A new nitro engine coming soon (some say I am mad for doing this!)

[bermudadude]

i tell you what,random idea i had,,to subsidize ur operation ,and pay for research/setup would it be possible for you to make parts for obsolete engines? even some that have just gone . yea i know its all time consuming . just a thought . custom carbs is always a thing as well

 

[Ricky Neal]

Ricky, we are all rooting for you!! We all realize what a daunting task you have.
You mentioned earlier on this post how you appreciate the quality and price that’s offered in today’s engines. I do believe we have taken this for granted over the past couple of decades. It has always been so easy to order an engine and have it show up at your door.
For most of us this is the only way we know to get an engine because most of us have no idea how to build one. For that reason I think an instructional video/ documentary on how to build a nitro marine engine from casting the case, making piston and sleeves, how rods and crank shafts are made and balanced, and how to make button heads. All the techniques, jigs and what mills, and laths you would need to build your own engine. I bet guys like you with your knowledge would do well selling this kind of video. There are a lot of people like me that would spend the money for this kind of content so if the day ever came where there were no companies to buy engines from we all may have to build our own.

if you go back 50 years or more this is what the hobbyists had to do. And who knows with one company left all it would take is another pandemic or any hiccup in the road and all would be lost. It’s Just a thought I had. I guess I’m asking you to do a video of the process your going through and make a video of how you are building your engine and what materials should be used. Of course no one would expect you to give away your design secrets or anything. Not wanting to copy your motor, but so we could design our own and make our own replacement parts for the stuff we have.

just think about it Ricky, a guy like you could do well selling content like that not to mention your success as a manufacturer of a great new nitro engine company.

and this type of video would save the hobby if we ended up with no nitro engines available anywhere.

the engines and everything came from the hobbyists and will stay alive by the hobbyists even if the things are made in our little work shops across the world.

we may have to resort to this if the commercial manufacturer can not make a go at supplying and supporting our hobby.

Maybe I’m off in left field, but if I had the knowledge I would be making and copy righting a video. I don’t think it would hurt you engine business if it comes to market, because let’s face it a lot of people don’t want to build engines and parts, they just want to buy them from you.
Anyway thanks for what you are trying to do and we all wish you the best in success.

thanks
Jim Schmidt

Thanks Jim, I really appreciate the support.

I feel the same, we really do need to share the knowledge to preserve the hobby. There is plenty of information out there regarding 2 stroke engine design but less than you would think regarding high-performance model engines and not a lot about the actual manufacturing process. Finding sub-contractors to take on some of the manufacturing is also very difficult due to the specifics and reasonably small volumes.

As for equipment, jigs, fixtures, etc, a lot of the components for our engines can be made on a conventional lathe and mill with the appropriate skills but this is not really suitable for any kind of volume production.

Modern CNC equipment is the only way forward but there are many ways to skin the cat when it comes to what equipment and how you plan to produce the components.

Up could use a 3 axis mill to mill the ports on liners for example but you would most likely use jigs to get the correct port angles, or you could get a 5 axis machine and you won't need the jigs. This is just an example but should give you an idea of what I mean.

I will be happy to share what we do when we get there but it will be a process that evolves, the plan being that we bring most of the production in-house but initially that is cost-prohibitive so we will be sub-contracting almost all of it. I will still share what we do though.

 

[Ricky Neal]

Unless you have spent some time in a model engine manufacturing company facility it is hard to visualize all the production steps. For quantity manufacturing, the best example for me was the Picco factory. They had many, many high end CNC machines, each producing certain parts. That meant there were no changes part after part, hour after hour, day after day. Shops with only one CNC machine stop often to change tooling and restart again. This can mean the parts made in one batch may be a few thousandths of an inch off here and there. This is certainly the case when the manufacturer does not use high end CNC machines.

I watched Jim Allen, in his shop, assemble engines, one by one, checking every part as he fit each engine together. He checked each and every part to 0.0005 of an inch. He only used WIB bearings, regardless of better pricing from other suppliers. This care is not done in the larger shops as they do not have time and probably do not have the same desire and experience that Jim had.

If you want the volume and pricing of the larger shops, it is available. But, if you want the experience and care that Jim Allen had, you will pay a lot more per engine, IF you can find it.

When Jim and I were talking about making A/A 45 engines in his shop, the question was; Should we make a Maserati or a Ford? We all want a Maserati, but most people can only afford to buy a Ford. He wanted to make Maseratis. I wanted to make a solid that engine most people could afford. However, Jim is gone, so we will never know if we could have ever made a Maserati.

So, making model engines means facing many decisions. Where can it be made in sufficient quality and sufficient quantity? Will they agree to take the time away from their current projects to make these engines? Will they make the engines at a price I can afford the inventory? Finally, will they stand behind the product if there are failures?

Those are four big questions.

I can tell this is said from experience. You are 100% spot on Al. I have also toured the Picco factory and was impressed with the setup. of course, it's relative to the volume of engines they are producing and Picco makes a lot of engines.

In my mind, we are making Masarati's, small volumes and high performance, I make no bones that they will be at the higher end of the price bracket but I see no point in producing something that is not at the leading edge.

These are all challenges that I am aware of and we are looking for the best compromises but any advice is always appreciated.

 

[Ricky Neal]

i tell you what,random idea i had,,to subsidize ur operation ,and pay for research/setup would it be possible for you to make parts for obsolete engines? even some that have just gone . yea i know its all time consuming . just a thought . custom carbs is always a thing as well

It's a good idea but If you saw how much setup there is for an individual component you would realise that there needs to be a certain amount of demand before it would ever be financially viable. As companies stop producing engines and parts this may actually become viable though

 

[Wasted wages]

That was exactly my thoughts many posts ago...

How many blocks or partial engines do you think are out there that only need a part or two to race again?

I know I personally would love to still be able to run some of my old classic motors, but don't due to the lack of replacement parts. There are plenty of classic motors that still run great today...and make **** fine race motors that may only be lacking a rod, or piston liner, or crank.
And most of the manufacturers followed the same design thru their line of motors, to simplify things.

I would think that once sales stop on nitro motors, we will see a surge of classic motors and aftermarket parts appear... at least that is my hope!!

 

[bermudadude]

if somebody was to do the retro thing sticking to the durable engines would probably be a safe bet. the cmb double fixed/full circle crank engines -evo,evo2,evo2000,evo2002 /gold and purple head engines have the same bore case,while cmb i presume ,in the quest for greed decided to change the case bore for no(good) reason besides to make u buy a new engine and now the new sleeves cant be retrofited. picco big case 90. ops big case. k,, mac , all indestructible engines unless ur a noob or rely on really high r's but then ur gonna break everything so u dont matter lol. for real ,these engines are the power houses and there really isnt anything new thats better ,they are just out of production .
food for thought

 

[Wasted wages]

OPS .21 .45 .67 .80 .... all solid performers.
with such a simplified design...

Way back in the Gran Prix days of CMB, I was lucky enough to be exposed to a bunch of good guys that really knew how to make them run... We all blew a bunch of them up, but parts were cheap and plentiful...

I ran a .90 GP in a mono with a huge bored carb in my mono that ran forever.. The carb window was rectangular and so big the barrel wouldn't close off enough to shut down the motor sometimes!!
It also ran on a Mac's 15 cc quiet pipe and
was very hard to hear it during a race ..

Point is, there WERE some good motors that were made obsolete due to constant design changes...were they better ? maybe.
but at some point, yeah I think Bermuda is right.. Greed works it's way into the picture...

 

[dwilfong]

Wonder why CMB is still making eng????
May be because thy change the sleeve OD so you have to by a new one...................
Every one else is out of business.
Seams thy where smart after all in the long run.

 

[Al Hobbs]

CMB is a small company compared to the other Italian engine manufacturers. They were not dependent upon the car engine business to survive as they only make model boat engines. So, when the nitro car business slowed down, CMB was not hurt.

