Can we please put an end to the "long connecting rod" myth??

Here is TwoManyXS1Bs' simulation that I overlayed in Excel. 'Backwards' force should be 'Backwall Thrust', but you get the idea.

xs_jack_zps02e52b32.jpg


It makes for an easier picture to visualize. :bike:

Cheers,
Bob
 
Hey, hoffman, that's great, really brings it to light!
Well, hold on to your panties, here comes some more...

Hotdog asked for comparison runs of 136mm and 144mm rods using his Ross 80mm pistons @8500 rpm.

Since the 'net' crashed on me twice during this post, and I don't want the images mixed-up, here's the screenshots of the 136mm rod run.
 

Attachments

  • ROSS136a.JPG
    ROSS136a.JPG
    157.8 KB · Views: 162
  • ROSS136b.JPG
    ROSS136b.JPG
    139 KB · Views: 146
I wonder how many folks realize that there's several hundred lbs force of a skidding piston pushing on a cylinder wall?
At 70 mph piston speed...
 
I wonder how many folks realize that there's several hundred lbs force of a skidding piston pushing on a cylinder wall?
At 70 mph piston speed...

You're only gonna find a handful of performance minded members on this forum. For my engine build my pistons are 78mm, 9 to 1 at 260 grams,pins 70 grams( The pistons and pins will be lightened further at another time) ,rings says 20 grams and for ignition figure it at 34 to 32 based on using a bathtub combustion chamber and L/Rs. If you have any suggestions to reducing the back thrust loads,I'm opened minded
 
Jack, here are screenshots of simulation runs on your 78mm engine. There was a torque peak at 8000 rpm on the 136mm rod, so ran the simulation at that rpm. The 145mm rod didn't seem to rolloff as much. The scaling for both plots are identical, so you can see a significant reduction in backwall thrust...
 

Attachments

  • Jack136a.JPG
    Jack136a.JPG
    147.5 KB · Views: 136
  • Jack136b.JPG
    Jack136b.JPG
    95.5 KB · Views: 152
  • Jack145a.JPG
    Jack145a.JPG
    149.3 KB · Views: 132
  • Jack145b.JPG
    Jack145b.JPG
    95.2 KB · Views: 158
Other tricks to change backwall thrust? Oboy, get to think out of the 'box'.

Long rod - If you imagine that the goal is to increase engine block reactive torque, then look at the source - the 3" piston scuffing zone on the cylinder. This zone is a certain distance from crank center, which is the torque arm. By doubling this torque arm, you halve the sliding force of the piston. NOT the 'several feet' mentioned earlier, but you already knew this.

Wristpin offset - Back then, H*nda piston wristpin holes were offset 1mm to the rear (toward intake), as their method to eliminate 'detonation'. Seemed to work. However, when building an engine for dirt work, would sometimes put piston in reverse (after clearancing exhaust 'now intake' valve pocket). The engine demonstrated better mid-range grunt.

Cylinder offset - As an experiment, I installed my factory yam750 cast piston kit with the sleeve offset 1mm to the rear, like the H*nda offset. Bored the offset to the cyl block, the thin factory sleeves cleared into the cases fine. The thing ran like stink, pulled to 9000.

In the early `80s, had the idea for a twin crank, dual rod, single-shared wristpin, single piston engine. Modelled it in an older simulator, showed small mechanical advantage over regular rod engine, but had ZERO sidewall thrust! Fast forward, the Germans introduced a motorcycle with this configuration, maybe you've seen it.

Had an idea for a wristpin stabilizer that would remove ALL sideload from the piston. But to incorporate it would require shorter rod (not a problem here) and a taller piston. The contrivance is rather simple, but would probably blow-up...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top