Here you go two-stroke fans start saving now
http://motomatters.com/news/2014/06/10/the_ronax_a_500cc_gp_bike_to_call_your_o.html
When you see how much the bike costs and you realize that you'll never ride it:
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/szg.gif)
nobody of us, but it's still a great bike. electronic direct injection? sounds good, looks like direct injection is on the way... maybe a rise of 2 stroke engines
There will never be a rise of fuel injected 2 stroke engines again!
All the big manufacturers (Honda especially) undertake an agreement not to invest in 2 strokes anmyore.
If i should pay 100000€ for this bike i would like to have many more informations!
The website did not have any usefull information imho.....besides nice pics of the bike.
I don´t think that 46 bikes will be produced and sold.
AND: This bike is not street legal in many european countries although the homepage says different!
There is no new or inovative technique/engineering in this bike.
It looks like a NSR500 and ihmo it looks a bit outdated today.
It´s a bike for collectors.
I don´t wan´t to blame about it but just list the facts!
It's a bike for deep-pocketed 2-strike lovers that likes it just to have something rare.
For the same (ridiculous) amount of money (actually even less, depending on the version), I'd definitely buy this instead: https://www.mission-motorcycles.com/r (https://www.mission-motorcycles.com/r)
At least there's some serious innovation inside (and I do like the aesthetics more, but that's personal).
And yes, their (ronax) website is a bit of a joke.
MaX.
It certainly looks better than all the new ugly superbikes with sharp edges everywhere like the RSV4.
It just uses regular electronic fuel injection, that's why it's not road legal (damn emission legislations!). It's still very good that somebody finally made a properly working injected two stroke and this is probably one of the reasons the bike is so expensive.
Yes, if it weren't for Honda, direct fuel ijnected 2 strokes would already be on the road and MotoGP would still be called 500cc world championship....
I agree that 100k is too much and 160 hp is not enough in my opinion (tuned Gamma engines can almost reach that power) but you have to understand that it was built to be reliable and be an "easy-package". That is why maxiumum power is achieved at only 11500 rpm and that is also why it has a completely new frame and swingarm that even beat Moto2 chassis.
It has a lot more potential but even now it will beat any home-made GP500 replica bike.
They alread have orders for 24 bikes, I think there are enough collectors or ex-racers who would buy one of these (so would I if I had enough money :D).
Since the big manufacturers have stopped developing two strokes the only chance for a small company to bring them back would be, to build a new V4 500-600cc engine with modern technology (DFI and some more exotic things like 24/7 reed valve intake, FOS cylinder, variable exhaust pipe and water injection) that complies with emission legislations and has at least 180 hp. You could then bring them your 600cc supersport bike and have the engine replaced for a reasonable price (max 10,000 €).
That is the only way people would think about getting a big two stroke instead of buying a superbike.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
Yes, if it weren't for Honda, direct fuel ijnected 2 strokes would already be on the road and MotoGP would still be called 500cc world championship....
Hmmm, sounds a bit like the big conspiracy theory ... I don't see any manufacturer having a preference for 2 or 4 strikes (if anything, at one time they may have been more knowledgeable in 2 strokes). They just want to make money selling bikes. 2, 3 or 4 strokes they probably don't care a lot.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
Since the big manufacturers have stopped developing two strokes the only chance for a small company to bring them back would be, to build a new V4 500-600cc engine with modern technology (DFI and some more exotic things like 24/7 reed valve intake, FOS cylinder, variable exhaust pipe and water injection) that complies with emission legislations and has at least 180 hp. You could then bring them your 600cc supersport bike and have the engine replaced for a reasonable price (max 10,000 €).
That is the only way people would think about getting a big two stroke instead of buying a superbike.
But to what purpose ? What would be the advantage over a modern 4 strokes ?
Every time I hear two strokes fans they just say "It's a 2 strokes. It's fantastic !". No further explanation of why it is so.
MaX.
If you talk to guys who were involved in GP racing, they will all tell you that Honda were the ones who tried as hard as possible to get rid of the two strokes (even later in the 250/125cc class).
