Pushrod or OHC

[Slicks]

aha, the GWB approach.
I don't like the UN or Saddam so I'm gonna ignore you and tell you you dont' understand and prove myself right

???
Funny enough, I found this article on a funny site about euros hating GWB, good read:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/105870.html

Let's turn it around, as so far all you've tried to do is put up arguments ( which dont stand ) about the statments I've willingnly backed up with evidence and experience.

Evidence and experience? Like "i have experience, so dont argue with me." You have put up absolutly crap, maybe if you found something that says "the 20% formula that is used in racing....etc." that could work...

So, I'll be kinder, TELL ME why 25% ?

answered in previouos post

Anger ? The only thing I get angry over is obstinacy and stupidity. Either on on it's own can be OK. Combined together is dangerous in forums where it can be taken as truth unless justified.
So JUSTIFY with examples on the 25%.
WHAT difference does it make in a corner if the power is 25% lower ?
WHAT difference does it make in a sequence of corners if the powerband is 1000 revs narrower ?

To put things simple, obveously at 25% lower in power around a corner you are going to accelerate throught it slower than you would at peak.

AND please have the decency to accept being treated in the same way you galdly dish it out.

?
This is probably the more harsh Ive been, simply because im getting sick of the "i have experience dont question me" attitude. It wouldnt hurt if you show some hard evidence, telling me to go to a track and listen in the pits isnt anything. Provinding a site with engines that are based on this 20% would be something to start with.

So facts will be required to be real and backed up by real world evidence.
They will ahve to stand up to scrutiny from an engineering and logical perspective.
MOST of all they have to make a difference.

And anyone can go on the internet saying that they know something without showing evidence other than just saying "i have experience, therefore I know." Same reason the Eggnog rule is on this forum, people can come on here saying they have an Enzo, but with no proof to back it up, other than "experience."

wow, that surprised me
You CLEARLY DO, as you NEVER accept "experience" when it's posted and force me into justifying and providing the links, the evidence and the references. THAT I take the time to do that at the start rather than telling you to piss off is one of my "better" flaws. Because you MIGHT learn and certainly OTHERS learn more - coz they can see how NOT to learn too

No, I dont care if you know more than me, but if someone came on here saying that the sky is really red, wouldnt you want some kind of evidence to back that up? I, personally am not satisfied with "this is better than that because I say so" I would like to know WHY. Again think about the Eggnog challange.

[SlickHolden]

I don't like GWB and i'm not in Euro

[Matra et Alpine]

Where did we talk about objects in motion? Were talking about weight, hy are you getting so side tracked?

WHEN you talk about the weight of an ENGINE you ARE talking about objects in motion unless the LS1 has some magical pistons that stay stationary.
So for example an engine wth a heavy block and light internals and manily rotating mass is an inherently superior engine to oen with heavier internals, lots of non-rotational mass and light block. THAT was the point being made.

How compressed an object is is more of density than mass...

COmpress and object and you do NOT reduce it's mass.
So mass has nothing to do with volume !!

And since gravity is all the same on earth, making all weight proportional, we dont have to even have this conversation. BTW were not measering lateral Gs.

It was in the handling discusison and it IS in the movement of internal components of an engine.

So why the sudden change from "20% formula" to "+-10 formula"?

It always WAS +- 10 as that's how engineers always use graphs to compare solutions.
It's too far back to try and find it, IF I dind't make that THAT clear then I'm sorry.
Likely guilty of assumptions and as I often say all that does is make an ASS out of u and ME
Does it affect the point under consideration ? At the end of the day it's the 20% window on the flat of the graph.

Only to you...
BTW we disscussed "usable" in that same thread, and "usable" power is convienient power, power that can be used easily. That means not hitting the rev limiter to get power.

WHO cares if an engine hitrs a redline or not ?
IF an engine DELIVERS the power and it is "USABLE" you really are kicking a dead horse trying to suggest that somehow WHERE it occurs makes it uunusable.
let me repeat - that's why cars have gears

A completely "usable" powerband would trully be from idle RPMs to redline, because you can use the whole thing, not just the top.

AND LET ME REPEAT.
FFS ... IF that band is 4000 revs then it's aLONG por second to an engine that can deliver it over 6000 revs. If not, then why do the first thing that racing LS1 have is MORE REVS ???
Youve' lost the plot on this SLicks !!!!!
Are you REALLY saying that a car with a 1500-5500 rev range is better than one with 1600-6600 ?

You want 20%, fine. Although im sure youve done this calculation, finding the Z06 still with a wider band, and reluctant to post it.
350hp*80% is 280, found roughly at 4400 RPMS
Thats 4400-6200RPMs
166*80% is 132, found roughly at 6500RPMs
So thats 6500-7500RPMs.
So again, which is wider?

You took the peak RPM, not even thinking about the power.

You're confusing yourself and trying to match apples and pears again.
YOU CANNOT DO THAT. PLEASE go sit with an engineer to explain it, Clearly you wont' listen to anything I say to TRY to help you grasp it.

Please, then I would like you to give a formula that is justifyable, and proove why its better than mine. Your last 20% formula did not work, so dont bother with that one.

It's NOTHIGN to do with whether the formula works or not.
I cited it because it is in common usage by engineers and tuners.
AS I've already said, I dont' poist BS to try to "win".
What's the point of that ?
Weirdos do that.
The original postwas to discuss the power band. THAT you cant' grasp some of the issuse I've tried to ecxplain them better.
I'm committing my time to try toi explain what you;'ve never encountered before.
Sometimes I wonder why and I sense another self-chose block coming up.

You were the one that used the formula, you used revs, not power.

NO I didn't.
It is to take the graph and to fit it in +-10% limits and THEN use the edges of that corridor to identify the revs.
I never USED revs, I calculated revs.

