ESE's works engine tuner

[bucketracer]

EFI could allow us to look at the plenum again.

Attachment 280684

The new plan, is to run the 24mm carb dry, run a ball inlet and TPS inside the plenum and fuel inject directly into the transfer ports.

I can understand keeping the old 24 carb, 24 carb equivalent and all that, but why run it dry? you could use it to run water for a bit of charge cooling, the surplus water would collect in the bottom of the plenum and could be drained to a catch bottle.



The Ball and TPS looks like it could do what you tried to achieve with the Vtec flap arrangement when you had problems with inlet resonance (the blaars) in the plenum before.

if we try the plenum again it will be with a short inlet and the VeTec inlet butterfly thing for changing the inlet resonance.

[koba]

So if everyone thinks it is the most, illegal, underhand, dastardly, or not in the spirit of Buckets etc please speak now or for ever hold your piece.
If not those that want one let me know.

I think its a bit stink.

"for ever hold your piece."

[bucketracer]

I think its a bit stink. "for ever hold your piece."

Whats stink, Husas spelling/grammer?

[koba]

Whats stink, Husas spelling/grammer?

Yes, that's obvious.

The home cast barrel is starting to depart from a non competition engine base.

Yeah, I know it's long been held that homebuilt = OK but is it? how far is too far?

Modifying a GP 125 barrel to replicate RSA porting is without a doubt OK but to cast a cylinder up based on factory race parts; too far?

My gut feeling says yes, it is.

It is around here that the inevitably blurry line between a modified non-competition engine and a specifically competition designed unit lies.

I've thought about making one and have dismissed it as illegal or at best just "too damn grey to go there".

[husaberg]

I think its a bit stink.

"for ever hold your piece."

Whats stink, Husas spelling/grammer?

Oh, i agree my grammer is real bad, but my smelling is beyond reproach

Yes, that's obvious.

The home cast barrel is starting to depart from a non competition engine base.

Yeah, I know it's long been held that homebuilt = OK but is it? how far is too far?

Modifying a GP 125 barrel to replicate RSA porting is without a doubt OK but to cast a cylinder up based on factory race parts; too far?

My gut feeling says yes, it is.

It is around here that the inevitably blurry line between a modified non-competition engine and a specifically competition designed unit lies.

I've thought about making one and have dismissed it as illegal or at best just "too damn grey to go there".

Modifying a GP 125 barrel to replicate RSA porting is without a doubt OK
but to cast a cylinder up based on factory race p̶a̶r̶t̶s̶;̶ design too far?

Malcolm I have tidied up that bit so people don't get the wrong idea.
Grey is drab. Rules unfortunately are not always black and white.

It should be noted that home built cylinders and engines have run at Bucket GP's before. So the precedent had already been set long long ago.
So it isn't starting to depart from the non competition engine, More the the horse she haft done long departed, meet a nice stallion retired to a farm and had some foals. Then was sent to a glue factory and made into kebabs.
Or to use your analogy the ship has long since sailed.

Personally i don't see it as against the rules but it would be a very boring world (not to mention very unlikely)
if everyone agreed with me.

With regard to design.
All two stroke porting is indeed based on race designs, mostly originating the from original work done by MZ IFA and DKW. Racing improves the breed and all that.

It just so happens in this case the work done by Mr Thiel and Mr Overmars and other, made freely available on the internet is more worth copying.

[Grumph]

If you're still using what started out as road crankcases then arguably it's still based on a road motor...

The Westoby bucket, pics of which were posted here on the chassis thread, has a barrel reputed to be a spare from the C3 built by the late Jim Cashman, which defeated the reigning world champion in the support class for the marlboro series....which predates many of the people posting on here.

Those barrels were cast in Dunedin I believe by Jim himself.

[husaberg]

Is this it with the right cylinders




To tell you the truth i never knew it was a bucket. I thought it was a 125 and i posted the pics (you had sent them to me though for the chassis thread)
stilll think in this case the spine was to compromised with the reed engine, Neat bike though, who has it now?
Neat rear disk well before they were common on the tidlers.

