Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Vince

News for fans of standard 2V engines

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, AFCB Wildcat said:

The proposal was standard, balloted engines. Nothing to say they can't be GTR.

In fact it could save the GTR's becoming the doorstops that they currently are!

Thought it was a 2 valve class, GTR was 4 valve surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, barrybishop said:

Hey,

In my view what needs to be implemented here is not a replacement of the the existing machines used today, because although we think it could be cheaper and we think it will be closer we have only staged a few meetings worldwide on these engines.  What the next steps need to be are an increased amount of meetings and whether thats more meetings on the Island  or a cup challenge with engines provided by NICE or another benefactor remains to be seen but this is the only way forward in my view and is what I will discuss when I meet the NICE team again next month. 

Doing a larger meaningful set of meetings will enable us to truly have some answers to the questions of how close will the racing be, what will the action be like, how will the engines be after 5, 10 or 15 meetings. For me it is not about cost reduction although this is a great additional benefit, it is about how we improve the show, while maintaining rider safety. All of the riders said the engines were great to control, needed setup and throttle control and not just flat out.

I am hopeful that this early experiment can  now be expanded to enable us to do real comparisons, real analysis and then mover forward.

One other point here... I dont actually think it matters whether the engines are 2 or 4v, what matters is that they are standard and they are balloted for at each meeting.

It is great to read your feedback on here, I can tell you the feedback all over has been really encouraging, now I just have to work harder to show even more proof.

See you trackside - #positivityisking

There are two great articles in this weeks Speedway Star that cover your Nice meeting at the IOW and another by Josh Auty about running costs and how modern speedway is going.

It's not rocket Science when you read the quotes from riders about the meeting, and it's benefits and the positives that came out of it.

Club Speedway has to go down this route...for every conceivable positive reason. Both for the benefit of fans and riders alike.

The only recurring theme is riders saying what do they do with the engines they've already invested in.

Just use them in Individual events...sell them to riders for Individual events. The maintenance and tuning costs will catch up over time....to their benefit.

As Auty says...the only people benefiting are the tuners. £350 for labour alone to strip a bike before parts Quoted. Madness considering how often that has to happen.

Unfortunately riders and promotors in general seem set in their ways...it's so ingrained. And riders are like lemmings...they just follow whoever is fastest and winning. Copy them in the hope of also winning.

As Auty pointed out...however much he spent on fast engines, he came to the conclusion it was his technique that was lacking, regardless of how much money he spent.

Which is pretty much what we witness now every meeting.

Things have got to change...and the 'Nice' way is the way forward imo.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the last count there are less than 20 GTR engines in the country and only 4 being used in competitive racing by just two Riders ( NL riders ).

Mr.Godfrey has actually given engines away to juniors as no one will buy them and last I heard the BSPA were trying to get their money back ( good luck with that).

I think the NICE 2v experiment has potential but I still don't think the muppets on the top table have the numption to get their £300,000 back and go in a completely different direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, OveFundinFan said:

Thought it was a 2 valve class, GTR was 4 valve surely.

Yes that's true but as Barry said it makes no difference if they are 2 valve or 4 valve as long as they are all standard and balloted engines.

The article in the Star said that while they were 2 valve engines the valve size was twice the size of the 4 valve units so in practice not much different.

These are modern laydown units and not like the old 2 valve engines that we remember.

I assume that the Nice competition is tied in with the Jawa engines but if the BSPA would block their use because of their GTR contract as has been suggested by Fortythirtyeight then they could replicate the project with the GTR engines that they probably have a surplus of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

 

Mr.Godfrey has actually given engines away to juniors as no one will buy them and last I heard the BSPA were trying to get their money back ( good luck with that).

Well there you go then.

The BSPA GTR challenge series.

Everyone's a winner!  ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you read and hear that today’s engines are too strong for juniors and then hear that settings have to be spot on to get maximum performance you wonder where this sport is going.

It seems long gone that a rider could tune his own engine so the makers are in league with the tuners to extract cash at all angles.

The Nice project is from Poland and considering their current domination of world speedway didn’t that say something about the sport. They can see that the current way is unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 8:40 PM, AFCB Wildcat said:

Yes that's true but as Barry said it makes no difference if they are 2 valve or 4 valve as long as they are all standard and balloted engines.

