Scooterotica

the rs isn't inner rotor ... as you probably know ...i literally cant spend another penny on the scoot at the moment and im going to have use the af ducati

i, youd need the rs125 programmable cdi to work with this prorammer so even more cost
didnt want much for it as its served its purpose for what i bought it for
im sure the ducati ignition will be fine ,
also just spotted your avatar
where can i find the posts about your front brake set up?

Darrell Taylor wrote:where can i find the posts about your front brake set up?

the pit bike hub and disc ??





ended up putting disc of my scoot rs disc hub ... main reason i got the disc in the first place as i knew it would fit

Any pics of the other side Ric?

i took the hub to Mallory with me but it was established the ally ninja death star looking bit wouldn't pass scrutinising

may sell the hub /centre and one off links if any one into it

Smiffy i do like your post, see you for a pint this year,,,

Darrell Taylor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:24 pm

drunkmunkey6969 wrote:

RinB wrote:

Totally diggin the channels from the 3rd port running under the studs to the transfers, we have done similar on two or three motors now with very good results. The last one we did was for James Chrighton a few weeks back, i'm expecting him in for a dyno in the next couple of weeks so will post a graph as we added and extra boost port into his TS1 cylinder and re-worked the exhaust too.......should be a good result.

More commonly known as the DARRELL PORTS amongst my customers
id have thought it would have taken less than 22 months ,around 11 cases floating about and shown around and various forum hints,suggestions and seed planting before it surfaced,the idea is partly there and nicely executed

“Partly”? What can we do to complete the idea? Do you use this in your TType engines, or is it overkill?

(Totally fine if this is trade secret)

Currently it appears that there is a school of thought that enlarging transfer porting, or even simply matching them(!), may yield no useful benefits.

The reason that I personally do not subscribe to that belief wholesale is that the knock on effects are the changes to primary compression. Let's not forget that the MQ kit sneaks a lowered primary compression into the mix via it's skirtless barrel (Is MQ a "skirt lifter?") Surely the MQ kit has been a game changer with the thinking behind it, specifically that the inlet doesn't have to aim straight @ the frame like so many others?

Other Forums (that discuss two stroke engines specifically) have proven that for particular engines, simply increasing the conrod length yields additional power. In fact, somewhere on t'internet, there is a video. Probably on YouTube.....

Much depends upon what you put your faith into. For example, I can understand the benefits of a balanced crank/rod/piston assembly. But if that is with a full circle crank, thereby increasing primary compression, to my mind, that is a conflict.

I hope somebody far wiser than me with the facilities to know better will come along & clarify what really is best practice......

Right, I meant specifically the third port and feeder tunnels to transfers. DT says the picture has “partly” mirrored his use of these under stud ports, I was wondering about the other part.

At any rate, I understand now the TT motors use no case porting, so my questions are kindof moot anyway.