PiBoSo Official Forum

SOON

Good stuff! Never seen this bike before.. Who makes these?

It's a polish bike, still under development. It has new type of cross, 2 stroke engine. 4 cylinders, 2 stroke , 110 HP, 500cc. What you can see is a render. And I have the 3D model from which that was rendered. So hopefully you can expect some nice looking mod. Just need time to learn how to make it to work.

110hp from a 500cc 2 stroke??

That's bugger all!

Well bugger me backwards 110hp, as mattey rightly said thats nout more than the power of a rabbits fart!!! It should at least have the power of 2 rabbits farts or 1 and a half pig farts!!!

I am on the right forum aint I???? 

Very nice render though, looks like at least 2 pig farts fast to me!!!

Its not alot but I thought its about right?  ???

Naked too.. All naked bikes should be wheelie machines!!  ;D interesting bike! Wonder if it will have the low end torque being a 2stroke?

I will post power curve of the 125 prototype engine. It does 15 kW. I think thats quite nice as for the first ever prototype of a compleatly new engine.

Btw. Not everything with 200 hp is fun to ride, nither 50 hp is always borring.

I agree.. A local track I race at has all the classes racing through the weekend.. The guys that have the most fun are on the 125's.. Corner speed is insane!!! lol. Also the vintage 50cc class has a full grid.. Too funny watching them neck and neck tucked in down the straight.. Doing 5mph lol.

Anyway, maybe this will inspire a naked bike class in gpbikes? Ktm Superdukes etc. would be cool on the tight twisty tracks  ;)

Well im sorry for being so ignorent about 2 stokes :P all i though was a 500 street bike would be around the 150bhp mark...

And dont get me wrong, i love small capacity bikes! My 33bhp sv650 (restricted) was an absolute blast to ride and although its a reletivly big step up, my Daytona 675 is the biggest bike id want to ride on English roads.

Lol to be honest.. I dont know enough about engines  :D
Can 2strokes produce more power?

My 600 has around 105-110bhp maybe less than that now lol. My fireblade about 160bhp..

Didnt the old 500gp bikes have around 150bhp? I guess thats alot..

I still prefer big bikes to get the adrenaline pumpin!!  ;)

Road riding sucks... Unless going on a trip.

i think the "old" 2 stroke motogps have had something around 160bhp and the "problem" of these realtive big 2 strokes is the performance explosion.
you can watch a trailer of "the unrideables" on youtube.

Or maybe the EU environment regulations play a big part. Remember the latest Aprilia 125s were restricted due to to emissions.

Quote from: Boerenlater on December 23, 2014, 10:30:57 AM
Or maybe the EU environment regulations play a big part. Remember the latest Aprilia 125s were restricted due to to emissions.

thats a good point, i think i remember something from a 2 stroke 500cc engine that couldnt get licensed.

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on December 23, 2014, 12:15:34 AM
Wonder if it will have the low end torque being a 2stroke?

Stop wondering, it won't :)

MaX.

Few years back there was a lot of people looking at 2 stroke cycle with fuel injection and mechanical valve operated exhaust ports to reduce emissions, wonder if its a development of those ideas

Quote from: h106frp on December 23, 2014, 11:39:47 AM
Few years back there was a lot of people looking at 2 stroke cycle with fuel injection and mechanical valve operated exhaust ports to reduce emissions, wonder if its a development of those ideas

As far as I know, everything is more or less dead, the reason being that such a two stroke would be as complicate as an equivalent 4 strokes, for more or less the same performances (power/torque and emissions), so little reason to invest lots of money in it.

However I've been told that there are niches in which 2 strokes are indeed used (and sometime preferred), like small (e.g. 300-400ccc) enduro/cross engines.

For big road/track bikes however, 2 strokes seems to be dead for good.

MaX.

>Furious

PLease, learn to me how you did that. *fall on knees*

Btw, how the rims will handle that much power ? oO

Quote from: Wh1t34Gl3(SAS) on December 23, 2014, 12:41:14 PM
>Furious

PLease, learn to me how you did that. *fall on knees*

Btw, how the rims will handle that much power ? oO

He he ;) Nice to hear that. But I am not a creator of this 3D model. The profesional architect is. He is also the founder of the whole idea.

Rims with spokes are not a problem with power delivery due to propper force directions. In general, rims are not worse in any terms than solid rims except mass and complication level.

The thing with engine is, that uses the same way of oil delivery as 4 stroke. The air injection chamber was moved from below the cylinder to above it.

You can see more on jjsdesign.pl site ;)

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 12:16:20 PM

For big road/track bikes however, 2 strokes seems to be dead for good.

MaX.

He say's with a smile! LOL  :P ;D

Quote from: Furious on December 22, 2014, 11:33:35 PM
What you can see is a render. And I have the 3D model from which that was rendered. So hopefully you can expect some nice looking mod.

WOW!!  8) looks real  :o

Really like the concept of the motor. Until now the boxer motor (BMW, Goldwing, Porsche etc) is the most proficient configuration for producing power with the least amount of power loss due to the pistons fighting each other. It reminds me of the old aircraft motors with hundreds(slightly exaggerated for fun) of cylinders in a circle. A guy has built a bike with one in it!!!!!

Have you got more renders for us chappy???

DD

Quote from: doubledragoncc on December 23, 2014, 02:20:36 PM
Have you got more renders for us chappy???
DD

I do :)

Thanks m8. Its a super clean looking design.

Looking forward to a mod of it and streetfighter style no plastics looks great

DD

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on December 23, 2014, 02:05:31 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 12:16:20 PM
For big road/track bikes however, 2 strokes seems to be dead for good.

He say's with a smile! LOL  :P ;D

Nah, despite the usual mocking, I don't really care if it's 2, 3 or 4 strokes: a good engine (for its purpose) is a good engine, no matter the technology behind. The outcome is what matters.

About that bike, the engine is by far the most interesting thing, would be nice to know more about it. The rest is ... well, design: love it or hate it. I hate the the fork head, not even a japanese on speed could have created that.

There a re a couple of design details that are a bit suspect to me (ground clearance, swing arm looks as flexible as a'50s bike, exhaust looks too small for a conventional 2 strokes), but it's almost always the case with prototypes imagined by architects. Plenty of time to sort things out later on.

Have to admit however, it's very unconventional so kudos for that.

MaX.

Looks similar to the buel in some ways.. I quite like it. Not keen on the seat unit though.. Nut cracker  :o haha

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 06:24:11 PM

Quote from: BOBR6 84 on December 23, 2014, 02:05:31 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 12:16:20 PM
For big road/track bikes however, 2 strokes seems to be dead for good.

He say's with a smile! LOL  :P ;D

Nah, despite the usual mocking, I don't really care if it's 2, 3 or 4 strokes: a good engine (for its purpose) is a good engine, no matter the technology behind. The outcome is what matters.

About that bike, the engine is by far the most interesting thing, would be nice to know more about it. The rest is ... well, design: love it or hate it. I hate the the fork head, not even a japanese on speed could have created that.

There a re a couple of design details that are a bit suspect to me (ground clearance, swing arm looks as flexible as a'50s bike, exhaust looks too small for a conventional 2 strokes), but it's almost always the case with prototypes imagined by architects. Plenty of time to sort things out later on.

Have to admit however, it's very unconventional so kudos for that.

MaX.

Swing arm is calculated for stiffness so it's ok. Exhaust is also proper for this (not conventional) type of 2 stroke engine, as there is no back air load from (exhaust boost) exhaust pipes.
power chart:
http://www.youtube.com/v/GqzYlb80jSY

Quote from: Furious on December 23, 2014, 09:35:49 PM
Swing arm is calculated for stiffness so it's ok.

OK. It's just that  it looks much "thinner" (overall) and much less triangulated than anything else I've ever seen (on recent motorbikes).

Quote from: Furious on December 23, 2014, 09:35:49 PM
Exhaust is also proper for this (not conventional) type of 2 stroke engine, as there is no back air load from (exhaust boost) exhaust pipes.

Yes, but I don't understand why you can do without that. Looking at the video (assuming I get the principles right) you should have the same efficiency boost (and associated emission reduction) from a properly tuned exhaust.
But to be honest I'm not sure I do understand exactly how it works: in particular, the road followed by the fresh air+fuel in the video below. Is the air injection chamber on top like a torus with ports on 3 "sides" of the cylinder (back, front and right) while the exhaust is the one on the left ?

I'm really no expert on all this, but one thing that strikes me is that I see a lot of sliding surfaces (with holes, lubrication is tricky), much more than on a conventional engine (2 or 4 strokes).

Interesting project anyway, good luck and keep us posted !!

MaX.

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 10:30:25 PM

Quote from: Furious on December 23, 2014, 09:35:49 PM
Swing arm is calculated for stiffness so it's ok.

OK. It's just that  it looks much "thinner" (overall) and much less triangulated than anything else I've ever seen (on recent motorbikes).

Quote from: Furious on December 23, 2014, 09:35:49 PM
Exhaust is also proper for this (not conventional) type of 2 stroke engine, as there is no back air load from (exhaust boost) exhaust pipes.

Yes, but I don't understand why you can do without that. Looking at the video (assuming I get the principles right) you should have the same efficiency boost (and associated emission reduction) from a properly tuned exhaust.
But to be honest I'm not sure I do understand exactly how it works: in particular, the road followed by the fresh air+fuel in the video below. Is the air injection chamber on top like a torus with ports on 3 "sides" of the cylinder (back, front and right) while the exhaust is the one on the left ?

I'm really no expert on all this, but one thing that strikes me is that I see a lot of sliding surfaces (with holes, lubrication is tricky), much more than on a conventional engine (2 or 4 strokes).

Interesting project anyway, good luck and keep us posted !!

MaX.

Those big exhausts for old 2 strokes has one purpose. Using the reflected pressure effect to put back the air-fuel-oil mixture into cylinder. As we are rinsing the cylinder with the fresh air and after that inject fuel there is no purpose in those type of exhaust. :)

Quote from: Furious on December 23, 2014, 11:33:59 PM
As we are rinsing the cylinder with the fresh air and after that inject fuel there is no purpose in those type of exhaust. :)

Ah OK, it wasn't obvious it was direct injection. Clearer, thx.

