MICROBLUE Racing sponsors Project Two 50 -Results in Low Emission YZ250 Two-Stroke
One the biggest supporters and sponsors of Project Two 50 is our friend Craig LeClaire from Micro Blue Racing located in Rockford IL. His ideas, suggestions and input have taken our simple idea and turned it upside down.
The original idea for Project Two 50 was to compete using a 250 two stroke in the AMA Pro National Motocross class against the 450 four-strokes. In itself an admirable goal.
Once Craig became involved the entire project changed focus. It has grown into a challenge to our entire team, a challenge to build the cleanest two-stroke, emissions wise, in the world.
As you could imagine, this is a very tall order, which involves many ingredients to achieve. The repercussions of achieving this goal are far reaching and in some ways life altering.
The thing is we actually did it!
How can this be possible on a normally aspirated two-stroke engine?
It begins with Craig and his insatiable thirst for improving the Internal Combustion engine. With a background in metallurgy and racing, it was a natural for Craig to begin experimenting.
What other “tuner” uses a high powered microscope to ensure all metal parts are perfect at the molecular level? While I don’t know that answer to that question, I do know that Craig does so with every piece of metal that he comes into contact with.
When you look at the parts from your engine in this light, everything changes. You see that a part that looks smooth to the naked eye actually looks like the dark side of the moon under the microscope.
Craig invented and developed a process that coats metal at the molecular level. This process is called MICROBLUE. Once you see a part that has been treated with MICROBLUE coatings you will never forget it. It’s blue color hue is distinctive.
The main benefit of MICROBLUE coatings are to reduce friction. When you reduce friction you increase power. This can be proved quite easily, by holding a MICROBLUE treated Ceramic bearing in your hand and spinning it. The first time I did this little experiment, my jaw dropped in amazement. It just spins and spins and spins.
Below are a few YouTube videos that show how the MicroBlue Bearings and coatings work on differing applications
Craig also applied the MICROBLUE coating to the moving parts of a two-stroke engine. In his first experiments he treated a Homelight Leaf Blower and performed a test. He connected a large gas tank to the blower, mixed up a few gallons of fuel, wired the throttle wide open and let the blower run for over 20 hours straight.
Under these conditions, you would expect that when you returned that the blower would have stopped running. But it was still screaming away when he returned!
Now to the important part, he mixed the fuel using Homelight oil at 200:1 Gas/Oil mix!!
A fabulous by-product of this test was the particulate matter (the part that affects emissions) was virtually eliminated!
When Craig joined us on the Project Two 50 team, one of his goals was to apply this technology to a two-stroke motocross bike. Which is what we’ve been testing over the past few months.
Our race bike uses a 100:1 Fuel/Oil mixture using Amsoil Dominator Synthetic. This fuel mixture accomplishes our goal of lowering the Project Two 50′s emissions to the cleanest seen in a production two-stroke!
There is still more testing to be done. One important step will be for our initial tests to be confirmed by independent testing. Which is on schedule to be done as soon as possible.
For you tuner types reading this, I’d like to point out something for you to think about. Our MICROBLUE coated YZ250 engine requires a 210 main jet to run properly! The standard main jet used in a YZ250 is a 178!
In my mind there can only be one explanation for this change in jet size, this motor is pumping more air than a standard YZ250 two-stroke.
An interesting benefit is the sound coming out of this motor. It just does not sound like a typical YZ250. It has a deeper, more throaty bark. Another important point is the power delivery, which is very usable, with a tremendous mid-range that screams out into an amazing top-end. This is one very powerful machine. To top it all off it’s clean.
So to restate that a powerful, fast, clean and sweet smelling two-stroke!
MICROBLUE Racing has been using the MICROBLUE coating technology since 1999. Racers that understand the idea that friction reduction equals gains in horsepower are drawn to MICROBLUE. Racers involved in forms of racing from soapbox derby racers to Tractor pulling realize that friction reduction equals additional gains.
MICROBLUE Racing first entered Pro Racing in 2004. It is difficult to turn on the television in Motorsports without seeing MICROBLUE technology in action. It has been a race “secret” for many well-known racers and teams for many years.
