| Author | Message | ||
     Outrider |
Sweet, but I will take a torquer any day! | ||
| M1combat |
Me too but I have to admit... I love the sound of RPM's JUST as much as torque. Torque AND RPM's though... Beautiful stuff. There's nothing like a big bore with a decent stroke at 10000 RPM's.  | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
BTW Honda's CBX1000 six revved to 9000 and only made 83hp...It too was aircooled. | ||
| José_quiñones |
If the XB/XL engine did not have to built up to prevent itself from trying to shake itself apart it could be a lot lighter. The '86 GSXR750 (talk about state of the art air cooled motors for its day) was oil cooled because the engine was smaller and lighter than the liquid cooled prototype that Suzuki had also developed. Eventually they went liquid cooled (in 1992) but that oil cooled 1986 bike made 100 HP, weighed 388 pounds, revved to 10,500 rpm and went 150 mph. Not bad at all. | ||
| José_quiñones |
And now for something completely different.....  | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
Go Yammy Go! | ||
| R1DynaSquid |
July 14 2004 V-Max is back Here is the first official picture of the new MT-01 production bike - proving Yamaha has lost little of the flavour in turning it from a show-stopping concept to a road-going reality. Its 1700cc V-twin motor and radical styling makes it the natural successor to the firm's brutal V-Max. But the difference is that where the V-Max, which ended production in January this year, was fast, it was also evil-handling. The new bike puts the emphasis on grunt rather than top speed but is also blessed with sports-spec chassis parts to make it go where you want it to. Discuss this story Its final version is very close to the MT-01 show bike first exhibited in 1999- except that the suspension is more conventional. It is likely to make around 100ftlb of torque and a 100bhp. It will be priced to rival BMW's Rockster and Ducati's Monster S4R - at around £9000. It's due on sale in February next year. Read more about it in MCN, out on Wednesday, July 14, 2004. MT-01 is now in production  | ||
| Bads1 |
It sure beats the V-Max in Torque but its not in HP.But the flip side it won't handle like a cement mixer. | ||
| Socoken |
that headlight-thing is beyond fugly, and now there is finally a bike more likely to damage its exhaust badly in a tip over than tubers. | ||
| Art_vandelay |
Yeah, I'm not an engineer but I did grow up in Alaska. I've traveled at 70 mph at 30 degrees below and stuck my hand out the window... I assure you, it gets a LOT colder a LOT faster than just standing outside at thirty below. Have you ever heard of wind chill? Have you ever stood outside in a breeze? Wind chill only effects bare skin. It does not affect inanimate objects. The reason for wind chill is that your body cools by evaporation. This doesn't shut off just because it isn't 90 degrees outside. If you increase the airflow across bare skin you increase the evaporation. You do not change the thermodynamic properties of how much heat the air can hold at that temperature. I have not been to Alaska, though my sister is based in Anchorage with the Air Force. I need to visit her. So let's use a temperature range I can relate to. Take a bucket of 40 degree water, set it outside in a 40 degree night with 40 degree wind. Stand naked outside by it. Your body will think that it is 27 degrees out. You say 'Damn it's freezing out here.' The bucket of water will not freeze. All that will happen to the water in the bucket is that it will evaporate fast than if there was no wind. It will not change temperature. Since the engine in my Buell does not cool by evaporation, the change in airspeed does not help in cooling. How come it’ll overheat when sitting idling away and won’t at highway speeds? If it’s an 80 degree day and my Buell is idling away, the temperature surrounding my engine will quickly heat way past 80 degrees. If I’m cruising away on the highway that heated air is quickly getting replaced with 80 degree air. Now if I’m at a track day and I’m hammering it, the air is getting replaced even quicker, but it cannot keep up with the heat being created inside the cylinder and I'll get pinging if I don't use octane boost. Aircooling has failed me. Agreed aircooling is lighter and less complex than watercooling. You also get a side benefit of less sound deadening. So I think it sounds cooler. However Buell did not use this to an advantage. Buell is stuck using a slug of a HD engine. Like I said I love my Buell, but it could be better. Lots better. Would I like it? Don't know. I still prefer my X1 to an XB-12 and I think the XB’s are much better than the tubers. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Wind chill effects inanimate objects, so long as they are warmer then the air around them. Like an air cooled engine. Take two buckets filled with 100 degree water. Put them both outside (40 degrees), and put a fan in front of one but not the other. Neither will get below 40 degrees, but the one with the fan on it will get there a lot faster. Ever blow on a piece of hot pizza, or a cup of hot coffe? | ||
| Art_vandelay |
Reepicheep, I guess you are kind of correct. It's not really wind chill it's convection. And it'll work in either direction. Heating or cooling. The reason your pizza gets cooler quicker is because you are moving the air that has been heated away from the pizza and replacing it with cool room temperature air. That isn't wind chill. The pizza does not think that it is colder than room temperature. Like the example with my engine sitting at idle or cruising. All you are doing is replacing heated air with ambient temperature air. My point on the whole specific heat argument is that Erik kindly left an important, very important piece of information out. The difference in temperature (delta T) is not as important as the specific heat of the cooling medium. | ||
