The KTM handles low-octane petrol pretty good, I guess a modern cylinder-head and watercooling helps. Some (all?) have a possibility to alter the ignition.

I was driving with a guy on a 640-adventure in Iceland, it overheated...

Thank you Alibaba.
I am quite illiterat when it comes to brittish measurement - I did interpret Mr Moores test too negatively.
My applogies to all for this misstake.


Bernardo I do stand firm in my primary recommendation - address oil cooling and vehicle durability/simplicity. This tuning will not be expensive if you use 2:nd hand parts.

This is a neat idea on enging cooling (I do not recommend this to you - its just a creative solution):
Photos R90W

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

Hello

My needs are:

-low end torque
-ability to work with different fuels (I’m available to in some situations retard the timing if necessary)
-reliability
-(no over heating problems at low speed)
-two barrels since mine have flaking Nikasil
-a simple mechanic and simple electronics “electricity” so it can be easily fixable in the road.
-I bought the bike in the Ebay for 1800 euros. (this should be my reference when doing improvements… ) J My budget is around 600euros +/ - 20%

After all your comments I will probably jeopardy my budget in MAHLE Sport kit 1000cc from Moto Israel, for 699,00 €

(but it’s still an open issue)

One fast question: if I need to change the big end shells do I also need to change the bolts?

__________________
bernardo feio (Portugal)
2.5 Land Rover Lightweight / BMW R80 G/S PD / Toyota HZJ 78

Good - now we have something to work with (presenting our ideas, suggestions and recommendations) -

Lowend torque:
- best torque will be with 1000cc or larger using "too small" carbs and inlet ducts (stubs).
- I have only tested the "modern" R100 with torqure max at 3000rpm once. It was good but BMW have traded off too much power to my taste. I use the old type of engins with torque max at 5500rpm - I do find that type of engine to be far better.

My personal recommendation to this is:
- dual ignition. In my R80, 800cc system, it gave me one full gearshift more power at 2000rpm, and that is a -lot- of low-end torque enhancement.
- larger, and high-flow valves. It gave me another full gearshift step at 2000rpm.
These two minute tunings/adjustments gave me from 1st to 3rd (at 5-7% up-hill) added torque.
On my R100 it is not as distinct; but it is the same ratio in added power; my R100 have a 32/10 final drive and not a 33/11 which kinds of enhances low-end torque also.
- Swap the 33/11 for a 32/10 and change the 1st and 5th gears inside the gearbox (major investment overhaul though) => 3.0:1 in 5th will be 3.01 or there about in 5th; i.e. one looses a little bit of top-speed potential (a beemer does not handle well at 180km/h and up, "so who cares?").

Wider range of acceptable petrol quallity:
- lower the compression ratio from 9.5:1 to 8.2:1; i.e. change to low-compression pistons. A neat "trick" is to simply install dubble head-gaskets (done that by misstake so I know it can work).
- dual-ignition!!! It is -so- important!
- larger intake-valves, high-flow. I have tested BugPack 45mm; sounds silly changing from 44 to 45, but it does have far more effect than what I anticipated.
- changing from 40mm to 38mm on the exhaust valves.
The change of valves enhances volumetric efficiency which does result in more engine power, but also at the same time a better acceptancy for less good fuels. The dual ignition enhances the burn-rate so radically that you should be able to run on as low as 87-90 octane (EU standard) which is close to karoseen when combined with low-ratio compression and larger inlet-valves (46/38 is what you should aim for).


OBS!
NB!
The piston heads and the combustion side of the heads -must- be grinded to be "smooth as a babys bottom"! ALL edges must be taken/grinded away, and all surfaces must be polished to "super smooth". Hot spots form at edges due to carbon deposits! Hot-spots causes pre-ignition. Pre-ignition is what determins what quallity of petrol that one must use. When these surfaces are -perfect- you can run on very low octane-


To lower the risk of overheating at low speeds, you will need to install electical fans. Tube fans or simply computor fans will do nicely. My mechanic have tube-fans on his side-car.
You could use temprature pic-up switch or a simple switch to activate the fans.

I am a fan of car alternator conversion with belt pully. Those start at about 40A. A standard Audi 100 or Saab 99/900 55-70A from the 80:ties will do just nicely.
The car alternator have a fan that aids in cooling the engine; more on the side it is mounted of cause. And because one takes out the original generator it opens the front for better air-passage which also enchances engine cooling.
http://www.webstruktur.com/svea/board/artik/bilgen.html
http://www.webstruktur.com/svea/board/artik/mont_bilgen.html

More engine oil does aid in cooling the engine as does lower compression ratio as does larger inlet valves.

I like oil-coolers - but installing an oil-cooler is trading off some of the reliability. Oil-cooler is kind of necessary in really warm areas... Catch 22 situation -...

Consider -retro- tuning away from the electronic ingnition trigger unit (ITU) to a braker-point can. Mind you - I drove close to 300 000km before a secondhand ITU broke (hallsensor failiur); so they are -very- reliable. You could consider a dual-hallsensor ITU from Motobins though -

A replacement 1000cc siebenrock kit is -very- nice. You will be amazed how nice they are -
The light-weight pistons make the engine more rappid/snappy. The engine tends to run a bit cooler - my guess is that the lower piston weight may have this as a nice sideeffect.
However... this is a 9.5:1 kit, i.e. a 70bhp kit, and I have recommended that you drop the top-end power from 70bhp to about 60bhp and then tuning it up by changing the valves and installing dual-ignition which I guess will give you about 65-67bhp on a 60bhp base.

Simplifying electronics really means dropping the poor standard alternator for a pully drive car-alternator. Spare-parts all over. (Riding in west Africa means that you should perhaps look at french alterntors?).
Braker-point canister instead of the electronic ITU. Dual ignition in parallel like Daniel Dicke presentes = if one set of coils break, you simply continue drive (happened to me once in heavy rush-hour traffic jam down-town on a road with no side-lanes).
I.e. "retro" tune the ignitionsystem; or carry one spare ITU and at least one spare ICU (ignition control unit).

Problem:
- 600EU will not cut it -...
The suggestions above will set you back about 1500-2000EU in parts...
You need to make compromises -...
As a compromise I would strongly recommend 2nd hand 8.2:1 pistons and barrels. This gives you room for head-overhauls (i.e. dual ignition conversion, Derdickes solution, Q-techs is not anywhere within reach).
There is no room for a spare ITU nor a spare ICU.


Now I look forward to read what other riders recommends

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

Hello

Thanks for your very interesting answer.

I rebuilt “my” heads not so long ago so I will not change them now. But a good idea will be to clean them and polish the combustion chamber.

Were can I find “free flow” photos of inlet and exhaust ports? Is it normal to cut part of valve guides?

Since my bike is a R100 I already have 40/42 mm valves. As I wrote I will not change them (at least now) but I will analyse the possibility to install dual plug if I notice some pinging.

The references to improve cooling are quite interesting but as you suggest in the past I will apply where the KISS strategy. If I notice any high temperatures I will analyse the possibility of installing a bigger oil cooler.

Now I’m being a lazy mechanical engineering: did you calculate the compression ratio decrease when using 2 head gaskets? This is a very good idea since it’s a very simple “do it in the field” change if I start to have problems with low octane fuel. Is it possible to put a head gasket in the base of the barrel? This would have the same effect but will not compromise pressure escape…


bernardo feio

__________________
bernardo feio (Portugal)
2.5 Land Rover Lightweight / BMW R80 G/S PD / Toyota HZJ 78

Rather than use two head gaskets, why not install a cylinder base spacer. these are made by BMW and cost very little. Originally designed to overcome pinging.

I do recommend the 8.2 :1 pistons, I had these in my stock r80rt and they worked perfectly with all fuels I tried to use.

to get extra power use 'tame' cams and ensure the engine breathing is easy.
That way you have power on hand at normal driving speeds and revolutions, not just at high revs.
remember if your engines natural breathing is poor, increasing the compression >ratio< may not actually increase combustion chamber pressures by much at all.

Having done all this, where do you propose to use the extra 10% of power ??
30hp will easily let you cruise at 85mph.

But is there not a snag with the cylinderbase gaskets from R75-90 when one tried to install them on a o-ring-based cylinder/barell?

The dual-igniton conversion came when BMW started to make the 1L engine with 9.5:1 compression, right?
Was there ever a problem with poor fuel and the 900cc bikes (R90) ?
How bad were these problems with the 8.2:1 R100 steel-lined engines?
Doesn't the post '85 R100 have 60hp, 8.2:1 pistons, torque max at 3000rpm, 32 bing carbs?

The R80, 800cc, 8.2:1 system is reputed to be able to cope with quite poor petrol -right?

How accurate is measured compression as to reflecting the volumetric efficiency?
I have for a very short time had 10.5-10.8kg in my R80, with 800cc, and that was -powerful-; 9.2:1, 44/40 high-flow valves . Compared to the 8.2:1 with 42/38mm standard valves it was simply not the same engine.

My experience is that larger inlet-valves, hi-flows will result in about 1 gearshift more power at about 2000rpm, and dual ignition will ad yet about one gearshift (measured subjectively in a slop of about 5-7%). Switching from 8.2:1 to 9.2:1 and then lowering the heads by 0.8mm did only raise the power at about 2000rpm with about ½-a-gearshift; but at 5000rpm and up it made a large(!). The difference raising the compression ratio "only" made the bike accellerate much faster, and raised top-speed.

How about the heat-problem when riding in Africa, the out-backs, and other warm places?
Is there any chance that he could get around the oil-cooler issue on a 1L engine???

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

[quote=dc lindberg;309608]Mr. Moore may be a excellent engineer, or a good con artist...

On what grounds does dc lindberg call Richard Moore a con artist? He makes a claim and then substantiates it. Unlike lindberg who makes outrageous claims with no support to his arguement.

For the record, if you get 60bhp at the back wheel from a Siebenrock 1070cc with no other work done, then you are doing well - and you will be set back atout £2K. A pair of Moorespeed pistons (again with no other work) will give virtually the same result at a quarter of the price. I know where my money would go.

To answer Lindberg's question, Richard is an excellent engineer - but a lousy con artist.

If someone gets 60bhp from a Siebenrock 1070-kit they have a problem. You should get at least 70 bhp and that's not virtually the same as 57bhp.
I think we are comparing apples and bananas here, Moorespeed long-skirt pistons are not close to the 1070-kit, nor in price or in performance.

So you should get 70bhp at the rear wheel from a Siebenrock 1070cc conversion with no other work done? What do you base this information on? Got a dyno chart to show us? Agree the Moorsepeed pistons are not in the same price league as the Siebenrock kit, but the performance is very close...

70+HP engines have been build for decades, BMW won Paris Dakar with a 72HP bike in 1983. HPN, Fallert, GMR, Wudo and Schek all have 70+HP.
The Siebenrock-kit was made to outperform the 1043-kit from HPN (68-75HP). You can find some dynocharts on the 1043-kit here: SR-Racing-Auspuff an BMW G/S

Last year I was in contact with Boxerschmiede regarding a 1070-conversion. They claim 80HP/90Nm if you use 44mm inlet-valves. If you use standard valves they claim 75Hp/87Nm.
When you do the conversion you also change the camshaft (included in the kit).

44mm inlet valves:


Sadly I don't have any graph from a bike with standard inlet valves, but you don't gain 10HP by using larger valves.

For the record I didn't buy the Siebenrock-kit and I'm not a fan of comparing graphs like this.


If you want to compare the Siebenrock-kit to the Morespeed-solutions it might be more interesting to compare it with the " long con rod/short skirt pistons, sports cam shaft, airfilter and exhaust"-type. Price?



We obviously have different definitions of the word "close".

[quote=PeteMK;313358]Thank you Pete.
You are quite entitled to your reaction. My choice of words may perhaps not have been the most appropriate, I do agree with you there.
Thing is, I've been around long enough to aquire quite a substatial amount of theoretical and practical knowledge though I fear you are right in as much as I do not have enough hard data/evidence to battle claims such as Mr Moors in Court, then again, to what possible benefit would a leagal battle on this issue come to?...

Obviously you either are a close friend of Mr Moore, or have bought stuff from him at his very high costs.
The data provided by Mr Moore on his homesite does not convice, and there is no chance of double checking them. Claims such as the once made does kind of defy the basics of physics, you did take physics at school/college? So, just reading Mr Moores homepage and applying the most rudimentary physics (almost grade school level), one can clearly see that things do not ad up.

As for your kind of more emotional reaction, that was not called for.

Mr Moores skill as a mechanic/engineer is something I have -not- questioned! Just look at the parts presented on his homepage. One needs to know what one is doing to make such products!
What -is- questionable are the presented claims of power, and those either make him a very skilled engineer, or con artist... To prove this is up to Mr Moore, he is the one publishing the claims.

I rarely, hardly ever, make remarks as hars as the once I have made about Mr Moores claims, but when someone makes claims that are silly with the intent to convince someone else to spend money buying these claims... that is connery!

You need to separate the basic concept here which are:
- performance
- claims of power
I do -NOT- question the claimed performance, to do that I would need to test the stuff myself. I -DO- question the ridicules claims of -power- on solid scientific grounds, and personal expericens with "tuning" the beemer engines.

If you want to let yourself be fooled, that is up to you.
Petronius (c. AD 27-66); Talleyrand (1754-1838)
"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur"

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

Your argument defies logic. My original response to you was in the interests of fair play: I don’t like to see one individual accused of something by another with no justification - or in your case, explanation.

You stated that you were unimpressed with the LOW performance Moorespeed is achieving, and now say that they are ‘ridiculous claims of power’ (even though they are the result of independent third-party test figures). You can’t have it both ways!

Mr Lindberg, you have shot yourself in the foot with both barrels. Or perhaps I am missing something? Can you please enlighten me as to what exactly ‘just doesn’t add up’?

Quite agree with you – 70+HP engines have been around for a long while, but (a) that is when measured at the engine’s crankshaft NOT the rear wheel. Apply the adjustment figure to allow for driveline losses, and that 70HP equates to around 59hp. And (b) those were quite highly modified engines running on non-standard exhausts. Secondly, that graph you have supplied confirms that the power is being measured at the crankshaft: look at the baseline graph for a stock BMW engine peaking at 62.5PS. Now that works out to 61.2bhp – very close to the handbook for my R100GS which states 60bhp. Apply the correction factor again and that means 51.06bhp at the rear wheel – just slightly more than the TTS dyno shows for the standard beemer (which of course was a ‘used’ model, not factory fresh).

Thanks for proving my point for me, AliBaba! Couldn’t have expressed it better myself.

Helllo


Let’s maintain this topic technical and not personal…. chug

I will probably use the bike in the hot north of Africa. Did any one use moorespeed pistons in with African temperatures and fuel? (not in a racing scenario)

Did you have pinging and overheating problems?

And with the 1070cc kit? what to expect?

thanks

__________________
bernardo feio (Portugal)
2.5 Land Rover Lightweight / BMW R80 G/S PD / Toyota HZJ 78