And as far as rules go, the official word from the MNZ Road Race commissioner is it was the INTENT of the rules blah blah blah and they also suggested that the Bucket community needs to be self policing

Heres a copy of the reply from MNZ, some on here have already seen a copy of this.


Subject: Re: MNZ rule clarification or rule change required
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:09:19 +1300

Hi again Gavin

The rule reads pretty clearly from where I'm looking - the use of competition engines and gearboxes is specifically disallowed ....... the ORIGINAL wording from 25 odd years ago is probably better, but what we have now is fine.

If we take your suggestion to its full extent, you have a major can of worms - for instance, there are several KT100 parts in an AG100 engine. There is the odd early RM part in a TF125. and so on etc etc.

As one who was building and racing buckets from the first day they escaped the Airforce, I can tell you the intent of the original rules was to encourage the building of performance, not simply the buying of horsepower in the guise of factory race parts. So the rules specifically excluded the use of these .... and there was no such thing as RS125 framed MB100 cylindered MB50's either. But centre-hub steered G4TR's with watercooled RG cylinders grafted on were rightly applauded. Homemade alloy monocoques with VT250 headed CB125 engines were cool, and LEGAL

The Bucket community needs to be self-policing to an extent - if people are building bikes with illegal parts, suggest you do something about it by putting pressure on the guilty parties yourselves

Hope this helps ??????

Cheers
Peter R

This was my original email asking for clarification ...

2010_MoMS_Chapter_24_Road_Racing_Miniature.

24.2.4 Engines must be derived from non-competition motorcycles. Motocross, Road Racing,
Enduro and Go Kart motors and transmission parts are not permitted

Seeking clarification on this rule. The extra S added after Go Kart motor above has led a lot of confusion over the wording.
Some people read this rule to mean while its clear on competition transmission parts, its not clear on competition motor parts.
As its worded, some interpret that a complete motor is not allowed, but interpret by some logic that they are allowed to use competition motor PARTS.
No I would not agree putting in race parts is the same in effect as using the whole engine.
These would be excluded if it were to read Go Kart motor and transmission parts, but with the extra S added to motor, it seems some read this that its only a complete motor that is not permitted.
A point to be looked at, but I think (motor"s") was to cover off all motors of what ever brand and not as you have interpreted it.

Has this been raised in discussion in before? Not to my knowledge Was the extra S added as a typo? It seems to me that is a typo, as why would you ban transmission PARTS but not motor PARTS?
It has come to light that some people seem to think it is in the rules to use Go Kart parts in some engines in "Bucket racing".
A notice on the MNZ web site should clarify this for all competitors.

Can you confirm the intention of this rule? And is it possible to have the wording changed if it has been a typo all these years?

The items in red were a reply from Paul Stewart part of MNZ.
Shame he wasnt able to add in some comma's in his first line, as it is, Im not sure if he agrees or disagrees

So after all that, I think they missed the point of my original query ..... oh well .....
Can't be long before two stroke bucket bikes will be banned, due to their carbon footprint anyway is it?
Oh and sorry for the thread hijack, but welcome to the Bucket forum, you'll get use to it.

[Bert]

Grey is drab. Rules unfortunately are not always black and white.

It should be noted that home built cylinders and engines have run at Bucket GP's before. So the precedent had already been set long long ago.
So it isn't starting to depart from the non competition engine, More the the horse she haft done long departed, meet a nice stallion retired to a farm and had some foals.
Or to use your analogy the ship has long since sailed.

Personally i don't see it as against the rules but it would be a very boring world (not to mention very unlikely)
if everyone agreed with me.

With regard to design.
All two stroke porting is indeed based on race designs, mostly originating the from original work done by MZ. Racing improves the breed and all that.

It just so happens in this case the work done by Mr Thiel and Mr Overmars and other, made freely available on the internet is more worth copying.

It would/will be interesting to see what some of the silver-backs (Enter Mr Speedpro & Mr F5Dave) think of this.
but since 1995 (I'm late starter so not a sliver-back) I've seen some really interesting backyard engineering and that is what makes this class so interesting.
But maybe that why some people are pushing for the name change to moto4 rather than formula 4 (and slowly removing the ability for those that can; to actually build stuff. like all the other boring classes i.e. superbikes).

