Turbobike Web Site www.Turborick.com
I was refering to the charge temperature drop mainly, and the fact that nitrous seems happy at very rich mixtures. Nitrouse does not seem to cause detonation easily, I have used massive amounts on some bikes with no problems. The two most remarkable were completely stock. One was a totaly stock and new GSXR1100WP (Derestricted = 136bhp SAE Rear wheel horsepower) this was my own bike and on nitrous made a reliable 190 bhp, on pump fuel. This with stock pipes / plugs / timing etc. And then my friends 'competition drag bike' . (long low + fat slick and airshifter. This had a 1100n suzuki motor that was completely stock exept for a strong clutch, and fixed advance magneto taken from some commertial generator engine! We added 150 bhp worth of nitrous oxide, using a home made nitrous system, and big fuel pump, and the 1/4mile times went from 11.20@119 best, to a 9.01 at 151 on the next run! This ran all season with no problems on pump fuel too! (threw about a litre of oil out via a big crankase breather into a catch tank every run) So I would have thought that Nitrous would allow a slightly richer and cooler charge / more boost with a few less degrees of advance. What it does definitely do is remove lag! Full boost can be obtained using a BIG turbo at low revs off the line, when you hit the button. A bigger turbo allows more total power due to the lower exhaust restriction. If detonation is a problem then the nitrous fuel mix could be nitrous / methanol from a small extra tank. Methanol will allow more boost for lots of reasons. What do you lot think? Actually after a bad bike crash that left me paralysed and in a wheelchair it is all pretty acedemic for me now as I cannot ride a bike now. Interesting stuff though. ----- Original Message ----- From: CRAIG S WALKER <CSW_CMT@prodigy.net> To: <bgoodwin@iquest.net>; John C Williamson <john.williamson5@virgin.net> Cc: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk>; <turbobike@natvideo.com> Sent: 18 April 1999 20:35 Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection I believe he is referring to the intake temperature drop. N2O becomes a gas at -127 deg F....quite an intercooler. This fact alone is what led to funnybike racers experimenting with the stuff in the late seventies - early eighties. In those days ,folks like Terry Kizer were running 3 stages of nitrous w/30-35 psi of boost. Speaking of which, I heard Terry Mr. Turbo Kizer has run in the sixes on his push button start pro mod/funnybike ZX11. Has anyone got the low down? Craig S. Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: Bryan Goodwin <bgoodwin@iquest.net> To: John C Williamson <john.williamson5@virgin.net> Cc: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk>; <turbobike@natvideo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 1999 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection N2O makes a great deal of cylinder pressure and heat. N2O often requires timing retard and/or good fuel by itself. I do not believe you should add any boost because of N2O. John C Williamson wrote: > >From a simple 'physics' standpoint a carb always has to restrict the air > flow slightly, as this 'venturi' is the thing that actually draws fuel from > the floatbowl. The flow through carbs is pretty efficient on modern bikes > though so the difference will be quite small. > > It is true that fuel injection will allow more accurate fueling in all > conditions, if money / time allows so less flat spots and possible better > throttle responce. > > On the other hand my 1100 GSX EF used a cheap stock Mr Turbo kit with a > single draw through carb and this was fine! Idle was a little ragged, but it > kind of adds character! Unlike the short 'banana' drag style exhaust pipe > that tries to turn your left leg to charcoal. > > Does anyone know how much extra boost is possible with N2O due to the > cooling effect? > > BURGERMAN > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk> > To: <turbobike@natvideo.com> > Sent: 18 April 1999 19:41 > Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection > > Christer, > > I have to disagree. It is not possible to match the performance of EFI with > carbs. If it was, the F1 teams would use carbs. Indycars would use carbs. > They don't. EFI will always be ahead and as technology improves more so. > Your point about the variations in flow is simply wrong. Yes, you need 8 > injectors, possibly more (my bike has 16). Bikes of the future will all use > EFI. The only reasons to use carburettors is because they are cheap, or > because the rules (like in Pro Stock) don't allow EFI. > > Regards > > Lorcan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Johansson <christer.johansson@mbox383.swipnet.se> > To: turbobike@natvideo.com <turbobike@natvideo.com> > Date: 18 April 1999 16:52 > Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection > > I thought of going to EFI ,but I saw no reason to do it. > Efi does have some advantages in that you can map the fuel > and ignition curves more precisly. But itīs possible with carbs > and a adjustable ignition module to. > As long as the engine gets the right A/F ratio there is no advantage > in EFI powerwise. To know what A/F ratio you have,you will > need a lambda cell, also a EGT sensor would be nice. > This goes for both Efi and carb setups. > During the dial in period I will use a lambda cell and EGT sensors in > all 4 exhaust pipes and the collector, on the new system. > Also, blow through carbs could prove more "forgiving" to the design > of the plenum etc than a EFI would be. If you get sligtly more flow > through some carbs the injectors on a EFI system will still spray > the same amount of fuel, on a carb system it will drag the fuel needed. > Also if you run a high hp EFI system you will need 8 injectors on a > 4 cylinder engine ,otherwise you could get trouble with idle as the > injectors would be qite big. > Carbs gives better fuel atomizing at low engine speeds. > But a EFI setup looks cooler though.... > > Christer