You could say when it comes to Pro Motosports Racing, that everyone in the know, knows MICROBLUE.
Please take a moment to read the information in the “side bar” below. This is an independent test of the MICROBLUE coating using the standard Falex testing. This will allow you to take a glimpse at the potential of the MICROBLUE coating.
http://www.microblueracing.com/
Falex Testing of MICROBLUE coating
A solid film lubricant coating that has proven to be very effective in preliminary tests is the MicroBlue® tungsten disulfide coating. This coating is patented by Material Technologies, Inc. and is provided by the same company. This coating is applied by a low-cost atmospheric pressure particle impingement process. The coating produces almost no dimensional change (less than 1 micrometer) and is applied at ambient temperature. The MicroBlue® coating provides a low friction surface via two mechanisms. One mechanism is the inherent lubricity of the tungsten disulfide thin film on the surface.4 The other mechanism, which is perhaps more important, is that the tungsten disulfide acts as a wetting agent for hydrocarbon-based lubricants because of their affinity for the coated surface which causes the lubricant to more effectively wet the surface. The high durability of the coating is most likely due to the patented application process in which the tungsten disulfide is mechanically bonded to the surface by filling in micron-scale depressions in the surface.
To evaluate the coating durability, Aerodyne Research, Inc. (ARI) recently had block-onring tribological wear tests performed on standard and MicroBlue®-coated test specimens (Figures 1 and 2).
These tests dramatically illustrated the ability of the coating to provide low wear and friction, and in particular, demonstrate its ability to maintain a lubricant layer between surfaces under very high stress conditions. The tests were performed by Falex Corporation using their Blockon-Ring test apparatus. The test conditions were selected to be somewhat representative of a diesel engine crankshaft bearing under very high load. The test conditions were: 2000 rpm, 100°C, 150 lb force, and 100000 cycles (40 min). The Falex H60 block (SAE 01 Tool Steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 4-8 roughness) and S10 ring (SAE 4620 steel, Rc 58-63 Hardness, Ra= 6-12 roughness) were selected for the test. High quality diesel engine oil, Castrol GTX 20W-50, was used for the test in which the ring was partially submerged in the lubricant. Tests were performed for the standard H60 block and S10 ring as the control test, and for the same block/ring combination after being treated with the MicroBlue® surface treatment. Images of the specimens are presented above in Figures 1 and 2. The data sheets for these tests are presented in Figure 3 for the control test and Figure 4 for the MicroBlue® treated test.
The most impressive aspect of the two tests was that the standard (control) test specimens failed catastrophically in 5 seconds due to galling (see the note at the bottom of the test report in Figure 3) while the MicroBlue® treated specimens ran for the full 100,000 cycle duration of the test and showed minimal wear at the end of the test. The wear volume on the block for the standard specimens was 3.64 mm3 in 5 seconds, while the wear volume on the block for the coated specimens was 0.0354 mm3 in 40 minutes – 1/1000th the wear volume in a 500x longer test. Clearly, the severe conditions prevented a lubricant layer from being present in the interface between the block and ring components for the control test (a boundary lubrication condition), leading to immediate galling. For the coated specimens, on the other hand, the MicroBlue® coating’s interaction with the lubricant evidently maintained a thin lubricant layer between the parts to prevent galling and greatly reduce wear (mixed or mixed+elastohydrodynamic lubrication regimes).
While the conditions for these tests were very severe, they demonstrate the important aspects of the coating – its interaction with the lubricant to maintain a lubricant layer between parts and nearly eliminate wear, and its very high durability as demonstrated by its survival under these severe conditions for 100,000 cycles and showing minimal wear at the end of the test.
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Comments
By Chris2T on June 10th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
This is amazing John, congratulations! Less friction, less oil, less emissions and MORE HORSEPOWER!!
I think the reason for the jetting size change might be related to the gas/oil ratio. When using 32:1, each droplet of fuel has about 3% oil in it. With 100:1 each droplet now only has about 1% oil in the fuel. What a minute – since there’s MORE gas in each droplet shouldn’t the jetting size go DOWN? hmm…something strange and wonderful really is going on inside that engine!
