[SwePatrick]

Injection progress. =)

I´m having some pleasant issues at the point
The rear swingarm flexes so i loose traction on dyno (fixing that now as we speak)
And still with some 'unhappy' engine i managed to dyno 79.7rwhp(corrected) at 10800rpm, i havent focused so much on drivability yet when mapping the ecu.
I´ll fix that later when snow is gone so i can take it for a drive and log things.

I had issues his summer with the flex also, the chain wouldn´t stay on when we pushed it hard, so it is needed.
I made the swing myself, and might have took it to far with trying to have it lightweight :O

There is more power lurking in this old TZR engine =)
But i said when i´m reaching 80rwhp i´ll start play with my nitrous setup.

I´m aiming for 100rwhp(with nitrous)



And after looking at the setup i found that an injector was bad. maybe that´s why it misfired so much.
There are some logic to that, the injectors are coming from my Mercedes AMG, i swapped them due to one was hanging open.
And this case, one injector broke, started to leak o fuel on the floor, so i swapped it out.
And maybe i just happened to mount that one that was hanging open.

And why i didn´t flood the engine fully is that injectors maxflow is reached at ~90% throttle at ~10000rpm.
Thats where the secondaries are coming in.
And that´s why it misfired when in low load, and at top where the VE is getting lower.

[aljaxon]

you keep on reading your own thoughts in other peoples words.
a change in diameter (or better, cross section as Wobbly says, because you could also make a square exhaust) is not the same as a change in angle.

janbros you obviously have a problem with me so do us a favour and dont reply if you are not being constructive.

i have questions and would like them answering so as to be able to cut out errors in my already limited knowledge of pipe design.

i could see a sharp angled change in a the pipes sections (although not having a change in cs) still act as if there is a change in cross section.
and that is why i asked if this is so. i was told angles can rob energy hence the disadvantages of too many angles.


andmany thanks to wobbly and Vannik for taking time to offer their help and knowledge.

[F5 Dave]

Please don't take offense, but I believe JanBros was being constructive. The thing about constructive criticism is that it is criticism and it is easy to take offense.

You are obviously strong willed, we are lucky to have some real experts to lend us their time. I think the best approach is to read their posts several times and not try force the answers into preconceived ideas. One should always test theories, sure, but be prepared to give them up if other evidence, or in this case experience of experts, moves the learning forwards into a different environment.

Cheers.

[wobbly]

Al , it must be a nightmare trying to filter the fuckwits out of a technical discussion as you again have the wrong end of the stick.
Quote " i was told angles can rob energy hence the disadvantages of too many angles ".
I can categorically tell you the number of angles ( cuts ) is completely irrelevant.
In fact for achieving the multi plane U bend shapes needed for say a big MX bike , more cuts is better to keep away from the 7* max I advised ie two 3.5* would be way better than one 7*.
Even simply slightly angling up the pipes on a rear facing cylinder , by having 3 small cuts instead of one sharper version - further away from the manifold , absolutely made more power on the BSL500 dyno single.

[pete376403]

Rimar Motors pipework https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...44.-2207520000

[diesel pig]

Al , it must be a nightmare trying to filter the fuckwits out of a technical discussion as you again have the wrong end of the stick.
Quote " i was told angles can rob energy hence the disadvantages of too many angles ".
I can categorically tell you the number of angles ( cuts ) is completely irrelevant.
In fact for achieving the multi plane U bend shapes needed for say a big MX bike , more cuts is better to keep away from the 7* max I advised ie two 3.5* would be way better than one 7*.
Even simply slightly angling up the pipes on a rear facing cylinder , by having 3 small cuts instead of one sharper version - further away from the manifold , absolutely made more power on the BSL500 dyno single.

And this the invaluable Info that this Thread is great for and what was ( I think) F5 Dave was pointing at. It literally saves one from making a dozen different pipes and then working out why one make's slightly move power than the others.

[Vannik]

i have questions and would like them answering so as to be able to cut out errors in my already limited knowledge of pipe design.

i could see a sharp angled change in a the pipes sections (although not having a change in cs) still act as if there is a change in cross section.
and that is why i asked if this is so. i was told angles can rob energy hence the disadvantages of too many angles.


and many thanks to Wobbly and Vannik for taking time to offer their help and knowledge.

Something I wrote a while back, maybe you have not seen it.

[Frits Overmars]

Something I wrote a while back, maybe you have not seen it.

Educational and entertaining as always , Neels. Expressions such as 'lift shaft type transfer passages', and 'Armadillo pipe' the other day, make me giggle.
Maybe you can throw in your 'Gasdynamics - Finite Waves vs Sound Waves 101 - Issue01.pdf'. That should keep our enfant terrible occupied during the holidays.
Speaking of which: all the best for everybody

[Vannik]

Educational and entertaining as always , Neels. Expressions such as 'lift shaft type transfer passages', and 'Armadillo pipe' the other day, make me giggle.
Maybe you can throw in your 'Gasdynamics - Finite Waves vs Sound Waves 101 - Issue01.pdf'. That should keep our enfant terrible occupied during the holidays.
Speaking of which: all the best for everybody

You mean this one:

[Frits Overmars]

You mean this one:

Yup........

[Pursang]

SANTA LOVES TWO STROKES



Seasons Greetings everyone!

[Frank S.]

Something I wrote a while back, maybe you have not seen it.

The more I read here, the more I see that I know less about pipes

Merry Christmas to all

[Gradella23]

Thats easy - change the Exhaust timing to get superposition ( that is an endless combination set of TL and EPO ) where you want it , to get back the Hp.
Just one of many options available - look at the RSA with a TL of 800 and an effective EPO of 81*, that gave max power at 13000 but it also had a PWM - PJ in play
so the KZ pipe would have to jigged around that issue.
But if you have a programmable ECU then a PWM - PJ is easy if the regs allow it.
Then you may as well add a 42mm carb , a PV and a Rotary Valve - see where this is going.
Jan spent a couple of days on my simulation of the RSA and got 60 Hp , having never used a sim before - see where that is going.

Fun game this; since we didn't see any 125cc racing product with a 42mm carb since 2011 (besides maybe the 250 superkarts with Aprilia like cylinders), what do you think It should be affected from a cylinder design perspective, taking into account 10+ years of kz2 development that took us over 50hp with fixed Advance, 30mm and fixed compression?
No free lunch Just adding a bigger carb and change the pipe i guess

[wobbly]

But the 'just add a 42mm and change the pipe " scenario would make the engine useless.
Not only in karts where it would have insufficient front side , but in Roadracing where it would need the PWM PowerJet to enable ovrev potential
as the Port/Pipe combination would have to be biased toward front side ( so it had some ) and thus compromising high rpm power.
To make it work it has to have a Rotary Valve as well , and if that is going on its just a modernized RSA.