Turbobike Web Site www.Turborick.com

Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection

John C Williamson (john.williamson5@virgin.net)
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:36:58 +0100

I was refering to the charge temperature drop mainly, and the fact that
nitrous seems happy at very rich mixtures.

Nitrouse does not seem to cause detonation easily, I have used massive
amounts on some bikes with no problems.
The two most remarkable were completely stock.  One was a totaly stock and
new GSXR1100WP (Derestricted = 136bhp SAE Rear wheel horsepower) this was my
own bike and on nitrous made a reliable 190 bhp, on pump fuel. This with
stock pipes / plugs / timing etc.
And then my friends 'competition drag bike' . (long low + fat slick and
airshifter. This had a 1100n suzuki motor that was completely stock exept
for a strong clutch, and fixed advance magneto taken from some commertial
generator engine!
We added 150 bhp worth of nitrous oxide, using a home made nitrous system,
and big fuel pump, and the 1/4mile times went from 11.20@119 best, to a 9.01
at 151 on the next run! This ran all season with no problems on pump fuel
too! (threw about a litre of oil out via a big crankase breather into a
catch tank every run)

So I would have thought that Nitrous would allow a slightly richer and
cooler charge / more boost with a few less degrees of advance.

What it does definitely do is remove lag! Full boost can be obtained using a
BIG turbo at low revs off the line, when you hit the button. A bigger turbo
allows more total power due to the lower exhaust restriction. If detonation
is a problem then the nitrous fuel mix could be nitrous / methanol from a
small extra tank. Methanol will allow more boost for lots of reasons.

What do you lot think?

Actually after a bad bike crash that left me paralysed and in a wheelchair
it is all pretty acedemic for me now as I cannot ride a bike now.
Interesting stuff though.

----- Original Message -----
From: CRAIG S WALKER <CSW_CMT@prodigy.net>
To: <bgoodwin@iquest.net>; John C Williamson <john.williamson5@virgin.net>
Cc: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk>; <turbobike@natvideo.com>
Sent: 18 April 1999 20:35
Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection

I believe he is referring to the intake temperature drop.  N2O becomes a gas
at -127 deg F....quite an intercooler.  This fact alone is what led to
funnybike racers experimenting with the stuff in the late seventies - early
eighties.  In those days ,folks like Terry Kizer were running 3 stages of
nitrous w/30-35 psi of boost.

Speaking of which, I heard Terry Mr. Turbo Kizer has run in the sixes on his
push button start pro mod/funnybike ZX11.  Has anyone got the low down?

Craig S. Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Goodwin <bgoodwin@iquest.net>
To: John C Williamson <john.williamson5@virgin.net>
Cc: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk>; <turbobike@natvideo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 1999 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection

N2O makes a great deal of cylinder pressure and heat. N2O often requires
retard and/or good fuel by itself. I do not believe you should add any boost
because of N2O.

John C Williamson wrote:

> >From a simple 'physics' standpoint a carb always has to restrict the air
> flow slightly, as this 'venturi' is the thing that actually draws fuel
> the floatbowl. The flow through carbs is pretty efficient on modern bikes
> though so the difference will be quite small.
> It is true that fuel injection will allow more accurate fueling in all
> conditions, if money / time allows so less flat spots and possible better
> throttle responce.
> On the other hand my 1100 GSX EF used a cheap stock Mr Turbo kit with a
> single draw through carb and this was fine! Idle was a little ragged, but
> kind of adds character! Unlike the short 'banana' drag style exhaust pipe
> that tries to turn your left leg to charcoal.
> Does anyone know how much extra boost is possible with N2O due to the
> cooling effect?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lorcan Parnell <lorcan@globalnet.co.uk>
> To: <turbobike@natvideo.com>
> Sent: 18 April 1999 19:41
> Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection
> Christer,
> I have to disagree. It is not possible to match the performance of EFI
> carbs. If it was, the F1 teams would use carbs. Indycars would use carbs.
> They don't.  EFI will always be ahead and as technology improves more so.
> Your point about the variations in flow is simply wrong. Yes, you need 8
> injectors, possibly more (my bike has 16). Bikes of the future will all
> EFI. The only reasons to use carburettors is because they are cheap, or
> because the rules (like in Pro Stock) don't allow EFI.
> Regards
> Lorcan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Johansson <christer.johansson@mbox383.swipnet.se>
> To: turbobike@natvideo.com <turbobike@natvideo.com>
> Date: 18 April 1999 16:52
> Subject: Re: [turbobike] carburation vs fuel injection
> I thought of going to EFI ,but I saw no reason to do it.
> Efi does have some advantages in that you can map the fuel
> and ignition curves more precisly. But itīs possible with carbs
> and a adjustable ignition module to.
> As long as the engine gets the right A/F ratio there is no advantage
> in EFI powerwise. To know what A/F ratio you have,you will
> need a lambda cell, also a EGT sensor would be nice.
> This goes for both Efi and carb setups.
> During the dial in period I will use a lambda cell and EGT sensors in
> all 4 exhaust pipes and the collector, on the new system.
> Also, blow through carbs could prove more "forgiving" to the design
> of the plenum etc than a EFI would be. If you get sligtly more flow
> through some carbs the injectors on a EFI system will still spray
> the same amount of fuel, on a carb system it will drag the fuel needed.
> Also if you run a high hp EFI system you will need 8 injectors on a
> 4 cylinder engine ,otherwise you could get trouble with idle as the
> injectors would be qite big.
> Carbs gives better fuel atomizing at low engine speeds.
> But a EFI setup looks cooler though....
> Christer