Jump to content


Photo

Crazy racing engines


  • Please log in to reply
737 replies to this topic

#101 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 February 2005 - 12:22

Originally posted by Superliner II
Large capacity injected 2 stroke jet skis are still passing emissions regs in California last I heard so they can't be that bad.


I doubt that they have to pass the same emissions regulations that cars or bikes have to.

A couple of years ago I read that more pollution was created in LA by ride-on lawn mowers than all of the cars.........

Advertisement

#102 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 February 2005 - 12:30

Originally posted by llmaurice
I realise that we are moving away from the real topic but if mankind has no real effect on the evironment where did all the CFCs come from that have put the hole in the heavy side layer , not from the need to have air con I presume ?
As the song goes "When will they ever learn ? "


The hole in the ozone layer was discovered before the invention of CFCs, certainly before CFCs came into widespread use.

And considering that the majority of the world's population, and presumably CFC use, is/was in the Northern Hemisphere, why would the hole be over Antarctica?

#103 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 04 February 2005 - 12:40

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER

The ice caps never change their volume. Only the relationship between the sun and the earth change the climate due to their molten cores and the variation of polarity therein. Some short term climate changes occur with volcanoes and meteorites, etc.

The rain forests spew out more CO2 than all of industry. Get rid of them and all the miserable creatures that live in them. Mankind has no influence on the climate. The Kyoto Protocol is to destroy capitalism and hydrogen will cause more harm to the atmosphere than any amount of C02.
Sides, you would be speaking German if it whereat for us.



Methane gas is said to be 7 times worse for the "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide. And that is produced by rotting vegetation and dead animals. It is also produced by live animals, on a regular basis.........

The primary greenhous gas is, in fact, water vapour. Produced naturally form the process of evaporation, etc.

Man-made C02 amounts to 1/30th of natural CO2 production.

But I can't see how the Kyoto Protocol has any hope of destroying capitalism, nor how hydrogen could do more harm than CO2.

And, if it weren't for the British, French, Russians, etc, there would not have been a war for America to enter to claim that they won.........

#104 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 04 February 2005 - 13:10

Originally posted by Wuzak
A couple of years ago I read that more pollution was created in LA by ride-on lawn mowers than all of the cars.........


That's true...also leaf blowers, weedeaters, and...wait for it...charcoal grilles. Thus you can see the problems inherent in blaming the problems on cars, or that fixing the cars alone will solve LA's problems.

#105 llmaurice

llmaurice
  • Member

  • 419 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 February 2005 - 11:52

Thats fine then , now we know we have NO control over the environment , Blair doesn't need to waste his breath trying to Get George W to do anything about Americas emissions.
The good news I guess is that we can all go back to burning coal and wood plus all our rubbish .
Back to the original thread , we may as well bring pack our razor sharp 2 strokes as well as a bit of HC can't do any harm -only to California ?

#106 llmaurice

llmaurice
  • Member

  • 419 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 February 2005 - 11:58

Thats fine then , now we know we have NO control over the environment , Blair doesn't need to waste his breath trying to Get George W to do anything about Americas emissions.
The good news I guess is that we can all go back to burning coal and wood plus all our rubbish .
Back to the original thread , we may as well bring pack our razor sharp 2 strokes as well as a bit of HC can't do any harm -only to California ?

#107 Superliner II

Superliner II
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 February 2005 - 19:09

Originally posted by hydra



Yeah? Why not? :rolleyes:


It wasn't meant for you.

Mark, the marine and loco 2 strokes use diesel
Man B&W Two stroke marine diesels

#108 Psychoman

Psychoman
  • Member

  • 2,711 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 09 February 2005 - 08:40

Getting back on topic... I know the ill-fated EB110 had a quad-turbo motor... has there ever been an actual race car with more than a twin-turbo motor?

#109 dustee rubba

dustee rubba
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 09 February 2005 - 09:50

ford gt90 has quad turbo, dont know if it was raced. (maybe it was prototype?)

#110 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2005 - 11:54

Originally posted by Psychoman
Getting back on topic... I know the ill-fated EB110 had a quad-turbo motor... has there ever been an actual race car with more than a twin-turbo motor?


Hmm, excellent question... there have been some offshore powerboat racers, drag cars and pulling tractors using that setup, but no road course/oval applications come to mind...perhaps someone toward the end of the original Can Am era?

#111 ciaoduc1

ciaoduc1
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 09 February 2005 - 12:21

http://www.popularho...305em_turbo_bb/

Obviously a drag racer...

Why haven't there been any road racing engines like this?? Heat, complexity, cost??

#112 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,432 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 09 February 2005 - 14:54

...but I would think that mostly quad turbos would be used to give flexibility...

And FWIW, mostly road racing cars are equipped with gearboxes that allow them to use peakier engines than that. Not to mention two turbos (or one...) being lighter and easier to package than four.

#113 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 09 February 2005 - 15:13

Originally posted by ciaoduc1
http://www.popularho...305em_turbo_bb/

Obviously a drag racer...

Why haven't there been any road racing engines like this?? Heat, complexity, cost??


All the above I'm sure. Four turbos and their associated plumbing involve a considerable amount of space and weight. Given modern engine controls, a decent twin-turbo setup should produce output curves approaching that of NA. That said, the Mike Moran BB Chevy engine pictured in the link is quite an impressive piece of kit, eh?

#114 ciaoduc1

ciaoduc1
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 09 February 2005 - 15:21

I would think an engine with a wider torque curve would always be more warmly welcomed. That's one of the big problems with 2 strokes right? Sure four small turbo's weigh more than a single big one but a 5 speed gearbox would weigh less than a 7 speed gearbox.

#115 Psychoman

Psychoman
  • Member

  • 2,711 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 09 February 2005 - 19:35

Found an answer at Wikipedia--an EB110 was entered at the '96 Daytona 24 Hour. From Bugattipage.com:

The Bugatti EB110 ss driven by Gildo Pastor Pallanca (Owner), Derek John Hill and Olivier Grouillard didn't finish at Daytona, due to mechanical problems and especially Electronic System trouble after 7 hours.

DEREK HILL about the car: -- (After driver change in 7th overall) The car is running great -- I had no problems. When the track started getting wet I really started gaining coming out of the turns (Bugatti uses all-wheel drive). I noticed the Porsches were slipping and sliding and I started gobbling them up coming off the corners. The track conditions are really not that bad. (On being 7th overall.) I had no idea -- That's terrific!

Standings after each hour:

Hour Overall Pos. Class Position Laps behind #1

1 12 4 0
2 6 3 -1
3 7 4 -1
4 13 6 -5
5 13 6 -7
6 20 8 -15
8 49 19 -62



#116 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 10 February 2005 - 05:47

Originally posted by McGuire


All the above I'm sure. Four turbos and their associated plumbing involve a considerable amount of space and weight. Given modern engine controls, a decent twin-turbo setup should produce output curves approaching that of NA. That said, the Mike Moran BB Chevy engine pictured in the link is quite an impressive piece of kit, eh?



One major problem in road racing would be the same thing that killed the Porsche Can-Am car (before the SCCA stuck its head up it's butt and killed the series) fuel mileage.

Blown engines use fuel at a greater rate than NA engines, especially at large sizes. In 1974, with the smaller fuel load, the Porsche simply could not keep up with the Shadows and not run out of fuel.
They only ran at Mid-Ohio and I forget what was different there.

Another reason such big engines are not seen, even in NA form, seems to be that while Euro rules makers lover turbos, they are allergic to big block US engines. (The Chevrolet LS-7 is not a big block, it is a large bore small block)
I would love to see more of the top US engine builders go road racing again, as they did up to the late seventies.

Bob

#117 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 20 February 2005 - 05:41

Originally posted by llmaurice
Thats fine then , now we know we have NO control over the environment , Blair doesn't need to waste his breath trying to Get George W to do anything about Americas emissions.
The good news I guess is that we can all go back to burning coal and wood plus all our rubbish .
Back to the original thread , we may as well bring pack our razor sharp 2 strokes as well as a bit of HC can't do any harm -only to California ?


That is basically correct. The Earth is basically a greenhouse planet. The default condition for the past 1.8 billion years has been no polar ice caps. Sea levels have been up to 80 metres higher than at present (the major control on this is rate of sea floor spreading, not the melting of ice stored on land). With a lower temperature differential between equator and poles, the atmosphere would have been calmer. Humid temperate conditions would have prevailed.

This condition has been episodically upset by ice ages. There have been in the order of ten since the Proterozoic, with two probable major events in the Pecambrian, and one in the Permian. They last for a few to tens of millions of years. The ice age we live in started about 15 million years ago, with the formation of the Antarctic ice cap, but has only fully developed in the past 2-4 million years.

The Quaternary ice age has been characterised by a number (20-40) of glacial/interglacial cycles, of which the last four are reasonably well recorded in the sedimentary record. These cycles comprise about 110,000 years of glacial alternating with 10-20,000 years of interglacial. Right now we are about 13,000 years into the current interglacial.

During glacial periods at higher latitudes, the normal conditions that prevail are cold and dry. Temperatures in central North America drop 5-10C below current averages of around 15C. While some areas may be wetter than at present (Some African and North American lakes were larger), in general desert areas expand. Increased aridity and higher wind speeds cause dune fields to replace scrubby desert. The last glacial maximum, when ice caps were developed in North America, Europe as well as high areas into the tropics, and sea level dropped by 140 metres, lasted about 20,000 years.

The current interglacial (presumptuously named the Holocene) has seen at least 3 warm periods, at about 7, 4, and 1.5 thousand years BP, alternating with cooler periods. The range of variation is in the order of 2-3 degrees C. During the last warm period, the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland. During the "Little Ice Age" that followed, the colonists were abandoned and integrated with the Inuit or died. The Little Ice Age peaked at about 1700 AD, as anyone familiar with Breughal's work will know, and since then temperatures have typically increased by about 1 degree C.

We have a very nice correlation between Quaternary glacial/interglacial events and Milankovich cycles, although these do not explain the greenhouse/ice house episodes. We understand that the disposition of continents and mountains influences atmospheric and marine circulation, and therefore heat transfer. We know that elevated levels of greenhouse gasses coincide with warm periods, but not whether they cause them. These sytems are complex, and may work in counter intuitive ways. Water vapour is much more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but when it condenses into cloud, the albedo rises and the area under cloud cools. Cold conditions are generally dry: precipitation is a more critical parameter for the growth of ice sheets than cold. And of course, when we have an ice cap, the high albedo helps maintain the staus quo in a nice feedback loop.

Nothing in the summary above is controversial. It is based on a wealth of detailed and robust observation and scientific evidence. What are we to make of it? The absolute certainties are that climate is dynamic, climate change will continue to occur, and that claims of "...hottest/mostest on record" are false.

Our best guess for the future is that the current interglacial will get warmer before we enter the, possibly delayed, next glacial. The current ice age is likely to continue thus for a few million years before we enter the next prolonged greenhouse age. No power on Earth can resist climate change. The widely known curve showing steadily increasing global temperatures since the nineteenth century is simply a section of the trace showing an increase, and of which there are many which are larger, faster and more sustained. We may be able to alter the route, but the destination remains the same. I am not arguing against conservation, but it is important to understand that the aim of the Greenhouse Industry is stasis, and this is not possible. So fire up the barbie, light up that Havana, and enjoy the ride.

Cheers
S

#118 BRIAN GLOVER

BRIAN GLOVER
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 20 February 2005 - 13:52

At last a voice of reason amongst the sea of emotional left leaning, communist, anti-capitalist (expletive)s.
Thankyou my friend. Can you guide me toward any reference material?
Eriksson landed in Canada in or around the year 800. He crossed the Atlantic and encountered fairly warm waters. The Spanish Mane experienced colder water but not anywhere as near as the Titanic did. The North Atlantic is colder now than it has been in the last 3000 years with even more icebergs. Shipping lanes are much further south now in the winter.

The most accurate records of ocean temperatures over the past 60 years, is held by the US Navy. Future US military campaigns factor in climate changes.

The alarmist scientists get the funding while China arms itself. Boy, do I hate the left.



Originally posted by soubriquet

During the last warm period, the Vikings were able to colonise Greenland. During the "Little Ice Age" that followed, the colonists were abandoned and integrated with the Inuit or died. The Little Ice Age peaked at about 1700 AD, as anyone familiar with Breughal's work will know, and since then temperatures have typically increased by about 1 degree C.


Nothing in the summary above is controversial. It is based on a wealth of detailed and robust observation and scientific evidence. What are we to make of it? The absolute certainties are that climate is dynamic, climate change will continue to occur, and that claims of "...hottest/mostest on record" are false.
So fire up the barbie, light up that Havana, and enjoy the ride.

Cheers
S



#119 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 21 February 2005 - 02:07

I highly recommend Tjeerd (every van should have one) van Andel (1994), New views on an old planet. Cambridge UP. It's a second edition, which says something of the work. There are three chapters on palaeoclimatology. He outlines the methodologies, presents and discusses the results, uncertainties, and draws it all together with a very sure touch.

Search for "oxygen isotope analysis" or "vostock ice core" will turn up plenty of hits and lots of curves.

http://www.cnrs.fr/c...mist030699.html

http://www.daviesand...nning/New_Data/

Look for papers by Shackleton, Emeliani, Imbrie & Kipp, Dansgaard & Tauber in Science or Nature. It is all based on the work of Harold Urey, for which he got his second Nobel Prize (for Geology, bless him :clap: ). That should give you enough to face down any ex-hippie pinko. That's me, btw :wave: .

Cheeers
S

Advertisement

#120 BRIAN GLOVER

BRIAN GLOVER
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 21 February 2005 - 21:29

Thanks man.....and peace, brother. Hang loose. Roll me another one, just like the other one.

Originally posted by soubriquet That should give you enough to face down any ex-hippie pinko. That's me, btw :wave: .

Cheeers
S [/B]



#121 BRIAN GLOVER

BRIAN GLOVER
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 21 February 2005 - 21:34

Thanks man.....and peace, brother. Hang loose. Roll me another one, just like the other one.

Originally posted by soubriquet That should give you enough to face down any ex-hippie pinko. That's me, btw :wave: .

Cheeers
S [/B]



#122 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 February 2005 - 22:26

Here is a sweet little engine, the Radical V8 (from the chassis builders of the same name). A 72 degree, 2.6 liter flat-crank V8 based on Suzuki componentry. Makes around 360 bhp/210 lb ft, weighs 88 kg. I understand it's kind of pricey, but isn't it cute? Imagine this little devil in a Lotus 7-type street machine. Music.



Posted Image

#123 ciaoduc1

ciaoduc1
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 February 2005 - 02:18

http://www.sjmmarsh....aterham/v8.html
this is two Yamaha engines smushed together. I have more links to this engine but I can't find them for the life of me. There is a website out there somewhere with more pictures of it and some sound files of it running.

#124 ciaoduc1

ciaoduc1
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 February 2005 - 02:58

here it is: http://www.rst-v8.com/
Very pricey but street cred is expensive...

#125 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 22 February 2005 - 17:34

Not exactly crazy, but certainly an interesting and expensive street engine. :cool:

http://www.falconere....com/prod05.htm

John

#126 12.9:1

12.9:1
  • Member

  • 270 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 23 February 2005 - 22:28

If any one was confused by the preceding posts Regarding Climate Change - ranging from bizarre to well reasoned - though biassed, here a link to the current consensus, + some outspoken critics

http://www.newscient.../mg18524861.400


And the critics
http://www.newscient...=mg18524861.500

#127 hydra

hydra
  • Member

  • 417 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 23 February 2005 - 23:06

Why the hell go for a 72 degree V8? Sure as hell hope not for packaging reasons :confused:

#128 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 February 2005 - 23:54

Originally posted by hydra
Why the hell go for a 72 degree V8? Sure as hell hope not for packaging reasons :confused:

Perhaps the cylinder bores were 36° off vertical in the original application of the cylinder heads. Maybe an cyl head oil drainback cross-head slope that would become uphill if the head is tilted over further.

Perhaps a 72° Vee angle V8 with a flat crank has no real downside compared to a 90° Vee. I can't imagine the summations of forces would be markedly different. Remember that a flat crank V8 is absolutely just two complete inline fours that happen to share a crank.

Note that the last Cosworth V8s in F1 (1996-1997) were 75° Vees. And if there is no detriment to using 72° rather than 90°... why not make the engine more compact?

#129 shaun979

shaun979
  • Member

  • 417 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 February 2005 - 00:08

I don't understand why so many high performance V8s are flat plane. Are they all just trying to sound exotic? Didn't the Pro-stockers try out flat plane cranks for a while and end up unable to find any extra power? Not to mention that extra shake forces with a flat plane crankshaft.

#130 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,609 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 February 2005 - 00:55

I think it is because it simplifies the design of the exhaust.

#131 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,218 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 24 February 2005 - 01:49

Originally posted by McGuire
Here is a sweet little engine, the Radical V8 (from the chassis builders of the same name). A 72 degree, 2.6 liter flat-crank V8 based on Suzuki componentry. Makes around 360 bhp/210 lb ft, weighs 88 kg. I understand it's kind of pricey, but isn't it cute? Imagine this little devil in a Lotus 7-type street machine. Music.



Posted Image


Sweet, indeed. Look how compact that is. It'd be fun to build a bike around that if one could work out how to route the exhaust plumbing. Of course it'd probably be no faster than the four it was based on except to wear out rear tires, but it'd have people gawking. People still talk about the Guzzi V-8 from the fifties.

#132 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 24 February 2005 - 01:50

Interesting that the Radical V8 has one head and block reversed, necessitating a second cam drive between the rear main and flywheel assembly. How would this be achieved? By machining a gear drive on the crank, or a sprocket? How compatible is crankshaft steel with the heat treating and wear characteristics of gears?

Thanks for the link 12.9:1

Cheers
S

#133 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,218 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 24 February 2005 - 01:54

5 years ago, nitrided 300M steel was used for both cranks and gearsets in F1. May still be. I'm sure the timing drives are roller chain per standard motorcycle practice.

#134 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,432 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 February 2005 - 02:57

Originally posted by McGuire
.....Imagine this little devil in a Lotus 7-type street machine. Music.



Posted Image


You, sir, have an evil mind!

Unfortunately your picture is equally evil! It's not accessible any more...

#135 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 24 February 2005 - 03:22

It's here, Ray:

http://www.radicalex...umble/index.php

Follow the links for the full story.

#136 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 February 2005 - 05:45

What about this guy's solution to a bike engine?

http://www.motoczysz.com

15° twin crank V4, mounted longitudinally in the bike, drive taken off at 90° driving rear wheel via chain. The twin cranks counter rotate.

#137 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 February 2005 - 05:48

The best run with the twin butterfly system that will be utilised in the SR8 saw a maximum power output of 372bhp at 9,800 rpm, with 207 ft lbs of torque at 6,800 rpm.

Ted Hurrell was understandably well-pleased, “It is unprecedented that a new engine development programme should go so well. This engine is going to re-write the book. The RPA engine is producing Cosworth DFV power at sensible clubman money. All the signs are that the RPA rebuild costs will be very reasonable, and the time between rebuilds should be over 30 hours.”

“When this development phase is complete, we will look at producing a two litre version, and a highly-tuned version for the hill climb boys. The sky is the limit. I’m expecting a call from Minardi and Jordan any day now!”


http://www.radicalex...bitch/index.php

:lol:

#138 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,432 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 February 2005 - 06:14

Originally posted by Wuzak
.....15° twin crank V4, mounted longitudinally in the bike, drive taken off at 90° driving rear wheel via chain. The twin cranks counter rotate.


Well, that solves the problem of torque reaction laying the bike over, doesn't it?

#139 ciaoduc1

ciaoduc1
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:16

Anybody wanting a little V8 in their motorcycle? Three versions available.
http://home.mira.net/~iwd/
Sound bite on this link also.
Just wondering, does anybody have a cheap hobby?? I really need to find one.

Advertisement

#140 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 54,432 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 24 February 2005 - 08:28

Hey, that's quite something to come out of Dandenong!

Well worth a few minutes looking at that site...

#141 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 25 February 2005 - 07:49

Not racing engines, but a couple of pics I took recently at Duxford.

Posted Image

This is a WW2 era Pratt and Whitney engine.

Posted Image

A 30 cylinder Packard tank engine.

Edit: a Dodge/Chrysler as McGiure points out below

Duxford is a must for any aero enthusiast. While I was there they took out a newly restored Spitfire for testing, and I got a free half hour show of loops, rolls and low passes. I have some more snaps, if anyone's interested.

Cheers
S

#142 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 25 February 2005 - 14:02

Originally posted by soubriquet
Interesting that the Radical V8 has one head and block reversed, necessitating a second cam drive between the rear main and flywheel assembly. How would this be achieved? By machining a gear drive on the crank, or a sprocket? How compatible is crankshaft steel with the heat treating and wear characteristics of gears?


Good eye for noticing that. Running cam drives on both ends this way avoids the necessity of re-designing the entire original cam drive system, which was engineered to handle the loads of driving two cams, not four, and also limits/balances torsional vibration on the crank (at least one F1 engine has used this layout). The additional sprocket would no doubt be manufactured separately and then installed on the crank...for all we know another Suzuki part right off the shelf.

#143 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,596 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 25 February 2005 - 14:12

Originally posted by McGuire


Good eye for noticing that. Running cam drives on both ends this way avoids the necessity of re-designing the entire original cam drive system, which was engineered to handle the loads of driving two cams, not four, and also limits/balances torsional vibration on the crank (at least one F1 engine has used this layout). The additional sprocket would no doubt be manufactured separately and then installed on the crank...for all we know another Suzuki part right off the shelf.


And allows them to use the Suzuki heads as is, rather than having to modify one and its cams to be driven off the opposite end to normal.

#144 BRIAN GLOVER

BRIAN GLOVER
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 25 February 2005 - 16:09

I visit England once a year and each time I first go to the Battle of Britain Museum in Hendon (Meca for me) and then on to Duxford. Please send pictures.

Originally posted by soubriquet
Not racing engines, but a couple of pics I took recently at Duxford.
Duxford is a must for any aero enthusiast. While I was there they took out a newly restored Spitfire for testing, and I got a free half hour show of loops, rolls and low passes. I have some more snaps, if anyone's interested.

Cheers
S



#145 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 25 February 2005 - 16:49

Radials RULE! Here's a Lycoming...

Posted Image

#146 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 26 February 2005 - 02:14

If you don't want to be one of those losers with a mere 8, 10, or 12 cylinders...

Posted Image

An 80 valve 4.0L V16!

The Callaway Cyclone V16 is a prototype engine for a future Callaway project.

4.0 liter 16 cylinder 90° V angle
5 valves / cylinder DOHC
Naturally aspirated
Power 550 bhp@10,000 rpm
Torque 340 ft/lb@ 8,500 rpm
Max RPM- 10,500

Dimensions –
926 length (36.45")
540 width (21.25")
500 height (19.7") - to top of injector trumpets
Dry weight- 152 kg (334 lbs.)

#147 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 26 February 2005 - 02:53

Due overwhelming public support (thanks Brian), here goes.

Posted Image

Radial rod assembly

Posted Image

Merlin

Posted Image

Detail of valve gear

Posted Image

Daimler Benz 603a inverted V12. Were these sleeve valved?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Lest anyone forget that you over there were once over here (my mother certainly hasn't)

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Me mam saw plenty of this from her back garden in Kent

Posted Image

Cheers
S

#148 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 February 2005 - 04:48

Posted Image

"Daimler Benz 603a inverted V12. Were these sleeve valved?"


No, four poppet valves per cylinder...the DB 60x series is vaguely like a Merlin in general configuration but inverted. The sleeves are screw-in cylinder liners (like a Hisso or Lampredi Ferrari). The odd serrated rings are threaded retainers that draw down and seal the crank end of the liners.

#149 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 February 2005 - 05:00

Originally posted by soubriquet
Posted Image

Radial rod assembly


While we are on the subject of building V8's out of inline four parts...In the Great Depression, when folks had a lot less money but plenty of time on their hands, master-slave connecting rods like these were sometimes employed to put two four cylinder blocks on one crankcase with the original crankshaft. Voila, home-built V8's. Each rod throw carried one master-slave rod arrangement.

Among these, there was the Swindler V8 (unfortunate name, he should have named it after something other than himself hmm) which was built from two American Austin L-head inline fours. Some of these homebuilt V8 efforts even used original blocks, carefully pieced together using blacksmithing and boilermaking techniques.

#150 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 26 February 2005 - 13:04

Speaking of inverted engines, and crazy racing engines, here is the infamous Shay midget. This Ford flathead V8-60 midget engine was not only inverted but ran reverse rotation...for better bite off the corners, an old dirt track trick. It also ran reverse airflow: the intake ran through the original exhaust ports, the exhaust through the original intakes.

Posted Image