[_raVan_]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

My 1st Generation Pulsar 180 gave me 42kmpl and TTSI while a good move is not really that significant IMHO.

Whats a TTSI? DTSi stood for Digital Twin Spark Ignition So it would hold true for Digital Triple Spark Ignition too (if Digital system is involved here)

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

What about the 150, 180, 200 and 220?

They don't sport the 4 valves. The P-200 has been discontinued long back and no it didn't have 4 valves either. The P-220 and P-200 sported oil coolers, but no proper LC engines, not even close.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

My 1st Generation Pulsar 180 gave me 42kmpl and TTSI while a good move is not really that significant IMHO.

Why not? The power figures went up, along with mileage figures. Isn't that significant? The combination of performance and reasonable fuel efficiency is what made the Pulsar such a high seller in the market - isn't it?

[balenopower]

Bajaj has got it bang on this time. The new Pulsar is just what the doctor ordered. Technology galore in the form of liquid cooling, brilliant perimeter frame, petal discs front and rear and the works. While the bottom end is the same as the KTM, the head has been totally redesigned and does not feature the exotic materials used in the Orange stunner. (Btw did you guys know that the KTM has been built in-house right here in INDIA?proud moment for us eh?). While its a carb to keep costs down expect FI in the higher displacement bikes. Cant wait to get on it asap.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

Fuel-injection is in the pipeline.

I'm almost certain that FI would be found in the 200cc+ variant.

Originally Posted by Sheel

They don't sport the 4 valves. The P-200 has been discontinued long back and no it didn't have 4 valves either. The P-220 and P-200 sported oil coolers, but no proper LC engines, not even close.

Will they bring the 200 back with the new Gen? In time, perhaps? I'm aware of the oil-coolers in the P200 and P220. What's the cheapest LC bike you can get in India today?

[antz.bin]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

I'm almost certain that FI would be found in the 200cc+ variant.

With the triple spark head the P200NS has better combustion efficiency than the FI'd Duke, I doubt that FI would be required on even the 250. And if they do manage with a Carb on the 250 (preferably half/full faired with 55/60W projector headlamps) it would become a helluva package at breakneck pricing as far as the competition is concerned.

@BAL The Fastest Indian V4.0 is still pending. (V1.0 = P180 Classic, V2.0 = P220 Fi, V3.0 = P220 Carb)

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Will they bring the 200 back with the new Gen? In time, perhaps? I'm aware of the oil-coolers in the P200 and P220. What's the cheapest LC bike you can get in India today?

The cheapest LC bike in India currently is the R15. P200 NS will surely undercut that. CBR150R will also be launched soon but that most probably will be priced more than the R15.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

With the triple spark head the P200NS has better combustion efficiency than the FI'd Duke, I doubt that FI would be required on even the 250. And if they do manage with a Carb on the 250 (preferably half/full faired with 55/60W projector headlamps) it would become a helluva package at breakneck pricing as far as the competition is concerned.

While I agree with you on everything else, I don't think one can compare two different technologies (3 spark-plugs and fuel-injection) found on two different bikes. Having said that, I personally believe, and I'm reasonably sure that a fuel-injected motor will always be more efficient than a Carb.

EDIT: 3-spark tech can be compared to 2-spark tech; where as FI tech can be compared to carb tech. I'm not sure if spark-tech can be compared to method of air-fuel discharge in the cylinder (whether programmed injection or not)

[antz.bin]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

The extra spark plug is used for better combustion efficiency (not for 'looking different') and controlling emissions without using expensive technology like Fuel injection which will jack up the price by a cool 15k (that was the price difference between the old P220 Fi and the new P220 Carb back in July-August 2009). If you read the zigwheels article on the engine + transmission here:

Engine and Transmission on the New 2012 Bajaj Pulsar Page - 2| Zigwheels.com

The cat con used in the PuNS is tiny as compared to the sizable one on the Duke. Smaller cat con = much cheaper to manufacture the exhaust = cost savings for both company and customer. What this also means is that the combustion efficiency achieved by the PuNS is much better than the Duke even though it doesn't use the more advanced Fi tech. Back in 2009, contrary to what happened today, the P220 Carb had to be introduced with a cat con whereas the P220 Fi did not have one though both were DTSi.

