1000cc watercooled 8 valve

jseng1 · Aug 5, 2016

Here's something you don't see everyday. From a client in Finland. A 1000cc watercooled 8 valve. Uses two SR 500 cranks, modified Vmax head, welded up cylinders and PTO reinforcement. Carrillo rods with forged pistons. Modified Norton cases. For BOTT class racing. Project was abandoned after the 851 watercooled monoshock Ducs appeared.

lcrken · Aug 5, 2016

That's certainly different! Did they get far enough to get it running?

Ken

grandpaul · Aug 5, 2016

Now THAT is cool.

Literally. Water cooled cool.

Brooking 850 · Aug 5, 2016

A bit of rattle gun matt black spray paint and it looks good to go!!!

BritTwit · Aug 5, 2016

Wow,

true Frankenstein-ish technology making the most of the available parts and bits.
Human creativity is boundless.

Rohan · Aug 5, 2016

Wonder how they coupled the cranks together ?

Certainly would be interesting to know if they got far enough to get any performance figures.

Danno · Aug 5, 2016

The cases look to have a center insert. I guess that would be de riguer for a center support bearing.

Rohan · Aug 5, 2016

Centre insert would also likely be needed to allow for the wider spacing of the cylinders in a VMax, (watercooled),
especially with SR500 pistons.

Do you centre a wider engine in your Commando racer,
or run it lopsided with a std gearbox setup ?

texasSlick · Aug 5, 2016

Rohan said:
Wonder how they coupled the cranks together ?
.

That was my first thought as well. Next, I wondered how a 500 cc crank drive end would stand up to twice the load of 1000 cc's.

Slick

jseng1 · Aug 5, 2016

I think Rohan's right about the case insert and center bearing.

Theoretically the crank should be OK because its getting twice as many power pulses - each pulse is not more powerful - they just happen twice as often.

I don't have any specs or more info. There is some amazing shit you run into in this business.

Its going to be interesting to see what he does with my stuff.

[5 speed edited out until I get better info]

texasSlick · Aug 5, 2016

jseng1 said:
I think Rohan's right about the case insert and center bearing.

Theoretically the crank should be OK because its getting twice as many power pulses - not twice as powerful.

So .... this 1000 cc engine produces no more torque than a 500?

Slick

jug · Aug 5, 2016

Some guys have just too much time on their hands. LOL

JUG

Rohan · Aug 5, 2016

jseng1 said:
I think Rohan's right about the case insert and center bearing.

Theoretically the crank should be OK because its getting twice as many power pulses - not twice as powerful.

texasSlick said:
So .... this 1000 cc engine produces no more torque than a 500?
Slick

On each cylinder's firing stroke....

Most engine designers would beef up the output shaft some to cope with twice the cyclical loading,
but you may get away with leaving it as is, as Jim says....

However, by most reckonings it would/should/could overall be "twice as powerful",
since not many dynos can measure the power of each individual cylinder. !!

BTW, when you look up the VMax's quoted specs, 114 hp out of 1200cc at 9500rpms
would be equiv to a 750cc Commando giving ~85 hp (on cc's alone), and thats at 7000 rpms.
(Whereas the JPN race C'do gave supposedly about 75 hp).
So the VMax head is not actually giving a huge potential breathing increase....
Getting it to 1000cc gains some too, of course.

jseng1 · Aug 5, 2016

The Frankenstein factor alone should be worth the price of admission. Who wouldn't want to take this monster for a spin?

texasSlick · Aug 5, 2016

Rohan said:
jseng1 said:

I think Rohan's right about the case insert and center bearing.

Theoretically the crank should be OK because its getting twice as many power pulses - not twice as powerful.

Click to expand...

texasSlick said:

So .... this 1000 cc engine produces no more torque than a 500?
Slick

Click to expand...

However, by most reckonings it would/should/could overall be "twice as powerful",
since not many dynos can measure the power of each individual cylinder. !!

.

"twice as powerful" requires twice the torque. HP = Torque X RPM / Constant. The equation does not know or regard how many cylinders are in play.

If the dyno measures twice the HP, it must be subjected to twice the torque ... the dyno does not know or regard how many cylinders are in play.

Twice the torque requires more "beef" on the drive side.

Slick

Rohan · Aug 5, 2016

texasSlick said:
Twice the torque requires more "beef" on the drive side.

Not necessarily, since the torques are applied twice as often at half the strength.
As long as the coupling is up to it....

A 1000cc single WOULD require a seriously beefier drive shaft.

A 4 cylinder applies them 4 times more often, at a quarter the strength.
The Guzzi V8 had quite a slim looking little crank, by comparison with the tree trunks in a manx norton !
It (V8 crank) did have to be strong enough to prevent it twisting - and prevent harmonic distortions.

Kvinnhering · Aug 6, 2016

Who says this is 4-cylinder engine, seems to be only 2 cylinders in my opinion.

Rohan · Aug 6, 2016

Correct.

Please go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote, if there is any doubts...

Matchless · Aug 6, 2016

Jim,
All that engine needs is a decent set of crankcases!!
However, the overdrive gearbox is very interesting. How is the extra gear accommodated in the shell. Does he make a new inner cover or modify the existing one?

Fast Eddie · Aug 6, 2016

I would have thought that a standard 4 speed with an overdrive would be an almost perfect road box!

1000cc watercooled 8 valve

Similar threads