Super Chargers

[mgs9]

I was on this site and fond super chargers :) for nitro engines. Dose any one know if there any good or do they work. :confused: Whats the story on these no one has realy said any thing on them .
url http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/supercharger.htm (http://)
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/products/RBK10530_544.htm (http://)
Do they work like your typical carbureted super charger.
And check these out what do they do how do they work?
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/hypervalve1.htm (http://)

[mgs9]

I dont know if my links worked here they are agin, If they work.

http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/products/RBK10530_544.htm
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/supercharger.htm
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/hypervalve1.htm
there they should work

[CENthasizer]

OH...MY....GOD, dont mean to sound rude, but this has come up in every nitro forum online, including this one about 10 different times. All this thread will end up to be is a war of theory's. There is no one that has tested one that i have seen so we dont know how it performs. However the theory is that on a 2-stroke it wont improve anything because it would blow out the exhaust.
Prepare for a war!

[mgs9]

Oh ok. I guess it was dumb to ask. I dont know how I missed them i usly just skim through the forums. Yea I though about that, It looks like it would be forcing useless air into the carbureter. Ill email them see how its supposedly sapposeto work. Thanx anyway

[ElectricThunder]

There's been a huge debate about them....and the general concensus seems to be that they don't work and aren't logical. A huge flame war usually gets started on this stuff...lol! Sometimes it's very funny to watch.;) But anywho. Don't mention NOS for RC either...that's just askin for it....LOL! :D

[Chris LaPanse]

They would work perfectly













on a four stroke

[mgs9]

Yea i dont want to start a flame war. If they dont work thats dumb that they make them. They probly dont work unless theres a reason we missed that it would work??? :confused:
Do you think it would work on some of thoes 4-stroke airplane engines.
They havnt emailed me back yet.They better have a good explaimation as to how they work on a 2 stroke. :(

[Chris LaPanse]

I'll bet they would give a noticeable increase on any 4-stroke engine. We all know that they work on full size four stroke, even diesel (which don't have spark plugs).

[rcboy201]

the reason they make it is because rb innovations thinks they work and some people are dumb enough to buy them

[grannys]

Remember the 2 stroke Detroit Diesels that came from the factory w/ a supercharger.......

Grant

[Chris LaPanse]

Really? Can you give us a link?

[Scomp87]

I never got into those flame wars... but even if a superscherger does blow tons of excess straight through, there are still more molecules going through that chamber, and when the port close up, theres more air, and the same space. correct me if im wrong, it still works on a 2-stroke.

http://www.turborick.com/turbobike/archive/0888.html

[Mike Keeney]

The function of a supercharger is 'almost' exactly the same as a turbocharger.

Everything revolves around the fuel to air ratio. For example, a normal gasoline engine runs best at 14 PPM (Parts Per Million) fuel to air ratio. At idle the engine is fed a small quantity of fuel which is atomized and mixes with a restricted amount of air. When you accelerate the butterfly opens to let in more air, which is mixed with a higher quantity of fuel. The farther you press the accelerater down the more fuel and air get into the engine. The magic is that the 14 PPM ratio is maintained at all times. You can change the ratio if you like, but keep in mind that 14 ppm is the optimum mix. Lowering the ratio to 13 PPM will lean out the engine and decrease performance. The same is true for if you raise the f/a ratio. The engine will run rich and performance will again drop.

What a supercharger or turbocharger does is simply force more air into the engine. If you kick up the fuel feed proportionatly, you get more power. Superchargers on T/F dragsters pump in enough air and fuel that by the time the piston is at TDC the mix is nearly a solid. But no matter how much air and fuel is in there, the optimum ratio must still be maintained.

Cheers,
Mike

[cool head]

actually that 14/1 ratio is not the best ratio for power. 14.7-1 is the stoiciometric ratio. and that ratio emmits the lowest emmisions. if you want power in a gasoline engine the ratio will be a lot richer. in a glow engine the ratio is like 3-1. but the fact is, without a bunch of modification to the exhaust and intake, superchargers and turbos will not work on a stock 2-stroke engine. they do build a 200hp kit for the banshi ATV. it includes pistons, cylinders, turbo and exhaust. the cost of the conversion is around $6000. the banshi only costs $5000.

[mook]

This is interesting me.

so I have a question

Why do people port there engines? is it to improve gas flow?

If so,then would a supercharger not improve gas flow /velocity- giving more power?

[cool head]

to answer your question. no. velocity will change with engine rpm, but the amount of air/fuel drawn into the engine for each cycle is limited to displacement and carb orface diameter. porting an engine changes the way and time the air fuel enters the crank case, and how it is transferd from the case to the cyl. porting an engine is usually done to to improve the exchange of gasses from the crank case to the cylinder, and removing the unwanted exhaust gasses that remain in the cylinder when the intake charge enters the cylinder.
the carb works by vacuum drawing the fuel into the intake air stream. when the crank window closes. the preasure from a t/c or s/c would still there and has no place to go. and i would imagine the preasure will force the fuel back towards the tank if the preasure is greater than the exhaust preasure to the fuel tank, following the path of least resistance. thats just one of the reason it won,t work. another is because of the port configuration, there is a moment when all ports are open at the same time, constant preasure when all ports are open will force a good portion of the fuel out the exhaust and without a much larger expansion chamber you will be unable to scavange that charge back into the cylinder, wasting a lot of fuel and soaking the side of your car with it too.

hope that gives some fuel for thought

[Soupisgoodfood]

Remember the 2 stroke Detroit Diesels that came from the factory w/ a supercharger.......

They were probably valved 2-strokes.

12 cylinder, turbocharged, 2-stroke diesel engines are quite commonly found in locomotives. Infact, these types of 2-strokes require a supercharger or turbocharger to run.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel-two-stroke1.htm

The problem with the 2 stokes we use isn't the fact that they're 2-strokes per se, but that they're valveless.

[ctwalker]

I have driven several of those 2-stroke Detroits. They have a turbo, not a supercharger. Also way different construction than a nitro engine. Conventional valves etc.

[mgs9]

I emaild that site a couple days ago asking how much power they increas the engine. They said that the super chargers would give a 25% power increas, saposing they work. I also eamiled them about how they would work on a 2 stroke. They havent emailed me back yet.

[vtl1180ny]

The problem with the 2 stokes we use isn't the fact that they're 2-strokes per se, but that they're valveless.

Bad misconception.... There IS an intake valve... Pull off your carb and spin the flywheel...

[NitroBoy24]

The fact there is an intake valve doesnt make any difference. If you are forcing air into an engine that has no exhaust valve then having an intake valve doesnt really matter now does it? It is possible to succesfully S/C 2-strokes, its just a pain in the rear. Give Maverick Racer a pm if you want a very detailed response :D

Edit:
Hahaha, howstuffworks.com, awesome site!!! :cool:

[mgs9]

like nitro boy said, it dosnt matter theres an intake valve. The valve in nitro engines are not run off a cam shaft, when you have a cam shaft and a super charger, it makes the hole engine run faster so the cam shatf runs faster, opening and closing the valves faster, in the end making you engine run faster.
I actuly think that it would make it run a little better, i think it would force just a little more fule-air in, but not a hole lot because the engines alrready force alot in as it is to begin with.

[4x4_Racer]

Aint worth your $$ if you ask me.

[NitroBoy24]

like nitro boy said, it dosnt matter theres an intake valve. The valve in nitro engines are not run off a cam shaft, when you have a cam shaft and a super charger, it makes the hole engine run faster so the cam shatf runs faster, opening and closing the valves faster, in the end making you engine run faster.
I actuly think that it would make it run a little better, i think it would force just a little more fule-air in, but not a hole lot because the engines alrready force alot in as it is to begin with.

The most important thing about camshafts and exhaust/intake valves is that the air your forcing isnt shot straight out the exhaust port (if it were on a 2-stroke).

And unless your going for the eye-candy/bling factor save your $$$.

[rocketguy]

on the detroits.. the supercharger really isn't one.. it is just a blower, the engine operates exactly like a two stroke, except the blower blows exhaust out and pushes clean air in.

[skulnick7]

yes the superchargers actually do work trust me i know someone that has one on a stock t-maxx and he clocked it at about 50mph but the super chargers are mainly for torque and acceleration not for speed. But if you guys are really interested in getting big power for only $90 you have to go to jagrc.com they sell nitrouse oxide kits for $90, they have a video on the website that they tested there kit with a bone stock t-maxx 2.5 and they clocked it at just under 100mph. the nitrouse kit gives you about 7,000 more rpm too.









I was on this site and fond super chargers :) for nitro engines. Dose any one know if there any good or do they work. :confused: Whats the story on these no one has realy said any thing on them .
url http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/supercharger.htm (http://)
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/products/RBK10530_544.htm (http://)
Do they work like your typical carbureted super charger.
And check these out what do they do how do they work?
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/hypervalve1.htm (http://)

[cool head]

a stock t-maxx clocked at 100 mph? did they drop it from an airplane, or throw it out of a car going 100mph? :eek:

here, read this thread in its entirety. damn it was hard to find it, but it will give detailed information from some very smart and not so smart people.
http://www.radiocontrolzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124462

[skulnick7]

no they didn't, and get this they started from a complete stop and they drove it in the rain when they clocked it

a stock t-maxx clocked at 100 mph? did they drop it from an airplane, or throw it out of a car going 100mph? :eek:

here, read this thread in its entirety. damn it was hard to find it, but it will give detailed information from some very smart and not so smart people.
http://www.radiocontrolzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124462

[grannys]

Some of the Detroit engines such as the 92 series even comes from the factory with the supercharger and an additional turbocharger. Remember the blower/superchargers from the full size Top Fuel / Funny Car of the '60s/early 70s ? They used the 6-71 that was lifted directly from the side of a 6-71 in-line GMC diesel.

The Detroits have exhaust valves that are cam actuated, but the intake valving is a ported sleeve just like our nitro engines. Both the ported sleeve and the poppet design are a form of valve, it's the timing of the valve that's the real variable.

The thing that comes to my mind is the fact that our nitro engines are pretty well scienced out right from the manufacturer. There is not a lot of extra strength built into their design. If there was some extra strength found that was not needed, the design would likely be changed to improve the power/weight ratio of the engines (providing it was cost effective). Start pumping up the power and i suspect that the crankshaft's rod pin and con rod itself would be the 1st limitation encountered.

Is there a net benifit to supercharging our nitro engines? The test i like to use is...does the supercharging net us an improvement in our vehicle's power-to-weight ratio? In the case of the RB innovations design, i don't see an o-ring drive that's capable of providing the more than 1.22psi boost needed to offset the vehicle's increased weight. Say you had a .21 sized engine that put out 3hp in a vehicle that weighs 6lbs. That's 2 lbs per hp. Say you add a supercharger package that weighs 8oz. Your vehicle now weighs 6-1/2lbs and now needs 3.25hp just to maintain the same p/w ratio. But the goal here was to improve vehicle performance, not just engine performance, so we need more than this 8.3 percent power improvement to net a gain. If RB found a .25hp increase in power from their supercharger package, their promotional department would be negilgent not to use the numbers in their ads. Nevermind the fact that they would use numbers from an engine dyno test that would not take into account the need to offset increased vehicle weight, a documented .25hp power increase would be a huge selling point for them.

And don't even get me started on the electric supercharger i see tested in the magazines. The RC Driver article documents a .076 hp gain in a C4, a 3% net increase in hp. The article says that it disproves the theory that a 2 stroke cannot be supercharged. What the article does not tell you is that it did not prove that a supercharger will improve your vehicle's performance. Here's the way in see it...If the whole supercharger system, including required external ESC, weighs in at any more than 82 grams (i'd bet it's heavier), you will lose performance in our 6lb/3hp vehicle even though power has been increased!!! Then there's the added drain on your reciever battery. Adding another reciever battery, 90 grams or so, for the supercharger is a huge step in the wrong direction- the the supercharger tested cannot even offset the weight increase for the added battery alone. If i were designing a system that added electric power to my nitro engine, i believe the direct approach would be best...just attach a pinion instead of a fan to that electric motor and put the power directly to the spur gear!!! much simpler and no need to change the carb's needle settings.

Keep in mind that the above p/w thoughts are as applied to the speed runs forum we are posting in. If we start turning corners with our cars, increased weight is an even bigger consideration and has to be offset with better handling as well.

I could be wrong here...i look forward to opposing viewpoints.......

Grant

[cool head]

well grant, i wish i could argue with you. but i can't. your statments are valid. and you never mentioned the mechanical disadvantages as well.
i'm with the law thats states, if you want power, buy a good engine. if that ain't enough, you didn't buy the right engine. or use 80%. :D

[mgs9]

Yea get a nice 4-cylinder like this http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science-fair-projects-kits/science-fair-projects-kits-1346.html

Add some type of super charger and some nitrous. If they make them, add a turbo chager to it as well, but it would probbly be over ruled by the super charger.
I think thats an awsome engine, none the less.