Just by ingeniously using a carb + triple spark-plug + SOHC + smaller cat con setup, BAL has easily saved costs in the tune of 20-25k. Add to it the comparatively thinner tyres, lack of the cast Aluminum swing arm, the thinner(but equally wide as the CBR) conventional forks saves another 20-25k. They can easily price the PuNS a good 50k less than the Duke and still make handsome margins + very well kill the competition (Come on! Why would you buy anything else if this sold for 75-80k OTR? Thats closer to FZ than to Zma). But considering how terribly overpriced the competition is, BAL can very well price this around 90-95k OTR (35-40k less than Duke) and still the general bike enthusiasts will be happy with the pricing.

Requoting my earlier post on this thread.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

While I agree with you on everything else, I don't think one can compare two different technologies (3 spark-plugs and fuel-injection) found on two different bikes. Having said that, I personally believe, and I'm reasonably sure that a fuel-injected motor will always be more efficient than a Carb.

The two technologies are bound to be compared as long as they are used to power extremely similar machines made in the same factory on the same assembly line. What BAL has actually done is given a Russian solution to a global problem (aka the Pencil Vs the Astronaut's Pen). The basic reason why the Duke uses FI is because otherwise it won't be able to clear the strict emission norms of our great country. Pulsar 200NS with its different head tech didn't need it to clear the emission norms. It is cleaner than the Duke even without the Fi (hence the smaller Cat Con).

Anyways, as long as you end up saving over 15+k just by avoiding using Fuel Injection, I doubt it would bother people or the govt what happens below the tank as long as it is a hoot to ride, fuel efficient and is reasonably green.

Edit: Of course 3 spark tech can be compared with 2 spark, likewise with FI and carb. But what we have on our hands is 2 complete packages which need to be compared. We need to compare '3 spark + Carb + SOHC + Tiny CatCon' V/S 'Single spark + Fi + DOHC + Much bigger CatCon'.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

With the triple spark head the P200NS has better combustion efficiency than the FI'd Duke, I doubt that FI would be required on even the 250.

Hi,
Lots of questions.
What exactly is combustion efficiency?
How is it measured?
On what does it depend?
How do multiple sparkplugs help?
What determines the size of a catcon?
What is the thinking behind a modern DOHC design?
What is the relationship, if any, between cc and type of fuel delivery?
Zigwheels reliable when it comes to Bajaj?

Can you give any links to internationally presented technical papers on the multiple SP combustion chamber design?

Regards
Sutripta

[antz.bin]

I like the way you make me dig deeper . First of all, I must confess that I do not work for Bajaj and I am just a happy Pulsarian and proud of the new feat achieved by BAL whatever means they might have used to achieve it. I will try to explain it to myself (Oh Yeah Myself!!) with whatever little knowledge I have and what I can source through Google in the next 1 hour .

Lets take it step by step.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Hi,
Lots of questions.
What exactly is combustion efficiency?
On what does it depend?

It is a term I seem to have minted day before yesterday. It could be the ratio of 'fuel burnt : bad stuff coming after burning (HC/CO/NOx)'. For the purpose of this discussion, lets call it CE.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

How is it measured?

By using a gas analyzer as is used in a PUC machine.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What is the thinking behind a modern DOHC design?

DOHC refers to Double Overhead Camshaft. This arrangement uses two camshafts in each cylinder head. This allows the manufacturer to easily implement a 4 valve per cylinder setup. Most of the time it also allows the engine to rev higher. It also allows better placement of the valves in an optimized setup that gives you maximum performance. But the disadvantage of such a setup is more weight, more cost and more complexity. It takes more stuff to drive two camshafts. The main reason to use DOHC is to drive more valves per cylinder. If a SOHC setup can allow 4 valves per cylinder, having a DOHC engine will not bring that much benefits over SOHC and the additional weight becomes a burden instead. DOHC engines also allows the spark plug to be placed right in the middle of the combustion chamber. This promotes efficient combustion. With SOHC, the camshaft is usually in the middle of the head because it has to drive both the intake and exhaust valves, robbing the sparkplug of it’s optimal location.
Source: SOHC vs DOHC Valvetrains: A Comparison

Originally Posted by Sutripta

How do multiple sparkplugs help?

Since SOHC means that the spark-plug is robbed of its optimum location, single spark plug would mean bad High RPM performance, less CE and FE at the top of the rev range as compared to a DOHC where the spark plug goes to its optimum location. This would also mean more undesired tailpipe emissions. The way to avoid it is to either reduce the revs or combust the fuel better. By initiating combustion at mutiple locations in the head would mean that the fuel can burn much faster. In a DTSi setup, the 2 spark plugs (which are placed at the 2 ends of the cylinder head) operate simultaneously only @7000+ RPM. Till that time, the bike uses just one spark plug. But in such a situation, since the centre of the cylinder head has no spark initiation, this is also a lossy way of going about doing things

This setup is used in the P135:


In the tri spark setup, a setup similar to the DTSi is used with an added plug in the center of the cylinder head(where it should be).

This plug is the primary plug while the rest are slave plugs which 'presumably' will be used only at high RPMs to curtail the tailpipe emissions like on the DTSi. I am unable to make sense of the technical slides shown at the launch event. Please help me out here. For the benefit of the community, I am posting the slides on this thread.





Photo credits: MG@xbhp.com

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What determines the size of a catcon?

I guess 'Bigger is better' principle works here (Better in terms of curtailing CE). Because their presence is a hindrance to smooth flow of exhaust gases. The more the obstruction, the worse the performance, drivability and fuel economy. The only good reason they are present is because they are required to keep CE in check. Obviously, a smaller(or no) Cat Con will be used wherever possible(while still confirming to emission norms) just to reduce this power-loss.
Source: Catalytic converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What is the relationship, if any, between cc and type of fuel delivery?

That has something to do with the tail-pipe emissions. I could use some help from Distinguished BHPians like you.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Zigwheels reliable when it comes to Bajaj?

Please help me connect the dots on this one. Some fellow Team-BHPians I know feel that even say Team-BHP, the most unbiased of all automotive forums is Pro-Honda. I would like to think that we must take everything with a pinch of salt.

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Can you give any links to internationally presented technical papers on the multiple SP combustion chamber design?

No I cannot. I am not a Bajaj Insider. Anyways, why would BAL share it with the public when the applied-for patent is still pending?

I hope I haven't made a complete fool of myself here. Please feel free to correct me wherever I may be wrong.

Regards,
Anant

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

I like the way you make me dig deeper . First of all, I must confess that I do not work for Bajaj and I am just a happy Pulsarian and proud of the new feat a---------------------SNIPPED------------------er I may be wrong.

Regards,
Anant

Fantastic consolidation!!
a simple thanks wont do.
This was a lot of information, very succinctly put.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Zigwheels reliable when it comes to Bajaj?

It isn't Zig wheels, it is Mr. ADJ. I can scan & mail you his experts on the humble XCD-125 & similar Motorcycles if you so wish. He gets weak in his knees with a BAL product, though almost anywhere else, I like his flair.

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Please help me connect the dots on this one. Some fellow Team-BHPians I know feel that even say Team-BHP, the most unbiased of all automotive forums is Pro-Honda. I would like to think that we must take everything with a pinch of salt.

What do you feel?

Brilliant compilation BTW

[aravind.anand]

The performance figures are mouth watering! Love the engine, and that love have now made me loove the looks, which I was initially skeptical about For less than a lakh, it would be a steal! A step (huge one at that) in the right direction for the Pulsar lineage.

[Ajaybiz]

DTSI stands for Digital Twin Spark Ignition if i am not worng, then this bike should be again same DTSI (T=Triple) and next version with 4 plugs will come with new name as DQSi (Digital Quad Spark Ignition).
Seems to be other bike manufacturers are fool that they are not putting more than one plug in single cylinder
Can someone put the comparision figure between this and KTM200.

[rangakishen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What is the relationship, if any, between cc and type of fuel delivery?

Originally Posted by antz.bin

That has something to do with the tail-pipe emissions. I could use some help from Distinguished BHPians like you.

I think the answer to this is simple if you analyze the discussion about "FI v/s carb" above.

Just my thoughts: Higher the CCs, greater the quantity of fuel to be fed to the engine. At higher RPMs, carbs will be highly inefficient. For large CCs, it is preferable that the fuel is fed in a faster and more distributed way. Fuel injector sprays the required amount of fuel in an instant resulting in a fairly uniform distribution of fuel in the combustion chamber. The fuel when sprayed will be in the form of fine particles, hence ensuring smooth combustion (Flame travel is slow and uniform).

But at lower CCs, advantages of FI dwindle down and the "performance gains v/s monetary gains" battle rules carb as the better candidate!!

Correct me if I'm wrong!! This is just my analysis! Doing Mechanical Engg. I cant help but try to come up with explanations like these!!