I wore out the pegs on my beloved RD400…It doesn't take much lean to cause the floorboards/foot rests to scrape. That can be unpleasant.
I'll bet. I had a 72 R5 and almost wore through the steel holding the pegs. Never see any of the old 2 bangers anymoreI wore out the pegs on my beloved RD400…
Same here only mine was an RD 350.I wore out the pegs on my beloved RD400…
Well I was using electrostats. Impedances of more than 32 ohms down low and barely an ohm at the other end.I agree FR variations due to higher output impedance has the biggest potential for audibility. When I did a level matched blind test between an original ST-70 and a Neurochrome Mod 86 I could tell no difference but while I had everything set up I also measured the FR of the 2 amps and then added 0.9 Ohm resistance to the Neurochrome at which point the FR matched almost perfectly. See measurements below. For a push pull Hi-Fi tube amp like the original ST-70 the internal resistance is about 0.7 Ohms and even though it measurably changed the FR it was not audible to me (but may be to someone). A SET tube amp on the other hand can have ~5 ohms of internal resistance which rather than causing a fraction of a dB FR difference could cause 1 or 2 dB of FR difference which can be clearly audible in some cases depending of course on the speaker's impedance curve. Tube amps are not practical or cost effective (especially for higher power) but a Hi-Fi tube amp sounds fine. Many tube amps today are not Hi-Fi by today's standards or even by 1950's standards (They are effects boxes) which I think causes a lot of confusion. Rather than mess around with expensive tube amps or DSP tube emulators if you want to find out what your system would sound like with a "Hi-Fi" tube amp put a 1 Ohm resistor in series with the speakers to see what a SET would sound like use a 5 ohm resistor.
View attachment 380511
I would ask how they sounded with a SET but I don't think a SET would work at all with speakers like that.Well I was using electrostats. Impedances of more than 32 ohms down low and barely an ohm at the other end.
My bud had a 74 rd350 at the same time I had the earlier r5 model. He had 3 hp more and 6 speeds so he'd get me on the straightaways. I had the lower center of gravity so I'd catch him in the corners. Expansion chambers with a rejet and a blueprinted motor with planed heads gave me the straightaway advantage later on. With the expansion chambers I was able to use a closer mounting system for the foot pegs which meant no more scraping in the corners no matter how I tried.Same here only mine was an RD 350.
I miss the sounds & smells of 2 stroke engines!!I wore out the pegs on my beloved RD400…
Dirt rides being 2 stroke is the best!I miss the sounds & smells of 2 stroke engines!!
After riding lawnmowers and other lawn equipment in the 60's (1967, I started my lawncare business & mechanicing at 10 years of age). In 1971 I was working at a shop and a mechanic for many local dirt bike machines that raced at a place called Chisolm Trails.Dirt rides being 2 stroke is the best!
You obviously had a similar teen session as I... LoL.After riding lawnmowers and other lawn equipment in the 60's (1967, I started my lawncare business & mechanicing at 10 years of age). In 1971 I was working at a shop and a mechanic for many local dirt bike machines that raced at a place called Chisolm Trails.
|Husqvarna, Bultaco & such were my trade before the Japanese motorcycles arrived. Then it was the Kawasaki hand grenades (so finely honed that if you went much further than the finish line, they'd likely blow up. They won a lot of races but Suzuki, Yamaha & Honda had a much better reliability record.
& then I would go home & get in my 80 HP V4 two stroke Johnson Outboard 15 ft boat.
Or the Go-Kart in the garage that had twin
McCulloch MAC-101's (each modified to be 15 HP at 13,500 RPM in 1971 [we managed to get ourselves in a bit of a pickle with the POLICE due to this creation of ours] {it seems that they did not like 13/14 year old teens running around in a Go-Kart that they said one of us was clocked by them on a public road at 133 MPH})
Naturally it could not be proven as to which one of us pre Hoonigan renegades was driving it at the time, which resulted in our parents making us disassemble the thing & sell the engines. I sold one to my older cousin & still have it.
Applications[edit]
Aircraft
- AmEagle American Eaglet
- Aviastroitel AC-4 Russia
- Birdman TL-1
- Eipper Quicksilver
- Farner HF Colibri 1 SL
- Hovey Whing Ding II
- Lockheed Aequare
- Skyhigh Skybaby
- UFM Easy Riser
- Volmer VJ-23 Swingwing
Specifications (MC-101B)[edit]
Data from McCulloch Kart Engines, Bore and Stroke, MC101B Kart Engine Illustrated Parts List and Cliche[2][3][4]
General characteristics
- Type: single cylinder, two-stroke engine
- Bore: 2.280 in (5.791 cm)
- Stroke: 1.835 in (4.661 cm)
- Displacement: 7.5 cu in (122.90 cc)
Components
- Fuel system: carburetor
- Oil system: pre-mixed
- Cooling system: air-cooled
Performance
- Power output: 12.5 hp (9 kW) at 9000 rpm
TOO MUCH FUN WITH 2 STROKES, I guess.
It was while writing an apology letter to the police officers involved that we realized that we had taken them away from possibly catching REAL criminals and endangered their lives in their efforts to corral us.You obviously had a similar teen session as I... LoL.
That's because it doesn't exist. People who insist it does, upon whom burden of proof rests, have failed utterly. I was one of them, couldn't tell the difference once levels were matched and I couldn't peek. I am also unable to find rigorous demonstrations of the existence of elves.
The initial proof of concept test of our twin McCulloch 101 Go-Kart was against my new 1971 Honda CL 175 which topped out at an optimistic speedometer 88 MPH.Oh about when I was old enough for a driver's license a local airport closed and moved. For a few years every weekend people would show up with go carts to race down that long runway. I took my cousins who were younger by there pretty often. Someone had a dual McCullough with one chainsaw motor on each rear wheel. It pretty much smoked all the other karts and some motorcycles that showed up. If people showed up with many motorcycles and cars the cops ran everyone away. Go carts they didn't care. That went on for several years. One fellow had a prop driven kart he had built. Don't remember the engine. It didn't accelerate that well, but it was different and would go something like 50 mph. Probably dangerous potentially, but no one ever was hurt by it.
And source impedance. The single most important variable here. A speaker-dependent tone control which can't be switched off. The overload, source impedance, and rising distortion are all easier and cheaper to do using a single ended topology with transistors, they are not peculiar to the active device.So instead of tube vs solid state, it is one amp going into clipping versus not…
This engine was never meant for a chainsaw, it was designed to be a racing Go-Kart engine (Sort of).That sounds like a great use for those early Mccullochs and Homelites as they weren't very good at cutting wood. If it wasn't for the pioneering efforts of the Swedes and Germans in the 80's their chainsaws would still be stuck in the 50's and 60's style. Heavy, loud, slow chain speed with soft bars and no roller nose or automatic oiler and normally broken down by noontime or before.