Romac vs Fluidampr Balancers????

Ok gents heres your chance. Was approached the other day by a distributer saying that the Romac Damper will out perform a Fluidamper. Keep in mind this is for all out race motors, 8000 rpm or higher.

What your opinion? I have my opinion but I'm curious to see what you all think.


Thanks in advance.

The Scotsman

http://www.JNRacing.homestead.com

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Scotsman on 6/7/05 6:57am ]</font>

I will never run a Fluidampr, again, stopped blowing up engines when I did. Dunno about the Romac, all I run are ATI superdampers
[addsig]

Putting together a 408 Cleveland and the rotating assembly comes with a romac. The Romac is a elastomer balancer and I've exploded my share of them. Getting tired of replacing hoods from punching holes in them when the outer ring lets go.

The romac is suspost to be a better elastomer balance?
What was the problem you found with fluidampr?

We're currently run a 28oz fluidampr on our Cleveland and in the process of putting this 408 together. Was going to swap out the interhub to a zero balance and put on the 408, but ATI's are good too.

Thanks

The Scotsman



_________________
Scotsman Chassisworks and Kustoms

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Scotsman on 6/7/05 8:31am ]</font>

I ran a Fluidampr for years, balanced it without as you are instructed, never had an engine last, Engine ran smooth, or at least at 140+, but the engines greneaded at an alarming rate. I changed nothing except the balancer &amp; this engine is 3 years old.
[addsig]

I keep hearing the same thing.... but my little 289 headed 302 with a cast iron crank and 289 rods lasted for close to a decade while hitting 7k rpm pretty much every time it came out of the garage. It also digested dozens of nitrous bottles 150 and 200hp at a time. Stick shifts are supposed to be hard on cranks as well.... and mine gets lauched WFO with the nitrous on.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]
[addsig]

I had a Romac on my 331 and plan to put one on my 408.

The controversy over Fluidamper has been around for awhile. But from what I hear, most of the aftermarket crank makers don't recommend them.

FWIW, I got this little tidbit off of the HC50 forums. Tom Lieb is from SCAT Crankshafts.

"Tom Lieb gave us some great (though sure to be controversial) information about a subject directly related to the crankshaft and its survival in a race engine: vibration dampers. He was quick to point out that a very common cause of crankshaft failure is using the wrong damper, and is especially leery of any damper that has moving parts. "A damper is supposed to balance an engine. How can you do that when you have something moving on the damper?"
Lieb went on to say "Any damper with moving parts, whether it is fluid or mechanical, is not recommended in a drag race engine. Anything that moves in the damper has inertia. When you quickly accelerate or decelerate the engine, that moving part of the damper slams one way or another and puts a lot of stress on the crankshaft. For an engine that runs in a very narrow rpm band and with very little change in engine speed, like an 18-wheeler or a car that drives on the highway at a constant speed, a damper with moving parts is fine, because it will find the frequency at a constant rpm and dampen the vibrations. But with a drag race engine that
accelerates and decelerates fiercely, the engine will only have certain vibrations for a millisecond." For a drag racing engine, Lieb recommends the lightest, smallest damper possible, with an elastomer-type construction. "The rubber will sit there and hum, but it won't change location."

I don't claim to be an engineer or have a load of experience with failed cranks. And I've never used a Fluidamper.

Having said that, what Lieb says makes sense to me.


[addsig]

Had a Romac on one of my 408's about three years ago and loved it. Planning on getting one more in the next 6 months.
[addsig]