By yz125rider157 on June 10th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Man this is awesome. You guys hit the jack pot with micro blue helping out with projecttwo50. I was wondering why that bike sounded so much louder than a regular 250, well now i know.
By jason on June 10th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
my understanding is that the main cause of pollution from 2 strokes is not the oil in the fuel (this is a common misconception) but from incomplete combustion because unburnt charge escapes down the exhaust port. this is why fuel injection is need because it dont inject the fuel until the exhaust port is closed also fuel injected 2 strokes still burn oil as the bottom end is almost the same, yet they have much lower emissions then even 4 strokes. so i really can not see drastically reducing the oil to 100:1 is going to make much difference. saying all that i think the possibilities in power gains is really exciting i would love to see some dyno readings comparing to standard and a 450
By bleake637 on June 10th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
100:1! holy moly that is awesome. This is two-stroke gold. Think about how long a bottle of pre-mix would last at that low of a ratio. Plus the low emissions will keep Uncle Sam and the Sierra club off our backs. Keep up the good work!
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 11th, 2010 at 1:25 am
Like Jason said, the main cause of pollution is unburnt fuel exiting the pipe. Burnt oil though is part of the problem. So lowering this to 100:1 will help a lot but no where near a low emissions bike.
But contrary to what Jason said fuel injection helps oil burning. That would be the oil injection part. Even on carbureted outboard boat engines with oil injection they run 200:1. DI 2-strokes run less.
But please let us know if the bike actually lasts at this mixture. I am to used to “miracle products” in the auto industry that promise cleaner emissions, better fuel economy, and/or more power. I have a hard time believing this kind of stuff until proven by a third party with no association. Compared dyno results before and after. Compared results on two bikes ridden the same. etc.
By jason on June 11th, 2010 at 5:25 am
i knew fuel injected 2 strokes with oil injectors used less oil because fuel’s not going into the crank and acts like a solvent finning the oil but i didn’t know they used that little oil thought. carb 2 strokes with oil injectors on the other hand mite run at 200:1 (although this seems very low) at tick over but at full rpm would use almost as much as premixed 2 strokes
By 125mx.com on June 11th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Like to know how long that motor stays together, I run 25:1 somtimes 32:1. I would not trust 100:1 even if I was running someone else’s bike !
The oil content as stated above has very little effect on emmisions as long as its getting burnt, plus your jet increase would suggest some possible motor work and/or a low induction charge or fuel change, plus that sort of increase in fuel would be far more harmfull to emmissions than the extra premix
I’m all for getting the 2st back into the mix, but emmissions is a big peice of the pie
By JohnNicholas on June 11th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Hi Guys,
Lot’s of stuff we are just starting to let people know about, I am not at liberty to talk about everything at this time, but I’ll attempt to answer some questions.
First and foremost DO NOT run your machines at 100:1 Our machine has been run at 100:1 for over 4 hours without any noticeable wear.
The coating process we are using affects the metal at the molecular level, you can equate it to showering with soft water, you feel really slippery.
The coatings we are using are NOT available to the public at this time. There will be NO plans to do so UNTIL every single claim made has been tested under tortuous conditions and confirmed by independent testing.
At this time only the MicroBlue coated bearings are available to the general public.
The reason for the larger jet size is not due to any radical internal engine work, our test engine is mildly ported at this point.
The coating treatment breaks many rules of engine building, the one aspect I will share with you is that the bore is perfectly smooth… no cross hatching at all.
Before I tell you why, ask yourself a question, why are cross hatches cut into the cylinder wall? Ask 5 people you may get 6 different reasons!
Here is an analogy to help you along… if you are water skiing, what type of water will allow your skis to maintain contact with the water best, Choopy or smooth as glass?
The rings are matched perfectly under a microscope to ensure perfect fit ( this is currently a 20 hour process to get the rings just right) and when the engine goes together no break in time is required. That’s right no rings to “seat” just get on and go.
This process also improves the ability of the engine to pump air (isn’t an engine just an air pump after all?) Because of the tight seal of the rings air flow through the motor is increased, hence the need for larger jets.
Much of what we are doing is experimental in nature and breaks many of the paradigms of engine building. Again this will not be available to the public until it is tested and confirmed by a third party.
