Valve keeper removal tool
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: 府寺 on 5 Feb 2010 12:42 On Feb 5, 8:56 am, "Snookums" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > So (snip spittle) Oh. There you are, Snookums. Didums wun into an angwy hamster this AM, and get bit on the pee pee, needing an emergency circumcision?
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 5 Feb 2010 14:08 On Feb 5, 7:49 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 5 Feb, 15:10, åºå¯º <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Now, would you like to explain to us all why you think modern engines > > > have weak valve springs, since this seems core to your whinging....? > > > You've dodged the issue time and again, and if you have a technical > > > explanation, it really ought to be aired. > > > I have no intention of educating your assholiness about valve spring > > rates, the inertia of valves, and spring frequecy. > > No, really, really, I'd like to know. You see, as rev limits rise, you > have to have stronger springs to haul the valves back before they > collide with the pistons. > > Lighter valves help, too, of course. > > And rev limits are now, typically, 30-40% higher than they were.... > oh, maybe 20 years ago. And you're saying that the valve springs have > got *weaker*. I find this interesting, and would really like to know > how this is done. I mean, you mention inertia: surely *more* force is > required to overcome inertia at higher revs than at lower, so I'd be > fascinated to hear you explain the physics of this. I can't be the > only one eager to learn. Smaller valve mass on a 16 valve head maybe, but still.
From: JackH on 5 Feb 2010 14:19 On 5 Feb, 02:41, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 3:35 pm, "@" <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Otherwise... > > So what are you going to do chickenhawk....come crying on my porch? > Anyways, you are too cowardly to do ANYTHING, well you could LIE yet > again. But you really do not want to do that...that could end up with > you in jail. They just LOVE your kind. 'Squeal like a pig, boy!' -- JackH
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 5 Feb 2010 14:23 On Feb 5, 4:42 am, åºå¯º <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It sounds like you really don't have as much confidence in your > ability to do mechanical work as I have... That may well be. I also doubt that anybody else in the world has as much confidence in your ability to do mechanical work as you have.
From: The Older Gentleman on 5 Feb 2010 14:37
Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 7:49 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On 5 Feb, 15:10, ?? <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Now, would you like to explain to us all why you think modern engines > > > > have weak valve springs, since this seems core to your whinging....? > > > > You've dodged the issue time and again, and if you have a technical > > > > explanation, it really ought to be aired. > > > > > I have no intention of educating your assholiness about valve spring > > > rates, the inertia of valves, and spring frequecy. > > > > No, really, really, I'd like to know. You see, as rev limits rise, you > > have to have stronger springs to haul the valves back before they > > collide with the pistons. > > > > Lighter valves help, too, of course. > > > > And rev limits are now, typically, 30-40% higher than they were.... > > oh, maybe 20 years ago. And you're saying that the valve springs have > > got *weaker*. I find this interesting, and would really like to know > > how this is done. I mean, you mention inertia: surely *more* force is > > required to overcome inertia at higher revs than at lower, so I'd be > > fascinated to hear you explain the physics of this. I can't be the > > only one eager to learn. > > Smaller valve mass on a 16 valve head maybe, but still. Oh yes, but the point remains. More revs = stronger springs needed. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |