Daryl wrote:
>On 5/8/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>> John is a *massive* pedant who takes obvious delight in frivolous detail.
>>
>>
>>
>Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>much better with the practical side of things.

Was Les a pedant? :)

More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.

Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
is what engineers are paid for. Considerably more than mechanics I
might add.

--
John H

Xeno wrote:
>On 5/8/2022 3:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 5/08/2022 2:19 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was there ever any doubt? Even *basic calculations* on simple concepts,
>>>> like air flow, are way beyond his ken. Darren can't even work out why a
>>>> 350 CI engine at 6,500 RPM can't possibly *flow* any more than a
>>>> theoretical 750 CFM @ 100% VE and, given that VE in a stock engine is
>>>> less than 100%, typically 80-85%, even a 750 CFM carb is way too
>>>> optimistic and a 600 CFM unit will do the job more than adequately. Hey,
>>>> even the Holley website agrees with me and they make the carbs Darren
>>>> used in his bullshit example, the 1150 Dominator.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>
>>> To take the flow topic a little further... Noddy even claimed that
>>> simple fuel injection offered no performance advantage over state of
>>> the art carburettors (Lucas Mk2 vs Weber DCOE).
>>
>> Really? And where did I claim that? I'd ask you to cite the post, but I
>> already know you'll avoid doing so. Sounds like your level of bullshit
>> is rapidly approaching FLC minimum requirements :)

When you claimed that replacing the Lucas system with DCOE Webers
wouldn't reduce the performance, or change the fuel octane
requirements. The selective memory is all yours.

>Nobody could ever match your level of bullshit Darren. You are
>definitely the master of bullshit! Your only claim to fame!
>>
>>> Bernoulli's principle says otherwise... and the difference is
>>> considerable.
>>
>> ROTFL :) Bernoilli's principle has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>> *type* of induction system, but the flow *through* it. For fuck's sake :)
>
>Hmmm. Haven't studied carburettors at all, have you Darren? Nor does it
>appear you have studied fuel injection systems - with or without
>throttle bodies. I've said it before - often - but it needs to be
>repeated - you don't know what you don't know. And there's a lot you
>don't know.

It's the venturis that soak up energy... same effect that gives fix
winged aircraft lift (as you mentioned before).

Which is but one of the reasons why the early mechanical injection
systems typically gave a 30% power increase over carbs. Modern EFI
systems are essential for precise mixture control but they still have
a considerable power advantage over carbs, for exactly the same
reasons.

--
John H

Daryl wrote:
>On 6/8/2022 7:37 am, John_H wrote:
>
>> So how on earth can maximum power output affect acceleration
>> throughout the useable speed range of any particular gear?
>
>Who said anything about maximum power, depends a lot on what engine we
>are talking about, some have decent power throughout the rpm range,
>others don't.

You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
acceleration in top gear.

>The best acceleration is usually in the rev range between max torque and
>max power.

No it isn't. Maximum acceleration, in any gear, coincides with
maximum torque!

--
John H

On 6/08/2022 11:11 am, JONZ wrote:
> On 8/6/2022 10:27 AM, Clocky wrote:

>> What you "like" is irrelevant because they *are* horizontally opposed
>> engines.
>>
>> Good lord it's worse than I thought...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  Sure is. only a loser, desperate to *prove something, ANYTHING* would
> have scrawled this pedantic rant!.

You know how much he likes wearing the Sheriff's badge. Interestingly
though, he *never* seems to have enough balls to to flash it around and
play netcop whenever his mate Clasener makes a complete and utter cunt
out of himself.

Like he did when he claimed that the feel of unboosted brakes can
accurately be simulated by disconnecting the vacuum supply on a boosted
brake system for example....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Daryl wrote:

> You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
> support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
> acceleration in top gear.

You cannot help yourself, can you? You are *absolutely* full of shit and
apparently hell bent on inventing whatever crap you like in order to
make yourself look like less of an idiot than you already have.

I never said that power to weight is what determines acceleration in top
gear, and in fact I invite you to give yourself a modicum of credibility
by citing the post where you claim I actually did. What I *did* do was
object to your claim that torque at the wheels was solely responsible
for acceleration in any gear and that power to weight has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with it. A claim which is absolutely fucking
ridiculous.

What you've claimed I said here is something you've invented which is
absolutely false, and I find this to be quite remarkable behaviour
coming from someone who once had *such* a hissy fit in claiming that I
attributed false comments to him the way I trimmed posts that he would
put me in his killfile if I continued to do it.

Something that never actually happened. Right John?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Daryl wrote:

>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>> much better with the practical side of things.
>
> Was Les a pedant? :)
>
> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>
> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
> is what engineers are paid for. Considerably more than mechanics I
> might add.

Interesting post, and one that begs the question, which would be "How
would you know?"

Do you have any automotive qualifications, or have you ever worked in
the automotive field in any capacity? I know you've mentioned working
for "Govco" years ago, and I think you're a farmer these days, but It's
only just occurred to me that you've never actually mentioned much about
what you've done and/or your experience which has got me wondering how
you can have such authoritative opinions about all things automotive.

Just curious.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Xeno wrote:

>>>> To take the flow topic a little further... Noddy even claimed that
>>>> simple fuel injection offered no performance advantage over state of
>>>> the art carburettors (Lucas Mk2 vs Weber DCOE).
>>>
>>> Really? And where did I claim that? I'd ask you to cite the post, but I
>>> already know you'll avoid doing so. Sounds like your level of bullshit
>>> is rapidly approaching FLC minimum requirements :)
>
> When you claimed that replacing the Lucas system with DCOE Webers
> wouldn't reduce the performance, or change the fuel octane
> requirements. The selective memory is all yours.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory and cite the post and show where I
claimed that? Be interesting to see just how much paraphrasing you do :)

> It's the venturis that soak up energy... same effect that gives fix
> winged aircraft lift (as you mentioned before).
>
> Which is but one of the reasons why the early mechanical injection
> systems typically gave a 30% power increase over carbs.

Is that right?

Can you give us an example of a mechanical injection system that offered
a 30% HP boost over a carburetor system of the same CFM flow rate?

> Modern EFI systems are essential for precise mixture control but they still have
> a considerable power advantage over carbs, for exactly the same
> reasons.

I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you're a troll :)

Modern fuel injection systems do a fantastic job of tailoring the fuel
charge for the engine at any point in the engine's operating range
precisely, which is something carburettors can never do. Carburettors
have a "sweet spot", but either side of that they're considerably less
than ideal. The advantage this precise fuel control offers EFI systems
is that better manifolding can be employed that works more efficiently
over a a much wider rpm range than permits driveability and power output
advantages to the average car that would never be possible with a
carburettor.

But it's not just manifolding. Delivering a precise fuel load in a
perfectly atomised state is the single biggest advantage EFI has over
any carburettor, and which is where most of your power output increase
comes from and you can see that perfectly well in dyno tests between an
engine tested with a well tuned 4 barrel carburettor and a throttle body
injector like a Holley Sniper. In these "all else being equal" tests the
injector system *always* comes out on top on the dyno pull because it's
able to deliver a more precise fuel load in a more efficient state, but
the differences are not huge. 20hp will be a big jump, and one which
suggests the carb isn't as on song as it should be. With a perfectly
tuned carb the difference might be under 10hp in favour of the injector
which is purely down to fuel metering and nothing else.

Where a *big* difference is felt is in driveability. Engines that swap
from carb to throttle body injectors see instant improvements in off
idle crispness, low rpm driveability, wide open throttle performance,
you name it. A carburettor simply cannot compete.

It has nothing to do with injection systems offering a better airflow
path, but the *amount* of airflow in conjunction with the ability to
deliver an accurately measured shot of fuel, and claiming that injection
systems deliver more power because they have a better ability to flow
air by design is a complete nonsense.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/8/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> John is a *massive* pedant who takes obvious delight in frivolous detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>> much better with the practical side of things.
>
> Was Les a pedant? :)

At times:-)
>
> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.

I was working with him building a wine cellar in a house project he was
doing, we were doing the steel reinforcement for one of the concrete
beams and I asked why most of the steel was put in the bottom of the
beam and not the top, what followed was a 45min lecture on the
properties of a concrete beam, unless I have a lot of time to spare I
don't ask engineering questions any more:-)

>
> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick,

True and they don't always need to, they just need to know how to do
their job.

which
> is what engineers are paid for.

True again, my former next door neighbor was a mechanical engineer at
Ford, good at this job but it wasn't unusual for him to get stuck
working on his car so he would knock on my door and ask for help.

Considerably more than mechanics I
> might add.
>
Not always, mates son in law is a diesel mechanic, FIFO in WA, last time
I asked he was earning around $250k PA.