[skulnick7]

sorry they don't make turbo chargers for r/c cars but they do make nitrouse systems

Yea get a nice 4-cylinder like this http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science-fair-projects-kits/science-fair-projects-kits-1346.html

Add some type of super charger and some nitrous. If they make them, add a turbo chager to it as well, but it would probbly be over ruled by the super charger.
I think thats an awsome engine, none the less.

[ElectricThunder]

Isn't nitromethane more explosive/flammable than nitrous? And wouldn't injecting nitrous oxide into an engine that uses nitromethane blow it apart? If anything, that's definitely asking for MUCH less engine life and problems in the future, so I'm guessing. :eek:

[mgs9]

Like it sais on that one jagrc site, nitrous is not explosive or flamable. But it breaks the nitrgen and the oxygen apart. I guess the Oxygen that breaks apart makes a more effective explosion. Im not realy sure, but if thats the case then it would make pretty much any engine run faster because oxygen makes all combustion engines run.

[Chris LaPanse]

A question about this maxx that did 100. Was it running on the rims? Those tires blow apart at about 65 or so. Also, that would be asking for the engine to either pull a stock gear ratio at over 80000 rpm (i'd like to see that survive), or pulling over 40000 on a 8 to 1 gear ratio. No engine could do that with those size tires. As for the N2O, I will believe it when I see a dyno test by a third party (such as RCCA, RC car, or other magazine). Until then, it is just a plausible theory that I personally wouldn't drop a hundred bucks on (or however much it costs)

[cool head]

i could see running nitrous oxide if i were drag racing. but when you use NOS, you need to have a fuel enrichment system to get enough fuel to mix with the NOS. that would be ok if you used NOS during every run. but inbetween the use of nitrous your mixtue would be too rich for the engine to run well. and without an overly rich mixture, you'd burn up the engine in no time.

ther's no way in hell a t-maxx hit 100 mph even with every avalable hop-up part. a t-maxx has very little aerodinamics, and what a t-maxx does have for aerodinamics resembles a parachute. it's dificult to even get a 1/8 onroad to go that fast with an aerodinamic body, more power and half the weight
JAGRC has conned some more people. :p

[mgs9]

Lol. I realy don't know what it takes to run NOS.
About that engine.I know alot of people think that an air plane type engine like that couldn't cut it. I personaly thing that it would work pretty good for trying to reach a high speed. I know it dosn't read-line as high as the 1 cylinder 2-stroke but they have alot more power. You could pretty much set up any gear ratio you want with it (mabey like a 2 speed tranny with a final ratio of mabey 1.25;1), which i think that engine could handle.
Im no expert but thats my 2 cents.
I wana know what you guys think.

[cool head]

i think a 5lb engine with 4hp is an anchor compared to an os rz.21 that weight 12oz with 2.5hp.
now thats gotta be worth more than 2 cents!

[mgs9]

Hp isn't everything. The rz.21 may have 2.5 hp but hp is only the rotation of speed over a period of time, meaning since it has such high rpm its peak hp is going to be high as well.That 4 cylinder engine has way more tourqe, "Horse power sells cars, Tourqe wins races".

[cool head]

Hp isn't everything. The rz.21 may have 2.5 hp but hp is only the rotation of speed over a period of time, meaning since it has such high rpm its peak hp is going to be high as well.That 4 cylinder engine has way more tourqe, "Horse power sells cars, Tourqe wins races".

if that was the case, why dont we see diesels in nascar. diesel tractor pullers suck, and thats where i'd expect to see them shine. and F1 cars are high hp and little torque. and to top it off, 90% of the top 250mx riders are back on 2-strokes whch have a lot less torque than the 450 thumpers. and in all actuality, money wins races! no doh, no go!

[mgs9]

True, I see your point.
Torque gives you power to get off the line in a hurry, and hp maintains it. They don't use diesels because the rpm is too low.

[ducati777]

Diesels aren't used in racing much because they don't have the HP!!! Which was uhhhh dood up there ^^^ point. Its true you can make a sickly powerful diesel engine, but they become huge, look at trains....

