stargazer148:
Anorak while respecting all you and other contributors with accurate information he’ll always be right you’re ■■■■■■■ against a force 9 gale the reason I’m following this is i was interested in the Leyland buffalo thread then he came in with all his claptrap cheers Ray
So exactly what is wrong with my figures and what did anorak’s figure of 2 x BMEP mean and refer to.
7% reduction in ‘a lot’ of force by multiplying it with more leverage, required to create the Equivalent BMEP, is a lot
You’re ‘following this’ to just moan and contribute nothing.
Your figures are simplistic blx.
My 2BMEP figure meant nothing. I just wanted to see if you could multiply by 2.
A 7% reduction in b.s. is not a lot.
Stop moaning yourself. Other contributors have just as much right to an opinion.
ramone:
I think your leverage theory is utter BS .because it would only be 48 mm overall and would make no difference
Which part of the all force acting on the piston and con rod assembly and head fastenings ( which is bleedin massive as in tens of tonnes per square inch ) reduced by 7% in the case of RR v TL12 for the equivalent torque output don’t you understand.
It’s not a theory it’s why the MX 13 has a bore stroke ratio of 0.80 as opposed to the DK’s 0.89.
Contrary to anorak’s bs it’s done to ‘reduce’ cylinder and piston/road assembly pressures for an equivalent specific torque output because as I said it’s a force multiplier based on the laws of leverage.
The bit i dont understand is that 8mm working on 1 piston would make very little difference in leverage terms , then you multiply it by 6 because there are 6 piston , but they all only have 8mm each so very little effect. You have multiplied the 8mm by 6 giving 48 mm but you have conveniently not then divided again by 6 which would bring you back where you started 8mm each very little if any difference if any in leverage terms.
If your sweeping brush in the fire engine factory was 8 mm longer would it ha e made your duries easier?
ramone:
I think your leverage theory is utter BS .because it would only be 48 mm overall and would make no difference
Which part of the all force acting on the piston and con rod assembly and head fastenings ( which is bleedin massive as in tens of tonnes per square inch ) reduced by 7% in the case of RR v TL12 for the equivalent torque output don’t you understand.
It’s not a theory it’s why the MX 13 has a bore stroke ratio of 0.80 as opposed to the DK’s 0.89.
Contrary to anorak’s bs it’s done to ‘reduce’ cylinder and piston/road assembly pressures for an equivalent specific torque output because as I said it’s a force multiplier based on the laws of leverage.
140 divided by 152 equals what? and who made an engine with those dimensions? they must have been idiots too in your opinion then?
Which other manufacturer produced an engine which was so bad that it resulted in a class action in North America?
I’ll give you a clue: one you are keeping a bit quiet about and the other you have started championing.
140 x 152 ain’t the same thing as 136 x 142.It created a better compromise between piston area to reduce cylinder pressures and leverage to reduce cylinder pressures and bearing loads than the TL12.At the expense of increased overall capacity so less fuel efficiency.
In an ideal world a lower bore stroke ratio would have been better.
So what did they do next ?.
Does 137 x 169 ring any bells.
So 2.1 % reduction in piston area for a 5.8% increase in leverage.How does that translate into anorak’s supposed increase in cylinder pressures for the equivalent specific torque output.As opposed to the exact opposite.
What class action over what ?.
[zb]
anorak:
My 2BMEP figure meant nothing. I just wanted to see if you could multiply by 2.
A 7% reduction in b.s. is not a lot.
Stop moaning yourself. Other contributors have just as much right to an opinion.
Yeah right and choosing the BMEP figure to determine peak cylinder pressures and piston/rod loading was just coincidence.
So you’re saying that 10’s of tonnes compressive load on the piston/road assembly and tensile load on the head fastenings is bs and 43% more v 7% either way in that figure is not a lot, even if it isn’t bs.
I believe Carryfast has lost his fulcrum as well as his marbles, but then again, he has a lot on advising Trump on the Covid pandemic, fact checking the vaccine news and whatever Boris decides next. Not to mention the failures of Lord Stokes and Michael Edwardes.