--
Daryl

On 6/8/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 3:35 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 5/08/2022 2:19 pm, John_H wrote:
>>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Was there ever any doubt? Even *basic calculations* on simple concepts,
>>>>> like air flow, are way beyond his ken. Darren can't even work out why a
>>>>> 350 CI engine at 6,500 RPM can't possibly *flow* any more than a
>>>>> theoretical 750 CFM @ 100% VE and, given that VE in a stock engine is
>>>>> less than 100%, typically 80-85%, even a 750 CFM carb is way too
>>>>> optimistic and a 600 CFM unit will do the job more than adequately. Hey,
>>>>> even the Holley website agrees with me and they make the carbs Darren
>>>>> used in his bullshit example, the 1150 Dominator.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>>
>>>> To take the flow topic a little further... Noddy even claimed that
>>>> simple fuel injection offered no performance advantage over state of
>>>> the art carburettors (Lucas Mk2 vs Weber DCOE).
>>>
>>> Really? And where did I claim that? I'd ask you to cite the post, but I
>>> already know you'll avoid doing so. Sounds like your level of bullshit
>>> is rapidly approaching FLC minimum requirements :)
>
> When you claimed that replacing the Lucas system with DCOE Webers
> wouldn't reduce the performance, or change the fuel octane
> requirements. The selective memory is all yours.
>
>> Nobody could ever match your level of bullshit Darren. You are
>> definitely the master of bullshit! Your only claim to fame!
>>>
>>>> Bernoulli's principle says otherwise... and the difference is
>>>> considerable.
>>>
>>> ROTFL :) Bernoilli's principle has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>>> *type* of induction system, but the flow *through* it. For fuck's sake :)
>>
>> Hmmm. Haven't studied carburettors at all, have you Darren? Nor does it
>> appear you have studied fuel injection systems - with or without
>> throttle bodies. I've said it before - often - but it needs to be
>> repeated - you don't know what you don't know. And there's a lot you
>> don't know.
>
> It's the venturis that soak up energy... same effect that gives fix
> winged aircraft lift (as you mentioned before).
>
> Which is but one of the reasons why the early mechanical injection
> systems typically gave a 30% power increase over carbs. Modern EFI
> systems are essential for precise mixture control but they still have
> a considerable power advantage over carbs, for exactly the same
> reasons.
>

The power gain is more complex than just what meters the fuel, intake
runner design and length make a big difference as does head/combustion
chamber design plus exhaust design.
Doesn't surprise me that an early EFI could give a big power increase
especially if the designers put a lot more effort into the engine intake
and exhaust designs, if you look at the intake and exhaust design on a
lot of early engines they were pretty crude so it wouldn't take much to
improve them.
Also depends on what you want the engine to behave like, if you just
want max power at high rpm in a limited rev range you can get as much if
not more with carbies but for overall driveability and smoother power
delivery throughout the rev range EFI is by far the better choice.

--
Daryl

On 6/8/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/8/2022 7:37 am, John_H wrote:
>>
>>> So how on earth can maximum power output affect acceleration
>>> throughout the useable speed range of any particular gear?
>>
>> Who said anything about maximum power, depends a lot on what engine we
>> are talking about, some have decent power throughout the rpm range,
>> others don't.
>
> You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
> support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
> acceleration in top gear.
>
>> The best acceleration is usually in the rev range between max torque and
>> max power.
>
> No it isn't.

Best go tell that to race car drivers, should they just upshift when
they reach max torque and wonder why everyone else kept accelerating
straight past them?

--
Daryl

On 6/08/2022 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>>> much better with the practical side of things.
>>
>> Was Les a pedant?  :)
>>
>> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
>> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>>
>> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
>> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
>> is what engineers are paid for.  Considerably more than mechanics I
>> might add.
>
> Interesting post, and one that begs the question, which would be "How
> would you know?"
>
> Do you have any automotive qualifications, or have you ever worked in
> the automotive field in any capacity? I know you've mentioned working
> for "Govco" years ago, and I think you're a farmer these days, but It's
> only just occurred to me that you've never actually mentioned much about
> what you've done and/or your experience which has got me wondering how
> you can have such authoritative opinions about all things automotive.
>
> Just curious.
>
>
>
>

Why do you have such authoritative opinions when you have never been
qualified and have never worked in the trade?

Your incompetent fucking about in ignorance in that pretentious tin shed
of yours doesn't count for jack you clueless fuckwit.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 8/6/2022 11:51 AM, John_H wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>> John is a *massive* pedant who takes obvious delight in frivolous detail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>> much better with the practical side of things.
>
> Was Les a pedant? :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Les is still extant......
>
> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Surprising really, that you have been around the edges of this asylum
for years, contributing the occasional grunt!.
*Now* here ye be full bottle on *everything* from A to Z..
I guess you have taken after krypsis and Google has become your
go-to knowledge source..

