RC car- True Turbocharger.
06-02-2004, 09:17 AM
#16
I'd say,.. go ahead with the project,... if the results are not too well for 2-strokes, you'd still have 4-strokers and rotaries to stick it on,...
a very usual note to people against new developments and re-inventions,.... "well, if we only live within the set rules,... what would we have today?! I guess we'd laught to see a calculator as big as a whole friggin' room,... but hey, it's just the start of things,... so,.. unless you're the one who invent the rules (whom might be wrong with it too), give the nice guy a chance,... I see some people are changing their opinions already,....
ps: no form of offense, even at the least amount, was included in this post (I have to do this since some people branded me as an "idiot that don't know s&*t about engines, and therefore need to shut the f^^k up", in the other thread, because the feel offended by my posts)
have a nice time building and testing mate, I'm willing to be your test bunny if you need me to
(yeah, that's the spirit, eh,..eh,..eh,...)
a very usual note to people against new developments and re-inventions,.... "well, if we only live within the set rules,... what would we have today?! I guess we'd laught to see a calculator as big as a whole friggin' room,... but hey, it's just the start of things,... so,.. unless you're the one who invent the rules (whom might be wrong with it too), give the nice guy a chance,... I see some people are changing their opinions already,....
ps: no form of offense, even at the least amount, was included in this post (I have to do this since some people branded me as an "idiot that don't know s&*t about engines, and therefore need to shut the f^^k up", in the other thread, because the feel offended by my posts)
have a nice time building and testing mate, I'm willing to be your test bunny if you need me to
(yeah, that's the spirit, eh,..eh,..eh,...)
06-02-2004, 01:33 PM
#17
Tech Initiate
Thread Starter
Bishop, You should really keep the hostility to yourself, it makes you look bad. I'll answer your questions anyway:
if a car that you tune with a turbo on a Ragged out OS .12 stomps your other car with a 7 port 3 hp 3.5cc rossi then you would call it a 100% power gain also.
Rpm: not 100% sure, but using a 25T pinion, 50T spur, with a single speed adapter, the rpm calculated using rollout/speed was over 55,000 rpm. I am at work now, dont have my notes for exact figures.
Psi is measured from a 0-7 psi digital pressure gauge, under load the compressor impeller i am using now is 2 psi. i have also tested a .75psi and 1 psi impeller with modest gains. I have a 3 and 4 psi impeller that i have tested on the bench, but i think they are to much for the little motors.
No, unburned oil doesn't gum it up. i use 10% nitro, with a full synthetic oil at 15% oil content. Castor oil i imagine would stick to the turbine if you run it then put it away without cleaning it (you dont do that do you?). even then, all that needs to be done is a shot of motor spray in the turbine. Also, Oil doesn't puddle in the turbine itself, but only in the bottom of the housing, but then again, you knew that being the 2-stroke/turbo GURU that you are.
300% worse fuel consumption? you pick apart my 100% gain in power statement, that is clearly backed by testing, trial and error, Yet you come on here and make that claim, when you have *most likely* never even seen a turbocharged 2 stroke, let alone tested one and tuned it. Actually, fuel consumption per tank, went from 350 seconds averaged total before, to 300 seconds averaged total after, which is a 12.5% *increase* in fuel consumption. this is on a 95* and 95% humidity in south florida, in sept of 2003. With that said, the turbocharged car physically travels farther per tank. N/A the car ran 25 laps in 350 seconds (13.8 secs average), boosted, the car ran 28 laps in 300 seconds (10.6 seconds per lap) This was done on an oval course setup to be 680ft measured from the racing line, which just happens to be 1/6th of a mile. that is just shy of 60mph average for the boosted car, the N/A cars time was a weak 44mph. i did it oval style to give the car a chance to decelerate, and also to minimize the effect driving ability had on the test.
as for porting and loosing the charge, you have no idea how a 2 storke responds to turbocharging, it does NOT loose fuel out the port like you think it does. yes the exhaust port is open more than half the time that the intake is open. the atomized fuel air mixture is held in the chamber by the systems overall higher pressure before the turbine. this is the only reason t-charging works and supercharging is junk. Also, i thought you would notice with that infinite knowledge of yours that the turbine design is not the same for this turbo compared to full size turbos. the turbine is only designed to turn one way, Even if you tried to force it backwards, it wouldnt go.
so, if you are going to hate, i can leave. thats not a problem. i thought people on this website could share True information without getting bashed. If you dont like it, dont buy it, its as simple as that.
P.S. 2s VS 4s? id rather choke on smoke than miss a stroke.
if a car that you tune with a turbo on a Ragged out OS .12 stomps your other car with a 7 port 3 hp 3.5cc rossi then you would call it a 100% power gain also.
Rpm: not 100% sure, but using a 25T pinion, 50T spur, with a single speed adapter, the rpm calculated using rollout/speed was over 55,000 rpm. I am at work now, dont have my notes for exact figures.
Psi is measured from a 0-7 psi digital pressure gauge, under load the compressor impeller i am using now is 2 psi. i have also tested a .75psi and 1 psi impeller with modest gains. I have a 3 and 4 psi impeller that i have tested on the bench, but i think they are to much for the little motors.
No, unburned oil doesn't gum it up. i use 10% nitro, with a full synthetic oil at 15% oil content. Castor oil i imagine would stick to the turbine if you run it then put it away without cleaning it (you dont do that do you?). even then, all that needs to be done is a shot of motor spray in the turbine. Also, Oil doesn't puddle in the turbine itself, but only in the bottom of the housing, but then again, you knew that being the 2-stroke/turbo GURU that you are.
300% worse fuel consumption? you pick apart my 100% gain in power statement, that is clearly backed by testing, trial and error, Yet you come on here and make that claim, when you have *most likely* never even seen a turbocharged 2 stroke, let alone tested one and tuned it. Actually, fuel consumption per tank, went from 350 seconds averaged total before, to 300 seconds averaged total after, which is a 12.5% *increase* in fuel consumption. this is on a 95* and 95% humidity in south florida, in sept of 2003. With that said, the turbocharged car physically travels farther per tank. N/A the car ran 25 laps in 350 seconds (13.8 secs average), boosted, the car ran 28 laps in 300 seconds (10.6 seconds per lap) This was done on an oval course setup to be 680ft measured from the racing line, which just happens to be 1/6th of a mile. that is just shy of 60mph average for the boosted car, the N/A cars time was a weak 44mph. i did it oval style to give the car a chance to decelerate, and also to minimize the effect driving ability had on the test.
as for porting and loosing the charge, you have no idea how a 2 storke responds to turbocharging, it does NOT loose fuel out the port like you think it does. yes the exhaust port is open more than half the time that the intake is open. the atomized fuel air mixture is held in the chamber by the systems overall higher pressure before the turbine. this is the only reason t-charging works and supercharging is junk. Also, i thought you would notice with that infinite knowledge of yours that the turbine design is not the same for this turbo compared to full size turbos. the turbine is only designed to turn one way, Even if you tried to force it backwards, it wouldnt go.
so, if you are going to hate, i can leave. thats not a problem. i thought people on this website could share True information without getting bashed. If you dont like it, dont buy it, its as simple as that.
P.S. 2s VS 4s? id rather choke on smoke than miss a stroke.
Last edited by 1BadTransam; 06-03-2004 at 05:42 AM.
06-02-2004, 01:52 PM
#18
1BadTransam, sounds good, videos would be great, wink wink 
I just have a question, i see your running at 10% nitro, would a higher concentration do damage w/ the turbocharger?? Sorry, that may be a stupid question, but had to ask
later
I just have a question, i see your running at 10% nitro, would a higher concentration do damage w/ the turbocharger?? Sorry, that may be a stupid question, but had to ask
later
06-02-2004, 01:53 PM
#19
Tech Apprentice
OK guys, please don't turn this into a flame war. I for one would like this thread to continue with the thread starter's continued findings. I think we can all gain more info on the subject if we don't cloud the thread with "uh-uh, no, that's not right" postings. Let's just read what he has to post and take it for what it's worth.
06-02-2004, 02:09 PM
#20
Its nice to see someone with KNOWLEDGE actually trying to do it, not some one that wants to stick a plumming pipe to their carb.
And I know I am goinng to get some trouble for this but orangbaligila the only reason everybody is against YOU its because your attitude and the fact that you seem to know nothing about this engines not like 1BadTransam that 1 seems to know what he is doing and 2 its not rude about it. So calm down you can atract more bees with honey.
And I know I am goinng to get some trouble for this but orangbaligila the only reason everybody is against YOU its because your attitude and the fact that you seem to know nothing about this engines not like 1BadTransam that 1 seems to know what he is doing and 2 its not rude about it. So calm down you can atract more bees with honey.
06-02-2004, 02:38 PM
#21
The little engines already have very high compression, especially the Italian mills. With high compression+Forced induction=boom
plus don't forget the fact that the turbo is not pushing full boost all the time. Your idea would really work on the 4 stroke and the rotary engine, especially the rotary engine.
I would really go with a supercharger, especially for the track. And don't forget the little fact that when these rc's shift into second gear the boost will drop, unless you want to blow up the engine.
Now, if you are just playing with an RC, with a .21 and with a lower compression engine it would be perfect, especially with high speed runs
plus don't forget the fact that the turbo is not pushing full boost all the time. Your idea would really work on the 4 stroke and the rotary engine, especially the rotary engine.
I would really go with a supercharger, especially for the track. And don't forget the little fact that when these rc's shift into second gear the boost will drop, unless you want to blow up the engine.
Now, if you are just playing with an RC, with a .21 and with a lower compression engine it would be perfect, especially with high speed runs
06-02-2004, 03:01 PM
#22
I won't even pretend to know a ton about two strokes but this idea is fascinating weather it works or not, but that someone is trying to improve what we have. This is supposed to be a hobby that people tinker around to go faster I applaud 1BadTransam for attempting this.
my .02
my .02
06-02-2004, 03:09 PM
#23
Originally posted by 1BadTransam
so, if you are going to hate, i can leave. thats not a problem. i thought people on this website could share True information without getting bashed. If you dont like it, dont buy it, its as simple as that.
P.S. 2s VS 4s? id rather choke on smoke than miss a stroke.
so, if you are going to hate, i can leave. thats not a problem. i thought people on this website could share True information without getting bashed. If you dont like it, dont buy it, its as simple as that.
P.S. 2s VS 4s? id rather choke on smoke than miss a stroke.
I see Hellion in one of the other thread has also left the forum (well, I managed to strike a chord and he came back to reply but that's another story) because of comments he didn't like either. Don't give up. At worse, you can do one of two things:-
1- request a moderator to strike off certain posts or...
2- just ignore such posts (and go to your control panel to set to "ignore" certain users too so you get spammed by PMs.).
Every ending has a beginning, the only problem is navigating from here to there!
06-02-2004, 03:11 PM
#24
Originally posted by subman
I won't even pretend to know a ton about two strokes but this idea is fascinating weather it works or not, but that someone is trying to improve what we have. This is supposed to be a hobby that people tinker around to go faster I applaud 1BadTransam for attempting this.
my .02
I won't even pretend to know a ton about two strokes but this idea is fascinating weather it works or not, but that someone is trying to improve what we have. This is supposed to be a hobby that people tinker around to go faster I applaud 1BadTransam for attempting this.
my .02
06-02-2004, 03:25 PM
#25
Nice discussion. Lets see pictures. I want to see the turbine or the housing or anything. If it is crude but it exists nobody is gonna care.
06-02-2004, 07:28 PM
#26
I have seen a turbocharged 2 stroke, which is why I know in the end your project is futile.
And I'm not being hostile either, just realistic, I know the realities of forced induction on most engines, so I know in the end your project will be a failure for all sorts of reasons.
I'm no guru or expert either, never even claimed to be, but if your looking for reasons to leave, feel free to go regardless of what I do, or do not say.
Engine life on a Nitro two stroke engine already sucks, if you really are pushing one to 55,000 rpm, your reducing the engine life to minutes, and that's always going to be one of the greatest problem with getting any more power out of any Nitro engine.
Your already playing with something that's at the ragged edge of reliability, and you want to make that worse?
With all that you have claimed so far, and to top it off your now saying you ran the car like 6+ months ago?, yet no pics or video to show for it all?
I'm starting to doubt you even have a working model...
Edit: Ok, I'll take back the fuel consumption quote, as he probably just messed it up there, I'm "sure" he meant to say "increase" in fuel consumption, but really, if he wants to cop less flack, he should have just posted real pics to begin with...
And I'm not being hostile either, just realistic, I know the realities of forced induction on most engines, so I know in the end your project will be a failure for all sorts of reasons.
I'm no guru or expert either, never even claimed to be, but if your looking for reasons to leave, feel free to go regardless of what I do, or do not say.
Engine life on a Nitro two stroke engine already sucks, if you really are pushing one to 55,000 rpm, your reducing the engine life to minutes, and that's always going to be one of the greatest problem with getting any more power out of any Nitro engine.
Your already playing with something that's at the ragged edge of reliability, and you want to make that worse?
With all that you have claimed so far, and to top it off your now saying you ran the car like 6+ months ago?, yet no pics or video to show for it all?
I'm starting to doubt you even have a working model...
Edit: Ok, I'll take back the fuel consumption quote, as he probably just messed it up there, I'm "sure" he meant to say "increase" in fuel consumption, but really, if he wants to cop less flack, he should have just posted real pics to begin with...
Last edited by Bishop; 06-02-2004 at 07:59 PM.
06-02-2004, 07:38 PM
#27
Tech Apprentice
Dude, just let him be.
06-02-2004, 07:46 PM
#28
Originally posted by rodrigo1508
Its nice to see someone with KNOWLEDGE actually trying to do it, not some one that wants to stick a plumming pipe to their carb.
And I know I am goinng to get some trouble for this but orangbaligila the only reason everybody is against YOU its because your attitude and the fact that you seem to know nothing about this engines not like 1BadTransam that 1 seems to know what he is doing and 2 its not rude about it. So calm down you can atract more bees with honey.
Its nice to see someone with KNOWLEDGE actually trying to do it, not some one that wants to stick a plumming pipe to their carb.
And I know I am goinng to get some trouble for this but orangbaligila the only reason everybody is against YOU its because your attitude and the fact that you seem to know nothing about this engines not like 1BadTransam that 1 seems to know what he is doing and 2 its not rude about it. So calm down you can atract more bees with honey.
yeah, whatever,... so, I don't have enough knowledge on this, so I'd rather have ppl like 1BadTransam keep posting,... not being attacked by too many questions that might upset him and (probably) will make him half-heartedly post again in this forum (or not at all),... please accept my apologies if I had done anything wrong to you all,.. just trying to support things that interests me, so it wont stop coming,...
to the BadBoy
,... I have some questions if I may,...first: will it have any heat problem? (sorry to ask if its too early to find out at this stage)
second: how did you mount it with you OS CV? and LD3?! coz I run mid-tranny shaft cars (and prolly that front engine-front gearbox car if the mad mechanic can do it
) what kind of ex. pipe will it be using? I manufacture tuned pipes currently, and would be really happy if you'd like to share me some ex. designs (by PM maybe if you want privacy)third: when will it be available and how much?
,... I presume we won't need any blow-off valve nor wastegate for it right?! since it's limited by it's turbine efficiency according to what I read (correct me if I'm wrong)good luck, and happy building
Last edited by orangbaligila; 06-02-2004 at 08:38 PM.
06-02-2004, 07:52 PM
#29
Originally posted by orangbaligila
third: when will it be available and how much? ,... I presume we won't need any blow-off valve for it right?! since it's limited by it's turbine efficiency according to what I read (correct me if I'm wrong)
good luck, and happy building
third: when will it be available and how much?
,... I presume we won't need any blow-off valve for it right?! since it's limited by it's turbine efficiency according to what I read (correct me if I'm wrong)good luck, and happy building
What I find quite interesting is that a 100% power gain is reached by running such tiny boost levels. 100% power gains in full sized motors require usually 6-10psi.
The other thing I would like to ask is how you have gotten around the loss of backpressure from the tuned pipe. A very well designed tuned pipe/expansion chamber will supply around 7-8psi of pressure back through the exhaust port to aid in cylinder filling. It is somewhat like an "exhaust valve". The impeller must disrupt this at least somewhat, are you saying that the 1-2psi of actual boost is counteracting this loss?
Lastly I have seen several examples of turbocharged high intake/exhaust overlap motors and they all have had excessively high fuel consumption, poor low range response and absolutely ballistic top end. Is this how your motor operates?
Last edited by AMGRacer; 06-02-2004 at 08:01 PM.
06-02-2004, 08:04 PM
#30
Originally posted by Bishop
How do you get a reduction in fuel consumption when run time is decreased?, are you making this up as you go along?
With all that you have claimed so far, and to top it off your now saying you ran the car like 6+ months ago?, yet no pics or video to show for it all?
I'm starting to doubt you even have a working model...
How do you get a reduction in fuel consumption when run time is decreased?, are you making this up as you go along?
With all that you have claimed so far, and to top it off your now saying you ran the car like 6+ months ago?, yet no pics or video to show for it all?
I'm starting to doubt you even have a working model...
for some people (especially while racing) fuel consumption is closely related to how many laps you can make for a given tank,... and how quick can you do it,... so I think his opinion makes sense
I prefer to refuel every 300 seconds but made a few laps more than others,... afterall, fuel is categorised as highlty consumable in a race. and, the most important thing,... the cool effect of having it installed in your car pays the price already
this hobby started as a model car hobby... the addition of radio gears changed it in many ways,.. but some people would love to have it for self-satisfaction purpose (hence why I spend so much money to TRY creating a scaled down servo-driven 3-speed dog-drive gearbox,...) if it doesn't work,... the only person that will have his pocket blown would be me,... others will have some form of free entertainment (curiosity, arguments, discussions, competitions, etc,.. just like in real life )PEACE, dude,... ehehehehhh,...
oh, btw, about the 6 months wait thing, I think he wanted to keep it for himself first, and release it after it's completely done w/ developments,... for safety reasons (there are many copycats around in this world y'know,..), at least I did it for my tuned pipes, the difference is, I keep it secret as long as possible, so only my team members will have the advantage,... until I have a new better setup