Tomorrow looks like fun

comnoz · Jun 19, 2013

Dances with Shrapnel said:
So what is the cleaned up port diameter?

The diameter is the standard 32mm at the intake flange and tapered down to the oval shape which has been widened about 2mm near the guide and then opened up in the bowl to match the larger seat.

The matching to the 35mm carbs is all done in the new manifold that we designed for the Fullauto head. Not quite released yet.
It is a large improvement over the old Amal manifolds previously available for the FCR's. Jim

worntorn · Jun 19, 2013

One thing is clear- there is a lot to it. Part science, part guesswork and then all that trial and error, or as the big corporations call it, Reasearch and Development.
A great result.

Glen

ntst8 · Jun 20, 2013

comnoz said:
The matching to the 35mm carbs is all done in the new manifold that we designed for the Fullauto head. Not quite released yet.
It is a large improvement over the old Amal manifolds previously available for the FCR's. Jim

Jim, straying a bit off topic here but have the new manifolds been shaped to provide any more clearance for the Carbs?
Iain.

comnoz · Jun 20, 2013

ntst8 said:
comnoz said:

The matching to the 35mm carbs is all done in the new manifold that we designed for the Fullauto head. Not quite released yet.
It is a large improvement over the old Amal manifolds previously available for the FCR's. Jim

Click to expand...

Jim, straying a bit off topic here but have the new manifolds been shaped to provide any more clearance for the Carbs?
Iain.

Yes, it mounts the carb slightly lower and forward. Jim

ntst8 · Jun 20, 2013

comnoz said:
Yes, it mounts the carb slightly lower and forward. Jim

Thanks, sounds perfect, i believe i am in the queue for when they are released.
Have just switched from a glass to an original steel i'state tank and what little clearance there was has all but dissappeared.
Iain

comnoz · Jul 1, 2013

Here are the final results of the Maney 1007 torque monster. It has now had 5 gallons of fuel run through it and everything readjusted. These readings are wheel power with no power transmission compensation added. Since I don't know how much drag is in my drive system I just entered zero compensation. It would likely be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent I'm guessing so the readings are low by whatever that amount would be. It is compensated for my low barometric pressure at 4500 ft and running conservatively on the rich side. About 12.5 to 1 at full boogie.

Here is the graph, I stopped the test at 6500.

Just for grins here is a graph comparing common dyno readings. The lower line is SAE - a conservative American standard for wheelpower, above that is STP -a popular European formula for figuring wheelpower, The top line is the dynojet conversion. Jim

Hobot · Jul 1, 2013

OF! 97 trq is tire and drive train and brain stem tearing force! Unless testing identical engines on identical drive train, its physics ignorant to use a percentage factor for drive loss. You'd have top put on electric motor and measure its watts to graft the dyno's power drain. AMC and drive chain are pretty efficient in the upper 90's according to better brains than me, so likely pretty close to AMC tire patch output as is. Will need an educated throttle hand to handle this Baby Huey.
Every dyno is unique in its out put data so what matters is doing it the same for the engine comparisons at that particular shop.

Brooking 850 · Jul 8, 2013

Hi Jim. great results, any chance of the straight pipe length and header bore size?
Regards Mike

christulin · Jul 8, 2013

Any plans for fuel injection or has that gone by the wayside?
I started fantasizing about the new Triumph Bonneville fuel injection system that looks like carbs....

comnoz · Jul 8, 2013

Brooking 850 said:
Hi Jim. great results, any chance of the straight pipe length and header bore size?
Regards Mike

The pipes are stock P11 pipes. They are 1 5/8 and really came on in the midrange.

I also tried a pair of 1 1/2 inch pipes with megaphones from one of my roadracers. They reduced the midrange torque but looked like they would have made more power above 6000. I was not looking for power at that rpm so I didn't attempt any further tests with them. Jim

cjandme · Jul 9, 2013

I need to win the lottery.

Brooking 850 · Jul 9, 2013

thanks Jim for the exhaust details
Regards Mike

comnoz · Jul 9, 2013

christulin said:
Any plans for fuel injection or has that gone by the wayside?
I started fantasizing about the new Triumph Bonneville fuel injection system that looks like carbs....

No fuel injection for this one. No charging system. Ultralight. A mag and carbs. Jim

OldForge · Aug 23, 2013

kentvander said:
"My P-11 is right at 300 lbs and I hope to get about the same with the new bike. "

How'd you get it to 300? My VMX P11 is right at 326 wet & I can't see where to get more off without cutting frame bits...& not much there.

Hobot · Aug 24, 2013

wet vs dry kept in mind, 2.5 qt oil ~5 lb + 2.5 gal unleaded gasoline ~20 lb for most the difference.

With alloy rims, plastic seat no fenders no chain guard no mufflers/brackets no mirror 5" head light and tiny honda coil small battery can get a Ranger Cheetah under 300#. If nothing can catch ya on throttle then just throttle to nullify need of mirror resistance. This is similar to what the Torque Monster is intended for, Yikes-Yum pulling its trigger and holding on.
I think a Maney big block engine is ~ 8 lb more than factory engine but don't know for sure. ITT trany maybe half again factory weight but nice and low.

kentvander · Sep 6, 2013

As for <300lbs, check out the picture on my posts. This is a dirt bike only, no lights, no alternator, no coils (Magneto), No instruments, Aluminum Oil and Fuel tanks, Aluminum cylinder, Ceriani forks, aluminum rims and lightweight REH hubs. As soon as I get the new engine from Comnoz I will take a lot of it apart to put in the new engine. I'll weigh the individual pieces to see where I can get further savings.

Tomorrow looks like fun

Similar threads