Vertigo Launch

[johnnyboxer]

Bmw and Montesa(read Honda) are more experienced with efi and their build quality is rather better than most

True, but no reason why other manufacturers can't achieve similar expertise

[dadof2]

Dabster #134.

The V6 engine in my 30 year old car was the Ford Cologne built engine, generally reckoned to be one of the best engines ever built.

Since about 2003 Jaguar have built a range of V6 engines but I think they may have dropped the petrol version recently.

Toyota also have a range of V6 engines.

Still think I am making things up - get your facts right.

Regarding hydraulic motors I quote "Hydraulic motors, on the other hand, can produce speeds from 1 to 5000 rpm. With proper valving they produce little shock, and their efficiency is in the 80 to 95% range. They also operate safely in most environments and save space at the work site. They are very rugged. Unlike cylinders with resilient seals, hydraulic motors always leak or bypass internally."

​For a cooling fan motor a very simple valveless impeller type would be suitable. Water turbines (and turbines in general) are very reliable.

The reason they have not been used on motor vehicles is probably because there is no net advantage over the belt driven mechanical pump. but that is not the same as comparing them with an electric pump for use in a harsh environment.

For Vertigo the electric pump was probably the easy option. Just buy it off the shelf along with the beefed up alternator, sensors and control circuitry.

Had they gone for a mechanical pump it would have increased the complexity of their design for the cylinder, crankcases and primary case and they may well have had to design and possibly manufacture the pump themselves.

But just because it was a convenient design option for Vertigo does not mean it will be the best design for long term ownership.

[john.b]

If the pump reliability is an issue, just replace it as part of a pre-determined service.

Edited November 16, 2014 by john.b

[nigel dabster]

Dabster #134.

The V6 engine in my 30 year old car was the Ford Cologne built engine, generally reckoned to be one of the best engines ever built.

Since about 2003 Jaguar have built a range of V6 engines but I think they may have dropped the petrol version recently.

Toyota also have a range of V6 engines.

Still think I am making things up - get your facts right.

Clearly you are a 30 y old ford v6 is not more economical than any 2014 v6 available (I note you avoid saying which one you actually own) you have recently bought. Which jag isnt more economical than the old motor? Toyota v6 in which car?

Answer this liar liar pants on fire!

Edited November 17, 2014 by nigel dabster

[atomant]

Oh I just picked this one up ! I read back and noticed that dadof2 is suggesting the ford V6 cologne engine is more efficient than a modern day V6 ..

So you would prefer a Ford Cologne V6 2.9 - with this design first being introduced in 1964 but this model , the 2nd generation first being introduced in 1974

Over something like this - The awesome Audi V6 3.2 litre

Getting to know you like I am, I can understand your choice ! - It is simple - You prefer the bigger, heavier, less powerful and thirsty engine because its got a 30+ year proven track record over something which is lighter, more powerful ( power per kilo ratio), less thirsty with lots more modern features, but isn't quite so old... There is a theme here don't you think.?

If Vertigo came out with their new machine and it had Drum Brakes, Vintage suspension set-ups , magneto and points - etc etc - that would make you happy wouldn't it ?

Anyway, back to the thread...

Edited November 17, 2014 by atomant

[dadof2]

Nigel Dabster, you really need to read what I actually wrote rather than post on comments on what you misread and then accusing people of lying. Atomant, at least you only misread what I wrote without being insulting. Atomant, when comparing the 2 engines you show, I know which one I would prefer the repair bills on, You could probably have the whole Ford engine for the price of the Audi inlet manifold.

Hear is what I actually wrote

"30 years ago I had a car with a V6 engine and a Webber carburettor, my present car although EFI and about 25 mph faster, gives worse mpg and is no better at all for actual driving.

I did not say one engine is more economical than the other.

The engine in the newer car is theoretically more economical. Newer car rated at about 220 BHP and 33 MPG. The older car was rated at about 140 BHP and 27 MPG. So the newer engine would clearly appear to be much better at turning fuel in BHP.

But in real driving mainly on mixed A roads the older car gave 27 + MPG. On the same roads, same driving the newer car gives about 24 to 25 MPG. Both are luxury saloons although the newer car is about 375 Kgs heavier, because it has much wider tyres / wheels, it has a heavier stronger body shell for crash protection, it is weighed down with airbags, electric motors for seats and windows,ABS, Air Con, heavy speakers in each door etc.

There is much irritation among purchasers of many new cars that the fuel consumption they actually achieve is nowhere near as good as that achieved and published for the government CO2 ratings. (Do a search on this if you don't believe me)

Exactly the same thing has happened with large capacity motorcycles, typically in late 70s or early 80s they gave up to 100 BHP and could achieved high 50s to mid 60s MPG. Modern superbikes have maybe 70% more BHP but struggle to get much over 40 MPG at similar road speeds.

Anyway to get back to nearer the post topic. There is more justification for having EFI on a 4 stroke because 4 strokes are much harder to carburate accurately just off idle, particularly when the throttle is snapped open, than a 2 stroke and that is presumably why Beta opted for a CV carb on their 4T and Honda for EFI on their 4T

Whether 2 or 4 stroke EFI is much more complex and expensive than carburation. On 2 strokes EFI is always going to have problems getting round Lambda feedback (lack of) because 2T oil is always going to foul the sensors.

EFI has another drawback for intermittent or repeated short stop / restart running. Every time the temperature sensor indicates the system is not up to normal running temperature the ECU assumes warm up / cold start fuelling is needed. This causes excess fuelling, causing bore wash on 4T and plug fouling on both 2T and 4T.

I was at an MX meeting (sand track) not long ago. In general the carburettored 2 strokes were running fine and revving out cleanly. By comparison several of the 4T EFI bikes were running like a "bag of S--t", misfiring, popping and banging.

EFI will improve but whether it will ever justify its cost and complexity on 2T trials bikes is more debatable.

[dadof2]

Just a brief reply to SE Lucas #145.

I too have a laptop and diagnostics hardware + software (circa £2k)

But when it comes to riding trials in the frequently wet and muddy northern UK I much prefer to carry a 50 pence screwdriver to tweak the fuelling rather than carry £500 of laptop and leads.

[ham2]

Dadof2,

Are you trying to compare the MPG figures on two different engines, from different eras... on the same standard of fuel? Running that old Cologne on present day supermarket unleaded would be asking for trouble (valve recession etc..) ;unlike the Audi.

Back on topic...how much is this new technology on the Vertigo going to cost? are we any closer to finding out?

[ham2]

...........Good dose of EMP and none of this crap is going to run, anyway! Toss your cars and your Iphones, only ones on bikes will be the lucky blokes with an old Bultaco with points and a carby!

Just spotted this comment. Copey, you're mad as f**k .How close were you to the Trinity tests?

[dadof2]

Ham2

The point I was making is that for all the advancement in technology and supposed improvements over 30+ years the actual day to day driving experience is virtually unchanged (except when it comes to repair bills)

So it will be with trials, no matter what the technology changes and increases in costs the actual enjoyment from riding in a trial will almost certainly not increase.

There is a strong possibility that increasing technology will overall be detrimental to trials.

[axulsuv]

Technology in auto's is needed to help our environment ... Think of how many are sold and how many folks think of it as just a turn key appliance ...

The day of the enthusiast is long gone , just look at the sales #'s .

Trials bikes are a different species , WE are few and we have to use what we are dealt ...hence all my bikes are from italy and over17 years old ...

But if I could afford one , I'd buy a VERTIGO in a heartbeat ! Kinda of a fresh blanket for the old horse ....and if it works the way Dougie likes , well enough said !

Glenn

[jkmr1]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions, however the view that technological development of bikes is likely to be detrimental to the sport is in my opinion a very odd perspective. (You may not have noticed, but technological advancement across all areas is a fairly well established objective for the producers of pretty much everything!) I applaud Vertigo for their desire to fund, design and produce what appears to be a very well thought out, great looking and well engineered product. I have no doubt that it will perform as good as it looks based on the input that the brands ambassador has had during the development phase. (And lets face it, it's not really breaking new ground in the world of motorcycle engineering). I imagine that it will also be as durable and reliable as any other Moto Trials bike in the market. Sure it will no doubt have some teething problems in the early stages of production and I guess that's to be expected. Do I want one? For sure! Would I buy one? Absolutely! But then I also own a 2012 OSSA with that new fangled fuel injection and and a 2015 JGas 300 Racing with that odd styling and funny one sided shock!

Good on ya Vertigo!

[ham2]

Ham2

The point I was making is that for all the advancement in technology and supposed improvements over 30+ years the actual day to day driving experience is virtually unchanged (except when it comes to repair bills)

I'm not sure if you're wearing your 'rose-tinted glasses' here. As a day-to-day driving experience I much prefer my newer , nippy, effortless, refined Japanese shopping-cart than my old Mk2 Escort which I recently re-visited (heavy steering/hefty clutch/stinks of part burned fuel/rough as hell,especially from cold on the choke).

So it will be with trials, no matter what the technology changes and increases in costs the actual enjoyment from riding in a trial will almost certainly not increase.

..And I'm not trying to be contrary when I point out that I'm a shoddy clubman rider but I find popping up a 3-4ft step the most challenging/satisfying thing in trials riding. Something I can inconsistently manage on a 2005 Sherco but found impossible to do on an old 1984 Cota 242?

There is a strong possibility that increasing technology will overall be detrimental to trials.

?

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Vertigo...Price guess, anybody?

[jfc]

Sorry dadof2 you are wrong in your last post!

[nigel dabster]

Ham2

The point I was making is that for all the advancement in technology and supposed improvements over 30+ years the actual day to day driving experience is virtually unchanged (except when it comes to repair bills)

So it will be with trials, no matter what the technology changes and increases in costs the actual enjoyment from riding in a trial will almost certainly not increase.

There is a strong possibility that increasing technology will overall be detrimental to trials.

Repair bills, lying again arent you? How many miles can you do in each of the v6's without failure? Repair bills are only expensive or cheap when they occur, even a numbskull like you can understand that? would the cologne do 150 k?