Big Joe - rod/stroke b.s.

wow nobody mentioned the rod angle or the side loads on the cylinder walls and pistons.

Originally Posted by 68sportcoup

wow nobody mentioned the rod angle or the side loads on the cylinder walls and pistons.

Because it is a non issue unless running a 7500+ engine...

Originally Posted by 68sportcoup

wow nobody mentioned the rod angle or the side loads on the cylinder walls and pistons.

So when I said:

2. The longer rod engine has less rod angle and less friction. The difference in side loading between 1 or 2 degrees, say 17 and 18 degrees or 17 and 19 degrees is 5.5% and 11%, respectively. A piston with a larger skirt will help to spread this load out more.
3. A longer rod engine uses a shorter piston (assuming the block deck height is the same). Advantages are less reciprocating weight, less friction and less rod stress. Disadvantages are more piston rocking.

and,

The advantages are the reduced friction, better rod angle, reduced rod stress (which means less crank stress too), lighter piston....

this didn't address side loads?

OK you guys suckered me in. Once I started reading it made me actually think about it. Interesting. Now a couple of you need to take a break before your pocket protectors start smoking. What's 25 microseconds among friends?

The truly sad thing about all this stuff that has been brought up is, IT DOESNT MAKE ANY DIFFERANCE AT ALL-- The rod is only there to connect to the piston, thats all


JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

Originally Posted by BIGJOE

The truly sad thing about all this stuff that has been brought up is, IT DOESNT MAKE ANY DIFFERANCE AT ALL-- The rod is only there to connect to the piston, thats all


JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

It is sad that a discussion among friends with a mutual interest sharing ideas can't take place without an uncalled for remark. What was the point of that? No difference at all?...really? No difference to friction? No difference to rod stress? Nothing? You should build all of your engines with 3" rods and pistons with compression height of 3" and tell me how it works out. Hummmmmm

Originally Posted by blkfrd

It is sad that a discussion among friends with a mutual interest sharing ideas can't take place without an uncalled for remark. What was the point of that? No difference at all?...really? No difference to friction? No difference to rod stress? Nothing? You should build all of your engines with 3" rods and pistons with compression height of 3" and tell me how it works out. Hummmmmm

You speak about theorical differences (why not), but in real street/strip engines world, side load, friction, rod stress of little R/S ratio are non issues (if engine is well builded...).
More, the cylinder filling is better with little R/S ratio.
What really matter is practical...

Originally Posted by teyerdhal

You speak about theorical differences (why not), but in real street/strip engines world, side load, friction, rod stress of little R/S ratio are non issues (if engine is well builded...).
More, the cylinder filling is better with little R/S ratio.
What really matter is practical...

Your preaching to the choir.

I'm about as practical as they get, but this does not stop me from discussing ideas. As I mentioned in other posts, when I saw how little the effects of a shorter 5.155 rod had on the motion of the piston for a 331 vs the typical 5.4 rod, I said to myself that I should go forward with building it (why is a whole story upon itself).

I will say this though...some people may say some things have little effect, but when you take a bunch of these little things and add them together, suddenly you have something significant. 5 HP here, 10 HP there, 7 more HP here, etc. All the little things I did on my 331 resulted in a street engine that makes anywhere from 420 to 430 HP with ported ford iron...how about them apples? What would people say if I told them that I decided to make the engine strip only and with a few mods and "little" things now it is making nearly 500 HP?

Little things, i've learned personally and professionally, are what can make a big difference.

Nothing personal about anyone, but this is my philosophy in just about everything I do...just is

Originally Posted by blkfrd

It is sad that a discussion among friends with a mutual interest sharing ideas can't take place without an uncalled for remark. What was the point of that? No difference at all?...really? No difference to friction? No difference to rod stress? Nothing? You should build all of your engines with 3" rods and pistons with compression height of 3" and tell me how it works out. Hummmmmm

Joe simply stated what he has learned through his countless years of building and dynoing race winning engines.

I know, you, as an engineer like to discuss all the theoretical possibilities, but Joe has been out there doing this stuff for decades. If he doesn't see significant gains by changing rod lengths within the limits of what is a generally done in a given engine, I'm glad he says so.

Tracy, coming on here and bashing a MASTER in the business because he doesn't want to discuss "theoretical differnces" with you doesn't make him a bad person. He stated what his years of experience have showed him, and that was that. He didn't say a single word to any individual person out here. YOU are the one who got his panties in a wad.

When certain people talk, it's best to just LISTEN, and take what you can from it. Joe is DEFINITELY a person most of us can learn from. DON'T RUN HIM OFF! That sort of thing happens FAR too often on discussion forums. Be thankful he's here to share his experiences, and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by n2omike

Joe simply stated what he has learned through his countless years of building and dynoing race winning engines.

I know, you, as an engineer like to discuss all the theoretical possibilities, but Joe has been out there doing this stuff for decades. If he doesn't see significant gains by changing rod lengths within the limits of what is a generally done in a given engine, I'm glad he says so.

Tracy, coming on here and bashing a MASTER in the business because he doesn't want to discuss "theoretical differnces" with you doesn't make him a bad person. He stated what his years of experience have showed him, and that was that. He didn't say a single word to any individual person out here. YOU are the one who got his panties in a wad.

When certain people talk, it's best to just LISTEN, and take what you can from it. Joe is DEFINITELY a person most of us can learn from. DON'T RUN HIM OFF! That sort of thing happens FAR too often on discussion forums. Be thankful he's here to share his experiences, and leave it at that.

Sorry man...I disagree. Read his post again and tell me how that adds anything to the discussion at hand and why you are defending that. Personally, I don't care for his style of posts in many cases...very short with little or no explanation. This entire thread is spawned because he said something in this manner. None of this bothers me all that much except why sharing ideas is called "sad" just because the topic really does not have much effect. I was quick to point out in this thread earlier that the effects seem to be small so Joe and I agree.

It's great that Joe is here, but regardless of who said it, it was uncalled for and totally unnecessary.