There is a reason they came up with the oval piston NR bikes....
Well, at least they now have their own class...
You should read this interview, it's in german though so you might want to use google translator:
http://www.motorradonline.de/vergleichstest/tracktest-ktm-viertakt-racer-als-125er-nachfolger-interview-mit-ktm-grand-prix-konstrukteur-harald-bartol/264161?seite=5
A well designed 500 or 600cc V4 2T engine can easily reach the power of a superbike while being a lot lighter and smaller (and having a lower COG).
There are a lot of guys who put an RD or RG 500 engine in a RGV 250 or RS 250 (these bikes are not bigger than a YZF-R125) and it fits nicely and only weighs 130 kg dry.
It will basically handle like a 125 but at 180-200 hp.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
If you talk to guys who were involved in GP racing, they will all tell you that Honda were the ones who tried as hard as possible to get rid of the two strokes (even later in the 250/125cc class).
Not even necessary to do that, Honda retired for a while, not happy about the 2-strokes only policy. So it's common knowledge.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
There is a reason they came up with the oval piston NR bikes....
Yes, the reason is that if you have 4 cyl max, then you have to be very creative to b eon par in terms of power with a 4 strokes 4-cyl 500cc vs a 2 strokes 4 cyl 500cc.
By the way, they failed: oval pistons and 8 valves are both a curiosity more than anything else.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
You should read this interview, it's in german though so you might want to use google translator:
http://www.motorradonline.de/vergleichstest/tracktest-ktm-viertakt-racer-als-125er-nachfolger-interview-mit-ktm-grand-prix-konstrukteur-harald-bartol/264161?seite=5
Hard to read once translated by google, but the guy is arguing essentially the cost justification of moving the lower classes to 4 strokes.
Quote from: vin97 on June 13, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
A well designed 500 or 600cc V4 2T engine can easily reach the power of a superbike while being a lot lighter and smaller (and having a lower COG).
That's true. Now talk to me about the disadvantages of 2 strokes.
MaX.
I thought exhaust emission was the reason they stopped the 2-strokes?
Yes, he says that the 125 bikes were better, cheaper, simpler and faster and that Honda tried to stop every new development like DFI to switch to four strokes.
Oh yes, the emissions.....
But Diesel, planes, fossil-fuel power stations, FCKW production in China and India, ... is ok.
BTW with direct injection and oil injection the emissions are on 4T level, just look at snowmobiles.
I don't want to start the 2T vs 4T discussion again.
Currently two stroke engines are designed for race bikes and not really suitable for use in a daily commuter bike that has to be reliable and have low fuel consumption.
But that's only logical: The development of two strokes stopped some 30 years ago. The only thing that improved was power which also makes sense because you don't care about fuel consumption or emissions when building a race bike.
But as I said above, to see what's already possible look at two-stroke outboard or snowmobile engines.
For sure 2 strokes can do better than the 500cc race engines in terms of emissions and duration, but then the engine won't be as simple (maybe not even as lightweight) nor as cheap.
Let's assume you are right: Honda is the big evil and they prevent us from getting wonderful 2 strokes engines that are so much better than 4 strokes.
Now tell me: what prevents Yamaha, Suzuki or even KTM (as in the interview you were referring to) to sell us road bikes using 2 strokes engines ?
They should be cheaper, more powerful, lighter. They should blow Honda silly 4 strokes out of the water. Honda will run out of business in no time.
Where's the catch ?
MaX.
Because they are already selling a lot of bikes.
Why should they take the risk of spending a lot of money on developing new technology if the current one is selling well enough?
That's just business.
They won't be as simple of course since the aim is to have modern, complex electronics with a lot of functions but they will still be very very light (it's not like there will be a camshaft added and you can rid of the carbs for example).
athena is developing somethig with ktm, a 2 stroke mx i think, but it's all secret
Quote from: vin97 on June 14, 2014, 10:52:01 PM
Because they are already selling a lot of bikes.
Are you sure ? The last years have been an absolute catastrophe in terms of bike sales.
