fot
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FW: Crankshafts

To: "Barr, Scott" <sbarr@mccarty-law.com>, jerrybarr@charter.net
Subject: Re: FW: Crankshafts
From: thomas strange <tstrange@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Scott,
  Absolutely correct.... 100% for the day.
  Without differential calculus, it is difficult to determine piston speed at 
any certain point in its travel, but a simple general equation of ("stroke in 
inches" x rpm) divided by 6 will give you your average piston speed.
  At one time (for a long time) 2500 fpm was considered to be an upper limit.  
Even in the 60's, typical ford hipo engines ran considerably under that mark.  
Add a forged crank & proper components, you can now easily push the 4000 fpm 
mark.  If you have cubic dollars to do the job right 5000 - 6000 should be 
maintainable with todays technology.
  This is why you see me doing all the hand work inside my engines to do the 
lightening, balancing, polishing etc that I put into the inside of the block.  
As you know, I'm an rpm freak and have to try all the hard, time consuming, 
boring tricks that I can find.  Best that I can do, as I dint have the tens of 
thousands of dollars to give a really good race shop to build a true race 
engine.  (which probably wouldn't be in the true spirit of vintage racing 
anyway.... easy cop out there....)
  All this, considering, that at some point, you are going to outrun the flame 
front which is pushing your piston.  Possibly at that time reaching  "less than 
optimum" situation.... okay... definitely less than optimum.  I dint think we 
have to worry about that in our engines (unless you have a lot more money than 
I think you do to develop this)...;>)
  If anyone is interested in any of this, take a look at the book "Performance 
Tuning in Theory and Practice" by A. Graham Bell.  Excellent book.   (wish I 
could find my copy right now).  
  Getting boring now.. going to bed... must sleep....
  Have a good day everyone... still have to finish my engine for VIR... maybe I 
should be doing that instead of babbling...
Good night all...
Tom
#4 white

"Barr, Scott" <sbarr@mccarty-law.com> wrote:
<< You can tell that by actually measuring piston travel vs crank rotation. 
It's pretty lazy up to about 90 degrees up the bore, then really speeds up. >>

Isn't this the opposite of what you'd expect? I would think that the up/down 
piston travel would actually DECREASE in speed at the top and bottom of the 
stroke as the rotation of the crank is more sideways (in cross-section) than up 
and down. I would assume that the highest piston speed would occur where the 
crank throw is at 90 degrees and 270 degrees from TDC. Am I wrong about that?



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fot@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-fot@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Fubog1@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:43 AM
To: charly@mitchelplumbing.com; jprice1@txcyber.com; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Crankshafts


Charly you're thinking along the right lines.... engine balancing is very 
complex especially for my simple mind... but....anything you can do to reduce 
reciprocating weight and/or stroke will result in much less bending loads on 
shaft & by nature of doing so will also reduce couple effect. Highest load on 
recip assy is on upstroke. You can tell that by actually measuring piston 
travel 
vs crank rotation. It's pretty lazy up to about 90 degrees up the bore, then 
really speeds up. Well what speeds up must also slow down, the rest is pretty 
easy to figure. Also, on the exhaust stroke, the piston isn't dampened by 
combustion so it really wants to keep going up. My reasoning is to reduce the 
load 
because the load is going to be there, no matter what the shaft is made of or 
how you strap the shaft in..
Hope this helps! 
Safety FasTR,
Glen

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>