| Author |
Message |
    
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:11 am: | 
|
"I want a liquid cooled engine becasue I don't think that anyone can get a high performance, light wieght air cooled engine through the EPA, much less carb."
Vik, that's the same argument: you want it because you believe it's the only way to get there. But your only evidence is that everyone else does it that way. You're fixated on how things are instead of imagining how they could be.
The gixxer is a bad example. I can see how water cooling would bring more to the party on a multi.
"My point is that it can't be done and still keep the noise down enough to pass the EPA drive by test"
And my point is that's a HUGE assumption. As of yet, nobody has offered up an engineering explanation of why it's true. Ditto the power issue.
Maybe you're both right, I don't know, but history is full of examples of people doing things that "can't be done".
Forget the freakin XL/XB. Think clean sheet of paper. Think 60 degrees and offset crankpins. Think true downdraft tuned length intake runners and direct port injection. Think cylinders that are 1/2" thicker. Think covers that are truly covers and not holding things like cams and pinion shafts. Think new manufacturing processes that give us things like machined combustion chambers and tighter tolerances. Think 1300cc, 1400cc, 1500cc. Think 4 valves. Maybe w/pushrods, maybe without. Hell, my pickup's motor is 4 valves with pushrods, it ain't rocket science.
Could such a motor get to 115rwhp in a production environment and be legal?
You're saying no way?
How do you know?
Damn, I have 115rwhp with the old stuff on 1200cc! No, it ain't EPA legal, but I bet it would be with the stock muffler on it. I'd still be well over 100rwhp. Nothing I've done has increased emissions or mechanical noise. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:15 am: |
|
PS: the torque dip comes from reversion. That's an exhaust system issue, it's shoving back at an inopportune time. It's exacerbated by the overlap of the Lightning cams, notice a stock M2 doesn't have it near as bad and doesn't respond to exhaust changes nearly as well. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:19 am: |
|
PSS: Maybe they'll surprise us all and do a 2-stroke. Now THAT would be cool. Two strokes rock, and they are the ultimate in simplicity. I understand there's been some R&D on 2-strokes in recent years that could make them viable from an emissions and noise point of view. I guess someone refuses to believe it "can't be done". Either that or they're just idiots  |
Jrh
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 11:12 am: |
|
hehehe,2 strokes,now i Know nobody here wants to read about those on this site,but if you want to talk about light-weight,simplicity,they would be hard to beat.In the early 70s i had an RD350,lightweieght,simple,6 speed,incredible handling in its day.Also a Kaw H2 750,modified for more power,hi 10 sec.et.Dont know what hp they put out but by around 1976-7 at least 1 racer was getting hi 7second runs out of an H2 with only 792cc. |
Court
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 11:21 am: |
|
>>>it ain't EPA legal
Sure? That, to quote you, may be a huge assumption. The EPA testing has some odd quirks. Like a football team prepares a strategy based on the oppositions prior weeks films, motorcycle manufacturers are no stranger to playing to the EPA tests quirks.
Buell has also learned, albeit gone with the XB9R, to make it very easy for a person to dispense with the EPA compliance "constraints" quite quickly.
Gotta tell ya pal....your M-2 has me lusting for an older, rather than a newer, Buell.
Court |
Jrh
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 11:54 am: |
|
Yah,the 115hp sounds like a blast but i keep waiting to hear more about his 100"S+S Buells performance.That,must be FUN. |
Henrik
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 12:08 pm: |
|
I think the RPM used for the EPA "drive-by" (pun intended) is a percentage (55% ?) of the RPM where the motor makes the most HP.
Noise: how about using OH cams to minimize valve train noise? Also, with the FB frame surrounding the motor, could sound deadening coating on the inside of the frame soak up a few dB?
Horsepower: I like a solid HP kick in the butt as much as the next guy, but I'm also realistic about my ability to control a motorcycle - both mentally and physically.
Imagine this: track day (not racing, mind you  ), you've got a 916 in your crosshairs. The guy is faster on the straights but "park" it in the corners. So you time your corner entry so you can get on the gas early, tighten up your line and sweep by him as he stands it up coming out of the turn. Everything goes as planned, you fall back a bit so you can maintain your higher cornering speed, turn in and start rolling on the throttle, you hit the apex perfectly and get on the throttle - *hard*. All of a sudden things go into "Slo-mo"; rear end starts coming around, ground seems to come closer - fast. You and bike are now sliding along the pavement and you're thinking to yourself - Shucks, did I brake those ribs again, what will it cost to fix the bike, how close *was* that Armco barrier etc. etc.
What happened? Well, you forgot that the 120HP & 85 ft. lbs of torque you have on tap can spin the rear wheel at almost any speed and lean angle. In your eagerness to catch the Duc, you hit the throttle too hard and the rest is history.
So, what's my point? Just that it's important to realize why we'd like more horsepower - 'cause it will not make up for lacking riding skills, and most riders would probably do better with less rather than more power.
Henrik |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:14 pm: |
|
One thing that's clear to me from reading all this, and that's that we like these bikes for totally different reasons. And that's at the root of our different views.
I understand and respect that some people like'em because they're American. I generally try to buy American, too. That's cool.
Please understand, though, that for me and I'm sure a few others, the appeal of a Buell is because it's different. I *really* like the idea of making something nobody else makes, disproving conventional wisdom, showing that that there's more than one way to skin the cat. I admire people who can think outside the box and do something nobody else has done and make it work. Toss in an entrepeneurial story filled with good old fashioned hard work and courage and determination, and I can't help but be a fan.
Even though the XB doesn't particularly appeal to me personally, I still think it's cool, because in the Buell tradition, it has a whole bunch of out of the box thinking.
I'd like to see them apply that philosophy to the next motor.
It'd be great if they have the resources to do both different bikes and mainstream bikes. Make all of us happy. I doubt they do, though. |
Spiderman
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:17 pm: |
|
AMEN Aaron, |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:19 pm: |
|
I suspect that Buell popularity will begin to diminish if all the factory is offering is a 75 RWHP bike. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:27 pm: |
|
Anon, I couldn't agree more. We need more power. Even HD recognized this when they went to the TC88. You just don't come out with the new improved version and go backwards in power. Makes no sense to me. Even though many of us aren't good enough riders to fully utilize the power we have, fact is, excessive power is entertaining. I don't spend all that money and time souping up bikes because I'm happy with 75rwhp! |
Jrh
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 01:44 pm: |
|
Henrik,it all depends on what kind of racing we like,i guess.
Imagine this:track day at my local dragstrip,im sitting at the line on my 80 or so h.p.1200cc M2.Out of the corner of my good eye i see a bike pull up beside me.Humm,is it a 'busa?No its just a pesky little GSXR 600...but im still gonna be a loser in about 11 seconds.
 |
Henrik
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 02:52 pm: |
|
Jrh: I see your point I never did any straight line racing, but have a ball with anything with turns in it. I guess that since Buell claim the FB to be targeted at backroad scratching, my analogy may be part of their reasoning??
Speaking of 'busas and the HP quest; Greg Santrock flat out "spanked" a guy on a Hayabusa at the Jefferson course at Summit Point 2 weeks ago. Mind you, Greg is riding a track prepped SV650 with only pipe and jet kit for added HP. Greg is just soooo smooth and fast through the corners, that once he got past the 'busa in the turns, he was so far ahead when they got back on the straights that the 'busa didn't have a chance of catching him. Good stuff. Handling over HP 0n a tight track. Mind you I'm watching this from behind ... far, far behind
Henrik |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Read the second paragraph:
Aaron, this would be a great article for Battle2win, eh????
It would be great if you could get a hold of Gary Valine again to do an Exhaustive Measures part II, showing what has changed since the original article in 1996 and how the Firebolt has addressed some of the issues raised in the original article, and how this sound distribution chart has changed, if any:
 |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Quote:Forget the freakin XL/XB. Think clean sheet of paper. Think 60 degrees and offset crankpins. Think true downdraft tuned length intake runners and direct port injection. Think cylinders that are 1/2" thicker. Think covers that are truly covers and not holding things like cams and pinion shafts. Think new manufacturing processes that give us things like machined combustion chambers and tighter tolerances. Think 1300cc, 1400cc, 1500cc. Think 4 valves. Maybe w/pushrods, maybe without. Hell, my pickup's motor is 4 valves with pushrods, it ain't rocket science.