If a cheaper and better engine was on the table, they would literally kill to have it.
Quote from: vin97 on June 14, 2014, 10:52:01 PM
Why should they take the risk of spending a lot of money on developing new technology if the current one is selling well enough?
That's just business.
If it was worth, they would take the risk, trust me. For sure some smaller player (ktm ? bmw ? ducati ? you name it) would be more than tempted to outsmart the japs with a better, lighter and cheaper 2 stroke engine. But at the moment it seems just not possible.
The KTM guy in the interview you referenced is so sure, why doesn't KTM give us a 600cc two strokes instead of a (absolutely fantastic) 2-cyl 2 strokes 1290cc engine ?
Modern 2 strokes do exist, are good and do have applications, but for motorbikes they do not seem to bring that much more than a good 4 strokes.
Quote from: vin97 on June 14, 2014, 10:52:01 PM
They won't be as simple of course since the aim is to have modern, complex electronics with a lot of functions but they will still be very very light (it's not like there will be a camshaft added and you can rid of the carbs for example).
Carbs ? :o
MaX.
honda always insisted on using 4 stroke engines: the nr500 is an example. And the decisional power increased over the years from its born, and at the end of the 90s they've got so much decisional power that they imposed 4 stroke to the whole world... ok that's my opinion lol
Alby, honda can't impose anything on the market. Maybe they can push for stuff in racing, but surely not on the market.
I don't know why honda preferred 4 strokes at the time (notice, the nr500 was an absolute flop), but from what we can see now, they were pretty much right.
MaX.
they like 4 strokes, and i can't understand why they went so on with 4 strokes
QuoteIf it was worth, they would take the risk, trust me. For sure some smaller player (ktm ? bmw ? ducati ? you name it) would be more than tempted to outsmart the japs with a better, lighter and cheaper 2 stroke engine. But at the moment it seems just not possible.
It's not possible in the time you expect it to be and that is why no manufacturer even thinks about investing money into it.
Creating a working direct fuel inject two stroke with high torque and low fuel consumption (snowmobile engines) is one thing but making it produce as much power as regular carbureted two strokes is a completely different problem that will take years if not decades to solve.
I understand your point, you want a fast road bike and not a race bike but because this second problem is not yet solved, the advantages over four strokes are simply too small.
Now, if two strokes were still be raced in MotoGP, these developments would have happened because there would not have been the option to be 'lazy' and switch to four strokes and accept more weight and less power.
But, in the end, a two stroke engine has the most potential and ultimately is the better engine. It just needs the 30 years of development that have been lost when the big manufacturers abandoned it.
It's not clear at all. As soon as introduced in motgp, 4 strokes were faster. Immediately, from day zero. Despite the weight, despite the engine complexity.
And race bikes, especially for Honda but true for the others too, are seen as a lab for road bikes (Honda & co make money selling bikes, not winning races).
Racing with 2 strokes just for the fun of it (knowing this will not lead to 2 strokes road bikes) just makes no sense.
I was talking about road bikes because you seem to think that in races Honda imposes his law (4 strokes). But on the market there's no such a thing.
But again, some people are making experiments with two strokes: I have zero doubts that if the technology of 2 strokes becomes better than 4 strokes, constructors will switch to it. Including Honda.
And riders too. Including me.
MaX.
i remember mcwilliams risked to finish on the podium with the 3 cylinder kr500 in 2003, mccoy setting the pole at phillip island in 2002, many podiums in the same year, and the development of these bikes was stopped 2 years earlier, simply because they knew they were going for 4 stroke
Yes but the development of 4 strokes just started while 2 strokes had been in use for a while. On year zero of 4 strokes era, 4 strokes were faster than 2 strokes that have been around for a while.
MaX.
With double the capacity you don't need any fancy technology to get more power than an outdated 500cc two stroke.
And who even set those limits, a 600cc two stroke for example would have had more power than the 990s and today would even come close to what the MotoGP bikes are producing.
Besides, four strokes didn't start at zero in 2002, superbikes have been around a little bit longer.
