500 vs 800 vs 990 vs TC

TC on a 2 stroke? what about Robert's "kill one cylinder " button on his TZ750 flat tracker? was that 76 or 77?

I know I keep saying it, but the technology is there to build 2 strokes that are more fuel efficient than 4 strokes and cleaner burning. Surprisingly, Honda were at the forefront with the EXP2 and AR engines, but as we all know, Honda hate 2 strokes, (goes back to old man Sochiro, it's fact guys, not up for discusssion) so the firm that were at the cutting edge of development were the firm who wanted them killed off!

I know the 2 stroke era aint coming back, but I just hate the way it has been shuffled out by HRC and (again back to the 70's) by Californian Governers.

I know loadsa folks on here think I'm a 4 stroke hating luddite, but I grew up on 70's and 80's dirt bikes, RD LCs and Gammas. I've ridden 2 and 4 stroke crossers and street bikes from various eras, and I know which ones I prefer.

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(basspete @ Nov 20 2007, 10:24 PM) [snapback]101654[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
TC on a 2 stroke? what about Robert's "kill one cylinder " button on his TZ750 flat tracker? was that 76 or 77?

I know I keep saying it, but the technology is there to build 2 strokes that are more fuel efficient than 4 strokes and cleaner burning. Surprisingly, Honda were at the forefront with the EXP2 and AR engines, but as we all know, Honda hate 2 strokes, (goes back to old man Sochiro, it's fact guys, not up for discusssion) so the firm that were at the cutting edge of development were the firm who wanted them killed off!

I know the 2 stroke era aint coming back, but I just hate the way it has been shuffled out by HRC and (again back to the 70's) by Californian Governers.

I know loadsa folks on here think I'm a 4 stroke hating luddite, but I grew up on 70's and 80's dirt bikes, RD LCs and Gammas. I've ridden 2 and 4 stroke crossers and street bikes from various eras, and I know which ones I prefer.

Pete


all of that......well said....

bang on target and exactly how i feel too. 2T was killed off way before its time and in a bike, they make so much sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(basspete @ Nov 21 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]101654[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
TC on a 2 stroke? what about Robert's "kill one cylinder " button on his TZ750 flat tracker? was that 76 or 77?

I know I keep saying it, but the technology is there to build 2 strokes that are more fuel efficient than 4 strokes and cleaner burning. Surprisingly, Honda were at the forefront with the EXP2 and AR engines, but as we all know, Honda hate 2 strokes, (goes back to old man Sochiro, it's fact guys, not up for discusssion) so the firm that were at the cutting edge of development were the firm who wanted them killed off!


Its not possible for a 2 stroke to be as efficient as a 4 stroke ... especially on engines that operate at a varied rev range. The best thing that came along for efficiency on two strokes was the chamber ( tuned exhaust that bats the unburned fuel back into the cylinder ), but this is only efficent at a single resonant number of revs ..... hence why 2 strokes, prior to exhaust valves were like on off switches to ride.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 20 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]101665[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Its not possible for a 2 stroke to be as efficient as a 4 stroke ... especially on engines that operate at a varied rev range. The best thing that came along for efficiency on two strokes was the chamber ( tuned exhaust that bats the unburned fuel back into the cylinder ), but this is only efficent at a single resonant number of revs ..... hence why 2 strokes, prior to exhaust valves were like on off switches to ride.



Maybe you should and have a read up about the Honda EXP2 or the orbital 2 stroke engines.

Also, a well set up pre power valve 2 stroke can give a nice broad spread of power. Guys like Walter Kaaden worked with things like the length of the input manifold, (as well as developing the expansion chamber) to make them more rideable.

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(basspete @ Nov 21 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]101700[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Maybe you should and have a read up about the Honda EXP2 or the orbital 2 stroke engines.

Also, a well set up pre power valve 2 stroke can give a nice broad spread of power. Guys like Walter Kaaden worked with things like the length of the input manifold, (as well as developing the expansion chamber) to make them more rideable.

Pete


But still none of them can meet the efficient combustion of a 4 stroke. Outside of the rev range where the chambers backpulses stop execessive gases escaping they run pretty inefficient. Its a sad fact of 2 strokes they waste fuel. Thats why they use chambers really it minimises the waste as well as puts those unburnt gases back in the cylinder where they can produce power.

