×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Top Fuel bike engine
3

Top Fuel bike engine

Top Fuel bike engine

(OP)
Designing a V4 2500cc, OHC 4 valve engine based on the yamaha VMAX engine. Target is 1000HP @ 9500rpm!supercharged, nos, running ELF race fuel. Help me out with the right bore/stroke ratio, rod/stroke ratio, valve sizing, etc. Very interested to hear your results

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

There is no correct bore:stroke or rod:stroke or valve size for this application.

The best bore is the largest that retains sufficient strength to minimise blow by and retain structural integrity under maximum cylinder pressure.

The correct stroke is the longest that retains enough structural integrity and piston speed to endure the rpm you will use.

The correct rod to stroke ratio is very likely the longest you can fit in without compromising the ring lands.

The correct valve size is that which gives the highest airflow when the effects of shrouding from cylinder wall and valve to valve spacing are considered.

The flow ratio of inlet to exhaust should be less biased against the exhaust than for NA petrol engines due to the extra volume of exhaust to air. As far as I know, exhaust flowing about 80% of inlet is considered normal for top fuel.  

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

(OP)
keep in mind that the block/crankcase, crankshaft, etc will be manufactured. Is anyone willing to commit to some dimensions?

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

4" bore, 3" stroke and 6" rod or there about, same as a 5 litre SBC. You would get away with revving it to 10,000 occasionally.

Valve size should be in the order of 39 to 40mm inlets and 35 to 36mm exhausts
 

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

(OP)
Thanks for your input Pat. Very much appreciated

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

So you're going to build, from scratch, an engine based on the advice from a message board?

You did notice this is an engineering tips website?

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Probably better advice here than most places... *LOL*

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

What's this???  Where are all of the naysayers to pick apart the impossibility of 2.5 liters producing 1000 hp?   

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Olds made over 1000 HP on alky with a 2300cc Quad 4 engine back in the early 90's with the Aerotech that set a closed course speed record of 263 mph. 1000 HP from 2500 cc and nitro won't be any problem with a properly designed engine.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Just found a little humor in it because on some other post I had mentioned my brother and I getting 600 hp out of Mopar 360's, and I was almost afraid to read the responses after the 2nd or 3rd day.  Had all kinds of rabid naysayers coming out of the woodwork.

I know this kind of power is very achievable.

So if it's a clean piece of paper on the drawing board, why are you staying with a vee configuration?  Why not go rotary (3 cylinder w/master rod ala aero engine) or 4 opposed?

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

The BMW 1500cc turbo F1 engines of the mid-1980s were claimed to be able to produce 1300HP for short periods to set fast qualifying times. They ran on some form of petrol - certainly not nitro.   

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

The 1.5L turbo F1 engines used about 80% Toluene and 60+ PSI boost for qualifying. They had to heat the rocket fuel before putting it in the engines or it would not ignite. The rocket fuel they used back then was extremely toxic and dangerous as is nitro.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

(OP)
lol, well that started the ball rolling, enigne has to be based on a production motorcyle engine, yes a blank peice on paper to do as needed to produce the results. some are producing over 1100HP with a 1500cc inline four set up on nitro.  

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

I was at an SCTA event a few years ago, El Mirage, and some crazy guy went a bit over 200 on a Harley, sans fairings.  The sign on his rig said it was a 1500 hp V twin...I don't remember the displacement or fuel class... but it WAS a Harley!

Rod

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Given that current Top Fuel (car) engines are generating on the order of 1000hp/liter with fewer valves per cylinder, I don't see how a 1000hp/2.5l multivalve engine wouldn't be feasible.

Finding somebody loony enough to aim it would probably be more difficult!  I hesitate to use the verb "ride" for a machine like that.

 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Re the comparison to the other thread (600 hp from Mopar 360, etc.), the whole situation changes with (A) forced induction and/or (B) chemical cocktails used as fuel as opposed to gasoline! And it changes with the engine only having to make that power output for 6 seconds or thereabouts, too ...

Take away the forced induction, and make the engine run on pump gasoline, and make it have to produce that power output for an extended period of time, and the maximum BMEP goes down a lot.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

And it was a fairly clean sheet modern design with race only in mind and it is multi valve.

I must admit I am still not quite clear with regards to just how clean the sheet is and what restrictions "based on" imposes.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

I really don't think toluene could be called "rocket fuel".
In fact it is pretty much the opposite - which is why it was used for anti-detonation purposes in F1.  As far as being toxic - it is reasonably safe to handle - far less dangerous than its cousin benzene for instance.
The 1300HP from 1.5l is a temarkable figure (- I have even seen 1500HP mentioned) from non-oxygen bearing, hydrocarbon-only fuel. The power per litre is similar to that claimed by nitro-fuelled drag cars.     

