It's called ethanol. Carbon neutral. Biodegradable. Very high octane rating. Easy to produce in huge quantities. Basically, liquid solar fuel. There is no need for anything else. If you were to design an engine strictly for ethanol you would be in the 18:1 compression ratio range. MotoGP may be pushing 14:1. Just the increase in compression alone would make for an insane racing engine. The only drawback is that it is 20% less dense than gasoline. Well no problem add 4 litres and off you go. Zero drawbacks....well maybe Shell would be pissed but .... them.
Last ever 250 race
- Thread starter Arrabbiata1
- Start date
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 31 2009, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's called ethanol. Carbon neutral. Biodegradable. Very high octane rating. Easy to produce in huge quantities. Basically, liquid solar fuel. There is no need for anything else. If you were to design an engine strictly for ethanol you would be in the 18:1 compression ratio range. MotoGP may be pushing 14:1. Just the increase in compression alone would make for an insane racing engine. The only drawback is that it is 20% less dense than gasoline. Well no problem add 4 litres and off you go. Zero drawbacks....well maybe Shell would be pissed but .... them.
Way to go straight for my Achilles Heel!
Yes Biofuels may change things, but sadly they just don't have the energy yet.
SO get your chemistry sets out fellas and start working!!
Speaking of fuels and additives, all you Aussie's on here .... Worlds fastest Indian is on tonight!! 6:30pm on 10??
Way to go straight for my Achilles Heel!
Yes Biofuels may change things, but sadly they just don't have the energy yet.
SO get your chemistry sets out fellas and start working!!
Speaking of fuels and additives, all you Aussie's on here .... Worlds fastest Indian is on tonight!! 6:30pm on 10??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 30 2009, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's called ethanol. Carbon neutral. Biodegradable. Very high octane rating. Easy to produce in huge quantities. Basically, liquid solar fuel. There is no need for anything else. If you were to design an engine strictly for ethanol you would be in the 18:1 compression ratio range. MotoGP may be pushing 14:1. Just the increase in compression alone would make for an insane racing engine. The only drawback is that it is 20% less dense than gasoline. Well no problem add 4 litres and off you go. Zero drawbacks....well maybe Shell would be pissed but .... them.
Algenol?
It's pretty good but the yield is only about 10,000 gallons per year per acre. Our daily gasoline consumption is about 378M gallons per day so we would need 37,800 acres for each day or 13,797,000acres per year. That's 22,000 sq miles but ethanol is only has .66 the energy of gasoline so you really need about 33,000 sq miles.
That means we'd have to have algae bio reactors covering the entire state of South Carolina in order to fuel the United States at current consumption. It still gives off CO2 when you burn it. You can't send it through pipelines b/c it picks up impurities and moisture.
Tough call between that and algal oil which has much much higher production capabilities but much higher refinement costs.
Check this out too, it's pretty cool
Ford Bobcat Dual Fuel Engine
Algenol?
It's pretty good but the yield is only about 10,000 gallons per year per acre. Our daily gasoline consumption is about 378M gallons per day so we would need 37,800 acres for each day or 13,797,000acres per year. That's 22,000 sq miles but ethanol is only has .66 the energy of gasoline so you really need about 33,000 sq miles.
That means we'd have to have algae bio reactors covering the entire state of South Carolina in order to fuel the United States at current consumption. It still gives off CO2 when you burn it. You can't send it through pipelines b/c it picks up impurities and moisture.
Tough call between that and algal oil which has much much higher production capabilities but much higher refinement costs.
Check this out too, it's pretty cool
Ford Bobcat Dual Fuel Engine
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 30 2009, 11:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Way to go straight for my Achilles Heel!
Yes Biofuels may change things, but sadly they just don't have the energy yet.
SO get your chemistry sets out fellas and start working!!
Speaking of fuels and additives, all you Aussie's on here .... Worlds fastest Indian is on tonight!! 6:30pm on 10??
Burt Munro was a New Zealander,getting those 2 confused will get you punched
Yes Biofuels may change things, but sadly they just don't have the energy yet.
SO get your chemistry sets out fellas and start working!!
Speaking of fuels and additives, all you Aussie's on here .... Worlds fastest Indian is on tonight!! 6:30pm on 10??
Burt Munro was a New Zealander,getting those 2 confused will get you punched
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 31 2009, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You know 2 stroke development had peaked over 10 years ago.
DI is as old as the hills.
Computers are old.
By suggesting they are getting in excess of 100% efficiency you do realise you may have invented the perpetual motion machine!!!!! I'd rush out and patent that right now
I agree with you, but thats not necessarily because the engineering limit has been reached, more because the demand for 2 strokes has decreased. Certainly here in Europe diesels used to be old noisy and slow, but in the last 7-8yrs since their development has been pushed they have come on a long way.
How is DI as old as the hills? The ONLY 2 things that have changed in engine development for the last 110 years is the materials used, and electronic control. The basic principles are 'as old as the hills'...so by that reckoning do we start racing electric MotoGP & Moto2 bikes?
Regarding Volumetric Efficiency, you are thinking of it as a mass that cannot exceed 100%, whereas it is a ratio so can quite concieveably be greater than 1. The most common way of attaining this is by forced induction which is why most cars in the european market are now aiming for small engines with forced induction (such as turbocharging). It is actually possible to get up to 135% volumetric efficiency with a naturally aspirated engine (I think the absolute limit is around 140%), but again i'm not sure of the absolute figures for a 2 stroke.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>All that being said I think theres still a place for 2 strokes in outboards, ie. they are inherently more corrosion resistant. ( though I note they aren't like my old Johnson 40:1 fuel/oil jobby here!
And if we look at just corrosion resistance. If the modern motors anren't lasting as long then it takes more energy to make new ones ...... etc. etc. etc. ...... folk have tried to do such evaluations but meh, they never seem reasonable to me.
I don't understand your point here. If by good corrosion resistance you mean because the oil a 2 stoke generates, then if you are getting seawater on or into these areas your engine is screwed anyway. I think the improved resistance generally is due to older things build build more like brick shithouses.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Its no use talking efficient DI and use of expansion chambers to me ..... it a nonsense, chambers were a device we who lived in the days of 20c a gallon could afford
Nonsense? Basic engineering principles of internal combustion engines? Are you kidding me?!?!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 31 2009, 02:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yey. Let's throw millions of tons of toxic batteries into land fills every year in order to avoid keeping the oceans clean so phytoplankton populations can return. I remember when batteries were bad and parents were chastised by the news media for buying battery operated Christmas toys for their children. Now giant 400lb batteries are the savior of the planet.
Go figure.
We're not anywhere close to being out of oil, and CO2 is tree oxygen so I don't see it as a dirty pollutant. We can cut CO2 to 0 and still not make any improvement b/c of global phytoplankton levels. Electrics aren't going to do anything but soothe eco-angst.
We don't need to discard 100 years of ICE development. We need to engineer a new fuel that is either carbon neutral or doesn't release CO2 when it is burned. We are already pretty close.
A good point, I quite agree
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 31 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's called ethanol. Carbon neutral. Biodegradable. Very high octane rating. Easy to produce in huge quantities. Basically, liquid solar fuel. There is no need for anything else. If you were to design an engine strictly for ethanol you would be in the 18:1 compression ratio range. MotoGP may be pushing 14:1. Just the increase in compression alone would make for an insane racing engine. The only drawback is that it is 20% less dense than gasoline. Well no problem add 4 litres and off you go. Zero drawbacks....well maybe Shell would be pissed but .... them.
Good point, Lex covered all my potential responses
DI is as old as the hills.
Computers are old.
By suggesting they are getting in excess of 100% efficiency you do realise you may have invented the perpetual motion machine!!!!! I'd rush out and patent that right now
I agree with you, but thats not necessarily because the engineering limit has been reached, more because the demand for 2 strokes has decreased. Certainly here in Europe diesels used to be old noisy and slow, but in the last 7-8yrs since their development has been pushed they have come on a long way.
How is DI as old as the hills? The ONLY 2 things that have changed in engine development for the last 110 years is the materials used, and electronic control. The basic principles are 'as old as the hills'...so by that reckoning do we start racing electric MotoGP & Moto2 bikes?
Regarding Volumetric Efficiency, you are thinking of it as a mass that cannot exceed 100%, whereas it is a ratio so can quite concieveably be greater than 1. The most common way of attaining this is by forced induction which is why most cars in the european market are now aiming for small engines with forced induction (such as turbocharging). It is actually possible to get up to 135% volumetric efficiency with a naturally aspirated engine (I think the absolute limit is around 140%), but again i'm not sure of the absolute figures for a 2 stroke.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>All that being said I think theres still a place for 2 strokes in outboards, ie. they are inherently more corrosion resistant. ( though I note they aren't like my old Johnson 40:1 fuel/oil jobby here!
I don't understand your point here. If by good corrosion resistance you mean because the oil a 2 stoke generates, then if you are getting seawater on or into these areas your engine is screwed anyway. I think the improved resistance generally is due to older things build build more like brick shithouses.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Its no use talking efficient DI and use of expansion chambers to me ..... it a nonsense, chambers were a device we who lived in the days of 20c a gallon could afford
Nonsense? Basic engineering principles of internal combustion engines? Are you kidding me?!?!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 31 2009, 02:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yey. Let's throw millions of tons of toxic batteries into land fills every year in order to avoid keeping the oceans clean so phytoplankton populations can return. I remember when batteries were bad and parents were chastised by the news media for buying battery operated Christmas toys for their children. Now giant 400lb batteries are the savior of the planet.
We're not anywhere close to being out of oil, and CO2 is tree oxygen so I don't see it as a dirty pollutant. We can cut CO2 to 0 and still not make any improvement b/c of global phytoplankton levels. Electrics aren't going to do anything but soothe eco-angst.
We don't need to discard 100 years of ICE development. We need to engineer a new fuel that is either carbon neutral or doesn't release CO2 when it is burned. We are already pretty close.
A good point, I quite agree
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 31 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's called ethanol. Carbon neutral. Biodegradable. Very high octane rating. Easy to produce in huge quantities. Basically, liquid solar fuel. There is no need for anything else. If you were to design an engine strictly for ethanol you would be in the 18:1 compression ratio range. MotoGP may be pushing 14:1. Just the increase in compression alone would make for an insane racing engine. The only drawback is that it is 20% less dense than gasoline. Well no problem add 4 litres and off you go. Zero drawbacks....well maybe Shell would be pissed but .... them.
Good point, Lex covered all my potential responses
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stevo @ Oct 30 2009, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And we've got another Brit to cheer for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/8320991.stm
cool, son of robert, nephew of joe. so from bloody good stock, altho valencia is about as different from the nw200 as it can be
. i will be cheering him tho
Im sad to see the 250's go but looking forward to moto2. Yes dorna should do something to mark this historic event i always thought of quarter litre strokers as the heart of racing, whether proddy or gp. quess like the 500's we have to move with the times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/8320991.stm
cool, son of robert, nephew of joe. so from bloody good stock, altho valencia is about as different from the nw200 as it can be
Im sad to see the 250's go but looking forward to moto2. Yes dorna should do something to mark this historic event i always thought of quarter litre strokers as the heart of racing, whether proddy or gp. quess like the 500's we have to move with the times.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree with you, but thats not necessarily because the engineering limit has been reached, more because the demand for 2 strokes has decreased. Certainly here in Europe diesels used to be old noisy and slow, but in the last 7-8yrs since their development has been pushed they have come on a long way.
How is DI as old as the hills?
Before there was this amazing thing called a "carburetor" how do you think they got the fuel in there
....... I'm old I've seen/used these things!
ok not that old but some early engines were run on coal dust or saw dust even directly injected ...
check on youtube for some vid's of old hot bulb engines .... they are pretty educational
fun to watch too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Regarding Volumetric Efficiency, you are thinking of it as a mass that cannot exceed 100%,
Not answering that you are just being silly
You don't even understand the maths of it.
and since you didn't listen back in 8th grade .... its too much for me to bother filling you in on now. ....... ok .... look up why you can't have more than 100% efficiency ..... there thats a simple starter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand your point here. If by good corrosion resistance you mean because the oil a 2 stoke generates, then if you are getting seawater on or into these areas your engine is screwed anyway. I think the improved resistance generally is due to older things build build more like brick shithouses.
So should I not be using an outboard in the sea!!?? .......... dang! I knew I was doing something wrong!
You need to stop doing whatever else you are doing whilst typing on here
Gee I better tell the surflifesaver guys too!! They drown their rubber duckies an awful lot! I better tell the to stop restarting them cos their engines are "screwed"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Nonsense? Basic engineering principles of internal combustion engines? Are you kidding me?!?!
No I'm not kidding you, its become obvious that you just have no idea about 2 strokes, so it seems amazing to you.
How is DI as old as the hills?
Before there was this amazing thing called a "carburetor" how do you think they got the fuel in there
check on youtube for some vid's of old hot bulb engines .... they are pretty educational
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Regarding Volumetric Efficiency, you are thinking of it as a mass that cannot exceed 100%,
Not answering that you are just being silly
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand your point here. If by good corrosion resistance you mean because the oil a 2 stoke generates, then if you are getting seawater on or into these areas your engine is screwed anyway. I think the improved resistance generally is due to older things build build more like brick shithouses.
So should I not be using an outboard in the sea!!?? .......... dang! I knew I was doing something wrong!
Gee I better tell the surflifesaver guys too!! They drown their rubber duckies an awful lot! I better tell the to stop restarting them cos their engines are "screwed"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Nonsense? Basic engineering principles of internal combustion engines? Are you kidding me?!?!
No I'm not kidding you, its become obvious that you just have no idea about 2 strokes, so it seems amazing to you.
Right now ethanol production is based on sweet crops but that is not the future. Don't worry Canada has more bloody oil than you can believe and we'll happily sell it to you for the next 100 years.
Your midwest has enough switchgrass to power the entire US if you'd just do it. Come-on show us your US ingenuity!! Don't worry about CO2 switchgrass (best bet for cellulistic ethanol crop) sucks up more than it produces because it is perennial and stores carbon in the root. Together our prairies can easily power the world. Build some distilleries and employ some folks. We need that bigtime.
Ethanol adoption by the FIM for MotoGP would solidify the prototype nature of the class and solve a lot of problems. One big one would be that every team would have the same fuel. That would be a great equalizer IMO. The green thing is an advertisers dream. Higher engine output is what we all want so bonus on that. No drawback as far as I can see.
18 bikes on the grid so let's see... 18(bikes per grid)x21(liters per bike)x1.20(density value)x4(3 practises and one race)x17(races per year) = 31000 liters of ethanol per year. No problem. Cripes us Canuks put that away on one weekend.
Your midwest has enough switchgrass to power the entire US if you'd just do it. Come-on show us your US ingenuity!! Don't worry about CO2 switchgrass (best bet for cellulistic ethanol crop) sucks up more than it produces because it is perennial and stores carbon in the root. Together our prairies can easily power the world. Build some distilleries and employ some folks. We need that bigtime.
Ethanol adoption by the FIM for MotoGP would solidify the prototype nature of the class and solve a lot of problems. One big one would be that every team would have the same fuel. That would be a great equalizer IMO. The green thing is an advertisers dream. Higher engine output is what we all want so bonus on that. No drawback as far as I can see.
18 bikes on the grid so let's see... 18(bikes per grid)x21(liters per bike)x1.20(density value)x4(3 practises and one race)x17(races per year) = 31000 liters of ethanol per year. No problem. Cripes us Canuks put that away on one weekend.
