2014 cafe' racer

[motorat]

did you all see this??
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2012/12/royal-enfield-unveils-2014-cafe-racer/

[Ducati Scotty]

Saw that, was the link from this board?  Nice presentation.  They said they'll be in the US in July or August so they'll be a 2014 model technically.  Also confirmed 535 displacement.

I believe the statement to be sincere BUT things can happen.  I wouldn't be surprised if delivery date and specifics change.  It's just the nature of business.  Regardless, I'll be poking my nose in and asking questions at the dealer in spring time.

Scott

[Royalista]

Oh yeah, the excitement in the speaker's voice is catching. That's always cool.
But Royal Enfield succumbing to the café racer hype? Really?

Honestly I appreciate individuals investing their ingenuity, skill and creativity in pushing a bike to its limits. I even like the café racer show, although I took offense to their contemptuous comments on the Classic.
Likewise, in the comments to the presentation there is plenty of prejudice against Enfields. In the light of this I'm uncomfortable with the presentation of a bike in a segment it cannot possibly compete. How about focusing on the strong points?
Didn't Bullets dominate the enduro races? Conditions in which a motorcycle must prove its full potential, hard core riding, for days in a row? Just asking, and if one seeks the fighter pilot's sensation try dashing through trees in a wood at bulletspeed. That'll make your mojo ticking.

I admit, I'm not the c.r. type, forgive me.
but when and where I go, I ride.

[ace.cafe]

It looks good on the stand, and I liked the announcement that there would be aluminum fender and tank options, along with handlebar and seat options. That was good news.

Regarding the 36 hp figure, we'll wait and see.
Being that I have seen and flow-bench tested the UCE head, and know what is in there, I can say that it will need more than a 3mm overbore and a "throttle body and exhaust", to get there.
However, it could be quite lively and fun with a bit more power from that kind of upgrade, and I would consider any power upgrade a step in the right direction for them.

A Harris frame should be a good frame. That's a nice addition.

Overall, this bike was a long time in coming, and I'm glad to see something like this finally being produced. It was a natural progression to have it.

[barenekd]

The cafe racer was at the Long Beach IMS Show and will be at the Seattle show this weekend.
Bare

[gremlin]

......................Regarding the 36 hp figure, we'll wait and see.
Being that I have seen and flow-bench tested the UCE head, and know what is in there, I can say that it will need more than a 3mm overbore and a "throttle body and exhaust", to get there..........

The cam profiles are key to ANY real performance enhancement.   Anyone who thinks a larger piston & some port polishing is enough is using a "big hammer" kinda approach.

I'd like to see the mod be a 535 piston & new cams (with requisite injector & exhaust work).

[ace.cafe]

The cam profiles are key to ANY real performance enhancement.   Anyone who thinks a larger piston & some port polishing is enough is using a "big hammer" kinda approach.

I'd like to see the mod be a 535 piston & new cams (with requisite injector & exhaust work).

The stock cams are very short lift. Right at .300" lift for the intake valve, flowing a peak 135.9 cfm @ 28" water column depression on the flow bench.
The flow bench says that there is only 5 cfm more flow available if you lift it to about .350", but it poops out above that. So, the stock port might work out okay with another .050" lift, but it's a small gain. 141 cfm at .350" lift. However, some IS better than none, so it's something.

It really needs some flow work to utilize the higher lift cams best. It would work out best to have both.

[gremlin]

::opinion mode ON ::

recalling my days building JeeP engines ....

seems to me, high-lift, short duration cams with a relatively small angle between the peaks is a formula for a high-torque, low RPM engine.

The higer performing engines had a larger angle between lobes, and, a longer duration .....  scavenging and all that ....

::opinion mode off::

I respect the time it takes to design a street-able modification kit that will be both economical and worthy of the investment to mass-produce.  Ace has taken on a monumental task here !!!!

[ace.cafe]

::opinion mode ON ::

recalling my days building JeeP engines ....

seems to me, high-lift, short duration cams with a relatively small angle between the peaks is a formula for a high-torque, low RPM engine.

The higer performing engines had a larger angle between lobes, and, a longer duration .....  scavenging and all that ....

::opinion mode off::

I respect the time it takes to design a street-able modification kit that will be both economical and worthy of the investment to mass-produce.  Ace has taken on a monumental task here !!!!

Yes, generally speaking, your formula is correct.

And thanks for your supportive comments!
I need it!

[Ducati Scotty]

Ace, was the development of the original Fireball more or less straightforward than the UCE?

And very glad to hear that progress is being made.

Scott

[Arizoni]

Maybe I'm all wet but it seems to me that perhaps a slight increase in the valve lift coupled with changing both cams to increase the dwell and overlap condition could increase the flow at higher speeds.
If this were coupled with some exhaust and inlet tuning to take advantage of the overlap a improvement in the upper RPM range might be possible.

Of course this would require a revision of the ECU to accommodate the higher RPM and the lower would probably need modifying to keep it all together.

Just thinking...

[ace.cafe]

Ace, was the development of the original Fireball more or less straightforward than the UCE?

And very glad to hear that progress is being made.

Scott

Hi Scott,
The Fireball was very slow getting underway also. It actually took a year for me to get my first prototype head out of Mondello. There were some hurdles to overcome, mostly in the re-engineered valve train, which took some time and effort to resolve.
I would say that the Fireball was overall a more difficult job, because we hadn't paved any of the way with a previous effort.  Because of my experience with the Fireball, I have a better handle on where this UCE project has to go, and some of the techniques we pioneered on the Fireball can be used on the UCE.  I plan to use the same valve gear that the Fireball has on it, with the beehive springs and such, on the UCE too. It's too good to not use it.

There are a lot of similarities between these two engines, but also some divergences.
For instance, the intake port size is about the same on both. The UCE has a slightly smaller set of valves, and the semi-bathtub chamber, which impede flow a bit in comparison to the larger valved hemi-head of the Fireball.
Interestingly, both the UCE and the Iron Barrel show the same flow problem in the intake port, and so we can use the same techniques to solve it. But the exhaust port in the Iron Barrel was too big, so we crutched it with some flow techniques and a shorter lift on the exhaust cam, and got our flow ratio fixed up that way. The UCE has a smaller exhaust port, and that allows us to have some room for shaping, and we should get a better result of the exhaust port in the UCE.

The biggest difference is that on the Fireball we had complete freedom in the intake for whatever carburetor we wanted, and could jet any way that worked best, very easily. And we had a fully adjustable ignition system which, while a bit crude, allowed us to adjust it any way we wanted it, very easily. So, that took a lot of pressure off, because we didn't have "black boxes" to try to deal with, that do things on their own that we might not want.

The Iron Barrel flat tappets had essentially no limitations for us. They are very applicable to a performance package just as they are. On the other hand, the UCE hydraulic tappets have issues with higher revving, which can be overcome, but it's another fly in the ointment to deal with. The rollers are nice, but they are very heavy, and the roller tappets require different kinds of cam profiles, so we can't just use our Iron Barrel cams in the UCE. Most of this stuff that is designed to be a convenience on a road bike, are an impediment to a performance machine.

In terms of flow, the Fireball flows about 195 cfm at .350" lift in the intake. Right now we are only at 165 cfm at .400" lift on the UCE head. Clearly we have some further improvements to make, and we know what to do. The two-edged sword is that the more we make this baby flow, the further we get from the stock EFI map, and the more important the new ECU or re-map becomes.

So, we have a set of "goods and bads". Not anything that can't be overcome, but some things that are sort of a pain in the ass. But, we'll get there in the end.

[ace.cafe]

Maybe I'm all wet but it seems to me that perhaps a slight increase in the valve lift coupled with changing both cams to increase the dwell and overlap condition could increase the flow at higher speeds.
If this were coupled with some exhaust and inlet tuning to take advantage of the overlap a improvement in the upper RPM range might be possible.

Of course this would require a revision of the ECU to accommodate the higher RPM and the lower would probably need modifying to keep it all together.

Just thinking...

Hi Jim,
The current cams in the UCE have very short overlap period, which is responsible in large part for the high torque curve in the lower rpm range. It also impedes the higher rpms, which is probably why we see the power nose-over around 4750 rpm on the stock bikes.
I think they had to do this to limit the port cross-talk around TDC that is prevalent in these combustion chamber shapes, so as to satisfy emission standards.
The intake valve closing timing is not too much different than the Iron Barrel, but it is a little later. Not as late as the Fireball.

We have a very highly respected cam grinder who has over 50 years experience with performance cams that has consented to work on this cam design, and he has the equipment to grind, so it looks good for that. However this auto-decompressor that's in the exhaust cam means that there is some extra complexity in the system, and we may have to use the existing cams with a regrind that can work within the available lobe size and shape on a slightly smaller base circle, so that we can retain the auto-decompressor. I don't want to compromise that auto-decompressor system, because I don't want to be responsible for broken sprags in the electric starter.
The other alternative will be to use some ratio in the rockers, and we are definitely looking at that. We're getting into that with the Iron Barrel now too.

To get into higher rpms than 5500 rpm means that we have to deal with the rev-limiter, and get it out of the way. Our Ace valve spring system can handle the higher rpms if we decide to go there, and that will probably alleviate any lifter pump-up issues at the higher rpms.
It's questionable if the owners really want to rev higher, or if a good solid power curve up to 5500 rpm would suit them for most purposes.

[Land Surveyor]

Hello all! Been away a long time but news of this bike brought me back. Although they look good, neither myself nor my back have any interest in riding cafe-style.  I am, however, interested in the up-rated engine and the newer frame and suspension.  I note that a better seat is available but would want standard-height bars.  Anybody know if those will be available?

[Royalista]

It's questionable if the owners really want to rev higher, or if a good solid power curve up to 5500 rpm would suit them for most purposes.

Indeed. Higher revs is more vibration means more wear & tear, loss of bolts and stuff csq. more prevention & maintenance and less riding.
Every time I tested for the maxspeed (132kpu and 122kpu average on stretches of under 20kms) mother physics presented me the bill: taxplate holder falling off because of all three welds failing being the more amusing adventurette as it happened on a busy crossing.
In the longer run I associate high vibrations with decreased life expectancy.
Are those also issues that have your interest or are they factored in in an inherent trade off (more speed vs less life)?

Let there be no misunderstanding: I follow with interest what you're doing and appreciate your method and efforts. It's not because it ain't my cup o'tea I can't be supportive. Although I would appreciate it if there was someone out there, just like you, working with the same gusto on the adventure qualities of the bullet.