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

[CUSO]

Lets hear it. I would like some honest opinions.
Think it's doable?

What's the good, What's the bad....

Some say yes, and some say no.

There are many things to consider... is it worth it?

I wanted to make a poll, but did not see any feature.

Lets put our brand loyalty aside and see your opinion.

Thanks

 

[teeroy]

pro - they sound cool, make good smooth power, less vibration
con - heavy, too many parts to replace, more parts to go wrong, no e-reverse?

there's a ton more....for both sides. with the four strokes becoming popular weight shouldn't be an issue. but it is to me

 

[jpgmtech]

Single pipe exhaust limits a triples power output, but is the only way to make them light. My biggest priority in an engine is power to weight ratio. That pretty much eliminates triples for me. Some guys did have the last 700 single pipe Yammy triple making good power with some porting/head/tri-pipes and the engine itself was only 2 pounds heavier (compared with carbs/clutch/y-pipe still on the engine) than a 670, but you could still make that kind of power and more with a single-pipe 670. Twins are also a more compact overall package.

Only reason these days to build a triple two-stroke is if you wanted to build a large displacement engine. Imagine an e-tech with an extra cylinder - 1200 cc's! But it would be heavy...

 

[yamafam]

What's a triple with a turbo like? I used to have an XLT, loved it when it ran good but hated or most of the time. Sounded sweet tho.

 

[jasonrev]

pro - they sound cool, make good smooth power, less vibration
con - heavy, too many parts to replace, more parts to go wrong, no e-reverse?

there's a ton more....for both sides. with the four strokes becoming popular weight shouldn't be an issue. but it is to me

Triple 2 strokes can have e reverse. The last year or two of the 809 had it.

 

[teeroy]

Triple 2 strokes can have e reverse. The last year or two of the 809 had it.

cool, that's why I put the question mark, wasn't sure.

 

[bryan_117]

Extra cylinder = extra head aches, not worth it to me with the power and reliability of the twins out now. I wonder how much a triple with pipes weighs compared to a big bored 800 or a turbo 800.

 

[hearse driver]

Please no more triples- my knuckles still scarred from when I had an old storm! Or wait maybe it's cause I have a Polaris 900 now-not sure? They should all be one lungers!

 

[cs5]

Triple cyl, single pipe factory supercharged will happen, who will be the first and how many years will it take....... I am a polaris fan but I think Doo will hit it first, they have the DI technology that is a must for the engine I am proposing, the weight is not an issue because don't forget all the parts are smaller it will be minimal at best but it will be the smoothest coolest sounding sled on the snow and they will sell like HOT CAKES you will be able the keep the cc's down to 600- 800 and have crazy hp with no lag. If 200hp is not enough for you in a factory sled you are doing your own thing anyway so it does not matter. There it is, 200hp 800cc triple DI supercharged....... I want one.

 

[popcorn popper]

Before I start I will tell you I'm a Skidoo die hard and have been to both the skidoo factory and the rotax factory in Gunshirchen Austria! I talk with many a engine builder and have talked with the rotax engineers on occasion. The engine design basically boils down to rider perception ! What ever the rider thinks they want they build. The rotax guys were not happy at all when hq decided to leave the rotary valve engine it consistently made more hp per cc than any other two stroke and put them in the lime light. Then came the big triple this set rotax even higher on scale and the rotax guys tell you that they had bragging rights of makin more hp per cc than Formula 1 engines. A very big achievement indeed! The triple engine by far has many pluses, more hp per cc than a comparable twin, firing every 120 degrees for smoother running engine and easy crank pulses! Smaller bore design allows for easy cylinder filling and less detonation worries a big deal nowadays with poorer unleaded fuels. The triples that were available as Cuso has mentioned were designed with two things in mind, cruising and top speed lake running .. We ended up with the Mach z and Grand tourers and were basically the same sled one gussied up for touring! These sleds were heavy and were ideal for touring providing excellent ride and on high speed lake runs would sit flat on lake. It is interesting to see that every drag race event usually the triple 2-stroke is the engine of choice in mod class! Now they allow the 4 jokes turbos and allow them a cc advantage to run in same classes? Hardly fair in a honest mans eyes! The tec today would allow for triple two strokes to be as light as twins no questions asked. Hell my 1000 twin popper weighed in at 640 full of gas fairly close no.s to a triple Mach and that's after I gutted 40 lbs?? We get twins cause that's what people think they need plain and simple. You see brp and others have dropped the 1000's,900,s and spent a ton of money trying to refine 800's so they are reliable. They have put r&d in chassis so the 800does not have to be pushed further. The 4 stroke is heavy and will never make hp per cc as the two stroke turbod or otherwise not gonna happen. They are more money to build and when they break more money to fix! Brp withe etec tec has the capability to make a efficient high hp triple in a light package and if they do they will be way ahead of game.

 

[Kyle91rs]

I'm praying for Yamaha to put out a triple in 2014... Ill be jumping ship I'm pretty sure.

 

[GYMBRAT]

Im still undecided on what to purhase in 2014, 2 or 4 cylinders! Not brand specific.

