Two Stroke Motocross
Two Stroke Motocross Forum => General Two Stroke Talk => Topic started by: ChrisMX3417 on May 31, 2011, 09:44:12 AM
-
Direct injection 2 Strokes creates a 4-stroke powerband. For most people that is better. But like you many people like that hit. With DI you can have different power curves. It is possible to make a powerband that is narrower than a current carb 2-stroke! Aprilia made a DI RS250 and did this. They had easy power curves, aggressive curves, and curves that emulated carbureted 2-strokes. it would be very easy to have a switch on the handlebar that let the rider choose between them for his preference. Say if someone made a V4 500 Motogp(Sport bike) 2 stroke with Direct injection, You can even make it harder hitting than the current carb 2 stroke sport bikes or make it smoother like a 4 stroke and the emissions are lowered to 80 percent on the Direct injection and the 500 V4 motogps where making 210 bhp in 2001 imagine how much more it would have with Direct injection
-
No thanks....
1 REAL power curve is better than push button selection from a pool of fake ones.
My Yz's power curve is a miraculous expression of tuned induction and resonance. A DI 2 stroke's fake power curve is a weak imitation of the real thing, kind of like a blow up doll.
I think DI sucks and is a step backward for any motorcycle and I'll have simple, fast, bullshit free engines forever even if I get stuck casting the parts myself someday.
-
Wowsers another DI thread. ;D And it is the way of the future, but some people aren't ready for it.
-
Yeah, I don't like it, because it's just going to make a 2 stroke EASIER to ride, much like a 4 stroke. Less skilled riders will benefit (good or bad??). It's great for leveling the playing field against 4 strokes, but when you start adding too much programming, it takes away from the roots of the sport. It'll just increase the overall expense, unless it's a mechanical direct injection. It's pretty much the motocross version of traction control, in a way. I'm sort of on the fence about it.
-
You guys are forgetting why a 2 stroke has a power band in the first place.
The way a motor is ported and the expansion chamber effects when the "powerband" kicks in.
Remember a 2 stroke is an "air pump" that works best when in the rev range the motor is designed for.When in its correct operating range a 2 stroke is a very efficient motor but when running below that range is a very inefficient motor. Hence we have a very noticable "hit" when the revs climb into the designed operating range.
With a DI you will still have a powerband as the scavaging and exhaust pulses combine to increase volumetric efficiency."On the pipe"
You will have a smoother bottom end with DI because of better fueling but you still wont have volumetric efficiency.
It will be easy to have different mapping( like GG & KTM do now with ignition timming ) but by changing timming & fueling.
Any one riden a 250F lately ? they have a power band it is just not as noticeable as a smoker.
-
TMKIWI, stop repeating yourself, they don't get it.
-
According to the KTM video, Fuel Injection will be first with them. Sounds like they have it already, but don't want to complicate things (yeh) until they absolutely have too. Said offroad first and then SX models if the governments force them into it. But the good news, is they are committed to them, and said see a day when they are back.
-
Direct injection 2 Strokes creates a 4-stroke powerband. For most people that is better. But like you many people like that hit. With DI you can have different power curves. It is possible to make a powerband that is narrower than a current carb 2-stroke! Aprilia made a DI RS250 and did this. They had easy power curves, aggressive curves, and curves that emulated carbureted 2-strokes. it would be very easy to have a switch on the handlebar that let the rider choose between them for his preference. Say if someone made a V4 500 Motogp(Sport bike) 2 stroke with Direct injection, You can even make it harder hitting than the current carb 2 stroke sport bikes or make it smoother like a 4 stroke and the emissions are lowered to 80 percent on the Direct injection and the 500 V4 motogps where making 210 bhp in 2001 imagine how much more it would have with Direct injection
Was only rumoured Aprilia made a injected RS 250 even my contacts in th Aprilia Corse said they had never seen that bike. The Suter 500 is injected but replacing carbs not the venerated Direct Injection. You can do all that with an ignition.The 500's didn't need any more HP what they strived for (as with all race bikes) is X % throttle = X % torque to the wheel.
-
Perhaps after a few years of DI, more work can be done developing them and tuning them when they emerge in racing for example.
Two strokes need something to start back on again, at least they will start again with something. Nothing happens overnight. Kaaden didn't stop developing chambers through all his difficulties, he could have flopped because it was difficult to start off.
The most highly tuned engines are rarely the smoothest. Imagine the potential in the future, after development wait till they get multi-cylinder designs rolling!
How will any development take place if people mention "It's D.I. it's not the same as it was" that is what will harm the two stroke much less a smooth powerband. Nothing's the same as it once was, at every moment in the world, things change, if we don't, we get left behind, so we may as well make the changes our way.
It's up to us, fans, designers, technicians, racers, to make it happen.
Generally, variable exhaust and intake geometry limit maximum flow of gas that would otherwise be attainable. For example, traditionally, Disc valves offered more maximum performance over reed valves. Two stroke engines of the future may well use variable geometry, but variable to different degrees...They need not be the same from scooter to sportsbike to enduro. The exact same throttle bodies and butterfly designs need not be fitted to every single D.I. two stroke. Mechanical limitations always apply regardless of "the evil/magic of the computers!!"
Even if sportsbikes were restricted, who's to say people could not develop components and systems to make the engines shine! People, especially over a certain age, fear the electronics and the advance of them (no pun intended), when you consider that the average person is likely to become more computer literate in the future, I see that in a small way, power can be given back to the average person/enthusiast as the cycle comes back and we understand what we are dealing with. It's up to us.
-
Let's see,the BRP DI 2T 600 sleds are making as much power with better fuel economy then the Yamaha 1200 4$ snowmobiles.I like where DI is going and look forward to buying a DI 2T dirt bike. ;D
-
Maybe some people here don't understand why there is a perceptible steepening of the power curve, or "Powerband" in a bracket of the RPM range, but I do. Some people never get the hang of riding the incline of that wave of power, but most riders understand it instinctively.
I don't mind if they make fuel injected bikes with some retardedly complex system of pumps, sensors and highly pressurized central processing butterfly gadgetrons... AS LONG AS PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT OR NEED TRAINING WHEELS ON THEIR ENGINE can get the simple, brutally effective machines THEY want.
If the power characteristics of a good 2 stroke race bike are to harsh and uncouth for some people, let them get one of the DI bikes so they can put in a "mellow power band" CD in and putt around if they want. Nerf balls and blow up dolls if they want, just don't force that on everyone. They already make bikes with engines that have very little personality, and most of the time there are plenty of them left sitting around for sale cheap since lots of people aren't interested...
Sell both and no one will have a problem with DI bikes. Otherwise, those of us who still want the real thing will have to figure out a way of cutting all that stuff out and tossing it, or just changing the engines out altogether.
-
Have you had a 2-stroke with water cooling? With a variable exhaust port? With electronic ignition? All these are "modern" enhancements of the basic two stroke design and non of them take away from the need of an expansion chamber tuning the exhaust pulses to shove more fuel air mixture back into the combustion chamber before the exhaust closes.
NONE of that changes with DI. The method of bringing air into the cylinder remains the same. Up stroke sucks it into the crankcase, downstroke pressurizes the case and then shoots the air up into the cylinder as the transfer ports open. NOTHING DIFFERENT HERE. Only difference is there is not any gas in that air in the crankcase (side advantage here, no gas washing away any lube oil in there so don't have to use as much!).
The injector can time the fuel introduction to the cylinder to do that AFTER the exhaust closes so none of it shoots out the port without being burned. Efficiency just went up 30% with that little trick. Everything else works as a regular old DT1 engine. So, we need a computer to run it and a couple of sensors we are not used to. Big deal. 20+ years ago radiators and thermostats were new fangled toys.
