Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: A Road Not Taken - 3-Valve Airhead

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    93

    A Road Not Taken - 3-Valve Airhead

    Many years ago in BMWRA's On The Level magazine, Robert Hellman mentioned a rumored boxer twin prototype engine with the cylinders inclined slightly upwards. I don't recall any further information, and I long since forgot about it until I stumbled upon this patent the other day, issued to BMW in 1985.

    As you can see from the image, the cylinders only look like they are inclined, due to the design of the cylinders, heads, and valve covers, and the orientation of the fins on the heads and valve covers.

    Google "patent 4558676" to view the patent details and additional diagrams.

    My apologies if this information has already been posted.

    Enjoy!



    ---
    BMW MOA Life Member
    R60US - R60/7 - Suzuki TU250X - Honda CN250
    CSC Greaser - BMW/Dnepr MT10-36 conversion

  2. #2
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,801
    Clearly the Oilhead design proved better.

    With the mess BMW made of the K-bike in 1985, I'd think they didn't really have the best folks working on this engine either. And, it's fairly hilarious the drawing indicates carburetors.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  3. #3
    Registered User mneblett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    1,729
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    And, it's fairly hilarious the drawing indicates carburetors.
    Not really -- given the time required for most patents to be examined and issued at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (years), and the fact that the U.S. patent application claims priority to a German and an International version of the same application filed about 1 1/2 years before the U.S. application, this appears to be the result of R&D done in the late '70's/early 80's, when Bings were still King.

    If you look at the rest of the drawings in this patent, this also appears to be an early precursor in the line of development which lead to the oilhead released in '93. The intake air path is through the frame -- a frame bolted to the top of the engine and extending directly to the steering head. Note also the oilhead's arrangement of an auxiliary shaft under the crank driving an oil pump at the front and gears for a chain-driven overhead valve gear train at the rear of the shaft (Fig. 1).

    It also provides something of a preview of the wethead's head arrangements, as the intakes are fed straight down from the top, and the exhaust exits directly underneath the head (Fig. 2).

    I can't say I agree with the overbroad brush stroke condemning BMW's engineering staff at the time.
    Mark Neblett
    Fairfax, VA
    #32806

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    248
    For some reason, BMW (radial) aircraft engines refrained from going to 3+ valves per cylinder long after most other engine manufacturers - but they retained their dependability. It seems that thought process carried over to other air cooled engines including those for motorcycles. US car manufacturers took the same approach, for reasons (I speculate) associated with profit margins.

    The Italians, British, and Japanese motorcycles pioneered much of the >2 valve per cylinder technology. The Japanese embraced the four valves per cylinder approach early and have reaped the benefits from that forward thinking. Of course most motorcycle/car/engine manufactures have gone that way, but it seems some were dragged into that way of thinking.
    Stan

    AH# 13238

  5. #5
    jimmy armour
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lucknow ontario canada
    Posts
    158

    Smile nothing new

    back in the late forties or early fifties AJS put 3 valve cylinder heads on their 7/R race bike,if only to have one inlet and two exaust perhaps not the smartest thing but they did it

  6. #6
    Benchwrenching PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    8,690
    Three valves is not the novelty here, really. For BMW this is their first cam-in-head design. Decidendly different than the Airheads at that time.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://www.bigbend.net/users/glaves

  7. #7
    Registered User melville's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by jimwjarmour View Post
    back in the late forties or early fifties AJS put 3 valve cylinder heads on their 7/R race bike,if only to have one inlet and two exaust perhaps not the smartest thing but they did it
    They did that to keep the exhausts cool both by being smaller and by having an air passage between. I believe the exhaust cams (yes, cams) were bevel driven off the intake to improve the air shot at the septum.

  8. #8
    Registered User Anyname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH
    Posts
    734
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    Clearly the Oilhead design proved better.

    With the mess BMW made of the K-bike in 1985, I'd think they didn't really have the best folks working on this engine either. And, it's fairly hilarious the drawing indicates carburetors.
    I had an 85 K100. It was a bit buzzy, but otherwise a rather nice design. Certainly it had better power characteristics and lower maintenance that an 85 airhead.
    BMW R bike rider, horizontally opposed to everything...

  9. #9
    Benchwrenching PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    8,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyname View Post
    I had an 85 K100. It was a bit buzzy, but otherwise a rather nice design. Certainly it had better power characteristics and lower maintenance that an 85 airhead.
    The 85 K 100 had a few faults. Wiring was a problem. Buzziness was a problem. Heat was a problem. But from all I've gathered, the engine was not a problem. The classic K bike engines are as bulletproof as any BMW engine I am aware of.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://www.bigbend.net/users/glaves

  10. #10
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyname View Post
    I had an 85 K100. It was a bit buzzy, but otherwise a rather nice design. Certainly it had better power characteristics and lower maintenance that an 85 airhead.
    So buzzy as to make it unrideable in fact.

    So buzzy it would vibrate off, i.e. break the muffler bracket.

    So buzzy BMW started fitting foam handgrips.

    So hot BMW had numerous warranty fixes, including eliminating the seals around the fork legs to the fairing.

    So hot that you really needed the knee guards glued to your tank.

    So hot that in high altitudes where I live, vapor lock was a real concern. One club member here rigged a fuel cooler.

    So bad, BMW brought back the boxer twin, and the "last edition" wasn't.

    So bad, an '84 Airhead is worth more than an '85 K.

    Remember, the popularity of the GS was a bit of a surprise to BMW, as the original R80G/S didn't sell well at all.

    First one I drove off the dealer lot to test I was in top gear in a half city block trying to make the vibration go away. I've not considered a K-bike for a nanosecond since, although I know they've improved them a lot.

    And yes, anything's more reliable than an Airhead.
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  11. #11
    advrider.com
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    And yes, anything's more reliable than an Airhead.
    Yeah, sure..

  12. #12
    Aspiring Profligate jeff488's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nacogdoches, TX
    Posts
    794
    Lkchris, you are truly a ray of sunshine!

    What motivates a person to make such curmudgeonly remarks, advanced constipation?
    '04 Silver R1150RT "Big Oel". '05 Yellow KLR 650
    '00 Red Suzuki Bandit 600
    '65 Allstate/Puch 250 twingle
    "I just want somewhere to ride and food when I get there."

  13. #13
    Smoooooth at 430 gch71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Katy, Texas
    Posts
    175
    [QUOTE,And yes, anything's more reliable than an Airhead.[/QUOTE]

    play nice, that's uncalled for. Then why do you still see airheads on the road?
    So don't sling the crap.... Especially stating " ANYTHING"...really then why is my airhead still on the road and a 1974 R60/6 at that. Let's see.....where to start....it was driven from Antwerp Belgium to the shipping docks from there on a boat to New York then drove to Minnesota, then across to Colorado up to Pikes Peak then down through the south to Miami Florida where it was put back on a ship to Spain then driven back to its home in Belgium, O and by the way that was in 1977, did it again in 1979, all without problems, that was my brother and father! Now I've had it since early 89 and proceeded to drive the crap out of it and still no major issues, only pushrod tube seals replaced and the usual consumables So if I may ask you before you throw out a statement like that I would think twice, come on really "ANYTHING".
    Glenn
    ...driving to work on my airhead
    '74 R60/6, '75 R60/6(boxes)

  14. #14
    Registered User amiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Murrells Inlet, S. C.
    Posts
    870
    Methinks Sarcasm was afoot with the negative Airhead Reliability comment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •