HPRE

Menu

Members Rides

Bohol Bullit


in
Members Rides

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 04:00:54 AM

Login with username, password and session length

 

Author Topic: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!  (Read 5528 times)

jayprashanth

  • Scooter
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Karma: 0
 Gentlemen,

Royal Enfield is contemplating 750cc and 1000cc motorcycles sometime after 2013.

 I write for www.indiancarsbikes.in and I just did a gig on this topic sometime ago.->

http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/interviews/gul-panag-talks-team-icb-auto-25176/

 I thought I'd share this with you folks as we all love Bullets!

Cheers,

Jay

prof_stack

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride carefully - You are invisible.
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2011, 07:27:19 PM »
I had trouble reading the text with all those thoroughly distracting photos!   ;D
A Royal Enfield owner's cup is always half full.

bob bezin

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
  • Karma: 0
  • I ride therefore I am.
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2011, 07:51:59 PM »
yah i skipped most of the text .
2000 RE classic ,              56 matchless g80
2006 RE delux fireball       86 yamaha SRX 600
65 500cctriumph
04 bonnie black
71 750 norton.
48 whizzer

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2011, 07:58:06 PM »
Yeah, that borders on NSFW. ;)

I'd really love to see a 750 twin.  I dig twins and 750-800cc is really where I like a street bike to be.  Any more than that and it's tough to keep my behavior responsible on the street.  I hope it's  a parallel twin.  I really love the custon v-twin Enfields people have built but I really like RE for its respective nod to the past.  Since the older bikes were parallel twins I think they should keep that configuration.  And it just looks right on a British bike.

Scott

Warwick

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2011, 08:54:54 PM »
Remember too that RE was famous for its big Vtwins in the 20's and 30's.
cheers
Warwick

motomataya

  • Grease Monkey
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2011, 09:02:53 PM »
I completely agree with you perspective Scotty.

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2011, 09:36:03 PM »
Remember too that RE was famous for its big Vtwins in the 20's and 30's.
cheers
Warwick

Sorry, guess I'm biased toward the 50s and 60s bikes ;)

1 Thump

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2011, 01:23:02 AM »
A parallel vertical UCE twin . Vibrations anyone ?

singhg5

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2249
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2011, 01:30:41 AM »
@Jay:

Your article with Gul Panag, huh, thoroughly enjoyed it - I did not know she was a Punjabi and a Sikh !  

If RE comes up with a twin cylinder 750 or 1000 cc engine, it will be a good move.  The RE faithful will love to have a bigger engine bike.  It will definitely compete with Harley Sportster 883 cc bikes which are the most likely ones to sell in any significant numbers in India.  Moreover, a twin RE can also compete abroad with other twins such as Bonneville.

The very big HD bikes will not be bread winners in India, they may sell a very few of those.  Bigger HD bikes do not pose a real competition to RE.  
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 01:33:36 AM by singhg5 »
1970's Jawa /  Yezdi
2006 Honda Nighthawk
2009 Royal Enfield Black G5

r80rt

  • C5 Pilot
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
  • Karma: 0
  • R.I.P Papa Juan, Uncle Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2011, 01:54:27 PM »
A twin would be cool, but I'll stick with a single. A 500cc one lunger gives me the best riding sensation. I've owned a lot of twins, and multi's and I like them all but for some reason the single makes me grin the most :D
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 06:51:53 PM by r80rt »
On the eighth day God created the C5, and it was better looking than anything on the planet.
Iron Butt Association

gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2011, 05:44:18 PM »


  

If RE comes up with a twin cylinder 750 or 1000 cc engine, it will be a good move.  The RE faithful will love to have a bigger engine bike.  It will definitely compete with Harley Sportster 883 cc bikes which are the most likely ones to sell in any significant numbers in India.  Moreover, a twin RE can also compete abroad with other twins such as Bonneville.

The very big HD bikes will not be bread winners in India, they may sell a very few of those.  Bigger HD bikes do not pose a real competition to RE.  
I agree singh, and alot of that logic you can apply over here. Harley has been paying more attention to the Sporty lately, most likely do to the economy.I always thought it was their best all around  bike. IF RE were to bump it up a bit with a twin, and really push and market it  over here, and depending on the price, It would do well.
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2011, 06:07:21 PM »
 In a sort of apples to apples kind of way;
 It would not surprise me if a Royal Enfield P-Twin would eventually out sell the Bullet here in the States provided the price point were closer to the Bullet than the Bonnie.

 Of course a strategic ad campaign would have to be launched ahead of time and good reviews in the magazines would help.

 Having them seen in T.V. and motion pictures would be icing the cake.

I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2011, 06:33:22 PM »
'to me, the problem with the Sportster and where RE could eat their lunch in theirown backyard so to speak, is that the Sportster has strayed from it's original "Standard" configuration in pursuit of shorter legged and female riders.......not that this isn't a worthy objective, but they have deserted their full sized standard riding position market in the process.   The "slammed" gunslinger type sportsters are A) too short peg to seat or B) force you to use forward pegs which is hard on the legs and but and C) destroys the ground clearance and D) severely limits suspension travel and lean angle.   If they got back to the height of machines of tlate 80s and make some real improvements in suspension, I think the 883 is all you need.   The other issue is their aftermarket parts are real $$$$    and RE beats them there too.   Nigel

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2011, 07:12:00 PM »
BINGO !!!

 The genesis of the Sporster was a Sports model. It was NOT a touring model.

 It was H-D's answer to the lithe and lively handling Britt and European bikes of the day.

 Sportsters have gotten bigger, heavier and fatter as of late and size wise are closer to the Big Twin touring models of yesteryear.

Park one next to a Pan Head and you will see what I mean.

 
I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Karma: 0
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.