 

[Modman]

Lets hear it. I would like some honest opinions.
Think it's doable?

What's the good, What's the bad....

Some say yes, and some say no.

There are many things to consider... is it worth it?

I wanted to make a poll, but did not see any feature.

Lets put our brand loyalty aside and see your opinion.

Thanks

The lightweight revolution and the rider forward movement has made the triple a thing of the past. With the exception of a few 4 stroke chassis', there are not very many chassis' out there that would accept a triple 2 stroke. When Doo went to the ZX, it would not accept a triple, which is why they had the C3. Building 2 different chassis' is costly.

Piston speed is key with the triples, as the smaller bore, longer stroke triples have a much higher piston speed than a comparable CC twin with a bigger bore and less piston speed. Less speed = less breakage. Pound/HP - the triple will be as much as the twin, but things like porting a triple risk raising the exhaust port timing too much and then you get a peaky motor because the torque is moved too high in the RPM. Triples also need a counter balance shaft which = $$$ to produce. Also the added complexity of having three ignitions, injectors, oil pump, etc, all add to the production cost. Its simply more cost effective to bore a cylinder and have a 180 degree firing cycle. Comparing an old storm or XLT to a newer generation triple isn't even apples to oranges. Triples are great motors, super smooth due to the 120 degree firing order, and can make big power.

Watercraft triples in sleds took off about 7 yrs ago but there was simply not enough people making parts to put them in sleds. As mentioned, the triple cylinder and single pipe configuration does not make efficient power. You need triple pipes, and again, if you could get the motor in, getting pipes in there would even be tougher. The motor should fit as the newer 4 strokes are about the same dimensions on the block, but making power with the pipes is key. Having a triple/single wouldn't be any advantage over the current twin engines, you need the volume of triple pipes. The new revolution of slim chassis designs pretty much makes it impossible, you would not fit a big triple in the new Pro or the XM without a huge $$$ budget and a lot of time and effort (and even then I don't know if it would still physically fit).

 

[Rotax_Kid]

Before I start I will tell you I'm a Skidoo die hard and have been to both the skidoo factory and the rotax factory in Gunshirchen Austria! I talk with many a engine builder and have talked with the rotax engineers on occasion. The engine design basically boils down to rider perception ! What ever the rider thinks they want they build. The rotax guys were not happy at all when hq decided to leave the rotary valve engine it consistently made more hp per cc than any other two stroke and put them in the lime light. Then came the big triple this set rotax even higher on scale and the rotax guys tell you that they had bragging rights of makin more hp per cc than Formula 1 engines. A very big achievement indeed! The triple engine by far has many pluses, more hp per cc than a comparable twin, firing every 120 degrees for smoother running engine and easy crank pulses! Smaller bore design allows for easy cylinder filling and less detonation worries a big deal nowadays with poorer unleaded fuels. The triples that were available as Cuso has mentioned were designed with two things in mind, cruising and top speed lake running .. We ended up with the Mach z and Grand tourers and were basically the same sled one gussied up for touring! These sleds were heavy and were ideal for touring providing excellent ride and on high speed lake runs would sit flat on lake. It is interesting to see that every drag race event usually the triple 2-stroke is the engine of choice in mod class! Now they allow the 4 jokes turbos and allow them a cc advantage to run in same classes? Hardly fair in a honest mans eyes! The tec today would allow for triple two strokes to be as light as twins no questions asked. Hell my 1000 twin popper weighed in at 640 full of gas fairly close no.s to a triple Mach and that's after I gutted 40 lbs?? We get twins cause that's what people think they need plain and simple. You see brp and others have dropped the 1000's,900,s and spent a ton of money trying to refine 800's so they are reliable. They have put r&d in chassis so the 800does not have to be pushed further. The 4 stroke is heavy and will never make hp per cc as the two stroke turbod or otherwise not gonna happen. They are more money to build and when they break more money to fix! Brp withe etec tec has the capability to make a efficient high hp triple in a light package and if they do they will be way ahead of game.

What he said ^^^

There are efficiencies to be had when the cylinder is smaller. The filling and exhausting efficiency of the cylinder is likely greater with a smaller cylinder than a larger one. What are we stuck with 2 cylinder 2 strokes? Dollars and cents...it's cheaper to manufactuer and assemble few parts.

 

[Weirboondocking]

Triple cyl, single pipe factory supercharged will happen, who will be the first and how many years will it take....... I am a polaris fan but I think Doo will hit it first, they have the DI technology that is a must for the engine I am proposing, the weight is not an issue because don't forget all the parts are smaller it will be minimal at best but it will be the smoothest coolest sounding sled on the snow and they will sell like HOT CAKES you will be able the keep the cc's down to 600- 800 and have crazy hp with no lag. If 200hp is not enough for you in a factory sled you are doing your own thing anyway so it does not matter. There it is, 200hp 800cc triple DI supercharged....... I want one.

Yep I would get one of these.... and then you would see me at the cabin LOL.

