I thought I would post this here as I have done some Googling and can't find the answer.

In four-stroke engines ( cars and motorcycles), all else being equal, long stroke engines have a lower red-line due to higher momentum stresses in the moving parts and also restricted breathing ability due to the limited cylinder head valve sizes possible in their smaller bores.

I always assumed the same would be true in two-stroke engines i.e. long stroke = lower redline. I don't know enough about two stroke porting to decide how this affects my question but I do recall reading that a longer stroke in a two-stroke engine allows greater height for the ports, albeit with lower widths due to the smaller bore.

Does the opportunity to use greater height ports in a long-stroke ( 2-stroke ) engine mean that these engines may in fact be higher revving than their short-stroke counterparts ?

Why would the ports be larger for a long stroke?

Port area = width * height

Width will be proportional to bore, and height proportional to stroke.
Since bore*stroke = constant, port area will be as well.

If anything, the short stroke might have more area, since the spaces between the windows could be a lower % of the total.

Or am I missing something?

You are right - too early to be thinking clearly

Lets try again

stroke * bore^2 = constant, so stroke ∝ 1/bore^2  or bore ∝ stroke^1/2

port area∝ bore*stroke ,

so port area ∝ stroke^1.5

More stroke = more port area

Coming from a "4-stroke background", this is quite a revelation to me !

So engines like the old Webra 61 LS and Rossi 60/61 LS's, which seem to be lower revving engines than their short-stroke versions, were designed with something other than maximum rpm in mind ?

That makes sense. I now feel inspired to learn more about 2-stroke specifics.

And though I had heard of Hanno Prettner before, I didn't realise the extent of his achievements ( nor his reported humility). Some of his models appear to still be available as kits.

Thank you very much to all respondents.