Mr. Moore may be a excellent engineer, or a good con artist...
His site looks so much like the old catalogues from Luftmeister and CC in California... The pistons do look very smart. Keihan carbs - quite interesting. I will study his site later - my curiosity have been awakened

What is your budget?
How much may the conversion set you back (cost)?
=> gives us an idea of what to suggest, recommend and advice about.


If you want to play it as safe as possible, I would recommend that you get a set of 8.2:1 BMW original pistons with squissband (those perform just a little bit better than those without, in my opinion).
Perhaps you will have to buy pistons for steel-lined barrels and pistonrings for the nicasil barrels that your model have; that's how I had to solve high-compression on the 800-system. Works nicely - no problem.

Currently I am running 1000cc replacement Siebenrock pistons - love them.
But (!) - that is 9.5:1 and as I pointed out above; I would recommend that you do not choose the high-compression solution.
The Siebenrock pistons are about 50gr lighter than my Velonlia 10.5:1 pistons. The Venolia pistons are about 70gr lighter than stock (if I recall correctly) - and runns very smoothly once warm; far nicer than the heavy lumpy unbalanced original pistons.
If you go with 8.2:1 original pistons - balance them (!) and the conrods => the engine runns far better if you do.



Should you want high-compression - study carefully what Alibaba and Mr.MR writes!

My personal experience with high-compression is; good power, good mileage, a ... lot of garage time and heachache figuring out what broke and why. Since I ride in an area where high-octane petrol is available I want the high-compression; but should I ride in areas with questionable petrol, well... I would study closely how the Egyptian Police set up their special R80's!!!

Remeber - as compression raises... so does engine heat... The mileage differens is not -that- great that I would sacrifice/risk durability...


Good - to excellent engine/oil cooling should be your focus as well as looking at the most optimal solutions for keeping the engine running.

The hall-sensor pick-up (ITU) is a source of concern. The braker-point canister used on the late 70:ties models may be an option to consider. Braker points take little room, a spare hallsensor-canister is kind of bulky and difficult to mend on the road. I read here on H.U. about a year ago about this tip on the braker-point option - if I recall correctly VW 1200 (beetle) braker-points fits. You need to check that though - I might remeber it in-correctly.

If you want more power... you could install a turbo or super charger...
Seriosly - keep everything as light as possible and as close to stock as possible, or rather "retro-convert" to more simple and easy solutions for best road-side repairability.
*
Apply KISS strategy; "keep it simple stupid" - That will save you from a lot of trouble and headache

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc lindberg Mr. Moore may be a excellent engineer, or a good con artist...

600 euros?... but I also need some barrels (can be used)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc lindberg looking at the most optimal solutions for keeping the engine running.

? I didn't understand you now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc lindberg The hall-sensor pick-up (ITU) is a source of concern. The braker-point canister used on the late 70:ties models may be an option to consider. Braker points take little room, a spare hallsensor-canister is kind of bulky and difficult to mend on the road. I read here on H.U. about a year ago about this tip on the braker-point option - if I recall correctly VW 1200 (beetle) braker-points fits. You need to check that though - I might remeber it in-correctly.

braker-point canister?... what is that? I also didn’t understand you on this…

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc lindberg Apply KISS strategy; "keep it simple stupid" - That will save you from a lot of trouble and headache

That I use almost always. If you look to my signature you will notice what kind of vehicles I use in my expeditions.... very simple and basic

thanks for your very interesting answer...

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

The kit from Motoren Israel will set you back around 950€.
It's 699€ for the kit, 55€ for the pushrod-tubes, 15€ for inserting the pushrod-tubes, 75€ for the pushrods, 45€ for bolts and 35€ for the gaskets.


The kit is from Mahle and usually their products are nice. I have no experience with the kit but I do have some experience with Motoren Israel.
It might be a smart idea to get in touch with them and tell them what you are looking for. Silvia is a friendly guy and he has given me many good advices through the years.

Lindberg mentions heat as a possible problem with a modified engine and he might have a point here. The problem with air-cooled engines is that there is not much cooling when you ride really slow (technical sections or rush-hour). This is not a major concern for equipment used under racing-conditions because they keep the speed up and gets better air-flow.
My bike ran hotter with the modified Siebenrock-setup and an oilcooler then it did as a stock R80 (without a cooler), but it never gave me any kind of problems.

Hello

Thanks for your answer Alibaba. Your comments are very important because of your African travel experience with these bikes!

Does any one know what are the power/torque claims for the Moto Israel 112011 piston kit 1000cc -7,5mm

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

You can ask Silvia at Motoren Israel but I don't think he will know.
Usually people change a lot in their engines when they rebuild it so it's hard to tell..

I just studied Mr Moores homepage/Dyna test.
Technical

THAT I did miss reading from the beginning.
I am NOT one bit impressed!
60bhp and 6kg torque - on a 1000cc engine?!
I do see notions of 66bhp and 7.6(?)kg torque - but it is very hard to read his test papers (too low resolution).

Anyway, you do get FAR more power by simply installing stock 9.5:1 pistons and old 44/40 valve heads with bing 40. That should give you 67-70bhp and about 7.4kg torque.
And he is asking 400 EU for such a "crappy" kit?!

With the low compression pistons: 8.2:1 and bing 40 you should have 60-65bhp, and about 7kg torque.

38mm exhaust. 40mm exhaust does not give you more power, rather you loose a bit of lowend torque.

11:1 would theoretically give you about 80bhp and close to 8kg torque - but to be sure you need to test it.

1100cc kit from 7-stones or the tunings done by Motoren Israel will give you >>80bhp. Those who have that kit describe it as -powerful- and -fun- to drive.

__________________
Drive Safely,
Albert

If you click at the graphs you will get better resolution.
He claims:

Standard R100: 51bhp/ 47Ft/lb (64Nm)
Omega long skirt: 58bhp / 53Ft/lb (72Nm)
Omega long skirt with different filters: 60bhp/ 55Ft/lb (75Nm)
Omega with long rods: 63bhp / 57FT/lb (77Nm)

I think the numbers for a standard R100 looks about right. Like you I'm not impressed by the results for the Omega pistons, with such an increase in compression I would have expected more.

[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".

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

[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’?