MaX.

How to take the really simple concept of a stepped piston 2 stroke and make it really messy and complicated.. The stepped design seperates the induction from the bottom end lubrication.

Wulf stepped engines were tried many years ago and would possibly have made it to production if they hadn't have gone with the Wankle engine for the Norton (which they got from BSA). The Wulf design is now used in a lot of drones and similar vehicles (simple light and good performance) made by Bernard Hooper Engineering (BH was Chief Engineer of Norton Villiers Ltd in the late 60s)

Quote from: HornetMaX on December 23, 2014, 12:16:20 PMFor big road/track bikes however, 2 strokes seems to be dead for good.

Well, at least my RGV 250 is still alive :D

I need some help with this. I got it modelled as few independent files of the bike. Those parts that move separately like wheels, steer, lower suspension and chassis. It's damn too high poly so I will be reducing it. But I work in blender and the fbx2edf doesn't work for me at all (or there is slight possibility that I don't know to use it properly) and there is still not finished tutorial site.
So, here comes the question, how do I give colour to parts of the bike?
How can I decide which part of the bike will be able to repaint with .pnt file ? How do I create textures on certain surfaces? Can I just assign texture in blender and export the file? Will it export within .edf file? Do I have to use specific type of texture (with specular map and bump map)? Can I use materials from blender?

I know those are simple questions, but I only started to learn 3D modelling  and even I'm happy with the shape I can't proceed :/

i've found a EdfExp2010p.dle for 3ds Max 2010 if that would solve your exportingproblem when u will use 3ds max for export?!

plugins -> EdfExp2010p.dle (http://www.gp-bikes.de/gp-bikes/team-germany/files/3ds_max/3ds_Max_2010_add-ons.rar)

Quote from: JJS209 on December 23, 2014, 09:55:22 AM
i think the "old" 2 stroke motogps have had something around 160bhp and the "problem" of these realtive big 2 strokes is the performance explosion.
you can watch a trailer of "the unrideables" on youtube.

More than that actually. Here are the numbers that have been verified for 2 stroke GP factory bikes at the crank right before they were banned:
- 125: 54bhp
- 250 : 106-110 bhp
- 500: about 190-200 bhp

To be honest the power wasn't increasing much anymore at the end of the 2 stroke era. The Aprilia RSW125 stayed at 54 bhp for a few years.

Here is the power for production racers (Yamaha TZ, Honda RS):
- 125 : about 40/45 bhp
- 250 : about 85/90 bhp depending on the year - weight is about 102kg dry on a 250TZ
- 500: production racers were abandoned fairly early, so we don't have a good comparison.

Quote from: EdouardB on July 08, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
To be honest the power wasn't increasing much anymore at the end of the 2 stroke era. The Aprilia RSW125 stayed at 54 bhp for a few years.

Because on a "simple" 2 stroke (no valves, no direct injection etc), there's not that much you can do after a given point.

For the 500cc, the other (and maybe even more important reason) is that usability was becoming more important than peak power: better to have 5cv less but with a less abrupt delivery. Faster laps and less broken bones. The latter being probably more important than the former :)

MaX.

Quote from: HornetMaX on July 08, 2015, 09:44:36 AMno valves

Your message is spot on except for this part. The factory YZR500 for example used YPVS exhaust valves a lot. First they were mecanically driven, but on the later YZR500 (1986 and after) the valves were electronically driven by the CDI and the bikes actually started having small batteries next to the dashboard for the valves!
The YPVS was a noticeable improvement to exit slow corners (1st gear, mid RPM). For the rest of the powerband, not so much (basically open all the time), but hey, even if you get the smallest advantage, it's worth it at this level.

Right, exhaust valves were used. But they were more of a (very effective) tuning aid than valves as in a "valved engine" (where admission/expulsion are dictated by the valves).

MaX.

The 1980 Rotax 256 was supposed to produce 50KW.. that's just 67bhp
(but then the 1980 TZ250G was only supposed to put out 55bhp)

Of course you could then change the carbs, disc valves and exhaust to completely alter the way it developed that power

Friend of mine ran a Harris Rotax in an international classic 250 series a couple of years back.. 1984 256 engine with power valve, ran 60 bhp at the rear wheel on a dyno.

Quote from: HornetMaX on July 08, 2015, 11:33:32 AM
Right, exhaust valves were used. But they were more of a (very effective) tuning aid than valves as in a "valved engine" (where admission/expulsion are dictated by the valves).

MaX.

Consider the power valve system to be like a variable valve timing in a 4 stroke, all it does is change the outlet open period, shorter opening and lowering the top of the exhaust port = less power

Quote from: Allen on July 08, 2015, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: HornetMaX on July 08, 2015, 11:33:32 AM
Right, exhaust valves were used. But they were more of a (very effective) tuning aid than valves as in a "valved engine" (where admission/expulsion are dictated by the valves).

Consider the power valve system to be like a variable valve timing in a 4 stroke, all it does is change the outlet open period, shorter opening and lowering the top of the exhaust port = less power

Nice analogy. Not as flexible though (but not as complex neither).

MaX.

Actually it was a slightly bad description as what it does is flatten the torque curve by improving the mid range when the power valve is at it's lowest position and as the revs rise it opens the valve, thereby increasing the open time and effectively moving the torque up the revs to match. The height of the ports define where in the rev range the torque curve lies (quick and dirty tuning on old two stroke road bikes was to add a second base gasket and machine and equal amount off the head, that raises all the ports, moves the torque curve up the revs, more revs for an amount of torque = more power) so effectively you are moving the torque curve by changing the port height and so making the torque curve flatter and wider..

I just don't understand your problem with two-strokes, Max.


Of course there is a point where you cannot get anymore power out of the engine but at that point it will still produce at least 1.5 times the power of a highly tuned four stroke of similar displacement without needing camshafts, valves or a wet sump.
How is the independence from such things a bad thing??

Quote from: vin97 on July 08, 2015, 03:24:23 PM
I just don't understand your problem with two-strokes, Max.

I just motivated why the max power was stagnating towards the end of the era, nothing more.
That said, they definitely had more than enough power for the time :)

Quote from: vin97 on July 08, 2015, 03:24:23 PM
Of course there is a point where you cannot get anymore power out of the engine but at that point it will still produce at least 1.5 times the power of a highly tuned four stroke of similar displacement without needing camshafts, valves and a wet sump.
How is the independence from such things a bad thing??

It's not a bad thing, it's a great thing of course. But it comes at a price in other areas.

A simple engine is good from many points of view, but it will reach some limitations (power, emissions, max rpms, whatever) to go beyond which one will need to make it more complex.

MaX.

I'm happy that everyone have nice conversation about 2 strokes, but I need a litle help with putting this 2 stroke into the game ;) Really no one is able to answer these questions? How all those mods came up then?

Quote from: Furious on July 05, 2015, 08:32:48 PM
I need some help with this. I got it modelled as few independent files of the bike. Those parts that move separately like wheels, steer, lower suspension and chassis. It's damn too high poly so I will be reducing it. But I work in blender and the fbx2edf doesn't work for me at all (or there is slight possibility that I don't know to use it properly) and there is still not finished tutorial site.
So, here comes the question, how do I give colour to parts of the bike?
How can I decide which part of the bike will be able to repaint with .pnt file ? How do I create textures on certain surfaces? Can I just assign texture in blender and export the file? Will it export within .edf file? Do I have to use specific type of texture (with specular map and bump map)? Can I use materials from blender?

I know those are simple questions, but I only started to learn 3D modelling  and even I'm happy with the shape I can't proceed :/

Hi Furious

Here is one of the bests tutorials I founded from 3D basics. Hope it helps.

http://www.3dtotal.com/ffa/tutorials/max/joanofarc/joanmenu.asp

Hi Furious,

I think I can help you.
You should select the "Blender Render" and not "Cycles" in Blender. Also forget the materials of Blender. The exporter and GP Bikes can't use them.
To give colour to parts, you have to UV Unwrap them. Now you can Export the UV Layout as a Image ( .tga File) and colour the parts with Gimp, Photoshop or any other graphic programm.
Back in Blender you select in the UV Editor the Texture you created. The fbx2edf Converter combines the parts and the texture.

You can repaint all parts later, you only have to know the name of the texture file, for example "seat.tga". So if you want that nobody can rapaint the seat, just name it "seat42.tga" or something like that.

For the first tests you don't have to worry about specular and bump map.

I hope I could help you a little. Very difficult to explain for me. Please ask if anything is not clear. Maybe I can make some sreenshots.

Ah, the Export options are imprtant.
Also make sure that the .fbx File is not to big. 6MB is the max with my computer. :)

Edit: You can color the parts with material colors (no textures are needed), but can't use specular, normal and reflection of the materials in Blender.

Quote from: Obelix90 on July 08, 2015, 05:52:52 PM
Hi Furious,

I think I can help you.
You should select the "Blender Render" and not "Cycles" in Blender. Also forget the materials of Blender. The exporter and GP Bikes can't use them.
To give colour to parts, you have to UV Unwrap them. Now you can Export the UV Layout as a Image ( .tga File) and colour the parts with Gimp, Photoshop or any other graphic programm.
Back in Blender you select in the UV Editor the Texture you created. The fbx2edf Converter combines the parts and the texture.

You can repaint all parts later, you only have to know the name of the texture file, for example "seat.tga". So if you want that nobody can rapaint the seat, just name it "seat42.tga" or something like that.

For the first tests you don't have to worry about specular and bump map.

I hope I could help you a little. Very difficult to explain for me. Please ask if anything is not clear. Maybe I can make some sreenshots.

Ah, the Export options are imprtant.
Also make sure that the .fbx File is not to big. 6MB is the max with my computer. :)

thx for the reply. Will try that and hopefully finally move on. :)

Hello! It's me again.
Need some help also. I have a problem with mounting my bike. Where should be 0 point in 3d model of lower forks? I made it on wheel axis, but in GP Bikes it's placed around handlebars. Clues?

Also I don't quite know how to make planes always visible. Some of the parts I modeled are invisible from one side. Some are also invisible even though I got normals fliped to proper side and. looks like outside is not set correctly.

Hi Furious,
the wheel axis is a good position for the 0 point. You can move the lower suspension in the BikeEditor by selecting Scene->Front Suspension in the Params window. Then grap the suspension in the other window and move it to the right position.

Quote from: matty0l215 on December 23, 2014, 01:29:14 AM
Well im sorry for being so ignorent about 2 stokes :P all i though was a 500 street bike would be around the 150bhp mark...

And dont get me wrong, i love small capacity bikes! My 33bhp sv650 (restricted) was an absolute blast to ride and although its a reletivly big step up, my Daytona 675 is the biggest bike id want to ride on English roads.

The last 500cc gp, 2 strokes, 4 cylinders, have more than 210HP for about 115-120kg, and all the power can be used only  on a ladder of 2000 or 3000 rpm until 17000 or 18000rpm.
Suzuki has made a 50cc gp, 2 cylinders, 2 strokes with 20HP at 20'000rpm
Honda made a 4 cylinders, 4 strokes, 50cc, with 22HP at 22'000rpm.
The theorical difference between 2 strokes and  strokes is that a 2 strokes can have the double of the power of a 4 strokes with a same volume (500cc 2s - 500cc 4s), because a 2 strokes has 1 explosion every crankshaft revolution and a 4 strokes only 1 explosion all the 2 crankshaft revolution, but in facts it's not like that.

Quote from: janaucarre on August 20, 2015, 07:31:45 AM

Quote from: matty0l215 on December 23, 2014, 01:29:14 AM
Well im sorry for being so ignorent about 2 stokes :P all i though was a 500 street bike would be around the 150bhp mark...

And dont get me wrong, i love small capacity bikes! My 33bhp sv650 (restricted) was an absolute blast to ride and although its a reletivly big step up, my Daytona 675 is the biggest bike id want to ride on English roads.

The last 500cc gp, 2 strokes, 4 cylinders, have more than 210HP for about 115-120kg, and all the power can be used only  on a ladder of 2000 or 3000 rpm until 17000 or 18000rpm.
Suzuki has made a 50cc gp, 2 cylinders, 2 strokes with 20HP at 20'000rpm
Honda made a 4 cylinders, 4 strokes, 50cc, with 22HP at 22'000rpm.
The theorical difference between 2 strokes and  strokes is that a 2 strokes can have the double of the power of a 4 strokes with a same volume (500cc 2s - 500cc 4s), because a 2 strokes has 1 explosion every crankshaft revolution and a 4 strokes only 1 explosion all the 2 crankshaft revolution, but in facts it's not like that.

Thanks :D

Im aware of the double capacity rule of thumb but as you said, nowerdays thats not necessarily the case.

Still a 4 stroke L-Twin fan though ;D

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 20, 2015, 09:39:20 AM

Quote from: janaucarre on August 20, 2015, 07:31:45 AM

Quote from: matty0l215 on December 23, 2014, 01:29:14 AM
Well im sorry for being so ignorent about 2 stokes :P all i though was a 500 street bike would be around the 150bhp mark...

And dont get me wrong, i love small capacity bikes! My 33bhp sv650 (restricted) was an absolute blast to ride and although its a reletivly big step up, my Daytona 675 is the biggest bike id want to ride on English roads.

The last 500cc gp, 2 strokes, 4 cylinders, have more than 210HP for about 115-120kg, and all the power can be used only  on a ladder of 2000 or 3000 rpm until 17000 or 18000rpm.
Suzuki has made a 50cc gp, 2 cylinders, 2 strokes with 20HP at 20'000rpm
Honda made a 4 cylinders, 4 strokes, 50cc, with 22HP at 22'000rpm.
The theorical difference between 2 strokes and  strokes is that a 2 strokes can have the double of the power of a 4 strokes with a same volume (500cc 2s - 500cc 4s), because a 2 strokes has 1 explosion every crankshaft revolution and a 4 strokes only 1 explosion all the 2 crankshaft revolution, but in facts it's not like that.

Thanks :D

Im aware of the double capacity rule of thumb but as you said, nowerdays thats not necessarily the case.

Still a 4 stroke L-Twin fan though ;D

PHFFF!!!  :P

My lawn needs cutting - All 4 strokes are good for! Hehe  ;D ;D

Hawk.

