It is currently Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
I've ran some more tests, but any dose beyond 200:1 becomes meaningless in gasoline.
On a side note, I've noted that certain regular oils do almost the same thing.
With 2 stroke oil, there are a lot of chemicals added to extend (2 stroke) engine life, that are of no benefit in a 4 stroke engine. It's those chemicals that burn bad too. Oil itself seems to burn very clean, when it's thinned out enough.

I'm running more tests with the 2stroke, but 175:1 gives buttersmooth acceleration, while 200:1 gives me best gas mileage so far... my mpg went up on average by 5mpg over several tanks, and a lot more when cruising at lower speeds.

I'm going to do some more research into finding cleaner oils that cost less.
It seems clear to me that the blue chemicals in 2 stroke oil can not burn cleaner, than clear and transparent oil without chemicals.
So, my next quest is to find oils that are cheaper than 2 stroke oil, that still mix with the gasoline, and have the same effect as the 2 stroke oil (meaning lubricate, smooth out the vibrations somewhat, while not affecting performance in a negative way).

Another thing to notice, I live in a place where the weather is 90+ degrees, which could be a reason for the better performance (engine running cooler), and might run worse for someone living in colder regions.

As far as seafoam goes, I never liked it, because it doesn't burn well.
It doesn't have good flammable properties like regular oil, and doesn't lubricate well either.
If you want to have a carb cleaner, that works well, try out chemtool B12, works much better, and burns better than seafoam.

I'm probably going to take a good 4 months further testing with oils.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
Duckster wrote:
Diesel is also referred to as #2 fuel OIL. It is in fact a very light oil. Works great as penetrating oil.

Actually, Diesel is a heavy fuel.
It's more oily and heavy than regular fuel.

Diesel is in between oil and gas, and can be used to make gas have a higher octane rating (just like oil can too).
Diesel is less efficient in a regular combustion engine
I never heard of someone fueling up their regular vehicle with diesel, but I'm sure that 1.4 liter in a 2 gal tank won't do a lot of damage to the bike.

I'd be curious to know what the difference in performance, chemical composition, gas mileage, octane rating would be from mixing a higher dose of diesel with gas, compared to a lower dose of oil with gas.
Not sure if Diesel has any lubricating properties though...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:04 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Sep 17, 2003
Motorcycle: 5 Shadows, 3 Rebels
Rebel: 250
Country: U.S.S.A.
State/Province: NV
City: Las VLX-as
Reply with quote
MeeLee wrote:
I never heard of someone fueling up their regular vehicle with diesel, but I'm sure that 1.4 liter in a 2 gal tank won't do a lot of damage to the bike.


An old friend of mine mistakenly grabbed the green handle on a universal pump (meaning a pump with one nozzle for the various octanes of gas and a second nozzle for diesel) to refuel his CBR1000. He made it a block before it bogged and shut down. Let's just say the dealer wasn't very kind when the repair bill was presented.

_________________
"Ride Safe, Chop Safer"
Dismantling, sawzalling, and rattle canning does not make a bobber. That's called an "ANCHOR".
Image
http://shadow-shack.20m.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:18 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Motorcycle: Rebel 250 plus a few others
Rebel: 250
Country: Canada
State/Province: NB
City: Fredericton
Reply with quote
MeeLee wrote:
Duckster wrote:
Diesel is also referred to as #2 fuel OIL. It is in fact a very light oil. Works great as penetrating oil.

Actually, Diesel is a heavy fuel.
It's more oily and heavy than regular fuel.

Diesel is in between oil and gas, and can be used to make gas have a higher octane rating (just like oil can too).
Diesel is less efficient in a regular combustion engine
I never heard of someone fueling up their regular vehicle with diesel, but I'm sure that 1.4 liter in a 2 gal tank won't do a lot of damage to the bike.

I'd be curious to know what the difference in performance, chemical composition, gas mileage, octane rating would be from mixing a higher dose of diesel with gas, compared to a lower dose of oil with gas.
Not sure if Diesel has any lubricating properties though...