I have been out of the loop for, well, a season. Can someone give me a one sentence summary of what is happening to the 250s and if they are being replaced?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DirtyD86 @ Oct 31 2009, 08:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I have been out of the loop for, well, a season. Can someone give me a one sentence summary of what is happening to the 250s and if they are being replaced?
Replaced by Moto2, a 600cc class with a spec Honda engine/transmission and prototype chassis.
Replaced by Moto2, a 600cc class with a spec Honda engine/transmission and prototype chassis.
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Nov 1 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Before there was this amazing thing called a "carburetor" how do you think they got the fuel in there
....... I'm old I've seen/used these things!
ok not that old but some early engines were run on coal dust or saw dust even directly injected ...
Well seeing as you are stooping to the level of personal insults, and making stupid statements that prove that YOU, not ME are the one who needs to brush up on your knowledge then sod off. Yes I do know of carburettors you moron, and the main reason DI was introduced initially was to primarilly give better control of emissions. Yes there are performance benefits too but the main reason was for emissions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Not answering that you are just being silly
You don't even understand the maths of it.
and since you didn't listen back in 8th grade .... its too much for me to bother filling you in on now. ....... ok .... look up why you can't have more than 100% efficiency ..... there thats a simple starter.
Won't or Cant? Go and read Alexander Graham Bells '2 Stroke performance tuning' and then reconsider that statement, if not then get .......
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>No I'm not kidding you, its become obvious that you just have no idea about 2 strokes, so it seems amazing to you.
Ok hotshot, what technical qualifications do you have??
I am fully qualified as an Automotive AND Motorsport Engineer, fully educated in all aspects of engine technology, engine design and engine testing (both 2 and 4 strokes), thermodynamics (you might need to look that up in the dictionary) and I have worked as an engine development engineer for Ford, Delphi Diesel (who supply injection systems to all the truck manufacturers) and worked on the latest Aston Martin V12 Vantage. I have also raced and engineered 2 strokes since I was 9.
In light of your comments, and others you have made before I expect you're just an inbred spouting off half assed ideas and thinks he's albert Einstein. You've said enough to convince me of that i'll save my comments for people of a similar technical intellect.
Well seeing as you are stooping to the level of personal insults, and making stupid statements that prove that YOU, not ME are the one who needs to brush up on your knowledge then sod off. Yes I do know of carburettors you moron, and the main reason DI was introduced initially was to primarilly give better control of emissions. Yes there are performance benefits too but the main reason was for emissions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Not answering that you are just being silly
Won't or Cant? Go and read Alexander Graham Bells '2 Stroke performance tuning' and then reconsider that statement, if not then get .......
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>No I'm not kidding you, its become obvious that you just have no idea about 2 strokes, so it seems amazing to you.
Ok hotshot, what technical qualifications do you have??
I am fully qualified as an Automotive AND Motorsport Engineer, fully educated in all aspects of engine technology, engine design and engine testing (both 2 and 4 strokes), thermodynamics (you might need to look that up in the dictionary) and I have worked as an engine development engineer for Ford, Delphi Diesel (who supply injection systems to all the truck manufacturers) and worked on the latest Aston Martin V12 Vantage. I have also raced and engineered 2 strokes since I was 9.
In light of your comments, and others you have made before I expect you're just an inbred spouting off half assed ideas and thinks he's albert Einstein. You've said enough to convince me of that i'll save my comments for people of a similar technical intellect.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I am fully qualified as an Automotive AND Motorsport Engineer, fully educated in all aspects of engine technology, engine design and engine testing (both 2 and 4 strokes), thermodynamics (you might need to look that up in the dictionary) and I have worked as an engine development engineer for Ford, Delphi Diesel (who supply injection systems to all the truck manufacturers) and worked on the latest Aston Martin V12 Vantage. I have also raced and engineered 2 strokes since I was 9.
In light of your comments, and others you have made before I expect you're just an inbred spouting off half assed ideas and thinks he's albert Einstein. You've said enough to convince me of that i'll save my comments for people of a similar technical intellect.