>
> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
> is what engineers are paid for. Considerably more than mechanics I
> might add.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A simple reply to that:

If you don`t know how it *works/operates* you can`t *repair* it!.
>

On 8/6/2022 1:59 PM, Clocky wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 10:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>>>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>>>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>>>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>>>> much better with the practical side of things.
>>>
>>> Was Les a pedant?  :)
>>>
>>> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
>>> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>>>
>>> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
>>> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
>>> is what engineers are paid for.  Considerably more than mechanics I
>>> might add.
>>
>> Interesting post, and one that begs the question, which would be "How
>> would you know?"
>>
>> Do you have any automotive qualifications, or have you ever worked in
>> the automotive field in any capacity? I know you've mentioned working
>> for "Govco" years ago, and I think you're a farmer these days, but
>> It's only just occurred to me that you've never actually mentioned
>> much about what you've done and/or your experience which has got me
>> wondering how you can have such authoritative opinions about all
>> things automotive.
>>
>> Just curious.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Why do you have such authoritative opinions when you have never been
> qualified and have never worked in the trade?
>
> Your incompetent fucking about in ignorance in that pretentious tin shed
> of yours doesn't count for jack you clueless fuckwit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Try a few doses of Andrews, might help to get the shit off yer liver,
(Tho I think it`s there to stay.)
Is this all because yer *Very,Very* jealous of his *excellent* shop
setup?. (might have try something *other* than Andrews for that ailment
but!..) Ciao chuckles. :)))

>
>

On 6/8/2022 2:41 pm, JONZ wrote:
> On 8/6/2022 11:51 AM, John_H wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> John is a *massive* pedant who takes obvious delight in frivolous
>>>> detail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>>> much better with the practical side of things.
>>
>> Was Les a pedant?  :)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Les is still extant......
>>
>> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
>> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  Surprising really, that you have been around the edges of this asylum
> for years, contributing the occasional grunt!.
>   *Now* here ye be full bottle on *everything* from A to Z..
>      I guess you have taken after krypsis and Google has become your
> go-to knowledge source..
>
>>
>> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
>> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
>> is what engineers are paid for.  Considerably more than mechanics I
>> might add.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  A simple reply to that:
>
>     If you don`t know how it *works/operates* you can`t *repair* it!.
>>
>
>
Yes and no, do you need to know about the physics of energy transfer to
change a set of brake pads?
Do you need to know about a clutches coefficient of friction to replace
it with a new one?
If you are an employee mechanic and your boss tells you to do a job do
you need to know the science behind it to do your job?
Its certainly helpful to understand the basics but it isn't always
necessary to just get the job done.

--
Daryl

On 6/08/2022 3:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/8/2022 2:41 pm, JONZ wrote:

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>   A simple reply to that:
>>
>>      If you don`t know how it *works/operates* you can`t *repair* it!.
>>>
>>
>>
> Yes and no, do you need to know about the physics of energy transfer to
> change a set of brake pads?
> Do you need to know about a clutches coefficient of friction to replace
> it with a new one?
> If you are an employee mechanic and your boss tells you to do a job do
> you need to know the science behind it to do your job?
> Its certainly helpful to understand the basics but it isn't always
> necessary to just get the job done.

This is true, and a fair point. You don't need to understand the science
behind what makes something work to appreciate the *function* of it
working in practice. What Jonz seems to be talking about is
understanding the operation of the process as opposed to the science
that makes the operation possible and your case of the brake pads and
clutch are good examples. You don't need to have a detailed
understanding of coefficients of friction between different materials to
appreciate that it is friction itself and the mechanism that causes it
that makes the brake pads or clutch plate do their job.

The same thing can be said of many different tasks. For example, one
does not need to be a chemical engineer to understand the basics of
paint, and how you should go about successfully applying it.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 6/8/2022 12:11 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>>> much better with the practical side of things.
>>
>> Was Les a pedant?  :)
>>
>> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
>> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>>
>> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
>> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
>> is what engineers are paid for.  Considerably more than mechanics I
>> might add.
>
> Interesting post, and one that begs the question, which would be "How
> would you know?"
>
> Do you have any automotive qualifications, or have you ever worked in

Darren, *you* are the absolute *last* person to be *questioning*
anyone's credentials, most especially since all your *claimed
credentials* are as fake and fraudulent as you are.

> the automotive field in any capacity? I know you've mentioned working
> for "Govco" years ago, and I think you're a farmer these days, but It's
> only just occurred to me that you've never actually mentioned much about
> what you've done and/or your experience which has got me wondering how
> you can have such authoritative opinions about all things automotive.

Go on Darren, ask John to prove his claims. That will make you the
world's greatest hypocrite - bar none!
>
> Just curious.

Oh yeah! ROTFLMFAO

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>
>>>>> To take the flow topic a little further... Noddy even claimed that
>>>>> simple fuel injection offered no performance advantage over state of
>>>>> the art carburettors (Lucas Mk2 vs Weber DCOE).
>>>>
>>>> Really? And where did I claim that? I'd ask you to cite the post, but I
>>>> already know you'll avoid doing so. Sounds like your level of bullshit
>>>> is rapidly approaching FLC minimum requirements :)
>>
>> When you claimed that replacing the Lucas system with DCOE Webers
>> wouldn't reduce the performance, or change the fuel octane
>> requirements.  The selective memory is all yours.
>
> Perhaps you could refresh my memory and cite the post and show where I
> claimed that? Be interesting to see just how much paraphrasing you do :)
>
>> It's the venturis that soak up energy... same effect that gives fix
>> winged aircraft lift (as you mentioned before).
>>
>> Which is but one of the reasons why the early mechanical injection
>> systems typically gave a 30% power increase over carbs.
>
> Is that right?
>
> Can you give us an example of a mechanical injection system that offered
> a 30% HP boost over a carburetor system of the same CFM flow rate?
>
>> Modern EFI systems are essential for precise mixture control but they
>> still have
>> a considerable power advantage over carbs, for exactly the same
>> reasons.
>
> I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you're a troll :)
>
> Modern fuel injection systems do a fantastic job of tailoring the fuel
> charge for the engine at any point in the engine's operating range
> precisely, which is something carburettors can never do. Carburettors
> have a "sweet spot", but either side of that they're considerably less
> than ideal. The advantage this precise fuel control offers EFI systems
> is that better manifolding can be employed that works more efficiently
> over a a much wider rpm range than permits driveability and power output
> advantages to the average car that would never be possible with a
> carburettor.
>
> But it's not just manifolding. Delivering a precise fuel load in a
> perfectly atomised state is the single biggest advantage EFI has over
> any carburettor, and which is where most of your power output increase
> comes from and you can see that perfectly well in dyno tests between an
> engine tested with a well tuned 4 barrel carburettor and a throttle body
> injector like a Holley Sniper. In these "all else being equal" tests the
> injector system *always* comes out on top on the dyno pull because it's
> able to deliver a more precise fuel load in a more efficient state, but
> the differences are not huge. 20hp will be a big jump, and one which
> suggests the carb isn't as on song as it should be. With a perfectly
> tuned carb the difference might be under 10hp in favour of the injector
> which is purely down to fuel metering and nothing else.
>
> Where a *big* difference is felt is in driveability. Engines that swap
> from carb to throttle body injectors see instant improvements in off
> idle crispness, low rpm driveability, wide open throttle performance,
> you name it. A carburettor simply cannot compete.

Do you actually have a clue why that is so? From your blurb above it
would appear you parrot the *words* of others without a clue as to their
meaning or, for that matter, the underlying principles.
>
> It has nothing to do with injection systems offering a better airflow
> path, but the *amount* of airflow in conjunction with the ability to

You're close but you still don't get it. Paraphrasing others again
obviously.

> deliver an accurately measured shot of fuel, and claiming that injection
> systems deliver more power because they have a better ability to flow
> air by design is a complete nonsense.

I was mistaken, you're not close. You have no clue what the fundamental
difference is - and you never will.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 1:55 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/8/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2022 7:37 am, John_H wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how on earth can maximum power output affect acceleration
>>>> throughout the useable speed range of any particular gear?
>>>
>>> Who said anything about maximum power, depends a lot on what engine we
>>> are talking about, some have decent power throughout the rpm range,
>>> others don't.
>>
>> You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
>> support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
>> acceleration in top gear.
>>
>>> The best acceleration is usually in the rev range between max torque and
>>> max power.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> Best go tell that to race car drivers, should they just upshift when
> they reach max torque and wonder why everyone else kept accelerating
> straight past them?
>
I suggest you have a chat to a driveline engineer and have them explain
it all to you. Your *intimation* above is unmitigated bullshit and serve
no more useful purpose than to muddy the water. It does show you have no
understanding of the concept of gearing and what the *engineers* are
aiming for. Should I mention, the CVT is an attempt to address the
issue. Nah, too complex for you.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 3:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 6/8/2022 2:41 pm, JONZ wrote:
>> On 8/6/2022 11:51 AM, John_H wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John is a *massive* pedant who takes obvious delight in frivolous
>>>>> detail.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Possibly or it could be just the way he was trained.
>>>> Les and I work together all the time, I'm a mechanic and Les is an
>>>> engineer, we quite often have different thoughts/ideas on how to go
>>>> about doing some jobs, he is much better with theory than me but I am
>>>> much better with the practical side of things.
>>>
>>> Was Les a pedant?  :)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Les is still extant......
>>>
>>> More than likely he couldn't be bothered trying to explain the theory
>>> which would've been akin to banging his head against the wall.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>   Surprising really, that you have been around the edges of this
>> asylum for years, contributing the occasional grunt!.
>>    *Now* here ye be full bottle on *everything* from A to Z..
>>       I guess you have taken after krypsis and Google has become your
>> go-to knowledge source..
>>
>>>
>>> Mechanics might know how to fix cars (some of 'em at least) but it
>>> doesn't logically follow that they all know what makes 'em tick, which
>>> is what engineers are paid for.  Considerably more than mechanics I
>>> might add.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>   A simple reply to that:
>>
>>      If you don`t know how it *works/operates* you can`t *repair* it!.
>>>
>>
>>
> Yes and no, do you need to know about the physics of energy transfer to
> change a set of brake pads?

Yes if you want to diagnose. Yes if you want to truly understand what
you are doing. Yes if you want to *improve performance*. Which is why
you found your vocation in cleaning. Well done!

> Do you need to know about a clutches coefficient of friction to replace
> it with a new one?

Yes if you want to *race* the car and need to *redesign* for a new role.

> If you are an employee mechanic and your boss tells you to do a job do
> you need to know the science behind it to do your job?

Yes, just as much as you need to understand the *mechanical principles*
involved. Don't understand those, then you're just a *parts fitter* and
you leave the diagnosing to those who do understand the principles. You
seem to forget, a mechanic's role is to *diagnose and repair*. If the
mechanic diagnoses a fault, he can then get a *trades assistant* - like
Darren - to do the actual repairs. Nowhere near the technical skills
required to change the parts that someone (with a clue) has told you to
change.

> Its certainly helpful to understand the basics but it isn't always
> necessary to just get the job done.
>
Thank you for explaining to all readers here why *you left the trade*
and found your vocation in *cleaning*.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 10:27 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 5/08/2022 3:11 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 4:09 pm, John_H wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2022 1:12 pm, John_H wrote:
>>>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/08/2022 9:14 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've also managed to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that you
>>>>>>> know sfa about the torque/power relationship and how it relates to
>>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFL :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This coming from someone who claims that power to weight has nothing
>>>>>> whatsoever to do with acceleration in any gear, which surely has
>>>>>> to go
>>>>>> down as one of the most *clueless* comments ever made in this group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to provide any credible evidence to the contrary that
>>>>> doesn't include your cockeyed interpretation (or hypotheticals).
>>>>>
>>>>> Acceleration in any particular gear is dependent on torque vs engine
>>>>> rpm with the motive force being torque.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that weight makes no difference to acceleration all
>>>> else being equal?
>>>
>>> FFS. Your mate has already invoked Newton's second law which very
>>> clearly states that F=m*a.
>>>
>>> At the risk of overloading yours and his brain cells it can be
>>> rewritten as T=m*a, where T is a rotational force.
>>>
>>> It therefore follows that torque / weight (mass) is what determines
>>> acceleration (all else being equal). NOT POWER.
>>
>> Which is exactly what I have been saying, increase weight and you
>> reduce acceleration, if you want to pedantic call it torque to weight
>> instead of power to weight but since power and torque in an ICE are
>> very much related its just semantics.
>> Reminds a bit of my boss at Ford Tractors, he used to fly off the
>> handle if someone said an engine "blew up", he hated that term but
>> lots of people used that term to describe a failed engine.
>
> Engines *can* literally blow up.
>
>> I don't like boxer engines being called "horizontally opposed",
>
> They are horizontally opposed engines!
>
> when I
>> hear that term I think of Commer engines that were true horizontally
>> opposed engines,
>
> They are *opposed piston* engines you twit.

Yeah, hard to have opposed cylinders, there's only one per pair of pistons.
>
> despite what I dislike even some car manufacturers like
>> Subaru call their engines horizontally opposed, its just semantics.
>>
>
> What you "like" is irrelevant because they *are* horizontally opposed
> engines.
>
> Good lord it's worse than I thought...

Yes, unbelievable, isn't it.
>
>>>
>>>> Take 2 identical cars driving at the same speed in the same gear, one
>>>> only has a driver onboard whilst the other has 3 large passengers and a
>>>> boot full of luggage, will they still accelerate at the same rate?
>>>
>>> Of course they won't..
>>
>> So weight does affect acceleration:-)
>>>
>>>> I could certainly notice a difference in top gear acceleration in the
>>>> DAF semi from empty to having a 10tonne load.
>>>
>>> Now you know why... or at least you should.  :)
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 3:32 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 3:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/8/2022 2:41 pm, JONZ wrote:
>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>   A simple reply to that:
>>>
>>>      If you don`t know how it *works/operates* you can`t *repair* it!.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes and no, do you need to know about the physics of energy transfer
>> to change a set of brake pads?
>> Do you need to know about a clutches coefficient of friction to
>> replace it with a new one?
>> If you are an employee mechanic and your boss tells you to do a job do
>> you need to know the science behind it to do your job?
>> Its certainly helpful to understand the basics but it isn't always
>> necessary to just get the job done.
>
> This is true, and a fair point. You don't need to understand the science
> behind what makes something work to appreciate the *function* of it
> working in practice. What Jonz seems to be talking about is
> understanding the operation of the process as opposed to the science
> that makes the operation possible and your case of the brake pads and
> clutch are good examples. You don't need to have a detailed
> understanding of coefficients of friction between different materials to
> appreciate that it is friction itself and the mechanism that causes it
> that makes the brake pads or clutch plate do their job.

Well that makes it clear why you have no clue how things operate.
Richmond Tech left you singularly unprepared for a foray into the
automotive trade - and explains why you've been nothing but a pimple on
the arse of the motor trade ever since.
>
> The same thing can be said of many different tasks. For example, one
> does not need to be a chemical engineer to understand the basics of
> paint, and how you should go about successfully applying it.
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 6/8/2022 12:05 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>
>> You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
>> support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
>> acceleration in top gear.
>
> You cannot help yourself, can you? You are *absolutely* full of shit and
> apparently hell bent on inventing whatever crap you like in order to
> make yourself look like less of an idiot than you already have.

And here it is, Darren going into his favourite mode and *attacking the
poster*. Hey Darren, why don't you *prove John wrong* if you reckon you
know it all. A nice detailed explanation please - without your usual
vitriol and invective - if you can manage that.

While you're at it, how about you prove you aren't a fake and a fraud by
fronting up with some *verifiable* proof of your claims to be dual trade
qualified. We know your claim to have owned Noddy's Automotive of Altona
is fake, so fake even the government records know nothing about it. But
then, government records know nothing about your claimed trade
qualifications either. Why is that Darren?
>
> I never said that power to weight is what determines acceleration in top
> gear, and in fact I invite you to give yourself a modicum of credibility

You? Inviting *anyone* to give themselves a *modicum of credibility*???

Hahahahahahhahahahah

Look in the mirror first Darren. Start with the person you see there!

How about *you* give yourself a *modicum of credibility* by fronting up
with proof of *your grandiose claims*. Start with your claimed
qualifications and work outwards from there. Over to you Darren!

> by citing the post where you claim I actually did. What I *did* do was
> object to your claim that torque at the wheels was solely responsible
> for acceleration in any gear and that power to weight has absolutely
> nothing whatsoever to do with it. A claim which is absolutely fucking
> ridiculous.
>
> What you've claimed I said here is something you've invented which is
> absolutely false, and I find this to be quite remarkable behaviour
> coming from someone who once had *such* a hissy fit in claiming that I
> attributed false comments to him the way I trimmed posts that he would
> put me in his killfile if I continued to do it.
>
> Something that never actually happened. Right John?

You always incorrectly trimmed posts Darren, and continue to do so to
this day!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/6/2022 3:58 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 6/8/2022 1:55 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 6/8/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2022 7:37 am, John_H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So how on earth can maximum power output affect acceleration
>>>>> throughout the useable speed range of any particular gear?
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about maximum power, depends a lot on what engine we
>>>> are talking about, some have decent power throughout the rpm range,
>>>> others don't.
>>>
>>> You mate quoted, or should that be fudged, maximum power figures in
>>> support of his illogical argument that power weight is what determines
>>> acceleration in top gear.
>>>
>>>> The best acceleration is usually in the rev range between max torque
>>>> and
>>>> max power.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> Best go tell that to race car drivers, should they just upshift when
>> they reach max torque and wonder why everyone else kept accelerating
>> straight past them?
>>
> I suggest you have a chat to a driveline engineer and have them explain
> it all to you. Your *intimation* above
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing *intimated*, he made a true statement.!!

is unmitigated bullshit and serve
> no more useful purpose than to muddy the water.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Altz takes many forms,

It does show you have no
> understanding of the concept of gearing and what the *engineers* are
> aiming for. Should I mention, the CVT is an attempt to address the
> issue. Nah, too complex for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You, you cur, are simply a muck raking oxygen thieving *cunt*...You
couldn`t lie straight in bed. FOAD!!!

The sad part is your "life" is such a fuck up, the only way you can
get yer jollies PFfffttt.
>
>

On 6/08/2022 4:58 pm, JONZ wrote:
> On 8/6/2022 3:58 PM, Xeno wrote:

>  It does show you have no
>> understanding of the concept of gearing and what the *engineers* are
>> aiming for. Should I mention, the CVT is an attempt to address the
>> issue. Nah, too complex for you.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  You, you cur, are simply a muck raking oxygen thieving *cunt*...You
> couldn`t lie straight in bed. FOAD!!!
>
>  The sad part is your "life" is such a fuck up, the only way you can
> get yer jollies PFfffttt.

And never a truer word was spoken.

How many posts has the attention whoring cunt of a thing made today, and
how many of them have done *anything* other than make a shit-tonne of
noise while producing zero signal?

Story of it's pathetic life really. Him and Krypsis :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/6/2022 3:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 6/8/2022 12:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 6/08/2022 11:51 am, John_H wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>>>> To take the flow topic a little further... Noddy even claimed that
>>>>>> simple fuel injection offered no performance advantage over state of
>>>>>> the art carburettors (Lucas Mk2 vs Weber DCOE).
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? And where did I claim that? I'd ask you to cite the post,
>>>>> but I
>>>>> already know you'll avoid doing so. Sounds like your level of bullshit
>>>>> is rapidly approaching FLC minimum requirements :)
>>>
>>> When you claimed that replacing the Lucas system with DCOE Webers
>>> wouldn't reduce the performance, or change the fuel octane
>>> requirements.  The selective memory is all yours.
>>
>> Perhaps you could refresh my memory and cite the post and show where I
>> claimed that? Be interesting to see just how much paraphrasing you do :)
>>
>>> It's the venturis that soak up energy... same effect that gives fix
>>> winged aircraft lift (as you mentioned before).
>>>
>>> Which is but one of the reasons why the early mechanical injection
>>> systems typically gave a 30% power increase over carbs.
>>
>> Is that right?
>>
>> Can you give us an example of a mechanical injection system that
>> offered a 30% HP boost over a carburetor system of the same CFM flow
>> rate?
>>
>>> Modern EFI systems are essential for precise mixture control but they
>>> still have
>>> a considerable power advantage over carbs, for exactly the same
>>> reasons.
>>
>> I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you're a troll :)
>>
>> Modern fuel injection systems do a fantastic job of tailoring the fuel
>> charge for the engine at any point in the engine's operating range
>> precisely, which is something carburettors can never do. Carburettors
>> have a "sweet spot", but either side of that they're considerably less
>> than ideal. The advantage this precise fuel control offers EFI systems
>> is that better manifolding can be employed that works more efficiently
>> over a a much wider rpm range than permits driveability and power
>> output advantages to the average car that would never be possible with
>> a carburettor.
>>
>> But it's not just manifolding. Delivering a precise fuel load in a
>> perfectly atomised state is the single biggest advantage EFI has over
>> any carburettor, and which is where most of your power output increase
>> comes from and you can see that perfectly well in dyno tests between
>> an engine tested with a well tuned 4 barrel carburettor and a throttle
>> body injector like a Holley Sniper. In these "all else being equal"
>> tests the injector system *always* comes out on top on the dyno pull
>> because it's able to deliver a more precise fuel load in a more
>> efficient state, but the differences are not huge. 20hp will be a big
>> jump, and one which suggests the carb isn't as on song as it should
>> be. With a perfectly tuned carb the difference might be under 10hp in
>> favour of the injector which is purely down to fuel metering and
>> nothing else.
>>
>> Where a *big* difference is felt is in driveability. Engines that swap
>> from carb to throttle body injectors see instant improvements in off
>> idle crispness, low rpm driveability, wide open throttle performance,
>> you name it. A carburettor simply cannot compete.
>
> Do you actually have a clue why that is so? From your blurb above it
> would appear you parrot the *words* of others without a clue as to their
> meaning or, for that matter, the underlying principles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A clue x2, blurb, appear, parrot, words, underlying principles yada,
yada...Written as such coz you think (and i use the word advisedly) that
if you slobber all over the page with crap, you don`t have to address
any of his points above ^^^.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with injection systems offering a better airflow
>> path, but the *amount* of airflow in conjunction with the ability to
>
> You're close but you still don't get it. Paraphrasing others again
> obviously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously?.....how do you *know* that col. Blimp???
>
>> deliver an accurately measured shot of fuel, and claiming that
>> injection systems deliver more power because they have a better
>> ability to flow air by design is a complete nonsense.
>
> I was mistaken, you're not close. You have no clue what the fundamental
> difference is - and you never will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\ As above^^^. ms irrelevance. :)))

>
>