Actually I used 25% because it was an example on another forum. I went to another forum to ask about your little 20% formula, thinking maybe that I over looked something and someone could explain it to me (cause we all know how good you are at explaining things...). I got the same response from everyone: "Is this guy serious, that is clearly biased toward revs".

And you asked this in a forum with lots of rednecks and BIG momma-V8s perchance ?
( Sorry to the guys in the other forum, I couldn't resist )
ACtually it is biased to FLAT power curves !!!!
NOTHING else.
Do the math and anlyse the shapes of curves that give the wider rev range ?
It is clearly the flatter ones, which as has already been dmomnstrated are the more usable ones for racing !!!

No, your 20% formula shows just simply 20% from the RPM where the peak power occurs to the peak power RPM. Thats it, it has nothing to do with the power the car makes or the powerband, making it useless.

ahme, GO BACK AND READ IT.
THAT is the point I was making.

Sometimes SLicks I wonder if you have a "UCP brain" you put in to post here and another one to survive in the world !!! Are you really that blind in real life ???

A 1000 revs wider power band measn squat if that power band is 100 bhp lower !!!! BUT - put it in a lighter carry so the power/weight rebalances it and it matters again

[Matra et Alpine]

???
Funny enough, I found this article on a funny site about euros hating GWB, good read:

JEEEESUS. Another point missed on you Slicsk.
Go back and read it and see it was that it was a ridiculous statement and you woudlnt' say it so why say something similar in your earlier post that it was a reply to ?

I will remove all humour as clearly euro-snob humour is too high brow

Anyway, like the links posted for a milion other things ----
Yep, you found a web site with a comment about some "euro colleague" who apparantly is working in the US - so not VERY representative of Europeans. AND the guy was a wanker. from that it's cleraly evidenc that all Eureopans are wantkers ?
IF most Europeans had been there we'd have slapped him and told him to stop being a dickhead. The French would have slapped him with a wet frog !!

Evidence and experience? Like "i have experience, so dont argue with me." You have put up absolutly crap, maybe if you found something that says "the 20% formula that is used in racing....etc." that could work...

I did NOT say "dont argue" I DO question your reluctance to be positive to a learnign experience offered.
If anyone DID take it at first reading and didn't ask me to confirm I'd be concerned. It's called humility. Some of us have it
I already toldk you that those tupe of things are difficult to find - especially as friends have most of my tuning books in their hands now as they learn from the books and put it into practise.
Frankly, SLicsk., from now on just STFU on anything I say,
take it as a lie and live happily

answered in previouos post

So another wib site said 25%.
Guess what THIS web site guys say +-10
So, so far it's 1 apiece
BUT the point is it doens';t matter.
You liek to fel that slow revving V8s make the worlds best engines. Fine.

To put things simple, obveously at 25% lower in power around a corner you are going to accelerate throught it slower than you would at peak.

Corect.
That's why people care about where the limits are and the WIDER you can make a power band to NOT be at the +-10 ( or 25 if you wish ) then the BETTER that car is able to accelerate !!!
So in stating that as a simple fact do you now accept the point about the wider power curve or not.

This is probably the more harsh Ive been, simply because im getting sick of the "i have experience dont question me" attitude. It wouldnt hurt if you show some hard evidence, telling me to go to a track and listen in the pits isnt anything. Provinding a site with engines that are based on this 20% would be something to start with.

I already todl you that woudl be difficult.
But I will try to get the books back and "share".
BUT I cannot "share" the track experiecne from rally prep and race prep as that was built up before the web was born

And anyone can go on the internet saying that they know something without showing evidence other than just saying "i have experience, therefore I know." Same reason the Eggnog rule is on this forum, people can come on here saying they have an Enzo, but with no proof to back it up, other than "experience."

Do you want me to send you all the rally and race reults for the last 20 years of the cars I've driven and spannered on ? Hell I've forgotten more reults ( often for obvious reasons ) than I've had hot dinners

No, I dont care if you know more than me, but if someone came on here saying that the sky is really red, wouldnt you want some kind of evidence to back that up? I, personally am not satisfied with "this is better than that because I say so" I would like to know WHY. Again think about the Eggnog challange.

Well the MAIN issue that started this off was the issue if usable power band.
I';ve already PROVEN that by referecning you to race engines which expand the power badn of the LS1 for competition adn linsk to how the power band is used to provide a btter car for hte tract.
Done deal in my book.
You dont' liek ti , but it's done still the same

Granted on the +-10, I'll look out some statistical analysis text books that underpin that and try to get real world examples for you. NOT an easy task as you're asking someone to go over something taught to them through expericen 20 years ago

[crisis]

???
Funny enough, I found this article on a funny site about euros hating GWB, good read:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/105870.html

Im sure he made that well written speach off the cuff. It is a contrived "shove it up youre arse Euro trash" defensive diatribe written by someone who may or may not be an airline pilot.

Here it is guys, full of good ol truth , justice and the American way. (apologies to Americans who also find this to be crap)


The Moron Europeans - Worth Reading or not

This one ought to fire you up a bit. got me going


From:Matt Archer
BOEING Flight Operations
Transport Test Pilot

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro colleagues tossed this little tidbit bit out to no one in particular:

"See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, there's a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro colleagues laughed out loud and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.

I'm afraid I was "unprofessional," I let it loose......

"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster? Now just what kind of ship would we want? Something with its own inexhaustible power supply? Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water? Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?
I didnt think that the Carrier groups got within range of anything remotely hostile so I fail to see how they could or would distribute water from this mercy vessel.
Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies? Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier?
Mmmm, I wonder how many disaster survivours find themselves in the ward of a US aircraft carrier?
Well, "Franz," we peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier." We have 12 of them. How many do you have? Oh that's right, NONE.
"thats why we dont care if the rest of the world likes our international policies or not."

Lucky for you and the rest of the world, we are the kind of people who share. Even with people we don't like.
Thankyou Uncle Sam , thankyou, without you who would save us?
In fact, if memory serves, once upon a time we peasants spent a ton of money and lives rescuing people who we had once tried to kill and who tried to kill us. Do you know who those people were? That's right Franz, Europeans.
The American elephant never forgets.
There is a French Aircraft carrier? Where is it? Right where it belongs! In France of course! Oh why should the French Navy dirty their uniforms helping people on the other side of the globe. How Simplesse... The day an American has to move a European out of the way to help in some part of the world, it will be a great day.
They might be keeping it in France because that is where it belongs, being French and all.
The room fell silent.
As no one could beleive the audacity of this brainwashed redneck.
My Hindi friend then said quietly to the Euros: "Can you let your hatred of George Bush end for just one minute? There are people dying! And what are your countries doing? Amazon.com has helped more than France has. You all have a role to play in the world. Why can't you see that? Thank God for the US Navy, they don't have to come and help, but they did and they are. They helped you once and you should all thank God they did. They didn't have to, and no one but they would have done so. I'm ashamed of you all..."
Bullshit he did

He left the room, shaking and in tears.
Come on!
The frustration of being on the other side of the globe, unable to do anything to assist and faced with people who could not set aside their asininity long enough to reach out and help was too much for him to bear. I just shook my head and left. The Euros stood speechless. Later in the break room, one of the laughing Euros caught me and extended his hand in an apology.
He like the others didnt realsie how oversensitive and what little sense of humour this guy had.
I asked him where he was from. He said "a town outside of Berlin." He is a young man, in his early 20's. I asked him if he knew of a man named Gail Halvorsen. He said no. I said "that's a shame" and walked away to find my Hindi friend.

For those of you who may not remember, Gail Halvorsen was the transport pilot responsible for the "candy drop" during the Berlin airlift. They called him the "Candy Bomber" as he dropped goodies for all the Berlin children.
Good for him, Im going to either puke or cry.
Matt Archer
BOEING Flight Operations
Transport Test Pilot

OOOOh transprt test pilot, that a respectable job, must be true then, Im sorry.

[henk4]

[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine]After I originally posted that I foudn a link in Australia's BP PR site ( thanks google ).
Which says "Sulphur compounds in diesel fuel act as natural lubricants for fuel system components such as fuel pumps and injectors. Removing sulphur reduces the natural lubricity of the fuel."
Don't see any poitn in BP distorting it as they are the most ardent developers and suppliers of low and ultra-low (near zero) sulphur diesels. ( The local BP refinery is fun to watch the trucks. The refinery is owned and operated by BP, but you wil see EVERY company tanker come in to pick up fuel - including Shell Optimax - it's a slightly different mix pls an additive )

about additional costs related to the reduction of the lubrication effects of the fuel, and although I trust your spokesman, the attitude of oil companies about sulphur reduction has always been hostile as they fear not to be able to recover the investment costs of the plant changes.[/QUOTE}
The UK fuel suppliers are a cautious bunch after the debale of the Esso additive thatr gummed up engines
BUT the EU requirement measn they have to develop it and then charge the matchin price

Most of the sources I'd cited said exactly that.

One other thing:

It is claimed that cars running on biodiesel don't need anytechnical changes. That gives rise to the question: What are the lubricants in biodiesel? Obviously not sulphut.

[Matra et Alpine]

It is claimed that cars running on biodiesel don't need any technical changes. That gives rise to the question: What are the lubricants in biodiesel? Obviously not sulphur.

First, cars DO need a timing change to run biodiesel. Otherwise the emissions are WAY worse than normal. But that's true of any octane change in the fuel being burned regardless of it's type.

So I guess you meant components having the materials replaced ( as was with the loss of lead ) or additives added to the fuel ?

First on the materials, there was/is an issue that just as with the low-sulphur diesels, biodiesel used in pure form can soften and degrade certain types
of elastomers and natural rubber compounds over time. Using high percent blends can impact fuel system components (primarily fuel hoses and fuel pump seals) that contain elastomer compounds incompatible with biodiesel, although the effect is lessened as the biodiesel blend level is decreased.
Biodiesel provides significant lubricity improvement over petroleum diesel fuel. Lubricity results of biodiesel and petroleum diesel using industry test methods indicate that there is a marked improvement in lubricity when biodiesel is added to conventional diesel fuel. Even biodiesel levels below 1 percent can provide up to a 65 percent increase in lubricity in distillate fuels.

Seemingly it has been suggested that as standard a 2% biodiesel mix should go into all our ordinary diesel to enhance the lubricity of the low/zero sulphur diesels !!!


( all the big words is courtesy of mate )

Biggest problem with pure biodesiels is that it gels at low temperatures - much higher than ordinary diesel. Mixing in ordinary diesel improves this - but now it adds emissions

[Slicks]

WHEN you talk about the weight of an ENGINE you ARE talking about objects in motion unless the LS1 has some magical pistons that stay stationary.
So for example an engine wth a heavy block and light internals and manily rotating mass is an inherently superior engine to oen with heavier internals, lots of non-rotational mass and light block. THAT was the point being made.

when I talk about weight of the engine im NOT talking about how the weight is transfered, or effected by the various parts while its running. That is trully impossible to determine by just looking at what the engine components are made of, or how much each weighs. But if you want to make that point then sure, a heavier block, and a lighter piston assembly would be better, less vibration and total engine movement, I know this dont act like I dont. But, dont even start to try and say the LS1 is "bad" now because you think it has a light block and heavy internals. Al. block and pistons, which MANY engines have that, including the 911 and OMG Elise!, and the NSX has titanium pistons and an al. block! Oh no! Ti is heavier than Al!

It was in the handling discusison and it IS in the movement of internal components of an engine.

But wait I though cornering Gs had nothing to do with handling? What happened to that?

