RPM

last SG · 2004-06-16T15:18:37+00:00

nope. there is lots beyond workshops. most sg workshops wouldn’t even know the main forces which lead to the failure in a given type of engine or be able to...

tailslide SG

u asked me to clarify with regards to the stress on a piston, now u got nothing better to say, go and quote a wankel engine with no pistons? they taught u to argue like dat in school? Rolling Eyes

if the displacement (bore x stroke) does not determine the size of the piston (bore x piston height), then wat does? the size of ur brain? Laughing

Of course it does! The equation is right in front of you, you only need to work it out. And I already gave you 2 examples in real life. Since this is the crux of the argument that you fail to concede, I shall not press on with the other points.

quoting equations without understanding its fundamental elements? a 3 year old can tell me E=mc2 but u think he knows wat he's talking about? concede to ur example on superbikes running on 14:1 compression ratios and supercars using v12 engines? how applicable is ur example? i gave u an example myself to counter ur argument but u never answered to it.

too self deluded to face the facts other then ur own misguided misconceptions? if u have a point, say it. dun run off with ur tails between ur legs by saying "Since this is the crux of the argument that you fail to concede, I shall not press on with the other points." as the easy way out. u have not answered objectively to any of the points i have raised except stick to ur guns on the previous post.

i'll gladly engage in an intelligent debate over this issue but u obviously lack the capacity to do so thus far.

dcx SG

hMz…seems like my doubts has not been answer yet…all tok so chim abt pistons,strokes,........etc…chim…

tailslide SG

oh. so the way u are answering me NOT cocky lah? Laughing dun act the saint here kid.

Each RPM does not have specific horsepower rating. Only RPM in combination with specific amount of load [MAP/MAF/TP] has specific horsepower output.

of course there must be a load. otherwise how do engineers measure how much work is done by the engine if there is no load to work against? dun state the obvious.

if u say that "Each RPM does not have specific horsepower rating." then please explain the term "276 bhp @ 7200 rpms" or "170 ps @ 8200 rpms". aren't these quotes from manufacturers telling you that yes, there is a specific power output for a specific rpm? or you saying they telling half fibs? careful here, they can sue u......

In NA applications and even most FI engine up to medium boost levels, or even moderate amounts of nitrous, power loading is often the lesser of the factors that lead to failure - making up close to 0% of all NA engine failure. Combustion pressure in fact goes to offsetting some of the tensile load at TDC and for the rest of the power stroke, compressive loading is many times less than tensile.

agreed in so far as we are talking about an engine running on a sufficiently well phased timing. but what has ur point gotta do with my post? dun recall saying anything on "power loading" or "engine failure" u know? hello, wrong number lah u. Laughing

So in an small NA engine trying to match power of a larger one [only way to do it is to rev higher mainly], you should worry about rod failure, rod bolt failure, pin failure, and not burned or holed pistons.

ok. u wanna talk "tensile load", "power loading", "compressive loading" then we talk on materials engineering. in what way does ur previous point lead on to this current one?

agreed that the only way a small capacity engine can match that of a larger engine by utilizing the available high rpm efficiency conversion (more rpms, means more work done within shorter time) to compensate for the lack of induction ability versus a larger capacity engine.

i also agree with u that rod, rod bolt, wrist pin are equally culpable in engine failure, but this again has no bearing in my previous post on rpm, gearing and engine power. what r u trying to prove? that u r some vigilante help-the-fellow-forumite-being-flamed hero? then i suggest u educate the guy instead and let him speak for himself rather then say lots of facts and truths which i totally agree with but in the end, have nothing to prove against me.

tailslide SG

i never disagreed that more revs = more mass flow = more power. my point about bringing up the nissan march was purely to show that all engines, despite having the same capacity, has their own merits and incompetencies. given, even if the march engine could rev to say 18k rpms, the poorer combination of compression, cam profile, valve train tolerance and and head flow characteristics will not put it on par in terms of horsepower with a sports bike which is purpose built to sustain high rpm operations and designed to achieve pure high end power.

in exams, teacher always ask you to read the question before u answer right? Laughing

Shaun979 SG

Dear Dr. Physics,

oh. so the way u are answering me NOT cocky lah? dun act the saint here kid.

