THE358BANSH

Thanks for the offer! I said screw it and cut down my current swinger by 1.5" just now so this thread is no longer needed..

As the title says, I'm looking for a -1 or -2 roundhouse swingarm, cheaper the better. It doesn't have to be pretty or fancy, just short. Thanks, Evan

I would be leery of using the spark plug threads for your centering. I have seen a few that are .040" off center compared to the bores. Other than that it looks pretty nice for what you are working with.

The best way is to run a relay off the light switch. The switch and wiring up to it are too small for the type of current that some of these lights draw.

Blake, The RZ topend runs strong and has a bunch of low end compared to my play ported cylinders. Thanks a bunch for the parts! Evan

Is the cover PC'd or painted? How much for it without the lock up? Thanks!

In between the center crank bearings there is a Labyrinth seal.

Could you get away with using a nylock jamb nut? They are probably a quarter inch shorter than the standard nut.

To add some more to this thread about piston dome volume I played around for a bit today while parts were washing. I weighed a 65.5mm 795 series Wiseco with no rings, no wrist pin, and no wrist pin bearing. Total weight of the box stock piston was 207 grams. I chucked in in the lathe and turned .160" off the dome to make it a flat top. Total weight of the flat top piston was 188 grams. Original piston weight 207 grams - Flat top piston weight 188 grams = 19 grams of material removed 19 grams removed x .0022 lbs/gram = .0418 lbs of material removed .0418 lb of removed material / .0980 lb/in3 weight per in3 of aluminum = .42653 in3 of material removed .42653 in3 x 16.387 cm3/in3 = 6.989 cm3 of piston dome volume Obviously that number will change with piston series, bore size, and if the dome angle as been modified.

I have never used the BiMotion software. The TSR software is the universally accepted standard, but sucks now because Tom is no longer handling everything. I would like to get my hands on a copy at some point in time to do some comparing. If I remember correctly the TSR software also has a recommended octane starting point based off inputted figures and dome profile, right? The burette has its issues also with fluid sometimes not getting into every crack and crevice, along with people getting carried away when applying the grease seal. I think the best way to figure all of this would be FPV the dome with a spark plug, then account for other volumes by software/calculation to arrive at a compression value. Then use software of choice to determine the MSV of the entire package... Evan

Thanks for the reply Brandon. Would you care to share how you came about that figure? If you don't want to I understand...

I don't remember exactly where it came from. I want to say either the old MacDizzy site or a RZ350 forum, one of those two almost positive. As for the dome profile, I just went next door and looked at a 795 series for a 65mm bore because it's all I have around now. I measured it up and I am coming up with 10.32cc? Seems a bit far out and in the wrong direction to me... As best I can measure here is the cross section of the piston dome profile...

Stock Banshee numbers: 64mm bore x 64mm bore x .7854 x 54mm stroke x 1 cylinder = 173,717.9 cubic mm 173,717.9 cubic mm ÷ 1000 = 173.72cc swept volume for one cylinder Flat plat volume of CoolHead dome is 20cc with spark plug crevice volume Piston dome volume of 64mm bore piston with 120mm dome radius = 7.0cc 20cc flat plate volume - 7.0cc dome volume = 13cc trapped volume @TDC (173.72cc swept volume + 13cc trapped volume @TDC) / 13 cc trapped volume @TDC = 14.36:1 uncorrected compression ratio The other option if you have a super computer...

Thank you sir, be right back with some info all fancy like...

What types of uncorrected compression ratios have you guys ran on pump gas with proper head design? I'm trying to decide on whether to run pump fuel or stay with VP110 for my new build. The design of the head is pretty critical so I am looking for people running tight squish(.036"ish), squish bands around 50%, an nice hemispherical domes(no tubs or toroidal stuff). I have heard of up to 15.76:1 with +4 timing @1000 feet of elevation in some drag applications. Albeit that application was not ran for long periods of time whereas mine will be. Looking at your typical Banshee(64x54) with proper squish and a "20cc" dome our UCCR is 14.36:1 and is well known to run with +4 timing on 93 pump fuel with proper jetting all day long. How much further could that UCCR be stretched before having to reduce timing or start mixing fuel? I figure if I have to cut fuel I'll just say screw it and run straight VP110 with the timing and compression to match. Also, since I touched on the full race gas builds. Where do you think the tradeoff occurs between high compression and pumping losses causing the engine not wanting to rev out? Where would the cut off of UCCR be in a full drag build with a good amount of exhaust duration(200+), decent timing, and 110 motor octane fuel? I have two different domes designed currently, one for 93 and one for 110 and both of them have great MSV numbers. What say you? Evan

