[2stroke] Ryger engine

fd-racing a écrit:

Comme ça c'est plus clair  

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

non, ce n'est pas plus clair.
je l'avais vu déja avant ma poste, et c'est une graph quelq'un a fabriqué sur un ordinateur, pas sur un dyno.

koenich a écrit:

launching fabulous stories for nearly 2 years now and not have a single proven result while credible people are jumping ship!? it does matter...

yet again you are wondering why folks are suspicious (to say it nicely...)?

Nothing is without a real explainable reason Koenich, but not here!

JanBros a écrit:

fd-racing a écrit:

Comme ça c'est plus clair  

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

non, ce n'est pas plus clair.
je l'avais vu déja avant ma poste, et c'est une graph quelq'un a fabriqué sur un ordinateur, pas sur un dyno.

Yes Jan, but strange is that you seem to discover it now,
But if you do not read the description well.......!!

Hello Ryger followers,
I understand that waiting is not easy after reading much promises of "coming soon" but we also realy thought that it would be faster. And if I was not inside Ryger organisation, may be I was one a group who have no clue about how much time you have to investigate in such a revolutionary new design and put it in a right way in the market.
All the others, just like ourselves are very excited that we are now where we can show this graph with the latest results, one has asked for over more than a year. But it doesn't matter how we show it, we already knew that negative reactions will come, everyone is free to believe it or not!
The explanation will realy come later and a true connoisseur 2t would even be able to think it for his self, it's just physics.

Have a nice evening and a very Happy New Year
Luc

Just one question about this graph: is it made whith power and torque values at the crank or at the gearbox exit shaft? Motocycle Dynotests results are generally at crank.
Happy new year.
Dan

Je n'y connais rien en 2 temps mais les courbes de banc dynamique ou statique ont toujours des unités (ch ,KW,m.kg,m.daN,SAE,DIN ,tr/mn...),mais la je vois rien ,c'est peut 67 watts ou 67 Megawatts

Les conventions R one, les conventions , comme d'hab : CV, daN.m, tr/mn. Ce devrait plutôt être Kw; N.m et pourquoi pas rd/s ?
Dan

salut dan
Détrompes toi,les Chevaux,c'est plutôt des bancs low cost style dynojet à rouleau mais pour du matos "sérieux" dans une cellule moteur à un demi million d'euros au bas mot,c'est le KW et certaines autres unités du système international.

Après un graphe sans unités ,ce n'est pas digne d'une copie de physique de 2nde alors d'un motoriste qui veut vendre un produit.
Maintenant ,tant mieux pour eux si ils ont trouvé un montage magique qui fait gagner 25 % de puissance spécifique sur un moteur 2T alors que les constructeurs moteur 4T se battent à chaque génération de moteurs pour améliorer au mieux le rendement thermodynamique de quelques pourcents.

Race results will soon reveal the truth, and are the only things that really count.
My friends at TM are not worried.....

Do not forget the R engine is CIK homologated with a 30mm carburettor. The power output shown in the graphs should have been reached with this 30mm unit! Explanation? I posted an extremely critical text about the game that is played around this engine but that was removed by the webmaster. Plain censorship originated by the man behind the R project. I think the game which is played now is to try and convince potential possible buyers that this engine is a killer for the rest of the KZ field. My mate Jan Thiel is very right that the only place to show off is a kart circuit. In Holland 2 engines that were sold could not produce any time that came close to a well adjusted TM engine. Time will tell. And the censorship that was applied here is more than digusting. Wankers doing this do not know what freedom of speech is and means. Period.

Jan Thiel a écrit:

Race results will soon reveal the truth, and are the only things that really count.
My friends at TM are not worried.....

Thanks Jan, that's the right attitude !!

R one a écrit:

salut dan
Détrompes toi,les Chevaux,c'est plutôt des bancs low cost style dynojet à rouleau mais pour du matos "sérieux" dans une cellule moteur à un demi million d'euros au bas mot,c'est le KW et certaines autres unités du système international.

Après un graphe sans unités ,ce n'est pas digne d'une copie de physique de 2nde alors d'un motoriste qui veut vendre un produit.
Maintenant ,tant mieux pour eux si ils ont trouvé un montage magique qui fait gagner 25 % de puissance spécifique sur un moteur 2T alors que les constructeurs moteur 4T se battent à chaque génération de moteurs pour améliorer au mieux le rendement thermodynamique de quelques pourcents.

Salut R one , oui les unités sont celles les plus usuelles, compréhensibles rapidement par la majorité: cv; m.daN; trs/mn, du moins en "mécanique véhicules". Personnellement çà me parle immédiatement, alors que j'ai utilisé en permanence le Watt, KW, N.m et Rd/s dans mon job passé, il ne me viendrait pas à l'idée de traiter un moteur électrique en cv, curieux non?
Pour la puissance du moteur Ryger, certes elle est annoncée très élevée, et si le 4T plafonne vers 300 Cv/L en atmo , le 2T devrait logiquement atteindre 600 Cv/L lorsque poussé au maxi, ce n'est pas encore le cas, même chez Ryger. D'ailleurs , au vu des courbes vers 7800 rpm et sur les 3à 400 rpm suivants il perd brutalement + de 30% de couple et puissance, zone à ne pas utiliser vraiment, après c'est copieux avec un couple maxi de 4 mdaN bien plat , digne d'une bonne 250 2T et d'un 400 4T de bonne facture.
Bonne chances à eux.
Dan

Bob van der Zijden a écrit:

I posted an extremely critical text...........but that was removed by the webmaster.....

Tank's to the webmaster , we are not interrested in your anger , you can keep it , it has nothing to do with free speech , it has to do with respect , any idea of what it means ????

if you want your texts to be read , make them interresting


.

Keep on dreaming mate.

How is it possible to go from 70 HP @ 18000 rpm down to 65 HP @ 12000 ? Why drop the RPM back to 12000, If these figures stated as hard facts by Ryger are true? That would be a much more usable power curve? Why can't we have 18000 rpm any more, unless it was not accurate in the first place, so how can we believe these new numbers now? Combined with unbelievable BMEP figures, its a hard sell guys.

uniflow a écrit:

How is it possible to go from 70 HP @ 18000 rpm down to 65 HP @ 12000 ? Why drop the RPM back to 12000, If these figures stated as hard facts by Ryger are true? That would be a much more usable power curve? Why can't we have 18000 rpm any more, unless it was not accurate in the first place, so how can we believe these new numbers now? Combined with unbelievable BMEP figures, its a hard sell guys.

Uniflow, I will repeat:

I understand that waiting is not easy after reading much promises of "coming soon" but we also realy thought that it would be faster. And if I was not inside Ryger organisation, may be I was one a group who have no clue about how much time you have to investigate in such a revolutionary new design and put it in a right way in the market.
All the others, just like ourselves are very excited that we are now where we can show this graph with the latest results, one has asked for over more than a year.
But it doesn't matter how we show it, we already knew that negative reactions will come, everyone is free to believe it or not!
The explanation will realy come later and a true connoisseur 2t would even be able to think it for his self, it's just physics.

Have a nice day
Luc

There is nothing revolutionary about this Ryger, only the mechanical separation between the crankcase and the scavenging system is different from what we used up to now. And the claim that this engine is a clean engine is an absolute stupid lie, The only way to minimal emissions is direct injection at high pressure for which there is no sufficient time to inject after the piston has closed the exhaust port.
Keep on dreaming 'mate', you let yourself screw by Ryger.

If direct injection is the best solution , why is it not used on 4 stroke engines?
Dan

LucF a écrit:

...may be I was one a group who have no clue about how much time you have to investigate in such a revolutionary new design and put it in a right way in the market...

thats kinda cheeky Luc, I truly believe there are enough people in this forum capable to understand a development process. but usually these are also the people which are skeptical, second-question claims and need to be convinced by facts not words! none of your marketing has lived up to the bright words so far...again and again.

Salut Dan  

Dan42 a écrit:

If direct injection is the best solution , why is it not used on 4 stroke engines?
Dan

Les injections directe haute pression sont bien d'actualité sur certains moteurs actuels de caisse
Et cela ne date pas d'aujourd'hui,avant l'année 2000,j'avais sur mon banc un moteur essence Renault Sport F5R avec un calculo Siemens "ATCHUNG 120 Volts",bon c'était pas fantastique,il bouffait les électrodes des bougies à vitesse grand V.
je suis même pas sur qu'il soit sortit en série?
c'était celui là ou leur moteur d'avion RS gazole,le choix fut vite fait

kenavo
erwan

Bien sûr que cà à existé et existe mais très peu répandus ( Mercédès 300SL dans les années 55, Peugeot injection Kugelfisher). D'après ce que l'on peut trouver comme infos: bruyant ( ça claque un peu), homogénéité du mélange air carburant pas optimum d'oû des imbrûlés et des NOX. Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait beaucoup de soucis technique au niveau des pompes, tous les Diesels ont de la haute pression et même très haute, du grippage avec les carburants actuels????
Dan

Je parles d'essence moderne style le petit 1,6 THP peugeot E.P de 280 ch (et pas KW ) qui est monté sur la 308 GTI ou un truc comme ca.

Les préchambres Ricardo en diesel ,c'était avant,maintenant c'est common rail à tous les étages et turbo et depuis de nombreuses années (voir le premier soft bosch MSA 15 en pompe rotative assistée VP44? ou common rail dont j'ai décortiqué les algorithmes il y a 20 ans ).

Pour en revenir au 2 temps ,le peu que je connaisse ,c'est que pour du low emission,it's direct injection and turbo ?

RYGER :mystification ou réalité,là est toute la question,perso j'ai ma petite idée tellement c'est magique en pression moyenne effective

Message for Dan:
direct injection is already in use on most 4stroke engines. Injection pressures of 120 bar are common.
In the second world war many German aircraft engines had already direct injection with mechanically driven and controlled pumps. High injection pressure is the answer, even on indirect systems. The famous Kugelfischer "Stempelpumpen" were producing some 35 bar which give a much better homogenous mixture than the usual 3-5 bar which was common for many years. For twostrokes I would say you need at least 50-60 bar for indirect injection and I tink 100 bar for direct.
I am presently building a totally new twostroke of 150cc that will give maximum torque at no higher than 8000-9000 rpm so it can be direct injected. It's a design thought primarily for a range extender, tha's were the market is. Power output should be in the range of my friend Jan Thiel's best results with the RSA Aprilia 125cc .My only head wind is the chemo against cancer I'm ondergoing and a complete ruptured achilles muscle. This causes I can only to a fraction of the working hours I'd like to do, but it will not stop me, the engine should be running in a couple of months. I'll keep the forum posted but most certain NOT in the RYGER way....

Hey Bob , why dont you try the Love and Peace way before god's recall , let Ryger do their job  as you do your own job  , there's nothing to win or lose  , after all  it's all about pleasure and fun , be kind and you'll receive kindness ......


.

Bob van der Zijden, we perfectly understand that you don't believe in Ryger engine.
Sure, we understood !
So, now, no need to keep writing on this topic like a troll...
Thank you.