Arco gas?

Steve wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>
>>> "De-tuning" as you call it, is what we call "design margin" in
>>> engineering. Deal with it, its good for you even if you don't think
>>> so. Every automaker practices this method, otherwise there would be
>>> no such things as hot-rodders and rice-boys.
>>
>>
>> that's stupid.
>
> Is it? Quoting an interview on indycar.com....
>
> "'For the 2007 season, a 3.5-liter engine (213.6 cubic inches of
> displacement) will be used to provide longer engine life between
> rebuilds and additional mid-range torque for the varied IndyCar Series
> schedule – from street/road courses to short ovals to superspeedways.
>
> “Less stress is good for reliability, and with the goal to push the
> mileage targets higher still for 2007 this is the best solution for
> Honda and the Indy Racing League,- Honda Performance Development
> president Robert Clarke said. ”
>
>
> So it would appear that Honda engineers recognize the benefit of what
> you call "de-tuning," even in a race engine. But if you say its "stupid"
> then I guess they're wrong. How silly of them for not consulting you....

all "street engines" as you cal them are de-tuned. the point is,
detroit is much /more/ detuned. and there's a reason for it too.
cheapo crap manufacturing methods like cast cranks and 3 crank bearings
means you /have/ to de-tune.

>
>
>
>>
>> tensioners on the slack side allow timing to retard. fact.
>>
>
> True. But putting the tensioner on the taut side allows the timing to
> retard MORE, because the delta-length for the WHOLE chain or belt
> appears on the taut side, versus 1/2 or less the total delta-L if you
> tension on the back-side.

bull****. dude, you ****ed up the first time. now you're /really/
talking through your ass. timing retards with the stretch between crank
and cam on the tight side. anything else is utterly totally irrelevant.

> The change in length of the taut side ONLY is
> what alters the cam timing, so it is CATEGORICALLY STUPID to put the
> tensioner on that side. And no sensible manufacturer does it anyway, so
> I don't know why you're bleating about it.

if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the length
of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story.

>
>
>>>
>>> "Detroit" DOES use them.... when necessary (Cadillac Northstar, Ford
>>> Modular, Chrysler 2.7, 3.7, and 4.7). And it doesn't when they're
>>> unnecessary (GM LT and LS smallblocks, Chrysler 5.7 and 6.1 Hemis,
>>> all of which produce more power than 4 Hondas)
>>
>>
>> so which song do you want to sing here? - you started with no
>> tensioners. now suddenly you want to reference them as commonly used.
>> do you want it both ways?
>
> If you took time to notice that some of my engines listed above are OHC
> and others are cam-in-block, you'd look a lot less foolish in claiming
> I'm "singing a different song." I've said all along that some need
> tensioners, some don't. Where needed, "Detroit" (and Germany, and Italy,
> and Sweden, and Great Britain) use tensioners. Where not needed, they
> don't.

stop bull****ting kiddo. you said first there's no need for tensioners,
then there is - you keep changing your story like you change your mind
on the theory you don't understand.


>
> Your whole argument seems to come down to "Honda uses belts, so chains
> are stupid." Well, the high-end carmakers of the world don't agree with
> that at all or BMWs and AMG Benz's and Lamborghinis would have belts.
> They generally don't.

"generally"??? what ind of weak-ass excuse is that??? the "trend" is
away from belts because whiners like you bleat about having to change them.

fact: belts don't stretch, thus retain their timing.
fact: belts are reliable.
fact: belts don't need damping.
fact: belts induce much less rotational speed fluctuation and thus
induce less "noise" into sensor signals.

so why doesn't everybody use belts? because whiners like you bleat
about changing them!!!

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> with a chain, you have 250k of crap valve timing!
>>>
>>>
>>> BMW doesn't think so. Mercedes doesn't think so. Cadillac doesn't
>>> think so. Chrysler doesn't think so. Ford doesn't think so. Toyota
>>> doesn't think so.
>>
>>
>> they're simply making an engineering decision that because /their/
>> engines are low rev plodders,
>
> BMWs are "low-rev plodders." Intersting view of reality you've got
> there, my friend. What do you think of Lamborghinis, then?

bmw /are/ low rev plodders. honda s2000 is 9,500rpm red line from
factory. no bmw gets close. as for lamborghini, what's the life
expectancy then sport? you think the so-called "reliability" of a chain
is going to be a factor that's going to take /that/ motor up to 300k
miles? while you're checking your facts on that one, i also recommend
you look into their valve timing mechanisms and let us know whether they
bother to have a tight-side tensioner. report back when you find out.

>
>>
>> if you do care to respond steve, please try sticking to facts this
>> time. thanks so much.
>
> OK, here's a fact I'd like to know. What cam drive mechanism does the
> Honda IRL V8 engine use? IF its a belt, I sure can't see it in any
> pictures of the engine, but then maybe the engine is just shown without
> the cam drive installed. I haven't been able to google up a definitive
> answer...... but I'll bet you a donut its got a chain. :-p

see above. just like honda dropped wishbone suspension, they're
pandering to the whiners and using chains. nice little earner for the
bean counters if motors fail emissions because of timing drift and thus
need replacing sooner. but adoption doesn't change the facts - belts
are technically superior for the reasons stated above.

Steve wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> u who don't understand the concepts.
>>
>>> you can have a tensioner on either side - but it's cheaper on the
>>> slack side. if it's on the tight side, it reduces retardation as the
>>> chain stretches.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, it would cause cam ADVANCE as the chain stretches. Guess which
>> one reduces peak performance more? Advancing- because it reduces
>> horsepower an return for a little more torque right off-idle.
>
> Ouch, In my earlier haste I completely mis-stated this. A stretching
> chain or belt can never advance the *average* timing of the cam, only
> retard it. Without damping, there can be excursions of advance and
> retard, but since the cam on AVERAGE is being dragged along by the
> crank, it will lag behind the crank (retard) to whatever extent it is
> allowed to do so by the cam drive.

you should have bothered to look that up earlier before shooting your
mouth off.

>
> The drawback to putting a tensioner on the taut side is that as the cam
> drive (be it chain or belt) stretches, the added slack will be
> accumulated BETWEEN the crank and cam, maximizing the amount of retard
> by the total stretch of the belt or chain. OTOH, if you tension on the
> slack-side, the retard is minimized because all the extra length is
> carried harmlessly on the slack side,

rubbish - read the next chapter. the only stretch that matters is that
between the crank and the cam, the tight side. the rest of it can take
an excursion back up through the drivers side door column, around the
trunk and back down the local high street for all it matters to cam timing.

> and the only retard experienced is
> the delta-length of JUST the length of belt or chain on the taut side at
> any instant, which is necessarily less than 1/2 the total amount of
> stretch.

1, it's not a derivative so any "instant" thing is a red herring.
2. see above for relevance of the slack side.

bottom line, don't blow smoke up my kilt steve - i hate seeing grown men
grovel on their knees.

jim beam wrote:

>> True. But putting the tensioner on the taut side allows the timing to
>> retard MORE, because the delta-length for the WHOLE chain or belt
>> appears on the taut side, versus 1/2 or less the total delta-L if you
>> tension on the back-side.
>
>
> bull****. dude, you ****ed up the first time. now you're /really/
> talking through your ass. timing retards with the stretch between crank
> and cam on the tight side. anything else is utterly totally irrelevant.

Draw yourself a picture, you'll eventually see the important difference.
What matters is where you let the slack ACCUMULATE. You never want
that on the tension side.

>
>> The change in length of the taut side ONLY is what alters the cam
>> timing, so it is CATEGORICALLY STUPID to put the tensioner on that
>> side. And no sensible manufacturer does it anyway, so I don't know why
>> you're bleating about it.
>
>
> if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the length
> of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story.
>

You really are clueless. It MATTERS which of the chain or belt runs you
PUT the increasing slack in!! If you don't see why its silly to put the
accumulated slack in the side that DETERMINES the timing, there's no
hope in explaining it.

>
> stop bull****ting kiddo. you said first there's no need for tensioners,

On cam-in-block engines....

> then there is

On OHC engines. Just like I said from day 1.



> so why doesn't everybody use belts? because whiners like you bleat
> about changing them!!!

ROTFL!!!!

>>
>>
>> OK, here's a fact I'd like to know. What cam drive mechanism does the
>> Honda IRL V8 engine use? IF its a belt, I sure can't see it in any
>> pictures of the engine, but then maybe the engine is just shown
>> without the cam drive installed. I haven't been able to google up a
>> definitive answer...... but I'll bet you a donut its got a chain. :-p
>
>
> see above. just like honda dropped wishbone suspension, they're
> pandering to the whiners and using chains. nice little earner for the
> bean counters if motors fail emissions because of timing drift and thus
> need replacing sooner. but adoption doesn't change the facts - belts
> are technically superior for the reasons stated above.

So you think the engine custom-built for the INDY RACING LEAGUE,
contains an engineering decision made on basis of MARKET APPEAL?

This discussion is over. Its obviously been useless for days, but now
its over.

Steve wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>> True. But putting the tensioner on the taut side allows the timing to
>>> retard MORE, because the delta-length for the WHOLE chain or belt
>>> appears on the taut side, versus 1/2 or less the total delta-L if you
>>> tension on the back-side.
>>
>>
>> bull****. dude, you ****ed up the first time. now you're /really/
>> talking through your ass. timing retards with the stretch between
>> crank and cam on the tight side. anything else is utterly totally
>> irrelevant.
>
> Draw yourself a picture, you'll eventually see the important difference.
> What matters is where you let the slack ACCUMULATE. You never want that
> on the tension side.

dude, you need to go back to school and do basic trig over again.


>
>>
>>> The change in length of the taut side ONLY is what alters the cam
>>> timing, so it is CATEGORICALLY STUPID to put the tensioner on that
>>> side. And no sensible manufacturer does it anyway, so I don't know
>>> why you're bleating about it.
>>
>>
>> if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the
>> length of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story.
>>
>
> You really are clueless. It MATTERS which of the chain or belt runs you
> PUT the increasing slack in!! If you don't see why its silly to put the
> accumulated slack in the side that DETERMINES the timing, there's no
> hope in explaining it.

let me repeat:
"if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the
length of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story."

if you read that enough times, and read your engineering books and do
your trig homework, you might eventually get a clue.

>
>>
>> stop bull****ting kiddo. you said first there's no need for tensioners,
>
> On cam-in-block engines....
>
>> then there is
>
> On OHC engines. Just like I said from day 1.
>
>
>
>> so why doesn't everybody use belts? because whiners like you bleat
>> about changing them!!!
>
> ROTFL!!!!
>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, here's a fact I'd like to know. What cam drive mechanism does the
>>> Honda IRL V8 engine use? IF its a belt, I sure can't see it in any
>>> pictures of the engine, but then maybe the engine is just shown
>>> without the cam drive installed. I haven't been able to google up a
>>> definitive answer...... but I'll bet you a donut its got a chain. :-p
>>
>>
>> see above. just like honda dropped wishbone suspension, they're
>> pandering to the whiners and using chains. nice little earner for the
>> bean counters if motors fail emissions because of timing drift and
>> thus need replacing sooner. but adoption doesn't change the facts -
>> belts are technically superior for the reasons stated above.
>
> So you think the engine custom-built for the INDY RACING LEAGUE,
> contains an engineering decision made on basis of MARKET APPEAL?

of course! what part of irl using "production-based, normally-aspirated
engines" is hard to understand?

>
> This discussion is over. Its obviously been useless for days, but now
> its over.
>

if you'd bothered to get a clue, maybe you wouldn't have been making
such an ass of yourself.

Whatever. Citgo is the state-owned oil company of Venezuela not Arco. Arco
is a subsidiary of BP. They all suck.


"Slim" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-07-23 17:16:54 -0400, "claymore" > said:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> :: wrote:
>> ::
>> ::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
>> ::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
>> :::
>> ::
>> :: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
>> :: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
>> :: were still in business.
>>
>> Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
> So he can continue to provide us with a cheaper alternative to lining the
> pockets of
> Bush & Cheney's friends?
>
> --
> "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
>

Slim wrote:

> On 2007-07-23 17:16:54 -0400, "claymore" > said:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> :: wrote:
>> ::
>> ::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
>> ::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
>> :::
>> ::
>> :: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
>> :: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
>> :: were still in business.
>>
>> Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
>
> So he can continue to provide us with a cheaper alternative to lining
> the pockets of
> Bush & Cheney's friends?
>


Ain't CITGO the Chavez brand?

Besides, oil prices are set by speculators and hysteria.

Time to invoke some taut Texas rope...

JT

["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
On 2007-10-18, Scott in SoCal > wrote:

>>Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
> Since when does Venezuela own Arco?

Venezuela doesn't, the British crown does. BP bought Atlantic Richfield in
'00.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,5871580.story

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> "Paul D. DeRocco" > wrote:
>
>>> "jim beam" > wrote
>>> you measured but you don't believe it???
>> Only because I can't think of a mechanism that would explain the car feeling
>> slightly better when running on premium, but getting slightly poorer gas
>> mileage.
>
> It's your mind, fool.
>
> Here's an idea: have someone else fill up the car, but don't tell you
> what's in it.
>
> You have fooled yourself into believing that "premium gas" equals
> "better" and so you THINK the car "feels slightly better".
>
> You, sir, are a fuel marketer's dream customer.

I like the way you tell him to perform an objective test and then
comment as though you, for one, have already made up your mind. Guess
you didn't notice the contradiction there, ey?

I actually tried the experiment once. Felt better on premium, though
admittedly the difference was small and only really noticeable when
starting to accelerate from a complete stop.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven