Steve, do you guys have head designs for snowmobile engines? Or would you just need someone to send you a stock head to match?
Yes we have designs for some snowmobile engines but certainly to be sure it would be best to have a head for test-fitting/making sure the fitting/tolerances are spot-on. We would certainly be happy to receive heads. Our mailing address is on our site - www.twostrokeshop.com
Just a note - in order to run toroidal head inserts you need to run flat-top pistons, i.e. toroid heads are not designed to work with dome-topped pistons.
If the mythic head design spoken of in vaguest terms in this thread bears fruit, and topples the toroid from its max deto resistant throne, I shall be the first to applaud. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to see facts and evidence and dyno runs and things like that, in order to swallow claims of supremacy. Or at the very least, open presentation of ideas/concepts/designs.
All these vagaries do is annoy people, and erode confidence in whatever merit may exist.
Theories have to be fleshed out. This one doesn't even have a skeleton. There's no 'fault or misrepresentation' in what gtfoxy has said because, if we're being strict about it, nothing has actually been said. More politician than snake oil salesman ... ?
Yes, put up or shut up. That is how the real world operates. There's nothing 'personal' about this, no need to take umbrage.
Don't get me wrong; for the sake of two-stroking enjoyment I hope there is a new and revolutionary head design and should it bear fruit I will doff my hat respectfully. But nobody, nobody can expect to come on an open forum where thinking, discerning people are in attendance, and make blank statements/hollow hints/'what if' conjecture, and not be accused of wasting peoples' time (at best.)
If the head design is 'open source' then why the cloak and dagger? And loaded accusations that 'people don't understand the concept'? Now it's just plain silly to say that on the one hand and on the other hand, be all coy about just what it is you are postulating. One would have to question the motives behind this obtuse behavior - is it self-aggrandisement, or some sort of 'peer tease' jig, or some kind of 'I know best' complex? Who can know? Because the author is saying nothing of any substance.
And so, how could anyone correctly understand 'the concept' when it is shrouded in mystery - and seemingly needlessly, I might add?
And why would the author not perform full-scale tests on his own sled engines, and then release confirmed findings? Seems off to be asking others to risk running what is obviously an unproven design on their own engines - and doing free R&D for the author??? Too excited to actually spend the required time to R&D the concept, and feeling the need to spread a flurry of excitement around this singularly brilliant idea?
There are proper ways and means to propagate new and worthy technologies. Then again, I do take the point that radical new ideas may well justify novel approaches. I do hope this is a good working idea with a sound basis in physics and fact.
Not to be unkind; but the balance of probabilities - based on typical human evasive patterns of behavior as evidenced here - are that the 'breakthrough' being alluded to is going to pan out to be all gas and no class. Yet I would welcome being proved wrong.
Last edited: