Looking to build bike powered car.

[Mike A Veal-175]

What's the hang up at 600Kg ?

Put simply, power to weight and drivability.
When the finished car gets to around the 600Kg mark, you are better off
dumping the bike engine and going back to a car engine. A 700Kg CEC with a
decently tuned modern car engine will probably give a better power to
weight figure than a 600Kg BEC (and I'm allowing a unrealistic whopping
170Kg for a car engine and gearbox!). The CEC will certainly be more
driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low (<8000rpm) revs,
relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.

The other benefit that BEC's have over CEC's is the lower moment of
inertia when considering cornering. A lighter car changes direction
quicker. The difference between a 600Kg BEC and a 700Kg CEC is probably
minimal, but the difference between a 700Kg CEC and a 450Kg BEC is
inspiring.

Finally, when considering fitting a BEC to a production car, you also need
to consider balance. The production car 'should' have been designed to
have a 50/50 weight distribution front/rear. Removing 100Kg or so from the
engine bay will upset this. At the very least, doing so will mean a
rethink of spring / damper rates and of braking distribution adding
unwanted cost to the build.


I'm not saying that you can't drop a bike engine into a car that weighs
more than 600Kg. Rather I'm suggesting that around this weight a car
engine starts to become a more practical option.


Hope that helps,


Mike Veal






Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[moospeed-288]

I don't completely agree with this, mine used to pull like mad out of
roundabouts from just over 2k. Something I was told it would never do...

"Oh no, you don't want a BEC, undriveable round town"

Absolute balls, it used to drive like any decent CEC sportscar around town
and upto 6k, its just that when that you saw that white sign with a black
line through it there was another 5k on top.

R1 engine, around 500kg, and 3.38 diff. Seemed a good combination round
town. Also good for scaring new passengers, just as they're thinking "yeah,
this is decently fast, not overly scary" that's the time to use all those
revs :D

 - Steve
moospeed

>The CEC will certainly be more
>driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low >(<8000rpm) revs,
>relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.

-----------------------------------------
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not
intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of
any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any
transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not
warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change
without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not
necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries
and affiliates.

This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any
attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it
is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase &
Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss
or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this
transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and
destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard
copy format. Thank you.

Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for
disclosures relating to UK legal entities.

[Paul Glavin]

I'd say the same, I was led to believe that it was going to be gutless below
8k but mine has always been able to pull quite nicely from low speed.


On 17/02/2009 17:27, "steve.j.kidd@..." <steve.j.kidd@...>
wrote:

>
> I don't completely agree with this, mine used to pull like mad out of
> roundabouts from just over 2k. Something I was told it would never do...
>
> "Oh no, you don't want a BEC, undriveable round town"
>
> Absolute balls, it used to drive like any decent CEC sportscar around town
> and upto 6k, its just that when that you saw that white sign with a black
> line through it there was another 5k on top.
>
> R1 engine, around 500kg, and 3.38 diff. Seemed a good combination round
> town. Also good for scaring new passengers, just as they're thinking "yeah,
> this is decently fast, not overly scary" that's the time to use all those
> revs :D
>
>  - Steve
> moospeed
>
>> The CEC will certainly be more
>> driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low >(<8000rpm) revs,
>> relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not
> intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of
> any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any
> transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not
> warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change
> without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not
> necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries
> and affiliates.
>
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any
> attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
> that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
> opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it
> is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase &
> Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss
> or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this
> transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and
> destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard
> copy format. Thank you.
>
> Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for
> disclosures relating to UK legal entities.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> bike-engined-cars-unsubscribe@...
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Chris Reed-3]

I'd take a look at some dyno graphs for the 1k and up bikes and compare them
with the motor that is currently in your car.  You can always change the
final drive to better cope with the extra weight.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Paul Glavin <paul@...>wrote:

