HPRE

Menu

Members Rides

08 AVL


in
Members Rides

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 09:42:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length

 

Author Topic: Royal Enfield conceptualizing twin Cylinder 750 and 1000cc motorcycles!  (Read 5179 times)

GreenMachine

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • 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: 1256
  • 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: 6009
  • 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: 2661
  • 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: 6009
  • 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: 8172
  • 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://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AcePerformanceBullets/

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: 8172
  • 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://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AcePerformanceBullets/

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: 6009
  • 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