A short study on ignition timing and combustion

Status
Not open for further replies.
xbacksideslider said:
You know this already but it bears saying, that's likely close to 100 octane and to obtain its benefits, your engine has to be running high compression or lots of ignition advance or both.

My ECM will take care of advance and mixture. I would love to run really high compression but I need to be able to use the fuel that is available from time to time so that makes for a limit on compression. Of course you still get the benefit of the cooling properties.
Of course a bit of compression from a super would help also. :D
 
xbacksideslider said:
pete.v said:
comnoz said:
Who knows what is in it. Non-alcohol fuels use other light end products to raise the octane that may or may not be better than alcohol. Jim

This is interesting. There is a 90 grade no ethenol fuel down the road from me and I wonder if it is better or worse than 93 grade ethanol blend. I ran a tankful of the puregas 90 a while back and it seemed fine but over a long time who know what it will do. And It's not inexpensive either.

I have been mixing a 50/50 blend of 110 leaded and 93 ethanol for 6 years. I feel this may be a bit overkill and not really needed. I think I'm ready to ween the bike off this blend.

You know this already but it bears saying, that's likely close to 100 octane and to obtain its benefits, your engine has to be running high compression or lots of ignition advance or both.

Well, I have Combat level compression and my advance is static with the mag set at 29ish.
These are more good reasons to wean of the expensive blend. It's just a bit over the top.
 
acotrel said:
' The high swirl at higher rpms means you need less advance as the rpm rises. Staying at 32 degrees at 6000 rpm on a performance motor is tough on pistons and cases. Jim'

In reading the Dynatek 2000 literature, they achieve retard at high revs by using a VOES vacuum switch to change from the high advance curve to one with less advance. I thought that the reason less advance was needed was because there is less depression over the jets in the mixing chamber of the carburettor, i.e. under the slide, if the throttle is wide open at high revs. Do you have much experience with tuning commandos that have had the head fully hemisphered, or varying the ports which has indicated the swirl effect has a major effect on the need to retard the timing ? In Nortons you rarely have a high piston dome stuffing up the flame front.
I think there are two things which affect the required advance at mid throttle openings, if the comp. ratio, and fuel composition are constant. That is the jetting (needle shape) and the change in the time the piston takes to rockover TDC as the revs rise because the piston is experiencing a change in acceleration, and the time taken for the entire combustion event is almost fixed, being a chemical reaction. It would make more sense to me to estimate the time the combustion takes from the standard timing of 28 degrees at 3000 revs and relating the deceleration of the piston to it as the revs rise by calculation, the algorithm would give the shape of the curve needed purely to compensate for the geometry of the situation. Then you could simply jet to that, and change the static advance if the fuel altered.
I don't know whether the Dynatek 2000 system of retarding when there is little vacuum actually works. On reading their stuff, it seems they sometimes earth the wire that goes to the VOES switch, so the advance curve does not change if they lose vacuum.
I have never worried much about trimming the main jets as long as they are rich enough and the needle doesn't obstruct at full throttle. To my mind what is important is that you have the optimum of jetting and timing as you wind the throttle on coming out of corners, and that would be particularly so if you are using petrol to race. With methanol, you can get away with a lot, however even there if you raise the needles one notch on my bike there is a considerable drop in performance as you come out of corners.
When I practise, I do a lot of laps and there is one hairpin bend in particular which I use as a measure, and I know if the bike is going quicker or slower at the end of the straight after it. The trick is to know when you can raise the overall gearing.

Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim
 
If you go back in time a bit. Maserati in the thirties used a blend of methanol, benzene and acetone. The acetone was there to make sure that the fuel didn't separate into two layers. I used that fuel in the sixties, and I was always wary of getting on my hands or breathing it. Benzene causes blood changes (leukaemia). That blend gives the best of two worlds. You don't need 100% methanol to get almost the full supercharging effect from it's high latent heat of vaporisation, and if you entrain a higher calorific component with the methanol you have more energy coming out of each combustion event. If I was going to use a blend these days, I'd use methanol and toluene (methyl benzene) and a small amount of acetone - it would be much less toxic and achieve similar results to the Maserati blends. The trouble lies in handling bulk amounts of solvent safely and still getting consistency. These days in Australia, the controlling bodies in bike racing tend to ban methanol fuels except for historic racing and speedway, however they are really great to use.
The only time I would ever use petrol for racing would be if the bike was a two stroke. Even there the benefit is extremely dramatic, however expensive.
 
'Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim'

I think that with that statement you have indicated that optimisation of timing and mixture are what is important - a balancing act ? I think playing with those two variables is not easy even with a dyno, and when you get onto the race track the shape of the circuit brings another variable - gearing.
 
acotrel said:
'Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim'

I think that with that statement you have indicated that optimisation of timing and mixture are what is important - a balancing act ? I think playing with those two variables is not easy even with a dyno, and when you get onto the race track the shape of the circuit brings another variable - gearing.

No question it can be tough. I have literally worn motors out on the dyno trying to map fuel injection systems -before automated tuning came along. That cuts the time needed dramatically. Jim
 
Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim[/quote]

Jim, in your experience and / or opinion, what is the relationship between squish band gap and its effectiveness? And what is the maximum gap it can be whilst still being effective?
 
One of the things that Rohan has been on about is the effect of raising the comp. ratio when using methanol. I use standard comp. ( 9 to one ?), and in doing so the mixture stays within the usable jetting range of the normal carburettor. With bikes on 12 to one compression, it is normal to use the same ignition advance as for petrol, however the jets are dramatically larger. You use more fuel, so get more power. The jetting is on the limit of the carbs. The needles are very fine tipped with a really rapid taper, and the needle jets are about 3 thou inch larger. Mains are almost doubled in flow rate and sometimes the needle jet must be recessed to stop metering off the tip of the needle. When 14 to one comp. is used in a road race motor, the situation becomes even more difficult, and I believe almost impossible to optimise. The ignition advance at 14 to one, is normally retarded the same amount of as the advance that I add for my lower compression motor away from the standard petrol figure when changing to methanol - 4 degrees.
With my low comp. the system stays manageable. Which is better, getting more power at high comp. by using more fuel - or getting more power by getting the mixture right at low comp. and achieving more efficiency ?
 
Fast Eddie said:
Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim

Jim, in your experience and / or opinion, what is the relationship between squish band gap and its effectiveness? And what is the maximum gap it can be whilst still being effective?[/quote]

Over about .060 and the squish band does nothing.
.040 has a little effect.
.020 is great
I used to run my race motors down to the point I started seeing signs of contact. Jim
 
Jim
Read all the replies, and there i thought is was just a case of Flash-bang-Whollop? My simple thinking was to get as much pressure as late at possible,so the rod as a better angle [leveage] ..no use obtaining lots of compression and burning it quick,when the rods straight up, i would like max cylinder force at 90 degees, ie crank pin at 3 o'clock. Now thats torquing power. or just crap?
 
john robert bould said:
Jim
Read all the replies, and there i thought is was just a case of Flash-bang-Whollop? My simple thinking was to get as much pressure as late at possible,so the rod as a better angle [leveage] ..no use obtaining lots of compression and burning it quick,when the rods straight up, i would like max cylinder force at 90 degees, ie crank pin at 3 o'clock. Now thats torquing power. or just crap?

Depending on stroke, bore offset and rod length and a few other things there is a particular point where you need to see the pressure peak to get the most efficiency. It is well before 90 degrees after TDC. Jim
 
john robert bould said:
Jim
How much after TDC is the most power produced [gas pressure]

I have figured it up before but since it is a pretty useless number I don't recall the exact figure. I believe it was somewhere between 15 and 30 degrees. Jim
 
Jim, when I get off my lazy backside and start doing some maths, I will use those figures you've quoted as the termination point of the combustion event, and try to calculate the probable size of the error caused by a wrong estimate of where it occurs. I think the maths is worth doing, even if only for comparison with the advance curves you have developed. I think it is much easier to jet up to an established curve, however it needs to be somewhere near the optimum because of the leverage effects.
 
It would be nice to use real time cylinder pressures to develop a Norton motor.

I have sensors to see intake air pressures at the valve and exhaust gas pressure at the valve but high pressure cylinder pressure measurements take some really expensive stuff to get it done. Jim
 
Jim, thinking about the vacuum operated switch used with the Dynatek 2000 ignition system to change the advance curve if full throttle is used at very high revs to stop detonation. It might be better if that was done with a well positioned microswitch on the twist grip near the end of it's travel ? Personally I never whack the throttle open, I always feed it on in a rapid but controlled manner, so the system would stay on the aggressive advance curve until the bike was almost at the end of the straights or at least well down them on a tight circuit.
 
comnoz said:
Fast Eddie said:
Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim

Jim, in your experience and / or opinion, what is the relationship between squish band gap and its effectiveness? And what is the maximum gap it can be whilst still being effective?

Over about .060 and the squish band does nothing.
.040 has a little effect.
.020 is great
I used to run my race motors down to the point I started seeing signs of contact. Jim[/quote]

If .040" has little effect - is it worth it? Ken Canaga cracked some cases with less than .040" squish - pistons started hammering the head at RPM. Hi Compression is important - but those last few thousands can be risky. I had piston to head interference wear in my race bike with .050" squish clearance.
 
acotrel said:
Jim, thinking about the vacuum operated switch used with the Dynatek 2000 ignition system to change the advance curve if full throttle is used at very high revs to stop detonation. It might be better if that was done with a well positioned microswitch on the twist grip near the end of it's travel ? Personally I never whack the throttle open, I always feed it on in a rapid but controlled manner, so the system would stay on the aggressive advance curve until the bike was almost at the end of the straights or at least well down them on a tight circuit.

The best idea is to use a throttle position sensor. It outputs 0 to 5 volts depending on throttle position and can graduate from on ignition curve to another.
Manifold pressure is pretty useless on a Norton as there is way to much pulsing to be read with a conventional sensor. Jim
 
jseng1 said:
comnoz said:
Fast Eddie said:
Less quench area generally means more timing advance will be needed. I have built a few with no quench area and did not like the results.
Timing and mixture do go hand in hand but advancing the timing to make up for a slow burning rich mixture or retarding the timing to avoid detonation from an overly lean mixture is not a good practice when power is the objective. Jim

Jim, in your experience and / or opinion, what is the relationship between squish band gap and its effectiveness? And what is the maximum gap it can be whilst still being effective?

Over about .060 and the squish band does nothing.
.040 has a little effect.
.020 is great
I used to run my race motors down to the point I started seeing signs of contact. Jim

If .040" has little effect - is it worth it? Ken Canaga cracked some cases with less than .040" squish - pistons started hammering the head at RPM.[/quote]

If the pistons are hammering the head then there is less than zero at some point.

Tight squish is a problem with aluminum rods or rocking pistons but not otherwise. Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top