ScooterBob

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2564
  • Karma: 0
  • Yeah - I get it ....
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2011, 08:27:00 PM »
BINGO !!!

 The genesis of the Sporster was a Sports model. It was NOT a touring model.

 It was H-D's answer to the lithe and lively handling Britt and European bikes of the day.

 Sportsters have gotten bigger, heavier and fatter as of late and size wise are closer to the Big Twin touring models of yesteryear.

Park one next to a Pan Head and you will see what I mean.

 

Yeah - and they even had the shifter on the CORRECT side in the beginning!!  ;)
Spare the pig iron - spoil the part!

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2011, 08:28:10 PM »
The genesis of the Sporster was a Sports model. It was NOT a touring model.

 It was H-D's answer to the lithe and lively handling Britt and European bikes of the day.

As a mtter of fact, British bike sales went down in the US when it was introduced.  While the base model 883 seems lumbering and underpowered today, back in the day the Sportster held up well against the Brit twins around.

I don't think RE is going to steal any of their market share.  People who buy Harleys want a Harley, not just a motorcycle.  Say what you will about the bikes, they've got an amazing marketing department.

Scott

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2011, 10:33:13 PM »
Marketing aside, I have no problem with the engine type or the basic idea of the model, and with it's fairly reasonable price, if it had a decent seating position, higher ground clearance and decent supension, I would be interested.   In fact I would even contemplate an old one.  The motors are pretty durable, and, as both Harley and teh Brit bike builders new, riding satisfaction is not abut speed :  Torque and low end performance in all gears make for a much more satifying ride|  That is precisely why Brit bikes were slanted to "town" performance specs...   As far as the top speed,goes, so long as it makes the legal limit and has a bit of push to pass at that speed, who cares if it goes 85 mph.....It is no fun riding that fast anyway.   to me, for touring, an 883 of the right (read old) frame configuration would be quite adequate.  No it is not a perfect handler, and the engine is not sophisticated. .  But it is solid durable and like the Enfield will go forever at modest speeds.  For a solo traveller, what more do you need.? To me,it is the quintessential American Bike.  the big Harleys are, well, just too big.   I think Harley has done themselves a disservice by pushing their bigger bikes as "man's bikes"  and trying to talk you up.  ive ridden both, and really , there is nothing quite as fun as a snortin' noisey sportster for acceleration and the "feel" of speed.  Nigel

Maturin

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • Karma: 0
  • My Precious
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2011, 10:36:09 PM »
A twin would be cool, but I'll stick with a single. A 500cc one lunger gives me the best riding sensation. I've owned a lot of twins, and multi's and I like them all but for some reason the single makes me grin the most :D

Perfectly right. The grinning factor is decisive! A thumper is without question far and away the best way to ride a bike!
The second best way though is a twin  ;D. And because second best solutions are sometimes funny, too, I´d love to see RE building an renewed Interceptor. We´re still talking about an Interceptor, don´t we?
Weighting not much more than 200kg and equipped with lot´s of torque it could be India´s first big bike. If the handling is just as brilliant as the Bullet´s, I´d be tempted...a little bit  :D
2010 G5
A Garage without a Bullet is a empty, barren hole.

When acellerating the tears of emotion must flow off horizontally to the ears.
Walter Röhrl

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2011, 11:05:54 PM »
Reading between the lines, given that the back story was the Carsberry Enfield, and the V twin offering of the gentleman who's name I cannot recall, I don't think that it is by any means certain that we ever where taking about "The Interceptor"  I am not a mechanical engineer, but I am thinking it is probably easier to modify the lower end of the UCE to have two heads fore and aft and two con rods attached at a "Harely" like angle to the single crank shaft than it is to fundamentally redisiing it into an upright twin:  The "V" way, they can still use off the shelf "uppers" and just recast a new crank housing with two angled flanges.   I dont think you could fit two fat 350 or 500 cc Bullet wide finned heads side by each without having to angle them out to the sides (Guzzi like) and then you would be into a whole diffeternt style.   So I am guessing, (given previous statements also about the "overbuild" of the UCE bottom end) that from the get go they were thinking of morphing the UCE into a V twin.  In which case, it would come smack dab up against the Sportster.Nigel

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2011, 11:44:41 PM »
Nigel, I agree,  Thought the 72 degree Harley V-twin design has limitations none of them keep it from being a perfectly acceptable power plant for a road bike. 

As to whether you could fit two RE pistons side by side, most of the bulk of the new engine is the head and not the cylinder, and the head has way more metal in it than it needs for containing compression or heat dissipation.  They just want to keep the look of the old engine so it's bigger than it needs to be.  I still think a 'Meteor' parallel twin is the way to go.

Scott

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2011, 12:00:25 AM »
Copied from  the other thread
 http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/forum/index.php/topic,9528.0.html

Hmm,  a modern RE vertical twin. I would have a hard time not buying it if it were done as well as the C5/G5 designs.

directly followed by

Well - There has been a persistent RUMOUR to that effect ..... and the UCE engine case IS offset about a half a cylinder width at the parting line ..... and 350cc "guts" are already out there to make 700 cc's (Interceptor!) - and finally - the concept isn't wasted on the boys in the Factory - OR Siddatha Lal.

Personally, I think that a parallel twin of 700cc's with about 60-65hp in the light Enfield frame couldn't be beat. I'd have one in my garage as soon as they were available! They'd kill Harley on every accord in India - it's an ENFIELD, it's less money, it's less tax - and you KNOW those engineers would design at least 60mpg's right into it ....

 I am hedging my bets that RE will make it a parallel twin. 

 Whatever they call it I want one.
Now lets see if they can get it here for less than the cost of a Triumph.
I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

GreenMachine

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2011, 12:03:33 AM »
thank you...i mean what r they going to do just stay with the c5/g5 models...great bikes and classy but were're talking 3-4 years from now.
Oh Magoo you done it again

1 Thump

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2011, 01:02:38 AM »
Copied from  the other thread
 http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/forum/index.php/topic,9528.0.html

directly followed by

 I am hedging my bets that RE will make it a parallel twin. 

 Whatever they call it I want one.
Now lets see if they can get it here for less than the cost of a Triumph.


 I would buy an RE twin in a heartbeat is it sold for less than a bonnie and made decet hp.

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2011, 05:16:21 AM »
thank you...i mean what r they going to do just stay with the c5/g5 models...great bikes and classy but were're talking 3-4 years from now.

I think the international sales might help drive them bringing a larger bike to market.  I would be curious on the price point.  If it's close to a Bonnie the fit and finish will have to come up to compete.

Scott

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2011, 11:53:51 AM »
My own preference would be a parallel twin :  My comments that it would more likely be a V were maiinly based on the fact that both current working protoypes of larger displacement Bullet modifications (Carberry and "Musket" are Vs, so I must assume that it is easier to morph the lower end in that direction than it is to modify it to side by side,or they would have done that.  As to price poiint, there is not a whole lot of wiggle room between the lower priced Bonnies and the Bullet now.  Triumph is not posting current prices on their Canadian site, but i am pretty sure that last year the basic Bonnie was around $8,500 and they were promoting the "America" at one pont a a Sportster tackling $7,900 or so. (The T 100 was just over "10,000)  The Bulllet at the same time was roughly $6,400 in base model here. so I don't see a lot of price  room to manouvre, and I think if they do launch an "Interceptor" they are very likely going to be pushed into roughly the same price range as the Kawa W 800 and Triumph T 100:  Their unique competitive point would have to be authenticity (which the Triumph doesn''t have on technical grounds since it is nothing like, in design , the original Bonnie, and the Kawa has in design but lacks somewhat in badging which seems to be an issue to many buyers.)
  There would .be a definite international "Retro" market for the Interceptor  somewhat distinct from the diehard Bullet market in that there are scads of potentiial Bonnie or even Guzzi V7 purchasers who would never consider a 500 cc single:  I am sure brand loyalty would carry it in the luxury market in India (which is growing rapidly) and that they could easily outflank Harley there .  Internationally, I don't think it is Harley retro turf they would take (due to badge loyalty/aversion  considerations (meaning there are lots of Brit/Euro retro afficianados who would never consider a harley anyway) .  So I think domestically in India they will market against Harley (who are setting up shop there) but internationally their main competition would be Kawasaki, Triumph Guzzi , and possibly handas new retro offering in Japan CB 1100.  Their pricing would likely reflect this but could, I suppose be brought down by teh economy of scale to the extent that they are able to use parts swappable with the Bullet and just use a different lower end. Nigel.

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2011, 12:45:56 PM »
Nigel, I wonder if the two v-twins out there were built as Vs more because they could use existing cylinders and heads and not have to make those pieces.  The Musket in particular was designed to use as many existing bullet parts already out there. While custom cranks and blocks are no mean feat I think they are easier.  Time will tell I guess.

I think you're right in that there's not a lot of wiggle room on prices and they will necessarily be going head to head with more comparable bikes.  I guess I really want to see them succeed but I'm anxious they won't.  Right now you can get several other cool small bikes for less than the price of a Bullet.  The current advantages are it's retro uniqueness and history.  I don't know if that's enough to carry it in a market where it will compete more directly with similar bikes and the not quite perfect fit and finish will weigh against it.

Then again, maybe I'm being too egocentric.  Maybe the international market really doesn't matter at all.  Taxes on all non-Indian bikes in India are very high making them all luxury items.  If Harley is setting up shop there then the economy must be good and I'm sure proud Indians would line up to buy a larger engined RE over an import.  With those numbers maybe they don't worry too much about Europe and the States.

Scott

Maturin

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • Karma: 0
  • My Precious
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2011, 12:58:15 PM »
I´m sure that a big RE - if constructed and built  thoroughly - would be a sucess in the home market. The factory has proven the skill to exploit their heritage and take it into the future. Don´t forget: the UCE is the second try to get to a next-generation-Bullet after the lean-burn-engine, although a vastly improved drive, didn´t show all of the desired qualities. Nevertheless, RE tried it again, fortunately sucessfull this time.
So we shouldn´t underestimate the factory´s willingness to stay with old ideas, decorated with new concepts. Maybe this is a genuine Indian attitude, as their whole society is very conservative and traditionally orientated.
What about the legal side: who owns the rights to the ancient British RE blueprints? Did the Indians not only bought the factory equipment but the building plans, too? Although the UCE is a new and modern engine, you´ll find plenty of similarities to the original pre-unit, starting with the visual nature. I wonder if it would be possible, if not even easier, to try to do the same with the British parallel twin. As it will be neither possible nor reasonable to compete with Japanese and European bike in terms of power it is probably enough to use modern alloys and add an injection system on the old engine to reach over 60 PS.
The frame, however, was not very similar to the Bullet´s, as it was not open but used joists. Its shouldn´t be too complicated though, to weld together something stable enough for 60 PS.
You see, my Interceptor is allready finished - in my head  ;D
2010 G5
A Garage without a Bullet is a empty, barren hole.

