• Welcome to PiBoSo Official Forum. Please login or sign up.
 
March 28, 2024, 08:38:43 AM

News:

GP Bikes beta21c available! :)


A new two-stroke 500cc Ronax

Started by Ian, June 10, 2014, 07:41:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

HornetMaX

Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
If somebody develops and manufactures a bike with 200 hp and 130 kg but nobody even dares to ride it or doesn't want it because it's a 'dirty two stroke', this company will lose a lot of money.

You can't be serious here, right ?

Ducati has sold plenty of very expensive Panigale (even during hard times for bike sales), just because many riders just like extreme bikes.
Most of them will only be used to go to the bar on sunny saturdays.

KTM is selling like mad a 1290cc 2 strokes naked bike with something like 180cv (and the price is not really friendly).

Make a 130Kg 200cv 2 strokes and people will queue to buy it (if it does not cost like a house and if it doesn't multiply by 100 the caches of getting a lung cancer before age 50).

Roads are literally full with guys with too much bike for what they can/will do.

Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
The perfect motorcycle is a highly developed two stroke but most people don't need and/or want the perfect motorcycle.

I guess this is where you don't see the point: you seem to be absolutely sure that with enough development one could build a 2 strokes that is so much better than a 4 strokes on all relevant aspects (power, weight, usability, durability and emissions). But none of the experts seems to agree with you. So you blame Honda for that.

MaX.

BOBR6 84

As I undestand it.. These days racing helps develope cars, bikes, engines, tyres. Everything! For better vehicles on the road.. Companies push their technology to the limit on the track to show off their products and improve sales.. 4strokes produce more user friendly power id say which is what the general public want..
Obviously its all one big buisness circle..

The public still like un-practical toys though!! Which is why we have zonda's and jet engined bikes lol and Ronax 500's ;)

All iv ever heard these old 500 riders say about racing a 500 2stroke is bad things lol

Thats why we like them..

Vini

I am serious.
As you said yourself, they also sell their current expensive bikes so why invest money if you are already selling very well.
Yes, if one manufacturer would suddenly come up with a fully developed, 'perfect' V4 two stroke, they could sell really well but this would not happen.
The first V4s would not be faster or probably slower than superbikes because they will not be fully developed and perfected because no manufacturer takes 10+ years to develop one road bike.
Since the bikes will not sell very well, nobody will continue to invest in it and that's why nobody builds DFI two stroke bikes in mass production.
And besides, two strokes have such a bad reputation that as soon as people here it, a lot of them will make up their mind before they even had a chance to ride it.


In terms of performance-to-fuel consumption and performance-to-reliability a high-tec two stroke is the 'perfect engine' (in raw performance also, obviously). Again, if this wasn't the case, big ship diesel engines, whose top priorities are reliability and efficiency, would not be two strokes.
Maybe you can quote a few experts because the ones that I 'know' say the opposite. The problem is that a lot of 'experts' nowadays have no clue about two strokes and what they are capable of (makes sense, they are not relevant anymore in the mind of most young engineers).
Once and for all, the reason that DFI V4s are, not built is money/business not the lack of potential in two strokes.

HornetMaX

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
I am serious.
As you said yourself, they also sell their current expensive bikes so why invest money if you are already selling very well.
Because they would sell even better, outselling the competition, which is their #1 goal.

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
In terms of performance-to-fuel consumption and performance-to-reliability a high-tec two stroke is the 'perfect engine' (in raw performance also, obviously). Again, if this wasn't the case, big ship diesel engines, whose top priorities are reliability and efficiency, would not be two strokes.
100% agree for big naval engines. Not sure it can be extrapolated to motorbike engines though. Not really the same ballpark.

Otherwise you could also say that airplanes (which are also very sensitive to weight, power, reliability and efficiency) use reaction engines, so they must be good for motorbikes too, with enough development.

MaX.

Vini

Your comparisons are getting a bit weak and you ignore some of my statements.


Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 03:04:29 PM
Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
I am serious.
As you said yourself, they also sell their current expensive bikes so why invest money if you are already selling very well.
Because they would sell even better, outselling the competition, which is their #1 goal.
Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PMYes, if one manufacturer would suddenly come up with a fully developed, 'perfect' V4 two stroke, they could sell really well but this would not happen.
The first V4s would not be faster or probably slower than superbikes because they will not be fully developed and perfected because no manufacturer takes 10+ years to develop one road bike.
Since the bikes will not sell very well, nobody will continue to invest in it and that's why nobody builds DFI two stroke bikes in mass production.


Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 03:04:29 PM100% agree for big naval engines. Not sure it can be extrapolated to motorbike engines though. Not really the same ballpark.

Otherwise you could also say that airplanes (which are also very sensitive to weight, power, reliability and efficiency) use reaction engines, so they must be good for motorbikes too, with enough development.
The big ship diesel are literally just upscaled motorcycle engines (+ turbos and diesel instead of gasoline). How would you fit an airplane engine in a motorcycle and control it properly? And then the fuel usage...... You just can't compare it.
It's pure logic: Less moving parts, lighter moving parts, less displacement (-> less size), less overall weight, lower COG for the same power output. The only problem is the fresh air-fuel mixture shortcutting through the exhaust port when the engine is not in it's power band, but with DFI this is eliminated.

HornetMaX

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 03:42:43 PM
Your comparisons are getting a bit weak and you ignore some of my statements.
Says the one that compares big naval two strokes (diesel and turbo) to motorbikes 2 strokes ...

I ignore none of your statements, I only avoid replying to the same statement made and remade multiple times.