Not as cocky as listing profession and telling someone neve to argue with you. I don't care if you're a NASA physicist, everyone has the right to question another because all are fallible. Never say never.

if u say that "Each RPM does not have specific horsepower rating." then please explain the term "276 bhp @ 7200 rpms" or "170 ps @ 8200 rpms". aren't these quotes from manufacturers telling you that yes, there is a specific power output for a specific rpm? or you saying they telling half fibs? careful here, they can sue u......

If you would think about it a little harder, you'd realize the manafacturer specs are referring to power at X RPM at Y load - Y being 100% [WOT]. Consumers want to know what max everything is, so the dynos are all 100%. Transients and part-throttle steady states are left out. So the load is specific in all these specs you hear about.

By playing with the throttle [load] while one drives maybe a 330 , one can create conditions where power at a fixed RPM [say 5500] is 100, 200, 70 HP, or anything in between. So RPM alone has no fixed power - only RPM in combination with fixed load will give fixed power.

In previous posts you were worrying about piston stress causing failure.. when in fact it isn't the concern anytime before other components failing from intertia load.

The point is that while you may be Dr Physics, Dr Physics doesn't necessarily know jack sh-it about engine dynamics.

ok. u wanna talk "tensile load", "power loading", "compressive loading" then we talk on materials engineering.

We are not at that level yet. Why not say "you want to talk about automotives then we talk to an automotive engineer." ?

in what way does ur previous point lead on to this current one?

In previous posts you were worrying about piston stress causing failure.. when in fact it isn't the concern anytime before other components failing from intertia load.

i also agree with u that rod, rod bolt, wrist pin are equally culpable in engine failure

They are not equally culpable. They are way more culpable - way more to the point of almost entirely making up all non-oiling non-fuelling failures of NA, light-medium boost pressure FI, light nitrous injection engines.

but this again has no bearing in my previous post on rpm, gearing and engine power. what r u trying to prove?

That you aren't even focusing on the right areas in your small vs large engine longevity comparison.

that u r some vigilante help-the-fellow-forumite-being-flamed hero? then i suggest u educate the guy instead and let him speak for himself rather then say lots of facts and truths which i totally agree with but in the end, have nothing to prove against me

I don't need to help anyone nor am I trying to. What I'm trying to embarrass you stupidly you dare to be cocky even though you are ignorant and make assumptions. I don't like your "I studied physics therefore I am right and you have no right to argue with me" attitude. That wasn't nice, so now I'm not so nice too.

Ignorance and assumptions are quite ok, but when combined with cockiness make a person very ugly.

bmw_lover SG

*phew* someone dial 995, there's a firestorm brewing in here... Mr. Green

brisance SG

You are more or less correct, what you can do if your car has a manual gearbox is to change the final drive ratio. However do note that by doing so you will affect all your gears, with the result that you will trade acceleration for top speed e.g. fifth gear will give you lower RPM at the same speed but will take longer to get there since the engine has to work harder.

brisance SG

That's because it's a trick question, and it's obvious you don't heed your own advice. i.e. Didn't you say this:

In exams, your teacher always ask you to read the question before u answer right?

As a Wankel engine doesn't have pistons, your definition doesn't hold.

if the displacement (bore x stroke) does not determine the size of the piston (bore x piston height), then wat does? the size of ur brain?

This logical fallacy is called "putting the cart before the horse". If the displacement determines the size of the pistons, does that mean I cannot stroke up the engine?

What was your example? The higher hp vs the smaller hp engine using same gearing? That is called a strawman logical fallacy, designed to distract the reader, and it is not a counterexample. The crux of the argument is that the number of revs and torque both have a direct relationship to horsepower, which you disagree with, based on your replies. I gave you 2 examples, Shaun979 has given you another example of how RPMs determine the horsepower, yet you still stuck to your guns.

too self deluded to face the facts other then ur own misguided misconceptions? if u have a point, say it. dun run off with ur tails between ur legs by saying "Since this is the crux of the argument that you fail to concede, I shall not press on with the other points." as the easy way out. u have not answered objectively to any of the points i have raised except stick to ur guns on the previous post.

i'll gladly engage in an intelligent debate over this issue but u obviously lack the capacity to do so thus far.

I had better things to do (such as driving up to Sepang to watch JGTC) instead of arguing with a stranger who claims he's a graduate yet has difficulty getting his points across without insulting his audience. Did you insult your professors and coursemates when they critiqued your thesis?

tailslide SG

did i mention i was i physicist, or my profession for that matter? i dun give a rat's arse whether u care if i'm a NASA scientist or not. u mentioned that all are fallible, that includes u too mr.

don't state the obvious. i mentioned before in my earlier post that there MUST be a load to work against, otherwise there can be no measure of horsepower. at either 20%, 50% or WOT, there is still a specific horsepower rating pegged to the rpm. ur additonal pre-requisite to the whole measurement does not take away the crux of ur faulty statement that there is no horsepower rating at any given rpm.

wrong. in my previous post, i was dealing specifically with the fact that rpm and horsepower are dependant on the gearing and the efficiency of the engine respectively and not upon one another. the point on piston stress was merely my answer to brisance that it is difficult to justify the amount of stress a piston undergoes without considering the factors such as the size and material strength of the pistons vs the amount of horsepower produced by any engine.

while u may be some vigilante smart alec, vigilante smart alecs obviously fail comprehension at pre-school level.

We are not at that level yet. Why not say "you want to talk about automotives then we talk to an automotive engineer." ?

so which one are u? an automotive engineer or a materials engineer?

In previous posts you were worrying about piston stress causing failure.. when in fact it isn't the concern anytime before other components failing from intertia load.

wrong again. i stress again the whole point of my posts were to refute an unfounded claim that rpm and horsepower depend on each other by a mere quote of an equation by brisance.

i never disagreed to this. u never stated any source to verify this statement of urs but i'll give u the benefit of the doubt. but so what if they are far more culpable? u still digress so much in ur whole arguement which u perveived i started, i'm beginning to think i'm talking to a child with either a short attention span or a puberscent teenager who's too smart for his own good.

That you aren't even focusing on the right areas in your small vs large engine longevity comparison.

rise and shine! that was not my point of contention to begin with. looks like u are the one who lost focus. Rolling Eyes

if ur whole point in unloading the heaps of crap u have just spewed forth from ur pathetic computer terminal serves only as a your feeble attempt to humiliate me, then it is with much regret that i must inform u that u have failed miserably.

first of all, i never told anyone not to argue with me because i hold a physics major. take the time to read my first post and u'll realize that i said dun argue with me on "EQUATIONS".

your immature and hot blooded enthusiasm to shame me obviously took away ur ability to muster the fundamental bearings of my posts which u eventually digressed and assumed for urself to be mine. if anything at all, ur whole point on me being self assuming and cocky only serves to magnify ur most glaring mistake. u assume too much urself.

now that itself can make u look very stupid.

next time, take my advice (which u have so conveniently ignored) and read the question before u answer.

tailslide SG

it is obvious that the strawman logical fallacy applies most aptly to ur cause. we have never talked about the wankel engine. u asked me on stress induced on pistons and i gave u an answer to which. dun bring up another additional exception like an engine without pistons just to distract the readers.

This logical fallacy is called "putting the cart before the horse". If the displacement determines the size of the pistons, does that mean I cannot stroke up the engine?

u can stroke up the engine, but that would mean that u have to reduce the piston height (and therefore its overall size) as well. otherwise, the piston crown will hit the valves and head components at TDC.

in the end, even stroking up to increase the displacement, it will also affect the piston size. ur childish point about stroking up tells me u either know zits about stroking up an engine or that u are a victim of ur own fallacy.

i said it once and i'll say it again. the rpms at whichever speed u are travelling depends on the gear ratios in ur bloody gearbox and the horepower is determined by the goddam efficiency of ur engine.

the rpms do not depend on the horsepower. the equation u quoted conveniently does not serve to show the dependancy of the rpm on the horsepower, but how to convert horsepower to torque and vice versa.

the examples u have given does not change the fact that horspower depends more then just having more rpms and i have never disagreed that more rpms would necessarily impy greater engine efficiency. i'm saying horsepower depends alot more on other factors.

it would be a sad day indeed for my professor should i ever have to insult him. u must thank god that u are neither as competent intellectually nor grammatically that u have suffered such a mild wrath.

Shaun979 SG

did i mention i was i physicist, or my profession for that matter?

Physics graduate? Oh let me worship you, master of equations.

u mentioned that all are fallible, that includes u too mr.

Of course. The difference is I don't go around telling people to never argue with me about anything.

You were not specific and now you say "don't state the obvious" when you were asking about the standard hp specs listing RPM. Fact is there can be no horsepower rating without a given load. You will not be able to quote me on there being "no horsepower rating at any given rpm" because that is not something I've ever said. What I did say was that there is no horsepower rating at any given RPM without specified load. You can say it is obvious, but then why did you end up asking obvious questions about standard manafacturer power specs? You are a funny person, amazingly good at twisting words.

Point is that is still the entirely wrong thing to be worrying about , especially in a smaller, higher-stressed engine that is trying to keep up with a bigger one. Looking in the entirely wrong area. You started to go off the wrong way when dansplace mentioned "pumping". It is pretty clear he meant pumping as in revving, but you took it to mean pressure against the piston which is silly because MEP is far less dependent on displacement than it is on power and RPM. In any case a small NA engine cannot be made to increase MEP and increase power by much to the point of damaging pistons. It has to rev and it is the inertial loads accompanying the rev that will hurt it, not anything else.

Dr Physics, you just keep pushing your point - a point that has been wrong from the very start.

so which one are u? an automotive engineer or a materials engineer?

I am a disciplinarian of rogue big headed physics graduates.

Usually people start to "think up" all sorts of things when they realize they are wrong but are too proud to admit it. I'm predicting that your great thoughts are about to get even more wild.

first of all, i never told anyone not to argue with me because i hold a physics major. take the time to read my first post and u'll realize that i said dun argue with me on "EQUATIONS".

You are still fallible on equations. No need to tell people to never argue with you, fathead.

Shaun979 SG

Dear Dr Physics, please stop stating erroneous information with such cock-sureness. Someone might pick up your wrong information and perpetuate it. Very bad.

Piston height does not have to be reduced when running a larger stroke. Crank throw can be increased (stroke), whilst the rods are shortened. This way the piston orientation within the block can be maintained [never coming up beyong the deck] without having to reduce piston height.

in the end, even stroking up to increase the displacement, it will also affect the piston size.

As shown above, you are wrong.

ur childish point about stroking up tells me u either know zits about stroking up an engine or that u are a victim of ur own fallacy.

Your erorrs and childish reply to briscance about stroking tells me that you know zits about stroking up an engine.

Now now... no need for such strong words like "whorepower", "bloody" and "goddam". Settle down young man, this is only a discussion. Let's stick to the milder and more giggly words like "fat" and "zits".

tiggersgd SG

lexus part is true....drove an IS200 b4...and its really great. but then 2100 rpm at 110....wonder whats ur idle rpm should be maintaining it at. unless ur sunny doesn't have most of the electrical or aircon on but still....let me know if u can do it. just curious.

tiggersgd SG

wah all so long.....iggy the long ones. Twisted Evil

tailslide SG

Originally posted by Shaun979:Physics graduate? Oh let me worship you, master of equations.

made a mess at assuming my profession. so u gotta stoop one level lower to take a low blow at my academic qualifications? so who is a better word twister now? i wonder if u are as slimy in real person as ur words.

Of course. The difference is I don't go around telling people to never argue with me about anything.

so what is the point of ur posts and ur manner of broaching the topics? acting the saint again.

there, there. so now I am responsible for ur assumptions? please. my 8 year old niece shows a better sense of responsiblity then u.

i quote ur post dated 19th June 04 "Each rpm does not have a specific horsepower rating". i've seen dogs eating their own poo, but denying what u said urself tops the list of the most disgusting things a human being is capable of. ur additional load pre-requisite does not change the fact that this statement is faulty and in contravention of what i have stated, that there is a specific horsepower rating per rpm.

