DonF

Tall domes, on pistons, also reduce the amount of intake flow generated during "overlap" plus if you draw what the initial point of burn or ignition, started at the plug, looks like you will see its natural burn form. Starting at the plug and doing a rounded expansion toward the piston.

Scott_Tucker

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JCushing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

that and the small bores, the combustion event has less distance to go in a smaller chamber. thus a faster combustion event is allowed at higher rpms were the time between strokes gets real small.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's a good point. There just isn't enough time for detonation to occur at higher RPM. Also, spark still must be advanced as in any engine because there is a finite amount of time it will take combustion to occur. As RPM builds you need to start combustion sooner to take full advantage of the pressure in the cylinder, assuring that you are getting the highest BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) as possible. This goes against what some people suggested that timing is retarded to make up for the high compression ratio.

The higher bore stroke ratio of the '06 engine (1.57:1 vs 1.49:1) keeps forces due to inertia lower at a given RPM than the '05 engine thus enabling it to rev higher and still hold together.

DonF

And we have not even gotten into friction loss of a 2.0 litre to .6 litre.

revolt_allmotor

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DonF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And we have not even gotten into friction loss of a 2.0 litre to .6 litre.</TD></TR></TABLE>

that's because I never even thought of that!

hmmm...

now I feel dumb.

is that one of the reasons the 600s make more hp/liter than the 1000s which use similar engine layouts? because I've been wondering about that...

flyrod

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by revolt_allmotor &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I hope you guys find this stuff as interesting as I did.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I did, thank you for posting it! I read about this bike in Sport Rider last fall, and I've been waiting to see the reviews and dynos from it. My brother has an earlier R6, and it is neat to load his dyno plot in the dynojet viewer and plot it next to the H22. It just keeps revving, and this new engine will go even higher. Not quite F1 engines, but I can't wait to hear one of these in person.

itrhatchling

Well i had an 02 R6 with many mods too it and i pulled 115 at the wheel with it. That equates to about 190 at the wheel (per liter) whitch is well over 200 at the crank. The biggest improvment that i made was in the micro porting of the head to increase flow velocity. This is some thing that alot of people have done with much sucess in cars as well.

DonF

Revolt, just looking a a small friction factor why do you think the "R" and Civic"R" went to the smaller width rod bearing than the LS or old B-16? Why coat the skirts of the pistons?

NJIN BUILDR

http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1967.html


How about these.Honda in 1967,6 cylinder 250cc,62 bhp,17,000 rpm.Thats almost 250 hp at the crank/liter.
Glenn

revolt_allmotor

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJIN BUILDR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">http://www.vf750fd.com/Joep_Kortekaas/1967.html


How about these.Honda in 1967,6 cylinder 250cc,62 bhp,17,000 rpm.Thats almost 250 hp at the crank/liter.
Glenn</TD></TR></TABLE>

yeah I am hopefully heading over to Motegi soon to tour the Honda museum there, this is one of the bikes I'm looking forward to seeing I believe they have one there...

NJIN BUILDR

They had one (maybe a 350) at the Guggenheim in Los Vegas.I must have stood there looking at that thing for ten minutes.I've ridden a Bennelli six and some cbx's,but the Honda 250/6 has got to a bazaar ride.
Glenn