[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ummmm, yes it is a filter. It's there to make sure any little metal shavings left over from production and/or break-in don't get circulated around the engine. So, while it'll run without one, it's cheap insurance. Smokers don't need 'em because they don't pump lubricant through the engine, it's suspended in the fuel.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Actually, here's a funny thing. I remember an article in one of the M/c mags some months ago where a company around N'Awlins' (New Orleans to the rest of us) put a small turbine (jet) engine in a frame they designed, and were selling them. This engine put out well over 200 hp, and over 300 ft-lbs. of torque. The tires actually lasted much better than expected because of the seamless (no power stroke) power delivery of the turbine. The found the power stroke of a piston engine torques the outside of the tire relative to the rim with every power stroke (acting like a torsional dampner), then twists back. This heats up the sidewalls and tread. The torque from the turbine is much greater, but constant. So, it seems like tire life willll depend on what the firing order is to an extent. We'll see. I think Honda will find, as with the NR500, that it's the PACKAGE that wins the races.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Cough! VR1000 Cough!

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Draining never completely gets everything, and the added benefit of having a filter is if you frag something, or a little piece of debris (machining burr) comes loose, it'll stop in the filter before doing damage elsewhere past the filter. All 4-strokes I know of, racing or otherwise, use filters.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

1. Who cares if he subscribes to AOL? You? Like I don't care that you subscribe to Rump Rangers Quarterly.



2. It's a TYPO!



3. What kind of EPA-lovin', tree-huggin' E.L.F. **** are you? Ozone Al Gore, 'Zat you? This site is for gearheads, who, by the way, love the sound of IC engines. Also, this is meant to be a closed-course racing bike anyway. Duh! Electric bikes? Too funny. They would suck worse than the cars do.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Thanks for getting the stats for that moron, having worked with turbines, I found the article very interesting.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I think the only "variable displacement" that engine is likely to have is when a rod pokes through the block! Different bores and strokes for some cylinders, maybe. As stated by another, an easier/cheaper/better/more reliable/safer solution would be to use the engine management system to lower/raise power (like on turbocharged rally cars), and traction control. Cylinders switching on and off would be too abrupt, for both the tires and the rider. I think, in the absence of more 2-stroke restrictions, the smokers will prove to be a faster package.



P.S. Are you sure it was SPECulation in the shower, or, .....nevermind.....

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: Four strokes=GOOD

For pure racebikes, emissions aren't a problem, and fuel economy really isn't either. When they get the bugs ironed out of direct injection (Orbital is close), they can be even CLEANER and more efficient than 4-strokes. BTW, you can use poppet valves instead of piston-ports and reeds/disks for 2-strokes, and pumped lubrication instead of premix. 1 powerstroke per revolution beats 1 powerstroke every @ revolutions any day. Should be interesting though....

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It's not just that, but also that 4-strokes oil is re-used constantly, untill the next oil change, whereas the 2-strokes oil doesn't pass through cast-in oil passageways (potentially containing manufacturing/assembly debris), lubricates only once, then is blown out or burned.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: Four strokes=GOOD

I really don't think they're dead. They're still the fastest bikes out there. As for the opinion that GP technology doesn't trickle down, where do you think current 4-strokes aluminum swingarms, aluminum frames, aluminum wheels, disk brakes, and the current 4-stroke frame geometry came from? As far as 4-stroke technology trickling down from the pinnacle (F1), when was the last time you saw carbon fiber chassis, carbon brakes, titanium gearboxes, pneumatic valve gear, or electricallly-shifted sequential manual gearboxes in normal road cars? McLaren and Ferrari are the only ones trickling any of that technology down. Also, there is no imbalance in the rules to favor the 2-strokes. It actually favors 4-strokes by allowing them almost twice the displacement. @-strokes rule the roost because the motor is simple, powerful, small, and with a more compact mass than the 4-strokes, allowing optimum placement in the frome. The 4-stroke motor is much taller, to accomodate the valves, cams, and sprockets/gears.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

2 engineering degrees, huh? Let me guess, basket-weaving, and packaging, right? From the Sally Strothers University, right? Tell me, where exactly is this Yamaha been doing this? What's your source?

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: hey eyego, why don

First, the new Suzuki might make 150-155 hp at the crank, and redlines at 12,500. So, how could you get another 80 hp from it? Spin it faster. current F1 engines make around 800hp from 3 liters displacement, and rev to 17,000+, yielding 266hp/liter. So to get 230hp from less than a liter, you have to use the same type of engineering. Which means the same kind of costs. Duh! Here's one for ya Einstein: how can an engine that has more parts, made of more exotic (read: expensive) materials to withstand the rpm required, actually be cheaper? Soon as you figure that all out, call Bernie Ecclestone. I'm sure all the F1 guys would like to know that they've been wasting hundreds of millions of dollars each year, when you had the answer all along.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: What Happens When 4strokes Lose in Grand Prix

There are very few types of aircraft that uce a piston engine. Those that do use what appears to be a VW flat-4 engine. Sometimes Subaru engines are used. I can't remember the name of the manufacturer. It's a low-performance, low-compression, low-rpm, highly reliable 4-stroke, with redundant ignition, fuel, and oiling systems. 2-strokes are a little too unreliable for that kind of duty.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

"Haga will beat Roberts like a red-headed stepchild."

I think not, remember;

Roberts BEAT Doohan, straight up, in two races, in his first season on the Suzuki in '99 I believe. We never got a chance to see if he would do it consistant enough to be champ, but that's life. I don't see Haga being as much a threat in his first season as the renewed Biaggi, the amazing Rossi, or the wildman McCoy. Should be interesting though....

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: Capt. Kawi

Yeah, it's a lot faster. Even the weight of your mother on the back doesn't seem to slow it down as much.

 

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Re: Technology trickle-down

Wow, a bright point of light in the darkness of pointless "xyz sucks" posts!

I have a few counterpoints, however:

1) Most of the chassis advances with respect to information on ENGINE placement within the chassis and mass centralization, the stacked and cassette-type transmissions, and data acquisition were pioneered in 2-stroke design.

2) My other (main) point is actually summed up in your last paragraph about "some" advances in 4-stroke technology limited to racing engines, because of cost. IT IS THESE VERY TECHNOLOGIES/MATERIALS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE 2-STROKES IN GRAND PRIX, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'LL NEVER SEE THEM ON STREET BIKES...... There, I feel oh-so less retentive now....

Keep up the good work.