But with the manufacturers being lazy, I was referring to road bike development. With no reason to put any money into two stroke development because they are not raced in MotoGP anymore, they didn't see the need to build road bikes with the best power-to-weight ratio possible (which would require a two stroke engine) and accepted the weight gain and power loss compared to a hypothetical, highly developed V4 two stroke.
QuoteRacing with 2 strokes just for the fun of it (knowing this will not lead to 2 strokes road bikes) just makes no sense.
I agree, that's why there should have been some rules, like today, to limit fuel usage or even make DFI mandatory directly.
The same is happening in F1 right now.
Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 11:56:01 AM
With double the capacity you don't need any fancy technology to get more power than an outdated 500cc two stroke.
Why outdated 500cc two strokes ? They were the top-notch 2 strokes available at the time (competing against top-notch 4 strokes available at the time).
Also the double of the capacity stems simply from the fact that a 2 strokes fires once per cycle while a 4 strokes fires once every two cycles. As simple as that, it's not a "I like to win easy" thing: the double of the displacement puts them roughly on par in terms of fuel usage (and hence power).
Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 11:56:01 AM
But with the manufacturers being lazy, I was referring to road bike development. With no reason to put any money into two stroke development because they are not raced in MotoGP anymore, they didn't see the need to build road bikes with the best power-to-weight ratio possible (which would require a two stroke engine) and accepted the weight gain and power loss compared to a hypothetical, highly developed V4 two stroke.
You get it wrong man. They invest in races because it may bring advantages to road stuff, not the other way around. If today they are not investing in 2 strokes, it's surely not because motogp is not using them. They invest in plenty of things that are of absolutely no use in races.
Once again, if it was possible to make a 2 stroke engine that is lighter, cheaper and at least on par in terms of power and emissions, they would absolutely love to have it. For road bikes, because that's what they sell.
Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 11:56:01 AM
I agree, that's why there should have been some rules, like today, to limit fuel usage or even make DFI mandatory directly.
The same is happening in F1 right now.
You seem to imply that a 2 strokes is more efficient, which as far as I know is not necessarily true.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PM
Why outdated 500cc two strokes ? They were the top-notch 2 strokes available at the time (competing against top-notch 4 strokes available at the time).
Because they were not nearly producing as much power as they could have done because they had to be ridable. From the beginnning of the 90s the 500s didn't become more powerful anymore because there was no TCS to control such a beast.
In the other classes development was still going and horsepower improved every year.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PMAlso the double of the capacity stems simply from the fact that a 2 strokes fires once per cycle while a 4 strokes fires once every two cycles. As simple as that, it's not a "I like to win easy" thing: the double of the displacement puts them roughly on par in terms of fuel usage (and hence power).
You that it's not as simple as that: A two stroke needs more stroke to have a proper gas exchange, thus lowering the maximum rpm.
For smaller engines it is true though and that is why the last 125s had more power than todays Moto3 bikes.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PMYou get it wrong man. They invest in races because it may bring advantages to road stuff, not the other way around. If today they are not investing in 2 strokes, it's surely not because motogp is not using them. They invest in plenty of things that are of absolutely no use in races.
That is what I am saying. If two strokes with mandatory DFI, fuel and emission limits were still raced in MotoGP then they
could eventually use this on street bikes and they
would invest in it.
Of course, simply going back to carbureted two strokes from the 80s will end up the way it did in the 90s: Unusable for the street so they build four stroke street bikes.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PMOnce again, if it was possible to make a 2 stroke engine that is lighter, cheaper and at least on par in terms of power and emissions, they would absolutely love to have it. For road bikes, because that's what they sell.
Once again, the time and money needed to make powerful two stroke engines suitable for road bikes can only be justified if they need to to do it in order to compete in motorsports.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PMYou seem to imply that a 2 strokes is more efficient, which as far as I know is not necessarily true.