No thanks....
1 REAL power curve is better than push button selection from a pool of fake ones.
My Yz's power curve is a miraculous expression of tuned induction and resonance. A DI 2 stroke's fake power curve is a weak imitation of the real thing, kind of like a blow up doll.
I think DI sucks and is a step backward for any motorcycle and I'll have simple, fast, bullshit free engines forever even if I get stuck casting the parts myself someday.
-
Yes, but that 30% might be important to you. It's not important to me. I don't care at all if a little tiny bit of the fuel charge is lost here and there. All I care about is how the bike runs.
When my bike runs out of gas, I put more in it. If that happens 30% sooner, I don't care.
-
With the power increase that DI offers it could make two strokes competitive against 450's therefore taking out any handicap. I did say could, the results will have to be seen but this could be a real winner
-
Oh dear lord, if the AMA continues on they track they are heading down, they will probably change the rules for DI two strokes. 125 two stroke against 450 four strokes.
-
Have you had a 2-stroke with water cooling? With a variable exhaust port? With electronic ignition? All these are "modern" enhancements of the basic two stroke design and non of them take away from the need of an expansion chamber tuning the exhaust pulses to shove more fuel air mixture back into the combustion chamber before the exhaust closes.
NONE of that changes with DI. The method of bringing air into the cylinder remains the same. Up stroke sucks it into the crankcase, downstroke pressurizes the case and then shoots the air up into the cylinder as the transfer ports open. NOTHING DIFFERENT HERE. Only difference is there is not any gas in that air in the crankcase (side advantage here, no gas washing away any lube oil in there so don't have to use as much!).
Except the decending piston doesn't 'shoot' gasses into anywhere especialy when the transfers open, only problem with 'dry' bottom ends is the lubrication issue(how do we get the oil to where it's needed) and the that fuel cools the metal. Water cooling has been around since the 1920's , only thing that doesn't change is the fact we have yet to see a single working example of a full size DI motorcycle. The DI/injected KTM300 rumor is about 5 or 6 years old now.
-
Perhaps a reworking of the posi-lube system from around the 60's.
Hear what I'm saying, variable geometry doesn't have to be so widely variable, powerbands are still attainable, the most highly tuned engines are rarely the smoothest.
When D.I. gets started, it's not going to be perfect, or what people want, instantly, we have to allow something to ACTUALLY HAPPEN. What a shocking idea. Revolutionary in fact.
Why would they get all super performance and focus on horsepower firebreathers until they can get the commuter scooters just right? Think for a minute.
The performance will come.
-
@Suzuki DS250/185,
We all hear what you are saying. A simplified, affordable 2 stroke motorcycle that any 'shade tree mechanic' can repair would be nice and our 'holy grail'.
Yet, thanks to environmental issues - real or imagined, lawmakers from around the world are looking at all forms of pollution and ways to minimize and eliminate it. 2T's by nature are filthy animals and can easily be replaced with 4$, albeit of larger capacity, that run cleaner and more efficiently. The US government has actively pursued tackling global pollution in other countries as a way of cutting the total green house gasses rather than taking the economic hit in this country. Elsewhere in the world, the 2T is a measurable problem and easy to eliminate. All that said, motorcycles are only a small part of the 2T emission problem.
The trick for those that love the 2$ and think it is a superior design, have to come up with a solution to make it run clean and have a more efficient use of fuel. Evenrude and Can-Am (and sounds like KTM) believe that DI is the answer. John Dear bought a 2T design from a friend of mine for their Lawn and Garden line (though I have not seen it). I'm sure other manufacturers have it on their R&D plate. Change is going to happen not because of '4$ like power bands' or 'easier to ride' motorcycles but because the market and governments DEMAND clean and efficient vehicles.
You and I might not understand DI or the computers required to run it, but the future 'modders' will. You and I understand carbs but our great grandparents probably had no concept and what was under the hood was just as alien.
I, myself, am looking forward to their offer and if Can-Am came out with a DI 2T with electric start, I'd buy it today.
-
If I could get away with a 1.8 gallon tank to make a 25 mile loop at the virginia city grand prix instead of packing another 4 pounds of gas with me, that sure seems like an advantage to me! How hard is it to loose 4 pounds off a bike? How about a full day of trail riding with a 3 gallon tank instead of 4? I would not call 30% tiny.
Like it or not two strokes are a very endangered species. I for one would be very happy to see a modern bike with a CA green sticker on it (so I can ride it year round). I already have vintage two strokes (Yamaha MX125, RT3, CT3, SC500) and love them BECAUSE they function great with no water, no power valves and not a single transistor -- for 2 of the bikes anyway -- but they are pretty brutal to ride fast.
I love these engines but the writing is on the wall. DI is the only way to continue the breed in today's world. Not only continue it, but to improve two strokes as well. A 600 SkiDoo makes over 100 HP, thats a 50+ HP 300 single. Not too bad. My SC500 only makes 38 HP and I can't open the throttle all the way for more than a couple of seconds. Had a WR500 a decade or two ago (YZ490 engine) and could not open the throttle when on the pipe on that bike for very long either.
No DI equals a dwindling choice of bikes for us in the future. That's a future I would like to avoid.
I too am waiting for final validation of DI on bikes -- seems like all the parts are there but one has yet to show up. maybe this is political games by the manufacturers or maybe there is some other technical hitch (like getting that injector to work right while banging over woops) but it does concern me that one has not been offered so long after DI has been available on boats and snowmobiles for so long...
Again, as a message to KTM, Honda, Yamaha, GasGas, TM, etc, I will buy one the moment it comes out (then duck when my wife finds out! :o)
Yes, but that 30% might be important to you. It's not important to me. I don't care at all if a little tiny bit of the fuel charge is lost here and there. All I care about is how the bike runs.
When my bike runs out of gas, I put more in it. If that happens 30% sooner, I don't care.
-
For those afraid of modern electronics/direct injection neutering their beloved 2 strokes, please go to youtube,type in "Ski-doo 800 etec wheelying" and browse some of the videos.
Then come back here and tell us all how neutered, easy to ride, and 4 stroke behaving they are. sheesh ::)
-
Chris, maybe it's not the performance some people are worried about, but perhaps the atmosphere. It's some of the worst things about dirtbikes that we love the most. For example; the sound. There's no way around it, it's LOUD... But we love it. The blue smoke... We know it's not doing any good for the environment... but we love it. Put too many circuits on a bike and it becomes an electric motocross bike. Say good by smoke. Goodbye wonderful sound. Hello wall charger. (I'm talking long term of course... but my point still stands)
-
only problem with 'dry' bottom ends is the lubrication issue(how do we get the oil to where it's needed) and the that fuel cools the metal.
Dry sump oiling system SHOULD work, but then again would need a reservoir tank, cooler and oil pump and complete engine re-design. HELLO 15 more pounds.
-
An electric solenoid oil injector weighs 1 lb & and the feed hoses nothing. Same size hose as your carb overflows.
Oil tank weight will be what ever the bike needs.
For example a enduro bike doing a GNCC or a 4 hour race would need 800ml's of oil.Depends on what oil rate they would use.
A MX bike would need a lot less.
So the weight penalty would not be too great.
-
Agreed. Again, the alternative is valves, cams, chains, rockers, tappets, keepers, guide, seals, etc, etc, etc. I'll take my oil injection and enjoy it thank you! ;D
An electric solenoid oil injector weighs 1 lb & and the feed hoses nothing. Same size hose as your carb overflows.
Oil tank weight will be what ever the bike needs.
For example a enduro bike doing a GNCC or a 4 hour race would need 800ml's of oil.Depends on what oil rate they would use.
A MX bike would need a lot less.
So the weight penalty would not be too great.
