ESE's works engine tuner

**Frits Overmars** · 15th May 2013, 20:06

Originally Posted by RomeuPT

If the T port likes opening dead flat and the two aux's port likes staggered, I wonder what would an W exhaust port likes....

Putting three cooling fins inside the exhaust duct; what a Wonderful idea. That must be what the W stands for, innit?
Normal port bridges can at least convey the heat to the surrounding metal at both ends; these one-ended W-fins really are the worst you can think of.

**senso** · 16th May 2013, 05:22

Originally Posted by F5 Dave

Eating rings for breakfast?

They are pretty reliable, they only eat rings when the tuner has the bright idea of removing some width/thickness from them, and then the hot exhaust gas make the nicasil coating to flake and the rings dont really like that nice soft alumium liner at all.

I gets a bit worse, because allmost all the cylinders that have those W shapped exhaust ports don't have cooling all around the exhaust port, only on top and part of the sides, the lower tooth as very marginal cooling.

I don't know if I already said, but thanks Wobbly for the pressure values

**RomeuPT** · 16th May 2013, 06:27

Originally Posted by Frits Overmars

All other things being equal, more horsepower goes together with more exhaust gas energy. But the connection is not linear and all other things are never equal.
Exhaust gas energy is mainly effected by squish, ignition timing, flame speed and compression ratio. And as I tried to explain before, you can overdo it with diffusor and reflector angles; there is no maximum but there is an optimum.

Can we create a rule of thumb for the optimum belly diameter / exhaust volume/cc ratio a pipe should have?

**Frits Overmars** · 16th May 2013, 09:12

Originally Posted by RomeuPT

Can we create a rule of thumb for the optimum belly diameter / exhaust volume/cc ratio a pipe should have?

It is included in my 'FOS exhaust concept'.

**F5 Dave** · 16th May 2013, 12:23

Originally Posted by senso

. . . .he nicasil coating to flake and the rings dont really like that nice soft alumium liner at all.. . .

Sorry I was being a bit silly.

and to continue that theme; I think the rings would love the bare ally, they'd gobble it up in no time.

**senso** · 16th May 2013, 13:30

I understood, we can't be serious all the times.

**RomeuPT** · 16th May 2013, 14:07

Originally Posted by Frits Overmars

It is included in my 'FOS exhaust concept'.

Sure, it is....Thanks

**Kickaha** · 16th May 2013, 18:15

Not strictly Bucket legal but does anyone want a Barton Phoenix? one of the guys on the UK sidecar forum is selling this

I have for sale a Barton Phoenix square four two stroke race engine, it is for re build and is missing one gear shaft/gears but that should not be a problem as there are many people that could make a new part.These engines where used in the Barton 750 race bikes and in the silver dream racer film and of course Nigel Rollason used one to power his sidecar to a win at the TT. How many did Barton make ? no records exist but i am sure it would have been in the low teens at most, Barton sold out to Eric Buell in America and i have seen a dyno sheet showing over 160bhp. I am open to serious offers for the engine. You can have either Barton or Armstrong cylinders.
Contact racing50chris@aol.com Please not this is a complete engine inc dry clutch and cranks and disc valves/covers etc and just missing a gear shaft and some gears.

**F5 Dave** · 17th May 2013, 09:16

Kevin Cameron did an article on Buell back in the day describing his folly of buying the Barton concern & spending countless hours trying to fix the F'ups in the design. That said if one won a TT it must have some pedigree.

I like his ltd liability approach to marketing "Barton sold out to Eric Buell in America and i have seen a dyno sheet showing over 160bhp"
Yeah I've seen a dyno sheet for 160hp, it was on a K5 GSXR with a pipe & PC. Or does he mean the Buell ones may have reached 160? Or even perhaps the original. Technically I didn't lie your 'onour.

**TZ350** · 17th May 2013, 17:42

Originally Posted by Frits Overmars

Originally Posted by RomeuPT

Can we create a rule of thumb for the optimum belly diameter / exhaust volume/cc ratio a pipe should have?

It is included in my 'FOS exhaust concept'.

Click image for larger version.

Name: FOS Expansion Chamber Design.gif
Views: 237
Size: 24.5 KB
ID: 282886

........ found it.

**husaberg** · 17th May 2013, 17:47

Originally Posted by TZ350

........

Did ya get to read the other link i sent you Rob?

**TZ350** · 17th May 2013, 19:31

uitlaat_berekning_simpel_2011.xls

Yes, thanks Husa

**husaberg** · 17th May 2013, 20:14

Originally Posted by TZ350

uitlaat_berekning_simpel_2011.xls

Yes, thanks Husa

No this one

**Frits Overmars** · 17th May 2013, 22:38

Originally Posted by TZ350

uitlaat_berekning_simpel_2011.xls
Yes, thanks Husa

Originally Posted by husaberg

No this one

These XLS-files were made by people unknown to me; they apparently based their files on the above drawing of my FOS Exhaust Concept.
I do not take any responsibility for these files. In the first one I happened to notice that the diameter of the tailpipe restrictor is used for the whole tailpipe, which can hurt the engine. I could not even open the 'No this one'-file.

**husaberg** · 17th May 2013, 23:17

Originally Posted by Frits Overmars

These XLS-files were made by people unknown to me; they apparently based their files on the above drawing of my FOS Exhaust Concept.
I do not take any responsibility for these files. In the first one I happened to notice that the diameter of the tailpipe restrictor is used for the whole tailpipe, which can hurt the engine. I could not even open the 'No this one'-file.

Try this one?
That was my fault too many Htts i guess.. The pics seem to have disappeared though............

I figured that, but it was fun to play with never the less

Originally Posted by husaberg

Anyway this is a better one based on a simplified Frits Overmars design.