It always WAS +- 10 as that's how engineers always use graphs to compare solutions.
It's too far back to try and find it, IF I dind't make that THAT clear then I'm sorry.
Likely guilty of assumptions and as I often say all that does is make an ASS out of u and ME
Does it affect the point under consideration ? At the end of the day it's the 20% window on the flat of the graph.

Funny that you seems to easily dig up really old posts by me, but when it comes to your posts, especially when your wrong, you have trouble finding them...
Directly from you:
"Power band - please post the Lotus power and torque bands along with the Viper and Vette for comparison please. Let's say within 20% of peak is the flat area and get back to us with the rev ranges of all 3. Thanks."

WHO cares if an engine hitrs a redline or not ?
IF an engine DELIVERS the power and it is "USABLE" you really are kicking a dead horse trying to suggest that somehow WHERE it occurs makes it uunusable.
let me repeat - that's why cars have gears

Lets make this simple, when you hit the gas (driving normal) what RPM do you start at? Whatever idle is. Now is it convienient to launch at redline everytime? Again, it seems that the europeans are always saying gears are to stay in the cars powerband, wrong. Gears are for acceleration. If gears were for staying in the powerband, then only one gear would be necesary, because acceleration doesnt matter, just staying in the powerband right?
Now imagine a world where powerbands were from idle to redline, gears would be more effective then right, rather than just used for the top of the rev range powerbands.

AND LET ME REPEAT.
FFS ... IF that band is 4000 revs then it's aLONG por second to an engine that can deliver it over 6000 revs. If not, then why do the first thing that racing LS1 have is MORE REVS ???
Youve' lost the plot on this SLicks !!!!!
Are you REALLY saying that a car with a 1500-5500 rev range is better than one with 1600-6600 ?

Because gearing manipulates torque, and can manipulte how long you stay in the powerband. BTW one of the LAST things racing LS1s have is revs, we've gone over this before. Most people look to adding power by revs as a last resort. The 427 LS1 in the C5-R "only" revs to 6400RPMs, and clearly pushrod engines can rev higher than that (NASCAR engines do around 8000RPMs). If revs are so good, then why is the redline so "low" for a race car? Because revs dont matter, and are generally used ONLY if displacement is limited for one reason or another.

You're confusing yourself and trying to match apples and pears again.
YOU CANNOT DO THAT. PLEASE go sit with an engineer to explain it, Clearly you wont' listen to anything I say to TRY to help you grasp it.

This is exaclty what im talking about. Where am I going to find an engineer that wants to talk to me about this? You claim to be "so knowledgeable", why cant you explain it without saying "just because?"

It's NOTHIGN to do with whether the formula works or not.
I cited it because it is in common usage by engineers and tuners.
AS I've already said, I dont' poist BS to try to "win".
What's the point of that ?
Weirdos do that.
The original postwas to discuss the power band. THAT you cant' grasp some of the issuse I've tried to ecxplain them better.
I'm committing my time to try toi explain what you;'ve never encountered before.
Sometimes I wonder why and I sense another self-chose block coming up.

???
If the formula doesnt work, then it is clearly pointless.

NO I didn't.
It is to take the graph and to fit it in +-10% limits and THEN use the edges of that corridor to identify the revs.
I never USED revs, I calculated revs.

I was told to do your little formula and i did:
quote from me:
"Here, if this is what it takes to shut you up then so be it. Dont expect anything else.
Elise
Peak HP- 7800RPMs - 20% - 6240RPMs
Peak TQ-6800RPMs - 20% - 5440RPMs
Z06
Peak HP- 6000RPMs - 20% - 4800
Peak TQ- 48000RPMs - 20% - 3840
Viper SRT-10
Peak HP - 5600RPMs -20% - 4480
Peak TQ - 4600RPMs - 20% - 3680"
Now clearly that was using RPMs, not the POWERBAND. And if its the powerband you wanted, then you would have corrected me right? Your reply:
"and WHICH has the wider torque band then Slicks.
So your earlier 'guess' was way off.
Thansk for getting the facts, see I already knew those. BUT you didn't. it was you that needed to read it. WHY did it take so much effort from another UCPer for you to look up the information you were wrong about ?"

Clearly that is a bogus formula biased toward the higher revving car, and clearly you knew that, or maybe you didnt.

And you asked this in a forum with lots of rednecks and BIG momma-V8s perchance ?
( Sorry to the guys in the other forum, I couldn't resist )
ACtually it is biased to FLAT power curves !!!!
NOTHING else.
Do the math and anlyse the shapes of curves that give the wider rev range ?
It is clearly the flatter ones, which as has already been dmomnstrated are the more usable ones for racing !!!

Actually its about 50/50 american/european. And one of the knowledgeable members, from Finland, was the first to reply laughing. And yes, he is biased toward european cars too.
Your formula has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURVE BECAUSE IT MEASURES REVS ONLY. The only relivants to the powerband it has is that you start with the RPM where the power peaks, thats it.

ahme, GO BACK AND READ IT.
THAT is the point I was making.

Sometimes SLicks I wonder if you have a "UCP brain" you put in to post here and another one to survive in the world !!! Are you really that blind in real life ???

A 1000 revs wider power band measn squat if that power band is 100 bhp lower !!!! BUT - put it in a lighter carry so the power/weight rebalances it and it matters again

If your formula is trully the "real deal" then you should have no problem proving that. But it seems you have no evidents other than "I know from experience" which means absolutly squat, because the formula is cleary wrong.

[Matra et Alpine]

when I talk about weight of the engine im NOT talking about how the weight is transfered, or effected by the various parts while its running. That is trully impossible to determine by just looking at what the engine components are made of, or how much each weighs. But if you want to make that point then sure, a heavier block, and a lighter piston assembly would be better, less vibration and total engine movement, I know this dont act like I dont. But, dont even start to try and say the LS1 is "bad" now because you think it has a light block and heavy internals. Al. block and pistons, which MANY engines have that, including the 911 and OMG Elise!, and the NSX has titanium pistons and an al. block! Oh no! Ti is heavier than Al!

