Prev: Hard decision - choosing a bike
Next: Wake up, baby snookums!
From: S'mee on 5 Feb 2010 17:00
On Feb 5, 12:37 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...(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.

are you trying to interject FACTS? How dare you!
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Hard decision - choosing a bike
Next: Wake up, baby snookums!