smart51
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
Busa engine to type 9 box
These lot Have gone and made a busa engine bottom end that bolts straight up to a type 9 gearbox. want busa
power with a good reverse gear? Got lots of money?
|
|
|
|
|
omega0684
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
do you think you can get some of those trumpets for an R1 engine? amd the plenums he does look awesome too.
[Edited on 26/2/09 by omega0684]
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
Minimum 20 grand for the engine me thinks.
But they have done a fantastic job and deserve payment for it
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
I dont really see the point, he has essentially removed a very compact gear box/clutch from the busa and replaced it with ooddles of nice looking
bling, but a huge and heavy gearbox and clutch.
what is the benefit?
|
|
|
djtom
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
Surely the ratios will be fairly useless considering the busa revs nearly twice as high as pretty much anything else that gets bolted to a type 9?
|
|
|
Phil.J
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
I agree with Dangle. A nice engineering exercise but a pointless waste of time and effort.
I've seen this done before in a hill climb application, the result being totally uncompetitive.
|
|
|
hobbsy
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
I'd have a sequential dog box over reverse any day.
Or just add on reverse using another method and it would still be lighter and better...
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hobbsy
I'd have a sequential dog box over reverse any day.
Even if you were doing an autotest? 
quote:
Originally posted by hobbsy
Or just add on reverse using another method and it would still be lighter and better...
I thought the reverse boxes were somewhat fragile in general? I've certainly read about lots of problems with them.
[Edited on 26/2/09 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
Daimo_45
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
Pretty stupid idea as the only advantage of a motorbike engine/gearbox is its power output to weight ratio. As for the awesome H1 V8!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
Would the internals of a conventional gearbox be happy at that kind of speed?
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
Isn't a bike engine reduced by about 1.5 times before the gearbox?
So if it revs to 12k ish the box is only going to see about 8k revs max ..... which for casual use should be fine on a type 9. Plus with the torque a
bec produces it may hold together quite well.
The issue is H patern and weight (although with an ali bell housing and ali main block i bet you lose a fair bit of weight.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 06:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Would the internals of a conventional gearbox be happy at that kind of speed?
quote:
Originally posted by djtom
Surely the ratios will be fairly useless considering the busa revs nearly twice as high as pretty much anything else that gets bolted to a type 9?
The crank of the busa revs at 10,000 RPM but there is a primary reduction onto the clutch, most big bike engines are about 1.5:1. The output will be
much the same as a car then.
First gear can be made right with a good choice of diff. The only difference will be wider spread gear ratios. Not a bad thing in a car. 5th and
6th are hardly different on my R1 engine. A wider spread would be no bad thing.
|
|
|
ss1turbo
|
| posted on 26/2/09 at 10:40 PM |
|
|
You could offset the weight of a type 9 by using a Caterham ally 6 speeder - but why? Spend the cash on the best reversing box you can find and keep
the sequential box, i'd say.
Long live RWD...
|
|
|