>   I'd say the same, I was led to believe that it was going to be gutless
> below
> 8k but mine has always been able to pull quite nicely from low speed.
>
> On 17/02/2009 17:27, "steve.j.kidd@...<steve.j.kidd%40jpmchase.com>"
> <steve.j.kidd@... <steve.j.kidd%40jpmchase.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't completely agree with this, mine used to pull like mad out of
> > roundabouts from just over 2k. Something I was told it would never do...
> >
> > "Oh no, you don't want a BEC, undriveable round town"
> >
> > Absolute balls, it used to drive like any decent CEC sportscar around
> town
> > and upto 6k, its just that when that you saw that white sign with a black
> > line through it there was another 5k on top.
> >
> > R1 engine, around 500kg, and 3.38 diff. Seemed a good combination round
> > town. Also good for scaring new passengers, just as they're thinking
> "yeah,
> > this is decently fast, not overly scary" that's the time to use all those
> > revs :D
> >
> > - Steve
> > moospeed
> >
> >> The CEC will certainly be more
> >> driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low >(<8000rpm) revs,
> >> relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not
> > intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of
> > any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any
> > transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not
> > warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change
> > without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not
> > necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries
> > and affiliates.
> >
> > This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> > confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> > use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> > thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any
> > attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect
> > that might affect any computer system into which it is received and
> > opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it
> > is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase &
> > Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss
> > or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this
> > transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and
> > destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard
> > copy format. Thank you.
> >
> > Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for
> > disclosures relating to UK legal entities.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > bike-engined-cars-unsubscribe@...<bike-engined-cars-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.co.uk>
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Lackey-2]

OK, so it sounds like no surprises for me. 
 
In my case, my not-so-modern car came with an 87hp 85 lb-ft lump that weighs about 160kg w/ the transmission.  The loss in torque is a concern, especially at low rpms, but my modified R1 engine is nearly double the stock power of my car and should dramatically increase the acceleration once I get it rolling.  Also, while my car is comparatively heavy (actually closer to 950kg), I'll be losing about 150 kg in my conversion. 
 
I agree that a modern car engine would likely be better suited if driveability were a primary concern.  In my case, the class I am shooting for is between 46 and 61.99 cubic inches (754-1016cc) so the motorcycle engine is a better option than any of the small car engines I've looked at.
 
-Mike Lackey
 
You wrote:
 
What's the hang up at 600Kg ?

Put simply, power to weight and drivability.
When the finished car gets to around the 600Kg mark, you are better off
dumping the bike engine and going back to a car engine. A 700Kg CEC with a
decently tuned modern car engine will probably give a better power to
weight figure than a 600Kg BEC (and I'm allowing a unrealistic whopping
170Kg for a car engine and gearbox!). The CEC will certainly be more
driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low (<8000rpm) revs,
relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.

The other benefit that BEC's have over CEC's is the lower moment of
inertia when considering cornering. A lighter car changes direction
quicker. The difference between a 600Kg BEC and a 700Kg CEC is probably
minimal, but the difference between a 700Kg CEC and a 450Kg BEC is
inspiring.

Finally, when considering fitting a BEC to a production car, you also need
to consider balance. The production car 'should' have been designed to
have a 50/50 weight distribution front/rear. Removing 100Kg or so from the
engine bay will upset this. At the very least, doing so will mean a
rethink of spring / damper rates and of braking distribution adding
unwanted cost to the build.

I'm not saying that you can't drop a bike engine into a car that weighs
more than 600Kg. Rather I'm suggesting that around this weight a car
engine starts to become a more practical option.

Hope that helps,

Mike Veal



     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[ChrisG]

Obviously if you're building a car to fit certain sprint/hillclimb
regulations and are prepared sacrifice reliability in order to be
competitive in the class then it may make sense, but for the vast majority
who have a free choice of engine, a bike engine in a 950kg car should be
firmly at the bottom of the list of potential powerplants.

 

From: bike-engined-cars@...
[mailto:bike-engined-cars@...] On Behalf Of Mike Lackey
Sent: 17 February 2009 20:41
To: bike-engined-cars@...
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.

 

OK, so it sounds like no surprises for me.
 
In my case, my not-so-modern car came with an 87hp 85 lb-ft lump that weighs
about 160kg w/ the transmission.  The loss in torque is a concern,
especially at low rpms, but my modified R1 engine is nearly double the stock
power of my car and should dramatically increase the acceleration once I get
it rolling.  Also, while my car is comparatively heavy (actually closer to
950kg), I'll be losing about 150 kg in my conversion.  
 
I agree that a modern car engine would likely be better suited if
driveability were a primary concern.  In my case, the class I am shooting
for is between 46 and 61.99 cubic inches (754-1016cc) so the motorcycle
engine is a better option than any of the small car engines I've looked at.
 
-Mike Lackey
 
You wrote:
 
What's the hang up at 600Kg ?

Put simply, power to weight and drivability.
When the finished car gets to around the 600Kg mark, you are better off
dumping the bike engine and going back to a car engine. A 700Kg CEC with a
decently tuned modern car engine will probably give a better power to
weight figure than a 600Kg BEC (and I'm allowing a unrealistic whopping
170Kg for a car engine and gearbox!). The CEC will certainly be more
driveable, BEC's tend to have little oomph at low (<8000rpm) revs,
relative to this a car engine's torque curve looks flat.

The other benefit that BEC's have over CEC's is the lower moment of
inertia when considering cornering. A lighter car changes direction
quicker. The difference between a 600Kg BEC and a 700Kg CEC is probably
minimal, but the difference between a 700Kg CEC and a 450Kg BEC is
inspiring.

Finally, when considering fitting a BEC to a production car, you also need
to consider balance. The production car 'should' have been designed to
have a 50/50 weight distribution front/rear. Removing 100Kg or so from the
engine bay will upset this. At the very least, doing so will mean a
rethink of spring / damper rates and of braking distribution adding
unwanted cost to the build.

I'm not saying that you can't drop a bike engine into a car that weighs
more than 600Kg. Rather I'm suggesting that around this weight a car
engine starts to become a more practical option.

Hope that helps,

Mike Veal

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[JB7]

The other thing to consider is Yamaha have traditionally squeezed more from
their engines & transmission by making then internally lighter. If you're
thinking of motorsport I reckon you'll also need to think about seriously
beefing up the transmission and clutch. I doubt either would stand full
throttle standing starts for long when trying to move 900kg's

Suzuki make the strongest stock gearboxes I believe

jr

[Mike Lackey-2]

I'll have to keep that in mind.
 
There won't be any full throttle starts with this car.  When racing, I'd just spin the tires if I tried (Well, tire...  I'll use an open differential).  My goal is to get a record on the Bonnevile salt flats, and traction is quite limited there.  Once I get it rolling nicely, then I'll open it up.
 
-Mike
 
You wrote:
The other thing to consider is Yamaha have traditionally squeezed more from
their engines & transmission by making then internally lighter. If you're
thinking of motorsport I reckon you'll also need to think about seriously
beefing up the transmission and clutch. I doubt either would stand full
throttle standing starts for long when trying to move 900kg's

Suzuki make the strongest stock gearboxes I believe

jr


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ben Bromilow-101]

My limited understanding of aerodynamics and auto physics suggests that
for acceleration you want a good power:weight ratio (ie BEC territory)
for top end speed you just want power (IE total BHP). So a heavy car
with a massive engine will do much better at Bonnevile if you're going
for top speed...

Ben

Mike Lackey wrote:

>
> I'll have to keep that in mind.
>  
> There won't be any full throttle starts with this car.  When racing,
> I'd just spin the tires if I tried (Well, tire...  I'll use an open
> differential).  My goal is to get a record on the Bonnevile salt
> flats, and traction is quite limited there.  Once I get it rolling
> nicely, then I'll open it up.
>  
> -Mike
>  
> You wrote:
> The other thing to consider is Yamaha have traditionally squeezed more
> from
> their engines & transmission by making then internally lighter. If you're
> thinking of motorsport I reckon you'll also need to think about seriously
> beefing up the transmission and clutch. I doubt either would stand full
> throttle standing starts for long when trying to move 900kg's
>
> Suzuki make the strongest stock gearboxes I believe
>
> jr
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[ChrisG]

Now we know the full story I can see the benefit of the bike engine for your particular application Mike, but you have to admit your aims for the car and what you want it to do are completely irrelevant for 99% of BECs, so all the answers you got from the "whats the hangup with 600kgs" question were entirely correct, they probably just dont apply in your specific scenario anything like they do for the rest of us, including the OP.

Cheers
Chris

-original message-
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.
From: Mike Lackey <mike_lackey@...>
Date: 19/02/2009 07:22

I'll have to keep that in mind.
 
There won't be any full throttle starts with this car.  When racing, I'd just spin the tires if I tried (Well, tire...  I'll use an open differential).  My goal is to get a record on the Bonnevile salt flats, and traction is quite limited there.  Once I get it rolling nicely, then I'll open it up.
 
-Mike
 
You wrote:
The other thing to consider is Yamaha have traditionally squeezed more from
their engines & transmission by making then internally lighter. If you're
thinking of motorsport I reckon you'll also need to think about seriously
beefing up the transmission and clutch. I doubt either would stand full
throttle standing starts for long when trying to move 900kg's

Suzuki make the strongest stock gearboxes I believe

jr


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Lackey-2]

That is entirely correct...
 
However, the classes are broken up by displacement.  So a massive engine would put me in a different class.  For the I class engine, I can set a record without too much difficulty.  I am shooting for about 130mph.  If I were to do a 1.6L engine (stock size for my Corolla), I'd need to run about 160mph.  If I were to go all out and put the largest engine possible, I'd need to run over 263mph to break the record, which is twice my target speed.  Aerodynamic drag is a cubic function, so 260mph would require 8 times the power of 130mph (roughly 1200rwhp for my car, although there are numerous other reasons why that wouldn't be feasible).
 
Also, adding a supercharger/turbocharger, using nitrous oxide, switching to alcohol or other more exotic fuels, or the addition of most aerodynamic devices all put me in different classes.  The class I've chosen is basically a stock bodied production car (must seat four originally) using a gasoline powered engine under 61.99 CID (1015cc).
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
My limited understanding of aerodynamics and auto physics suggests that
for acceleration you want a good power:weight ratio (ie BEC territory)
for top end speed you just want power (IE total BHP). So a heavy car
with a massive engine will do much better at Bonnevile if you're going
for top speed...

Ben


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Lackey-2]

Yes, I understand that.  I was just fishing for what the issues are to see if they are relevant for me, as well as bring them to light for the original poster so that he can determine if they are problems for him as well.
 
While I'm building a BEC for a rather unique purpose, I also intend to have the car driveable on the streets.  So, many of the points that were brought up are still concerns of mine.
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
Now we know the full story I can see the benefit of the bike engine for your particular application Mike, but you have to admit your aims for the car and what you want it to do are completely irrelevant for 99% of BECs, so all the answers you got from the "whats the hangup with 600kgs" question were entirely correct, they probably just dont apply in your specific scenario anything like they do for the rest of us, including the OP.

Cheers
Chris


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sam, Annie and Penny-17]

Sounds like a great project.

 

Did you choose the corolla for its lack of drag? Got me wondering what the
perfect car would be. I wonder what a Honda Insight would weigh with all the
guts junked? I also remember the Calibra being mooted as having the best Cd
in its day, I bet that wouldn't be much over 900kg with an R1 in it.

 

I wanna do it.

 

  _____  

From: bike-engined-cars@...
[mailto:bike-engined-cars@...] On Behalf Of Mike Lackey
Sent: 19 February 2009 16:56
To: bike-engined-cars@...
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.

 

That is entirely correct...
 
However, the classes are broken up by displacement.  So a massive engine
would put me in a different class.  For the I class engine, I can set a
record without too much difficulty.  I am shooting for about 130mph.  If I
were to do a 1.6L engine (stock size for my Corolla), I'd need to run about
160mph.  If I were to go all out and put the largest engine possible, I'd
need to run over 263mph to break the record, which is twice my target speed.
Aerodynamic drag is a cubic function, so 260mph would require 8 times the
power of 130mph (roughly 1200rwhp for my car, although there are numerous
other reasons why that wouldn't be feasible).
 
Also, adding a supercharger/turbocharger, using nitrous oxide, switching to
alcohol or other more exotic fuels, or the addition of most aerodynamic
devices all put me in different classes.  The class I've chosen is basically
a stock bodied production car (must seat four originally) using a gasoline
powered engine under 61.99 CID (1015cc).
 
Mike



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Lackey-2]

 
I chose the Corolla because it is a relatively small car but still seats four, has reasonably low drag, and is a front engine, RWD configuration.
 
For the Gas Coupe class, you must retain the original configuration of the car (no converting a FWD to RWD, or a Hybrid to a straight gasoline powered car).  So I could use a Calibra (it was never sold in the states though) if it remained FWD, but not an Insight.  The Insight is also short on seats and would be considered a Sports car (I/MS record currently 151mph).  There are a couple Insights running on the flats, but I don't know what's under the hood.
 
A simplified breakdown of the classes can be found here:
http://www.scta-bni.org/SCTA-NewWeb/car_classes.htm
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
Sounds like a great project.

Did you choose the corolla for its lack of drag? Got me wondering what the
perfect car would be. I wonder what a Honda Insight would weigh with all the
guts junked? I also remember the Calibra being mooted as having the best Cd
in its day, I bet that wouldn't be much over 900kg with an R1 in it.

I wanna do it.



     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brian Dutton-2]

To achieve 130mph on a hard surface and tyres at 30psi assuming a Cd of 0.31 and a frontal area of 24.5ft squared. Your engine will have to produce 123hp, on salt you will have greater rolling resistance, so your hp requirements will be greater. To achieve 150mph a figure of 180hp, plus the losses from the softer surface is required.
What is your chosen engine?
Brian 




________________________________
From: Mike Lackey <mike_lackey@...>
To: bike-engined-cars@...
Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 20:17:26
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.


 
I chose the Corolla because it is a relatively small car but still seats four, has reasonably low drag, and is a front engine, RWD configuration.
 
For the Gas Coupe class, you must retain the original configuration of the car (no converting a FWD to RWD, or a Hybrid to a straight gasoline powered car).  So I could use a Calibra (it was never sold in the states though) if it remained FWD, but not an Insight.  The Insight is also short on seats and would be considered a Sports car (I/MS record currently 151mph).  There are a couple Insights running on the flats, but I don't know what's under the hood.
 
A simplified breakdown of the classes can be found here:
http://www.scta- bni.org/SCTA- NewWeb/car_ classes.htm
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
Sounds like a great project.

Did you choose the corolla for its lack of drag? Got me wondering what the
perfect car would be. I wonder what a Honda Insight would weigh with all the
guts junked? I also remember the Calibra being mooted as having the best Cd
in its day, I bet that wouldn't be much over 900kg with an R1 in it.

I wanna do it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Lackey-2]

A few aero tricks are allowed (air dam, removal of mirrors, wheel covers) so my final Cd is an unknown, but your estimates aren't far off.  Tire pressures are typically higher than 30psi to decrease rolling resistance and reduce failure from overheating; I'll probably run about 45-50psi.
 
I've got a 2001 Yamaha YZF R1 engine.  It formerly resided in a race bike built by a local engine builder, the builder estimated 150 rwhp in the bike.
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
To achieve 130mph on a hard surface and tyres at 30psi assuming a Cd of 0.31 and a frontal area of 24.5ft squared. Your engine will have to produce 123hp, on salt you will have greater rolling resistance, so your hp requirements will be greater. To achieve 150mph a figure of 180hp, plus the losses from the softer surface is required.
What is your chosen engine?
Brian 


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brian Dutton-2]

You asked for ideas on diffs, look at the www.zcars.org.uk website particularly the Lotus Elise page. They use a Pro-Trans unit which utilises the chain drive. Alternatively you could modify the original diff to accept a sprocket bolted directly to the crown wheel carrier. I have seen a Ford Sierra/Granada LSD differential unit (which is sealed) with a sprocket and supported on bearings in a simple fabricated frame. The frame can be made to swing to allow the chain to be tensioned. The use of the chain and sprockets should give plenty of scope for gear ratio optimisation.
Brian  




________________________________
From: Mike Lackey <mike_lackey@...>
To: bike-engined-cars@...
Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 22:03:20
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.


A few aero tricks are allowed (air dam, removal of mirrors, wheel covers) so my final Cd is an unknown, but your estimates aren't far off.  Tire pressures are typically higher than 30psi to decrease rolling resistance and reduce failure from overheating; I'll probably run about 45-50psi.
 
I've got a 2001 Yamaha YZF R1 engine.  It formerly resided in a race bike built by a local engine builder, the builder estimated 150 rwhp in the bike.
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
To achieve 130mph on a hard surface and tyres at 30psi assuming a Cd of 0.31 and a frontal area of 24.5ft squared. Your engine will have to produce 123hp, on salt you will have greater rolling resistance, so your hp requirements will be greater. To achieve 150mph a figure of 180hp, plus the losses from the softer surface is required.
What is your chosen engine?
Brian 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brian Dutton-2]

Have a look at the www.westgarage.co.uk website under chain drive, looks easy to replicate.
Brian 




________________________________
From: Mike Lackey <mike_lackey@...>
To: bike-engined-cars@...
Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 22:03:20
Subject: Re: [bike-engined-cars] Looking to build bike powered car.


A few aero tricks are allowed (air dam, removal of mirrors, wheel covers) so my final Cd is an unknown, but your estimates aren't far off.  Tire pressures are typically higher than 30psi to decrease rolling resistance and reduce failure from overheating; I'll probably run about 45-50psi.
 
I've got a 2001 Yamaha YZF R1 engine.  It formerly resided in a race bike built by a local engine builder, the builder estimated 150 rwhp in the bike.
 
Mike
 
You wrote:
 
To achieve 130mph on a hard surface and tyres at 30psi assuming a Cd of 0.31 and a frontal area of 24.5ft squared. Your engine will have to produce 123hp, on salt you will have greater rolling resistance, so your hp requirements will be greater. To achieve 150mph a figure of 180hp, plus the losses from the softer surface is required.
What is your chosen engine?
Brian 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]