Now that is the truth of the day !!!

Tell me when you have it figured out, I'll be the first one to sign up !!!!

I make tapered wooden plugs from hardwood dowls to plug the holes; close the pressure fitting with plugged fuel tubing. Works fine.

.. and you need not plug any of the holes, i usually run the pressure line into the stinger, just so it will hold the water, stand upright freeze, repeat as ness.. sometimes lots of times...

in hotels i have just put a baggie with a binder around the stinger, stood up and froze

Roy U
Hows things

First off let me say I am not a spokesman for any engine manufacturer or indicating that they have issues with their product as these failures are in most cases caused by pushing the envelope of power output well beyond the origional design. let me also state that these occurances have been rare relative to sheer volume. and have occured on stock and modified parts.


Well heres what I can tell you, during mid 2001 there was an issue with the backs of cranks falling off occasionally on modified and stock engines. generally the upper section with the crank pin on it. The crack emenated from the root of the bearing where the crank seats in the inner race of the big bearing. Bottom line was that the radius of the root was too sharp. This appeared to get better in mid 2002 however during tha mid to latter part of 2003 as the 11MM crank was being phased out failures through the crank window began to appear and it was traced to insufficent case hardening with rockwell values checking very low on some of them and a lot of racers complaining of serious premature crank pin wear. Now with that said the RTO and RTU variants I was building are still competitive with what is being produced today so it is apparent I was pushing the envelope of the hardware very hard way back in 2000, however the field if flatlining and that is a good thing. the 11.5 crank came along for good reason. Most don't know that these cranks are cast and as close as my metallurgist can tell they are close to 1050 carbon steel as this gives way to a more defined counterweight shape. some of the others are machining billet cranks and you will usually see minimal counterweight profiles.

Theres my 2 cents on cranks, If I can be of service you know how to reach me.
PS congrats on a 2 finish at the regionals. Tommy P had a new RTU GEN5 BD version engine he intended to loan you but I think it showed a little late.

sorry everyone else for going off on a tangent

ammdrew you asked about some parts once did I actually get back to you I can't remember if I did. However the answer was and still is yes

Motorman, what is your opinion on the type of hp numbers claimed by Trinity /Novarossi on the new .12's ? I have seen postings of 1.9 hp. To me, that sounds very optimistic and I immediately suspect a marketing move to boost sales. Any truth behind these numbers?

honestly I don't see where they have been listing that, trinitys site lists the 5 port NS at 1.6 which I believe is pretty close. Personally I believe 1.7 is the upper limit we can ever expect. I always had 1.6 numbers predicted for my stuff on an RTU 3 port. If your seeing numbers higher than that printed I would not expect that they are comming from Novarossi. They must be comming from somwhere else. remember trinity had serios listed with some really high numbers once and remember all the sudden they went down. what do you think!

NovaRossi claims 1.55 HP for the RS12T5.
A magazine called R/C Nitro dynoed it and found 1.54 HP.
LIARS I TELL YA!

Seriously, if Nova claims 1.6, I tend to believe it. If Trinity claims 1.8 for a Sirio and 2.0 for a Sirio outlaw I automaticly assume it's PP not HP (Pony Power)

Anyway, RS12T5 results are: 1.54 BHP (1.13 kW) at 28,500 RPM and 61 oz.in (0.424 Nm) of torque at 22,000 RPM

the realistic prediction is pretty easy to extrapolate given that .21 upper power levels are well documented (with dyno results, F=MA inertia type)in the range of 2.8 hp. this equates to .13 hp per .1 cc dispalcement. this value times .12 would be 1.56 hp. now we already know that the 21's are real close to the upper limit however I have seen numbers higher than that (3.2)on higher percentages of nitromethane. so unless some quantum leap in design technology befalls the 12 engines of the day 1.6 is the realistic upper limit in my opinion for our applications on 30% to 40% fuels given timing numbers similar to 21's such as the R1 WC

I feel some .12 engines exist in the very low 1.7 range but they are not production engines. thats all I have to say on that

I thought PP stood for Purchasing Propaganda

back to the thread at hand 710

Motorman: I have a silly question for you regarding direct air induction? Is this any advantage for nitro power cars at all? I have never seen anyone do it, wondered as something to have a play with what effect it would have if any? Look forward to hearing from you shortly.

SN

Hmm, I will have to find out where I saw the 1.9, but 1.6 sounds more realistic, I'll take that any day....

Thanxs for the comments Motorman.

If the 710 is as much better than the MTX3 as the 950R was for me right out of the box than my MRX3 all I can say is WOW! Cannot wait for this bad ride! 2004 will be a very good Serpent year.

I beleive Serpent were quoting these sort of figures for the NovaMega .12 MCP engine.

From Novarossi Website

Engine code NS12 S3
C. CAPACITY 2.1 c.c.
POWER 1.52 H.P.
R.P.M. 41.000
PRACTICAL RANGE 3.800/43.500
PORTS 3
STROKE 14.00 mm
BORE 13.80 mm
GLOW HEAD Turbo
SHAFT Ø 11.50 mm
WEIGHT 210 gr.