....just wait for the ryger engine.
125cc 2t, 70hp @ 17500 rpm

the wenkel motor is theorical the best by power.
One crankshaft revolution has 3 explosion => 3 times more power :-):-):-)
mazda power hehe

Quote from: janaucarre on August 20, 2015, 02:13:42 PM
the wenkel motor is theorical the best by power.
One crankshaft revolution has 3 explosion => 3 times more power :-):-):-)
mazda power hehe

BRING ON THE NORTON!! ;D ;D

Quote from: vin97 on August 20, 2015, 01:57:55 PM
....just wait for the ryger engine.
125cc 2t, 70hp @ 17500 rpm

Go on...

not much information out there
but it will be completed in the near future


http://www.pit-lane.biz/t5121p920-gp125-all-that-you-wanted-to-know-on-aprilia-rsa-125-and-more-by-mr-jan-thiel-and-mr-frits-overmars-part-4

edit: 80% less emissions

Quote from: janaucarre on August 20, 2015, 02:13:42 PM
the wenkel motor is theorical the best by power.
One crankshaft revolution has 3 explosion => 3 times more power :-):-):-)

That's why we have plenty of wankel engines around us I guess :)

@Hawk: you may be glad to hear that many of the cons of a Wankel engine (and also some of the pros) are in common with 2-strokes engines. As the italians say: mal comune, mezzo gaudio :)

MaX.

Quote from: HornetMaX on August 24, 2015, 04:30:45 PM
@Hawk: you may be glad to hear that many of the cons of a Wankel engine (and also some of the pros) are in common with 2-strokes engines. As the italians say: mal comune, mezzo gaudio :)

What like, needing a whole engine rebuild because you started it up for more than 5 mins :P

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 24, 2015, 04:35:33 PM

Quote from: HornetMaX on August 24, 2015, 04:30:45 PM
@Hawk: you may be glad to hear that many of the cons of a Wankel engine (and also some of the pros) are in common with 2-strokes engines. As the italians say: mal comune, mezzo gaudio :)

What like, needing a whole engine rebuild because you started it up for more than 5 mins :P

Haha! C'mon Matty.... You've surely got to appreciate the shear beauty and simplicity of this engine... C'MOOOONNNN!!! Hehe  ;D

Since they sorted out the piston seal wear problems I think it's now the most efficient and best design of engine there has ever been. Can't understand why other manufacturers have not developed their own versions now to be honest?

Hawk.

Quote from: HornetMaX on August 24, 2015, 04:30:45 PM

Quote from: janaucarre on August 20, 2015, 02:13:42 PM
the wenkel motor is theorical the best by power.
One crankshaft revolution has 3 explosion => 3 times more power :-):-):-)

That's why we have plenty of wankel engines around us I guess :)

@Hawk: you may be glad to hear that many of the cons of a Wankel engine (and also some of the pros) are in common with 2-strokes engines. As the italians say: mal comune, mezzo gaudio :)

MaX.

Just love that Wankel engine Max as I'm sure you expected. Lol  ;D

If I remember rightly when Norton first started using it in their JPS race bike(many years ago now) people were debating it's cc capacity because it was so fast? Am I correct?
That was indeed a beautiful bike with a beautiful sound, and SO fast!  ;D 8)

Hawk

The simplicity of the Wankel is only on the surface. It seems it's pretty hard to make one that performs better than conventional engines. But I like it too, just because it's a funky engine. Not sure it's a better engine though. That may answer your question about the manufacturers.

The cc capacity is an usual issue when you compare two different engine architectures: would you compare a 1000cc 4 strokes with a 1000cc turbo 4 strokes and conclude that as they have the same cc they should be on par ? I guess not :)

MaX.

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 06:14:27 PM

Haha! C'mon Matty.... You've surely got to appreciate the shear beauty and simplicity of this engine... C'MOOOONNNN!!! Hehe  ;D

Since they sorted out the piston seal wear problems I think it's now the most efficient and best design of engine there has ever been. Can't understand why other manufacturers have not developed their own versions now to be honest?

Hawk

I do love the simplicity of the 2 stoke, but only in small capacity (above 300cc im not really a fun) saying that I'm more a fan of 600 4 strokes than the 1000s...  8)

Apart from Mazda, is there anyone who still commercially makes a mass produced Wankel? Definitely aren't any bike based ones... :( Shame really, would be great to see them ride again.

Mawk Porn seems to have gone up a few levels. Now quite a classy topic with the Wankels involved. Matty has joined the Triage it seems.

PS: Welcome back Max I was scared we had lost you  ;)

Quote from: HornetMaX on August 24, 2015, 06:38:51 PM
The simplicity of the Wankel is only on the surface. It seems it's pretty hard to make one that performs better than conventional engines. But I like it too, just because it's a funky engine. Not sure it's a better engine though. That may answer your question about the manufacturers.

The cc capacity is an usual issue when you compare two different engine architectures: would you compare a 1000cc 4 strokes with a 1000cc turbo 4 strokes and conclude that as they have the same cc they should be on par ? I guess not :)

MaX.

Interesting question there Max.

I'd be tempted to say that they do have the same cylinder capacity but not the same capacity for the density of gas entering the cylinder.  So the resultant power output of the turbo engine would obviously be higher than the normally aspirated engine.