-
Agreed. Again, the alternative is valves, cams, chains, rockers, tappets, keepers, guide, seals, etc, etc, etc. I'll take my oil injection and enjoy it thank you! ;D
I like a rule change alternative better. The 2 stroke would benefit more from that at the pro level than anything. THEN others will follow KTM and implement chassis improvements if they bring back their smokers.
-
I am all for a rule change too (just signed the petition). There is no reason to have the two stroke 250 struggle against 450 four strokes. They changed the rules to make things more even before -- they can do it again. DI is not necessarally a path to significantly more performance. Its main purpose would be to get 2-strokes on the trail (and maybe on the street) so that manufacturers could again build boat loads of them. Economies of scale will allow low build costs which boosts profits -- manufactuers take note! An $8k two stroke offroad bike has got to have more profit in it than an $8k four stroke given the same running gear -- well maybe less profit in replacement parts sales... some might say that's why we are in the the current situation...
I like a rule change alternative better. The 2 stroke would benefit more from that at the pro level than anything. THEN others will follow KTM and implement chassis improvements if they bring back their smokers.
-
why not seal off the crank bearings and let them be lubed by the tranny fluid?
-
You would still have to arrange for oil to get to the piston skirt and the crank and wrist pins so still need some sort of injector, but yes -- does seem like the crankcase halves could be setup to have you install a seal onto the inside side of the case, put the cases together and then press the bearings in from the outside. Downside is that you would need to split the cases to change those seals.
why not seal off the crank bearings and let them be lubed by the tranny fluid?
-
I personally like the idea of direct injected 2-strokes for many reasons. The 1st is to keep the "green weenies off of our case!" The 2nd reason is to get 2-strokes back out on the MX & SX tracks and a 3rd reason I would like DI 2-strokes is because it imo would NOT effect the overall power in any negative way.It may however smooth the powerband out & give the 2-stroke much better traction to compete with the 4-chokes & I of all people am NOT really enthused with the electronics that would be needed with the direct injected 2-stroke & for that reason I would like to see the manufacturers produce both direct injected 2-strokes as well as carbed smokers for all of us to have a choice! Although with that said I would still be very interested in a direct injected 300cc. 2-stroke for offroad riding as well as street legallity to be able to ride to the trails & offroad places I ride.
The last thing I would like to mention is just like the 4-chokes & thier fuel injection a 2-stroke with direct injection could & would have several different map settings so it could be programmed to the riders preference & I personally do not think that DI would really effect the powerband all that much that it would take away the fun factor that all of us 2-stroke riders love!........................... :o :P ??? The so called Shock & Awe of a hard hitting & wicked 2-stroke powerband!!!!
-
Ok, here is a wild thought for us that don't want the computer dictating the bike's behavior. Have a USB (or even bluetooth!) port on the DI computer and the manufacturer can give/sell you software that would present a bunch of knobs - a knob that looks like a needle clip position, a knob that looks like a pilot jet, main jet, a power valve, etc. Maybe a timing advance curve you can drag around, shift the injection timing, the list is endless!
Of course the moment you take any of these parameters out of the manufacturer approved envelope the warranty goes poof! This would make the bike just a tune-able as existing bikes but the changes could be done in seconds and would require no wrenches. Could be very cool!
-
looks like a money making opportunity to me!
Ok, here is a wild thought for us that don't want the computer dictating the bike's behavior. Have a USB (or even bluetooth!) port on the DI computer and the manufacturer can give/sell you software that would present a bunch of knobs - a knob that looks like a needle clip position, a knob that looks like a pilot jet, main jet, a power valve, etc. Maybe a timing advance curve you can drag around, shift the injection timing, the list is endless!
-
There's a small problem with every argument in this thread:
You aren't thinking 'big picture'.
Motorcycles are a pimple on an elephant's rear, according to the general public, anyway. I love bikes, you people love bikes, we know what they do for us. The non-riding public? Not so much.
