|
|
Post by mikea565 on Nov 9, 2006 19:32:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by curare on Nov 9, 2006 20:43:47 GMT
hello, I have just posted today in my www.curareracing.com a picture of an inlet port for malossi reed block. You will find it in the reed section. Sorry but the site is still on construction. A bigger inlet is not always better as it is not always better a bigger block. Sometimes a bigger block provoques more turbulences that restrict the flow and as result the total flow will be less that if the block was smaller and less prone to turbulences making. Many times with two strokes is very much a question of trying. It happenned to me to be pushed to think by the engine behaviour that a bigger carb was obviously needed yust to find out that it was absolutely not true. And if somebody has a easy formula you are free to think it is true but...you can call Tassinari and have a talk to them... |
|
|
|
Post by mikea565 on Nov 9, 2006 23:24:12 GMT
I appreciate your response Curare, but i still can;t see why the smoothing out of gasses into this area is not more beneficial.
regards Mike a565 (polini130)
|
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Nov 9, 2006 23:56:06 GMT
Mike,I'm pissed and don't have anything like the talent of either of you but *lateral thinking head on* I think what Curare is saying is that too large a chamber allows the fuel charge to spray too wide and weak.Even although it's a reed system a little compression and/or "guidance" is required for the inlet on this kit.
It's obviously the way to go on mental Zirri's or Fabrizi's etc but perhaps,as mad as the Malossi is,it may be too extreme for the 136.
Perhaps Oz would care to step in here and scare us with his science twaddle? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by curare on Nov 10, 2006 1:28:06 GMT
sorry if maybe wasn't too clear. First of all I am not right, I just do what my experience thought me, and surely you can achieve the same result in a different way.
As far as smoothing out gasses: we are talking about a Malossi reed block. The shape of this block is square. And I prefer keeping the same shape since I realize that changing shapes even from a worst to a better form provoque turbulences, that can be converted in better fluidity only after a certain lenght, and this certain lenght is not available here.
Then if we are talking about the part opening in the cranckcase the flow immediately after the entrance will crash into part of the cranckshaft. Since I can't control all this variables of the flow, I just keep the area of the wanted proportion.
It is like somebody asked me in another forum why I don't keep the surface more grainy to promote the limit stratus, and I answered that yes in theory it is better but in practice I have never encountered the forming of this stratus inside of the engine, or at least its consequence of promoting a better fluidity. And in the past I did many experiments with same shapes of transfers and different surface finition to get no appreciable difference.
But of course if you Mikea or somebody else here are going to experience some improvement in the application of some of your ideas I will be more then glad to know and I promise I will be the first to follow your findings. I am just after improvement not after ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikea565 on Nov 10, 2006 20:22:41 GMT
I understand your comments curare and they make sense especially the element of matching inlt opening to the initial shape of reed manifold (however you choose to mill the manifold itself. I beleive that if usuing a crank with radiused webs like that of the worb 5 full circle will benefit from a radiused opening nito the web area of the casings. I will be doing this after xmas and i will post my findings accordingly, as you say its learning curb for us all when trying to achieve ultimate performance. I'm still a big fan of the polini 130 as a tourer, which has proved to be bullet proof for many long distance thrashes. watch this space
|
|