Aaron, your truck is watercooled isn't it???
What does that engine configuration have to do with the current engines?? Nothing, I thought that's what we're discussing, the XL/XB engine and it's power development in EPA legal form.
Is this configuration something to look forward to (wink, wink)? |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 11:26 pm: |
|
No, we were discussing whether it's a good thing to go to water cooling or stay with air cooling. I thought I made it pretty clear that I thought the current motor wasn't a good basis for comparison. It's a cruiser design. We need a performance design.
I agree completely, if they decide to make the next motor a diesel V8 with 300hp and 520 ft/lbs of torque (!), they should definitely water cool it
But if they decide to make it a v-twin, they need to carefully look at whether the advantages of water cooling offset the downsides, and if there aren't other ways to get where they want to be. I'm reluctant to assume that water cooling is necessary or the best way to get there. Maybe. It seems to me that water cooling would make a lot more sense for a multi than a twin.
My guess is they know a whole ton more about that whole set of trade-offs than all of us put together. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 07:10 am: |
|
Oops, I must have skipped that part of the conversation..
I agree about the current engine.
The funny thing is that you basically described an air cooled REVOLUTION engine!
If I was HD and spent all this money developing the Revolution, wouldn't it make more sense to use this engine in more than one model to spread the cost around?
To make an aircooled version of basically the same engine that you sell in 10,000 Vrods a year, when this aircooled version might sell less than 10,000 per year doesn't make sense. Unless they also put it in the new Sportster to spread the costs.
Now a WATERCOOLED FOUR STROKE SQUARE FOUR version of the original RW750 engine , on the other hand....... |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 08:10 am: |
|
Here is my dream motor:
Air cooled 60 degree V-twin. 4 x 3.5, current bottom end Ok. 4 valves per cylinder driven by DOHC, with narrow angles and 10.5 compression. Vertical ports with EFI. 6 speed trans from a Japanese manufacturer (a la Britten). Dry clutch with primary belt drive. This last one is a Willie G ism. I have to leave some character for traditional purposes.
Estimated power 140 HP @ 8250 rpm... |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 09:22 am: |
|
I think maybe we're forgetting a major factor in the air vs. water cooling war. Body work. It's tough to air cool a motor that's covered in plastic. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 09:42 am: |
|
It's tough to aircool anything that's covered, that's why they need vents and fans and such. You define your operational speeds, then design your cooling parameters and air flow around that. Does an RR1000 have a cooling problem? (I don't know the answer to that and don't intend it to be a rhetorical question.)
If you take a radiator and use that same surface area and air flow volume to cool an aircooled engine, then I believe you'll be in a somewhat safe area. But if you just slam a radiator on the front of a bike behind the forks, but don't design in airflow to direct air through the radiator to transfer the heat from the water inside the system through the fins and then to the air, then you'll be boiling the fluids in no time. In reality, a water cooled engine is air cooled, the water/fluid is just another transfer medium.
I'm no cooling/heat-transfer expert, but have worked closely with some high caliber experts on thermal conductivity designing stuff for unspecified vehicle systems (one's you'll most likely never see unless they want you to.) |
Henrik
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 09:51 am: |
|
Hootowl: AFAIK quite a few airplane motors are aircooled? I read an article by Kevin Cameron, where he described how the aviation industry realized the importance of improving airflow through the motor/cooling system, where as the MC industry is still just hanging pieces out "in the wind" hoping it will cool.
According to him, it should be possible to improve cooling immensely by truly designing for air flow. Of course, there is the little detail of a motorcycle sitting in traffic - not much flow there
Henrik |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 09:59 am: |
|
Yes, but a radiator allows you to locate very specifically where your heat exchange is taking place. You don't get that with air cooling. I'm not making a case for water cooling a Buell. Buells are naked bikes anyway. I'm offering another reason why other manufacturers have switched to water cooling. It's probably just a whole lot easier to water cool a fully faired motorcycle than it is to air cool it. They may not have switched purely for performance reasons. Until recently, the GSXR's were air cooled, and that same motor still powers the Bandits. They're still using air cooled engines, just not in their fully faired models. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:02 am: |
|
Small piston driven airplanes are usually still going well over 100 mph. Faster airflow means more cooling. If they have to stop for traffic, they have bigger problems than their engine overheating. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:07 am: |
|
Water cooling is an expediant means to a cooling resolution. The Firebolt took a less expediant path but wound up with a decent aircooled formula. Air cooling can work if you have the right team working on it.
But then I keep thinking about the 2-stroke trials bikes with their tiny little radiators, their low speed, their minimalistic approach to everything, and wonder how some of that technology would translate to a street bike.
When is the dealer's show again? Should be a few leaks any day now. |
Jrh
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hootowl
Thats a very good point.I hope Buell doesnt follow the recent trend and go for full fairing,cowlings,etc.Im guessing(+i could be totaly wrong,the only article i've read about aerodynamics of motorcycles was in SportRider Mag.)most of this bodywork is for styling+any aerodynamic benifits happen at too high speeds to mean much on a streetbike.Plus,personaly i like the stripped down look of an S1 or a Brutale.
I guess my #1 concern with whatever design engine they might use in the future is i dont want it to add ANY more weight.From the posted weights we've read on this site,that seems to put the V-rods engine(even if modified for lightness)out of the picture,its just too heavy.Imo the best candidate for an ideal street engine was the KTM,watercooled V-twin until 2 or 3 days ago.It's got power+superlightweight,but its not realistic to think Buell,H-D are gonna ever buy them.
Which brings me to what i now really,really, wish they would do.Exactly as Aaron says,get the engineers working on ways to make an aircooled engine stay cool.My knowledge of what H-D has done in the recent past is limited,but all i'm aware of is the"spinylock"(to disipate heat better)cylinder liner design in the TC88,+maybe some vent holes in the 1999?X1 gas tank cover,coventional type finned oil coolers,really nothing out of the ordinary.It sure seems like the engineers have never really applied themselves toward a cooler operating AC engine,maybe its just too obvious for them to even see. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:49 am: |
|
Look at the BMW "R" bikes ... in particular the R1150RT ... full fairing and air cooled ... quiet & smooth ... terrific bikes ... pass EPA & CARB. Okay, so they're not real light or powerful. But it shows that air cooling can be made to work. |
Jrh
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:58 am: |
|
Aaron
The how to make a better air cooled engine theme sounds like a very interesting article for B2Win,no? |
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:58 am: |
|
How about an ORBITAL (our Australian friends should be all over this) two stroke. These things combine the two stroke cycel with direct incetions to eliminate the usual two stroke valving issues. The also inject tiny amounts of oil right into the bearings which is than burned, very cleaning BTW.
They claim it used less oil than a 4 stroke. that right less oil than a 4 stroke. How? Well thye count the quarts that you remove and toss away every 6000 miles in the 4 stroke engine even if you do not burn any oil.
These things are tiny and make very good power. How about a V-6 900 cc (two strokes get less efficent when they get over 150cc per cylinder) with liquid cooling,?
dave |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:10 am: |
|
R1150RT. The heat producing parts of this motorcycle live OUTSIDE of the fairing. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:14 am: |
|
As far as air cooling and power? You only have to look at last generation of air cooled Porsche motors. They were very powerful, EPA legal(and the car regs are much tougher than the bikes) ran fine in traffic, featured big turbo chargers and of course had to run all the extra stuff a car has like an air conditioner. And the underlying desing of the motor was pretty old.
It sure seems possible that one could do air cooling and make it work.
One problem area is right at the exhaust valve. Liquid cooling makes it a little easier to keep the temperature of this area under control. |
|
A VROD Based Streetfighter?! »
Archive through July 01, 2002