But you said
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Oct 31 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If, by "work per volume of fuel used" you are referring to Volumetric Efficiency, two strokes don't suffer as much as you think, and with modern expansion chamber designs being ingenious enough to return the escaping air/fuel mix back into the cylinder (not including DI engines), then its possible that the GP motors are actually producing volumetric efficiencies in excess of 100%
Maybe you could add something to this page:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
by the way .... whats the difference between old expansion chamber and modern ones? And when in their history did your definition of "modern" begin?
Oh and on my technical Qual.s .......... according to Rog. I'm a Tea boy
Edit: I just thought of another thing for you putting forward all manners of "fixes" for the 2 stroke problem ............ do you really think these avenues have not been explored
Do you think you are on to something, that nobody else has seen yet!! ............ well you should be out there doing something about it
In light of your comments, and others you have made before I expect you're just an inbred spouting off half assed ideas and thinks he's albert Einstein. You've said enough to convince me of that i'll save my comments for people of a similar technical intellect.
But you said
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Oct 31 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If, by "work per volume of fuel used" you are referring to Volumetric Efficiency, two strokes don't suffer as much as you think, and with modern expansion chamber designs being ingenious enough to return the escaping air/fuel mix back into the cylinder (not including DI engines), then its possible that the GP motors are actually producing volumetric efficiencies in excess of 100%
Maybe you could add something to this page:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
by the way .... whats the difference between old expansion chamber and modern ones? And when in their history did your definition of "modern" begin?
Oh and on my technical Qual.s .......... according to Rog. I'm a Tea boy
Edit: I just thought of another thing for you putting forward all manners of "fixes" for the 2 stroke problem ............ do you really think these avenues have not been explored
Do you think you are on to something, that nobody else has seen yet!! ............ well you should be out there doing something about it
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Nov 1 2009, 09:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But you said
Maybe you could add something to this page:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
by the way .... whats the difference between old expansion chamber and modern ones? And when in their history did your definition of "modern" begin?
Oh and on my technical Qual.s .......... according to Rog. I'm a Tea boy
Edit: I just thought of another thing for you putting forward all manners of "fixes" for the 2 stroke problem ............ do you really think these avenues have not been explored
Do you think you are on to something, that nobody else has seen yet!! ............ well you should be out there doing something about it
Barry, what's your opinion on the original thread if you don't mind me asking?
Do you have one? Who would or what machine you like to see commemorated in the last ever 250 race next weekend?
Maybe you could add something to this page:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
by the way .... whats the difference between old expansion chamber and modern ones? And when in their history did your definition of "modern" begin?
Oh and on my technical Qual.s .......... according to Rog. I'm a Tea boy
Edit: I just thought of another thing for you putting forward all manners of "fixes" for the 2 stroke problem ............ do you really think these avenues have not been explored
Do you think you are on to something, that nobody else has seen yet!! ............ well you should be out there doing something about it
Barry, what's your opinion on the original thread if you don't mind me asking?
Do you have one? Who would or what machine you like to see commemorated in the last ever 250 race next weekend?
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Nov 1 2009, 10:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Barry, what's your opinion on the original thread if you don't mind me asking?
Do you have one? Who would or what machine you like to see commemorated in the last ever 250 race next weekend?
read my first post
Do you have one? Who would or what machine you like to see commemorated in the last ever 250 race next weekend?
read my first post
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 30 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I take it you think an Evinrude is more advanced than a 250 GP bike
I love two strokes and have ridden more than most one here and for much longer, and probably still own more than most one here, but they are dead.
A clean two stroke is sadly also a very low torque two stroke. As an example DI obliterates the benefit that the expansion chamber made. And just remember how bikes were before that. They'll be lean burn versions of lawn mowers.
Besides "clean burn" is only part of the equation these days, theres also work done per volume of fuel used ....... thats where two strokes are copping it.
Yeah?
So in answer to the question?
I love two strokes and have ridden more than most one here and for much longer, and probably still own more than most one here, but they are dead.
