How about a 180 (30cc) glow motor?

Intlwaters

Help Support Intlwaters:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Marc,

I saw this engine mentioned on Dave Marles site, but I thought I also saw there that the idea had been canned and CMB stopped development. I thought it was a petrol motor only. ???

Unfortunately 35cc is too big for the X classes in Australia and the US.

Ian.
 
Well, according to the authors of the paper (february issue), it seems to still be under development.

I guess the gas version is primarily designed for FSR-V (enduro) 35cc boats. But it could also be a good challenger for QD and JG35.

May be someone could suggest a 30cc version for Australia and US markets.

Marc
 
Looks like competition for the Mathe as well....

Hmmmm lemme see.... get a Mathe, make a new crank (less stroke) to bring it down to 30cc, change the carb, change the head to glow.... wear that striped apron again... hehehehe
 
Marc,

I checked Dave Marles site and found the bit I was looking for. It was on the second page of the thread titled "New Grand Prix 45 engine." At the bottom of the page Dave Marles says CMB are not going to make it. Maybe they have changed their minds.

Craig,

Mathe is side exhaust? Yuk!

Ian.
 
in my experience i dont see a 30cc nitro motor working very well .a nitro motor depends on having a small space (bore) to develop power. this is why .90 size motors are not 4x as fast as .21's and why larger motors make less use of hi nitro(65%) . the 1 cube is pushing the envelope.

plus i talked to a certain manufacturer of certain record holding motors and was told -off the record- that he will be building a 'BIG BLOCK' motor (about 1.2 or 1.3 the largest that would work) but it will be some time .
 
Welcome aboard Bermudadude!

mmmm.

Honda 500cc V4 GP 2 strokes produce 190hp... (long stroke motor too!)

I am curious to know what the practical bore size for a nitro / glow motor actually is and how that was derived.
 
190hp from 500cc is very close to the specific power output of good 15cc boat motors, and the Honda is on petrol rather than nitro and methanol, so it is doing very well. This would indicate that the specific power outputs of the engines can be maintained for larger cylinder sizes (the Honda having 125cc cylinders).

Drag goes up with the square of speed, so that is why 90 boats are not four times faster than 21's, also the 90 boats are much heavier so the engine has more power absorbed just to get the boat to the same speed. Although I agree that the specific power the good 90's is lower than that for the good 21's. Some of this would be related to the ability to use higher nitro better, but 21's also tend to be development offshoots of the 21 car motors. That is big money stuff, to the point that there are professional drivers! So their motor development has been better.

As far as I know the main reason that there are very few racing model boat engines over 15cc is that most are made in Europe, and their racing does not permit larger than 15cc. Given that the rules in the US and Aus allow for up to 30cc, a few of the manufacturers have done the low cost development option and stretched their 90's out to 100's. Thus they have made engines of larger capacity, but these engines have the port sizes, carb, disc, exhaust header, and pipe sizes of 90's. Hardly optimal.

One problem a manufacturer would face introducing a 30cc motor is their would be little use for it, at least straight away. New hull sizes, pipe sizes, props, fuel tanks etc would need to be made to fully use such an engine. A 120 would not be too far out of reach of current hulls, although tank capacity may be a problem in riggers, and appropriate props may be difficult.

Ian.
 
Craig,

Oh Yeah! 33000 rpm, 20 odd hp! $5000..... 8)

I have actually considered this sort of stuff (at least a 4 cylinder), but the biggest problem in a crank shaft..... :-

Ian.
 
hey how about 4 45s in 2 gear drive units 2 into one???

That would mean 2 shafts.... hmmmmm....

4 bloody tanks though....

:(
 
Plus the multiple tuned pipes hanging off the boat ??? and what happens if one cylinder goes out - it ends up being hydraulic'd because fuel is still going into it. That's why I like the idea of a single cylinder big block.
 
Pipes! Chrome Pipes! 8) How cool would a rigger look with 4 polished pipes hanging off each side!!!

I dont think one cylinder would hydraulic if it stopped firing, after all you can turn the motor over with the starter when the fuel is connected and not hydraulic it!

Raises an interesting point that I have thought of before tho. With the very high compression ratios we run, and the rich mixtures we must get close to filling the combustion chamber with fuel at TDC (given that the gas in compressible but the fuel isnt!). Hmmmm.

Ian.
 
In terms of layout, the A180V (2 cylinder) is pretty neat. Single carb (and single needle), single shaft, 2 rear facing exhausts.

Interesting reading up on the GP bike motors, they have crankcase reed induction (and one carb per cyl). I didn't think reeds were good for top end?

Ian.
 
I don't think they are all using reeds. I remember hearing that some of them were using disks or drums.

The one carb per cylinder thing sounds good - my concern with the single carb to 2 cylinder motor would be how do you stop 1 from running leaner than the other? I doubt that the 2 would run exactly the same. I'd also try to stage the pipes a little differently which would cause a huge mixture difference.

