Author Topic: Australian Streamliner Bike Build  (Read 434566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #600 on: January 14, 2013, 11:33:05 PM »
Jon, the plan is to get baseline readings on the engine in its most basic NA configuration.  RPM, mixture, cylinder head temp, exhaust temp, and manifold vacuum.  I am just guessing this is what I need.  Logging is all new to me. 

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #601 on: January 17, 2013, 04:05:54 PM »
Jon, the plan is to get baseline readings on the engine in its most basic NA configuration.  RPM, mixture, cylinder head temp, exhaust temp, and manifold vacuum.  I am just guessing this is what I need.  Logging is all new to me.
That will give you a fair bit of info to work with Bo, for mixture are you running an exhaust O2 sensor?

Jon
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #602 on: January 17, 2013, 09:23:17 PM »
A wideband sensor from a Volkswagon.  Ther are spigots on both headers.  It is used on one header at a time to check each cylinder. 

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8948
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #603 on: January 17, 2013, 09:51:35 PM »
Jon, I saw you're on SHOrg, I was thinking that was what you needed then I saw your post.   If you need any help getting it shipped downunder let me know.  If they want a character reference, I tell them you're a character...  :-D
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #604 on: January 18, 2013, 12:17:21 AM »
Sounds good Bo, a few runs with that to get your fuelling spot on then the programmable ignition should get things pretty nice.
Dave is going to run this knock sensor on his bike this year;
http://www.viatrack.ca/
We got the one that connects to a megasquirt and going to try and log that output, if its any good we'll report back.
The LED is meant to be "burn your eyes" bright, we will need that.


Thanks Stainless, I've just got the "I only post USA", so I may be after a hand, they haven't twigged to my weirdness over there yet.
I'm sure they'll catch on in time, I've been on my best behaviour.

Cheers
jon
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5503
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #605 on: January 18, 2013, 10:31:22 PM »
I will try one of those knock sensors, too.

Online Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #606 on: January 19, 2013, 02:20:32 PM »
Jon,
I just saw an advertisement in "Racecar Engineering" for the new Motec m84 controller at 1185 British pounds
(what ever that is in real money???) which probably is not a bad deal considering the abilities of the controller. I would venture that this is an area where spending a little money would be called for and Motec is certainly one of the industry leaders in engine controls and data logging.

Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #607 on: January 19, 2013, 03:19:40 PM »
Thanks Rex
I'll check it out, they do make nice stuff.
I'll be running a standard motor for at least a couple years I think.
I have a lot of learning to do and I'm not even sure my bike and I will warrant more hp yet.

Cheers
jon
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline Heliophile

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • Design and construction of an LSR MC Streamliner
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #608 on: January 20, 2013, 11:39:11 PM »
This Australian Streamliner Bike Build “page” (40+ pages and counting), and Jon’s liner build, are both massively cool!  I have learned a lot to apply in my bike liner build.  Thanks to all.

The overdrive/underdrive unit adaptation is quite ingenious.  Jon, good on ya for being willing to share and for taking the time to do so. 

The downside is that I have a couple questions…no good deed goes unpunished!

Laycock and Gear Vendor are two different manufacturers, as far as I can learn on the web.  Right?  I have seen Gear Vendor under/overdrive units mentioned in Hot Rod Magazine, and have been meaning to get edumacated about them.  What are the tradeoffs?  Cost is one I am sure; the Gear Vendor costs roundabout 2700 USD new.

I am curious about the advantages or tradeoffs of using (1) an underdrive unit versus (2) using an overdrive unit with a shorter (numerically larger) final drive to obtain a similar top gear overall ratio.  I ran some numbers (below) to shed some light, but there may be other considerations that I am not seeing.

I may be exercising my gift for belaboring the obvious again, but here goes anyway.  The tables below are based on Hayabusa OEM gearbox ratios.  The percentage changes in the 6-speed stock box ratios are 26, 21, 16, 12, and 8 percent.

UNDERDRIVE.  I calculated overall ratios using a 38/20 = 1.9 final drive ratio, which might be in the ballpark for a stock motor.  With a 1.27 underdrive, the twelve available ratios listed in order of ratio are shown in the table.
 
Gear   Drive   Driven   Gear   Overall   Change    Change   Change
              Gear       Gear      Ratio       Ratio      re 1 up    re 2 up   re 3 up
1U   13   34   3.322   10.073           
1   13   34   2.615   7.932   0.21       
2U   16   31   2.461   7.462   0.06   0.26   
3U   19   29   1.938   5.879   0.21   0.26   0.42
2   16   31   1.938   5.876   0.00   0.21   0.26
4U   21   27   1.633   4.952   0.16   0.16   0.34
3   19   29   1.526   4.629   0.07   0.21   0.21
5U   22   25   1.443   4.377   0.05   0.12   0.26
6U   23   24   1.325   4.019   0.08   0.13   0.19
4   21   27   1.286   3.899   0.03   0.11   0.16
5   22   25   1.136   3.446   0.12   0.14   0.21
6   23   24   1.043   3.165   0.08   0.19   0.21
                            
I think I would try using 1U and then go to direct and up through the gears 1-6.  The percentage changes in ratio would be 21, 26, 21, 16, 12, and 8 percent.  Note that the underdrive first gear gives a pretty reasonable ratio step (21 %) to the next gear (first gear direct), actually a bit less than the 1st to 2nd step (26 %) of the stock box.  Nice!  The result is effectively a 7-speed transmission chain that should help at the starting line.  The Gear Vendors website raves about gear-splitting, but I don’t see advantage in doing too much of that in this application. 

OVERDRIVE.  Using a 1.27 overdrive and a final drive ratio of 48/20 = 2.400 to obtain about the same overall drive ratio in top gear, the twelve available ratios are:

Gear   Drive   Driven   Gear   Overall   Change    Change   Change
              Gear       Gear      Ratio       Ratio      re 1 up    re 2 up   re 3 up
1   13   34   2.615   10.019           
1O   13   34   2.059   7.889   0.21       
2   16   31   1.938   7.422   0.06   0.26   
3   19   29   1.526   5.847   0.21   0.26   0.42
2O   16   31   1.526   5.844   0.00   0.21   0.26
4   21   27   1.286   4.925   0.16   0.16   0.34
3O   19   29   1.202   4.604   0.07   0.21   0.21
5   22   25   1.136   4.353   0.05   0.12   0.26
6   23   24   1.043   3.997   0.08   0.13   0.19
4O   21   27   1.012   3.878   0.03   0.11   0.16
5O   22   25   0.895   3.428   0.12   0.14   0.21
6O   23   24   0.822   3.147   0.08   0.19   0.21
                            
Here I think I would run through the first 5 gears without overdrive, then simultaneously shift back down from 5th into 4th and kick in the overdrive.  This would be easier to see if I could highlight the chosen ratios.  The percentage changes in ratios in this 8-speed scheme are 26, 21, 16, 12, 11, 12, and 8.  The result is an 8-speed tranny with quite close ratios for the top four gears.  This is useful to handle the high part of the drag curve, especially if the power band has been narrowed.  The overall 1st gear ratio is about the same as the underdrive case.

The stock bike has final drive ratio = 40/17 = 2.353 and first gear overall ratio = 9.822, so the first ratio in either the underdrive or overdrive setup, at just over 10, is actually a little better for getting started.  Which we will both need since our rigs weigh quite a bit more than the stock bike.  An over/underdrive ratio a bit larger than 1.27 would be useful, but you can only have what is available.

Am I on the right track here?  I suspect that you have probably ran some similar numbers.  Comments?  Is that snoring I hear?  Did I do it again? 

Larry

Offline Heliophile

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • Design and construction of an LSR MC Streamliner
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #609 on: January 20, 2013, 11:42:46 PM »
So, the tables are all messed up.  If anyone wants an Excel or Word file, email and I will send it.

Offline maj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #610 on: January 21, 2013, 12:42:00 AM »
Larry thats pretty much what were looking at
Jon is favoring the underdrive and i am looking closely at the overdrive ,
not sure about the downshift with the range change , but i suppose its easy to range change then shift

But to use it as an overdrive there needs to be lots of work on either changing the direction of the drive with a gear drive on the input or a sleeve gear

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #611 on: January 21, 2013, 02:02:24 AM »
Thanks Guys

The underdrive is definitely a jointly equal project between Greg (maj) and I, it is just on my build diary.

The advantages of an underdrive and getting out of there as soon as possible in a run IMHO:

Big shift is first when you aren't pushing hard against the wind and can afford to drop the revs a fair bit, I would have liked a slightly bigger step but we are working with what we have.

Most of the run the box is in direct with the gear train locked together so stronger, not generating heat or sucking power.

Any failure in the gear change system locks you in high (with the Laycock).

The chain speed from the joey back to the wheel is a result of the wheel diameter and the rear sprocket diameter, if the the main gearbox to joey is 1:1 and the joey is run at top speed as 1:1 then the joey output sprocket is the size you would run on motor output shaft if you could fit it (often can't because of the clutch rod)
If you go overdrive the rears sprocket needs to 27% bigger which will increase the chain speed or the front sprocket needs to be 27% smaller which reduces the number of teeth engaging the chain.

The closer a chain drive is to 1:1 the better it will live IMHO, yes I have a lot of opinions, I'm not an engineer I just look at stuff and form opinions.
To go the same speed in top gear I see little logic in overdriving through the joey box to then just gear down in the chain ratios.

Using the example of 20/38 sprockets with an underdrive/direct usage, to get the same top speed with the joey as Direct/overdrive the sprockets end up being 20/48(.26 which we will ignore) that makes the chain run faster or 16(15.74 again rounded)/38 which works the chain a lot harder around the front sprocket.

Sorry, I'm $hit at explaining things.



The Gear Vendor unit is a P type Laycock, unit, first built under licence to lackock and then Gear Vendor bought Laycock out.

Cheers
jon
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline Heliophile

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • Design and construction of an LSR MC Streamliner
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #612 on: January 21, 2013, 05:51:23 PM »
Thanks to both of you for the further info.  The efficiency advantage is a strong argument for the under-drive approach. 

Is it feasible to do the overdrive option by turning the engine around, front to back?  Maybe with a long swingarm that straddles the engine, if you are using suspension. Custom headers going straight back.  Long chain run though.

Either way, the unit does increase driveline rotational inertia somewhat.  I just got a copy of Tony Foale's performance modeling software, which could answer whether it is significant.

Jon, I see more ingenuity and good engineering choices in your build than I saw from most engineers during my career.  Unique vehicles and solutions make LSR cool.  It is fun to still be learning things at my age – helps to avoid an ossified brain (I hope, anyway).  I try to return the favor when I can, hopefully without being too boring.

Online Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #613 on: January 21, 2013, 07:06:57 PM »
Quoting Heliophile, "Unique vehicles and solutions make LSR cool. " More true words were never spoken and I think that is the reason so many people are so taken with LSR, myself included.

Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline Heliophile

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • Design and construction of an LSR MC Streamliner
Re: Australian Streamliner Bike Build
« Reply #614 on: January 21, 2013, 07:23:43 PM »

To go the same speed in top gear I see little logic in overdriving through the joey box to then just gear down in the chain ratios.


You can get essentially identical lowest and highest overall drive ratios from either the overdrive or underdrive setup, and thus similar acceleration at low speed (without a push truck) and similar speed at the top end.  Either approach, you can juggle sprocket teeth here and there (within space limits) to get the desired overall ratios.  I should not have stipulated specific tooth counts; ratios are the important aspect.  Underdrive system advantage is less lossy at the top end, which is very significant, and also you have developed a clear route to implementation.  Overdrive system advantage is closer ratios at the top end and a bit wider at the low speed end.  I was just exploring and questioning to understand the options.