Carryfast:
Contrary to anorak’s bs it’s done to ‘reduce’ cylinder and piston/road assembly pressures for an equivalent specific torque output because as I said it’s a force multiplier based on the laws of leverage.
The bit i dont understand is that 8mm working on 1 piston would make very little difference in leverage terms , then you multiply it by 6 because there are 6 piston , but they all only have 8mm each so very little effect. You have multiplied the 8mm by 6 giving 48 mm but you have conveniently not then divided again by 6 which would bring you back where you started 8mm each very little if any difference if any in leverage terms.
If your sweeping brush in the fire engine factory was 8 mm longer would it ha e made your duries easier?
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
Carryfast:
Contrary to anorak’s bs it’s done to ‘reduce’ cylinder and piston/road assembly pressures for an equivalent specific torque output because as I said it’s a force multiplier based on the laws of leverage.
The bit i dont understand is that 8mm working on 1 piston would make very little difference in leverage terms , then you multiply it by 6 because there are 6 piston , but they all only have 8mm each so very little effect. You have multiplied the 8mm by 6 giving 48 mm but you have conveniently not then divided again by 6 which would bring you back where you started 8mm each very little if any difference if any in leverage terms.
If your sweeping brush in the fire engine factory was 8 mm longer would it ha e made your duries easier?
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
Errr… Based on the above post, you’re hoping for the brush? Am I right?
Carryfast:
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
Errr… Based on the above post, you’re hoping for the brush? Am I right?
Only if you can show why the ‘above post’ is wrong.
Carryfast:
Contrary to anorak’s bs it’s done to ‘reduce’ cylinder and piston/road assembly pressures for an equivalent specific torque output because as I said it’s a force multiplier based on the laws of leverage.
The bit i dont understand is that 8mm working on 1 piston would make very little difference in leverage terms , then you multiply it by 6 because there are 6 piston , but they all only have 8mm each so very little effect. You have multiplied the 8mm by 6 giving 48 mm but you have conveniently not then divided again by 6 which would bring you back where you started 8mm each very little if any difference if any in leverage terms.
If your sweeping brush in the fire engine factory was 8 mm longer would it ha e made your duries easier?
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
8mm (less than 1 cm) wouldn’t make any difference in leverage terms on 1 piston so 6 x 0 = 0 Did John Sullivan from Fools and Horses ever vist the fire engine factory when you were hard at work with your modified brush ( 8mm longer than a standard one) it would explain where he got the idea for Trigger from
Carryfast:
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
Errr… Based on the above post, you’re hoping for the brush? Am I right?
Only if you can show why the ‘above post’ is wrong.
“Massive forces” LOL. Cylinder heads blowing off all over the place. Broken head bolts all over the floor. Brush them up, please.
Cut it down to provide for a 142 mm stroke drill it out at each end enough to take a gudgeon pin and fit the TL12 crankshaft.Put a TL12 piston on top of it.We need 6 off.Then put them in the motor increase boost to 1,260 lbft peak torque and 400 hp at 1,950 rpm and we’re in business.You can hold the majority 99.999999% share in the firm. I’ll pay for the 6 broom handles.
Carryfast:
7% more leverage on each of 6 cylinders collectively producing around 100 lbft per litre ( obviously around half the volume of ONE cylinder ) at the flywheel at 1,200 rpm.Creating a pro rata 7% reduction in the massive forces required on the piston and/or cylinder head fastenings for the equivalent specific torque output.
It’s clear who the sweeping brush would be given to and who gets the job of works test driver.
Errr… Based on the above post, you’re hoping for the brush? Am I right?
Only if you can show why the ‘above post’ is wrong.
“Massive forces” LOL. Cylinder heads blowing off all over the place. Broken head bolts all over the floor. Brush them up, please.
You need to put some dimensions in place anorak , is it a standard brush or is it the extended by 8mm extra leverage brush and if so has the brush head been securely fastened for all that extra pressure that will be exerted on it.
You need to put some dimensions in place anorak , is it a standard brush or is it the extended by 8mm extra leverage brush and if so has the brush head been securely fastened for all that extra pressure that will be exerted on it.
AEC engineering design thinking.Broom technology as applied to forced induction diesel engines.