Point is that is still the entirely wrong thing to be worrying about , especially in a smaller, higher-stressed engine that is trying to keep up with a bigger one. Looking in the entirely wrong area. You started to go off the wrong way when dansplace mentioned "pumping". It is pretty clear he meant pumping as in revving, but you took it to mean pressure against the piston which is silly because MEP is far less dependent on displacement than it is on power and RPM. In any case a small NA engine cannot be made to increase MEP and increase power by much to the point of damaging pistons. It has to rev and it is the inertial loads accompanying the rev that will hurt it, not anything else.
Dr Physics, you just keep pushing your point - a point that has been wrong from the very start.

why should you, of all ppl, be in the position to dictate what i am concerned with? i have my own agenda for posting the things i said and it is u who started off wrongly by rocketing off the planet in another direction which is not in tangent with mine and now, i have to be concerned with what u think is important? which is worse? telling ppl not to argue with u (on equations i quote) or forcing ur opinions down other ppl's throats?

and who are u to interpret what dansplace meant by "pumping" and all the other terms other ppl have said? the first point of contact in the combusting wavefront are the pistons and that makes it logical to infer the "pumping" of the pistons. the fact that u had the cheek to call my interpretation "silly" makes u ingenious and infallible?

take a hike somewhere else. i have far larger pool of intelligent ppl with a better grasp of the word "humility" to entertain.

I am a disciplinarian of rogue big headed physics graduates.

impressive. i am shakin in my boots....... so u think u are doing a good job then? u fail to convince me in ur arguments and the lard in ur head is oozing out of each ugly crevice humanly possible as i speak. u bit off more then u could chew and i hate to be around when it finally explodes.

Usually people start to "think up" all sorts of things when they realize they are wrong but are too proud to admit it. I'm predicting that your great thoughts are about to get even more wild.

oh. is that all u can say to what i have mentioned? not even man enough to admit the fact that u misquoted and misinterpreted of my previous posts again i see. nonetheless, it bemuses me how such responses are typical of someone of ur level.

You are still fallible on equations. No need to tell people to never argue with you, fathead.

then fall me on the one brisance quoted and i refuted instead of beating around the bush like a wuss.

tailslide SG

Originally posted by Shaun979:Dear Dr Physics, please stop stating erroneous information with such cock-sureness. Someone might pick up your wrong information and perpetuate it. Very bad.
Piston height does not have to be reduced when running a larger stroke. Crank throw can be increased (stroke), whilst the rods are shortened. This way the piston orientation within the block can be maintained [never coming up beyong the deck] without having to reduce piston height.

my most admirable halfling, there u go again going through painstaking means of adding ur own pre-requisites of "whilst the rods are shortened" juz to take a pot shot at me.

whilst what u say is true for certain stroker kits, there are others who do not use a shorter conrod per say as this would affect the rod ratio and other characteristics of the engine thereafter.

we talked specifically on "stroking up" (ie, making the stroke of the engine crank longer only) to increase the displacement, that would necessarily require the piston height to be shortened. dun add ur own unsolicited pre-requisites please.

As shown above, you are wrong.

as below the above, YOU are wrong.

Your erorrs and childish reply to briscance about stroking tells me that you know zits about stroking up an engine.

ur attrocious spelling of error and unsolicited pre-requisites tells me u know zits bout keeping to the point.

Now now... no need for such strong words like "*&&^#power", "bloody" and "goddam". Settle down young man, this is only a discussion. Let's stick to the milder and more giggly words like "fat" and "zits".

there there, old fart, continue to bask in the light of ur ignorance and leave this mild and giggly young man to decide the manner of which he chooses his words. its time for ur dictatorial style of telling ppl what to do to go flush itself down the toilet bowl.

brisance SG

No, I asked you what's the relationship with displacement and the piston size, and you answered that the bore and stroke alone determine the displacement. How about the number of cylinders? Rotary engines?

Until now, you still do not concede the point? The "RPMs at whichever speed you are travelling depends on the gear ratios in ur bloody gearbox"? Answer me this: a car is travelling downhill in neutral gear and due to gravity, accelerates and gathers speed. Throughout this whole process, the RPM is at idle, say 850 RPM. Is his speed determined by the RPM?

