Ok Simon let me re-itterate what I have always said:
I claim very little if in fact anything is my idea or my work in the engine’s I have built/run.
I first discovered your thread on here after it had been running for while and it was actaully referencing engines of mine to qualify your postings.
Some of the informtion you posted about my engine was incorrect.
I corrected it and also dared to suggest different approaches, since, your methods are NOT the law, there are alternatives.
I got bad mouthed by you to Dave Andrews in one of your many long duration phone calls to him where you insisted I was an Effing C.
What had I done to deserve such an inuslt? Just corrected your posts about my own engine and suggested different approaches. Hardly worth that type of insult, and it will be very interesting to meet you again, when I persue your motives for the insult given that I had done nothing even vaugely offensive.
I guess you saw my postings as rubbishing your work. I was not, just correcting things you posted about me, or the development of certain parts (eg the cam you claimed to design). And also identifying (like many did) that the majority of your information is already in the public domain and well known, but it was coming across as your information. Perhaps you never intended it to be that way, but I’m afraid it read very like that was your intent.
You made many claims of high power outputs being possible from good engineering build practices, but we haven’t seen any evidence of the high outputs, only in Uldis’ engine, and that still fell short of my “hobby” acheivement substantially in terms of torque and also missed the mark on the headline power output. You also claimed to have high output engines already in existance but provided no evidence of such engines.
You may ask why you need to provide evidence. You do if you’re a new poster on a forum with no reputation or history, but one who is ready to make claims of what you’ve done.
To get the respect of forum readers you actaully need to give some respect to their not unreasonable requests for evidence to back up your postings.
I met Steve Smith before I met you. He introduced me to the idea of a heavy metal inserted crank. No reference was made to you. I happened to meet you shortly after meeting Steve and you thrust a copy of KingK into my hands and attempted to talk me into using ChromoDuro liners, not a heavy metalled crank.
When I met Steve he discussed with me idea and benefits of heavy metal inserting a crank for my engine. Later I read your KingK paper and it did explain the issue of crank balance and counterweighting, and did talk of you producing a crank with increased counter weighting. But it had no influence on my decision to heavy metal a crank. I took the advice of a recognised professional, rather than someone who had taken information from various sources and packaged into an 11 page document.
Your paper did NOT discuss heavy metal inserting the K’s standard crank, which is what Steve suggested I do.
You ask why I should bother for a hillclimb car that needs to be light. Well, as is so typical with your posts you make sweeping statements about other’s practices and requirements without actually doing any research, consequently you miss the mark.
In fact your own KingK paper discusses the lack of proper engine balancing practiced by club level competitors. Re-read your article and you may appreaciate why I want a balanced engine - for the reasons you write about, and my own!!
If you had asked me what my requirements for an engine were, you’d have learnt that it wasn’t to be the lightest, or the most powerful, but just one that didn’t require rebuilding every 10k miles (mostly road) due to liner ovalisation (and I always used Rover liners with 3-4 thou protrusion from the block deck).
I had re-ringed and linered my engine three times before building one with a heavy metal inserted crank. Enough was enough.
My car is also a road car not one that just exists for hillclimbing. Occasionally I track it and so I don’t want to build an engine that isn’t properly balanced, one that can survive road mileage and track use.
After research I found two solutions to the liner ovalisation, one was from Steve Smith to prevent the crank flex at high rpm by correctly counter balancing the crank.
The other from Scholar - to use thicker liners that were hot honed whilst being clamped with a torque plate to simulate the fitting of a head, since OEM liners are known to flex when the head is clamped to the block, so they start off oval before they’ve even had a few thousand miles of running.
I made the choice of adding over 2kg of rotational mass to the crank in the hope that I didn’t have to rebuild the engine so frequently.
There are other ways to reduce the weight of the car, and my car weighs 630kg in competition trim.
My 1.8k using the Scholar block, omega pistons, a heavy metalled standard crank and DVAPower ported head with 1444 cams slaughtered your engine that you built for Uldis using the same spec of cam and but larger valves.
I ran my engine for over 10k and it still made the power and torque shortly before I stripped it to build my 1.9K.
The block and pistons are now running well in friend’s ~200bhp Elise.
What do I claim?
- To have used a heavy metal crank before you
- To have got the idea of heavy metal insertion from someone other than you
- To have met people that you infer have reviewed your work, when in fact you have never even met them when the paper was written, and have just had a brief recent email exchange
- To be a supporter of anyone who is trying to progress the tuning of the K series
- To dislike those who are both attacking and impolite on forums - both to me and to others
SteveB