First, I was ADDING to the discussion by explaining why MASS is important to consider in the discusison where you clearly didnt' understand the DIFFERNECE betwen MASS and WEIGHT.
It was NOT about saying the LS1 was good or bad as I dont' know about the mass of it's moving components. OTHER than to point out that pushrods have more linear mass movement whcih is bad in an engine of ANY sort.
Now to the pointless discourse on titanium v al block ? The point was ? MY point is that Honda chose Titanium because they coudl make a SMALLER pistonusing a stronger/.heavier material whcih results in the piston having LESS mass/weight and hence is better. Truying to mix the discussion up with ti piston al block misses the point of WHY engeineers make choices over materials.

But wait I though cornering Gs had nothing to do with handling? What happened to that?

The point was just being made that MASS is waht mateers in handling. You THEN confuse the static and the dynamic movemnents of that mass and TRY to make it soudn seomthing different. There is NO conflict in ANY of the statements - UNLESS you dont' understand, mass, handling, dynamics !!!
You confuse G and MOVEMENT - AGAIN

Funny that you seems to easily dig up really old posts by me, but when it comes to your posts, especially when your wrong, you have trouble finding them...

Because it was late and the first search I coudln't find it.
You're sounding very GWB-like in creating conspiracy theories.
I HAD said I woudl try to find it for you.
I do have a life away from UCP and I will review it.
But again I'm on UCP at 2am and SHOULD be in bed
So we WILL come back to this - I'd left it last night intending to come back and forgot - in fact if you look at the post you'll see I had left the gap intending to.
Stop acting the aggreived person and you'll get on better in dialgues

Lets make this simple, when you hit the gas (driving normal) what RPM do you start at? Whatever idle is.

You dont' let the clutch up at idle though !!!
I tihnk you are expanding auto box experience and believing that to be the way for ALL cars.
See http://www.driving-made-easy.co.uk/MovingOff.htm for some advice on doing it "properly"
Even a US site said that no throttle is an easy way to start to learn about the bite point but that the learner needed to advance to increasing the throttle AT the bite point.

Now is it convienient to launch at redline everytime?

There's a world of revs in the poerbadn between idle and redline.
Why do you only see the world in balnk and white ??
It's the fundamental flaw in most every argument you've taken up !!!

Again, it seems that the europeans are always saying gears are to stay in the cars powerband, wrong. Gears are for acceleration. If gears were for staying in the powerband, then only one gear would be necesary, because acceleration doesnt matter, just staying in the powerband right?

{PLEASE think that one through and go back and edit it.
So what do you do once the powerband runs out in first ? You may be happy to drive along at 40 mph tops.
GEARS are about matching the revs of the engine to the required revolutions of the wheels to go at the speed the driver wants.
You can drive at 60 in top or in 4th. In top the engine is lower down the power band and possibly on the dropping edge of the torque band. In 4th it's in the middle of the torque band where it more naturally peaks. CLEARLY pushing the throttle in 4th accelerates faster than in 5th because there is more TORQUE there to do the work !!
So if that STILL doens't work as an explanatino of the error. PLEASE try to explain the purpose of a gear in a car ?
Or do you only drive a car around in one speed and go from 0 to that speed instantaneously and equally stop as quickly ?
In trying to phrase an argument about gears you've forgotten the PURPOSE of the engine and transmission

Now imagine a world where powerbands were from idle to redline, gears would be more effective then right, rather than just used for the top of the rev range powerbands.

READ THAT ONE THROUGH PLEASE.
All you said is that a wider powerband is better.
Thansk you we agree on that.
Were you trying to say sanything else ???
A driver uses all of the USABLE POWERBAND, NOT just the top. You're desire to only think of slow revving V8s blinds you into believing that otherse are saying ONLY use the top.
I re-iterate what I have always said . It is the WIDTH of the usable power band that matters !!! ( if the power is similar )

Because gearing manipulates torque, and can manipulte how long you stay in the powerband. BTW one of the LAST things racing LS1s have is revs, we've gone over this before.

I dint' say they HAD revs, I pointed out and gave links to cited examples of tunign LS1 s to HAVE more revs. WHY would a racing team want to do that.
As you say the revs themselves DO NOT matter. The gears and diff are there to trasnlate that into the speed desired by the driver. They are increasin gthe revs to give th driver MORE usable POWER BAND. Because the car with th e wider power band is the one that will be quicker on track and road !!!

Most people look to adding power by revs as a last resort. The 427 LS1 in the C5-R "only" revs to 6400RPMs,

BECAUSE it has "enough" power for the job the driver wishes.
BUT you can purchase extras to increase the power AND the power BAND !!
From LS-1.com ....
Question 6-6: What does the Hypertech Power Programmer (HPP3) do for my car?
Answer: It is a very useful tuning tool, it allows you to raise your rev limiter as high as 6700

and clearly pushrod engines can rev higher than that (NASCAR engines do around 8000RPMs). If revs are so good, then why is the redline so "low" for a race car?

Because they have sufficient power band.
Increasing the revs on a 2valve head will cause MASSIVE problems on lower revs as the engine will be very "cammy".
Pushrod engines CAN rev to over 10,000 !!
It just gets more expensive to do

NOT a trait you want in a Because revs dont matter, and are generally used ONLY if displacement is limited for one reason or another.