 

[GYMBRAT]

Triple cyl, single pipe factory supercharged will happen, who will be the first and how many years will it take....... I am a polaris fan but I think Doo will hit it first, they have the DI technology that is a must for the engine I am proposing, the weight is not an issue because don't forget all the parts are smaller it will be minimal at best but it will be the smoothest coolest sounding sled on the snow and they will sell like HOT CAKES you will be able the keep the cc's down to 600- 800 and have crazy hp with no lag. If 200hp is not enough for you in a factory sled you are doing your own thing anyway so it does not matter. There it is, 200hp 800cc triple DI supercharged....... I want one.

I would be on one as soon as it comes out!!!!

 

[knee deep in it]

a triple may work for flatland sleds as stability is the key handling objective. In the mountains, the sleds are steered by shifting weight and we have seen a progression toward tippy sleds. A triple has a longer crankshaft and this multiplies the gyroscopic effect. Triple sleds resist rotating on the horizontal access and are a poor choice for mountain applications.

If a triple could be mounted so that the crankshaft went from front to back, then this would not be an issue. The shorter connecting rods would actually produce a more tippy sled

 

[jpgmtech]

2000 model year, 700 Yamaha lightweight triple, single pipe - 110hp or so on a good day. With tri-pipes and a little tuning, about 130hp, but adds weight and harder to package. 700 Yamaha SRX triple, factory tri-pipe, long rod/stroke design, made about 140hp in good state of tune but was a stinking heavy engine!!! 670 Rotax twin HO made about 130hp with single pipe, and was slightly lighter than Yamaha's purpose-built lightweight triple even with the extra rotary-valve hardware. It was also easier to package.

You can rev a tri-pipe triple higher than a single-pipe twin, move more air and make more power with the same displacement. However, if you want to put twin-pipes on a twin, the rev limit problems are removed too.

Now I am comparing engines to engines, not sleds to sleds when I talk about weight. There is a practical limit to twin engine sizing before torsional vibration becomes a bigger issue on the clutch. That's when I think a triple becomes more practical, when you want the "big block"

 

[CUSO]

A carb'd triple with triple pipes weighs, 30 to 35 solid pounds more than a twin. <---- I got that from John Wilmer himself.

I agree with the longer crankshaft making it harder to throw over. You have 2 flywheeels that are further apart, it's not gonna be as "flickable" so to speak.

Just fitting it into a chassis would be the biggest problem. We all want to have a sled that is reasonably priced, and a twin keeps it that way.

Sure I love the triples,, but it ain't happening. IMO. Not in a mountain chassis.

If you want gobs of reliable power, you may as well just go 4 stroke and turbo it, because the sled will be considerably heavier and larger anyways, to accommodate for the triple 2 stroke.

Thanks for all the posts, keep them coming.:d

 

[popcorn popper]

The lightweight revolution and the rider forward movement has made the triple a thing of the past. With the exception of a few 4 stroke chassis', there are not very many chassis' out there that would accept a triple 2 stroke. When Doo went to the ZX, it would not accept a triple, which is why they had the C3. Building 2 different chassis' is costly.

Piston speed is key with the triples, as the smaller bore, longer stroke triples have a much higher piston speed than a comparable CC twin with a bigger bore and less piston speed. Less speed = less breakage. Pound/HP - the triple will be as much as the twin, but things like porting a triple risk raising the exhaust port timing too much and then you get a peaky motor because the torque is moved too high in the RPM. Triples also need a counter balance shaft which = $$$ to produce. Also the added complexity of having three ignitions, injectors, oil pump, etc, all add to the production cost. Its simply more cost effective to bore a cylinder and have a 180 degree firing cycle. Comparing an old storm or XLT to a newer generation triple isn't even apples to oranges. Triples are great motors, super smooth due to the 120 degree firing order, and can make big power.

Watercraft triples in sleds took off about 7 yrs ago but there was simply not enough people making parts to put them in sleds. As mentioned, the triple cylinder and single pipe configuration does not make efficient power. You need triple pipes, and again, if you could get the motor in, getting pipes in there would even be tougher. The motor should fit as the newer 4 strokes are about the same dimensions on the block, but making power with the pipes is key. Having a triple/single wouldn't be any advantage over the current twin engines, you need the volume of triple pipes. The new revolution of slim chassis designs pretty much makes it impossible, you would not fit a big triple in the new Pro or the XM without a huge $$$ budget and a lot of time and effort (and even then I don't know if it would still physically fit).

Modman you are correct on a few accounts however the only engine (triple ) I know that ran the counterbalance was cats 1000 triple and the big watercraft. As far as ignition goes there's one box and a extra coil? The oil pump had a extra line running to case hardly anything hi tec. As far as stroke goes the 809 had a 68 mm the new 800 is 75 mm so not a big stretch ! The 120 degree firing had smoother pulsing that allowed the piston speed to exist. Those engines were very realiable other than stator issues. Some 809's had a oil feed hole that was not drilled from factory and caused premature crank bearing failure. Once corrected they were quite reliable. Quite abit better than these twin bangers out now!!