crankcase compression ratio

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12676
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have done some porting experiments w/o success. Could be that the CCR needs to be in relation to both the transfer roof angle and the engine size. Bigger engines mean there is more distance for the intake charge to travel from the transfers to the spark plug area. So then a higher CCR is more befitting a large engine than a small one.
If I can´t get the transfer roofs flat then I will remove most of the JBWeld to bring back down the CCR. It´s hard to work on the transfer roofs with these small engines.
 
Here's a section from a web site about this topic:

Primary compression

Modern short stroke water cooled engines that employ large transfer port areas do not require a high primary compression ratio, in fact a high primary compression ratio substantially increases the pumping losses and decreases the power available. However, this does not apply to the long stroke of the Villiers unit that uses small transfer ports, even though pumping losses do increase there is a net increase in power. For road racing a minimum geometric primary compression ratio of 1.4:1 is required, 1.5:1 would be better but it is difficult to achieve without extreme measures. The higher ratio is used to squirt the charge through the narrow port. The speed of the charge entering the cylinder is further enhanced by the narrowing of the port, its inlet area should be at least 150% larger than its outlet. A good primary compression will improve tractability and performance whether for road or off-road riding, don't allow this pressure to be diluted through the use of a hollow gudgeon [piston] pin.
Modern engines should be considered as having transfers fulfilling a "store and forward" function for the fuel with the real control being exercised by the exhaust. The modern exhaust shape required easy access to a supply of fuel mixture, exactly what the large transfer system supplies. What a modern system cannot do is sustain a long deep draw of fuel from the crankcase through inadequate transfer passages.

In the long stroke small transfer engines, there is significant advantage to be gained from the truly explosive entry of the compressed gases from the crankcase into the cylinder, sweeping the remaining exhaust gases out into the exhaust port in a manner described by Schnurle many years ago. As the piston descends and before the transfer ports are uncovered, a hollow gudgeon pin will bleed off some of the primary pressure that you have fought to create. The hollow pins should be plugged with an alloy slug or slugs which should have no more than a 1 thou clearance fit and be coated with Loctite or similar. Interference fits will swell the gudgeon pin causing fitment problems. The lack of interference fit is required to allow the Locktite to key and bond, a zero or interference fit will not allow the Locktite to work properly. At racing speeds, the difference in power can be measured on the dynamometer.

The geometric primary compression ratio (GPCR) is useful in determining whether crankcase stuffers are necessary. Be under no illusion: good primary compression is important. If your GPCR is less than 1.2 then action is definitely required.
 
I just found an important part of this puzzle; fuel atomization. When the intake charge enters the crankcase it is exposed to a lot of hot surfaces that heat the air/fuel up to around 250 degrees (see http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articles/flying/michaelkuper_2strokewarmup.htm) which atomizes a lot of the fuel and makes it where it can burn faster which contributes to a stronger downward force on the piston.
I used JBWeld which is somewhat insulative. It is on the insides of the flywheels which is a large surface area. I am going to take it off and leave the large mass of JBWeld in place on the cases near the crankshaft.
 
Here is the before and after results with increased ratio. 48PP is my 48cc piston port top end. 55RV is my 55cc reed valved top end.
______5* street__flat street
48PP__19.5mph__30mph (before)
______24.0mph__32mph (after)
55RV__27.5mph__33.6mph (before)
______26.0mph__32.5mph (after)
 
I just moved down from 8500 feet altitude to sea level and the engine loves it and easily reached the peak 34.5mph that it was modified for. But this place lacks hills to test on and so an essential element I need for testing is missing. I don't really need the bike here so I may take it back up to the mountains where I will be twice a month. Then I can see what effect flattening the transfer roof and/or lessening the crankcase ratio has.
 
I just found an important part of this puzzle; fuel atomization. When the intake charge enters the crankcase it is exposed to a lot of hot surfaces that heat the air/fuel up to around 250 degrees (see http://www.charlesriverrc.org/articles/flying/michaelkuper_2strokewarmup.htm) which atomizes a lot of the fuel and makes it where it can burn faster which contributes to a stronger downward force on the piston.
I used JBWeld which is somewhat insulative. It is on the insides of the flywheels which is a large surface area. I am going to take it off and leave the large mass of JBWeld in place on the cases near the crankshaft.

Hi!

I recently read about some refference to jbweld on an overclockers forum. The man used jbweld to glue a cooling block to a processor chip on his video card. He swears that it is cooling better now than with the normal heat transfer paste. Thus he stated that the jbweld is an effective heat transfer material and not having a heat insulative effect. At any rate, if one really wanted to find out, then overclocking a chip and monitoring it's temperature before and after using jbweld as a heat transfer material between chip and cooling block would probably be the best way find out for sure. At any rate, it seems he may be correct since these overclocker guys are really interested in the best cooling effects and always make something interesting for that. I even remember seeing someone try to make a system with liquid nitrogen.
Maybe it's of no use to you, since the higher crankcase ratio has harmed the crankcase seals anyway and you should remove some of the jbweld. Just thought it would be interesting for you to know.
 
thanks for the info.
I have decided to leave the JBWeld as-is for the time being.
I flattened the transfers roofs a bit and got more top end speed.
But unless I take it back up into the mountins I wont know about how it now climbs.
 
Maybe someday I will go as far as to try to stuff the crankcase with jb weld. But I'm afraid to bother with removing the engine and opening it up now. I already shaved the head down and polished the combuster hemi-chamber in the head and it got alot more power from it. Now I'm driving in the snow and I dont have my winter tires ready yet. So I'm afraid to really even use the power. When I wind it to WOT, I still get the feeling that it could use more gas at the top speed, I feel it starve a bit. I've already drilled out the jet to .8 mm and I use the most lean needle position to get a faster low end response. Otherwise it just bogs down from too rich a mix when I try to accelerate from a low speed. Maybe I could go with adding solder to widen the needle to limit gas flow at low throttle and have more gas flow at WOT with the jet being drilled out a bit more. Winter air is cold though, and it may be all different in the summer. Dreaming of studded tires, expansion chamber and at last the modified cdi. So, the crankcase will have to wait =--)))
 
I used sealed NTN brand 6202 bearings. I removed the seals & washed out the lubricant then replaced 1 seal on each bearing & installed with the seals to the outside. I also used them on the countershaft as are. If having trouble finding they're available from Rock Solid Engines in Australia, tho I got from bearing suppliers. They're a quality bearing. Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top