Kawi2strokes.com Forum
http://www.kawi2strokes.com/forum/

Goofing around with intake track/reeds
http://www.kawi2strokes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13151
Page 4 of 11

Author:  BarryB [ Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

demus wrote:
Walms wrote:
You must hate me by now Joe! :e11
Looking good bud!

I'll hate you worse latter tonight :P Hoping to get more done :thumbup:
It Is really not one step closer to finished...its one TIG start closer to a burn through :lol:


I had one of Andrews kits years ago - MiG is NOT the answer and I ruined them with burn through.

However, the Triple God smiled upon me. A few months later I was looking at a H2 for RB and the seller had a set of almost mint original Dencos he sold me for couple hundred bucks. The spigots were missing but Jim sent me a set.

Author:  demus [ Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

Andrew worked up a bunch of practice pieces for me, HUGE help to be able to figure out the settings and stuff. He's been great to work with on this project, really can't say enough about that!
So I tried Mig welding a few for kicks, MillerMatic 210 with .023 wire, with a bit more practice MAYBE but mostly just a cluster!!
What I don't get is I read that MIG can be the preferred way to do sheet metal. I don't think I know enough, maybe if I reversed the polarity on the MIG I have heard that work but never tried it.

Author:  Ja-Moo [ Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

Werent most all pipes built using mig in the 70 80s 90s?

Author:  H2RTuner [ Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

Back then, John, yup, they were. The really good ones were all TIG welded, the worst, and Wirges, gas welded. MIG on thin steel isn't as easy as it is usually made out to be.

It is good you are getting them tucked up under the chassis.

Author:  triple cranks [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

H2RTuner wrote:
In two stroke racing circles, reversion is called "stand off", and variations in it can be very beneficial, or very adverse, depending on the system used, piston port, reed, rotary valve.

Piston port and rotary valve usually have the worst conditions, a correctly designed reed is the best of propositions. With a piston port, as John said, the piston skirt is the valve closing. In a rotary valve, there is a slight bit of help in that the valve itself opens and closes the port off, but still, not as good as a reed. But, reeds can have a bit if adversity, d3epending on how close the fuel delivery orifii in the throttle bore of the carb are to them.

If you read Noburu and Itoh's Yamaha tech papers on "time/Wave Areas" from the early 1970's (It is an SAE document, as they all were back then) and knew Dr. Gordon Blair, as all of us from Team Kawasaki Road Racing, and Kevin Cameron did, and use a bit of thinking on what happens between whatever "valve" there is, vs slide placement and positioning, one comes to a conclusion that length between the valve and slide, depending on slide position, makes all the difference in the world in getting stand off contained as much as possible. Their work also related to stand off in transfer ports, port velocities and volumes, and other flow delivery concerns.

Time/Wave Areas refer to the areas where stand off can be increased, or decreased, such as inlet, transfer port operation, with variances in area of the port, and the time length between them in reference to the RPM's of operation. More RPM's, less time to alter the wave to adversity. When our engines "hit", this is usually when reversion/stand off becomes a moot point in the inlet tract, jetting becomes more stabile, and not adversely effected by too slow a time wave area.

Why is stand off bad? Well, any reverse pressure out a two stroke inlet port only destroys the vacuum pull on the jet delivery orifii, and signal to the fuel being pulled up and into the throttle bore for any given slide position and volume movement direction. Obviously, a steady pull twords the piston is good for jetting accuracy, but stand off does all that in. With a reed valve in place, stand off can be greatly reduced, depending on the length between the reed petal and slide. too little length, reversion pressure defeats the jet orifii pull, longer usually helps dampen reverse pressure vacuum signal at the fuel pull.

Gordon did a few inlet stand off studies at Queen's University, Belfast on one of our H2R's, literally used a time frame camera, shot the mixture puking back out the inlet vs RPM's, very interesting, lots of mixture standing off when off the power band, almost no stand off, to literally no stand off when in the power band.

As far as adverse effects on carbs not sitting flat on an engine, the only thing would be the liquid fuel level in the carb. Most big carbs have a bowl volume that won't be adverse if they are mounted off straight, shouldn't be a problem, but the float/liquid level might have to be lowered a touch.

I used to lengthen the triple, and Yamaha TZ piston port and reed valve inlet paths, helped all the way through the rev range, helped work the jetting better.





https://youtu.be/29BoqCMRBFk

Author:  Jim [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

The Wirges chambers I have are MIG welded, and the welds are very nicely done. They were clearly done with some sort of mechanical assistance, not just a guy holding the MIG gun. I would not try to weld chambers with any method other than TIG.

Author:  H2RTuner [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

Gee, I'm not confused with any of it, it's just the way it is, and always has been.

Author:  DGA [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

I TIG weld almost everything, can't imagine using MIG for much under structural steel etc. For exhaust work I use a technique known as 'pulse welding', and I almost think it's cheating, it gives such nice welds and is so easy to do. For those chambers, make sure you don't have gaps, and they do look good in the pics. I don't know what welder you have, I use a Lincoln square wave TIG 255 with the pulse weld cycle. This can be set so you have a low pulse current, a percentage of the pedal set current, and a pulse time. Don't use any filler rod, just fuse the parts together, bring the current slowly up and watch when the weld just starts to sink lower than the surface, this is when you have full weld penetration. When fitting the cones and tubes together, try to not deburr the outer corners much or at all, this helps to leave the max material there for the weld. If you have a larger gap, shut the pulse setting off and weld it with filler rod as you normally would, for something that thin I would be at about 45 to 55 amps, and less for the actual weld with the foot control, maybe at 75% of that. Don't use too large of a filler rod, for those chambers, maybe .040" rod. You don't have to purge the inside with Argon for mild steel, for stainless and Inconel, its necessary.

Author:  Ja-Moo [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

I think one of the biggest differences now is laser or waterjet cutting of the metal. The seams are pretty much a perfect match for welding. So no need of filler rod, just fusion weld. :thumbup:

Author:  H2RTuner [ Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Goofing around with intake track/reeds

That's for sure, John, well made and concentric edges/joints make for an easier, better, stronger, nicer weld, no matter the method. I've fought stamped edges on cones and pipe stuff, as they get thinner from compaction as the cutter presses into the metal to do the "cut", with not so fun results for welding.

Page 4 of 11 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/