They do not have a large staff or several expensive CNC machines.

Plus, they have received a lot of financial support and design help from model boaters over the years.

 

[Wasted wages]

Just like Microsoft.... because yeah,,, Companies and the general masses just love spending money to keep Mr Gates happy...

Not only did they ( Microsoft ) make you update your current good working Operating System every few years,, they released such screwed up platforms that you had to run out and buy the newest OS again in a year or two just to get away from the last screwed up one you just invested in a few years back...

plus just for an added bonus,,,let's make everyone replace all the other equipment they own, because it will now no longer work with the newest OS...

Same thing with cell phones, electronics, cars,
and on and on.... forced obsolescence,,, it just sucks...

People will buy anything that gives them the appearance of Status... while I am one of those that says, "How is this going to improve my life...do I really need this ? "

Do I really need a toaster that is going to update to my cellphone and Farcebook account to let the world know that I had toast for breakfast ??

Oh well,, just getting old I guess... " Get off my lawn dammit!!!"

 

[RaceMechaniX]

Ricky, ignore the sidebar discussions of producing parts for other engines. It's more than enough to produce parts for your own engines let alone someone else's.

 

[Charles Perdue]

My exact thoughts Tyler....... Any business first task is to make money, otherwise it will just be another lost effort.

Mr. Neal, a new quality toy boat engine or better yet, engines, for us would be very welcome, thank you in advance for your consideration.

Charles

 

[julianconde]

No point to produce other manufacturers parts. Focus on your engines and parts can’t wait to see some pictures of them once completed

 

[Ricky Neal]

Thanks Guys,

I agree and to be clear to all, Priority 1 is to first bring the .21 engine to market first, It's hard to overemphasise just how difficult this is but we are making progress and I am working hard to keep the momentum going.

On the side, while I am waiting for prototype parts for the .21 to arrive I have spent a little time designing a .60/.67/.80 engine with a fully integrated barrel much like the MB40 I mentioned before, this is purely an exercise for me to practice designing engines on CAD and until I can make a success of the first engine I will not spend any real-time or money developing it but thought you all may find some pictures interesting.

(As mentioned, this is just me playing for about 2 hours on the computer but I am trying to integrate some of the more advanced 2 stroke technology, The porting on this is based on the work of Fritz Overmars. The case would be the same for all .60/.67/.80 with a different bore cylinder and piston and maybe a different rod)

 

[gilbert galli]

Thanks Guys,

I agree and to be clear to all, Priority 1 is to first bring the .21 engine to market first, It's hard to overemphasise just how difficult this is but we are making progress and I am working hard to keep the momentum going.

On the side, while I am waiting for prototype parts for the .21 to arrive I have spent a little time designing a .60/.67/.80 engine with a fully integrated barrel much like the MB40 I mentioned before, this is purely an exercise for me to practice designing engines on CAD and until I can make a success of the first engine I will not spend any real-time or money developing it but thought you all may find some pictures interesting.

(As mentioned, this is just me playing for about 2 hours on the computer but I am trying to integrate some of the more advanced 2 stroke technology, The porting on this is based on the work of Fritz Overmars. The case would be the same for all .60/.67/.80 with a different bore cylinder and piston and maybe a different rod)

View attachment 292967

View attachment 292968

View attachment 292969

I don't know if the space between the exhaust, the pipe and the flywheel is too small,
the duct exhaust seems to have too much angle

 

[LohringMiller]

That's an optimum exhaust duct design. It would be possible to curve the duct up for more clearance, but it otherwise follows the design people have found makes the most power in engines with large exhaust ports.

Lohring Miler

 

[Steve White]

Perhaps this element has already been discussed and I missed that section of the thread.

Rod length, rod angle, piston location in cylinder relative to crankshaft position.

I built an OPS 40 years ago and put a Super Tigre G-40 rod in it. Same crank journal size and wrist pin size only the ST rod was shorter. Seems like it was quite a bit shorter, something on the order of 0.150" shorter center to center. The sleeve was dropped in the crankcase to retain stock exhaust port timing.