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

The toluene was the primary ingredient but they were truely blending rocket fuels back in the day and they all admitted it after the 1.5L turbos were replaced with NA engines. It was very dangerous stuff they were using according to the folks in the know. Obviously the toluene has more energy than basic hydrocarbon fuels and this was the point in addition to it's anti-detonation properties for outrageous boost levels. When the engines blew they were dramatic and dangerous bombs...

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

(OP)
The rule book does say "based on" very much up to the individual, Was hoping for some input on bore, stroke, valve sizing, cam etc. Power figures are easily obtainable, reliability is another thing.

The term pilot seems more fitting than rider and being a little nuts does help. The harley motors are the most common, due to the large bores needed to get the capacity it is very hard to ignite the quantity of fuel needed. Keeping in mind that nitromethane carries its own oxygen.  Magneto's and twin plugs per cylinder still cant keep up.

Yes the BMW F1 engine was around the 1500HP mark, was a wild fuel that would burn you eyes while still in the drum! That was using the cast iron road car block, they found them to be best after 200,000km of use, with enough heat and compression cycles to settle the casting.

Impossible? That is what NASA said about propelling a rubber tyred vechile under the 6 second mark. Now they are in the mid 4's

Top Fuel engines are producing 1000 HP per litre, with restricted nitro content and limits on blower overdrive.

 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

A ~4.25" bore seems to be reasonable for the Chrysler Hemi engines to deal with the detonation issues with nitro fuel. Naturally being a full hemisphere vs. a pentroof design things are not the same. The pentroof should be better. A longer stroke should also be better for torque. Valve sizing is based primarily on how much flow you need for the power objective. Cam duration is based on the desired peak power RPM point. Any competent, reputable cam grinder should be able to deliver a suitable cam for the application.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

TrackRat - Do you know what the other fuel components were apart from the toluene?

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

It is no coincidence that the bore and stroke for those power levels at 9000 rpm are the same as a 5 litre SBC.

The valve size is about the same as a Honda S2000 scaled up to 4" bore with a slightly larger exhaust valve.

For cam I would copy the S2000 vtec engaged cam, add ten degrees of duration and increase lift in proportion to valve size and add another 0.75 mm of lift.

Rod length of 6" with the 3" stroke.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

I think the "rocket fuel" being referred to is hydrazine, not toluene, as Yyvest alluded to.  Some of the guys running chizlers in the early 60's, the 392 hemi's, were playing with the stuff.   

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

"The toluene was the primary ingredient but they were truely blending rocket fuels back in the day . . ."  -implying hydrazine??

Actually toluene releases only about 3/4 the energy on combustion (3730 kJ/mol) of basic hydrocarbon fuels like heptane (4850 kJ/mol), and much less than isooctane (5450 kJ/mol).  Hydrazine is much higher still (6,300 kJ/mol), making it especially attractive when bang/pound is at a premium.  

BTW, nitromethane releases a measley 709 kJ/mol, so obviously engine tuning has more to do with the final power results (as well as spectacle in a blowup) than fuel chemistry alone.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Hydrazine was also part of the rocket fuel... for both F1 and drag racing. <LOL> Nasty stuff!

The Nitro deal is to cram as much fuel in the engine as possible because it brings so much oxygen that you can burn more nitro than gasoline per cycle. They inject so much nitro that is why the fuel engines "drop cylinders" during a run because they flood the cylinder and twin 45 amp mags still can't always ignite the liquid/air mixture. They use something like 8 gals. of nitro in a 1/4 mile run. It's insanity.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Speaking of "top fuel"...

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/miscellaneous/20271-top-fuel-dragster-facts.html

Once upon a time...<smile>...I watched (from a distance) a couple of "top fuel" cars simultaneously "blow" while trying for that magical "nitro/hydrazine" mix.  Pretty spectacular it was for sure.  I think one of the blowers went into low orbit!  NHRA outlawed ALL fuel cars for several years after that one.

Oh yeah, I'm still a "rabid naysayer" about that 600hp stock block nasp. Mopar on pump gas.  I'm not holding my breath. Last weekend we were pitted next to a nice little 68 Camaro with a 383 Edelbrock.  Owner claimed "500hp" on pump gas.  Car was nice, I'm not convinced about the 500, though. He was a second and a half slower than our 197hp@8100 Lotus...In his behalf, we are about 800 lbs. lighter...Still, weight/power just doesn't match up.

Rod

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

I am still a bit doubtful that BMW used a monopropellant like hydrazine (maybe they did I don't really know) - I think all the "exotic" and toxic fuel ingredients would have been aimed at suppressing detonation caused by the over 80psi boost used.  I would think that the the boost made the 1300+HP - not explosive ingredients in the fuel.  

