The twin vs triple debate. time to bring back the trip---or not?

[popcorn popper]

I beleive that's Ralph's work from split second!

 

[jbb]

I beleive that's Ralph's work from split second!

it was......

 

[lilduke]

PSI blows!

Maybe thats why they are out of buisness? Maybe thats why every serious mountain rider out there rides turbo sleds instead of 1200cc bigbore junk?

This thread is just for fun,, nobody wants to run that crap in the mountains any more. I asked for info on your mithacal twin and didnt get a response.. Guess if your only making 205hp and 130ft pounds of torque, really isnt worth talking about any way...

Bin on a mountain yet this season freak? How bout this decade?

 

[snopro]

I beleive that's Ralph's work from split second!

Well, well well. So this is where you have been. Lol.

 

[popcorn popper]

Well, well well. So this is where you have been. Lol.

I feel like a kid in the Candy store Snopro! Haha

 

[popcorn popper]

it was......

He's a good guy few of us old dogs left!

 

[Modman]

Those big twins have a very short life. Psi was living proof of that. I think Ralph has billet twin and a 1500 cc triple. I beleive Ralph said the triple cracked 300hp.Modman let's be fair! That twin is a full race engine if you look at CS's 1019 it makes 270 hp and 144 tq that's comparing apples to apples.

LMAO you have an answer for everything eh? we talked torque and power, results showed you the outcome of a torque curve. Then you said that a twin can't hit 200 HP, I posted numbers that showed clearly they can, with very little effort. Now we are talking comparable displacement and comparable numbers and when shown the truth, now you are saying they aren't as reliable....how reliable do you think CS's 1019 race motor is? LOL

besides that, anyone that has ever ridden a race ported motor at altitude will tell you how it will run with race porting once you go up a couple thousand feet.....LMFAO...we're talking about riding in the mountains, not riding cookie sheets across a frozen lake at sea level in one throttle position.....who cares about the NSSR or drags....do they run 2.5" tracks in 3 ft of powder when picking lines in the trees? No one cares who is king of the 660 ft...hell most of my runs-up when loading on my deck are longer than that!

PSI - why the fawk is PSI even in this conversation?..... LMAO even harder now! Talk to Wursten before you call his stuff out and see what he says about his 1100 twin, he builds top shelf stuff, not re-engineered scrap. or maybe give Linderman a call and see if he can build you a 200+ HP twin that is reliable. I know he can because members on this site actually have them, and have put a lot of miles on them! Actual miles........

 

[jpgmtech]

Yep, triples are good for big-block stuff. Other than that, I'll take a tweaked Rotax 670 twin, run it day in and day out for years, over any 700 or 800 triple in a mountain sled. Heck, I've even had a 470 Rotax layin' a lickin on 580 XLT's...

 

[popcorn popper]

LMAO you have an answer for everything eh? we talked torque and power, results showed you the outcome of a torque curve. Then you said that a twin can't hit 200 HP, I posted numbers that showed clearly they can, with very little effort. Now we are talking comparable displacement and comparable numbers and when shown the truth, now you are saying they aren't as reliable....how reliable do you think CS's 1019 race motor is? LOL

besides that, anyone that has ever ridden a race ported motor at altitude will tell you how it will run with race porting once you go up a couple thousand feet.....LMFAO...we're talking about riding in the mountains, not riding cookie sheets across a frozen lake at sea level in one throttle position.....who cares about the NSSR or drags....do they run 2.5" tracks in 3 ft of powder when picking lines in the trees? No one cares who is king of the 660 ft...hell most of my runs-up when loading on my deck are longer than that!

PSI - why the fawk is PSI even in this conversation?..... LMAO even harder now! Talk to Wursten before you call his stuff out and see what he says about his 1100 twin, he builds top shelf stuff, not re-engineered scrap. or maybe give Linderman a call and see if he can build you a 200+ HP twin that is reliable. I know he can because members on this site actually have them, and have put a lot of miles on them! Actual miles........

. Modman laugh all you want! First off you better put your glasses on. I said a big twin won't be realiable at 200 hp. I also said Doos 1000 and cats has a hard time cracking 200 hp. I've rode with lots of big twins( even owned a couple) and they don't last. Maybe they build quality stuff but do they make it past 2 seasons without tear down I'm willing to bet? You can ride your big lemon twins and rebuild all you want. Oh ya there is a ton of big twins cruising the hills also above 1000cc. Bad enough trying to keep the little ones runnin. The cs 1019 is just as realiable as that twin popper you posted. One more thing Modman I said and this is the point of this thread, I said cc to cc the triple will make more power and will be more realiable at doing it. That's the whole purpose of this thread. I give a rats ass if a twin can make 300 hp ! It's a time bomb! Lol!

 

[jpgmtech]

One more thing Modman I said and this is the point of this thread, I said cc to cc the triple will make more power and will be more realiable at doing it. That's the whole purpose of this thread. I give a rats ass if a twin can make 300 hp ! It's a time bomb! Lol!

Then let's reset the parameters of this discussion to many pages ago. Stock twins vs. stock triples. First problem we have is the basic engine design. Is it rotary valve, case reed, or cylinder reed? Single pipe or multi-pipe. That alone determines a fair bit of the VE characteristics of the engine, and makes direct stock 'triple to twin' comparisons a bit fuzzy.

Since pretty much all stock twins from the mid '80's and up are single pipe, lets assume single pipe. CC for CC, there is no possible way a single-pipe 700cc triple could put down the crank hp and torque of a 670cc rotax twin. Period. And a tri-pipe triple had a hard time matching it. And any tri-pipe triple had a distinct packaging and weight disadvantage, to say the least. When Rotax went to cylinder mounted reed valve engines, they lost a fair bit of HP to the 670 design that took a few years to refine and get back. They also lost some reliability as they seemed to experiment with materials and design a bit, which is not a consequence of displacement. Reliability is much more a quality control, materials and basic engineering discussion than it is a twin/triple discussion.

The comparison of the 809 and a modern 800 rotax twin was not a bad one, and stock for stock, the 800 twin still produced more torque, by nature of it's internal dimensions more than anything else. That besides the weight and packaging advantage, again. Yes, improved engine technology is a factor, but now we are fighting with the poor VE of basic cylinder reed valve two-strokes. If Rotax decided to build a RV 800 or even a good case-reed 800 twin with modern technology, we would see significant improvement in hp and torque from a twin.

Conceeded, a triple can be constructed to produce the same kind of torque and hp as a comparable displacement twin, but that would require a rod length and stroke that makes the triple MUCH heavier than the twins internal design.

As a certain engineer once said "you canna change the laws of physics captain!!!"

And that's it. Any petty squabbling from here, I'm out... LOL!

 

[DRD]

Do you still have this sled? I would love to show you what kind of lickin the twin would lay on that 197 hp triple.

LMAO, you need to beat a stock S chassis sled with an old worn out MachZ motor thas has some pipes and porting with your custom billet 1160? 360 CC and probably 100+ lbs of chassis weight should give you enough of an advantage. You better be able to take the win and massage your ego. I'd be embarrased for you if it couldn't. I bet it would also lay the smack down on my GP440.

 

[popcorn popper]

Then let's reset the parameters of this discussion to many pages ago. Stock twins vs. stock triples. First problem we have is the basic engine design. Is it rotary valve, case reed, or cylinder reed? Single pipe or multi-pipe. That alone determines a fair bit of the VE characteristics of the engine, and makes direct stock 'triple to twin' comparisons a bit fuzzy.

Since pretty much all stock twins from the mid '80's and up are single pipe, lets assume single pipe. CC for CC, there is no possible way a single-pipe 700cc triple could put down the crank hp and torque of a 670cc rotax twin. Period. And a tri-pipe triple had a hard time matching it. And any tri-pipe triple had a distinct packaging and weight disadvantage, to say the least. When Rotax went to cylinder mounted reed valve engines, they lost a fair bit of HP to the 670 design that took a few years to refine and get back. They also lost some reliability as they seemed to experiment with materials and design a bit, which is not a consequence of displacement. Reliability is much more a quality control, materials and basic engineering discussion than it is a twin/triple discussion.

The comparison of the 809 and a modern 800 rotax twin was not a bad one, and stock for stock, the 800 twin still produced more torque, by nature of it's internal dimensions more than anything else. That besides the weight and packaging advantage, again. Yes, improved engine technology is a factor, but now we are fighting with the poor VE of basic cylinder reed valve two-strokes. If Rotax decided to build a RV 800 or even a good case-reed 800 twin with modern technology, we would see significant improvement in hp and torque from a twin.

Conceeded, a triple can be constructed to produce the same kind of torque and hp as a comparable displacement twin, but that would require a rod length and stroke that makes the triple MUCH heavier than the twins internal design.

As a certain engineer once said "you canna change the laws of physics captain!!!"

And that's it. Any petty squabbling from here, I'm out... LOL!

You bring up some very good points and I do agree the triple needs all three hooters to achieve its power. That's a impossible feat with today's chassis. We use the 809 as a reference to today's twin because its very close to the new etec in power and likely better than the competitions hp figures. One thing we know for sure about the 809 is by removing the stock pipes ( which were a compromise between all three rotax triples) the engine would pick up over 20hp. That puts it ahead of even the etec in peak power.Back when the 670 was a factor a pipe change may reward you with nearly 10 hp alone( Fasts Fatboy pipe comes to mind) now a change on etec rewards with maybe half that. What this basically means is brp has tightend the pipe technology up in order to get the most out of these twins. I do not beleive we had the full meal deal on the triples back then!So if a engine designed in the early 90's had the tec applied to it as the manufacturers have more advancements todaywe would be even further ahead. There is a guy in Grand Prairie who took an 800 twin and made a 1200 triple cylinder reed engine. I'm not sure what the tq was but he said it made a easy 240 on pump juice. He also said he thought it would make a awesome mtn motor. I will see if I can dig him up and get some no.s. on it. Basically all the ranting I'm putting out is the twin has seen many years of advancements that the triple has not other than what the after market boys have achieved and that has been huge! I've been thinking of building my own design of rev triple for years and after this thread I think I will. I'll keep you posted.

 

[fatguy1]

I've been thinking of building my own design of rev triple for years and after this thread I think I will. I'll keep you posted.

If/when you do shoot me a PM, I may be able to save you some headaches

 

[jpgmtech]

Oh, BTW, the 809 is a case reed design, vs the 800 which is a cylinder reed design. 809 has a potential VE advantage already. So we are still a bit oranges/apples on this whole discussion.

 

[Longhairfreak]

If/when you do shoot me a PM, I may be able to save you some headaches

Good luck with that. Its been done and was an epic failure.

 

[popcorn popper]

Oh, BTW, the 809 is a case reed design, vs the 800 which is a cylinder reed design. 809 has a potential VE advantage already. So we are still a bit oranges/apples on this whole discussion.

I know the 809 has the advantage but I just threw the cylinder reed deal out there to show that the 1200 cylinder reed triple has power capabilities to! Maybe the cylinder reed deal is the way to go to make it fair to the twin poppers??

 

[snopro]

LMAO you have an answer for everything eh? we talked torque and power, results showed you the outcome of a torque curve. Then you said that a twin can't hit 200 HP, I posted numbers that showed clearly they can, with very little effort. Now we are talking comparable displacement and comparable numbers and when shown the truth, now you are saying they aren't as reliable....how reliable do you think CS's 1019 race motor is? LOL

besides that, anyone that has ever ridden a race ported motor at altitude will tell you how it will run with race porting once you go up a couple thousand feet.....LMFAO...we're talking about riding in the mountains, not riding cookie sheets across a frozen lake at sea level in one throttle position.....who cares about the NSSR or drags....do they run 2.5" tracks in 3 ft of powder when picking lines in the trees? No one cares who is king of the 660 ft...hell most of my runs-up when loading on my deck are longer than that!

PSI - why the fawk is PSI even in this conversation?..... LMAO even harder now! Talk to Wursten before you call his stuff out and see what he says about his 1100 twin, he builds top shelf stuff, not re-engineered scrap. or maybe give Linderman a call and see if he can build you a 200+ HP twin that is reliable. I know he can because members on this site actually have them, and have put a lot of miles on them! Actual miles........

. Modman laugh all you want! First off you better put your glasses on. I said a big twin won't be realiable at 200 hp. I also said Doos 1000 and cats has a hard time cracking 200 hp. I've rode with lots of big twins( even owned a couple) and they don't last. Maybe they build quality stuff but do they make it past 2 seasons without tear down I'm willing to bet? You can ride your big lemon twins and rebuild all you want. Oh ya there is a ton of big twins cruising the hills also above 1000cc. Bad enough trying to keep the little ones runnin. The cs 1019 is just as realiable as that twin popper you posted. One more thing Modman I said and this is the point of this thread, I said cc to cc the triple will make more power and will be more realiable at doing it. That's the whole purpose of this thread. I give a rats ass if a twin can make 300 hp ! It's a time bomb! Lol!

 

[jpgmtech]

Good luck with that. Its been done and was an epic failure.

Don't mind him. He's talking about the wedge ;-)

 

[popcorn popper]

Interesting Twin Vs Triples Article at Snowmobile Fanatics - Forum Heres some light reading from Olav Aaen. Maybe the words of renowned engineer/ snowmobiler will lay this to rest? Or is he full of **** like you think I am ?

 

[jpgmtech]

Interesting Twin Vs Triples Article at Snowmobile Fanatics - Forum Heres some light reading from Olav Aaen. Maybe the words of renowned engineer/ snowmobiler will lay this to rest? Or is he full of **** like you think I am ?

True, at some point the size of the cylinder starts to inhibit good cylinder fill. That's why a triple would be great for a 'big block.' But 800 to 800 I will still take the weight loss and run the twin. Unless you want to pull 9500 revs or something like that, in which case you need to be a clutch genius to make it work in a mountain chassis in the hills.