As to the claims of emissions, we tested the bike using a state of the art Gas Analyzer, before making any statements… has anyone else out there tested emissions on a two-stroke motocross bike using this type of equipment?
I am not here to convince anyone of these claims, just letting folks know what we are working on and working towards. Low emissions on a normally aspirated two-stroke.
For now you can come out to the races and cheer us on. Or maybe watch to see if the bike can hold up using 100:1 gas/oil mixture. I will say this as we move forward we will be experimenting with even leaner mixture ratios…
Actually it’s kind of funny when we mix the oil. Because we are using so little oil, we need to use a syringe!
By JohnNicholas on June 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Here is a much more in depth explanation from Craig at MicroBlue Racing.
You are correct that scavenging are always present and this is the source of the unburned hydrocarbons that all 2 strokes emit. And are in fact the part of the emissions that kills. However, the size of those particles are so small that in order to disperse in the atmosphere they need to “hitch a ride” on a particulate particle. So in a sense get rid of the human and you have stopped the spread of smallpox (only analogy I could think of!). The PM 2.5 refers to a particulate size in nanometers. It is this size that likes to embed in the lungs like asbestos and becomes the gift that keeps on giving.
Our research has shown that as we approach a 200:1 ratio the particulates are functionally eliminated. Bear in mind that this research has been carried out with very cheap leaf blowers, like the one in our website. With those, since they use something that resembles a piston and ring, the combustion efficiency is horrible. But the particulates are still eliminated. Last fall, in order to test the EPA 60 hr. durability test, I mixed up a pickle bucket with a 200:1 mixture of cheap Homelite oil, took it out to the barn, started it up on a Friday afternoon, put it in a box and let it run. I came back later that Sunday and it was still running, wide open. True story. Looking at the parts under a scope it was evident that there was no contact on either the big and small end of the rod. Considerable blow-by, but I expected that. But the particulates were still eliminated.
Regarding ring seal, the increase in power with richer mixtures most see is due to the oil filling the areas in the ring lands and bore. You see this because the rings are rarely flat and round. Wound steel, chrome faced rings tend to be dished and iron rings tend to be wavy. The first thing we do is check for this and correct that. The most important thing to understand about MicroBlue is it’s interaction with lubricants. Due to the two sulphur atoms present, wan a hydrocarbon comes in contact with that surface, the surface tension is greatly reduced, like soap in soft water. This does a few things. First and formost, we no longer have lubricant starved conditions, like in ring lands. Microwelding does not exist in our world. And we can run much tighter clearances. Put flat and round rings in, and you have increased air flow considerably. This also let’s us run chrome-smooth bores, since we have a much more uniform oil film which the rings actually float on. This eliminates the gas loss across the face of the ring that cross hatch creates and since the ring faces don’t touch the bore, there is no ring face wear. In our world that is.
The end result of all of this is a dramatic increase in total air flow. Typically 15% in two strokes and 20-25% in four strokes and diesels. I know this is an insane number but considering the the number of engine platforms we have worked with, this number has been surprisingly consistent. Thats how inefficient the piston/ring/cylinders are That is the reason for the increased jetting needed. If we need X% more fuel in a normally aspirated engine to get a tan plug, then you can only be moving that much more air.
Regarding jet sizing, Mikuni jet sizes represent flow in cc’s per min, I assumed this carb was the same. Am I incorrect on this? All we know is a 215 gives us the tan plug color. And percent wise, is consistent with what we have seen in the past. Does this info help?
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 11th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
@jason
There are 3 different types of oil injected 2-strokes. carbureted & oil injected, fuel injected & oil injected, and Direct injected and oil injected. In carb form the fuel still goes through the crank case. Depending on the fuel injection type the fuel may go through the crank case. In DI the fuel does not go in the crank case. I have a 25hp carbureted/oil injected Yamaha 2-stroke outboard. It runs 200:1 low rpm and ranges to 100:1 at full throttle. DI 2-strokes run a much leaner mixture.
@John
Thank you for the extra information. I can’t wait to see proven results of a race bike running at 100:1 with no more wear then a non Microblue running at 32:1. I generally run 60:1 as I am not racing but riding off-road. I would love to eliminate oil splatter by running 150:1 or so.
There is one thing I have to nag on. The use of “normally aspirated”. Yes this bike is normally aspirated, but so is a Direct Injected 2-stroke, and there is no way this will match DI for emissions. The term that you should be using is lowest emission CARBURETED 2-stroke. Normally aspirated has to do with the air induction and a non-normally aspirated engine has a turbocharger or supercharger.
How do you use the Microblue? Do you put some oil in your gas like normal premix and add microblue also?
By JohnNicholas on June 12th, 2010 at 6:02 am
2STROKEREVOLUTION – While DI two-strokes may be available for boats & snowmobiles, it is not on any production motocross machine that I know of. Hence the normally aspirated comment. To clarify it is a carbureted two-stroke.
MicroBlue is not an additive, it is applied to the metal directly. First the surfaces of the metal are highly polished (In the world of MicroBlue the technique is called SuperPolishing) Once the parts have been polished the metal is impregnated with the MicoBlue coating.
If you’d like to read more about it visit the MicroBlue site.
http://www.microblueracing.com/
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 12th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
John – You are still using Normally Aspirated in the wrong sense. How many turbo 2-strokes do you know of? Only some aftermarket snowmobiles.
Again you should use carbureted and drop the normal aspiration. You will find that turbo 2-strokes pollute a lot more than normally aspirated. But a DI pollutes less than a carb. 2t.
Normally aspirated means not turbocharged.
Carbureted means not fuel injected.
By Chris2T on June 12th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
It’s a case of semantics. Naturally-aspirated refers to an engine breathing air under atmospheric pressure. NORMALLY-aspirated could mean that the air it breathes is mixed with fuel, whereas ABNORMALLY-aspirated (DI) means it is fuel-less while in the crankcase. ;-D
I wouldn’t let this sidetrack us from an otherwise AMAZING topic! Thanks John
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 12th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Chris2T
This is NOT a case of semantics.
Normally aspirated has a specific meaning that has been around since about the 1930s. A normally aspirated engine has always meant, like you said, an engine breathing air under atmospheric pressure. Now how do you get an engine to NOT breath under atmospheric pressure? You turbocharge or supercharge it. This term has been around almost as long as an engine to describe an engine without a turbo or supercharger. It has absolutely nothing to do with carburetors or fuel injection. It is a specific term, google it, and is not being used in the right way here.
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 12th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
And “abnormal aspiration” is known as forced induction.
By JohnNicholas on June 13th, 2010 at 8:18 am
2STROKEREVOLUTION – “You are still using Normally Aspirated in the wrong sense.”
I understand what you are saying… the reason I used this term was in an attempt to tell that we are using a carburetor and not DI. Also the fact that for a non-DI machine we had achieved very low emissions.
At the same time, you are so determined to show that my “English” is wrong that it feels as though you have missed the point!
I’m attempting to explain that the MicroBlue coatings could be applied to ANY two-stroke to improve emissions. This is HUGE news!!
Please don’t dilute or redirect the message.
Besides, I could point out that you thought that MICROBLUE was a gas additive, when it is explained above that it’s a process applied at the molecular level. It also points out that just to “straighten” the piston rings so they are round and seal in the bore properly requires about 20 hours.
So many more interesting things to ask questions about!!
Duly noted though… I will use the word carbureted two-stroke from now on!
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 13th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Thank you for switching to carbureted. Aspiration has nothing to do with fuel injection vs carburetion.
I am sorry for deviating from the point of this article, but it should have been a much easier understanding of the term normally aspirated than it was made.
So getting back to the point of this article, how much does this coating cost? The whole process. I know in order to achieve tight tolerances it costs a lot more. And that time it sounds like it is taking to do it. 20 hours for a ring? Is this YZ250 going to cost $30,000 when done?
Also have they raced in any nationals yet? Or are they going to soon?
By JohnNicholas on June 13th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I don’t know the cost of the coatings or if they are available to the general public. The ceramic bearings are ready to ship and available from the MicroBlue web site. http://www.microblueracing.com
Contact Craig at MicroBlue for pricing and availability of the coatings 815-874-1717
The total cost of our bike (calculated at retail) should be approximately $20,000.00 the cost of the suspension being the most expensive item. The bearings and engine coatings are reasonably priced in comparison.
The first National Race will be Budd’s Creel this coming Saturday. See you guys there!
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 13th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
$20,000 may sound like an expensive bike to me, but not compared to the $50,000 factory bikes. They have engines that cost more than your whole bike.
I hope the coating works, and I hope the bike works great. It would be awesome to see a 2-stroke in the front of the pack in a National.
Does anyone know how much power a factory 450 is making?
By 2STROKEREVOLUTION on June 13th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Just saw Super Hunkey did an interview of John and Project Two 50. Great read and adds to this story.
http://articles.superhunkyforum.com/4/132
I am impressed. 58hp with a YZ250.
Why did Project Two 50 pick the YZ250 over the 250SX? The 250SX seems to me to be a better choice with many more updates in the last 10 years, especially in the engine department. Maybe it doesn’t matter because you did so many modifications yourselves?
By fearlessfred on June 14th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I should start by saying I hope this product works,I am very interested in it. BUUUUUT I am having a hard time believing the great increase in air flow, and a even harder time understanding the increase in jetting.If u increased airflow ( and that would mean an increase in vacuum on the crankcase ) ,wouldnt the carb see a stonger signal ( more vaccum ) and need a decrease in jetting,and besides that ,it has allready been increased by using less oil. I do believe that it could raise compression and reduce blowby and some increase in airflow. maybe two stokes are way more ineffecant than i know. thanks fred
By JohnNicholas on June 15th, 2010 at 7:06 am
“Why did Project Two 50 pick the YZ250 over the 250SX? ” This is an easy one… Mike already owned one! Project Two 50 is based on Mike’s personal bike that he raced last year. We have not received any help from any manufacturer or dealer at this point.
If you have a free KTM 250SX lying around, we’d be happy to use that! LOL
fearlessfred – I understand your skepticism about the coatings and changes. Just a few short months ago all the members of the Project Two 50 team felt the same way.
Much of it goes against all the “rules” we have been taught and reinforced over many years.
To answer the question that we feel is most important that you asked, yes the two-strokes efficiency can be improved considerably.
Why is it that most people work at horsepower increasing modifications, before addressing efficiency concerns first? If you were able to increase efficiency by 20 to 30% would that not be equal to or better than many hop-ups that could be performed on the bike?
As for the jetting and other changes, if we did not experience it we would be confused as well. But it works.
Just look at the Ceramic bearings without any of the coatings. If the engine parts can spin with less resistance and friction, would that not increase horsepower?
Now what if you could achieve the same increase by reducing resistance and friction with the other engine components?
Just so you know, these coatings have been applied to NASCAR vehicles, Drag Bikes, Super Speedway vehicles and much, much more…. If Craig were to “name drop” the list of racers using this process already would be a who’s, who list and you would recognize most, if not all the names on that list.
Personally all I ask is that you keep an open mind, do some research, think about some of the ideas that Craig describes on his web site, then make up your own mind.
By jason on June 22nd, 2010 at 3:53 am
so did u qualify ? and how did things go
By RS Racer on August 7th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Hi Ya’ll, I am a technical engineer, and i think John has a good idea. I know about the thermal effects on moving parts at diffrent speeds, if ya take a ceramic bearing to 25000 rpm, with no lube , it will break at 23000 rpm,
with oil, 5w15, breakage happens at 26500. I personaly work in Stutgart Germany , and we tested an Actros Truck in 1996 with an additive in the oil for 400 km. Then drained the oil and ran the motor dry. No oil, 1600 km (2572 miles) and than measured the tolerances. Wow, were we suprised, all bearing surfaces were still in specs. No BS yall
So i will try this in my Harley, 1936 Knuckle, and give yall an answer.
How far i get with no oil in the tank. BTW. My Harley has needle bearing rods
in the crankcase and dry sump. All treated with our so called (wundermittel)
oil additive.
Ill keep yall all informed,
my e-mail address is
stbooks@hotmail.com
Trackbacks