It ran really well, considerable improvement in performance with same pipe, intake, head and tuning.

Thinking about rod length -vs- rod angle -vs- piston velocity as the crankshaft rotates. Seems like starting at TDC the shorter rod will begin it's descent faster due to the rod angle increase - maybe not much, but there is a difference. As well, once the exhaust and transfer ports are open, the piston will be traveling slower with a shorter rod length due again to decreasing rod angle.

Measuring timing in degrees of crankshaft rotation simply means the port location will be different with rod length changes. I don't know, is it a factor to consider?

Any of you guys mess with rod length? Piston position at BDC relative to crankcase volume and volumetric efficiency would certainly be a consideration.

 

[dwilfong]

That's an optimum exhaust duct design. It would be possible to curve the duct up for more clearance, but it otherwise follows the design people have found makes the most power in engines with large exhaust ports.

Lohring MilerView attachment 292981

That is what I was looking for thank you'

 

[Ricky Neal]

The exhaust would be close to the flywheel but as Lohring has said, the design is based on what is considered to be the best for performance.

To make this work it would require a bespoke pipe with a “swan neck” to get around the flywheel but the potential performance difference is pretty substantial.

There has been a lot of consideration of the port design of this mock up, i have taken advantage of what others have proven to be optimal but packaging it is the real challenge

 

[Ricky Neal]

Perhaps this element has already been discussed and I missed that section of the thread.

Rod length, rod angle, piston location in cylinder relative to crankshaft position.

I built an OPS 40 years ago and put a Super Tigre G-40 rod in it. Same crank journal size and wrist pin size only the ST rod was shorter. Seems like it was quite a bit shorter, something on the order of 0.150" shorter center to center. The sleeve was dropped in the crankcase to retain stock exhaust port timing.

It ran really well, considerable improvement in performance with same pipe, intake, head and tuning.

Thinking about rod length -vs- rod angle -vs- piston velocity as the crankshaft rotates. Seems like starting at TDC the shorter rod will begin it's descent faster due to the rod angle increase - maybe not much, but there is a difference. As well, once the exhaust and transfer ports are open, the piston will be traveling slower with a shorter rod length due again to decreasing rod angle.

Measuring timing in degrees of crankshaft rotation simply means the port location will be different with rod length changes. I don't know, is it a factor to consider?

Any of you guys mess with rod length? Piston position at BDC relative to crankcase volume and volumetric efficiency would certainly be a consideration.

Hey Steve, interesting point

As far as i can tell, the general consensus is that a longer rod has better overall performance characteristics.

One of the main points cited for the benefits of a longer rod is a reduced rod angle, this leads to less side forces of the piston against the liner, reducing friction and heat as well as wear.

Additionally, with a longer rod you will have a slightly longer dwell period at TDC. The benefits of a longer dwell period are mainly around combustion speed.

If you consider that at the point of combustion, it takes a given period of time for “flame front” to propagate from the point of combustion. If you like, this is the expansion rate of the explosion in the cylinder.

Also consider that with our engines, at very high RPM’s the piston will actually be moving down before the flame front can fully propagate, this leads to a reduction in torque and power

if you have ever looked at a dyno graph you will see that torque and horse power tail off in the higher RPM range. This is largely why it happens. In effect the combustion process become inefficient due to the design.

having a longer dwell period helps improve this.

Incidentally, this is also why many manufacturers have moved in the direction of a longer stroke/smaller bore. Because in a smaller bore the flame front has a smaller distance to travel before hitting the liner edge before forcing the piston down.

The end result is holding torque higher up the RPM range resulting in more HP.

You can see this in action with Novarossi .21 engines, over the years they moved to a longer and longer stroke, the last variants having a bore of only 15.88mm, previously they were 16.26mm

Even with a bore of 16.26mm they had the longest stroke .21 engines.

Hopefully that makes sense?