One of the reasons a 2 stroke is so powerful for its size is that it virtually self supercharges, crank pressure forces the new charge in the cylinder. But the trouble is it is such a powerful force that some of the gases start leaving the cylinder, out the exhaust, before the piston has shut off the exhaust opening. And the chamber operates of sonic waves ( speed of sound ) so they have an optimal length for a specific rev.s. Outside that they run "ragged" and inefficietly.

An orbital 2 stroke .... its hard to really compare that to a piston 2 stroke ... its not a configuration thats been used in motogp. ALso there is some conjecture as to whether they have a real advantage over a piston engine ... theres a trade off for efficiency in power.

The Exp2 is stil experimental ..... I think it will never reach production .... something about the clattering of exhaust parts

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 21 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]101703[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
But still none of them can meet the efficient combustion of a 4 stroke. Outside of the rev range where the chambers backpulses stop execessive gases escaping they run pretty inefficient. Its a sad fact of 2 strokes they waste fuel. Thats why they use chambers really it minimises the waste as well as puts those unburnt gases back in the cylinder where they can produce power.

One of the reasons a 2 stroke is so powerful for its size is that it virtually self supercharges, crank pressure forces the new charge in the cylinder. But the trouble is it is such a powerful force that some of the gases start leaving the cylinder, out the exhaust, before the piston has shut off the exhaust opening. And the chamber operates of sonic waves ( speed of sound ) so they have an optimal length for a specific rev.s. Outside that they run "ragged" and inefficietly.

An orbital 2 stroke .... its hard to really compare that to a piston 2 stroke ... its not a configuration thats been used in motogp. ALso there is some conjecture as to whether they have a real advantage over a piston engine ... theres a trade off for efficiency in power.

The Exp2 is stil experimental ..... I think it will never reach production .... something about the clattering of exhaust parts



The EXP got shelved because of the sound of old Sochiro spinning in his grave drowned it out!

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(motojt @ Nov 16 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]101187[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic here. If not, then pull your head out of your redneck Nascar .... If Americans as a whole knew anything about bikes we'd have decent home-grown bikes instead of Harley crap. The only one of us I have any faith in is Erik Buell. We've had some good riders, but all the American bike mags are 65% ads and 35% political ......... I read a 600 shootout last year in which the 2006 GSX-R won and the R6 got last place. This year, in the same rag with the same writer and testers, the GSX-R came in last and the R6 was second. The funny part is that the GSX-R and R6 haven't changed AT ALL for 2007 as they were new models in '06. I did notice a lot more Yamaha ads in the mag this year tho.


I was half serious half jokingly overreacting.

I also lament that we have no sportbike manufacturers, but it's not because we know nothing about motorcycles. We don't have any sportbike engines. Buell was stuck using miserable harley lumps, now he's upgraded to rotax (a solid improvement). Harley needs to buy Rotax's motorcycle engine division, Buell is the only major customer right now anyway.

Even with that said, you have to wonder about Buell since he lifted a majority of "his" ideas from Britten. Plus, he sold out to Harley. How can you convince a company that makes 40% margin on every machine to divert resources to a highly competitive, low-margin manufacturing segment?

The only reason you think America is culturally backwards is because you think periodicals should be true? Motorcycling magazines don't hire experts, so who cares how many lies they make up and how many ads they insert, it was never going to be fact in the first place.

And to think we regret that no one reads anymore It's probably a good thing now that objectivity is an optional ingredient in good writing.

I think we both realize the perfect motorcycle is still out there, so why flip out that we haven't created it yet. I'm just not so willing to congratulate the Europeans or the Japanese for making another superb vehicular fallacy.

Motogp is awesome.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Nov 21 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]101703[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
An orbital 2 stroke .... its hard to really compare that to a piston 2 stroke ... its not a configuration thats been used in motogp. ALso there is some conjecture as to whether they have a real advantage over a piston engine ... theres a trade off for efficiency in power.


Ford worked with Orbital back in the early 90s to develop a 2-stroke small hatch for the European market. The prototype was housed in the Fiesta (Festiva in Oz) at the time. Unfortunately the German arm of Ford had a "not developed over here" attitude (Orbital is based out of Perth) and sadly the whole thing died.

The idea was to have a huge 2-stoke oil tank which would only need replenishing at major services, so no confusion for the owners. The enngine used direct injection and fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were better then the equivalently powered petrol engine of the time.

I drove the prototype, both with the econo fuel map (some what less exciting) and with the "engineering" fuel map. The latter was an absolute hoot, though fuel consumption was down to more like 25mpg. Arriving at a roundabout popping and farting was enough to have any bikers looking round to see what old stroker was behind them. To see a silver Fiesta used to make them very confused...

It's a shame that the technology was not developed further.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(yamaka46 @ Nov 22 2007, 08:06 AM) [snapback]101790[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Ford worked with Orbital back in the early 90s to develop a 2-stroke small hatch for the European market. The prototype was housed in the Fiesta (Festiva in Oz) at the time. Unfortunately the German arm of Ford had a "not developed over here" attitude (Orbital is based out of Perth) and sadly the whole thing died.

The idea was to have a huge 2-stoke oil tank which would only need replenishing at major services, so no confusion for the owners. The enngine used direct injection and fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were better then the equivalently powered petrol engine of the time.

I drove the prototype, both with the econo fuel map (some what less exciting) and with the "engineering" fuel map. The latter was an absolute hoot, though fuel consumption was down to more like 25mpg. Arriving at a roundabout popping and farting was enough to have any bikers looking round to see what old stroker was behind them. To see a silver Fiesta used to make them very confused...

It's a shame that the technology was not developed further.


haha yeah the old Sarich rotary .... best "sell" job on earth .... no ok it was interesting technology but that was 30 years ago ( well thats when it was all in the news over here ) ... it was all developed before the "fuel crisis". I think it died because to have further developed it showed the reality of what "should be" in cars .... the electric car .....

Colin Edwards:-

"These bikes are so advanced now - all you need to do is crank the electronics up to where you can't crash and you can go five seconds off the pace pretty easily. You just get in and nail it!" Edwards told Crash.net, when asked about Schumacher's lap time.

"But to find that last, four tenths say, you have to back the electronics off and really start to work it. It's like a gamble; play safe with the electronics and you'll be too slow. If everybody had the electronics turned up all the time then we would all be doing the same lap time.

"You have to tailor-make the electronics to suit your style," Colin revealed. "What Valentino [Rossi] uses, I don't use and what I use maybe James [Toseland] doesn't use. Every rider has his own tailor-made electronics for what he likes; how he wants it to spin, how he wants it to move. That's where the last few tenths are."

Interesting, although Colin seems to know alot about finding 'the last few tenths' for a bloke that runs towards the back of the mid-field...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(antfan @ Nov 22 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]101844[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Colin Edwards:-

"These bikes are so advanced now - all you need to do is crank the electronics up to where you can't crash and you can go five seconds off the pace pretty easily. You just get in and nail it!" Edwards told Crash.net, when asked about Schumacher's lap time.

"But to find that last, four tenths say, you have to back the electronics off and really start to work it. It's like a gamble; play safe with the electronics and you'll be too slow. If everybody had the electronics turned up all the time then we would all be doing the same lap time.

"You have to tailor-make the electronics to suit your style," Colin revealed. "What Valentino [Rossi] uses, I don't use and what I use maybe James [Toseland] doesn't use. Every rider has his own tailor-made electronics for what he likes; how he wants it to spin, how he wants it to move. That's where the last few tenths are."

Interesting, although Colin seems to know alot about finding 'the last few tenths' for a bloke that runs towards the back of the mid-field...


i think his explanation is pretty much stating why he is towards the back of the mid-field.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Nov 22 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]101846[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
i think his explanation is pretty much stating why he is towards the back of the mid-field.


Well gee that kinda says the exact opposite to what all the TC naysayers are saying as well, by CE's explanation Stoner must have had his TC " set allmost off.

So really CE is saying TC suits the "slackers" ..... maybe next to the lean angle display on the TV Dorna can display what the rider is currently running as a TC setting.