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

"I am still a bit doubtful that BMW used a monopropellant like hydrazine (maybe they did I don't really know) "

Hydrazine is not just a monopropellant, but it will decompose energetically if it gets hot enough, or encounters a catalyst.  Releases heat, and combustible hydrogen/ammonia species as it does so.  

From recollection, nitromethane is a "monopropellant" also, in that it well decompose energetically if given enough reason to do so.

I'd always thought maybe that was one of the reasons for using it, as a sort-of "backup" ignition system.  

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Rod

460hp is the highest power 383cu-in that Edelbrock makes and that's supposed to be a production run of 250 signature series engines with black valve covers with Vic's signature and a serial number engraved in them. The next 383cu-in is 408hp which is fuel injected with a LT1 looking intake. Edelbrock has some power packages but none of the SB ones give over 500hp either. So, he's either full of it or had an engine with some Edelbrock parts that actually was dyno'd to 500hp. That is doubtful too though since it seems that there are other manufacturer's to use if you actually want 500hp from a 383cu-in.

On another note, here's 1001hp out of a 433cu-in LSX engine.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233138

I doubt the technology you'd find in a stock block 360 the same as what that LSX engine is holding. I think the naysaying part of not believing the 600hp 360cu-in was the other post that also claimed a stock HEMI was something like 800rwhp.

 

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

So its not to OP thats designing this engine, it is Pat.

And for power density lets not forget what Fueling did with the Qaud 4, though it was turboed I think.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Fueling was using the Olds Turbo Quad 4 on alky just like Batten Engineering.

I think the concerns for the OP is reliability and minimal operational issues? 1000 HP from 2500 cc on nitro is not really difficult at all. Building a mechanically strong engine that will last at that power level is a bit more of a challenge.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

You talking Jim Feuling, right?

Get the e and u in the right place...

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

You'd think that he'd have figured out how to spell his name properly, wouldn't ya? *LOL*

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

evelrod, I think that Edelbrock was, at least at one time, providing power figures for their complete "package" of componentry.  500hp sounds about right for what they claimed their Performer RPM setup provided.  Assuming that he did, in fact, use the whole package, and not a lot of except-fors.

One of the vehicles I deal with maybe makes an honest 350hp.  Small blower (144ci) on a mild 355, more of a street drivable noise generator than an actual all-out performance engine.  The owner is advertising the vehicle for sale as making 900hp!  I felt like taking our company-logo machined valve covers off of it out of embarassment.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

I think the 383 SBC in question really was the complete package.  I feel that the young man really believed he had 500hp and was being truthful (as far as he was concerned).
I just doubt, based on the actual on track performance, that it was anywhere near that number.

I am truly one of the "rabid naysayers" when it comes to published hp numbers.  At least by the mfgrs of the engines in question.  Even the 197 of our latest 1600 is only a good talking point.  I'm pretty sure I could make just about any number I needed on another dyno.  I trust the 197 number only because of all the other engines that have come from this unit are pretty accurate, vis a vis, on track performance.
Still, using a dyno as a tuning tool is invaluable.  Just don't get all wrapped up in big numbers.

Rod

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

You need to define the size of the ponies... when you're talking HP.

We have SAE dyno Horseys which are few but strong. We have race engine builders with lots of tiny Horseys to make big numbers. We have magazine Horseys which you obtain by taking a un-SWAG and then multiplying that number by 1.5 to obtain California HP. Then we have chassis dyno "corrected" Horseys where you use as high a driveline loss correction factor as a really ignorant fanboy will believe. Then we have race track B.S. Horseys where you tell everyone that your stock block 350 CI engine with one 4-barrel makes 600 HP @ 8000 rpm even though the valves float at 6500 RPM.

Ya definitely need a scorecard if you're gonna talk horsepower, so you can tell the players, the liars and the damn liars.

RE: Top Fuel bike engine


Don't forget to enter the driver variable into any on-track performance numbers.  As Rod is well aware, the applicator of pedal to metal does make a difference.  Even if the '68 Camaro did make 500 HP, just switching drivers could produce faster times.  

Having played with a '69 Z/28 back when, horsepower numbers were for egos.  Chassis set-up on early pony cars was where you could quietly make a real difference.

Yosh
  

RE: Top Fuel bike engine

Speaking to TrackRat's comment about horsepower and liars, it is refreshing to see actual data and not just hype.

I think that the 1989 SAE paper on the Honda F1 engine gives good, reliable numbers.

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=PAPER&PROD_CD=890877&REQUEST_FROM=MOTORSPORTS

The summary (above link) doesn't give the power numbers that correspond to the 4 bar absolute manifold pressure setting, but I think I remember those numbers as 1100 bhp from a 1.5 liter engine.

I think Toluene (methyl benzene) was used for two purposes:  1. It has good knock resistance, and 2. It has a high volume specific energy, which fit well with the then current F1 fuel quantity rules.

Dick

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources