On 21/08/2022 6:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 8:15 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/21/2022 6:07 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Explain in your own words how that engine could possibly benefit
>>>> from a 1500CFM carb below. What is your theory on this, mouth?
>>>>
>>> No no no, Darren doesn't do theory! ;-)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Oh, I'm happy to,

Do it, mouth!

but I think it would fall on deaf ears. Especially in
> light of the fact that these simpletons seem to go to some lengths to
> explain why something can't work, while ignoring the video that shows
> not only what they claim won't work actually working, but working very
> well indeed :)
>

How exactly does the video show that. Explain the theory, mouth.

> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling *so*
> much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually pulling
> fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run overly
> rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any scenario
> these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>

You really have no idea what was happening and why do you, mouth. You
clearly don't even know how carbs work.

> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
> exactly where they're wrong :)
>
>

I know exactly why those who suspected you were a fucking bullshit
artist in here over the last 25 years or so have been completely
vindicated.

As I've always said, your own words condemn you!

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

On 22/08/2022 7:42 am, alvey wrote:
> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tdpfv4$1p6bk$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 20/08/2022 10:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 19/8/2022 11:24 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> For a blown flathead where the object was street use that was a very
>>>> good acheivement and anyone who knows the things will tell you that
>>>> getting those kinds of numbers out of one is very hard work. To get
>>>> 250hp out of a normally aspirated one as those guys did was
>>>> outstanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've not had much to do with flatheads but I have noticed that they
>>> tend to be silky smooth, if you can't see the fan turning you could
>>> hardly tell they were running.
>>
>> For something that only has three main bearings they are a pretty
>> smooth little engine. It's just a shame that they don't make any
>> power. Like any other engine you can crank them up a little bit and
>> improve their output, but their design makes the law of diminishing
>> returns come into effect *very* quickly.
>>
>> I've got a mate in town who lives not all that far from you with a '36
>> Ford coupe. You may have seen it around:
>>
>>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MECBPWW
>>
>> I've done a bit of work on it over the last few years. It has it's
>> original flatty in this pic and he was contemplating having me rebuild
>> it and giving it a make-over a few years ago but instead decided to
>> switch it for an Oldsmobile Rocket which I rebuilt for him instead.
>> Big, heavy lump of cast iron that makes more power than the flatty,
>> but not a hell of a lot more :)
>>
>> This is not his engine, but it's exactly the same with the same
>> "tri-power" carb arrangement:
>>
>>> https://classiccars.com/listings/view/1088842/1957-oldsmobile-rocket-j
>>> -2-engine-for-sale-in-tulsa-oklahoma-74114
>>
>
> What an ugly and impractical car. I can only think of two uses for it.
> One, as an example in support of the pov that Americans have zero taste,
> and two, landfill.
>
>
> alvey
> Wondering how you changed a rear tyre. (Also wondering why the Fraudster
> hasn't posted any pix of him "working" on it.)
>
>

They are with his trade qualifications... somewhere in his imagination.

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

On 21/08/2022 3:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 2:35 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/20/2022 4:54 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>> Start with a sow's ear, you end up with an expensive sow's ear - but
>>>> it's still a sow's ear.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ``
>>   you wouldn`t know fuck-all about a flattie, even if one landed on
>> yer head from a great height.....
>
> His usual story.
>

Your "village idiot" can't work out how to quote properly and he's about
the only support you can muster.

Neither of you have a clue.

> He has fuck all hands on experience to relate to with *anything* he
> waffles on about, and desperately ties to mask that fact by bombarding
> the conversation with reams and reams of irrelevant theoretical bullshit
> which only serves to make him look completely clueless :)
>
>

The evidence is right there in your own video you dickhead. All that
work for that mediocre output... it's not without irony that they have
created something that looks like a marine engine from that boat anchor!