Correct.
IF you can afford a 24litre Rolls Roycve Merlin engine to move a 1000kg car you pretty much dont' need revs as there is so MUCH torque that it could pretty much drive the wheels directly and gears woudl allow it to use a 1000 rev powerband.
BUT in the real world of REAL cars it's not so black and white.
Rather than repeating myself, PLEASE review all the race "crate" engines availabel for US cars and notice they increase power AND revs.
Ther is a reason, BOTH are there in the ideal/perfect engine.
THAT is whree this discussion started, to show that revs CAN make up for power and AS I HAEV SAID power can also make up for revs.
You're the only one sseeing this as black and white !!!!
Read http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html it's a great insight into the design decisions.
Especially the coment on the choice of pushrod - again confirmign that the power they coudl get "was enough", NOT that pushrods were better or DIHC worse etc.
See http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/2...no%20Graph.pdf
WHAT is interesting is how that graph ends REAL quick. They are limiting that engines revs. It is LIEKLY to be because of valve bounce or the risk of bending pushrods as the MASS movement beings to assert HUGE forces.
HOwever, ther point is they DID go to increase revs. THAT they dont' go further is liekly for some mechanical reason as it woudl seem that the engine wasn't having any real breathing issues as it's fairly gentle roll off.
IF you will try to be objective I WOULD like to know WHY they dont' push it out.
So far you claim it's because they dont' need to , I'm suggesting it MAY because they CANT without it starting to break things. IF you can increase revs you usually TRY to do that as it INCERASES THE USABEL POWER BADN which is what every driver wants ( as along as it' doesn't hurt another aspect fo performance )
??????

[Matra et Alpine]

This is exaclty what im talking about. Where am I going to find an engineer that wants to talk to me about this? You claim to be "so knowledgeable", why cant you explain it without saying "just because?"

I've tried and because you only thin kin black or white it's hard. I want to be able to draw half a dozen graphs. Show you a dyno run in real time and tweak things to identify the impact.
BUT, sadly VERY attempt I TRY to explain you ONLY see black or white so anything I say that you think is negative to the LS1 you ASSUME I'm attacking the LS1. HOW many times fdo you expect me to KEEP CLARIFYING that point. FORGET which engine it is, JSTU think abotu revs, power and power band.
HELL I"ve already taken 20 minutes on THIS ONE POST looking up stuff that is ONLY necessary because you are delibereatly obtuse adn frankly "lazy".
So if you can;t be arsed going to learn then WHY should I takek more time out ?
I'm trying to help but at every turn you go black/white and dont' READ twhat is written and comprehend it. You seem only to want to put it in one of 2 boxes. You right, me right. IT"S A GRICKING ENGINE, for 80% of the time we're BOTH right. I can see it and CONSTANDLY feel I'm ahaving to point that out. You ONLY want to talk about the 20%

If the formula doesnt work, then it is clearly pointless.

But it does "work" as a rule of thumb ( ther are a hundred OTHER things in tuning a car for optimum track/road )
[QUOTE]I was told to do your little formula and i did:[?QUOTE]
You ARE STILL taking the REVS and taking 20%.
What was said was to take the peak and take 20% of that POWER and then find where it occurs on the upper and lower rev ranges.
If you actually STOP for a minteu and think if the calculation YOU did made sense then it's CLEARL NOT.; Common sense should have told you that and THEN you shoudl have re-read the "fromual" and applied it corectly. BUT no, you pigion-holed it a, got it wrong and sent this whole thing OFF on a tangent. BECAUSE you refuse to THINK about things !!
[QUOTE]Clearly that is a bogus formula biased toward the higher revving car, and clearly you knew that, or maybe you didnt.[?QUOTE]
Let me repeat AGAIN.
IT is a formula biased to the car with the wider usable power band.
THAT that happens to end up being NOT your beloved LS-1 is NOT the formulas problem.
AS I said the LS-1 makes up for that with MUCH more torque and power.
It's seldom you find BOTH in the same engine
But this blind faith you have in the engines you love measn you dont' actually open your mind to the big picture.

Actually its about 50/50 american/european. And one of the knowledgeable members, from Finland, was the first to reply laughing. And yes, he is biased toward european cars too.
Your formula has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURVE BECAUSE IT MEASURES REVS ONLY. The only relivants to the powerband it has is that you start with the RPM where the power peaks, thats it.

LOOK PLEASE go back and read things slowly.
I hav erepeated this DOZESN of times.
IT is about quantigying the USABLE power band.
AND as for the comments you got BACK, I'd be more than suspicious that you failed to describe it as you CONTINUE to NOT READ the explanation of the power bad adn STILL dont' get it.
I've tried to explain it more ways than HSOUDL be nevcessary.
You are either delusional or are deliberatly anatgonistic.
NEITHER helps in an online forum.
AGAIN I've TRIED, but will you BOTHER to review and comprehend ?

If your formula is trully the "real deal" then you should have no problem proving that. But it seems you have no evidents other than "I know from experience" which means absolutly squat, because the formula is cleary wrong.

FFS, you really are annoying.
I've given the explanation of why I cannot put my hands on immediately supporting evidence.
COULD you find me WHY the LS-1 is redlined at 6400 and 6800 in the LIngenfelter ? ( I've actually been trying tonight as I was hoping to use it as ANOTHER alternative way to try to get the formula over to you )
I *HAVE * said I wil try to get the books back etc etc.
BUT FRANKLY YOUR ATTITUDE is dissuading me from doing so
( Of course THAT is maybe your plan all along because then you can claim the hollow "victory" because I didnt' get the nasnwer. NOT because it isn't there but because you piss folks off enough to not bother with you )
BUT I todl you I'd try and I will be doing so. We've a trackday at Crail on the 19th so I may even be ablt to get some paddock and dyno work on film to "prove" it with REAL cars and ReAL enthusiasts and REAL mechanics !!!
YOU in the meantime should have the decency to attempt to do likewise.
OR are you REALLY a brash redneck who doesnt give a flying **** about anyone else in the world ???????????