When acellerating the tears of emotion must flow off horizontally to the ears.
Walter Röhrl

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2011, 02:47:13 PM »
The original interceptor was no slouch even by todays standards.  Where it differs from the "modern Japanese" bikes and  Triumphs reborn Bonnie is that it has the same basic configuration as the Bullet that is an undersquare  bore/stroke high mass fly wheel.   Yes "only" 52 hp, but though I haven't found a specific reference I think it safe to assume that even in stock 1968 form, it would have torque at least double that of the Bullet 350 in a 700 cc config.   Bike in stock form was known at the time as the all time heavyweight of Brit twins and the highest speed production bike with massive acceleration due to its high torque (Tehy weren't into tossing around torque figures then , but you can with that design engine, if they said high, they meant high.  Again power equals speed.   The original interceptor (even without allow heads and oiling refienments and hydraulic lifters) had tons of speed regardless of the rated power.  What it would have that no current production bike would even come close to is brute torque and light weight. (compared anywhay to a Sportster)  The only reason that the bike died an early death was the poor supply line of the British maker and it's incapacity to match the volume/price/features of the then new Japanese bikes.  But it was and is a formidable machine by any standard, old or new, and would far more testosterone infused than a Bonnie (past or present) Nigel    .

ROVERMAN

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2011, 02:56:29 PM »
I am thoroughly impressed by the effort and thought being ploughed into this thread by all.Please God let it be spring soon!
All the best, Robert and a cold shivering REnfield waiting in the garage. 8) 8) 8)

GreenMachine

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2011, 03:15:35 PM »
I believe our DJ (Scotty) has a interceptor....I think the MK2 model...Enjoyed the write up and if logic dictates you would think something different is in the mix for Enfield...One moment I think about the price of fossil fuels and how precious it is especially in India...In Europe it is very expensive and we all now that its not coming down but more than likely going to double here...But is that enough to influence  the manufacturing of the next line of motorbikes...If it satisfies a need (or in our case/wants) people will pay.  I would think the middle class in India has grown substantially and as we know their domestic market prices are almost 1/2 prices we see here. Does E85 fit into the equation for export?  A Clean Diesel 1000 cc equivalent? Just a retro 1000 cc interceptor?  If you are looking 3-5 years down the road as a manufacture where do u put your eggs and into what basket?...And then again we may see nothing for a long time...
Oh Magoo you done it again

1 Thump

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2011, 05:21:01 PM »
From the rumors I have heard there is a plan underway to put a fireball in the Musket. That will change some things. I would however prefer a parallel twin.

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2011, 06:21:10 PM »
We should note here that much of the visual similarity of the new UCE to the older engines is due to the fact that there is a primary chain between the crank and transmission input.  Most Japanese and other modern bikes use gears which makes the engine look different, gnereally shorter front to back I believe.  Harley and copies are notable exceptions but I believe they have a completely separate transmission.  The UCE bikes are 'unit construction', one piece essentially.

Scott

gashousegorilla

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2757
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2011, 06:57:42 PM »
 The Sportster Motor, 883 and 1200 is still a unit motor, Harley's" Big Twin's" Are not.
An thaibhsí atá rattling ag an doras agus tá sé an diabhal sa chathaoir.

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2011, 07:41:12 PM »
Not sure I am getting your inference about the unit engine/primary chain drive:  For the less technical of us , wht are you thinking that means in significance vis a vis what direction RE would take it next? (I understand the difference between primary gear vs chain drive, just now what you are thinking that means. ) f Nigel

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2011, 08:55:44 PM »
I just meant to say that the chain allows for the motor to have that long base with the cylinder vertical and far forward.  The gear drive engines tend to be shorter with the cylinder tilted forward just a bit.

Either twim motor could be built with a chain but the overall shape it gives the motor is a subtle styling cue that says 'vintage British'.

Scott

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2011, 07:26:59 PM »
Here is a glimpse of a possible contnder.  The 1000 cc Carberry Enfileld 55 deg twin using stock hydraulic lifter heads (hence I think double UCE) to me is by far the esthetically better of teh two types out there, and dhow the feesability of a V twin configuration and it's construction from "shelf" parts.  The custom mods seem to cost $ Australian 22,000 all in (about par US Canadian at this time) but they are in very low production and I think only available in Calif in the US now.   So if RE took the lead , used their own parts and production facilities, who knows what the price could come down to.   but as the action clips in this link show not only can you squeeze it all in to a Bullet frame, but it looks great, sounds great and goes.  May not be an upright twin, but looks very appealing to me.  Here is the link.    Carberry Enfield
http://www.carberryenfield.com.au/Pricing.html   Sorry I guess I still suck at links:  Not a computer whiz   anyway therer is the address.  Nigel

ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Karma: 0
  • World leaders in racing or performance Bullets
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2011, 08:20:52 PM »
Very interesting conversation here.

I am also partial to the parallel twin from the viewpoint of the older heritage from the vintage RE twins of the 50s and 60s..
However, i do see the advantages of the V-Twin format from a perspective of  conversions, because there's fewer specialty castings required to make the change. And it's narrower,  and has the potential for better engine balance, depending on the Vee-angle. And as previously mentioned, RE has a V-Twin heritage too, from an earlier day.
It could go either way.

As for performance of the Interceptor, it was quite good, and it's true that the Interceptor has been considered to be one of the best of the British twins, with very good performance and smoothness.

In either form, the twins do suffer from a weight disadvantage compared to the singles. In fact, we've done acceleration and top speed tests with the Fireball, showing very comparable performance to the Series 1A Interceptor 750(according to the data from Cycle Magazine road test from about 1966), with approximately the same acceleration, and within a couple mph in top speed. So, it isn't really necessary to have a twin to achieve this, but I know the general opinion of the public is that a twin would be a faster ride.

I think it would be expected that any new twin would be conforming to the latest emission requirements, and it would have to be a modern engine with perhaps a retro-look to it. But any new engine will be subject to these regulations, and we can't really bring back the exact old designs anymore with these regulations in place.

Especially from a marketing perspective for the US, the appeal of the twin is likely to attract more potential buyers than a single. I think it is a good move for RE to be considering this. A 750-1000cc twin is a very competitive arena, because there are alot of customers who are in that market.