I lack R&D resources. I lack engineering ability. I do not lack for ideas, however.
The problem here is getting rid of 4-stroke engines in automobiles.
To that end, my son (factoryX) and I are kind of screwing around with alternative engine designs for cars. One proposal is to use four head/jugs from Banshee engines, and create a V8 using as many Banshee parts as possible, but join them together in a common, V8 case. Plan 1A is to use 8 CR500 jugs, and using the stock CR500 stroke, that gets you around a 4.6L displacement. Given that a pissed-off CR500 can push well north of 60hp....multiply that times 8, and when you have multiple cylinders assisting in rotating the crank....my fuzzy math gets me somewhere between 400-800 hp.
Plan 2? Utilize ANY 4-stroke engine as a foundation; use both the intake and exhaust valves as an intake source, and by using engineering calculations that I have no idea how to use, position an exhaust port similar to where you'd normally find one in a regular two-stroke engine. Basically, it's the reverse of a GMC 2-stroke diesel, but you convert existing 4-stroke gas (or diesel, imagine what firing twice as much during 4000 rpm will do for a Cummins 5.9 diesel would do) engines over to a two-stroke, and you'd eliminate having to run intake air through the crankcase, like you would on a normal 2-stroke. Use a reverse centrifigal supercharger, or belt-driven turbo to extract exhaust out of the engine....any engine, using both the intake and exhaust ports for intake air, and if you couple this with a variable-plane intake, which runs intake charge through the exhaust port during low rpm for max torque, switches to the intake valve for midrange, and then opens up both intake ports at full throttle....add to this variable cam timing....my God, think of the power possibilities, if you could make this all work. Yes, you're using everything from the 4-stroke engine (the intake and exhaust valves open at the same time), but you're doubling the amount of times the plug fires.
Basically, you get the idea. It's sort of a cheap hybrid of the two types of engines. I normally thought about doing this myself, but I'm an 'idea' guy, and don't have the resources or ability to make it happen.
-
I don't think two strokes are going to be ok in the average car. The holes in the cylinder make life rough on the rings. I have 150000 miles on my toyota and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I don't think you could count on that for a 2T -- even if it was a detuned as much as the typical cage engine. Of course, if top end rebuilds are as easy as they are on 2T maybe that really isn't an show stopper?
Typical 4 cylinder econo car makes around 120 HP, right? Again, toss a skidoo 600cc DI engine at that car -- it drops several hundered pounds of weight and lots of rube-goldberg valve gear complexity. Hmmmmm.....
So a Honda S2000 with a SkiDoo 800 Etec, 160HP and again looses a couple of hundred pounds. Sounds like a fun sports car to me!
-
Or a lotus elise! ahaa, imagine these cars with some suping up, 2t D.I. style.
-
Fun to think about but a KTM300 / GasGas 300 DI is really where I want to go!!!!!
-
I don't think two strokes are going to be ok in the average car. The holes in the cylinder make life rough on the rings. I have 150000 miles on my toyota and it doesn't use a drop of oil. I don't think you could count on that for a 2T -- even if it was a detuned as much as the typical cage engine. Of course, if top end rebuilds are as easy as they are on 2T maybe that really isn't an show stopper?
Typical 4 cylinder econo car makes around 120 HP, right? Again, toss a skidoo 600cc DI engine at that car -- it drops several hundered pounds of weight and lots of rube-goldberg valve gear complexity. Hmmmmm.....
So a Honda S2000 with a SkiDoo 800 Etec, 160HP and again looses a couple of hundred pounds. Sounds like a fun sports car to me!
Pretty sure, if you made a 350 CI 2 stroke, detuned it to run at say 4,000 RPM max, it would last just fine. We are used to race motors with race rings and pistons, that run at 8,000 + RPM. They are made light and single ringed most cases now. Double ringed heavier piston, lower rpm and you would be good. Remember, diesels are basically 2 strokes, atleast the older style. having the ports we know isn't the same is what you would get in a vehicle. We'd have valves etc. Be somethig liike my old VW rabbit that went 300k
-
Ah but the average car isn't out to win races. Using a 4 stroke v8 block(or any block) converted to two stroke, you would have the same reliability as the 4 stroke with twice the power. The crank itself is lubricated, and the cylinder walls are sealed and lubricated by oil splash. So in other words we just eliminated the 2 stroke oil issue which is a problem is it not for EFI/DI? :P But whats even cooler is that you no longer need huge ass freaking motors to get a ton of horse power, you could get 400-500hp+ from a naturally aspirated 2.0ltr!
-
We are not going to get 2 strokes in cars.
Cars run most of their lives at part throttle and four strokes do that quite well.
They are still inefficient at part throttle running but way better then a 2 stroke.
Turbo diesels are the most efficient at part throttle.
The only way a 2 stroke would work well is if the exhaust was tuned to operate at 1500-2500RPM where most cars spend their lives.
Turbo it and put a CVT transmission on it and it would work very well. (Sounds a bit like a Detroit.)
Then you would have a car with a very small engine.
Be a bit boring tho.
-
They had 2 Stroke cars called SAAB. Look on youtube and you will see them.
-
you can do this but you need a blower to run carnk oil below the pistons.
-
They had 2 Stroke cars called SAAB. Look on youtube and you will see them.
Yep.
And Suzuki and Messerschmitt and Zundapp and Fiat and the most famous of them all the Trabant.
There has been quite a few.
-
There is an article in the latest edition of Adb - Australia's biggest dirt bike magazine about direct injection.
Most importantly, an Aus rep for KTM confirms that KTM have a working prototype of a Di 300 and that they're just waiting on emmisions regs to be reset before they launch the bike - obviously to ensure it's relevant.
Most likely it'll be out in 2013, however Ossa are likely releasing they're fi trail bike in 2012, it's not di though, rather throttle body injection.
Though the waiting game is frustrating it really does look as if we'll have something soon
-
I'll never figure it out - you've got these gigantic corporations in Japan churning out all these boring 4T$ and a microscopic company in Spain building a FI 2T trials bike that is a work of art.I can't wait to see Ossa's offroad bike for 2012! ;D
-
Indeed, the Ossa fuel injected enduro bike will be interesting...
The Japanese could do that too, but i don't see it happen from them in the near future.
-
Perhaps after a few years of DI, more work can be done developing them and tuning them when they emerge in racing for example.
Two strokes need something to start back on again, at least they will start again with something. Nothing happens overnight. Kaaden didn't stop developing chambers through all his difficulties, he could have flopped because it was difficult to start off.
The most highly tuned engines are rarely the smoothest. Imagine the potential in the future, after development wait till they get multi-cylinder designs rolling!
How will any development take place if people mention "It's D.I. it's not the same as it was" that is what will harm the two stroke much less a smooth powerband. Nothing's the same as it once was, at every moment in the world, things change, if we don't, we get left behind, so we may as well make the changes our way.
It's up to us, fans, designers, technicians, racers, to make it happen.
Generally, variable exhaust and intake geometry limit maximum flow of gas that would otherwise be attainable. For example, traditionally, Disc valves offered more maximum performance over reed valves. Two stroke engines of the future may well use variable geometry, but variable to different degrees...They need not be the same from scooter to sportsbike to enduro. The exact same throttle bodies and butterfly designs need not be fitted to every single D.I. two stroke. Mechanical limitations always apply regardless of "the evil/magic of the computers!!"
Even if sportsbikes were restricted, who's to say people could not develop components and systems to make the engines shine! People, especially over a certain age, fear the electronics and the advance of them (no pun intended), when you consider that the average person is likely to become more computer literate in the future, I see that in a small way, power can be given back to the average person/enthusiast as the cycle comes back and we understand what we are dealing with. It's up to us.
Direct Injection is the future