But are you suggesting that the Wankel engine is like a turbo and normally aspirated engine all in one? That would mean it's even more of a fantastic design!  ;D

I've tried to be technically minded with that one. How did I do?  ;D

Hawk.
PS: I'm sure you could have explained it better than I. Lol

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:41:47 PM

But are you suggesting that the Wankel engine is like a turbo and normally aspirated engine all in one? That would mean it's even more of a fantastic design!  ;D

I think its more like comparing a turboed engine to a NA one of the same CC, it just doesn't work. :P

I like tubroed bikes even less than 2 strokes... (bloody 'busa's, really don't the point) but a turboed 2 stroke, now that would be interesting  ;D

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 24, 2015, 06:57:38 PM

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 06:14:27 PM

Haha! C'mon Matty.... You've surely got to appreciate the shear beauty and simplicity of this engine... C'MOOOONNNN!!! Hehe  ;D

Since they sorted out the piston seal wear problems I think it's now the most efficient and best design of engine there has ever been. Can't understand why other manufacturers have not developed their own versions now to be honest?

Hawk

I do love the simplicity of the 2 stoke, but only in small capacity (above 300cc im not really a fun) saying that I'm more a fan of 600 4 strokes than the 1000s...  8)

Apart from Mazda, is there anyone who still commercially makes a mass produced Wankel? Definitely aren't any bike based ones... :( Shame really, would be great to see them ride again.

Didn't Norton release a special rotory engine TT race bike in 2013?

Hawk.

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 24, 2015, 07:48:50 PM

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:41:47 PM

But are you suggesting that the Wankel engine is like a turbo and normally aspirated engine all in one? That would mean it's even more of a fantastic design!  ;D

I think its more like comparing a turboed engine to a NA one of the same CC, it just doesn't work. :P

I like tubroed bikes even less than 2 strokes... (bloody 'busa's, really don't the point) but a turboed 2 stroke, now that would be interesting  ;D

Haha! I think you need to go and see SpecSavers Matty!  ;D

Hawk.
PS: I thought modern MotoGP engines were turbo-engine bikes?? Yeah... I'm sure they are.  ;)

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:59:34 PM
Haha! I think you need to go and see SpecSavers Matty!  ;D

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 24, 2015, 08:17:52 PM

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:59:34 PM
Haha! I think you need to go and see SpecSavers Matty!  ;D

Hahaha!!! You look SO much better now Matty! Nice one mate! Hehe. ;D ;D

Hawk.

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:51:37 PM

Quote from: matty0l215 on August 24, 2015, 06:57:38 PM

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 06:14:27 PM

Haha! C'mon Matty.... You've surely got to appreciate the shear beauty and simplicity of this engine... C'MOOOONNNN!!! Hehe  ;D

Since they sorted out the piston seal wear problems I think it's now the most efficient and best design of engine there has ever been. Can't understand why other manufacturers have not developed their own versions now to be honest?

Hawk

I do love the simplicity of the 2 stoke, but only in small capacity (above 300cc im not really a fun) saying that I'm more a fan of 600 4 strokes than the 1000s...  8)

Apart from Mazda, is there anyone who still commercially makes a mass produced Wankel? Definitely aren't any bike based ones... :( Shame really, would be great to see them ride again.

Didn't Norton release a special rotory engine TT race bike in 2013?

Hawk.

Probably completely wrong here (different bike/class?) but didnt it have an aprilia rsv4 engine? Sounds incredible whatever it was..

Quote from: Napalm Nick on August 24, 2015, 07:23:41 PM
PS: Welcome back Max I was scared we had lost you  ;)

Nah, just an internet-less holiday (and a too short one).

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:41:47 PM
I'd be tempted to say that they do have the same cylinder capacity but not the same capacity for the density of gas entering the cylinder.  So the resultant power output of the turbo engine would obviously be higher than the normally aspirated engine.

That's a good reasoning, but if you want to pursue it, then you should take into account how fast each engine architecture can rev, because that gives (trying to make it simple) "how much energy an engine can swallow" (and hopefully convert). So you'll end up with something I'm not sure you like: fuel restrictions (which are in place in both motogp and F1).

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 24, 2015, 07:41:47 PM
But are you suggesting that the Wankel engine is like a turbo and normally aspirated engine all in one? That would mean it's even more of a fantastic design!  ;D

No I was only suggesting that allowing different engine architectures in the same class (e.g. 2s and 4s, or 4s and wankel) is always tricky and everybody will be entitled to say something like "rules favor engine A over engine B".

MaX.

They do holidays to the moon already?  :o

Yup, the Norton currently at the TT and since 2013 is a modified RSV4 engine (i cant remeber the mods they did but they wernt anything special) but they have recently seccured funding for a 1000 v4 and a 650 v twin in house engines. ;D

Here (http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2015/august/new-mcn-august-5/) is an artical about it

I used to LOVE watching those JPS Nortons and the blue flames they put out. And the sound was sooo awesome you could hear them approaching like a jet fighter.  Fun times and yes, much controversy over the engine cc, strangely got a lot louder as they started to get near the front.
I seem to remember Scott Smart riding them cant remember the other geezers name just now.

Awesome - and I nearly bought an RX7 at the time but the day of the test drive two wheels had mysterious punctures but it was close!