From my view, I'm looking at the old Bullet, and the Musket, and the Carberry, as platforms for the stuff which I make. Any or all of them could use my products, and benefit from a performance perspective..
I really don't have plans to get into an emission-controlled engine with what I do.
But I'm eager to see what I can do with some of these new V-Twin platforms that are based on the old Bullet parts, and that is of alot of interest to me. And since Aniket(Musket creator)  and I and Chumma have gotten together on the phone several times, and he is not too far from my area, the Musket is the easiest "fit" for me to do this development work on. I think  the odds of seeing an Ace-modified 1070cc Musket V-Twin with Mondello heads and all my stuff in it, is very likely to happen.

I look forward to seeing what RE puts together for this potential twin that is being rumored. It could be a big step forward for them.


« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 08:33:04 PM by ace.cafe »
Home of the ACE Fireball 535 Bullet,  Ace GP Hi-Lift Roller Rocker Head . Pistons, cams, etc. Highest performance Bullet engine mods available .  AVL mods. Redditch 700/750 Twin mods. UCE kit soon.

Please visit my new website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AcePerformanceBullets/info

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2011, 01:40:02 AM »
Ace (Jay?)   Here is where it gets confusing:
Three engine types, multiple frame /body types , different names in different countries, two non factory V twin mods, multiple performance packages (for different engine types etc)    ........you get my point.
From what I understand, the "Musket" is based on the iron barrel push rod engines and heads:  From the Carberry website, it looks like the Carberry Enfield is based on the hydraulic lifter heads ( I know the UCE engine matches this descripition, but I don't know about the "Alloy Lean Burn" type (this never was sold in Canada......after a several year gap we jumped straight from Iron Barrels back , I think in the 1990's -before I was into the story, to UCE offereings in July 2010)   .  So , since RE has stopped production of  the Iron Barrel model engine type, I don't think it likely that they will ever pursue the Musket type from Aniket Vardhan as a production model from the factory, though it sounds like the creator of this kit plans to market it as an aftermarket mod for Iron Barrel owners.  Thus, to my guess, if the factory is going to pickup on either of these configurations it would have to be the Carberry. 
You mentioned the "Fireball" mod package.   Please  pardon my ignorance about fireball mods, but is this an Iron Barrel mod, or is applicable to the UCE (your response is on a "Bullet with UCE engine " section of the site....again see my comments above re confusioin.  I saw a video clip of three guys at a drag strip witn one ?military outfit which was modified, I am guessing with "fireball" mods that sounded great and went like a bt out of hell.  Could you please post a link here about the mods?  Thanks  Nigel

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2011, 02:07:40 AM »
Hi Nigel,

 The Fireball Is an Iron Barrel based all around useable performance build.

 The goals from the outset were easy starting, smooth running,improved reliability. and the widest and flattest power curve possible for very good useable power at all rpm. Those goals have been met with stellar results so far.

Here's a link to just one earlier thread on the Fireball on our forum.
There are many more but this one may be the first to use the word Fireball.
 


Here is a link to a on line Fireball discussion group.
[url] http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AcePerformanceBullets/][http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/forum/index.php/topic,6280.0.html/url]


Here is a link to a on line Fireball discussion group.
[url] http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AcePerformanceBullets/


I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.


Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2011, 02:54:27 AM »
Your welcome brother,

 The name Fireball came about quite a bit after the concept was put forth in the threads here.

 I just don't have the energy to search up the genesis right now.

 It is proving to be a good and worthwhile concept and the theroies behind it could be applied to the AVL and the UCE lumps of course the bits and engineering would have to be tailored to the platforms respectively.
I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Karma: 0
  • World leaders in racing or performance Bullets
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2011, 02:58:08 AM »
Ace (Jay?)   Here is where it gets confusing:
Three engine types, multiple frame /body types , different names in different countries, two non factory V twin mods, multiple performance packages (for different engine types etc)    ........you get my point.
From what I understand, the "Musket" is based on the iron barrel push rod engines and heads:  From the Carberry website, it looks like the Carberry Enfield is based on the hydraulic lifter heads ( I know the UCE engine matches this descripition, but I don't know about the "Alloy Lean Burn" type (this never was sold in Canada......after a several year gap we jumped straight from Iron Barrels back , I think in the 1990's -before I was into the story, to UCE offereings in July 2010)   .  So , since RE has stopped production of  the Iron Barrel model engine type, I don't think it likely that they will ever pursue the Musket type from Aniket Vardhan as a production model from the factory, though it sounds like the creator of this kit plans to market it as an aftermarket mod for Iron Barrel owners.  Thus, to my guess, if the factory is going to pickup on either of these configurations it would have to be the Carberry.  
You mentioned the "Fireball" mod package.   Please  pardon my ignorance about fireball mods, but is this an Iron Barrel mod, or is applicable to the UCE (your response is on a "Bullet with UCE engine " section of the site....again see my comments above re confusioin.  I saw a video clip of three guys at a drag strip witn one ?military outfit which was modified, I am guessing with "fireball" mods that sounded great and went like a bt out of hell.  Could you please post a link here about the mods?  Thanks  Nigel

Hi Nigel,
Unless Carberry has made a change which I'm unaware of, it uses the older Iron Barrel style heads and barrels. All of the prototype and early production models have been that type.
The "hydraulic lifters" do not require any change to the cylinder head or barrels, and are used with the same cams as the older engine. However, they did incorporate a pressurized oil passage to the lifter galleys in their crankcase design to accommodate the hydraulic lifters.
The UCE engines also use hydraulic lifters, but that engine uses a different cylinder head and barrel. The purpose of these hydraulic lifters is primarily to reduce maintenance by eliminating valve lash adjustments, and also results in quieter running. The UCE also uses roller lifters, along with being hydraulic, so they require different cam profiles than a non-roller lifter would use.

I agree that RE will not use the old Iron Barrel style top-ends on any new twin, nor any other engine in the future, due to the design being too antiquated to pass modern rigid emission-control regulations. So, anything they release will be on some new design, but may or may not have some commonality with the UCE designs. They may use a whole new design, or choose to use some aspects of what they are already producing in the 500, if any of that is deemed applicable by them.

So, in my view, the Musket and Carberry are not in the running for any future project by RE. However, they may provide the conceptual basis for a new model that would be an entirely new engine of that V-Twin layout, should RE decide to go the V-Twin route.

Both the Carberry and Musket do require frame mods to fit the larger engine, and that complicates matters, but is unavoidable with these V-twin layouts. However it is conceivable that a parallel twin could fit in an existing frame, and that may make an attractive proposition for choosing that layout.

"Ice" has provided you with some links to the Fireball discussions, and I thank him for his help with that.
Essentially, the Fireball is a modification package for the old Iron Barrel type Bullet 500 which seeks to improve performance in all regards, AND improve reliability at the same time. It was in interesting effort, because the goals were to achieve a street roadster which didn't sacrifice low-speed tractability or idling, whilst still giving a large improvement  in hp and torque in a very useful power curve, and not seeking extreme rpms to achieve this power. The goals were met very well, and in fact the significant power increase is delivered starting right at coming off idle, and pulls strongly all the way to the 6000 rpm redline. It will do "the ton" and accelerate like an Interceptor, and get 70 mpg on the highway at 70mph cruising speeds.
It's not a race machine, but it's very powerful and not far off racing performance levels, but doesn't exhibit the negative traits that often plague race bikes that are used on the street.
We aimed for an overall performance increase that is actually so torquey and wide-band that it is just as "at home" doing high-performance riding, or highway touring, or even low-speed trials work and off-road riding. It's an engine which can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and I'm very pleased with the results that it is turning out.
And yes, that modified green military Bullet you saw on the video is a Fireball, and it really does go like a "bat out of hell" when you give it the throttle. But it is also a daily rider, and performs in New York city traffic jams just as well, and also delivers highway cruising at speeds of 70-80mph for long distances on a regular basis.

So I feel we've done well with what we set out to do.
But, it is all built around the old model, and it is not going to meet emission-control standards, and is not something that a manufacturer like RE would be able to market in the showrooms. It's for owners of Iron Barrel models, who want to own a reliable high-performance machine, as a conversion package for the bike they already own.

I think that for the future RE market, a new twin would be the approach to use, since the US market is keen on twins and very comfortable with that type of engine design.

I initially only intended to mention the Fireball to illustrate that a single *could* deliver the performance of a twin. But then, I got to running-on at the mouth about it, and here we are. Most people here know that once I get on a roll with typing, especially about my pet projects, I tend to run on for a while.
I hope I didn't offend anybody,
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 03:24:55 AM by ace.cafe »
Home of the ACE Fireball 535 Bullet,  Ace GP Hi-Lift Roller Rocker Head . Pistons, cams, etc. Highest performance Bullet engine mods available .  AVL mods. Redditch 700/750 Twin mods. UCE kit soon.

Please visit my new website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AcePerformanceBullets/info

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2011, 04:04:49 AM »
<The name Fireball came about quite a bit after the concept was put forth in the threads here.

 I just don't have the energy to search up the genesis right now.

 It is proving to be a good and worthwhile concept and the theroies behind it could be applied to the AVL and the UCE lumps of course the bits and engineering would have to be tailored to the platforms respectively.>

taken together with


<the Fireball is a modification package for the old Iron Barrel type Bullet 500 which seeks to improve performance in all regards, AND improve reliability at the same time. It was in interesting effort, because the goals were to achieve a street roadster which didn't sacrifice low-speed tractability or idling, whilst still giving a large improvement  in hp and torque in a very useful power curve, and not seeking extreme rpms to achieve this power. The goals were met very well, and in fact the significant power increase is delivered starting right at coming off idle, and pulls strongly all the way to the 6000 rpm redline. It will do "the ton" and accelerate like an Interceptor, and get 70 mpg on the highway at 70mph cruising speeds.
It's not a race machine, but it's very powerful and not far off racing performance levels, but doesn't exhibit the negative traits that often plague race bikes that are used on the street.
We aimed for an overall performance increase that is actually so torquey and wide-band that it is just as "at home" doing high-performance riding, or highway touring, or even low-speed trials work and off-road riding. It's an engine which can be used for a wide variety of purposes, and I'm very pleased with the results that it is turning out.>



Very informative.   You can probably tell from my questions and  observations hat there are massive gaps in my knowledge of motorcycle technology, but I find this evolving Enfield story real interesting.  .   (I put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5 because of some detail I don't understand....but I'm sure there are lots of fans out there that are about the same knowledge level who are learnintg from you guys too.   ) Thus I incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that if the Carberry used hydraulic lifters the channels for these would have to mate through specifically matched bottom and top units and threrfore that they had to be using the "UCE" platform.  Thanks for the insight. 
   So this is something of an education for me. Hope I am not trashing up your forum with stupid questions. 
The Bullet is an amazing machine.   As I have said elswewhere, I am "in love "with it.   What I read from the two of you makes me even more interested, and geven what you say regarding weight to power, I am inclined to think that a Fireball UCE would be pretty hot spit and would obviate the need for a twin anyway.  I understand that RE can't do it for enviro reasons .  But   Will there be a "Fireball" mod package for current or  prospective UCE owneres?   
Nigel

Ducati Scotty

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Karma: 0
  • 2010 Teal C5
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2011, 09:50:14 AM »
I didn't know the Fireball was also designed for good manners on the street, I thought it was an all out performance package.  I'm really excited to see if the same will be done for the UCE now.  Since I'm planning to put a sidecar on in the future I'd welcome some extra power while maintaining easy driveability.

Scott

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2011, 11:22:17 AM »
Sidecar was exactly what I was thinking:  That combo would be absolutely terrific!.   And who would objuect to a liitle more oomph solo. Gents (adressing Ice and Ace) ,there are going to be a lot more UCE owners in the months and years ahead looking for a performance enhancement.  (And there will also be some "impulse" bikes on Craig's list from brief owners who didn't really know what they were buying, that would be suitable donor bikes for conversion which could keep the total cost pretty reasonable)  In fact you have really got me thinking:  I was determined to get the UCE due to a combination of it's performance edge and , yes , less maintanance than the Iron Barrel, but now that I understand what you are doing, I might even reconsider that and look for a used Iron Barrel to modify.  Incidentally, there is a writeup in Kneeslider that gives a very good rundown on the whole package:   Here I go with the links again....

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2010/09/09/ace-fireball-535-royal-enfield-high-performance-kit/     

Incidentally, I am not up at this time the morning on this formum  becaue I am  a craven addict to the Bullet ....well, OK I guess I am a bit.....but really, had to be up for work.    Nigel.   

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2011, 11:26:19 AM »
Just a quick afterthought:  If it is possible to shiskebobob a closed big end on the crankshaft (which must meea that the cranshaft is a press together articulated link) , why do the production models use a bolt on?  Nigel.

ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Karma: 0
  • World leaders in racing or performance Bullets
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2011, 03:48:45 PM »
I didn't know the Fireball was also designed for good manners on the street, I thought it was an all out performance package.  I'm really excited to see if the same will be done for the UCE now.  Since I'm planning to put a sidecar on in the future I'd welcome some extra power while maintaining easy driveability.

Scott

Hi Scotty and Nigel,
I have not made any attempts yet to do anything with the UCE.  However, something of a similar nature could be done to the UCE, of course.
I don't really have a plan or funds to get into that right now, but it's something in the back of my mind for the future, if the need arises.
If it responded anything like the Fireball, it could pull a sidecar very easily.

At this point, I'm sort of leaving that task up to the people who are "higher up on the food chain" than Ace. I am just a "privateer" effort that's funded out of my back pocket, and Chumma works together with me, and we enjoy the development facilities and expertise of Joe Mondello's shop, since Joe  is involved in a strategic relationship capacity, and he's our buddy.
We are sort of a little "club" of performance enthusiasts at Ace.  The basic idea is that we come up with things that we design to do certain jobs, and the small group of enthusiasts can buy them if they want to. It really all began as me wanting to build my bike, and seeing that the available products were insufficient. And so, instead of me just having the items made for myself only, I made some extra parts so that others could get them too, if they liked my concept. And it's still sort of like that. And Chumma got involved early on in the game and he was testing all the parts on the road, and he also came up with the piston design that we use, and he's an integral part of the effort.

Like any engine, it boils down to knowing what to do with heads and cams. And also identifying and curing potential reliability problems so that the engine can survive the performance upgrades, and not getting "silly" with it to the point of losing street manners. The Fireball has better street manners than any Bullet ever dreamed of having. Just yesterday, Chumma was doing a little break-in riding on Chuck's new Fireball that has about 30 miles total time on it, and he pulled a hill in top gear at 2200rpm, without even a hint of lugging, and it has an 18T gear on it, and 19" wheels. If he gives it a hard twist of throttle a little closer to torque peak rpm in first gear, he lifts the front wheel off the ground. And it idles like a clock at 900 rpm, and starts on the first kick.. And believe it or not, yes this is a Bullet being described here.

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that a bike CAN be made high-performance without giving up street manners. And it could be done to the UCE too. The key is to know your stuff, and not push the limits too far, where you give up the tractability in the lower rpms. Stop a little short of making it a full-on racing bike.. It still can go like blazes, but it behaves, IF you do it right.
And that takes alot of knowledge. But it can be done.

If I start getting people approaching me for UCE head mods and stuff, and are serious about buying, I will talk to Joe and see what it will cost to get it done on a UCE head, and I will have to make some new cams for it. And stuff like that is not cheap, and I will require that I have the head for analysis, and it will be a development project..
And it could be done on some future RE twin too, or whatever.
It all depends on what the person wants. Some want a factory bike, and some want a modified bike. I work in the modifications arena.
The typical pattern that I see is that as a person has an engine failure, or it's got alot of mileage and is getting tired, they look for options on the rebuild. And that's when they often come to me. Some will do it early, because they want the performance increase. And as you mentioned some buy a dead or cheap used Bullet as a lower-cost basis on which to do a performance build.


And Nigel,
Regarding your question about the con-rod, the original Bullet has a one-piece rod.
I haven't looked at the bottom end of the UCE closely enough to see about any rod changes that they made down there.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 04:54:17 PM by ace.cafe »
Home of the ACE Fireball 535 Bullet,  Ace GP Hi-Lift Roller Rocker Head . Pistons, cams, etc. Highest performance Bullet engine mods available .  AVL mods. Redditch 700/750 Twin mods. UCE kit soon.

Please visit my new website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AcePerformanceBullets/info

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2011, 06:52:30 PM »
"Ace" and "Ice"  Thanks again for your guidance .  Once again the gap  between my enthusiasm and mechanical knowledge is apparent (not sure where I got the idea that the big end stock was a bolt-up, but it was probably from reading about modded out vintage bikes of other types that included changing the crankshaft from solid to press together in order to accomodate a solid big end for higher revving integrity. 
You have given me a lot of food for thought and curbed my brief adulterous infatuation with Bullets older sister Interceptor:  Seeing what can be done with a single has brought me back home:  For what it is worth (in terms of your future plans) I for one (and I am sure I am not alone) would be more interested in a sensibly modded Bullet Single with "tractability and durability" than I would in a twin (even REs yet to appear twin)   . If the maker doesn't fill this void, I am sure there is a market for the mods.  I know nothing about the ins and outs of the business of performance mods, but if somebody is going to make money out of it, might as well be you guys.
 
Interestingly, and coming full circle, ACE your very helpful response has answered exactly the quetions I posed when I first entered this forum with my tag  entitled "Fury"   Looking back I see that just about everyone but you chimed in, but you have in fact addressed precisely what I was wondering about there.  Thank you. 
As an aside, I would also like to complement you on your prose ad typing:  Your entries are very readable, and you make a whole lot less typos then me.  If you wrench as carefully as you type, I'd trust my machine to you anytime.  Thanks again for your patient explanations.   Nigel

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2011, 07:17:21 PM »
 In thinking long and hard about the proposed twin cylinder.

 I have a hunch that it will be a UCE inspired upright parallel design,a widened UCE if you will, with a siamesed cylinder block and a single head.

RE has experience building UCE's

The parallel twin was the last twin RE offered.

The parallel twin would look right in a Bullet type frame.

The parallel twin style would be more Britt like.

The narrow vee (twin) is closely associated with Harley Davidson.

 If the twin is to be a widened UCE, I hope it has as much parts commonality as practical with single for ease of supply for dealer and owner alike.


I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

ace.cafe

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Karma: 0
  • World leaders in racing or performance Bullets
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2011, 08:01:17 PM »
Nigel,
I used the search function to find your Fury thread.

The short answer is that the Fury had very limited success due to reliability problems in the bottom end. It was an 8000rpm performance design that was mounted on a 6000rpm bottom end. Result: breakage.

To understand why this is, you must understand port design and cam design.
I have written extensively about this on this website, and also on my website, so I won't try to write the book again here.
Suffice it to say that a big port and inlet tract like the Fury had, coupled with the very radical cams like the Fury had, only work well in the high rpm range, and they are horrid at normal street riding rpms. Added to that, since they only work well at high rpms, you are forced to ride at those high rpms or it's a misbehaving dog. And the rpm range they picked for their power curve extended far higher than the mechanical integrity of the bottom end could endure, so it always broke.
It was very fast in its element for as long as it remained intact, which often wasn't too long. It was a failure as a motorcycle, and I really don't understand why anyone would want to duplicate that failure,  or why it has this "mystique" surrounding it.
The Manx, Goldstar, Velocette Thruxton, G50, etc, all were built on the same high-rpm power curve idea, but they were better able to hold together in the bottom end.
Why?
Shorter strokes with higher rev-limits in all of those others.

There's a whole lot to modifying engines.
Knowing what your goals are, and knowing where your limits are, and knowing how to design parts to meet the goals within the limits to the best degree possible, is the ticket.

What we do at Ace is to use the size and shape in the port to get the best flow possible in the smallest size possible that can reach our designated "safe" upper limits in rpm. Then we use cam design to set the power curve characteristics(including bandwidth) for the intended purpose, including considerations for idling stability and low-rpm torque delivery.
Then we don't suffer these "over-ported and over-cammed" problems that are so often seen in modified engines which yield poor street riding results.
The number one mistake in most "performance modified engines" is that they make the port too big for the application, and then they cannot overcome that deficiency via any other band-aid method.
It's not so much that we "hate" big ports. It's more that we understand that ports which are too large for the intended rpm range are counterproductive to the overall result.
It doesn't matter if you are ported and cammed to reach 8000rpm and have a whole bunch of "theoretical power" up there, if the bottom end of the engine can't reliably reach that limit without blowing up.
And that is the story of the Fury.

The Fireball comes close to the output of the Fury, with a much wider and more progressive power curve which extends only to 6000rpm, and behaves perfectly at all rpms for the street use that we intend. And it's rock-solid reliable. We don't rev as high, and have a bit less max hp than the Fury, but we get alot better torque, reliability, and street manners in the normal street-riding rpms as a benefit in the trade. And since we aren't making a track-only bike, that was a benefit we wanted.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 08:30:59 PM by ace.cafe »
Home of the ACE Fireball 535 Bullet,  Ace GP Hi-Lift Roller Rocker Head . Pistons, cams, etc. Highest performance Bullet engine mods available .  AVL mods. Redditch 700/750 Twin mods. UCE kit soon.

Please visit my new website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AcePerformanceBullets/info

Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2011, 09:26:38 PM »
Thank you again.   You have just made me (and I am sure hundreds of other forum readers) even more keen to see a Fireball UCE.   The question I asked in the first place (not extolling the Fury's  mystique but simply coming acrioss a reference to it's  performance specs) was can we have our cake and eat it too, or, is there a happy mediium between sedate and race that keeps the best elements of the Bullet low end performance and reliability  but opening up it's performance potential   Sounds like the balnced mods you call "Fireball" are the answer to exactly that need.  I'd buy it. Thank you for pointing the way for the rest of us and pioneering in this work.  I hope that you  may be able to  you broaden your target market as UCE sales continue .  .If that is not in your personal or company plans, then I hope you profit from your hard work and insight by selling it to someone that will.      . Nigel . 

Ice

  • Hypercafienated
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Karma: 0
  • Ride In Paradise Cabo, Don and Ernie
I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

1 Thump

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1277
  • Karma: 0
Re: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2011, 11:07:34 PM »
Nigel I don't think Ace has made any money but he has made a lot of friends.
 ;) :D ;D 8)



and he has made a great product.....more success to him. The big market is in India. He should definitely make money there.