very true.

 

i think your right about me being hung up on the OIL part ur actually correct...i've never thought of what it was doing in the engine...32:1 seems to be what everyone uses because i'm assuming its a good mixture...but what i always thought was if i was to mix 50:1 my bike would blow because the top end wouldn't be getting the right lubrcation than it would with a 32:1 mixture...

 

I doubt your engine would blow with a 50:1 mixture. You probably wouldn't want to go with less oil than that because you are right about it could blow up if you don't have enough oil. But you don't want too much oil in there either. I think your other Blaster you mentioned with a 40:1 ratio mixture blew up for some other reason than the fuel/oil mixture. I have blown up almost every 2 stroke I have ever owned, some more than twice and I have always ran the same fuel mixture in all of them.

 

order in the court room

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: YamahaBlastHER

order in the court room</end quote></div>

ruling in the court is in raptor450's favor lol but seriously

 

i notice that people have been arguing about oil for the past 2 and a half pages and i want to join that argument. Here's my reasoning:

32:1 is richer in oil
50:1 is leaner in oil

however, once they go through the carb and into the combustion chamber- the air-fuel ratio is richer when using the 50:1 gas[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]il ratio mixture.... NOT THE 32:1 gas[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]il ratio mixture.

Here's the reasoning:

In 32:1, 32/33 or 96.969696969% of the mixture is gas.
In 50:1, 50/51 or 98.039215686% of the mixture is gas.

Now you divide 98.039215686 by 96.969696969.
98.039215686/96.969696969

The answer is 1.01102941176914 or in other words the 50:1 mixture is 101.102941176914% the richness of the 32:1 mixture when considering the amount of gas that is injected out of the total amount liquid.

Therefore, 50:1 is 1.102941176914% richer than 32:1

REMEMBER THAT THIS IS GAS-WISE, NOT OIL WISE

I hope this clears everything up- if you don't understand it, agree with me because what i have posted is correct (unless there's a typo)
If there is a typo, quote my post, put a line of dashes or ________ in front_______and behind the typo, and then place the correction in (PARENTHESES) AFTER the second set of dashes or _____

edit: The [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img] smileys are supposed to be "colon"+"letter O"..... thinks* stupid smileys!

 

my other post was turning into a novel so i decided to make a new one.....

32:1 is leaner than 50:1 gaswise. Lean engines run hotter than rich engines.

Here's where the theoretical stuff begins:

Shouldn't the extra oil cool it down even more than extra gas would? After all, it doesnt burn well and (according to my reasoning) it wouldn't generate nearly as much heat when it burns as gasoline would. Another thing is that it gets sprayed into the combustion chamber acting as a lubricant- the extra lubricant reduces friction (and therefore heat) but it also acts as a cooling agent by absorbing the heat from the engine and then taking the heat away with it when it evaporates/burns.

-------------------------Darn i think this might be flawed though- the post above this makes PERFECT sense though. ------------------------

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: crazy1291

my other post was turning into a novel so i decided to make a new one.....



32:1 is leaner than 50:1 gaswise. Lean engines run hotter than rich engines.



Here's where the theoretical stuff begins:



Shouldn't the extra oil cool it down even more than extra gas would? After all, it doesnt burn well and (according to my reasoning) it wouldn't generate nearly as much heat when it burns as gasoline would. Another thing is that it gets sprayed into the combustion chamber acting as a lubricant- the extra lubricant reduces friction (and therefore heat) but it also acts as a cooling agent by absorbing the heat from the engine and then taking the heat away with it when it evaporates/burns.



-------------------------Darn i think this might be flawed though- the post above this makes PERFECT sense though. ------------------------</end quote></div>

Yeah, I was refering to gas, not oil when I said "lean" or "rich". I know 32:1 is richer in OILl and 50:1 is leaner in OIL, but I have never heard anybody refer to oil in that way. Normally you would refer to the fuel as being rich or lean.

 

but it makes sense though doesnt it

lol @mdebuck- it truly is funny that were arguing about oil

 

theres our difference raptor450 i was talking about the oil mix not fuel as i said a few posts back i was talkin about mixing fuel with oil..now i understand what you were talking about....and now you guys know what i was tryin to imply but you guys thought i was tlaking about something else....