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 03:42:43 PM
The big ship diesel are literally just upscaled motorcycle engines (+ turbos and diesel instead of gasoline).
Literally or literally + turbo and diesel ? Cause it may make a bit of a difference.
Also, not sure the RPM operating range is quite comparable, nor the speed at which the RPM must change, nor plenty of other things (beside the scale, which by itself is not as straightforward as it may seem).

Side note: turbo on 4 strokes is an option that is starting to be investigated (for bikes I mean).

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 03:42:43 PM
How would you fit an airplane engine in a motorcycle and control it properly? And then the fuel usage...... You just can't compare it.
The airplane example was meant to show exactly that you can't extrapolate like you're doing with naval 2 strokes ::)

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 03:42:43 PM
It's pure logic: Less moving parts, lighter moving parts, less displacement (-> less size), less overall weight, lower COG for the same power output. The only problem is the fresh air-fuel mixture shortcutting through the exhaust port when the engine is not in it's power band, but with DFI this is eliminated.
Pure logic none of the very successful companies in the world have ever embraced, just because they hate two strokes. Yeah, ...

But OK, I give up the discussion: you think it's Honda's fault (or Dorna's fault, or whoever's fault), fine to me. You're convinced it is doable, fine to me.

The day a better engine will be available I'll be more than happy to have it, 2, 3 or 4 strokes I don't really care, as far as it is better.
But if I had to put money on what will be next in terms on bike engines, I'd bet on electrical much more happily than on 2 strokes.
You can of course bet differently if you like to do so.

MaX.

JamoZ


HornetMaX

Jamoz, if you don't like the topic, piss off   ;D  ;D  ;D

MaX.

JamoZ

In what direction? Mind you i have a infected right shoulder, so please consider that when calculating my pissing trajectory...

HornetMaX

I'm sufficiently far away from you to let you pick whichever direction suits you more.
Try to avoid the keyboard though, I'm not sure I can live without your gifs, memes and so on :)

MaX.


HornetMaX


JamoZ


Vini

It's getting rediculous now, you are putting words in my mouth that I never said in this way.

Whether you inject diesel or gasoline, the online thing that changes is, that you need a sparkplug and higher rpm.
The gas dynamics and fundamental properties stay the same.
Of course in a naval engine the rpms are a lot lower because of the otherwise greately increased piston speed.
But the engine design at it's core is the same.
Whether you blow the air in the engine with a turbo, supercharger, RAM-air or put the engine in a very cold room and let it suck in the air by itself, also doesn't change this core.
Of course a turbo makes all combustion engines more efficient.
In contrast to turbofan or radial engines, ship diesels can be extrapolated (as you are beginning to see on snowmobile and outboard engines). Besides, even a downscaled turbofan or radial engine would be way too heavy and too large to fit into a sport bike.


Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 04:13:56 PMPure logic none of the very successful companies in the world have ever embraced, just because they hate two strokes. Yeah, ...
Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
As you said yourself, they also sell their current expensive bikes so why invest money if you are already selling very well.
Yes, if one manufacturer would suddenly come up with a fully developed, 'perfect' V4 two stroke, they could sell really well but this would not happen.
The first V4s would not be faster or probably slower than superbikes because they will not be fully developed and perfected because no manufacturer takes 10+ years to develop one road bike.
Since the bikes will not sell very well, nobody will continue to invest in it and that's why nobody builds DFI two stroke bikes in mass production.
With the two stroke hate I was referring to the costumers not the manufacturers/engineers to explain that there are more things that limit the financial success of a V4 2T.

And it's of course not only Honda as I said somewhere earlier: Nobody did anything against the lack of development in two stroke engines when it was most needed (90s).

Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 04:13:56 PMThe day a better engine will be available I'll be more than happy to have it, 2, 3 or 4 strokes I don't really care, as far as it is better.
But if I had to put money on what will be next in terms on bike engines, I'd bet on electrical much more happily than on 2 strokes.
Finally, we agree on something (especially the first part).
Unless one of the big players suddenly changes his mind, the time of two stroke (road) bikes is over but until somebody comes up with a revolutionary battery technology, electric bikes won't be suitable for fast sport (road) bikes either.

HornetMaX

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
It's getting rediculous now, you are putting words in my mouth that I never said in this way.
Where exactly ?!

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
Besides, even a downscaled turbofan or radial engine would be way too heavy and too large to fit into a sport bike.
Again ?! I think I've already said that 2 posts above but ... once more ... the airplane engine example was there to 'mock' you're extrapolation of naval engines. I think we all agree turbofan for bikes does not sound right.
But saying 2 strokes are good for naval, hence they are good for bikes does not sound good neither.
I could say "4 strokes are good for trucks, hence they must be good for bikes" (which would be equally bad reasoning, or close to).

Quote from: vin97 on June 16, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
Unless one of the big players suddenly changes his mind, the time of two stroke (road) bikes is over but until somebody comes up with a revolutionary battery technology, electric bikes won't be suitable for fast sport (road) bikes either.
There are a few models already out that are promising (e.g. the mission-r): not yet really ready (but the Tesla, that you were quoting as example of available technology, is not really ready yet neither, at least not for me), but surely promising at least for road (not so soon for racing, granted).

Also, electric will likely benefit from research done by car makers which, by the way, are not really looking into 2 strokes despite the fact 2 strokes are the 'perfect engines in terms of performance-to-fuel consumption and performance-to-reliability' (quote). Which is once again very strange, as efficiency is what they are desperately trying to achieve.

MaX.