I tried to explain the thoughts that have been thrown around in this thread to a local guy a while back and got the deer in the headlights look. What you guys are working with has been refined over years in the drag racing market. The only thing that I see that most are overlooking is when they spread weight out using two different weights on three arms is not considered a multistage setup. A multistage setup has the inner hub move in multiple steps to apply different pressures and is commonly used in a "slider" or "glide" clutch. When spreading weight out on three arms each you effectively have the same plate load as six equal arms, except now you are unevenly loading the inner hub. If you can, it is always better to run six equal weights rather than two trios. Never run three pairs of weights on a six stand clutch, reason being goes back to even loading of the inner hub. Lever size and geometry has a large affect on how the clutch operates also. If you really want to take your program to the next level, contact Mike Sullivan at Applied Physics. He writes clutch software and is a fantastic resource. Say you knocked the tires off on the gear change but the launch was nice. His software will let you know the relationship between base and counterweight to keep the same plate load at 6000rpm, but have 5% less plate load at 8800rpm to get through the gear change smoother. Red line is the new setup with 21 less grams of weight and 242 more pounds of spring pressure. Blue line is the original setup with 700 pounds of base and 104 grams. All this theory applies to quads, just on a smaller scale. All the numbers are for your specific clutch, those were just an example obviously. I posted a picture of one of our clutches from the ProMod we race. Anyone notice any similarities? It was apart for service, inspection, and certification so the hat is off but I still think everyone will catch on...Evan

Would you be willing to separate some of the stuff? I don't need most of the things since it will be going on the EFI quad. Mainly just the PPV-RZ, cylinders, powervalves, controller, servo, cables, etc. Let me know and we can probably work something out right quick...

The frame has been on the back burner for a bit. We exploded the clutch in the racecar and did a bunch of damage, then after getting it fixed a few weeks later we managed to smoke the wall. My year has been kind of busy so far... Have you ran the topend or did you buy it and stash it? I had a small accident on the lathe with my other jugs when I freshened my motor this spring. I'm on borrowed time with them so I am weighing my options to convert to RZ stuff now...

Do you still use a 795 series piston in the RZ 4mil stuff? What is the actual bore right now? Stock head cut for the stroker? What CC is the dome? Powervalves smooth and not gummed up?

There was talk back in post 34. I have since changed to a set of R2s and have the sensor in approximately the same spot. Until I tell them, most people never even know it has one one it...

I doubt the throttle bodies are too restrictive. They are 38mm straight through and also have a CV slide stock. I recently built a set of slide stops that lock the slides in the open position. It didn't really seem to make a difference on the butt dyno, but it sure does sound badass now! Richard from HGT said a lot of things and you saw where that got him. He seemed like a very knowledgeable individual, unfortunately he liked to tell people that more that prove it. That dyno graph wasn't mine, I just pulled it out of the dyno section to aid in a visual for the air/fuel description. As far as fuel mileage goes, I guess it's okay as I never really paid much attention to it? Our riding group has everything from a stock 700XX to a 60hp LTR and we are always filling up right about the same times. Judging off their numbers and the odometer from the RZR, I would say in the neighborhood of 60 miles per tank while trail riding. What ever happened to him? I haven't been on here much lately but he seems to be a ghost? Thanks brah!

The last time I had this engine on a dyno it was a 4mm with a Graydon intake and single Keihin, after I switched to the dual Lectrons I never ran it on the rollers again. In the next month or so I would like to go down to Janssen Motorsports and throw it on for an afternoon just to play.