I have to say I'm sitting on Husa's side of the fence on this one; this is in the spirit of the rules (and well within the actual boundaries of the written rules).
This concept is no different than someone using a motoGP (more likely a 600cc) grind on their new blank four-stroke cams....
I'm not sure why there has to be a line between modifying your barrel to this spec or casting a new one to the spec.
Each process requires skill that is hard learnt; and not forgetting the fact that these are not being produced as 125cc cylinders so they are still going to be a compromise...

The issue (real grey area) may be if they are being produced as an aftermarket offering... but this again maybe no different than the derbi kit....

[crazy man]

l like it to ! its what buckets is about . l just don't like the idea of using gp rolling frames . maybe a % of one would be better but if its in the rules well can't do much about it

[TZ350]

Yeah, I know it's long been held that homebuilt = OK but is it? how far is too far?

How clever is too clever??

I am watching this with interest.....

[seymour14]

How clever is too clever??

I am watching this with interest.....

I'm also with Bert and Co., if the individual is clever enough to build reproduction parts that are along the lines of fully fledged GP machines, I would still applaude the skill required to pull it off.

Granted, CNC machines have made the impossible attainable, but there is still a sense of pioneering spirit in working through any part on a bike and pulling off the build. Remember, it is not only the build that is at stake, the end product must suit the intended rider, and this is always the other critical part of the equation.

Buckets should remain a class of "inventors", this and the knowledge we all gain from exploring new possibilities is half the fun of the Class. You get a hell of a lot more pride out of doing the hard yards then just the "lets just chuck money at the problem". Crazyman's a good example, he is really chuffed with the outcomes for his bikes, the development time to finished bike was truly stunning to me. This goes the same for the majority of the bikes in the F4 and F5 classes, how many times are we doing corrections/rebuilds/developments at the track? Ask a Superbike rider to adjust his machine and he would probably stare blankly back at you!

We have our Class just right, and I think we can police ourselves pretty well in general.

[Flettner]

Huseberg, just melt down your old barrels to recast to new ones. Same old barrel just reshaped, a bit like reshaping it with a die grinder. Yes? I see no problem with that.

[husaberg]

Huseberg, just melt down your old barrels to recast to new ones. Same old barrel just reshaped, a bit like reshaping it with a die grinder. Yes? I see no problem with that.

The foundry would be stoked, Maybe an old Triumph or Harley crankcase... or a wok
Maybe non competition alloy.
I have to admit i would like to use old Cat pistons ala Bert (he stopped using the ford Y ones earlier)
But i think the new ones are steel.
I love f4 for there freedom.
I actually see it more in the spirit to make them available to competitors rather than just for myself or a select few.
Certainly don't expect to gain a fortune from them

Do you have any pics of the chassis of the uniflow 100 Neil? Home brewed or modded?

[TZ350]

This is where I have got to with my simulations for the EFI map data.

These start at 500rpm but I have not displayed the bit below 5,000 rpm because its pretty much all the same and a bit boring. And who would have thought that the engine would rev further on smaller throttle openings.

Because the gaps are getting bigger, when I have finished this series I will have to go back and do some in between ones for the lower throttle settings.

[Haufen]

Not to sure if the area will tell you the winner?

If you plotted force by distance this would give you the total work the curve could do, but we are really after the rate of doing work (power) so we would need to consider time.

I know that power = force*velocity, which is what we would get from the force v speed graphs but the scale on the speed axis would be wrong; it has a liner scale but change in velocity is a square relationship.

Dave.

I am under the impression that you are overcomplicating things in your thinking.

If you plot rear wheel driving force against speed, then it will show you which engine setup will accelerate faster at a given speed (because in our assumption, we are talking about the same bike with the same rider (weight) in the same riding position with the same tire pressure riding in the same wind conditions etc.)

This is where I have got to with my simulations for the EFI map data.

These start at 500rpm but I have not displayed the bit below 5,000 rpm because its pretty much all the same and a bit boring. And who would have thought that the engine would rev further on smaller throttle openings.

Because the gaps are getting bigger, when I have finished this series I will have to go back and do some in between ones for the lower throttle settings.

Which data will you take from the sims to feed the ecu with?