LCGB Forums

Is this the Meziah ???????
Has the eagle Landed????
will this put an end to our forever search for a do it all simple kit that even us pensioners could stretch to afford.

details on SLUK

The Sledgehammer?

I'd like to see some of these clock up some serious miles first. I'm sure that won't take long, though, considering how many have probably already sold.

Or is it the next big thing that is quickly forgotten in 2 years time when problems start arising and lack of support and parts are apparent.

Better waiting for 3 years and then relooking.

Any high priced engine package needs to be approached with extreme caution - I wouldnt trust anything anyone says quite frankly

I wonder what MPG you are likely to get from this engine at full chat?
I suspect a trip from the Smoke upto Leeds on the M1 with a standard tank would involve a visit to every filling station.

There is the old saying You can’t get it out without putting it in !

Although the 1st endurance engine we used proddy dsc RB 20 used 6l of fuel per hour. The year after a purpose built dsc Rb 250 was built for the same race. Bags more power guess how much fuel an hour it used ?

Dazts1 wrote:There is the old saying You can’t get it out without putting it in !

Although the 1st endurance engine we used proddy dsc RB 20 used 6l of fuel per hour. The year after a purpose built dsc Rb 250 was built for the same race. Bags more power guess how much fuel an hour it used ?

Lots n lots

if you want good fuel fuel economy buy a V**** 50 special!

Wow, what a bunch on ney-sayers.

I have ridden a 283 by Harry Barlow for many years and it makes superb power (loads of torque) but is a bit thirsty. I have ridden alongside Stuart Day’s 270cc which is based on a hand-glider engine which is incredibly fuel efficient. Both produce power in a friendly manner that delights the rider whilst never being uncontrollably or scary. For this reason, my engine never feels under stress.

Both can be considered “prototype” engines when it comes to production quantities, similar to the production numbers (so far) of the Sledgehammer. I have spoken to Jon Gilbert who has ridden the Sledgehammer and he says it is a game-changer. For that reason, I would throw-in my money behind the 333cc if I hadn’t already got the 283cc.

Believe me, low stress big cc engines are the future and this Sledgehammer appears to be the ultimate development of this configuration.

Just because 333 is half of 666, there is no need to fear the beast.

Does anyone on this forum have one who would be prepared to share their objective thoughts of the pro’s and cons ???

Knowledge wrote:Wow, what a bunch on ney-sayers.

I have ridden a 283 by Harry Barlow for many years and it makes superb power (loads of torque) but is a bit thirsty. I have ridden alongside Stuart Day’s 270cc which is based on a hand-glider engine which is incredibly fuel efficient. Both produce power in a friendly manner that delights the rider whilst never being uncontrollably or scary. For this reason, my engine never feels under stress.

Both can be considered “prototype” engines when it comes to production quantities, similar to the production numbers (so far) of the Sledgehammer. I have spoken to Jon Gilbert who has ridden the Sledgehammer and he says it is a game-changer. For that reason, I would throw-in my money behind the 333cc if I hadn’t already got the 283cc.

Believe me, low stress big cc engines are the future and this Sledgehammer appears to be the ultimate development of this configuration.

Just because 333 is half of 666, there is no need to fear the beast.

I've never ridden or seen either of these, but the old adage of "there's no substitute for cubes" really is right. Of course you use more fuel, but as long as you take that into account before taking the plunge, then it makes sense. As we all get older and wiser and feel more drawn to relaxed riding, big cubes, clubmans and smallish carbs start to be the headlines.

I reckon

Hi sorry got the late reply. The RB 250 used exactly the same amount of fuel per hour as the RB 20 surprisingly. 6l per hour but bags more smiles

Dazts1 wrote:Hi sorry got the late reply. The RB 250 used exactly the same amount of fuel per hour as the RB 20 surprisingly. 6l per hour but bags more smiles

25% more smiles?

Covboy wrote:Does anyone on this forum have one who would be prepared to share their objective thoughts of the pro’s and cons ???

Steve, one of our club members has not long received his so hopefully I’ll catch up with him tonight at the clubhouse for a yarn

Fast n Furious wrote:I wonder what MPG you are likely to get from this engine at full chat?
I suspect a trip from the Smoke upto Leeds on the M1 with a standard tank would involve a visit to every filling station.

You might be very pleasantly surprised! I say this as my Mugello 290 is probably the most fuel economic of any of my bigger cc tourers.

When doing the Coast to Coast a couple of years ago, I couldn't get over how good it was on fuel, which I 100% put down to the high gearing meaning that it is doing very low revs by comparison to other motors at the same speed. With every 1 rpm extra being a combustion cycle, even an increase of 500 rpm equates to 500 more fuel loads used.

A mate has a similar situation with his two bikes; SIL IV out to 225 + 30mm carb and 4.9:1 top, 70 x 60mm standard barrel with 22mm carb + 4.6:1 top. Whilst the carb is making a considerable difference, even this seemingly small change in top ratio is making a big difference to consumption. Combine the 2 (carb and ratio) and the consumption difference is shocking (NB: Both dynoed by the same respected place).

I concur Adam

I have a GT186 4.99 FDR and a GT240 4.7 FDR - the uplift of volume is 55cc which is about 30% from small to large
They make the same miles / litre

No Sledgehammer feedback yet...?

Terry Carpenter ran his new 333 on the dyno at Mersea and it made a nice 32bhp on John Gilbert's mobile dyno (which JG admits reads a bit high) but the telling result was that JG ran it in top gear from 40mph right through to 120mph. Now I acknowledge that that is "dyno-mph" not road mph, but it still indicates that it has a huge spread of power and a large dollop of torque.

And you can run it at 2% oil, if you are brave.

"40mph right through to 120mph", that's still not hanging around on anyone's dyno or the road!

It certainly isn't hanging around but there was nothing there to indicate that the power delivery was aggressive.

As you know Adam, riding a high-torque engine can be a very different experience to riding a high-bhp motor. My scooter's engine power is very predictable and progressive. It never wants to wheelie and I like that. I always feel in control.