Thanks! I never went into this deal for a gain in power. If the mixture is correct with the carb, and the EFI is at the same mixture the engine will make the same power within a percent or so. The biggest factor with the injection is that I can control that mixture at 144 different points in reference to RPM and throttle position. If you look at any two stroke dyno graph, the AFR is a compromise at best. The AFR in the picture below starts lean as all two strokes do before getting on the pipe, and then in hunts above and below 13:1 until the over-rev where it goes lean. Now notice the correlation between the AFR and hp/tq. When the engine dips rich power goes flat and then when the engine surges leaner it starts gaining power. I can make the AFR curve flat as a board, and as a result the engine will make more power under the curve, and make that power more smoothly which translates into an easier riding wheeler with better responsiveness. Yep, there will always be some tinkering needed to finesse everything. I knew this coming into the project and it hasn't been too bad so far, but then again I tolerate a lot more than most people. The only issue so far was the controller itself having a malfunction like I said above. I run a medium length bung with a HBX-1 from Innovate to keep the sensor tip clean and slightly remote from the oil. I have run approximately 75-80 gallons of fuel through it and it seems to function fine. I do not completely rely on the wideband for tuning, more than anything it is a backup to what my butt is feeling and my ears are hearing. From what I have gathered through other people, most say to plan on the sensor lasting 15 hours or so. I only have the sensor in the exhaust for tuning and if I plan on going for a ride I will pull it out and toss a plug in the bung.

Wow, it's hard to believe it's been a year since I started this project. I never would have imagined that it would have caused the buzz it did, both good and bad sometimes. Going into the project I was extremely prepared and had an in depth background with four stroke EFI. After huge amounts of trials and tribulations I am still happy with my decision to convert the fuel and ignition system. No doubt though, it has been a ton of work and I have had to invest hundreds of hours to make it a success. I have learned so much that will be valuable to me elsewhere so I consider this a fun project no matter what the outcome is. The good thing is I am a stubborn bastard and will not give up on a project I start. Now that we finally have had some cold weather lately I am getting into developing a cold weather tune along with my new R2's. I have never really talked about the tuning of the system, mainly the component selection and troubleshooting issues that cropped up. After tuning the engine this summer with the PT Mids on it and in Speed Density, I decided to swap over into AlphaN style tuning. There are some small differences between the two, but the largest is instead of fueling being controlled by RPM and manifold vacuum it is now controlled by RPM and throttle position. I posted a few screen shots below to keep the information plentiful. The first is a datalog of a part throttle run at 40%. The red line is engine RPM, white is coolant temperature, green is spark advance, yellow is throttle position, blue is air/fuel ratio, and the lower white line is injector duty cycle. I use the throttle limiter screw on the thumb throttle to target an area that I believe needs work. I run the engine just as you would on a dyno and from as low of a RPM as possible. I run all of my pulls in fifth gear and from 2500 to 10500 or so. The next two shots are 3D representations of the VE map and the spark advance. Engine RPM is gaining from left to right, and throttle position goes from 0-100% towards the back on both maps. The spark curve is fairly simple, I took the factory curve as a baseline and added advance across the board just like a timing plate would do. Since then I have modified it a bit, but staying close to values that have worked well for me in the past. The wideband has worked fairly well, with some quirks here and there. I recently had my first part failure which was the controller for the oxygen sensor. I sent the unit back to Innovate Motorsports since it was still under warranty and they checked it out. I just got an email here today saying a new controller is on its way back to me fully covered. I had some thoughts as to how the sensor would function at low RPMs, mostly thinking it would have problems with reversion. The sensor is extremely accurate from about 5000rpm and up, and I use it in conjunction with the plugs to get a tune. Below 5000rpm or so, the sensor reads lean and most of the tuning is done just like a set of carbs with throttle response and feel being the biggest contributions. The system is currently run in open loop which means the ECU looks at the air/fuel ration but does not do any correcting by it, another way of looking at it is the engine is running strictly off the programed values in the VE map. The biggest change that I noticed from my carbs and stock ignition system is how smooth the engine is. It starts with one kick and will almost instantly settle into a rock solid 1800rpm idle. Then engine doesn't have the normal Banshee ring to it while not on the pipe. The old setup would run okay when not on the pipe, but with the new trigger wheel being so accurate and having that much more control of fueling and ignition in those areas it purrs like a four stroke kitten all day long down low. I have not specifically worked on throttle response, but it is all ready as good if not better than my Lectrons. If I can find the GoPro and some batteries, I will post a video this weekend of her getting beat. As long as nothing breaks, a friend and myself were going to run down and ride Lake Winnebago with Nieskes and ChevyBanshee91 on Saturday or Sunday. Wish us luck! Evan

Don't forget that tire size also plays a role in shock length. The taller tire will require a shorter shock and vice versa for a shorter tire. Your best bet is to get your arms, and then check shock length with the desired tire at 1.5" frame height and then in the 11.5" to 13" range depending on travel desired.