| Jon |
I think the Yamaha is a runner up. It doesn't look as good as my X1 either. If you want another naked bike...go Duc! | ||
| Rocketman |
That Yamaha doesn't look anywhere near as spectacular as the original concept MT 01. In fact it looks much closer to the BT 01. Rocket | ||
| Art_vandelay |
I got to thinking about inanimate objects feeling wind chill. Also had one too many beers tonight. I guess if an object uses evaporative cooling it could be in a position where it surface is cooler than ambient temperature. I thought about refrigeration, but that works under the principle of condensation. So I'm not sure. Does any one know anything about air conditioners? Does anyone really give a f@ck? edited by art_vandelay on July 14, 2004 | ||
| Socoken |
as far as i know, they compress refrigerant to a liquid, and heat is created, but given off under the hood, or outside, then the refrigerant is decompressed in a smaller coiled setup, drawing energy from the surroundings and supercooling, much like NO2 super-cools to -172 when it is released from a bottle, going from liquid to gas. so, as the liquid goes back to gas form, it sucks in energy from the surrounding molecules, ie the coils, cooling them. air is then blown past the outside of the coils (refrigerant on the inside) where the air is cooled by the coils and blown into the compartment. the refrigerant is then re-compressed, and the process starts over. this is all the theory of some dumb kid, who coincidently has had a few beers himself. | ||
| M1combat |
So... What volume of air is used in one second at 70 mph? What volume of water is pumped through your "average  " cooling system in one second at a roughly 70 mph () rpm? One could say that Erik conveniently left out the area of the cooling surfaces too, but I would say it's more like he didn't want to sound like a geek... | ||
| Outrider |
Reep...An easier illustration of evaporative cooling that we used in the HVAC industry is to gently exhale onto the palm of your hand and then blow on it. Same temp air coming from you but the evaporative cooling effect is immediately noticeable. Sure beats waiting for a 40 degree day, eh? LOL | ||
| Pushrodpete |
The thing is that in the end, ALL engines are air-cooled. The choice is either metal-to-air or metal-to-liquid-to-air. Sure, the "water-cooled" takes advantage of a liquid's higher specific heat, but all that does is heat up the coolant. If we had an infinite amount of water -- say we're just tossing the motor in a lake (insert your own Buell joke here, Dyna), liquid cooling would live up to its potential. However, we're stuck with a closed-loop system where that hot liquid goes right back to the engine. Ergo, the liquid in this system must itself be cooled by cruddy old moving air again. The advantages of using liquid as an "intermediary" cooling medium only exist cuz (1) you can probably get more exposed surface area in a radiator rather than the cooling fins (correct me if that's not the case); (2) you can run the liquid to specific spots inside the engine; and (3) you can stick the radiator right up in the front for better exposure to the airflow. Oh, and (4): At least on my FZ1, you could cook steaks on that mofo. Man, that thing shed some damn heat.... | ||
| Jssport |
Look to the two-strokes for first widespread use of H2O jackets, Everything could be built tighter since thermal expansion of the piston was reduced. Tighter tolerances also mean less engine noise. I started thinking of the thermal expansion properties of air/gas/liquids but it brought me back to the days when working for Nasa I had to pre-cool down to "K" rated levels the "maser's" nickel impregnated ruby cyrstal with liquid nitrogen and a vacuum pump,.. and my head started to hurt so I stopped. masers were invented before lasers, they're the key to pulling a signal out of the mud, inverted energy levels don't you know... | ||
| Crusty |
I don't understand how water cooling reduces piston expansion. Combustion temperatures would be the same whether air or liquid cools the cylinder, so the piston should expand at the same rate. I'm sure there are reasons for water cooling, but I wonder how much is really necessary, and how much is just engineering fashion? | ||
| Spike |
I don't understand how water cooling reduces piston expansion. Combustion temperatures would be the same whether air or liquid cools the cylinder, so the piston should expand at the same rate. As I understand it, water cooling offers much more stable temperatures once the engine is warmed up, which allows for closer tolerances. An air cooled engine will run in quite a wide range of temperatures depending on conditions, so the tolerances must allow for more expansion. | ||
| Jssport |
Oh no, temps were much more controlled in a water jacket, peaks temps were lowered but just as important (probably moreso), hot spots were eliminated. Back of the piston was same temp as the front. My MachIII Kaw oem pistons are cast eliptical so under operating temp they would be round. (Even says so the factory manual showing the design and the offset of the wristpin) | ||
| Blake |
Art Vandelay, From Seinfeld right? Thought you were an architect. Which might explain your interesting views on heat transfer... Specific heat is "more" important than delta temperature? Please explain. The formula for heat transfer that I recall gave them each equal weight. And Pushrodpete nailed it. Even a liquid cooled engine is ultimately air cooled. As to evaporative cooling, it works the same whether within an enclosed system like an air conditioner or in ambient conditions. When a liquid evaporates or boils it is changing from a low energy liquid state to a significantly higher energy gaseous state. The energy required to cause that change is absorbed by the gas thus causing a cooling effect to the remaining liquid and its surroundings. In an air conditioner the expanding gas is also performing work (releasing energy) by expanding rapidly through a pressure and volume differential. That work expenditure or release of energy in turn causes the gas cool. Your X1 pings at the track? My M2 built to the tune of 10.5 CR and 100 RWHP has never pinged, not in traffic, nor at the track on a hot Texas Summer day. Your engine may have carbon deposits or a lean condition or the timing may be to advanced. On one of the hottest days at the track immediately after pulling into my pit following a race, I measured my Cyclone's rear head temperature near the spark plug. It was close to 400F. No pinging. Engine ran like a champ. No race gas or octane booster either. I do run synthetic oil, a larger oil filter, an aluminum oil tank and will soon be mounting an oil cooler. It just makes sense. | ||
| Blake |
Art Vandelay, From Seinfeld right? Thought you were an architect. Which might explain your interesting views on heat transfer... Specific heat is "more" important than delta temperature? Please explain. The formula for heat transfer that I recall gave them each equal weight. And Pushrodpete nailed it. Even a liquid cooled engine is ultimately air cooled. Additionally, there are no thermodynamics involved in the two scenarios involving heat transfer that you mention, the hand in the convection oven versus the hand in hot water. Those are purely simple heat transfer problems; they are not heat/energy conversion problems, which is what the science of Thermodynamics is all about. As to evaporative cooling, it works the same whether within an enclosed system like an air conditioner or in ambient conditions. When a liquid evaporates or boils it is changing from a low energy liquid state to a significantly higher energy gaseous state. The energy required to cause that change is absorbed by the gas thus causing a cooling effect to the remaining liquid and its surroundings. In an air conditioner the expanding gas is also performing work (releasing energy) by expanding rapidly through a pressure and volume differential. That work expenditure or release of energy in turn causes the gas cool. Your X1 pings at the track? My M2 built to the tune of 10.5 CR and 100 RWHP has never pinged, not in traffic, nor at the track on a hot Texas Summer day. I suspect that your engine may have carbon deposits within the combustion chamber(s) and/or a lean condition and/or the timing may be too advanced. Consider that on one of the hottest days at the track immediately after pulling into my pit following a race, I measured via IR thermometer my Cyclone's rear head temperature near the spark plug. It was close to 400F. No pinging. Engine ran like a champ. No race gas or octane booster either. I do run synthetic oil, a larger oil filter, an aluminum oil tank and will soon be mounting an oil cooler. It just makes sense. | ||
| Blake |
If the XB/XL engine did not have to built up to prevent itself from trying to shake itself apart it could be a lot lighter. That is an inaccurate statement. Torque/cylinder is what drives the beef in an engine and the Buell mill has it aplenty. | ||
| José_quiñones |
again from our favorite anonymous poster when talking to gazett9.com about the Blast!
| ||
| R1DynaSquid |
I think what Jose is saying is this..."you just got owned"  | ||
| Art_vandelay |
Here’s the math. I looked up the math for heat transfer. q = m(DT)Cp Where q = heat transferred, DT = the change in temperature and Cp = the specific heat. So we need to take heat out of an engine. We’ll stick with Erik’s example. Let’s cool 100 kg of iron 25 degrees C. Cp for iron is 452 J/kg/C q = 100(25)452 We need to absorb 1130000 joules of energy. First the air. Cp for air is 1046 J/kg/C. Erik’s DT for this example is 155C * (see note at the bottom) and we are looking for the mass. As Erik stated ‘So you're gonna have to circulate tons of water past it to get that transition.’ m = q/(DT)Cp m = 1130000/(155)1046 We’ll need 6.96967 kg of air to absorb that energy. Now for water. Cp for water is 4186 J/kg/C. Erik’s DT for this example is 80C. Again we want to know how much mass we need. m = q/(DT)Cp m = 1130000/(80)4186 We’ll need 3.37434 kg of water to do that energy. You’ll need about half the mass of water. * The problem is that Erik left out important pieces of information. He is applying DT wrong. DT is the temperature difference in the object you are cooling. You are not cooling the engine block down to 25 degrees nor are you trying to cool it down to 100 degrees. You don’t know how much you need to cool the engine. | ||
| Art_vandelay |
Still don’t think water cooling works. Look at the equation again and at the Cp values. Let’s see how much mass we need to absorb 100,000 joules of energy 1 degree C. m = q/(DT)Cp Air m = 100,000/(1)1046 You’ll need 95.6 kg of air to absorb that energy. Water m = 100,000/(1)4186 You’ll need 23.9 kg of water to do that work. The point here is that you require a miniscule amount of water compare to air to absorb the same amount of energy. And yes you’ll have to cool that water back down, unless you are dealing with a nuclear power plant. That’s your open loop system. So you need a small amount of water to cool your engine. It’ll take lots of energy to cool the water down as the equation works backwards. This is where you get another advantage as mention by pushrodpete. You can get more surface area on the radiator instead of the cooling fins. Blake I don’t understand why you say my examples are not thermodynamics. And yes I’ve been an importer/exporter, judge, marine biologist among other things. edited by art_vandelay on July 14, 2004 |