And in the torque vs hp arguement, have you guys heard of "the area under the line" ?? Refering to the area under a torque like on a dyno graph. If you take the area of it, its a representation of how much work the motor can do over the entire rpm range. A good example of this was done in a motorcycle magazine recently, where they pitted the GSXR1000 against the Hayabusa in a drag race. The GSXR1000 has almost the same HP, but 100 pounds less weight, and the busa took it to town. The Busa had more area under the curve, or more average torque I guess you could say. But it takes both to go fast.

In RC's, the 4 strokes are really slow. People claim they have this amazing torque, but the truth is that they didn't gear thier car up to have the same top speed as the 2-stroke they replaced. Typically 4 strokers turn much lower rpms...

Its the same as dropping a 6 tooth clutchbell in my buggy and saying whoa man, sick torque! Course top speed is only 15mph, but TORQUE!!!! (yea yea, I've never seen a 6 tooth clutch either...)

[cool head]

all very good points. bigger isn't always better. the reason the busa took the gixer is because the added weight of the busa allows more of the hp to get the ground.i've ridden both bikes, and the gixxer was nose up and to the busa was getting tail happy. take the 2 bikes to laguna seca and the gixxer will likely have better lap times. like your duck against a v-max.`

[mgs9]

The rc 4 stroke engines can't be that bad or they wouldn't use them in planes. I guess your right though. Mabey the engines just dont have enough rpm no mater what ratio and torgue they have. Thanx for the input.

[OutFrontFrames]

Just to touch on the whole Nitrous thing. Yes it works but the JAG system doesnt work very well at all. affordablenitrotech.com sent us one for testing so that we could write a review for their website. The idea is close but the metering was waaaaay off. Everytime you use the sytem its different. If you spray too much you instantly pop the glow plug. Not only that but its a completely dry nitrous system, meaning that there is no compensation for fuel with the nitrous. Nitrous itself is not flammable. Its merely an oxidizer. I was a vendor for Nitrous Express for a looong time so I understand it fully. If the JAG system had 2 needle valves, one for the nitrous side and one for the fuel side (similar to an NX shark nozzle) the system would be much more tunable. Anyways I guess the point I am trying to make is don't waste your money on the JAG system. Its a good idea and a great first attempt for the hobby but the system just sint right yet. They need to do a little more homework first.

[NitroBoy24]

if that was the case, why dont we see diesels in nascar. diesel tractor pullers suck, and thats where i'd expect to see them shine. and F1 cars are high hp and little torque. and to top it off, 90% of the top 250mx riders are back on 2-strokes whch have a lot less torque than the 450 thumpers. and in all actuality, money wins races! no doh, no go!

Apparenlty you never saw a single race in the outdoor motocross series, the 2-strokes got flat out raped by the 4-strokes. And you just watch, the 4-strokes are going to slowly take over in the indoor MX races too.

And ack, just close this thread :rolleyes: First superchargers, then the nitrous and some bs about a maxx going under 100 mph (bull I saw that video, no way in hell it got over 50mph), and now its just a flat out 4-stroke vs 2-stroke flame fest.

Why are 4 strokes more popular in every day equipment? 2-Strokes are a complete pain in the ass to keep running and you get to look forward to the joy of mixing in bean oil with your gasoline. 4-strokes are reliable, plain and simple.

[mgs9]

I don't think we are realy "flaming". Were just exchanging information. Besides there just going to be brought up again.

By the way ducati777 trains have huge engines because they have to pull a mile of steel. Im sure a 2 or 4 stroke gas engine would have to be that big or bigger to pull a train as well.

[cool head]

[QUOTE=NitroBoy24]Apparenlty you never saw a single race in the outdoor motocross series, the 2-strokes got flat out raped by the 4-strokes. And you just watch, the 4-strokes are going to slowly take over in the indoor MX races too.

raped? look whos riding what, depending on the track. each have their advantages. las vegas was a 2-stroke haven. 4-strokes do have quite a cc advantage too. if you put charmichael on a 2-stroke at every venue, he'd still win against the thumpers. their sponsers want them to ride both for sales purposes.
and 4-stokes are reliable as long as they are running. ever try to start a crf450 or yz450f when its hot! good freakin luck. seen bunches of DNF's because the riders can't get them started again.

[skulnick7]

actually they do make a fuel system for r/c cars it is from rb innovations and it is called hypervalve.

i could see running nitrous oxide if i were drag racing. but when you use NOS, you need to have a fuel enrichment system to get enough fuel to mix with the NOS. that would be ok if you used NOS during every run. but inbetween the use of nitrous your mixtue would be too rich for the engine to run well. and without an overly rich mixture, you'd burn up the engine in no time.

ther's no way in hell a t-maxx hit 100 mph even with every avalable hop-up part. a t-maxx has very little aerodinamics, and what a t-maxx does have for aerodinamics resembles a parachute. it's dificult to even get a 1/8 onroad to go that fast with an aerodinamic body, more power and half the weight
JAGRC has conned some more people. :p

[cool head]

actually they do make a fuel system for r/c cars it is from rb innovations and it is called hypervalve.

all the hyper valve is, is an automotive vaccuum line check valve. you can buy one at any auto parts store for a few bucks. a lot less than rb is charging. the problem is severe engine flooding when the engine dies unless you lift your fuel lid. i've got a box full of them at work, and tried them before. they dont do squat for performance. in fact they are a tuning nightmare. all their product are marketed to people with no mechanical knowledge or common sence.

[ducati777]

I'm not familiar with the hyper-valve, but I'm assuming its a 1-way valve on the pressure line? I always thought it sounded like a good idea, but I haven't tried it. I've seen them used on airplanes, but not so much cars.

As far as gas powered trains... yea it would be a large motor, but not as large. A good turbo setup on a gas engine can see 150-200 hp per liter, where if you get to 100 hp per liter on a diesel, you're doing really really well.

Another thing, at least when I was into boating, is safety. Our boat carried 1100 gallons of diesel. Drop a match, and no big deal. But 1100 of gasoline is pretty dangerous. But long range boats, like trains, don't mind the extra weight and size of diesel. Typically diesel is more reliable. Offshore racing boats are almost all gasoline, and high power outboard motors are almost all 2-stroke...

Far as 4-strokers in planes.. Usually used by guys trying to look scale, and sound scale. Because of lower rpm, and decent torque, you can run a larger diameter prop on your model airplane. For looks and sound, 4-strokers are way more scale than the 2's...

On MX racing, 4 vs 2 vs 4... blah. Tough to tell on that one. The rules were written to keep the racing even. Its not like they said okay run a 4-stroke with a turbo and 4x the displacement... They wrote the rules to keep it even, and hopefully let the riders themselves be the winning factor. Its like arguing Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge in NASCAR, its pretty dang even from a rules standpoint.

But who cares, when it comes to RC, a 2-stroke will almost always out perform the 4. Even if the 4 gets a 1.5x displacement advantage. Also in our hobby the 2's are easier to take care of and run hard. No valves floating at high rpm, no rocker adjustments, and our fuel already has the oil in it. But of course I'm not about to put a 2-stroke in my 1:1 car, that would be a royal pain. Think Citroen tried it for a while... I seem to recall something about 3 cyl. 2-strokes but I could be off.

[mgs9]

Mabey more hp per liter, but not as much torque. Why do you think they use deasle in trains. Actuly alot of them are turbine now days. But this forum isnt about trains.

[ducati777]

Turbine trains??? Saaa weeet. I haven't seen those.

But actually, you don't need torque in a train... hear me out... A train doesn't use the motor to drive the wheels, it drives a generator. Thus the motor can run constant rpm while the train accelerates, pulls, does whatever. In that case you could have a really peaky fiesty lil motor thats only happy for about 1000 rpm out of its range... and run it right in the sweet spot the whole time...

But considering cost, fuel range, safety, and reliability issues its no wonder a train uses a diesel.

[mgs9]

Mabey your right. The whole turbine trian isn't what you think, It dosnt look like a jet turbine. http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/dec03/departments/news_notes/news_note.html

[TyceCCSU@aol.com]

A supercharged :eek: 2 stoke!! Yippie! Where Can i buy one....i need another paper weight to hold down by boost bottle!!

[cool head]

damn tyce, where you've been. we have tested the superchargers and found they actually do work. we saw an 80% increasen hp. and 90% increase in torque. check the dyno stats below








































































LOL> NOT!

[TyceCCSU@aol.com]

For a minute there, Einstein woke from the dead. I was waiting for the page to load for what i thought was going to be a deviation of more "fudge factor engineering" excell sheets!