8 Chrome pipes out the side of an 8 cyl. would sound awesome. The crank would have to be an engineering masterpiece!
 
Tim,

I saw Superkart motors with discs (Rotax 256 and derivatives) but I didn't see any of the bikes with discs. Drums? I didn't know anyone did that on full size motors.

Problem with one carb per cyl is you have to sync the carbs, then get all the metering the same! For 4 or 8 carbs, what a nightmare! Need flowmeter...... :eek:

Either the crankshaft comes apart (that is not easy, see A180) or the rods have to have removable mains caps so they can be taken off a one pice crank. All a bit hard in 21 size....

The alternative would be to gear cranks together in a common case like the Rotax. But I guess that layout is only useful for 2 cylinders...

All too hard.... And expensive.....

30cc in one cylinder please..... ;D

Ian.
 
I would really like to suggest that the people that are really hooked on engine configuration read a technical book on 2-stroke race engines and the how to tune them in respect to ports and stroke and revs and all the things that make an engine go fast for a certain application.

I read a book that covered everything and it has helped me enormously. It will also answer that question about the revs limiting problem someone has with an engine.

Explains about carbs and why every piston engine should be fitted with one carb per cylinder.

Nitro,

The reason the gp bikes fit reeds for induction is they sacrifice some top end for large amounts of torque gain which helps for rideability. The reed cage technology has progressed a long way over the years with dual reed pedals and better materials. Again read a 2-stroke tuning book, the same principles still apply with our engines.

If you have questions I would be happy to help.

I think it's the A engine that didn't rev that had a slightly bigger bore dia than it's twin brother but the same stroke.

I am almost 100% it has nothing to do with piston/rod weight. More like something to do with port time/area values because the bore dia has been increased makes the port/time area different. the width of the port is just as important as the port height.
 
Mark,

What book do you speak of? I have "2 Stroke Performance Tuning" by A. Graham Bell and the Gordon P Blair book called "Design and Simulation of 2 Stroke Engines" (I think that is the title anyway.) Although I have not yet read much of the Blair book.

GP bikes have reeds but the Rotax 256 2 cylinder superkart motor (and the many derivatives now being made as Rotax apparently no longer make the 256) uses Zimmerman disc induction with 1 carb per cylinder. This is also a road racing application with a 6 speed gearbox. Why not reeds? Although traction is probably much higher with a superkart so maybe it allows them to optimise for top end more.

To state again, the A-90HP (which revved to 22-23000 rpm) has a bore of 28mm and a stroke of 24mm, thus bore/stroke of 1.167. The A100 (which revved to 19000 on the same pipe length) has a bore of 29mm and a stroke of 26mm, thus bore/stroke of 1.115. Thus the bore/stroke ratio of the A100 is actually LOWER then the A-90HP!

I welcome your ideas on this subject! ;D

Ian.
 
Ian,

You are right about your numbers.... more oversquare means more RPM (generalisation) so the lower number (1.11) is getting closer to a square engine, therfore less RPM??

Also the port area is a very good point... pity we cant get blank liners???

EMS Racing
 
Craig,

More oversquare means more RPM is a generalisation that does seem to apply to 4 strokes, ie the BMW 10 cylinder F1 motor which has a bore over 100mm and a stroke around 40mm, and revs to 19000 rpm. These motors breathe throught the heads, thus the larger the bore for a given capacity, the larger the valves and more you can flow in and out of the cylinder. 2 strokes breathe through the walls, so the same rules do not apply.

I recently did a search on 2 stroke racing motors in bikes and superkarts. Thes engines are purpose built for road racing. Where I could find specs, they were all square or very slightly long stroke, with the exception of Aprillia, which was short stroke, but not by much. Interestingly the peak power of the 250 Yamaha 2 cyl road race bike was listed at 12500 rpm, which is much less than the BMW which has larger capacity cylinders. Thus in the full-size world is seems that approximate square bore and stroke is the optimum. But it would also seem that when pushed to the max that 4 strokes are inherantly higher revving..... :-

Blank liners? I might be able to cut an exhaust port, but the rest is too hard without a 5 axis CNC...!

Nitrocrazed racing: Rev dammit!
 
Ian,

Lets go back into the world of glow engines, as many other factors are involved once you hit the bigger engines (although some parallels can be drawn).

We have a couple of differences between the 90 and the 100 and I think there are 4 things working against the 100. Piston weight, bore/stroke ratio ,(as mentioned by Mark) the port timing/area and (here comes the curve ball... I just thought of this when remembering my days of modifying the old CMB GP engines) the port area in the case. I havent checked the OD of the liner but even if the 90 and 100 bore is the same, the amount of fuel that is delivered to the 100 should be greater, therefore the port area in the case should also be greater!!! With the first GP 90s we widened the ports int he case to get fuel into the engine. This was also necessary in the GP80s using the 67 case which did have a larger OD liner and therefore less port area feeding the engine. I have an idea and I might run it past the manufacturer to help get the 100 really screaming :)

Ian, can you confirm the liner OD on the 90 and 100?
 
Back
Top