Thats a good question shmee. Why would a camshaft that makes more peak power on a dyno not perform on the track. Everyone talks about horsepower in peak numbers instead of looking at the entire range of rpm the engine operates in and how well that engine hold torque at high rpm.
When I dyno I tune for max hp but when the day is done I compare acceleration curves to decide which camshaft will be in my bike.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

i guess some motors run better than they should[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img] its all about the setup. some day ill get there[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

 

The A1A2 cams have a longer duration (267 and 278 degrees) than the Web 109/110 (260 and 256 degrees), and also a larger lift .433 and 406 vs webs .425 and .395. Ron's specs have changed slightly over the years, but this is what he is putting out now.

The best cam I ever had on my DS was Ron's A1A2 cams. I dont recall if I had the older specs or the latest version, but they were the quickest cams I have ever had. I didnt have a lot of low end, but once I got the revs up to 3K, it was extremely quick. I dont know if these cams provide the true 'scavenging effect' that help with getting fuel/air mix into the cylinder quickly, like the popular race cams for other race motors, but they are extremely quick. Thats probably why your friend noticed the difference at higher revs.

The two cams are very close in terms of performance, but they are not "exactly" the same when you look at the specs. But they are the only cams for the DS that are built on the same concept. I would expect, from looking at the specs, that the Web would be a milder version and provide a better performance down low than the Wood cams, but not the high RPM power mentioned earlier. There has been quite a few posts on this forum over the years by people that have had both, that reported the same performance. The retail prices of both of these are quite different.

Also, when riding in the sand with those cams, its quite easy to get the wheel spin needed to get up to 3000 RPM. That would be different for trail riding on the dirt.

Personally, I ride on the dunes, and rev quickness is extremely important.

 

i've had a lot better results with the 109 compared to the a1-a2 but there not bad if you get a good deal on them. but seems there almost 400 bucks compared to 275 for the 109's

 

SANDMAN430

Hey I havent seen you post for a while! Do you remember what piston you were running with both of those cams? Just curious...

 

I love my a1/a2 cams, I have not ran the Web's so nothing to compare first hand, but I have no complaints in woods or rocky mountain trails or sand dunes, they do love to rev high as the sky but still give me all I need on the bottom, just gotta keep her 3K or above like OregonDunePatrol mentioned because you'll do some chugging below that, nothing a little clutching can't render and the trade-off is a good pull at 9K.

 

Conceptually, these cams are drastically different. Not only are the A1/A2 more lift, but the split duration is reversed. The A1/A2 Increases the exhaust duration to 11 degrees more than the intake duration, whereas the 109/110 has 4 degress LESS on the exhaust than the intake. You might assume there isn't much difference in an exhaust cam with 22 degrees more duration, but just 5 degrees is alot on cams- 22 degrees is huge.

As far back as my records go, the A1/A2 grind has never changed.

The 109 grinds are a little lazy on bottom, but make decent top end and over rev. The 110 grinds are lazy everywhere and I can't find any horsepower gains on the dyno- I'd rather have stock cams. The A1/A2 are lazy from bottom to top, but do try to make power way up in the rpm range, but it's too late for any DS motor except, perhaps, a high strung 9500 rpm drag bike. Seat of the pants on the track and trail verify what the dyno says.

Shmee, the bikes were close in a drag race because neither camshaft was helping either of the bikes racing.

222

 

222 you make it sound as though RWR, a respected leader in Rotax performance mods for many years, either knows nothing or is deliberately trying to make everybody slower, and all the people who have ran a1/a2 cams and felt the difference were really just dreaming.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Ron Wood Racing. They have never been anything but honest in my dealings with them. I have never heard anyone say anything derogatory about them- no one has complained about deceitful dealings, cheating, thiefing, lying. No one has ever complained that they have been cussed out on the phone by RWR.
RWR products seem to be very reliable- thus no need to cuss the customer and tell them everything is the customers fault.
They publish their dyno graphs so you know exactly what you are getting. I have dyno'ed their stage 1, 2, and 3 kits numerous times. The graphs are 100% accurate, they are not blown up or doctored. I have raced with their products and I've raced against their products.
Over the years, I have sold a great deal of their product.
In the 1970's and 80's their air cooled 2 valve Rotax engines were King. They are still very competitive even today.
Now, these are my words. Any thing else implied or assumed are NOT my words.

222

 

crazy check you'r pm.