View Single Post
Old 19 Sep 2007, 20:24 (Ref:2018252)   #33
Bob Riebe
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Minnesota
Posts: 2,351
Bob Riebe User has been fined for unsportsmanlike behaviour!
Quote:
Originally Posted by knighty
sorry bob, I was being gentle in my previous post, based on your last post I'm prepared to say that your now fundamentally wrong, sorry :-/ .......just because the piston travels further dosent mean it will induce more friction.......the reason engine designers (cough: people like me) go the short stroke route is to achieve a VERY high rod to stroke ratio, which drastically reduces piston side loading, and therefore a drastic reduction in piston friction, but this is negated somewhat by the high revving nature of these engines (due to the short stroke) which causes a shed load of friction in itself........this is the wrong way to go for a LMP1 restrictor engine as the restrictor will not permit the massive air flow required for very high RPM, as people have found when they tried to convert 5.8L NASCAR based engines to 6.0 LMP1 restrictor motors.

the piston inertia loadings at BDC and TDC are no problem, I have designed long stroke cranks, rods and pistons before, and it will be fine as long as you do the bearing load calculations correct, and select the correct bearing materials.......its certainly not destructive

the potential torsional vibration issue is easily fixed, even for the low end engine builders, as the viscous torsional crank dampers on the market are great pieces of kit at sensible cost

the reason the Katech Corvette engine makes such good power is it was designed from the outset to rev very low for reduced friction, and for its size, the stroke is quite big at around 96 to 98mm (I have the exact figure at work), this in turn reduces the friction, as friction is directly proportional to the rotational speed of the engine, as the faster the crank rotates, the more loading it exerts on the main bearings, therefore the more friction it will create.

other great examples of low revving long stroke restrictor engines are 2 Litre F3 motors, and the Ford-Elan 7 Litre GT1 engine as used in the Saleens........that thing had a stroke over 100mm and developed over 600bhp with about 850Nm of torque......all great examples proving long stroke works very well for NA restrictor engines.

believe me, a staright inlet runner aimed at the back of the valve, with a narrow runner to valve angle, is the holy grail of any engine, no matter the operating speed......... for a head designed in the 60's, the Gurney-Weslake heads produced 520bhp from 5 litres at about 7200rpm........even by todays standards thats still great for a tuned pushrod motor
You have nothing to apologize for if engine building has proceeded (which I guess is obvious because of the rpms achieved by some drag racing engines) as you have stated, please give us the facts.
It has been a long time since I worked on the internals of an engne or was in school so your informations are welcomed, not otherwise.

As I have recently read some articles in which engine builder still have doubts about speed attained by pistons in some bore/stroke ratios, are your feelings now the accepted norm or are there still divided camps (there always are some opposing views no matter what) or have piston acceleration-deceleration matters been negated by improved products?
Bob
PS--Don't forget the G/W numbers was for alcohol with nitro.
From what I remember in qualifying mixture it produced around 540 HP, but even at that it was impressive for that time no matter the fuel mixture.

Do you have anty idea of what the top constant rpms actually recorded in a US push-rod engine, that did not blowup is?
Bob Riebe is offline  
Quote