Quote from: Napalm Nick on August 25, 2015, 10:27:07 AM
They do holidays to the moon already?  :o

Closer than that, just intentionally avoided to buy the wifi option :)

MaX.

reading this, i'm dreading the day when all bikes have electric motors.....  ;D

oh god no

lol, hopefully it's not going to be a problem for our generation, but i feel sorry for those after us, that will be born into a world of silent motorbikes.....  :P

Silent, flying motorbikes with warp speed and diametric drive engines, and Virtual gaming that actual works. It's us I feel sorry for. :D

I'm very optimistic about electric bikes: they will  be terribly fun to ride due to the huge torque at any RPM.
The torque diagram of an electric bike is probably the one a classic engine would like to have (but will never have).

Of course there are still obstacles: price, battery capacity and weight mainly. But things are improving fast ... faster than what's happening on "classical" engines for sure.

The noise/sound: minor issue to me. And as somebody said, electric bikes sound like tie fighters. Cool  :)

MaX.

i see the torque of elec. engines more as a problem than as positive thing.
also i have reason to believe that this silent "bikes" will kill some pedestrians on the streets like e-cars would do too.

Quote from: JJS209 on August 26, 2015, 04:31:44 PM
i see the torque of elec. engines more as a problem than as positive thing.

Really ?!?! Why ?!?

Up to now, anybody who has tried an electric sport bike has found them really amazing.

Quote from: JJS209 on August 26, 2015, 04:31:44 PM
also i have reason to believe that this silent "bikes" will kill some pedestrians on the streets like e-cars would do too.

That's a non issue. They are not totally silent and, if necessary (but I don't think it is), they could be made to make noise on purpose (to alert pedestrians).

MaX.

Actually I believe the electric motors have or can achieve a far greater acceleration than normally aspirated engines?

Also there is definitely talk about having a normal engine sound being put into electric cars to make them more appealing to the die-hards. Lol

Hawk.

lol, most likely you'll be able to choose a sound you like for your elec. car/bike - maybe even download the sound you want.... or even make your own sound samples  ;D

Quote from: Hawk UK on August 26, 2015, 04:52:28 PM
Actually I believe the electric motors have or can achieve a far greater acceleration than normally aspirated engines?

I don't doubt there's quite a lot of marketing in that video, but ...

https://www.youtube.com/v/op6XtozsHZg

MaX.

Potential of electric bikes is exciting!! One day they will be faster than anything... For the sound, nothing a coke can can't sort out  :D

I hope our friendly developer doesn't forget to add them in RoadRace Simulator  8)

I have nothing against the subject you guys all are talking about... but you compleatly took over this thread... again.

I'm progressing a little bit everyday with creating low poly (actualy high poly but to amount of polygons capable by present PC's) but once I use the FBX2EDF tool I have some problems with scale. Models are made in mm, but after the export, they are far to big. Actually the scale value that "looks" good is about 0.3. Can someone explain it to me?

Also I have some errors in FBX2EDF about "parenting"

QuoteNOTE:: Starting log.
Unit scale: 0.300000
ERROR: bitmap /home/maciej/Obrazy/tekstury/opona.tga is not power of 2.
ERROR: bitmap /home/maciej/Obrazy/tekstury/opona.tga is not power of 2.
ERROR: object tarcze_n with no matching parent.
ERROR: object t_tarcz_n.001 with no matching parent.
ERROR: object piasta_n with no matching parent.
ERROR: object felga_n with no matching parent.
ERROR: object ranty_felgi_n with no matching parent.
ERROR: object opona_n with no matching parent.
ERROR: object szprychy with no matching parent.
NOTE:: Nodes parsed.
NOTE:: Mesh data
NOTE:: Vertices merge 0 0.0001
NOTE:: Normals smooth.
NOTE:: Ending log.

Also need some tip about planes that are invisible from one side and visible from other. I know it has something with theirs normals, but I set them to outside, so should work. unlucky it doesnt. Is it possible to set them "outside" on both sides?

Hi Furious,

do you use the export options for Blender I posted on page 4? When you use the scale of 100.0, you can model in real measures. Where do you select the scale of "0.3"? In Blender? In the Scene options you can select "Metric" in the Units panel and set a scale of 1.0(standard value).

The errors about the parents are no problem. You can ignore them. I think you can sovle this by adding an "empty" object to the scene and make this the parent of all other objects. But it's not necessary. The error about the bitmap is, that you always have to use textures with a size of power of 2. Hard to explain: the x and y resolution has to be the power of 2 like 1,2,4,...,1024,2048 and so on. X and y don't have to be the same.

Sometimes the "set normals to outside" function doesn't work properly. Blender can show you the normals when you look under the right panel in the 3D view(maybe press "N" to open it) under the Mesh Display panel. Just activate the face normals.
Maybe it's not a problem with the normals but with the textures. I found out that when you have just a bit transparency in your texture the part looks a bit weird in GPBikes. So now I always put a new layer under my textures(in Gimp) so I can be sure there is no transparency(or you delete the alpha channel:)

hope this helps a bit
Obelix