I've been busy brother....got out of RC, yet I'm still into engine development. Getting married too, so that eats into my spare "tyce time". So who do we have to whip into shape? Newbies asking the question never bothered me....it's the people who these kids look up to that pass along false information, be it by mistake or otherwise. :rolleyes:

[cool head]

LMFAO!
fudge factory engineer, thats hillarious. got yer a$$ good! congrats on getting married. it's nice to see another sacraficial lamb. it's that damn golden doughnut!
i went away from rc for a while too. bought a couple of cr125 dirt bikes and a 650 jet ski. all are cheaper to maintain than my rc cars. but still do some bashing from time to time. plus there's humor on this forum you just can't find anywhere else.

nice to see ya back.

[LazeR_88]

it pushes more air into the engine´, which will help replace the exhaust with more fresh air-fuel mix.. i think it work, but i dont think it gives that much "power-for-the-buck". i would have saved the money and then buy a new higher performing engine and pipe.

[dmills27ny]

I had a turbo set up on polaris 600 twin snowmobile, its 2 stroke and it made hell of a difference.

[jef919]

After careful consideration I have decided that you can supercharge 2 stroke. Though it is highly inefficient. You obviously have to have a greater air-fuel inflow than outflow within in the combustion chamber. As in the supercharger has to be able to pump in more air-fuel mixture than the exhaust is dumping out. In a 2 stroke both intake and exhaust ports are open at the same time.

My guess is that these "supercharges that you speak of cannot deliver enough airflow to build much if any boost. So the only thing that they are doing is essentialy blowing out more exhasut gasses making room for more air-fuel mixture, making for more efficient combustion. Not forced induction. Also when you increase the amount of air you must compensate by adding more fuel or there will be no gain inpower. Air is not flammable.

[kenzo_1]

Supercharging a glow 2-stroke should increase the volume of air/fuel that actually gets into the combustion chamber... as the piston moves towards TDC, exhaust ports close and the intake valve (under the carb, on the crank) is open... that is where the extra air/fuel volume will go first... then the piston comes back down after ignition of air/fuel. Exhaust ports open (and transfer ports), intake port (on the crank) closes. piston continues down and eventually the piston moves the air/fuel through the transfer ports into the cylinder... Yes, the extra volume will (very likely) mostly go out with the exhaust gases, but tuning the exhaust system to maintain the right level of backpressure could help. To me, it just sounds like something that might be fun to play with. I would rather put money into my basher this way as opposed to just blinging out my ride.

[BigDaddyJ70]

I was on this site and fond super chargers :) for nitro engines. Dose any one know if there any good or do they work. :confused: Whats the story on these no one has realy said any thing on them .
url http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/supercharger.htm (http://)
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/products/RBK10530_544.htm (http://)
Do they work like your typical carbureted super charger.
And check these out what do they do how do they work?
http://www.rbinnovations.com/newsite/main/hypervalve1.htm (http://)
I just put one in my savage. It rocks!! I've only spent 10 min on it trying to tune it but to much snow to properly tune! (No traction) It busted the coupler that holds the exhaust manifold and the pipe. Blew it away so i'm off to the hobby store to get a thicker coupler! I'll let you know how it ends up - But so far so great!

[BlueBeast8-Port]

Yea, all this BS i nthis thread is jsut theorys and assumptions. Why dont we actually get feedback from people that have this product or have used it. Id like to see some speed runs before S/C and after.

[BigDaddyJ70]

Yea, all this BS i nthis thread is jsut theorys and assumptions. Why dont we actually get feedback from people that have this product or have used it. Id like to see some speed runs before S/C and after.
I'll have to take the Supercharger off but as soon as the weather gives me a dry spell I’ll put some runs of equal length together and let you know how it ends up. I was thinking about 100 feet. May be less. I'll figure it out. The forecasts look lousy for the next 3 or so days but sooner or later I'll get to it.

[tec_41]

Yea, all this BS i nthis thread is jsut theorys and assumptions. Why dont we actually get feedback from people that have this product or have used it. Id like to see some speed runs before S/C and after.

If there are any speed increases, I would DEFINATELY not buy one. If you reach a higher speed with the same gearing, you know that your engine is revving higher than it should be.

If it does, however, increase acceleration then I think it might be worth getting just not for the price. If it increases acceleration, you can change the gearing to reach a higer top speed than before but with the same acceleration.