If you are talking about 30 years old motorcycle engines, then yes: They are not necessarily efficient (at least not in terms of fuel usage-to-power output, in terms of weight/size-to-power output they of course still are). But again, the magical technology is DFI: You don't have wasted energy (fuel exiting through the cylinder) and remaining are the advantages of lower moving parts (and parts in general), smaller size (and less weight) and lighter moving parts which makes the engine more efficient. There is a reason the most efficient internal combustion engines are turbocharged direct fuel injected two stroke diesels.
Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 02:58:29 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 15, 2014, 02:01:48 PMYou get it wrong man. They invest in races because it may bring advantages to road stuff, not the other way around. If today they are not investing in 2 strokes, it's surely not because motogp is not using them. They invest in plenty of things that are of absolutely no use in races.
That is what I am saying. If two strokes with mandatory DFI, fuel and emission limits were still raced in MotoGP then they could eventually use this on street bikes and they would invest in it.
No that is not what you're saying. You are saying that they should impose/allow 2 strokes in motogp, so that in x years we may have something for the road. But nobody at the moment is convinced by that.
What I am saying is that the move from 2 strokes to 4 strokes happened exactly because road bikes were 4 strokes, and for good reasons, so racing with 4 strokes makes sense for the constructors.
What you're saying is: I like nuclear propelled bikes, let's make them mandatory in racing so that maybe one day (despite what all the constructors are saying and doing, not only honda), we'll have nuclear propelled road bikes. Because I think they are better/funnier/cheaper/lighter. You'll need some pretty heavy arguments to convince even KTM to do that, cause at the moment they don't think it is worth. But if you have the arguments ready (and some people are definitely working on this), then the constructor will listen.
MaX.
The only difference is that two strokes are nothing new and the oppurtunity was there to start new developments and there was enough time to perfect the new technologies but instead the development froze and nobody did anything against it until two strokes were outdated and replaced by four strokes.
Besides, the Rotax DFI engines are already quite powerful, with the budget of a factory MotoGP bike it would probably not take very long until the bikes produce some serious power.
But, to repeat myself, without there being an urgent reason to invest into it at the moment, no manufacturer will simply spend a couple of millions per year.
It's the same reason why fully electric cars are taking so long to take over the car market.
As you can see on the Tesla, the technology is there but even then no big company sees the reason to build fully electric cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIcX9-GsMGQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIcX9-GsMGQ)
Quote from: vin97 on June 15, 2014, 06:51:31 PM
As you can see on the Tesla, the technology is there but even then no big company sees the reason to build fully electric cars.
I am a big supporter of electric vehicles (including bikes, many here know it from past discussions), but the technology for electric cars (or bikes) is not fully here yet. Still some things to work on.
But the big difference is that in the case of electric vehicles everybody knows who is really unhappy about them (and it's not the car makers).
For the 2-strokes vs 4-strokes debate, there's no such an unhappy big player with a valid reason (from his point of view) to kill one solution or the other.
So it's really hard to explain why a (supposedly) better solution is not coming out, as nobody seems to have anything to lose with it.
MaX.
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.
A two stroke is for people who want the absolute best performance available, as you said yourself, for the average rider it doesn't matter whether you have a superbike with 200 hp and 180 kg or the same at 130 kg - he can't use the full potential either way and both bikes are extremely fast.
But for the ones who want to be the fastest on the track and have the required (very high) skills, this bike will be the top choice once they are also able to ride it through traffic with reasonable reliability and fuel consumption.
For every other person who just wants a fast road bike, a V4 two stroke doesn't make any sense because it's full performance can't and shouldn't be used on road.
The perfect motorcycle is a highly developed two stroke but most people don't need and/or want the perfect motorcycle.
The demand in the general public and the profit of the manufacturers is simply too small to justify the development of a high-tech two stroke.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
(http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/329/6/0/bromance_by_chabomb21-d33lve0.png)
::)
Jamoz, if you don't like the topic, piss off ;D ;D ;D
MaX.
In what direction? Mind you i have a infected right shoulder, so please consider that when calculating my pissing trajectory...
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.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/646b4dcd064e2e77ce946067ae1ac432/tumblr_mm8gulQvoz1s3g3ago1_500.gif)
ROFL !
(http://media.giphy.com/media/Jf4FBs6JZhvKU/giphy.gif)
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.
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.
Hmm....
Just to say....
maybe you start your own topic?
the last 2 pages are about 2stroke vs 4 stroke.
Nothing about the Ronax....
;)
Honestly if I had 100k I would never ever buy a Ronax 500.
For this price you can have:
- 1 TZ 250 + 1 TZ 350 + 1 TZ500 + 1 TZ750 all in excellent condition + a few spares
- 1 factory 500GP bike (some cagivas 500 have been sold recently for 90/100k - Yamaha 500 ROC for about 110/120).
Also you can resell those bikes at any time easily for the same price. The same cannot be said about the Ronax.
Other than Jay Leno and a couple high profile Hollywood actors, I have no idea who would be actually interested in this bike.
I would like to know who are the 24 pre-order takers ;)
Quote from: C21 on June 17, 2014, 11:35:10 AM
I would like to know who are the 24 pre-order takers ;)
Probably jay leno, tom cruise, beckham and HornetMaX!! To name a few..
;)
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on June 17, 2014, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: C21 on June 17, 2014, 11:35:10 AM
I would like to know who are the 24 pre-order takers ;)
Probably jay leno, tom cruise, beckham and HornetMaX!! To name a few..
;)
I ordered 2: one for track, one for bragging !! ;D
MaX.
In your usual pink/purple colors?
Quote from: C21 on June 17, 2014, 07:32:19 AM
Hmm....
Just to say....
maybe you start your own topic?
Not a bad idea, will do.
Quote from: C21 on June 17, 2014, 07:32:19 AM
the last 2 pages are about 2stroke vs 4 stroke.
Nothing about the Ronax....
;)
Maybe there's not a lot to say about the Ronax .. . ;)
MaX.
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on June 17, 2014, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: C21 on June 17, 2014, 11:35:10 AM
I would like to know who are the 24 pre-order takers ;)
Probably jay leno, tom cruise, beckham and HornetMaX!! To name a few..
;)
You're probably really close to the truth. I'm serious :P
If you're interested in expensive bikes and know the prices, it's pretty obvious that a Ronax 500 is a bad choice...
Quote from: JamoZ on June 17, 2014, 12:21:34 PM
In your usual pink/purple colors?
No, that's skerp, not me. I'm very sober with colors (maybe even to much).
And I remember some of your skins for the 990 I really wouldn't be proud of :)
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 09:58:08 PM
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: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 09:58:08 PMPure logic none of the very successful companies in the world have ever embraced, just because they hate two strokes. Yeah, ...
I never said they are not investing in it because they hate two strokes.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 16, 2014, 09:58:08 PM
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).
Since it has already been successfully done, a two stroke engine is suitable for a motorcycle (it's not like the engine characteristics or working rpm range are impossible to be used in a motorycle). The question is whether it can be as efficient as four strokes. And if it is proven to be possible on a big engine it also works on a small one. Again, the gas dynamics and fundamental properties of the engine are exactly the same.
Car manufacturers have even less reasons to start developing two strokes. Why invest in it when fully eletric cars will take over the market shortly afterwords (or even before) either way.
And who today is buying a car because it weighs 50 kg less and has more power. For almost all people fuel consumption/costs are the most important things when buying a car. Even most sports cars are hybrids nowadays.
But there are some intersting developents in two stroke opposed piston engines that may be an alternative for cars in the future, but until they are ready for the market, it's probably too late.
Yes, we really need better/lighter batteries (also for smartphones and other portable devices).
It's something that is lacking behind immensely.
I've created this: http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=1206.0 (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=1206.0)
Your reasoning:
Quote from: vin97 on June 17, 2014, 01:16:22 PM
Since it has already been successfully done, a two stroke engine is suitable for a motorcycle (it's not like the engine characteristics or working rpm range are impossible to be used in a motorycle). The question is whether it can be as efficient as four strokes. And if it is proven to be possible on a big engine it also works on a small one. Again, the gas dynamics and fundamental properties of the engine are exactly the same.
is wrong. Read in the other post.
MaX.