Jensen,
Please don't make me do any more formulas! The conversion to US units for your dyno graph was tough enough for my old brain.
But it would be interesting to see your calculations.
Another possible loss would be the necessity of both cylinders having to share the same intake charge from the carb.
Also, you are correct on the oil debate!
Type II "Twingle"?
braging alert!We ain't scared of no stinking formulas:-) !
In the late '60,s I went through the army microwave operator and repair course in Fort Monmouth N.J. then went to the great cluster F... of Viet Nam (a place where my recruiter said they didn't have microwave radio's); after that I completed 2 1/2 yrs of a 4 year engineer program in Sacramento--- depletion of my bank account and brain account stopped any further torture------ but, I do remember having to try and understand how to calculate the amplifying power of a transformer and the resulting hysteresis loop with dc magnetization of a ac transformer. Now they have magnetic amplifiers of power gains of 1,000,000 and they last a lot longer then electronic amplifiers. Here is some truly scary formulas: http://www.vias.org/eltransformers/lee_ ... 09_10.html That's not saying I could use any of these today but I like to read technical journals and would like to hear the explanation of this "big bang" theory; cause using good old yankee common sense it looks like both configurations would put out the same torque. Now I mean 720 degree torque not instantaneous torque, alto isn't torque averaged over the two complete turns of the crank really horsepower? Jensen, why would there be any difference in the three types of losses due to the difference in firing mode? I vote for G-man's explanation, that it's the tractable delivery of the available torque not breaking lose the rear tire making it easier to ride in the hilly terrain Cliffc encountered in Japan. Isn't the firing on every cycle of a Two stroke dirt bike partly responsibly for rear wheel spin along with the hit from the expansion chamber? Also one of the reason the long stroke singles have more torque is the increased leverage on the crank from the longer rod; compared to a shorter stroke ca77 type, plus the larger crank weights: according to Cameron. Clarence Jensen
If you like - PM me with some of your formulae. I am curious now. I am assuming that our twingle has two carbs and that all we are doing is splitting the engine in half and joining it together in different configurations. The only big difference I can see is that we are doubling the force pushing on the pistons in one stroke of the crank. You will also synchronise the compression and pumping losses. That means that we have doubled the force pushing down on the crank for that stroke. The physical situation for each 'half' engine hasn't changed, the duration of the firing pulse hasn't changed - it just has twice the energy and happens half as often. That will have an effect on all of the bearings and drive train components below the crankshaft. If you were designing this engine for real, you would need to resize all of the drive train as you now have a device that produces twice the instantaneous peak torque. That is significant for fatigue calculations. Normally you would put in a bigger flywheel to smooth out those pulses. If not you will pay some penalty in drive train life. If you tried to do this with a single carb it would need to be bigger. I'm looking forward to seeing the first single cylinder 450hp muscle-car..... :-) G '60 C77 '60 C72 '62 C72 Dream '63 CL72
'61 CB72 '64 CB77 '65 CB160 '66 Matchless 350 '67 CL77 '67 S90 '77 CB400F I know, and that would be the only drawback I can think of to keep it from being a very easy change over.
Bill Silver even mentions doing cam swaps (and rotation) in his book in the performance upgrade section, inserting CB or CL cams into CA motors, and upgrading to a 26 mm carb. I'm convinced it will help the bottom end to some extent, and probably will try it if I ever have to go into my engine. Thanks 66 dream, 78 cb750k, 02fz1, 09 wing
Jensen:
I hope you understood this was a joke and not me trying to get you to go "technical" and start another endless debate like the "oil" thread: "clarenceada" Wrote: "We ain't scared of no stinking formulas:-) ! This is a paraphrased quote from the 1974 Mel Brooks movie called "Blazing Saddles": Mexican Bandit:"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges." Some times jokes don't always translate into another language very well, or over the internet. I would still would be interested in the formulas if you wanted to PM me. Thanks Clarence
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