Meelee You make broad statements of fact based on absolutely nothing factual. You are just making assertions based on your "feelings".

How do you know (and moreover why would you even suspect?)that oil mixed in gas reduces engine vibration? Have you measured it with an accelerometer before and after using a common test procedure? No of course you haven't. You just "feel" it, and your confirmation bias confirms that you were right.

How do you know a little oil will reduce the operating temperature of the engine? Have you measured oil and head temperatures before and after and then normalized your result for the ambient temperature? No , I suspect not.

and Diesel is a fuel OIL.. just as bunker (#6 fuel oil) is a fuel oil. Oils are liquids that display noticeable "lubricity" or a tendency to form a lubricating film between smooth surfaces.

If you are "sure that mixing 1.4 L of diesel in a 2 gal tank won't do a lot of damage" to your engine, I'd invite you to try that experiment and report back your results.

_________________
2004 Honda Rebel 250
2003 BMW K1200GT
2004 BMW R1200GS
1996 Ducati 900SS
1973 Norton 850 Interstate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:14 am 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Sep 9, 2004
Motorcycle: Suzuki Gsf1250
Rebel: 450
Country: Canada
State/Province: NB
City: Rusagonis
Reply with quote
I can report that 1.4l of diesel in FOUR gallon tank won't (didn't) do damage, as far as I can see. Not sure I'd be willing to repeat with a tank half that size.
Brent

_________________
"If you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem" G.Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
I'm mixing little oil in my fuel, which is a lot like a little more diesel, or octane booster products.
Increasing octane in fuel does much of the same thing.
Mixing fuel in a diesel engine could do damage, but reverse not. Worst case scenario, the fuel won't burn completely, and the engine will run less efficiently.

Btw, is Duckster known to be the social troll on this board?
I'm not into repeating myself.
There is no need for gyros to know when an engine runs smoother.

Back in the day, they used to tune cars by ear. Tell that to the millions of qualified mechanics, what you told me, and see what they will tell you about those tools and measuring devices.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:09 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator

Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Motorcycle: 98 Valkyrie
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: GA
City: Vidalia
Reply with quote
As a qualified mechanic, I can tell you that the ratio you report using isn't going to do anything one way or the other, except cost a bit.

Given that it is essentially harmless, I haven't followed this thread very closely.

I can also tell you that upping octane on a short-stroke engine reduces the performance of that engine. Slower burn is an advantage only harnessable by long-stroke engines; it's a disadvantage for short strokers.

Going on with the qualified mechanic thing, though, in response to your comments about tuning cars by ear, etc:

That skill was derived _first_ from data compiled by all the testing equipment you eschew. Changes were measured; results confirmed. Only then was it possible to determine specific side-effects unique to each condition-- for example, the 'right sound' for correct RPM and the appropriate throttle response and relative chop for proper vacuum. "It sounds right" or "it feels right" is nothing without first knowing right sounds and feels like. Naturally, that can't be known until right has been set by measurement, and then listened to and felt.

Any of the millions of qualified mechanics will tell you that same thing.

_________________

Duke
"Skills must be Learned"
------ Herb Christian


"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a television commercial is right for _you_."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:52 am 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Motorcycle: Rebel 250 plus a few others
Rebel: 250
Country: Canada
State/Province: NB
City: Fredericton
Reply with quote
MeeLee wrote:
I'm mixing little oil in my fuel, which is a lot like a little more diesel, or octane booster products.
Increasing octane in fuel does much of the same thing.
Mixing fuel in a diesel engine could do damage, but reverse not. Worst case scenario, the fuel won't burn completely, and the engine will run less efficiently.


Since there is no benefit to increasing octane beyond the 87 rating of regular fuel for use in a Rebel , your whole enterprise does seem to come down to at least not doing any real harm while you pursue your "research".


MeeLee wrote:
Btw, is Duckster known to be the social troll on this board?
I'm not into repeating myself.
There is no need for gyros to know when an engine runs smoother.


Let's just say I've never been impressed by the accuracy of anyone's "butt dyno" If you want to say you think the engine is running cooler and smoother, I have no issue. You can have whatever dubious beliefs you like. If you insist it really does run smoother and cooler, then I want to know how you know that. "just because!" isn't a reason.

Oh and I agree.. gyros wouldn't help prove an engine is running smoother. accelerometer based instruments would tell the tale.



MeeLee wrote:
Back in the day, they used to tune cars by ear. Tell that to the millions of qualified mechanics, what you told me, and see what they will tell you about those tools and measuring devices.


The qualified mechanics I know would not be taken in by your voodoo science. They depend on their instruments and tools as well as their knowledge and experience to separate fact from fantasy.

_________________
2004 Honda Rebel 250
2003 BMW K1200GT
2004 BMW R1200GS
1996 Ducati 900SS
1973 Norton 850 Interstate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:27 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Sep 17, 2003
Motorcycle: 5 Shadows, 3 Rebels
Rebel: 250
Country: U.S.S.A.
State/Province: NV
City: Las VLX-as
Reply with quote
MeeLee wrote:
Btw, is Duckster known to be the social troll on this board?


No, but he and many others (myself included) have exposed such types who insist that unsubstantiated opinions are facts. I have remained silent for the most part in this thread as I went a little overboard with the last troll who insisted as much. Truth be told, my neck hurts from the strain of the leash I put myself on for this thread...I figure if I stretch it enough it's bound to snap.

_________________
"Ride Safe, Chop Safer"
Dismantling, sawzalling, and rattle canning does not make a bobber. That's called an "ANCHOR".
Image
http://shadow-shack.20m.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
I've been curious,
Does the rebel have an offset cylinder (offset to the crankshaft), or not?

I know Honda uses this technique in some of their cars, and get an increase of performance, and have a larger cc than what they report:
Image


If they do, the offset will be smaller than 14mm for sure.

(picture added, just for illustration)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 16, 2005
Motorcycle: 2014 CB500XA
Rebel: None
Country: USA
State/Province: AZ
City: Green Valley
Reply with quote
The Rebel engine is largely unchanged from the early 1980s, so, no.

_________________
John, 2014 CB500XA (Daily Rider), 2009 CRF230L (L'il Red Piglet), 1989 NX250 - sold, 2001 Rebel - sold
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Motorcycle: 1999 Rebel CMX
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Summerfield
Reply with quote
Greetings MeeLee,

Look at your Rebel's engine from the side. You should notice the cylinders are leaning towards the front wheel. 20 Degrees from 0 degrees Vertical. No increase in cc's. This reduces the load and wear on the pistons.

_________________
If you're Waiting on me, you're Late.



1999 Honda Rebel VQR234se
. . . . . 43,000+ Miles . . . . . .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:45 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator

Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Motorcycle: 98 Valkyrie
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: GA
City: Vidalia
Reply with quote
I deleted my post. By the time I got it up, SS had said it far more succinctly than had I. :lol:

_________________

Duke
"Skills must be Learned"
------ Herb Christian


"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a television commercial is right for _you_."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 16, 2005
Motorcycle: 2014 CB500XA
Rebel: None
Country: USA
State/Province: AZ
City: Green Valley
Reply with quote
Start here: https://rideapart.com/articles/free-power-offset-cylinders-explained

I still maintain that the Rebel does not have offset cylinders or an offset crankshaft (the reverse way to look at it).

_________________
John, 2014 CB500XA (Daily Rider), 2009 CRF230L (L'il Red Piglet), 1989 NX250 - sold, 2001 Rebel - sold
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:30 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Motorcycle: Rebel 250 plus a few others
Rebel: 250
Country: Canada
State/Province: NB
City: Fredericton
Reply with quote
jsonder wrote:
Start here: https://rideapart.com/articles/free-power-offset-cylinders-explained

I still maintain that the Rebel does not have offset cylinders or an offset crankshaft (the reverse way to look at it).


You are correct John. Forward tilted cylinders do not imply any offset to the cylinder axes. Centerline of bores still passes through centerline of crankshaft.

_________________
2004 Honda Rebel 250
2003 BMW K1200GT
2004 BMW R1200GS
1996 Ducati 900SS
1973 Norton 850 Interstate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:52 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator

Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Motorcycle: 98 Valkyrie
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: GA
City: Vidalia
Reply with quote
Duckster wrote:
MeeLee wrote:
I'd encourage you to drop an ounce or two of two stroke in your tank, and experience the results yourself.
If you want scientific proof, if you own a rebel, you might very well be able to find the results you desire by doing your own tests.


I have no rational reason to think there would be any benefit whatsoever. I could certainly run a mileage check on a closed course that I fully expect would show no significant improvement in fuel economy, but it would be hard to test for less vibration without an elaborate test setup.


If I still had a Rebel, I'd probably volunteer for this, if only to offer some measurements to put up next to the claims.

As it stands, Duckster, I offer two _possible_ tests that-- while not particularly accurate-- at least might offer a means to measure the vibration. That is, a means identical to two different engines. It uses the scientific method (repeatable experiment, identical measurements, controlled variables, etc)-- actually, the both do. I'm just not engineer enough to determine beforehand if they offer a wide-enough range of measurement-- or, more specifically, a _graduated_ enough range-- to be useful.

However, I know you like thought experiments as much as I do, and for some reason, the idea of "measuring the Rebel buzz" has now struck my fancy.

Let me offer two _possible_ methods of measurement, and get your own feedback into possible improvements here.

Remember that above all, our goal is to be low-tech enough to be within the means of most anyone who wants to try to make this measurement for themselves.


Both experiments will necessarily be tank-off. Tank should be suspended above the bike and fuel line extended as needed. Engine should be warmed up and at a decent running temperature. Bike should be straight up-and-down (i.e., being ridden position). A throttle lock and a tachometer would allow for wider range of testing and more specific meaning to the results. Lacking either of these, a cheapy voltage meter is acceptable. Whichever method is chosen, repeat three times with straight gasoline, then three times with whatever measure of additive is to be tested for "vibration dampening" (for what it's worth, I'm betting filling the crankcase with polyurethane gel would significantly dampen pretty much any unwanted movement :) ).


First experiment:

Two uprights are mounted such as each is 3/8" (call it 10mm for you folks with those base-10 measuring sticks ;) ) from touching the uppermost cooling fin, one on each side of the bike. A tire depth gauge (at an absolute minimum! A nice .001" increment dial meter on a needle would be ideal) is affixed to each upright such that the needle points toward the engine.

Measurements are made as to the _precise_ distance to the cooling fin with the engine off. The engine is started and allowed to idle. The needles are move carefully and slowly toward the engine until the instant of contact. Yes; contact will likely be cyclical, but we are interested only in the outmost measurement (furthest 'forward movement' of the engine).

Needles are move back and RPM is raised by 1k RPM and the throttle locked. Measuring is repeated. Raise RPM again by 1K and repeat. Continue repeating until somewhere in the 4K range. (I don't like to rev more than that under no-load conditions.)

Barring the presence of tach and throttle lock (or tach and a good friend ;) ), raise the idle until such point as voltage hits 14. Measure as described above. Move needles out of contact, raise RPM until voltage peaks-- i.e., ceases to climb. Slowly lower until voltage starts to drop. Raise idle _very_ slowly until the _precise_ point that maximum voltage is sustained. Measure again.



That would be experiment method 1.

Method two is likely to be more visually exciting, and perhaps more accessible to the less detail-oriented. The problem is that I expect it to be less discernible of the two, but it came to mind, so I thought I'd put it out here:

Get a large graduated container (gallon bucket, perhaps). Add readable graduations as is possible and needed. fasten two stiff but reasonable light braces to the upper engine (perhaps under a couple of rocker box bolts?). Run these braces to the top of the graduated container. Place the container on a side-laying cylinder to both lift the container such that the braces are on a flat plane with the bottom flange of the rocker box. The cylinder will provide support and allow back-and-forth tipping of the container.

Put in a shallow amount of a colored (so as to be easy to see) viscous (so as to control wild splatter) fluid. I'm thinking tranny fluid at the moment, but if that's not sedate enough, perhaps gear oil, but that gets expensive fast.

Start the bike and note the level that the fluid gets sloshed up to. (It bears repeating: a _large_ container; a larger surface area on the bottom of the container allows for more of a 'wave motion' instead of random shaking and splashing). Raise the RPM according to either of the two methods described above (tachometer or voltmeter).

Note differences in measurements using straight gas and magic gas. Disregard any differences of 5 percent or less simply because of possible shifting of the container across the cylinder, or movement of the cylinder itself.


So....

what do you see that could be done to improve the accuracy of the results or the ease of testing?

_________________

Duke
"Skills must be Learned"
------ Herb Christian


"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a television commercial is right for _you_."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:16 pm 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: Feb 23, 2009
Motorcycle: Rebel 250 plus a few others
Rebel: 250
Country: Canada
State/Province: NB
City: Fredericton
Reply with quote
Wow, What can I say Duke? Popular Science meets MacGyver..
If I was inclined to run an experiment to compare magic gas to regular gas, I think I would want to use something in the way of a readily available vibration instrument. Actually a smartphone has accelerometers built into it and could conceivably be rigged up to measure the frequency and amplitude of vibrations. I had played around with an app to do this a while back. The question becomes if its possible to repeatably mount a smartphone to the bike so you get similar vibration traces every time you mount it . I suppose it could be done by taping it tightly to the top of the gastank .
As far as the RPM equalization goes, The test could be run at say 60 MPH in 5th gear on the same piece of flat road with little or no wind.
You'd have to run probably 10 trials for each case to get some representative data. That's what I'd do if I had some theory about reduced vibration and I wanted to prove it to the skeptics.
You may recall the even simpler experiment I ran to prove to one of the previous Einsteins on here that punching holes in the airbox would not increase engine braking (He insisted it made a huge difference). Simply running an engine brake test on the same course in high gear with a closed throttle from a fixed speed from my mailbox until I dropped to another fixed speed and noting the distance covered.
That test was run with and without an airbox cover over the air filter and there was no significant variation in repeated trials. Case closed.

_________________
2004 Honda Rebel 250
2003 BMW K1200GT
2004 BMW R1200GS
1996 Ducati 900SS
1973 Norton 850 Interstate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
Soul Searcher wrote:
Greetings MeeLee,

Look at your Rebel's engine from the side. You should notice the cylinders are leaning towards the front wheel. 20 Degrees from 0 degrees Vertical. No increase in cc's. This reduces the load and wear on the pistons.

If the cylinders are angled from the crankshaft, that would count as an offset.
If they're just angled, but have their center dead on the center of the crankshaft, that would not count as an offset, and wouldn't change much on the engine's performance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:01 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator

Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Motorcycle: 98 Valkyrie
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: GA
City: Vidalia
Reply with quote
Duckster wrote:
Actually a smartphone has accelerometers built into it and could conceivably be rigged up to measure the frequency and amplitude of vibrations.


Yes; but I shied away from that for a couple of reasons. First, I wanted this to be something that could be done for under twenty bucks. There are those of us out there who don't have smart phones, and for a variety of reasons. Myself, I don't want one. I have a computer at work that I can't get away from for more than a few minutes at a time. I have a computer at home that's available almost anytime I need one. Even a lot of travel destinations usually have some sort of computer access anymore. Being that there is a computer pretty much anywhere I want to go, I don't feel the need to have one in my pocket for the trip between those places.

There are also those who can't afford one. I fit into that camp, too, but I'm lucky enough to belong to the ever-shrinking minority that finds the expense versus that practicality and durability to be almost comical, and I just don't want one. Wife thought she did, till I got her one, and she realized that all she ever did with it was call, text occasionally, and check the weather. All things available from a flip phone or pretty much anywhere else. That was a couple hundred bucks shot in the keister.

But assuming someone has or is willing to get a smart phone---

We would really only know the gees exerted by the shaking. The travel distance is far too minuscule (I think, anyway; I could be way off here) to measure with GPS, which means setting up at least the first suggested method anyway. We also don't really know the _speed_ of the shake or have a reasonable idea of the gees to start with.

This may have changed, but as I understand it, there is a cut-off in the software for the accelerometers to make sure they aren't used to guide missiles or some such nonsense. I don't know what that threshold is, but if the shaking exceeds it, then the phone is going to have to be hacked. Even then, if you're hacking, you can get by a lot cheaper than a cell phone by hacking a wii-mote from a garage sale. They've got accelerometers, too. That, and the net is littered with already-built code, which may be a lot harder to convince Samsung to divulge for their phones. (And again, I could be way off there, too. The only thing I really know about smart phones is that they do more or less what I do with the equipment that surrounds me all day, only with a much smaller screen and super-crappier interface.)

No; I'm not a Luddite. :lol: But to date, there has been _nothing_ offered by any smart phone to convince me that I needed to have one, or even wanted the thing. I enjoy the world around me far too much to need a pocket-portable instant distraction from it.

But getting back on track:

The goal was to keep it cheap and easy to do, easy to understand, and not real math-heavy. Accessible to the widest-possible pool of potential testers; that's all.

Quote:
The question becomes if its possible to repeatably mount a smartphone to the bike so you get similar vibration traces every time you mount it.


From what I've seen of smartphones, the larger question is related more to the availability of one that will _survive_ it. I can't help but feel-- tank being half-rubber mounted and filled with a steadily-dwindling supply of motion-dampening liquid, that the most accurate test results would come directly from the outer-most point of the engine itself. Or possibly the foot pegs. Man, those things get downright blurry at road speed. :lol:

Quote:
The test could be run at say 60 MPH in 5th gear on the same piece of flat road with little or no wind.


Oh, most certainly. I suggested the parked condition simply to eliminate possible road and wind effects on the final results. That, and it made the offered methods much easier to perform. :lol:

Quote:
You'd have to run probably 10 trials for each case to get some representative data.

Agreed-- at least 10. To explain the suggestion of three: I was suggesting leaving an air-cooled engine running for a prolonged period while stationary. I didn't want to get too much heat build-up.

Quote:

You may recall the even simpler experiment I ran to prove to one of the previous Einsteins on here that punching holes in the airbox would not increase engine braking (He insisted it made a huge difference). Simply running an engine brake test on the same course in high gear with a closed throttle from a fixed speed from my mailbox until I dropped to another fixed speed and noting the distance covered.
That test was run with and without an airbox cover over the air filter and there was no significant variation in repeated trials. Case closed.


I recall that very well, actually. I also recall that particular skeptic's assertion that switching from pavement to gravel made no appreciable difference in his stopping time or distance while engine braking. :lol:

_________________

Duke
"Skills must be Learned"
------ Herb Christian


"Ask your doctor if medical advice from a television commercial is right for _you_."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: a little 2 stroke oil in the fuel
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 19, 2015
Motorcycle: Rebel 250
Rebel: 250
Country: USA
State/Province: FL
City: Pompano
Reply with quote
concerning vibrations,
They differ from RPM to RPM, and when measured in different places,

For instance, the handlebars vibrate more at 4k rpm than the passenger pegs, but the reverse is true more at 6k RPM.
Also, the tank feels pretty solid when full, but when emptier than halfway, it start vibrating more, and it's vibration is a bit different from the rider pegs.

But overall, I'd have to say that the vibrations start from 4k to 6k rpm, and from ~7,2k rpm to about the end of the rev range.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: