|
|
Post by 4l04ever on Feb 19, 2019 19:17:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by 4l04ever on Feb 19, 2019 20:19:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Tobyjugs on Feb 19, 2019 22:36:31 GMT 1
I know someone who has tried this idea and they gained half a horse power. On further examination they put down the extra horse power down to the gudgeon pin as it was shorter and not flexing as much. Half a horse power is not much but the engine is 50 cc and they want to break some speed records with the engine. This idea is a very old idea just like the shift camshaft on the new BMW engined bikes. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Feb 20, 2019 9:40:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Tobyjugs on Feb 20, 2019 14:59:02 GMT 1
Yes i helped to replace a movable fuel cam on a TM410 engine at the beginning of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by bare on Feb 21, 2019 18:26:59 GMT 1
As for the First Pix with the Screw top piston. I have a Russian mfg'd Engine A wee 2 stroke designed for Control line combat.
Yess a toy engine. It is a Marvel of ingenuity and machinists skills from mid 90's.
Turns ~35 k rpms in use so not so toy like.
It features a Moveable piston height via it's screw in wrist pin assly and specific spacers.
This allows timings changes coupled with compression changes via it's screw on head.
A seriously tuneable to current needs engine Very nice.
BUT and it's a critical 'but'... the piston carrier tends to unscrew itself.
The variable design was not continued in subsequent developments.. for learned reasons
IMO a couple of kids in some wee shop in darkest NZ are pissing up the wrong tree with a screw top piston and it's reversed Dykes ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedpete on Feb 28, 2019 14:18:52 GMT 1
Agree with Bare, most of these ‘revolutionary ‘ ideas have been tried, tested and rejected by automotive giants years ago.
|
|