The article in the Star said that while they were 2 valve engines the valve size was twice the size of the 4 valve units so in practice not much different.

These are modern laydown units and not like the old 2 valve engines that we remember.

I not fully sure that is true.  An engine has a diameter, the bore, an it has a area concaved in the cylinder head.  You get more efficiency through 2 smaller inlets then one large one. The total area of 2 could be more then 1 large one, meaning more fuel. And you cannot put larger single inlet due to the constraints of the area available i the head. Hope that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, OveFundinFan said:

I not fully sure that is true.  An engine has a diameter, the bore, an it has a area concaved in the cylinder head.  You get more efficiency through 2 smaller inlets then one large one. The total area of 2 could be more then 1 large one, meaning more fuel. And you cannot put larger single inlet due to the constraints of the area available i the head. Hope that makes sense.

Yes it makes sense and after re-reading it I misquoted saying "twice the size" but Steve's words were "They have 2 valves instead of 4 but it's 2 big ones instead of 4 little ones".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 8:36 PM, Fortythirtyeight said:

At the last count there are less than 20 GTR engines in the country and only 4 being used in competitive racing by just two Riders ( NL riders ).

Mr.Godfrey has actually given engines away to juniors as no one will buy them and last I heard the BSPA were trying to get their money back ( good luck with that).

I think the NICE 2v experiment has potential but I still don't think the muppets on the top table have the numption to get their £300,000 back and go in a completely different direction.

That's not the detail that I heard. Apparently the commission for the bought engines, was progressive, and based on the number of engines bought. There was never a one lump of £300,000 paid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tsunami said:

That's not the detail that I heard. Apparently the commission for the bought engines, was progressive, and based on the number of engines bought. There was never a one lump of £300,000 paid. 

Then you are misinformed. That's why there is a leagal challenge trying to get The BSPA's money back ( which was never authorised by the BSPA in the first place but done covertly by the top table members) and why there is so much penny pinching going on by the BSPA ( withdrawing funding for youth championship, selling Team GB , etc)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

Then you are misinformed. That's why there is a leagal challenge trying to get The BSPA's money back ( which was never authorised by the BSPA in the first place but done covertly by the top table members) and why there is so much penny pinching going on by the BSPA ( withdrawing funding for youth championship, selling Team GB , etc)

While I know nothing about legal challenges, top table members or penny pinching, I heard that there was a lump sum payment. A big one. 

Edited by Halifaxtiger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

While I know nothing about legal challenges, top table members or penny pinching, I heard that there was a lump sum payment. A big one. 

Correct. A 6 figure up front and then per number bought.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know if the engines are short or long stroke? Not so much for cost but long strokes are less susceptible to set up and deal with difficult conditions better.  To me that would make a far bigger difference than how many valves they have although two is a better option for standardisation I think.

Standardise carbs and clutches too (BZ and Jawa maybe with jawa plates) and you really will have cut costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vince said:

Anybody know if the engines are short or long stroke? Not so much for cost but long strokes are less susceptible to set up and deal with difficult conditions better.  To me that would make a far bigger difference than how many valves they have although two is a better option for standardisation I think.

Standardise carbs and clutches too (BZ and Jawa maybe with jawa plates) and you really will have cut costs.

Whilst i agree with the long stoke sentiments i think the carb & clutch standardisation is a little out. Im not sure BZ carbs have been made for the past 10 years which would be one issue. However negating the excessive power through the rear wheel via the clutch could mean that there is less dependence on the better brands and that harder plates could work just as well and last longer adding to cost reductions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment, BZ type carbs then would be less expensive to produce and easier to set up although I guess everybody has got to grips with the Blixt by now.

As for clutch plates I don't know the current prices but Haruschi's were 4 times the price of a standard Jawa fibre. Baskets and hubs from other manufacturers were double the price. However I do remember a certain Mr Woffinden doing just fine at Rye on Jawa plates in a std Jawa clutch!

I just think that if you are going to go for standardisation you might as well go the whole way and level the field completely.

One other thing I would say is that Josh Auty's comment about it being technique rather than engine power is true, however get a rider of the same standard beating you all the time because he is on better equipment will bite anybody.

Something else I've just thought of is could the use of rev limiters also help such a system. Firstly they could help with reliability and secondly they could be used at service time to ensure the output from each engine is the same as long as they are tamper proof.

Edited by Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy