zxrlocost
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 08:44 AM |
|
|
why do I get the feeling all the bike 'experts' have never had anything to do with a bike engine before
PS bike engines are perfectly reliable
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 08:47 AM |
|
|
Next I build will be +442,will have a quad cam 32 valve Ford, and be multiples more fun than a bec. 
Cheers,
Syd. 
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 08:56 AM |
|
|
I'm in the car engined camp, BUT bike engines are designed to be thrashed, they are pretty reliable too. There's a guy in the Yorkshire
branch of the Locost car club with a standard Fireblade, been thrashed to death on a daily basis in all weathers and to Le Mans. He drives like a
nutter and few people will get in a car with him . He's on the same engine 3 years later. Good value?
Marcus
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by v8kid
Don't forget durability - thrash a bike engine car and it won't last long.
Not a true statement.
|
|
|
mr_pr
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 10:11 AM |
|
|
right...
I seem to have sparked a brilliant debate. And on my 1st post!!!!
Oops! Still undecided, only thing against bikes is currently cost and possible no reverse.
Does anyone know how it effects insurance? Is it easier because of lower engine size?
Thanks
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 10:37 AM |
|
|
Insurance wise, there's very little in it, you do get cheaper road tax though!
Cost wise, I've spent more on my crossflows than I'd have spent on a bike engine. (I even had a nice fireblade engine in my shed for 2
years with the intention of fitting it to my chassis).
My god I'm slowly moving over to the dark side 
Reverse (lack of) would be a problem for me, but simple electric systems are available, at reasonable cost.
(I'm talking myself into it!)
Marcus
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
graememk
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
ok, heres my side, i have a cec (nissan 1.8turbo) only because thats what my part build came with, i was going to put a R1 in my locost.
i've been out in andys blade (ash3) and my uncles zetec westerfield. blade goes like stink zetec goes like stink but maybe not quite as
quick.
i like having a reverse, as you never know i might go shopping in it and i think there easier to drive, if your not a biker you might get anoyed with
the constant gear changing and high reving of the bec.
again as i said before it depends on what you want to use it for
bec goes like stink, maybe a bit more work to drive
cec still very very fast but maybe a little more easier to drive
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 11:20 AM |
|
|
OK, my tuppence worth.
I spent time in bec's and cec's before I decided what i was gonna do.
Always been a biker and familiar with bike engines, also the noise and urgency of a bec appealed, however the lack of torque i didn't like.
Hence I built a bec using a big EFI twin.
If/when i build another it will be cec, they are just easier to drive, and easier to drive fast.
You spend 1000's of hours 'creating' these cars and the snappy clutch, lack of reverse (rarely a problem, but you will get behind a
car that has broken down) and in the case of mine, the ludicrously poor economy stopped me from using it as it should have been.
Reliability- I would say bike engines are more reliable. They are way ahead of car engines technology wise. (some cars excepted, S2000)
Bhp/litre the bikes win hands down.
The noise is fantastic, even if your not going quick you sound like you are.
As said above, if you want to drive the car as a car then fit a car engine, if you want a race car in you garage then bec.
all IMHO
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 11:40 AM |
|
|
precisely I wanted a race car
but I must have my point about these not enough torque comments
My car is well quick in 5th or 6th from around 40mph
then it gets to 10k and its even quicker
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
spunky
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zxrlocost
precisely I wanted a race car
but I must have my point about these not enough torque comments
My car is well quick in 5th or 6th from around 40mph
then it gets to 10k and its even quicker
Granted...and after the dif and smaller wheels are factored in (torque multipliers) a bec will pull strong. I'm a torque fan, thats what gets
you off the line.
Bhp = how fast you can go.
Torque = how fast you get there
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
v8kid
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
If it don't break occasionally you 'aint going quickly enough.
I other words the higher it revs the more likely it is to break and the more load you put on it the quicker it will reach that point.
Just my opinion with no axe to grind
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
Bhp is Bhp, torque is already factored in. If two engines make 150Bhp, one at 5000rpm and the other at 12000, it's still exactly the same when
it comes to acceleration, due to (as you noted) the gear reduction of the faster spinning engine. It's all the same: Bhp = rate of doing
work.
quote:
Originally posted by spunky
Granted...and after the dif and smaller wheels are factored in (torque multipliers) a bec will pull strong. I'm a torque fan, thats what gets
you off the line.
Bhp = how fast you can go.
Torque = how fast you get there
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
dilley
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 07:18 PM |
|
|
dont have abec if you want carpet ,stereo heater, wet weathr gear, the idea of a bec is to keep weight to a min,
becs are not that quick on the road, they need to be on a track,
just buy a blackbird, there cheap and will chase a busa all day.
|
|
|
skydivepaul
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
I've had both.
CEC if you want to do plenty of summer or winter road touring.
BEC if you want plenty of track day thrashing and manic noise.
My first was a westfield with 1700cc x flow, great plenty of grip and pace great for long journeys even with only a cortina four speed box.
I sold that cos i never used it......track days hadnt been invented then and i couldnt afford to compete in it
latest car R1 indy, which i bought for competition and track days plus occaisional road use. i would say very tiring for long journeys due to the high
revs for motorway cruising 70mph = 7000rpm. but for sheer acceleration and noise bloody great.
As far as motorsport is concerned study the regs and choose your events wisely. the guy before is correct in saying there is a 1700cc split but dont
let that put you off. Its all still down to driving ability, there is a guy drives in my class which is up to 1700 road going kit cars in a Sylva
Striker with a 1600cc 205 GTI engine on carbs.
He wipes the floor with us and beat my time at elvington by 6 seconds, he also beat a westfield megablade and a busa!!!
sheer power doesnt guarantee results
http://www.smartideasuk.com
http://www.smartmapping.co.uk
HD CCTV
3D design solutions and integration
IP security systems
access control systems
|
|
|
Mark18
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining
factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift
weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and
you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/6/06 at 10:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark18
kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining
factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift
weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and
you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.
I bring it up when people try separating torque from Bhp - they're bound together in the one single Bhp equation. 180Bhp in a transit van is
180Bhp, end of story, regardless where it comes from. If you want to add in additional parameters such as having a flywheel or how much power it has
to make at X rpm, you're now changing the question.
If the question is, "how much Bhp do I need to move my transit van?" that gives one answer. If the question instead is,
"what's a tractable engine for my transit van?" that gives a different answer. So it depends what the question is.
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 04:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skydivepaul
As far as motorsport is concerned study the regs and choose your events wisely. the guy before is correct in saying there is a 1700cc split but dont
let that put you off. Its all still down to driving ability, there is a guy drives in my class which is up to 1700 road going kit cars in a Sylva
Striker with a 1600cc 205 GTI engine on carbs.
He wipes the floor with us and beat my time at elvington by 6 seconds, he also beat a westfield megablade and a busa!!!
sheer power doesnt guarantee results
Just a little word of caution, most race/ competition series organisers are fully aware that a 900-1300cc bike engine is a little different too a
1300cc car engine and will put you in either a class with other bikes engines at best, allow you too compete for no points or at the worst wont accept
your entry, there was a time when BECS ran in kit car class below the 1700cc split, they where banned as the £6-7k all singing and dancing x-flows
couldnt keep up.
Also agree with driver skill though, but the guy mentioned driving the pug engined one would probably take most peoples car around 2-3-4 seconds
quicker than the regular driver, there are some very very good drivers out there.
|
|
|
birt
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
I have owned both a CEC Sylva Striker and now a BEC Phoenix and I simply wasn’t expecting such an increase in performance. Admittedly my Striker
‘only’ had a 135 BHP Crossflow engine but I was worried about lack of torque and only a relatively small increase in power over the Crossflow. I was
foolish.
How quick you are is purely down to power to weight ratio and Power is Torque multiplied by Velocity (velocity being engine speed in this case).
Clearly a BEC is much lighter but also the lack of torque is more than made up for by the available RPMs. Yes, this does mean that at lower RPM an
engine with more torque (such as most car engines) will be quicker at that RPM BUT the bike engines rev up so damn quick that in a blink of an eyelid
you are up around 10,000RPM and the close ratio, six speed, sequential gearboxes of a bike engine make it easy to stay up there.
This naturally means that getting the best from your BEC is a more frantic (and louder) experience and obviously less suited to cruising but that’s
what makes them so special. It feels like a true race car, outrageously good fun, exhilarating and they go like absolute stink.
It is also worth noting that the latest generation of 1000cc engines are putting out over 175BHP as standard (remove the cat and airbox, fit a fruity
exhaust and use a better map via a power commander and people are reporting up to 200BHP). Apparently the ZX10R weighs less than the ZX9R too. The
gap in performance between CECs and BECs is only going to get bigger in my opinion.
I do know what a REALLY fast CEC feels like too as my previous housemate (and still good friend) owns a 300BHP Cossie Turbo Fury. My car feels as
quick (but would struggle over about 110MPH). But that isn’t comparing like with like, his engine is several grands worth of kit (mine cost £550).
Put him up against a Busa turbo costing similar money and he would have no chance.
I’m going to run away now before I get any abuse.
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 10:20 AM |
|
|
Oops.... what have I done now.
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
quote:
Originally posted by Mark18
kb you seem to bring the torque thing up a bit, without trying to go too far off topic, I agree with you to the extent that bhp is the determining
factor in performance, but that doesn't mean you can disregard torque figures. Torque is turning force, or applied to cars the ability to shift
weight. Heavier cars will need more torque - eg. an r1 engine has say 180bhp, but stick that in a loaded transit van with a similar output and
you're not going to make much progress - regardless of how you gear it.
I bring it up when people try separating torque from Bhp - they're bound together in the one single Bhp equation. 180Bhp in a transit van is
180Bhp, end of story, regardless where it comes from. If you want to add in additional parameters such as having a flywheel or how much power it has
to make at X rpm, you're now changing the question.
If the question is, "how much Bhp do I need to move my transit van?" that gives one answer. If the question instead is,
"what's a tractable engine for my transit van?" that gives a different answer. So it depends what the question is.
Definately another topic, but related to this one.
The Great Power v's Torque debate.
I would say most members are aware of the equation:
Bhp = torque x RPM/5252
The two are inescapably linked, however it is the torque you 'feel' when you hit the loud pedal, the torque of the engine that propels you
forward.
I stand by statement 'cec is easier to drive and easier to drive fast' ultimately not as rewarding as a bec but far more practical as a
useable car.
Remember in the WSB series when it was 750 4's and 1000 twins? they changed the rules because the Ducatis were running away with it, not because
they had more power-they were down on power to the 4's but the torque advantage made them more tractable and faster round a track. It
wasn't the rider as Foggy had a season on an RC45 and struggled.
That incredible Ultima is smashing acceleration records not just because it has 720bhp, I would guess it probably produces 600+ ft/lbs (NS Dev maybe
confirm)
Spent last weekend blasting around on an R6, incredibly fast bike but soon get sick of stirring the box... 17,000 rpm 135bhp and naff all
torque.
Discuss...
John
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 11:22 AM |
|
|
You're spending a lot of time on here just lately John. After quite a long absence too. Are you getting the urge for another kit
car?....................
Phil
|
|
|
Ferrino
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
Are motorway cruising & reversing seriously a priority for some 7 owners? Sorry, that was a genuine question, not a piss-take!
|
|
|
wildchild
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by birt
It is also worth noting that the latest generation of 1000cc engines are putting out over 175BHP as standard (remove the cat and airbox, fit a fruity
exhaust and use a better map via a power commander and people are reporting up to 200BHP). Apparently the ZX10R weighs less than the ZX9R too. The
gap in performance between CECs and BECs is only going to get bigger in my opinion.
It's also worth noting that the latest 1000cc engines are making about 175bhp *at the crankshaft* [not the back wheel] take off the airbox it
probably drops, especially sucking in warm air from under the bonnet.
Add a free flowing exhaust and power commander and it will go back up a bit, but anyone who is reporting 200bhp is talking out of their arse. British
Superbike teams are getting 200bhp but they are using slightly more sophisticated methods than just a race can.
http://www.wildchild.org.uk
Build photos on Flickr
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
you noticed.
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
You're spending a lot of time on here just lately John. After quite a long absence too. Are you getting the urge for another kit
car?....................
Phil
Often popped in from time to time, but rarely posted.
I'm now unemployed (redundancy) and just looking for some inspiration. Really enjoyed building the SP1der, but it was a bloody complex build. So
yeah, i'm getting the urge... A friend has 'comissioned' me to build him a hard tail chopper using a GSX 600 I have lying around.
So any Chopper frame plans would be nice!!
Boredom can be an expensive
John
The reckless man may not live as long......
But the cautious man does not live at all.....
|
|
|
skydivepaul
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 01:55 PM |
|
|
Just a little word of caution, most race/ competition series organisers are fully aware that a 900-1300cc bike engine is a little different too a
1300cc car engine and will put you in either a class with other bikes engines at best, allow you too compete for no points or at the worst wont accept
your entry, there was a time when BECS ran in kit car class below the 1700cc split, they where banned as the £6-7k all singing and dancing x-flows
couldnt keep up.
Auto66 yorkshire speed and hillclimb championship you can run anything you like up to 1700cc, bike or car engine.
Still dont win though
http://www.smartideasuk.com
http://www.smartmapping.co.uk
HD CCTV
3D design solutions and integration
IP security systems
access control systems
|
|
|
birt
|
| posted on 7/6/06 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
Wildchild,
Are you suggesting that removing the air box, fitting a free flowing exhaust and re-mapping the fuel will do no more than bring the power back up to
what it was before you removed the airbox. If you are then you are very wrong. I definitely suggest you have a chat with the guys at TTS Engineering
who have over 30 years of experience tuning bike engines.
The airbox/exhaust/fuelling combination of a standard set-up is very much a compromise between emissions, noise and power. Yes, the bike manufactures
have spent millions of pounds finding the best compromise but it is still a compromise. Simply removing the airbox will definitely make things
worse. Similarly, so will changing the exhaust. These mod’s have to be done as a package with the fuelling (since both mod’s will flow more air and
hence require more fuel) but there are significant gains to be seen by doing so. Yes, you must ensure that cold air is getting to the filter but that
doesn’t need an air box.
The current Brittish Superbikes have about 215BHP at the rear wheel (so over 230BHP at the crank) and they are not actually allowed do very much to
them. The best MotoGP bikes have about 240BHP at the rear wheel. Maybe 200BHP is a bit ambitious but not as stupid as you seem to be suggesting.
You are right, I am talking about BHP at the crank, this is the only way of comparing like with like. What use is comparing the rear wheel horse
power of a motorbike with that of a Ford Focus for example? We all know that it is the BHP at the wheel that counts but since all cars are different
the best way to compare an engine to another engine is to quote BHP at the crank.
A standard ZX9R is 142 BHP at the crank. I removed the airbox, removed the emissions system, changed the exhaust and took it to TTS and it had only
88BHP (way too much air going through the engine for the standard jets so running very lean). After 3 hours of Dyno time I had 161BHP at the crank
which is about a 13% increase in power. If the same applies to a 175BHP engine then that would be about 198BHP so maybe not so ridiculous?
Also worth noting that the TTS guys said after these mod's it becomes exponentially harder to gain extra horse power without increasing
capacity, or using a turbo/super charger. Hence the Superbikes at over 230BHP is some achievement.
|
|
|
