Paul1981

How are you supposed to stop the engine?  I'm yet to see anything that looks remotely like a killswitch in any of the pictures...

dmzamora

Why should it be any different from a glow engine? Just pinch the line or plug the pipe.

Of course a kill switch would be lots more "elegant", but not mandatory at all.

Paul1981

Can't see that method working as well as it would in a nitro.  I think that pinching the fuel feed pipe will take too long and will make it run too lean for too long (risking damage), and I've tried closing off the pipe on my 1/5 scale when I couldn't get to the killswitch - not anything I'd recommend; took too long and really badly burnt me.  It's much better and quicker to interrupt the ignition current IMO.

dmzamora

The line shoud be pinched just next to the carb, to reduce runtime. In any engine. And plug a metal pipe with a bare finger is... well, just begging for a burn

Of course a kill swith is a must, I'm just saying that it's not the only method. I'm pretty sure that there will be only one battery pack shared by receiver and ignition, so it will only need a single switch, which is already there.

Marco810

Im sure they will add a kill switch. would be as simple as adding a switch to disconect the battery pack

378

My Feedback: (4)

A kill switch is better than plugging anything. The only reason we do that with our glow engines is because there is no other way to shut them off, and we can't set the throttles up like plane guys do due to the brakes.


Hell you can even do it from the radio, when you're done drive it up to your feet, flick the switch, and carry it inside.

Marco810

also no way in hell i would touch a petrol exhaust pipe they run hot

Paul1981

It was the last thing on my mind, believe me!  Throttle was glitching, all four wheels spinning under power, bodyshell still attached so I couldn't get to the killswitch.  The exhaust was all I could get to!  Not something I plan on doing again in a hurry...

dmzamora

I really hope so, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't to "cut costs"...

On the other hand, I would beg for an "almost ready to run" without radio, but doubt they will do it.

dmzamora

An exhaust deflector can do wonders, to direct oil away from the car and to kill the engine in any emergency

kochj

Just pull the spark plug cap!....All in all...that is the last thing I am thinking about....

I am more concerned about the running attributes this will have....
Exp....power, ease of use, reliable, and will the settings be consistant, and not overly sensitive, which could be if they just threw on a carb from a torque .21 nitro burner...

I hope it goes well....I would rather run gasoline.
Flame outs would be rare, and would run for 15-25 min on the same sized nitro tank.

kochj

WT??
Please don't say you make a comparison to a Fuel injected full size multi cyl. variable valve exhuast multi cam engine
to a simple 2-stroke single with a spark ignition!....

Your lawn mower most likely has a float valve for fuel metering....
That wouldn't work out so well in a 1/8 scale rc car/truck that is bouncing all over the place, smaking down on jumps ect...

might soulnd like a engine running out of gas, only the entire time it is running....

Rc planes didn't far well with using gas in a glow designed carb...but it was due to the 1-click on the needle clockwise/counterclockwise... would either be RIch or LEAN....
This is made even worse, when the plane is going up, and it leans out a already extremely sensitive carb setting to begin with..

It may work fine in a car (no extended Nose High runs, like in planes)....I would hope that HPI made the carb with FINE point needles so there can be a larger range of adjustment before a change in the fuel delivery amounts...


I think one of drawbacks of Glow engines is ease of use..... PITA,,, more like it....
It is a big part of the push in Electrics...Very easy to run...

The ticket for the loss in power seen in the use of gasoline engines in the place of a glow engine, is CC's.....!

Place a larger engine, with higher compression, and larger cooling fins, and double the cubic inches of motor size...
The ease of use, more than offsets any loss in performance due to the small increase in weight.


Happy to this from HPI......
I want gas in everything...

Marco810

that works but would have a chance of getting zapped. had to do that with one of my dirtbikes that went rogue, gave me a good jolt!.

Not that a kill switch is a crucel part of this new engine, just saying

378

My Feedback: (4)

You're welcome to get a jolt from 30-50kV. I'll pass on that.



Oh, so Ford had VVT in 1985? News to me, and I've had the cylinder head off of it before...also, I could have sworn the 300 didn't get EFI until 1987, two years after mine was built.
This HPI engine is more technologically advanced than the engine in my F150, if you'll believe that.

They work fine for dune buggies and rock crawlers.


And you're assuming this carb isn't designed to work with gasoline.


HPI aren't idiots. The carb may look like a standard glow slide carb, but I guarantee you they've jetted it for gasoline, and that will include the finer tipped needles to adjust it. Also, our engines don't use clicks, they're infintiely adjustable.



It may work fine in a car (no extended Nose High runs, like in planes)....I would hope that HPI made the carb with FINE point needles so there can be a larger range of adjustment before a change in the fuel delivery amounts...


Speak for yourself. I spend more time tuning my ford than I do tuning my NexSTAR and NTC3 combined. Mull that over a second. Two engines, which you claim should be a pain in the ass to operate, are more fire-and-forget than an engine that is designed to be as fire-and-forget as possible!


Don't go blaming the hardware if you don't 'get' glow power. It's not for everybody, and apparently you're in that group. But from my own personal experience, it's just as fire-and-forget as brushless. All I have to do is put fuel in the tank, attach the ignitor, and they're running until I decide they should shut down. The 18 CV-RX in my NTC3 has given me only two problems in three gallons of running, and both struck around the three gallon mark. Problem one: A dirty carb. Which I solved by cleaning it. Problem two: Worn out one-way bearing. This made it rather annoying to try to get started, but once running? Ran like a well maintained Honda.


I find glow power to be exceptionally reliable. Matter of fact, I find my glow engines to be more reliable than a lot of full size cars on the road. But maybe that's because I take care of my engines and I get quality ones from the beginning.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Optical ignition kills are pretty inexpensive, small, and the best way to go. You can toggle them on and off from th TX and test your spark. When you want to kill the engine, hit the switch. Many of the airplanes use them. It is sometimes tough to throttle a gas carb down far enough for the engine to die. Plus if you lose radio signal for any reason the engine automatically shuts off. A really great safety feature.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Is this thing for real? That carb does not look like it would work with gasoline. It looks like someone put a small spark plug in a glow engine. Is there a link to the manufacturers site showing these new buggies? I am not a car guy, but interested in the engine.

CR500rider

wow, lots of backyard engineers in here... You guys act like HPI has no clue what they are doing. Maybe they should hire some slack-jawed yokel from the rc forum to design a carb for them since everyone here seems to know what will work and what wont work.

Marco810

this thread turned to crap fast. In any case im thinning out my heard to make room for this one[:-]. cant wait to see some videos of it running, i want to hear it!

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

By gas, I mean gasoline and if you look at all of the aircraft engines they use pumped carbs. That looks like a glow carb. Im not saying it wont work, I am honestly asking the question. This has not shown up yet.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Yes. Hell, Dusenberg had it in the 20s. What's the big deal?

378

My Feedback: (4)

Deusenberg is not Ford. Just because they had it then doesn't mean Ford had it sixty years later.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

But Ford did have it in 1985, so there.

378

My Feedback: (4)

No, they didn't. I've been through their entire lineup in the mid 80s. Fuel injection wasn't even commonplace yet. They hadn't even switched to overhead cam engines fully!


Ford didn't have VVT in 1985. It wasn't installed in any of their for-sale models and it wasn't being used in their test mules at the time.

CR500rider

Good grief, calm down. Get back on topic maybe? And just an FYI, but overhead cams are not needed to have VVT, Chevy has it on a pushrod V8.

378

My Feedback: (4)

If you think that's not 'calm' I'd hate to see your idea of what is.