Did you say you're a physics graduate?

the rpms do not depend on the horsepower. the equation u quoted conveniently does not serve to show the dependancy of the rpm on the horsepower, but how to convert horsepower to torque and vice versa.

No one is arguing that the RPMs depend on the horsepower and that is not what we are talking about. Don't use your smoke and mirrors to cloud the issue.

the examples u have given does not change the fact that horspower depends more then just having more rpms and i have never disagreed that more rpms would necessarily impy greater engine efficiency. i'm saying horsepower depends alot more on other factors.

The purpose of the "other factors" being to... *drumroll*... increase revs or torque! Or are you trying to tell us now that just by letting the engine sit idle with the new components and "other factors", it can make more power?

Can you even spot your own grammatical errors in the paragraph above? Here's your word of the day: hubris.

brisance SG

"attrocious spelling of error"? (sic)

Shaun979 SG

made a mess at assuming my profession. so u gotta stoop one level lower to take a low blow at my academic qualifications?

Haha can you not even get that I wasn't even trying to be serious in getting your profession, or level of qualification for that matter, right at all? It is all just mocking good fun. Why would I call you Dr. Physics if you don't have a doctorate? Mr. Green You want to be great, I make you greater... Sir Physics!

Yes I make fun of your "great" qualifications because you hold them up like some shining suit of gold that makes you perfect on equations such that people should "never argue" with you about them.

so who is a better word twister now?

You by far.

i wonder if u are as slimy in real person as ur words.

My words and I are the the same, but neither is slimy.

so what is the point of ur posts and ur manner of broaching the topics?

Man, can you say repeating the question?

i quote ur post dated 19th June 04 "Each rpm does not have a specific horsepower rating".

Yes and this is entirely different from what you quoted me in your last post as saying.

"So RPM alone has no fixed power - only RPM in combination with fixed load will give fixed power." [these are MY exact words 19th June 04]

is very different from the words you attempt to put in my mouth...

"there is no horsepower rating at any given rpm." [YOUR creation on the 21st of June 04]

So you see, you misquoted me. Scroll up and check the quotes and time/date stamps yourself. It is disgusting that you have to rely on changing quotes. If you tried that in real life with me, I would sue you.

i've seen dogs eating their own poo, but denying what u said urself tops the list of the most disgusting things a human being is capable of. ur additional load pre-requisite does not change the fact that this statement is faulty and in contravention of what i have stated, that there is a specific horsepower rating per rpm.

Here is a question. If, like you say, there is specific horsepower rating per RPM just like that, then what is the horsepower when you accelerate off a stop light at part throttle [exact % unkown] and as the needle sweeps past 2500rpm? Say your car is a 4.0 V8 making 400hp at 6500rpm redline. You should know your horsepower at 2500rpm correct? Assume manafacturer's published WOT dyno plot shows linear power curve peaking at 6500rpm, starting from 0 rpm, 0 hp - straight line all the way up.

By your definition of "there IS a specific horsepower rating per RPM.
" , you should know the answer.

i have my own agenda for posting the things i said and it is u who started off wrongly by rocketing off the planet in another direction which is not in tangent with mine and now, i have to be concerned with what u think is important? which is worse? telling ppl not to argue with u (on equations i quote) or forcing ur opinions down other ppl's throats?

Sorry but these things are not matters of opinion. We are not disussing philosophy, but physics. You may understand the equations, but you do not understand the dynamics of the situations in which they are applied.

Shaun979 SG

and who are u to interpret what dansplace meant by "pumping" and all the other terms other ppl have said? the first point of contact in the combusting wavefront are the pistons and that makes it logical to infer the "pumping" of the pistons.