A clean two stroke is sadly also a very low torque two stroke. As an example DI obliterates the benefit that the expansion chamber made. And just remember how bikes were before that. They'll be lean burn versions of lawn mowers.
Besides "clean burn" is only part of the equation these days, theres also work done per volume of fuel used ....... thats where two strokes are copping it.
Yeah?
So in answer to the question?
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arrabbiata1 @ Nov 1 2009, 11:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah?
So in answer to the question?
I think we already know the answer Arrab
So in answer to the question?
I think we already know the answer Arrab
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#22 @ Nov 1 2009, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think we already know the answer Arrab
have you or do you ever read Viz?
BM to me seems a mix of Roger Irrelevant and Terry Fuckwitt. no more explanations necessary really.
have you or do you ever read Viz?
BM to me seems a mix of Roger Irrelevant and Terry Fuckwitt. no more explanations necessary really.
Joined Jun 2007
10K Posts | 1K+
Norah Head
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Oct 31 2009, 02:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I love two strokes and have ridden more than most one here and for much longer, and probably still own more than most one here, but they are dead.
Thats how it is full stop. You may wish to have a song and dance about it. But some don't
The 2 stroke died years ago. To have a love fest over them seems a bit useless now. All the history is out there. Why the need for a group .... over them
When I was young it was hard to find a chump running around on a 4 stroke, so just about every race bike was a 2 stroke ( except for the very rare "retro demo run" ..... or chumps.
So you want me to have a fairy party with you about 1 of the 2 remaining 2 stroke classes out there
( and thats about worldwide ).
Go on you usual suspects, have a group sook again at me but no matter how much you sook about it, I don't see the kissy huggy 250 fest.
especially since the horse bolted .... and died out at pasture, years ago.
It all just sounds like more "showboating"........ but I guess thats the entire reason some follow MGRossi ..... oops MGP. Its all in the entertainment isn't it
Thats how it is full stop. You may wish to have a song and dance about it. But some don't
The 2 stroke died years ago. To have a love fest over them seems a bit useless now. All the history is out there. Why the need for a group .... over them
When I was young it was hard to find a chump running around on a 4 stroke, so just about every race bike was a 2 stroke ( except for the very rare "retro demo run" ..... or chumps.
So you want me to have a fairy party with you about 1 of the 2 remaining 2 stroke classes out there
Go on you usual suspects, have a group sook again at me but no matter how much you sook about it, I don't see the kissy huggy 250 fest.
It all just sounds like more "showboating"........ but I guess thats the entire reason some follow MGRossi ..... oops MGP. Its all in the entertainment isn't it
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Nov 1 2009, 02:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Thats how it is full stop. You may wish to have a song and dance about it. But some don't
The 2 stroke died years ago. To have a love fest over them seems a bit useless now. All the history is out there. Why the need for a group .... over them
When I was young it was hard to find a chump running around on a 4 stroke, so just about every race bike was a 2 stroke ( except for the very rare "retro demo run" ..... or chumps.
So you want me to have a fairy party with you about 1 of the 2 remaining 2 stroke classes out there
( and thats about worldwide ).
Go on you usual suspects, have a group sook again at me but no matter how much you sook about it, I don't see the kissy huggy 250 fest.
especially since the horse bolted .... and died out at pasture, years ago.
It all just sounds like more "showboating"........ but I guess thats the entire reason some follow MGRossi ..... oops MGP. Its all in the entertainment isn't it
Im not at all surprised you dont care about the demise of the 250's. You have stated in the past that your not a particular fan of "close racing" and that you dont find "run away races" boring (provided stoner is the one running away). It's obvious to me and others here you only started following motogp mid way through 07 when it came to your and many other aussies attention that an aussie kid was winning and handing a multi champ his .... So because of this im not surprised 250's 125's ect are irrelevant to you and so is there history.
As per your argument with #22. not to get top involved because ive been up this never ending road with you many times, but 22 was talking about volumetric masses and exceeding the volume ie a 1 litre engine with more than 1 litre of mixture in the chamber. Your reply was telling #22 its impossible to have more that 100% efficiency. 22 didnt mention this at all. you just tried to twist his words to carry on your futile attempt to argue things you have no knowledge about. the best you could do was to search google to back up you statement that wasa not even the point 22 was debating
The 2 stroke died years ago. To have a love fest over them seems a bit useless now. All the history is out there. Why the need for a group .... over them
When I was young it was hard to find a chump running around on a 4 stroke, so just about every race bike was a 2 stroke ( except for the very rare "retro demo run" ..... or chumps.
So you want me to have a fairy party with you about 1 of the 2 remaining 2 stroke classes out there
Go on you usual suspects, have a group sook again at me but no matter how much you sook about it, I don't see the kissy huggy 250 fest.
It all just sounds like more "showboating"........ but I guess thats the entire reason some follow MGRossi ..... oops MGP. Its all in the entertainment isn't it
Im not at all surprised you dont care about the demise of the 250's. You have stated in the past that your not a particular fan of "close racing" and that you dont find "run away races" boring (provided stoner is the one running away). It's obvious to me and others here you only started following motogp mid way through 07 when it came to your and many other aussies attention that an aussie kid was winning and handing a multi champ his .... So because of this im not surprised 250's 125's ect are irrelevant to you and so is there history.
As per your argument with #22. not to get top involved because ive been up this never ending road with you many times, but 22 was talking about volumetric masses and exceeding the volume ie a 1 litre engine with more than 1 litre of mixture in the chamber. Your reply was telling #22 its impossible to have more that 100% efficiency. 22 didnt mention this at all. you just tried to twist his words to carry on your futile attempt to argue things you have no knowledge about. the best you could do was to search google to back up you statement that wasa not even the point 22 was debating
Joined Oct 2008
6K Posts | 5K+
In Cider
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Nov 1 2009, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>have you or do you ever read Viz?
BM to me seems a mix of Roger Irrelevant and Terry Fuckwitt. no more explanations necessary really.
No? Whats Viz? But you're right, as I said i'm not bothering anymore. Sorry
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Nov 1 2009, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Im not at all surprised you dont care about the demise of the 250's. You have stated in the past that your not a particular fan of "close racing" and that you dont find "run away races" boring (provided stoner is the one running away). It's obvious to me and others here you only started following motogp mid way through 07 when it came to your and many other aussies attention that an aussie kid was winning and handing a multi champ his .... So because of this im not surprised 250's 125's ect are irrelevant to you and so is there history.
As per your argument with #22. not to get top involved because ive been up this never ending road with you many times, but 22 was talking about volumetric masses and exceeding the volume ie a 1 litre engine with more than 1 litre of mixture in the chamber. Your reply was telling #22 its impossible to have more that 100% efficiency. 22 didnt mention this at all. you just tried to twist his words to carry on your futile attempt to argue things you have no knowledge about. the best you could do was to search google to back up you statement that wasa not even the point 22 was debating
Thanks Rog...
BM to me seems a mix of Roger Irrelevant and Terry Fuckwitt. no more explanations necessary really.
No? Whats Viz? But you're right, as I said i'm not bothering anymore. Sorry
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chopperman @ Nov 1 2009, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Im not at all surprised you dont care about the demise of the 250's. You have stated in the past that your not a particular fan of "close racing" and that you dont find "run away races" boring (provided stoner is the one running away). It's obvious to me and others here you only started following motogp mid way through 07 when it came to your and many other aussies attention that an aussie kid was winning and handing a multi champ his .... So because of this im not surprised 250's 125's ect are irrelevant to you and so is there history.
As per your argument with #22. not to get top involved because ive been up this never ending road with you many times, but 22 was talking about volumetric masses and exceeding the volume ie a 1 litre engine with more than 1 litre of mixture in the chamber. Your reply was telling #22 its impossible to have more that 100% efficiency. 22 didnt mention this at all. you just tried to twist his words to carry on your futile attempt to argue things you have no knowledge about. the best you could do was to search google to back up you statement that wasa not even the point 22 was debating
Thanks Rog...