[Matra et Alpine]

aha, as I was closing a window I spotted something at Lingenfelter.
They have dyno charts and they LABEL each chart with a range eg 600-4600, 1000-5000 etc.
http://www.strokerengine.com/CompCams.html
NOW when you LOOK at the dyno charts so labelled then it's clear the engine ACTUALLY revs wider than the numbers they use.
So a little back of envelope calculation and what do we get ??

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...50H-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 4600
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 370
as a % from peak = 12%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...8HR-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 5000
Peak torque = 420
torque at named revs = 340
as a % from peak = 20%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...56H-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 5200
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 340
as a % from peak = 20%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...-10_001.aspMax revs named = 6000
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 330
as a % from peak = 20%

Now, it's late and I might have got the calcualtiosn wrong.
So pleae feel free to check them.
NOW can we accept that a 20% limit is reasonable standard practise ?
I didn't see any that were out by 25%, but I'm happy to look at any you calcuate to show that.

CONSIDER, why they have so many different rev ranges on those different engine configurations and engines ? Do you accept it is becaue the driver can then pick the best for the situation they are facing ? After all if it was as you described it EACH of these engines woudl be spec'ed from tickover woudl they not ?????

[henk4]

First, cars DO need a timing change to run biodiesel. Otherwise the emissions are WAY worse than normal. But that's true of any octane change in the fuel being burned regardless of it's type.

So I guess you meant components having the materials replaced ( as was with the loss of lead ) or additives added to the fuel ?
Seemingly it has been suggested that as standard a 2% biodiesel mix should go into all our ordinary diesel to enhance the lubricity of the low/zero sulphur diesels !!!

Biggest problem with pure biodesiels is that it gels at low temperatures - much higher than ordinary diesel. Mixing in ordinary diesel improves this - but now it adds emissions

This is not the story I am hearing from Germany, where old cars are being run properly without any changes to the engine. At least they don't mention it but I have to check that.
In the early days you could mix cold diesel with gasoline to prevent gelling, but it seems that high pressure TDi and HDI engines don't allow this any more. Therefore winterdiesel has some additives to prevent gelling.
I am sure for biodiesel they will be able to find a similar thing.

[Slicks]

Because it was late and the first search I coudln't find it.
You're sounding very GWB-like in creating conspiracy theories.
I HAD said I woudl try to find it for you.
I do have a life away from UCP and I will review it.
But again I'm on UCP at 2am and SHOULD be in bed
So we WILL come back to this - I'd left it last night intending to come back and forgot - in fact if you look at the post you'll see I had left the gap intending to.
Stop acting the aggreived person and you'll get on better in dialgues

Eh, dont compare me to GWB...
But thanks anyways for looking.

You dont' let the clutch up at idle though !!!
I tihnk you are expanding auto box experience and believing that to be the way for ALL cars.
See http://www.driving-made-easy.co.uk/MovingOff.htm for some advice on doing it "properly"
Even a US site said that no throttle is an easy way to start to learn about the bite point but that the learner needed to advance to increasing the throttle AT the bite point.

All depends on the car. Torquey cars, you can and generally do (f-bodies, corvettes, mustangs etc.) Even when I drove that Celica GT I let the clutch up before 1000RPMs and was fine.

There's a world of revs in the poerbadn between idle and redline.
Why do you only see the world in balnk and white ??
It's the fundamental flaw in most every argument you've taken up !!!

Not black and white, just an overexhaduration. Its still not conveinient (under normal driving) to have to rev higher before slipping the clutch.

{PLEASE think that one through and go back and edit it.
So what do you do once the powerband runs out in first ? You may be happy to drive along at 40 mph tops.
GEARS are about matching the revs of the engine to the required revolutions of the wheels to go at the speed the driver wants.
You can drive at 60 in top or in 4th. In top the engine is lower down the power band and possibly on the dropping edge of the torque band. In 4th it's in the middle of the torque band where it more naturally peaks. CLEARLY pushing the throttle in 4th accelerates faster than in 5th because there is more TORQUE there to do the work !!
So if that STILL doens't work as an explanatino of the error. PLEASE try to explain the purpose of a gear in a car ?
Or do you only drive a car around in one speed and go from 0 to that speed instantaneously and equally stop as quickly ?
In trying to phrase an argument about gears you've forgotten the PURPOSE of the engine and transmission

Stop thinking in a racing POV.
Think about he statement "gears are to stay in the powerband". That alone just says nothing about acceleration (not saying racing acceleration, but just to get from a to b). Like I said, if that were the case, then only one gear would be necesary, since it says nothing about acceleration. Gears are for acceleration, AND match the powerband(really depends on the car, like trucks are going to have gears for towing, and econmy cars are going to be geared for economy.)

READ THAT ONE THROUGH PLEASE.
All you said is that a wider powerband is better.
Thansk you we agree on that.
Were you trying to say sanything else ???
A driver uses all of the USABLE POWERBAND, NOT just the top. You're desire to only think of slow revving V8s blinds you into believing that otherse are saying ONLY use the top.
I re-iterate what I have always said . It is the WIDTH of the usable power band that matters !!! ( if the power is similar )

Yes, width of the band matters, I know. But in normal driving (stop thinking racing, cars were not made in the intension to race, think model T, made for transport) the lower the RPM the power comes at the easier it is to drive.

BECAUSE it has "enough" power for the job the driver wishes.
BUT you can purchase extras to increase the power AND the power BAND !!
From LS-1.com ....
Question 6-6: What does the Hypertech Power Programmer (HPP3) do for my car?
Answer: It is a very useful tuning tool, it allows you to raise your rev limiter as high as 6700

Ah, but wouldnt taking an LS1 (keeping 5.7L) and making it rev to, say, 8000RPMs to produce the 600hp be "enough"? Larger dispaced engines produce more torque, and usually a better torque curve, and that is what matters.
Reprogramming the LS1 to eliminate the rev limiter does NOT increase the powerband, becuase the LS1 was NOT made to make power at that high an RPM. If it were re-tuned than yes, but taking the rev limiter away on a stock engine is just asking for trouble.

Because they have sufficient power band.
Increasing the revs on a 2valve head will cause MASSIVE problems on lower revs as the engine will be very "cammy".
Pushrod engines CAN rev to over 10,000 !!
It just gets more expensive to do

So then more revs do NOT mean better powerband, a point Ive been trying to get across. BUT they CAN mean a better powerband, that doesnt mean they always will though.

Correct.
IF you can afford a 24litre Rolls Roycve Merlin engine to move a 1000kg car you pretty much dont' need revs as there is so MUCH torque that it could pretty much drive the wheels directly and gears woudl allow it to use a 1000 rev powerband.
BUT in the real world of REAL cars it's not so black and white.
Rather than repeating myself, PLEASE review all the race "crate" engines availabel for US cars and notice they increase power AND revs.
Ther is a reason, BOTH are there in the ideal/perfect engine.
THAT is whree this discussion started, to show that revs CAN make up for power and AS I HAEV SAID power can also make up for revs.
You're the only one sseeing this as black and white !!!!
Read http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html it's a great insight into the design decisions.
Especially the coment on the choice of pushrod - again confirmign that the power they coudl get "was enough", NOT that pushrods were better or DIHC worse etc.
See http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/2...no%20Graph.pdf
WHAT is interesting is how that graph ends REAL quick. They are limiting that engines revs. It is LIEKLY to be because of valve bounce or the risk of bending pushrods as the MASS movement beings to assert HUGE forces.
HOwever, ther point is they DID go to increase revs. THAT they dont' go further is liekly for some mechanical reason as it woudl seem that the engine wasn't having any real breathing issues as it's fairly gentle roll off.
IF you will try to be objective I WOULD like to know WHY they dont' push it out.
So far you claim it's because they dont' need to , I'm suggesting it MAY because they CANT without it starting to break things. IF you can increase revs you usually TRY to do that as it INCERASES THE USABEL POWER BADN which is what every driver wants ( as along as it' doesn't hurt another aspect fo performance )
??????

Good read, im sure Ive posted it before:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

In that article, Winegarden admits that DOHC is used for MARKETING, rather than a "better" engine. Yes, he says that it has its advantages, in which it does, but I made an earily point even more true now.

Your right, revving higher for an OHV engine would most likely start to bend the rods. But it is true that they dont NEED to, because if you have a powerband as big as another cars powerband, whats the point?
Again, your thinking racing. Increasing revs does not always lead to a better powerband, and more certainly not a more "usable" one. Remember street driving, you are switching up at lower RPMs, your not racing at WOT near redline. Most of the time you have the gas peddle 1/10th of the way down from WOT, if even that much (depends on car).

[henk4]

You dont' let the clutch up at idle though !!!
I tihnk you are expanding auto box experience and believing that to be the way for ALL cars.

Matra, I got news for you, I do let the clutch up at idle, very convenient in slowly moving traffic jams. I can shift through to second and then to third without even touching the throttle and still the engine won't stall.

In fact when Wouter was having his official driving lessons in an Honda Accord, his instructor told him not to drive my car anymore, because it was too easy. (another free benefit of the diesel, with one OHC )

[Slicks]

aha, as I was closing a window I spotted something at Lingenfelter.
They have dyno charts and they LABEL each chart with a range eg 600-4600, 1000-5000 etc.
http://www.strokerengine.com/CompCams.html
NOW when you LOOK at the dyno charts so labelled then it's clear the engine ACTUALLY revs wider than the numbers they use.
So a little back of envelope calculation and what do we get ??

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...50H-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 4600
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 370
as a % from peak = 12%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...8HR-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 5000
Peak torque = 420
torque at named revs = 340
as a % from peak = 20%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...56H-10_001.asp
Max revs named = 5200
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 340
as a % from peak = 20%

http://www.compcams.com/Technical/Dy...-10_001.aspMax revs named = 6000
Peak torque = 410
torque at named revs = 330
as a % from peak = 20%

Now, it's late and I might have got the calcualtiosn wrong.
So pleae feel free to check them.
NOW can we accept that a 20% limit is reasonable standard practise ?
I didn't see any that were out by 25%, but I'm happy to look at any you calcuate to show that.

CONSIDER, why they have so many different rev ranges on those different engine configurations and engines ? Do you accept it is becaue the driver can then pick the best for the situation they are facing ? After all if it was as you described it EACH of these engines woudl be spec'ed from tickover woudl they not ?????

A couple problems, your using torque, which actually if you think about it should be the one being used. But I used hp, in which if that was wrong, you should have corrected me, you wanted the right formula right? (or do you want your formula.... )

Actually funny enough, the 25% formula can come close here.

Look at the thrird dyno:
Peak torque = 410
410 * 75% = 307 (you had 340)

And using 15% instead of 25%
Peak torque = 410
410* 85% = 348, much closer to your calculation.

Just an example, but for the most part, it seems that the 20% formula "works" here. Really it just seems to show revs here, like the 3rd one again for example, 5200RPMs *20% is 1040RPMs, so is that supposed to be the powerband then? The peak torque occurs at about 3800RPMs, what does that have to do with the formula? How does it really show the "powerband?"

The 3rd calculation for example (im using this because its 20%, not 12% like the first) seems incorrect. Sorry if I missunderstood this but:
410 peak * 80% is 328, not 340.
Or is it 5200RPMS * 80% = 4160RPMs, which is roughly where the peak torque occurs. So are you saying 4160RPMs - 5200RPMs is the "20%" powerband? Because from 3500-4000RPMs the torque is pretty much the same, shouldnt that be "usable" then, since its the same at 3500 as 4160?