So you think Dansplace meant how hard a piston is being pumped to mean increasing the pressure on the piston? Do you think he thought he could increase the pressure on the pistons per stroke in a smaller NA engine without the aid of FI or power adders? Or do you think he meant being revved faster and harder? Either he is some sort of genius, or he is a normal person like any one of us. If someone like Roger Parkes or Rob White had said the same thing, only then would I have imagined it to potentially mean increasing pressure by some new method. I have met with and talked to dansplace in real life before. So based on all the above, and his level of understanding of engines, I believe he meant revving, and not increasing cylinder pressure. This is similar to how I and others I am friends with [Champ Car, NHRA, IHRA, NMCA, Indy Car, F3000, endurance road race, endurance circle track, NASCAR, Trans-Am, engine builders and engineers], would take Dan's words.

the fact that u had the cheek to call my interpretation "silly" makes u ingenious and infallible?

Yeah they're silly, but I don't tell you to never argue with me about it. I just call it silly Mr. Green

take a hike somewhere else.

Ok, soon.

i have far larger pool of intelligent ppl with a better grasp of the word "humility" to entertain.

Good for you. So maybe you shouldn't stick around to entertain me.

impressive. i am shakin in my boots....... so u think u are doing a good job then?

Don't you even get it? Since you and I are involved, neither of us can judge it because we are biased Mr. Green

u fail to convince me in ur arguments

Don't you even get it? I'm here to convince some [excluding you] and protect others from your cocky, but dead wrong words. Discussions over the internet very rarely end up in either side changing their viewpoint.

not even man enough to admit the fact that u misquoted and misinterpreted of my previous posts

Quote your own words, and my direct misquote. Do not paraphrase, do not change anything. Show me where I misquoted you if you can. I have already shown you above where you have misquoted me Smile Now let's see you.

then fall me on the one brisance quoted and i refuted instead of beating around the bush like a wuss.

You being right on one equation does not make you infallible on all equations as you have claimed. Don't you get it?

my most admirable halfling, there u go again going through painstaking means of adding ur own pre-requisites of "whilst the rods are shortened" juz to take a pot shot at me.

You squirm very hard. [DIRECT quote: but that would mean that u have to reduce the piston height (and therefore its overall size) as well. otherwise, the piston crown will hit the valves and head components at TDC.] See the words "HAVE TO" that you used? Well you don't HAVE TO Very Happy Like I said, you can shorten the rods. Fact is where substantial enough displacement gains have to be made, the rods have to be shortened. You can only tighten up the ring package, thin out the rings and lands, a very small amount,

So you see, you can either make piston changes to accomadate extra stroke, or you can shorten the rods. Both work, but piston changes things to a much smaller degree. You do not HAVE TO reduce piston height. Hell, you can run fat gaskets, or even weld the block. There are so many options besides changing pistons height. You just didn't know.

whilst what u say is true for certain stroker kits,

For MOST, not certain. MOST stroker kits. I can find you more stroker kits that come with short rods than you can find that come without rods and changed pistons (not for the purposes of changing compression but for clearance).

there are others who do not use a shorter conrod per say as this would affect the rod ratio and other characteristics of the engine thereafter.

Hahah, you probably have been reading all those internet pages about rod ratio, or maybe some of the old timer books eh? But please take note of the year the books were written, who is writing it, and or the engines they are basing the information off. Fact is with modern production materials and tolerances, rod ratio is something that designers design around and end up with, rather than design towards - within very wide limits of 1.4-2.0. [There are endurance race engines running 1.5 RSs - imagine that] A while ago, friend of mine asked the president of Ilmor (another friend) to list the top 10 things in that he looks out for when designing a race engine. Rod ratio wasn't even on the list. Displacement was though. So there.

we talked specifically on "stroking up" (ie, making the stroke of the engine crank longer only) to increase the displacement, that would necessarily require the piston height to be shortened. dun add ur own unsolicited pre-requisites please.

Nope. Your logic is very poor. There are at least 5 things you can do after stroking up to prevent interference. One of them is changing the pistons, 4 of them are other options, 3 of which are listed above. So no one HAS TO change pistons. No one necessarily requires the piston height to be shortened. Don't add your own unsolicited exclusions.

Just showed a couple of peers your postings and they laughed quite F-ing hard. They said your english is pretty good though Very Happy They like your flowery language. Before this I had problems making them understand how bad this attitude which is so dominant in Singapore is - the place they know I come from. Well thanks for the example, now they know. I've come across lots of people like you before, but none quite as bad as you.

« Previous Page Next Page »