[Anarchy_Biker]

If it is a two-stroke, NO! there is no valves so all you will do is force more in and more out(and i don't mean power wise) it will only eat fuel. But if its a Four-stroke thats completely different and if its manufactured well it should wour well.

[insano]

I figured I would just chime in to say the exact same thing that has been said 50 times already in a blatent attempt to make myself sound smart.

P.S. How's in going CH??

[mook]

has anyone ever dynoed a supercharged ic?

If not, can someone PLEASE do it

[GordonFreeman]

Just remember a two-stroke engine is not just sitting there at BDC (allowing a steady state condition to occur). The airflow dynamics that occur while the engine is running are very complex. Universities do research using super-computers and high-speed cameras through clear heads on these flow and burn patterns. "Supposing is good, finding out is better" - Mark Twain

The expansion chamber on a two-stroke can actually push fuel-air back into the cylinder.

FYI, on a four stroke, generally the intake and exhaust valves ARE open at the same time.

Also remember if you slap F1 tires on a Tercel, it ain't neccesarily gonna go faster. Does that mean F1 tires are bad?

My points are these, does the system you mentioned make more power? Maybe, probably. Is it optimal? No. In a Capitalist society, the goal is to make money, not neccesarily the best product (hence "pet-rocks"). Are there easier cheaper ways to get more power to the ground on an RC vehicle? Yes.

[hotpipes]

ok i had to get my 2 cents in this...myself i do not think it would work. BECAUSE!
if you take your head off you 2 stroke rc engine ,and rotate it to bottom dead center....look at the top of the intake/boost port...the exhaust port is much higher then the intake port.
so my way of thinking is : As the piston rotates up (with forced air) it would get shut off before the exhaust closes...so that means compression would not increase from the super charger.

if you want more compression! the best thing i figure to do on a 2 stroke is shave the deck height of the top of piston sleeve.match the ports to the block(w/o changing prot timing)...thats the hole reason for a super C.or blower.

even with a deck heigth change...in the long run... it would'nt last long.as the piston /sleeve were in you start to loose compression,and on a 2 stroke that has a lot of wear from 1 gal of fuel or more you would loose even more compression.unless!!! it had piston rings...then this would clear the compression lost from blow by.

steve pond
your the man for this one.(port timing/port duration) would be another improvment over the stock cheap nitro engines. like steve did to the savage stock .25 engine.

[xilix]

I've seen turbo charged two-stroke Yamaha Banshee's, as well as two-stroke Honda 250R 4-wheelers that have turbo set-ups up at the Monson, MA hill-climbs, and that was over 10 years ago.

[ducati777]

Gah, you guys understand there is a fundamental difference between turbo's and superchargers right?!?!?!?!

A turbo on a 2 stroke works fine, because whatever boost it creates, is generated by an equal or greater amount of backpressure, thus the fuel won't be pushed out of the chamber, because there is suffiecient backpressure from the turbo....

A supercharger creates boost from a mechanical load on the engine, fuel can be pushed out since there is no increase in backpressure on the exhaust.

Repeat after me, turbos work fine on 2 strokes, superchargers do not.

Been on this board for years and people still can't figure this one out.

[mp7maxx]

atleast there is someone that knows the difference. does anyone have an idea on how to make a turbo for a rc

[crazyspeeder13]

atleast there is someone that knows the difference. does anyone have an idea on how to make a turbo for a rc
start praying really really hard, and get a cnc machine with some highly expesnive metals and get highly educated in machining, hope that helps

[mook]

A supercharged four stroke would be easier & cheaper

[ducati777]

does anyone have an idea on how to make a turbo for a rc

Oh man, boy have I thought about that one a lot. The turbo would be sooo small, and then it would spool to wicked rpms too. Full size turbo's spin 100k rpm, dentist drils spin 500k rpm, I bet an RC sized turbo would spin like a dentist drill....

It would be wicked cool, but the level of tolerance required along with the size of the parts would make it stupidly expensive. It could be done, but dang would it be spendy.

Still how cool would it be to hear a turbo spool in your car as you came on boost? Muhahahahahahahah.

[jef919]

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1939/naca-tm-908/

[mook]

i would love a dump valve

pssssssssh

[ducati777]

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1939/naca-tm-908/

Whoa... I'm tryin my best to understand it all.... Good post man.