3 into 1 pipe

[tz375]

And it came in 350, 500 and 700cc versions. If you check out some of the hydroplane racing sites you'll see a variety of different motors with some interesting carb arrangements and some very different pipes.

http://www.area31racing.com/history/project2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is an interesting one. It's quoted as a 73 Konig 500 motor and you can see teh family resemblance.

[stcyr]

Now this is getting interesting. That video shows the crank the way that the parts list has it and the other picture has them two up two down. And it's a much later manufactured engine with different castings and drive belts.

So it looks like some versions of the motor (early ?) were a twingle doubled up and others were two boxers 180 degrees apart. And as Jamoo pointed out, a 180 degree crank in a boxer has all 4 at TDC at the same time! In either case a siamesed exhaust will work.

I'm not seeing it. To me, the picture looks just like the video shows. In the picture, the crankpins show that all the pistons are halfway. They are the "outer" pins and share the same position but their cylinders are opposed. The inner pins that aren't shown share the other common pin position for the more inboard opposed cylinders.

[ja-moo]

I'm not seeing it. To me, the picture looks just like the video shows. In the picture, the crankpins show that all the pistons are halfway. They are the "outer" pins and share the same position but their cylinders are opposed. The inner pins that aren't shown share the other common pin position for the more inboard opposed cylinders.

You can see rear left piston in the picture, and it is skewed by the angle of the pic. And 'trying" to find the cylinder centerline, it "seems" the big ends showing both go the the right cylinders.

[stcyr]

I'm not seeing it. To me, the picture looks just like the video shows. In the picture, the crankpins show that all the pistons are halfway. They are the "outer" pins and share the same position but their cylinders are opposed. The inner pins that aren't shown share the other common pin position for the more inboard opposed cylinders.

You can see rear left piston in the picture, and it is skewed by the angle of the pic. And 'trying" to find the cylinder centerline, it "seems" the big ends showing both go the the right cylinders.

The way you drew it, the first cylinder's centerline would be outside the 2 studs at the end bearing and away from intake. The void below the rod shown is unaccounted for. I think Gold Wings and other 4 strokes would benefit more from that arrangement. Whether it fires all at once or alternates, it's a nice design.

[tz375]

I think you are both correct.

What we can see are two "right" big ends at what looks like TDC to us but in fact is 90 degrees before or after TDC.

If the two right cylinders are at 90 ATDC and both left cylinders are 180 degrees out, they are 90 ATDC also. That is very different to the ignition video.

So that makes it the original big bang motor with all 4 pots firing at the same time.

If the cranks were at 360 degrees (or zero if you look at it that way) then it would run as a pair of twingles, both left at TDC as both right at BDC.

[stcyr]

The cylinders are staggered so from top to bottom, the first (left) cylinder's rod would appear in the top half of the hole and the second rod (right cylinder) would occupy the bottom half of that hole.
Both halves appear to be identical castings. If you rotated the whole engine 180° so that number 4 cylinder would be at the top of the picture, it's rod would also go to the left.

[tz375]

I'm not sure if that last post was agreeing or differing in some way. You both drew the same thing but moved lines slightly. That motor is a bike motor with Rotary inlets and exhausts on the same side. Boat motors had them on opposite sides.

Pins and cylinders are staggered and that was is oriented so we are looking at the "timing" side. The far side is PTO or drive side. The cylinder 4 in that drawing is the crank pin and big end we can see in the nearest hole. Rods/big ends we don't see are 1 & 3 which are at the bottom of the motor.

All 4 pistons reach TDC at the same time and I think we are all repeating the same information.

And the relevance to this thread is that on each bank, both pistons rise and fall together and as such there is no pulse timing conflict, so a siamesed system should work almost as well as single pipes.

[tz375]

More to the point, I spent a few hours over the last few days refining my simulation techniques in MOTA and predicted results for a single pipe track really well to dyno results. Not the same of course, but correlation is sound.

I have a much better model of the Strader pipe and so far I'm no where near to getting any degree of correlation on that one. General power and torque curves are the right shape more or less but way out in magnitude. So I'll try a couple of things and see if actual results move in the same direction that MOTA predicted.

And then I'll just have to design and build a pipe that might work and see how close we get.

We all know that a three into one will never equal three pipes for absolute power, but for the street it should be possible o do better than this.

[stcyr]

Not the same, my drawing was showing that rods 2 and 3 are hidden and it doesn't fire all at once.

Anyway, good see you're doing some actual testing. Does the test bike have stock port timing or close to it? If anyone is going build the optimum 3 in 1, looks like it'll be you, tz. If you decide to sell a few and I still have the bike, you can sign me up!

[diablo]

i would buy that pipe tomorrow if you would sell it, just bought a 73 k yesterday and i would like a 3 into 1 for it. I have alot of work ahead of me & i herd your pipe on you tube, i think it would be nice on the old girl.

[tz375]

Not the same, my drawing was showing that rods 2 and 3 are hidden and it doesn't fire all at once.

...

Thanks.

I see where you're going and I think you are right and wrong. How so? It does indeed appear that 2 and 3 are "hidden. That's teh "right" part. But where are they? They are at the bottom and this is the harder part to imagine, they are traveling in the same direction as the others. On a parallel twin 180 degrees apart means one is going up as the other goes down. 180 degrees apart on a boxer means they are both going up together.

It's beyond my pay scale to draw it and animate it. Try to draw a circle with one pin at the top and one at the bottom and connect those pins with a short line representing the con rods. When the circle (crank) rotates both move up or down together because they travel in the opposite direction.

On a four stroke like a scoobie or Bee Em they can fire on alternate cycles if they are arranged that way but on a two smoke they will all four fire together. Yes?

Stock porting? Stock is such a vague term... It's close to what might have been stock if they wanted it a little more sporty.

Intakes are modified with a short divider and less lumps and changes in area and direction and exhausts are a touch wider and taller. Nothing ridiculous, just cleaned up a little. Port timings are really conservative on those motors, so there is a lot of scope to improve them. barrels and head were decked, cases were tunnel ported and it has a custom DYNA S ignition with three pickups and single rotor magnet. So it's more or less stock compared to say Filth's K5 or SuzukiDave's reed motor in a GSXR chassis.

[ja-moo]

The one thing bothering me about the pic of the Konig, the seperating crank web between the rods "should" be the same width, and it doesn't look that way. Which is pushing my thinking that the upper rod showing is going to the rear right cylinder......

[tz375]

here's a Konig crank. Not the only configuration though



Edit: looks like I missed the "/" earlier. Good to see JaMoo found the link though

[stcyr]

The one thing bothering me about the pic of the Konig, the seperating crank web between the rods "should" be the same width, and it doesn't look that way. Which is pushing my thinking that the upper rod showing is going to the rear right cylinder......

I see what you're saying. It appears that the web between the pins has a bevel or biased knife edge (to direct more of the flow inward?).

Another thing to consider is that the disk valve would need to have two opposing windows and spin at half the speed for all cylinders to fire at once. Not that it couldn't be done, but the drive pulley would be getting kinda small or the driven pulley too big to fit. Pause the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iImhHZQY_7Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; towards the end and you can see the pulleys more clearly.

[stcyr]

I'm with you on all that, TZ. The greatest attribute of the opposed cylinder design is that there's no inherent primary or secondary imbalances to counter with heavy crankweights. That's why they're so popular with fixed wing aircraft where you don't want to heavy up the airframe just to withstand vibrations or have critical components destroyed.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think there is any advantage to firing all at once. To accomodate a 2 into 1 chamber would be a good reason but in general, multiple power pulses create less stress on the drivetrain than one big one. I was told that the reason Harleys do well in flat tracking was because the uneven firing intervals help the rear tire dig in so there may be some validity to a big-bang Konig but I can't see it being used to drive a prop.

Are you going to dyno the same bike with stock pipes to compare with the 3 into 1 results? That's what I'd be interested in seeing.