Project 100 (custom enclosed Honda C90 targets 100 mph vmax and 100 km/L FE) - Page 21 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

MetroMPG · 06-06-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

*Sorry but I cant upload images at present - waiting for instructions! 413 Request entity too large (even though they are not) - any suggestions?*

Sorry about that... I'm talking to the server admin about this. Think we'll be sorting it out shortly.

Grant-53 · 06-07-2012, 08:18 PM

The side doors could be opened and closed by a motor driving a rack and pinion actuator. This could be powered by either an air or electric motor controlled by a three position switch. A traditional center stand for parking would require most of the force to be applied in the last 20 degrees of rotation. The big question is when do you want your feet to be inside the frame. Poke around some old car window crank systems.

H2 02 · 06-08-2012, 08:56 AM

"On the surface, the difference seems negligible. Yet, when you consider that the carbureted engine is tunable in a home garage with some simple jetting changes, it is possible to get a little more power out of that bike, which is not the case with the fuel injected engine."
This is wrong.. An EFI system can be adjusted via a laptop/notepad/tablet on the fly, or run closed loop against a preset lambda setting..

Christ · 06-08-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2 02

"On the surface, the difference seems negligible. Yet, when you consider that the carbureted engine is tunable in a home garage with some simple jetting changes, it is possible to get a little more power out of that bike, which is not the case with the fuel injected engine."
This is wrong.. An EFI system can be adjusted via a laptop/notepad/tablet on the fly, or run closed loop against a preset lambda setting..

Yeah, except that process is not only cost prohibitive for many DIY'ers, but proprietary systems simply don't allow this type of tuning. You ever seen a proprietary carburetor widely used on automotive applications that someone couldn't stick new jets in with a screwdriver and a ruler?

H2 02 · 06-09-2012, 09:02 AM

Hi Craig,
I appreciate what you have said and do not wish to be drawn into a petty argument, whilst I agree on your point of 'lack of adjustability' to OEM ECU's, and you can understand the manufacturers reluctance to allow you to do so, the £600 ($1000) investment into a system like a "MegaSquirtPNP + Wide Lambda" is not that cost prohibitive.
Secondly your quote, "proprietary carburetor widely used on automotive applications", (ok, perhaps I have pulled this a little out of context, but bare with me) well this might have been true before 1995 but is no longer. If we wish to adjust the fueling on our 'modern' engines then we have no choice but to explore these options.
The farce of the NEDC (FTP-75) needs to be exposed for what it is, completely unrealistic of real world driving practice, the practice of over fueling (petrol) whilst on boost (+25%) to prevent catalytic convertors from over heating is not only a massive waste of a non-renewable recourse but can not be anymore ecolgically friendly than running a correctly fueld engine with out a catalyst, then theres the diesel particulate filters (or DPF) that save all the soot up in town and dump it all in the countryside.
Iv'e started ranting and have driffted of a bit but I hope you all get my point, so I'm off for a rest before they send the men in white coats to take me away.

Carburetors like dinosaurs once ruled their worlds, but even NASCAR has finally 'stepped up to the plate'

Grant-53 · 06-09-2012, 01:30 PM

Unless there are substantial changes in altitude or temperature, the original carb for the engine may do quite well. Adjustments may be made to account for the different intake tube and the desire for best torque at low RPMs.
At this stage of development the focus is on a workable prototype that is safe and easy to use. Improvements to engine and suspension can be made once proof of concept has been established and a performance baseline documented.

visionary · 06-10-2012, 06:21 PM

Feedback from initial test

The first chance to test the machine was meant to be a quick acclimatisation run around the industrial estate where I have constructed it. It is limited to relatively low speed due to the proximity of cars and other solid objects, but it has a value to check systems. Unfortunately one of my fabricated parts failed and cut the test short just as we were about to record a short video on my phone. It’s a simple fix and has shown up a design flaw, which is really the purpose of this type of test anyway.

So my feedback from the limited experience is as follows –

A – The bike feels VERY unwieldy moving it around (not under power) before the test. The seating position has seemed fine during the construction process, but that has been stationary. Being pushed into position (to start the runs) it feels very awkward, something like a mix of moving a litre sportbike around in a tight space and pushing a full weight cruiser.

B – Preparation for “moving off” from a start needs some coordination. With foot operation of throttle and brake and needing one foot down for stability you have to think a bit. When I tilted the bike to my left side so that I could put my right foot on the throttle, I felt vulnerable to falling to the right. It turned out not to be a problem, but the mind plays tricks on you.

C – Moving off was actually drama free! I was expecting some wobble at low speed as I learned to balance in that crucial 2-10 mph speed range. I easily cracked it first time and it felt very stable. A quick burst of power to get above 10mph where stability is always easier on a bike gave me plenty of confidence, but after later runs I proved to myself that it wasn’t difficult to master anyway.

D – The gearing is no problem. Concerns about the tall (this is geared to do 100mph) first gear with a three speed box and no manual clutch were misplaced. The bike feels responsive, but judging power and weight at these low speeds is difficult. The point (for me) is that early talk about the heavy components, and their effect on a low powered bike, has proved to be wide of the mark. Presently this has all been at low speed (first and second gear), but that’s where problems would show up.

E – Steering is simple. ALL steering is done by the handlebars, as there is no provision to shift bodyweight in the reclined, seated driving position. I noticed my front wheel steering angle during one turn, and was surprised at the large degree of lock I was using, but it’s a by-product of the long wheelbase. At no point did I ever worry about steering, it was very intuitive, but I was reluctant to make slow speed tight turns.

Next steps – after fixing the primary drive tensioner I will recommence testing. This time I will get the video early in the process and post a link so it can be viewed here. Then once I have enough confidence in the reliability, its off to the airfield for some medium speed testing.

Grant-53 · 06-14-2012, 01:09 PM

Like a long wheelbase recumbent bike the leg position lends itself better to pushing backwards than forward. With the foot throttle and body work you are essentially in a two wheel car. Ideally there needs to be some speed sensitive landing gear with small wheels.
Time how long does it takes your compressor to fill the reserve tank to working pressure (90 psi is common). Calculate the volume of the reserve tank and the volume of the cylinder stroke. This will tell how often the cylinders can be used. With you in the seat, measure the ground clearance and determine how much lean is comfortable at a stop or getting out. The vertical center of mass is just above your belt line when in the seated position. Measure that height and it will the same as the distance from the vehicle center line to the contact point at a 45 degree angle.