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

On 8/22/2022 9:42 AM, alvey wrote:
> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tdpfv4$1p6bk$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 20/08/2022 10:57 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 19/8/2022 11:24 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> For a blown flathead where the object was street use that was a very
>>>> good acheivement and anyone who knows the things will tell you that
>>>> getting those kinds of numbers out of one is very hard work. To get
>>>> 250hp out of a normally aspirated one as those guys did was
>>>> outstanding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've not had much to do with flatheads but I have noticed that they
>>> tend to be silky smooth, if you can't see the fan turning you could
>>> hardly tell they were running.
>>
>> For something that only has three main bearings they are a pretty
>> smooth little engine. It's just a shame that they don't make any
>> power. Like any other engine you can crank them up a little bit and
>> improve their output, but their design makes the law of diminishing
>> returns come into effect *very* quickly.
>>
>> I've got a mate in town who lives not all that far from you with a '36
>> Ford coupe. You may have seen it around:
>>
>>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MECBPWW
>>
>> I've done a bit of work on it over the last few years. It has it's
>> original flatty in this pic and he was contemplating having me rebuild
>> it and giving it a make-over a few years ago but instead decided to
>> switch it for an Oldsmobile Rocket which I rebuilt for him instead.
>> Big, heavy lump of cast iron that makes more power than the flatty,
>> but not a hell of a lot more :)
>>
>> This is not his engine, but it's exactly the same with the same
>> "tri-power" carb arrangement:
>>
>>> https://classiccars.com/listings/view/1088842/1957-oldsmobile-rocket-j
>>> -2-engine-for-sale-in-tulsa-oklahoma-74114
>>
>
> What an ugly and impractical car. I can only think of two uses for it.
> One, as an example in support of the pov that Americans have zero taste,
> and two, landfill.
>
>
> alvey
> Wondering how you changed a rear tyre. (Also wondering why the Fraudster
> hasn't posted any pix of him "working" on it.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even felix would know!!...first you remove the spat!.

>
>

On 22/8/2022 10:35 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/08/2022 9:00 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who has ever had anything to do with increasing the power
>>> output of a given engine *knows* this, just like they know that there
>>> is no "once size fits all" when it comes to what carburettor suits a
>>> particular engine. Claiming that some theoretical CFM number is
>>> "correct" based on a mathematical formula that makes allowances for
>>> nothing is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make, and
>>> does nothing but highlight the fact that the person making it has
>>> never spent a single day in their life having anything to do with
>>> high performance carburetted engines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sure seems that way:-)
>
> It's quite bizarre really. The people in this group who do the most
> chest beating about their "qualifications" happen to be the very same
> people continually jump at the chance to prove to all and sundry how
> little they actually *know* about anything.
>
>> Yesterday I was looking at an older Clubman sports car, it had a Ford
>> Kent engine fitted with 2 dual throat Webers, the big carbs worked
>> very well and especially well at high rpm, based on theory one carby
>> was all that that engine needs yet the twin setup is common.
>
> And we all know why that is, right? Remove one of the carburettors and
> set the engine back to a position of having a carb CFM flow rate
> approaching that of the "formula recommendation" and it will make less
> power. Quite considerably less in fact :)

Bzzzt! Wrong. Carburettor flow rates are based on a *continuous* flow
through the venturi. If you have a single carb feeding four (4)
cylinders equally spaced around the 4 stroke cycle, then you get a
smooth(ish) continuous flow. Therefore, a carburettor CFM rating is
directly relevant. On the other hand, if you use Webers where each
venturi is *independent* of the other(s), then the continuous flow
rating becomes meaningless. That's because the carb will only be flowing
for 25% or thereabouts of the total time. That's because there is only
one cycle out of the four that is an *intake cycle*. It's easy and
logical. Intake stroke - flow, compression stroke - no flow, power
stroke - no flow, exhaust stroke - no flow, and back to intake stroke
again. So, for 1.5 crank revolutions out of 2, there is no flow through
a carb feeding just one cylinder. Yet the carb is rated for continuous
flow. This is a case where you look at *mean flows* rather than
continuous flows. There are formulae for that!

This was all discussed to death back when the topic was a V8 engine
equipped with 4 dual throat Webers. That's like two 4 cylinder engines
equipped with a pair of dual throat Webers. Same *principles* apply. You
didn't understand what you were missing and where you were wrong then,
and you have learnt nothing since. How utterly unsurprising.
>
> *Everyone* knows this, and has done since people started modifying
> engines to make more power. The only people who *don't* understand it
> are those who have never done so, and of those the most ridiculously pig
> ignorant are the utter wankers who think the "theory" is correct while
> ignoring all the real world practical examples to the contrary.

I think the *utter wankers* who don't understand the *principles* are
openly displaying their pig ignorance. That would be *you*, Darren, and
Daryl. Daryl's ignorance is surprising however since he, having an
apprenticeship under his belt, *should* understand the principles
involved. Since he brought the Clubman with 2 dual throat Webers into
the discussion, it's abundantly clear that he, like you, hasn't a clue!
Side note, I knew there was a reason I didn't want to teach at Batman
Automotive College, Daryl's pig ignorance on a topic he should have
studied, and understood, at Batman College has reassured me I made the
right decision to fight against being transferred there.
>
> They're no different to religious nutbags who spend their days running
> around preaching the gospel. Only the morons who are the most *insanely*
> dedicated to living with their heads stuck up their arse in a delusional
> little world could ever insist that they are right and the rest of the
> world is wrong :)

Well, that covers you, that much is certain. You preach your *beliefs*
of automotive whilst I embrace the *principles*. There's knowledge of
the principles (mine) and then there's ignorance of the principles
(yours) so it looks like you're stuck in your *religious nutbaggery*

--
Xeno

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

On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 10:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
>>> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling
>>> *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually
>>> pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run
>>> overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any
>>> scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>>
>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
>>> exactly where they're wrong :)
>>>
>>>
>> Trouble with theory is not everyone agrees with a particular theory
>> and they also find a variety of ways to achieve whatever it is they
>> aim to achieve.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The thing these clueless muppets don't understand is that carburettor
> flow ratings are based on an arbitrary figure of 3 inches of Mercury for
> a 2 barrel, and 1.5 inches for a 4 barrel. These are theoretical figures
> that mean nothing to anyone *other* than to establish a "baseline" by
> which carburettors are measured against each other.

Beg to differ Darren. Those arbitrary figures you dismiss out of hand
are the figures found to be most appropriate after decades of testing
and evaluation. Yes Darren, people with much greater maths and science
prowess than you have done all the testing *over decades* and 'twas they
who determined what worked best. They started with *calculations* but
then they tested, tested, tested. It's clueless muppets like you who
think a Holley Dominator 1500 looks cool on an engine even when said
engine cannot possibly use anywhere near all the flow capacity available.
What you don't seem to get is that the engine is a form of air pump. Its
displaced volume sets the parameters for what can be achieved in terms
of air flow. That, and the RPM you can spin it up to, minus all the real
world *limitations*. And the real world can be a bitch!
>
> They mean *nothing* in terms of performance, and claiming that a
> "carburettor calculator" can pick the right sized carb for any engine
> based on the maximum possible airflow rating of the engine according to
> it's capacity and rpm limit is absolutely preposterous and only serves
> to highlight a complete and total lack of experience with real world
> carburettor selection for performance engines.

Ok, pray tell how you get an engine, like your 350 Chev example, which
has a *theoretical* potential flow rate of 607.638888888888889 CFM at
6000 RPM to get a *better* flow rate! The formula I used to get that
value was based on pure physics with *zero* allowance for the real
world. That is the number you get when you use engine size in Cubic
Inches, Engine speed in RPM, and a *constant* - 3,456. In a perfect
world that engine would flow 607.638888888888889 CFM at 6000 RPM.

If we wanted to take into account real world factors, we would need to
use an *additional value* in our formula - that of volumetric
efficiency. In most cases Darren, that *reduces* the airflow requirements.
>
> Carburettor calculators are about as accurate a measurement of the
> induction needs of any engine as stating that a "three quarter race cam"
> is what's needed to improve breathing ability. They exist to give people
> a *very* basic starting point in directing them towards a carburettor
> that *might* suit their engine depending on a whole bunch of variables
> that such a calculator has absolutely no idea about when reaching it's
> basic mathematical conclusion.
>
> Things like compression ratio, cam profile, manifold type, transmission
> type, torque converter stall speed, vehicle weight, gear ratios and
> expected use are *all* critical factors in determining exactly what size
> and type of carburettor would be best suited to the individual
> application, and these are all things that *no* "carburettor calculator"
> takes into account when pulling up a number.

You've thrown a whole lot of irrelevant shit into the mix there Darren.
A carburettor size calculator, in its most basic form, will give you the
*theoretical potential flow rate* at whatever RPM level you choose. If
you choose maximum RPM, you will get a number, we'll call it x. If you
do the same calculations at the peak engine torque, you will get a
*higher* number, x + y. That's because peak torque occurs at the point
in the RPM range where the engine is most volumetrically efficient. And
that is important. What *you* don't seem to realise is that torque is a
measure of how efficient the air flow is and proves that, in 99% of
case, the VE adjusted airflow is less than the theoretical calculated
airflow. Volumetric efficiency for engines typically ranges between 70%
for stock streeters to 110% for F1 or Nascar racers. Naturally aspirated
of course. Your SBC 350 engine, with a 4V head on it, would be lucky to
run better than 85% VE. That means, in the real world (the one you don't
live in), you can chop off 15% at a minimum from any theoretically
calculated CFM figure. So your theoretically calculated 607.638889 CFM
becomes a much more *realistic* 516.493056 CFM. Now that *is* taking
into account all those real world factors that matter.

BTW, did you know that those old *stock* early flathead Fords were lucky
to achieve better than 60% VE. Some even as low as *50%*. That's sad
but, quite Ok for the era and the engine type.
>
> There is virtually no one, anywhere in the world, be it OEM or
> privateer, who has ever built a modified high performance carburetted
> engine who has used or recommended anything like the theoretical maximum
> sized carburettor based on capacity and RPM limit, and suggesting that
> people do is absolutely ludicrous. You only have to look at the "high
> performance" versions of various factory mainstream engines to see where
> testing told them what size carburettor worked best.

The sales department has told them that they can sell an overcarbed
engine to mugs like you who believe anything you're told. Bathurst has
always been a *marketing arrangement* for the car manufacturers when all
is said and done.
>
<snipped bullshit justifications>
>
> Anyone who has ever had anything to do with increasing the power output
> of a given engine *knows* this, just like they know that there is no
> "once size fits all" when it comes to what carburettor suits a
> particular engine. Claiming that some theoretical CFM number is
> "correct" based on a mathematical formula that makes allowances for

Nope, no one has said the theoretical CFM number is correct. What *I*
have said is that the number that includes real world factors, in this
case, VE, is what makes the theoretical calculations *real world.

> nothing is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make, and does
> nothing but highlight the fact that the person making it has never spent
> a single day in their life having anything to do with high performance
> carburetted engines.

Seems like you wasted your time then because you don't have a clue how
carburettors function.

Anyway Darren, your *bullshit* story referred to a *supposedly kludged*
350 SBC with a Ford 4V head on it. That SBC bottom end was claimed, by
you, to be *reliable*, remember? So, from that we make the valid
assumption the bottom end was *stock*. Assume the head was a *stock Ford
4V head* because, if you modify it to any great degree, that SBC bottom
end becomes much less reliable. 600 HP out of a stock SBC 350? Hahahahah
Of course you then claimed the car did a season or two on a circuit
track. Seriously Darren?

--
Xeno

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

On 22/08/2022 2:32 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 8/22/2022 9:42 AM, alvey wrote:

>> Wondering how you changed a rear tyre. (Also wondering why the Fraudster
>> hasn't posted any pix of him "working" on it.)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Even felix would know!!...first you remove the spat!.

Alvey is dumber than snot :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/22/2022 8:45 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 21/08/2022 10:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe
>>>> at the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was
>>>> pulling *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was
>>>> actually pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the
>>>> engine to run overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly
>>>> unlikely in any scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as
>>>> to exactly where they're wrong :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Trouble with theory is not everyone agrees with a particular theory
>>> and they also find a variety of ways to achieve whatever it is they
>>> aim to achieve.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> The thing these clueless muppets don't understand is that carburettor
>> flow ratings are based on an arbitrary figure of 3 inches of Mercury
>> for a 2 barrel, and 1.5 inches for a 4 barrel. These are theoretical
>> figures that mean nothing to anyone *other* than to establish a
>> "baseline" by which carburettors are measured against each other.
>
> Beg to differ Darren. Those arbitrary figures you dismiss out of hand
> are the figures found to be most appropriate after decades of testing
> and evaluation. Yes Darren, people with much greater maths and science
> prowess than you have done all the testing *over decades* and 'twas they
> who determined what worked best. They started with *calculations* but
> then they tested, tested, tested. It's clueless muppets like you who
> think a Holley Dominator 1500 looks cool on an engine even when said
> engine cannot possibly use anywhere near all the flow capacity available.
> What you don't seem to get is that the engine is a form of air pump. Its
> displaced volume sets the parameters for what can be achieved in terms
> of air flow. That, and the RPM you can spin it up to, minus all the real
> world *limitations*. And the real world can be a bitch!
>>
>> They mean *nothing* in terms of performance, and claiming that a
>> "carburettor calculator" can pick the right sized carb for any engine
>> based on the maximum possible airflow rating of the engine according
>> to it's capacity and rpm limit is absolutely preposterous and only
>> serves to highlight a complete and total lack of experience with real
>> world carburettor selection for performance engines.
>
> Ok, pray tell how you get an engine, like your 350 Chev example, which
> has a *theoretical* potential flow rate of 607.638888888888889 CFM at
> 6000 RPM to get a *better* flow rate! The formula I used to get that
> value was based on pure physics with *zero* allowance for the real
> world. That is the number you get when you use engine size in Cubic
> Inches, Engine speed in RPM, and a *constant* - 3,456. In a perfect
> world that engine would flow 607.638888888888889 CFM at 6000 RPM.
>
> If we wanted to take into account real world factors, we would need to
> use an *additional value* in our formula - that of volumetric
> efficiency. In most cases Darren, that *reduces* the airflow requirements.
>>
>> Carburettor calculators are about as accurate a measurement of the
>> induction needs of any engine as stating that a "three quarter race
>> cam" is what's needed to improve breathing ability. They exist to give
>> people a *very* basic starting point in directing them towards a
>> carburettor that *might* suit their engine depending on a whole bunch
>> of variables that such a calculator has absolutely no idea about when
>> reaching it's basic mathematical conclusion.
>>
>> Things like compression ratio, cam profile, manifold type,
>> transmission type, torque converter stall speed, vehicle weight, gear
>> ratios and expected use are *all* critical factors in determining
>> exactly what size and type of carburettor would be best suited to the
>> individual application, and these are all things that *no*
>> "carburettor calculator" takes into account when pulling up a number.
>
> You've thrown a whole lot of irrelevant shit into the mix there Darren.
> A carburettor size calculator, in its most basic form, will give you the
> *theoretical potential flow rate* at whatever RPM level you choose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SIGH!....

If
> you choose maximum RPM, you will get a number, we'll call it x. If you
> do the same calculations at the peak engine torque, you will get a
> *higher* number, x + y. That's because peak torque occurs at the point
> in the RPM range where the engine is most volumetrically efficient. And
> that is important. What *you* don't seem to realise is that torque is a
> measure of how efficient the air flow is and proves that, in 99% of
> case, the VE adjusted airflow is less than the theoretical calculated
> airflow. Volumetric efficiency for engines typically ranges between 70%
> for stock streeters to 110% for F1 or Nascar racers. Naturally aspirated
> of course. Your SBC 350 engine, with a 4V head on it, would be lucky to
> run better than 85% VE. That means, in the real world (the one you don't
> live in), you can chop off 15% at a minimum from any theoretically
> calculated CFM figure. So your theoretically calculated 607.638889 CFM
> becomes a much more *realistic* 516.493056 CFM. Now that *is* taking
> into account all those real world factors that matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Real world* + *you* does *not* compute......
>
> BTW, did you know that those old *stock* early flathead Fords were lucky
> to achieve better than 60% VE. Some even as low as *50%*. That's sad
> but, quite Ok for the era and the engine type.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
` Google is *your* friend, for sure.
*Sad?* Hardly, That figure (or less) would apply to *any* L head
engines of the era...
>>
>> There is virtually no one, anywhere in the world, be it OEM or
>> privateer, who has ever built a modified high performance carburetted
>> engine who has used or recommended anything like the theoretical
>> maximum sized carburettor based on capacity and RPM limit, and
>> suggesting that people do is absolutely ludicrous. You only have to
>> look at the "high performance" versions of various factory mainstream
>> engines to see where testing told them what size carburettor worked best.
>
> The sales department has told them that they can sell an overcarbed
> engine to mugs like you who believe anything you're told. Bathurst has
> always been a *marketing arrangement* for the car manufacturers when all
> is said and done.
>>
> <snipped justifications>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natch.....
>>
>> Anyone who has ever had anything to do with increasing the power
>> output of a given engine *knows* this, just like they know that there
>> is no "once size fits all" when it comes to what carburettor suits a
>> particular engine. Claiming that some theoretical CFM number is
>> "correct" based on a mathematical formula that makes allowances for
>
> Nope, no one has said the theoretical CFM number is correct. What *I*
> have said is that the number that includes real world factors, in this
> case, VE, is what makes the theoretical calculations *real world.
>
>> nothing is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make, and
>> does nothing but highlight the fact that the person making it has
>> never spent a single day in their life having anything to do with high
>> performance carburetted engines.
>
> Seems like you wasted your time then because you don't have a clue how
> carburettors function.
>
> Anyway Darren, your *bullshit* story referred to a *supposedly kludged*
> 350 SBC with a Ford 4V head on it. That SBC bottom end was claimed, by
> you, to be *reliable*, remember? So, from that we make the valid
> assumption the bottom end was *stock*. Assume the head was a *stock Ford
> 4V head* because, if you modify it to any great degree, that SBC bottom
> end becomes much less reliable. 600 HP out of a stock SBC 350? Hahahahah
> Of course you then claimed the car did a season or two on a circuit
> track. Seriously Darren?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, krypsis (AKA billy bullshit) says *Impossible*!, But all you have
is *assumption* x two.

On 22/08/2022 10:06 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 8/22/2022 8:45 PM, Xeno wrote:

>> Anyway Darren, your *bullshit* story referred to a *supposedly
>> kludged* 350 SBC with a Ford 4V head on it. That SBC bottom end was
>> claimed, by you, to be *reliable*, remember? So, from that we make the
>> valid assumption the bottom end was *stock*. Assume the head was a
>> *stock Ford 4V head* because, if you modify it to any great degree,
>> that SBC bottom end becomes much less reliable. 600 HP out of a stock
>> SBC 350? Hahahahah
>> Of course you then claimed the car did a season or two on a circuit
>> track. Seriously Darren?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  So, krypsis (AKA billy bullshit) says *Impossible*!, But all you have
> is *assumption* x two.

Assumption is all he ever does. Look at his last paragraph above. He
"assumes" the engine was stock. He assumes the heads (yeah, that's heads
*plural* :) were stock. He assumes *lots* of things for no reason other
than to invent a bullshit argument that does nothing but make him look
like a complete fucking spastic.

I never mentioned the engine's specifics, but it was *far* from "stock".
It was a 4 bolt "010" block with a steel crank, aluminium rods, custom
forged pistons at around 12.5 to 1, a big custom billet roller cam that
was based around a Crane R288 profile, a fabricated inlet manifold, a
pair of 1970 cast Cleveland 4V closed chamber heads and a Holley 1050
Dominator. It ran well and made a reasonable amount of power, but never
cracked the 600hp mark we were hoping for. It came in at around the 580
mark at 7500rpm if I remember correctly, and while that was okay it
wasn't a huge step up from the 530hp that same engine ran in it's last
"fully Chev" state.

>    There are (maybe) two ppl in here that take *any* notice of yer
> moronic waffle, and they are *both* fuckwits in their own right. (The in
> house windscreen gooroo, tttikky being one of 'em.)

The moron has absolutely *no* *fucking* *idea* what he's talking about,
and rambles on and on with endless reams of shit all while ignoring real
world practical examples of what he claims will not work actually
working to the point of domination.

It takes a *special* kind of stupid to not only be that ignorant, but to
refuse to accept reality and insist than the nonsense he spurts is right
and the rest of the world is wrong.

A *very* special kind, that everyone can see. Including his little
buddies :)

>    Seems Yer missus cut yer nuts off a looong time ago, and for some
> strange reason you think this braindead campaign against (particularily)
> noddy and Daryl somehow restores yer lack of manliness, worldliness and
> general lack of any life skills.
>
>  Nup, FAIL!. Why doncha just F-F-F-Fade away.

He is far and away *the* single most delusional "expert" to ever post in
this group without a doubt. He is clueless beyond belief, has a
devastating lack of experience, has had *zero* experience with
*anything* in the last 40 odd years yet he struts around here as if he's
some kind of authority who knows all there is to know about anything.

The bloke is an untreatable personality disorder. Kind of like Trump,
but poor :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 22/8/2022 10:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 22/08/2022 10:06 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/22/2022 8:45 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Anyway Darren, your *bullshit* story referred to a *supposedly
>>> kludged* 350 SBC with a Ford 4V head on it. That SBC bottom end was
>>> claimed, by you, to be *reliable*, remember? So, from that we make
>>> the valid assumption the bottom end was *stock*. Assume the head was
>>> a *stock Ford 4V head* because, if you modify it to any great degree,
>>> that SBC bottom end becomes much less reliable. 600 HP out of a stock
>>> SBC 350? Hahahahah
>>> Of course you then claimed the car did a season or two on a circuit
>>> track. Seriously Darren?

> Assumption is all he ever does. Look at his last paragraph above. He
> "assumes" the engine was stock. He assumes the heads (yeah, that's heads
> *plural* :) were stock. He assumes *lots* of things for no reason other
> than to invent a bullshit argument that does nothing but make him look
> like a complete fucking spastic.
>
> I never mentioned the engine's specifics, but it was *far* from "stock".

Of course you didn't mention those specifics Darren since they only
existed in your imagination.

> It was a 4 bolt "010" block with a steel crank, aluminium rods, custom
> forged pistons at around 12.5 to 1, a big custom billet roller cam that
> was based around a Crane R288 profile, a fabricated inlet manifold, a
> pair of 1970 cast Cleveland 4V closed chamber heads and a Holley 1050
> Dominator. It ran well and made a reasonable amount of power, but never
> cracked the 600hp mark we were hoping for. It came in at around the 580
> mark at 7500rpm if I remember correctly, and while that was okay it
> wasn't a huge step up from the 530hp that same engine ran in it's last
> "fully Chev" state.

The above bullshit goes totally against what was in your original *claim*.
>
> The moron has absolutely *no* *fucking* *idea* what he's talking about,
> and rambles on and on with endless reams of shit all while ignoring real
> world practical examples of what he claims will not work actually
> working to the point of domination.
>
> It takes a *special* kind of stupid to not only be that ignorant, but to
> refuse to accept reality and insist than the nonsense he spurts is right
> and the rest of the world is wrong.

Odd, I seem to recall posting lots and lots of *evidence*, including
*videos* that agree with my assessment.
>
> A *very* special kind, that everyone can see. Including his little
> buddies :)
>
> He is far and away *the* single most delusional "expert" to ever post in
> this group without a doubt. He is clueless beyond belief, has a

Nope, delusional is you! Goes with the territory - your narcissism.

> devastating lack of experience, has had *zero* experience with
> *anything* in the last 40 odd years yet he struts around here as if he's
> some kind of authority who knows all there is to know about anything.
>
> The bloke is an untreatable personality disorder. Kind of like Trump,
> but poor :)

Again you describe yourself. You're getting good at doing that! ;-)

--
Xeno

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

On 22/08/2022 7:00 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 21/08/2022 10:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe
>>>> at the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was
>>>> pulling *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was
>>>> actually pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the
>>>> engine to run overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly
>>>> unlikely in any scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as
>>>> to exactly where they're wrong :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Trouble with theory is not everyone agrees with a particular theory
>>> and they also find a variety of ways to achieve whatever it is they
>>> aim to achieve.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> The thing these clueless muppets don't understand is that carburettor
>> flow ratings are based on an arbitrary figure of 3 inches of Mercury
>> for a 2 barrel, and 1.5 inches for a 4 barrel. These are theoretical
>> figures that mean nothing to anyone *other* than to establish a
>> "baseline" by which carburettors are measured against each other.
>>
>> They mean *nothing* in terms of performance, and claiming that a
>> "carburettor calculator" can pick the right sized carb for any engine
>> based on the maximum possible airflow rating of the engine according
>> to it's capacity and rpm limit is absolutely preposterous and only
>> serves to highlight a complete and total lack of experience with real
>> world carburettor selection for performance engines.
>>
>> Carburettor calculators are about as accurate a measurement of the
>> induction needs of any engine as stating that a "three quarter race
>> cam" is what's needed to improve breathing ability. They exist to give
>> people a *very* basic starting point in directing them towards a
>> carburettor that *might* suit their engine depending on a whole bunch
>> of variables that such a calculator has absolutely no idea about when
>> reaching it's basic mathematical conclusion.
>>
>> Things like compression ratio, cam profile, manifold type,
>> transmission type, torque converter stall speed, vehicle weight, gear
>> ratios and expected use are *all* critical factors in determining
>> exactly what size and type of carburettor would be best suited to the
>> individual application, and these are all things that *no*
>> "carburettor calculator" takes into account when pulling up a number.
>>
>> There is virtually no one, anywhere in the world, be it OEM or
>> privateer, who has ever built a modified high performance carburetted
>> engine who has used or recommended anything like the theoretical
>> maximum sized carburettor based on capacity and RPM limit, and
>> suggesting that people do is absolutely ludicrous. You only have to
>> look at the "high performance" versions of various factory mainstream
>> engines to see where testing told them what size carburettor worked best.
>>
>> Engines like the 351 Cleveland in the Phase 3 GTHO for example. It was
>> rev limited from the factory at 6150rpm, and according to the
>> theoretical calculations it needed a carburettor no bigger than
>> 530cfm. Yet it left the factory with a 780cfm carb which was switched
>> to a 1050cfm carb on the track to give it a bit more top end power at
>> 7500rpm and it was very successful.
>>
>> Same deal with Boss 302 Windsor in the 1968 Mustang. The car left the
>> factory with a "standard" 780cfm carb which was over 80% larger than
>> what it theoretically needed, but it performed incredibly well
>> regardless. For track racing Ford released the dual dominator kit
>> which upped the carb CFm rate to 2400. Almost 5 times the maximum
>> theoretical flow rate yet the car was *so* successful on the race
>> track the rules were changed to exclude it and give everyone else a
>> chance.
>>
>> There are *many* similar stories. Most manufacturers released "high
>> performance" variants of their models, and those models were loaded
>> with extras which often included larger single or multiple carburettor
>> installations right off the showroom floor. The remarkably clueless
>> people like Clasener would have you believe that this was done as a
>> form of penis stroking and meant nothing, but the reality was that
>> these options made more power and in a number of cases quite
>> considerably so.
>>
>> The list of factory and privateer cars that have been equipped with
>> carburettors that were *way* bigger than what any calculator
>> recommended for the engine size and rpm limit is virtually endless,
>> and in fact it would be next to impossible to find anyone who produced
>> a high performance engine using a carburettor that was no bigger than
>> the mathematical equations recommended. The Japanese understood this
>> very well back in the days when the used to run multiple carburettors
>> on their high performance bikes. Virtually every single one of them
>> used carbs that were way in excess of the theoretical maximum, but
>> they did so because it made power.
>>
>> Anyone who has ever had anything to do with increasing the power
>> output of a given engine *knows* this, just like they know that there
>> is no "once size fits all" when it comes to what carburettor suits a
>> particular engine. Claiming that some theoretical CFM number is
>> "correct" based on a mathematical formula that makes allowances for
>> nothing is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make, and
>> does nothing but highlight the fact that the person making it has
>> never spent a single day in their life having anything to do with high
>> performance carburetted engines.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Sure seems that way:-)
> Yesterday I was looking at an older Clubman sports car, it had a Ford
> Kent engine fitted with 2 dual throat Webers, the big carbs worked very
> well and especially well at high rpm, based on theory one carby was all
> that that engine needs yet the twin setup is common.
>

No wonder you found your true calling as a dunny cleaner!

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

On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 10:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
>>> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling
>>> *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually
>>> pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run
>>> overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any
>>> scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>>
>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
>>> exactly where they're wrong :)
>>>
>>>
>> Trouble with theory is not everyone agrees with a particular theory
>> and they also find a variety of ways to achieve whatever it is they
>> aim to achieve.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The thing these clueless muppets don't understand is that carburettor
> flow ratings are based on an arbitrary figure of 3 inches of Mercury for
> a 2 barrel, and 1.5 inches for a 4 barrel. These are theoretical figures
> that mean nothing to anyone *other* than to establish a "baseline" by
> which carburettors are measured against each other.

I see you have been reading up on carburettors. This can only be a good
thing. What you need to work on is your *interpretation* of the written
word or, more correctly in your specific case, misinterpretation of the
written word. You have heard of Bernoulli's principle? It would seem
not. I suggest you go to this link and study up;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

Note, it's a principle, not a *theory*, it's a *proven* principle.
>
> They mean *nothing* in terms of performance, and claiming that a
> "carburettor calculator" can pick the right sized carb for any engine
> based on the maximum possible airflow rating of the engine according to
> it's capacity and rpm limit is absolutely preposterous and only serves
> to highlight a complete and total lack of experience with real world
> carburettor selection for performance engines.
>
> Carburettor calculators are about as accurate a measurement of the
> induction needs of any engine as stating that a "three quarter race cam"
> is what's needed to improve breathing ability. They exist to give people
> a *very* basic starting point in directing them towards a carburettor
> that *might* suit their engine depending on a whole bunch of variables
> that such a calculator has absolutely no idea about when reaching it's
> basic mathematical conclusion.

The calculation gives you as accurate as you *need* and, from there you
take into account *some* of the *variables* of which you speak - and
others you haven't a clue about - and those variables are way more
numerous than your tiny brain can even grasp. How do you do that you
might ask. It's simple really. Engine torque is a *product* of airflow
and is, therefore, a measure of volumetric efficiency. Volumetric
Efficiency, for the uninitiated like you, is defined as the ratio of the
actual air mass taken into the cylinder in relation to the theoretical
air mass that could be taken into the cylinder. Dynos are such wonderful
jiggers, you can take all your calculations and test them out and see
the results. If you know the torque at peak, the RPM where it occurs,
the engine displacement, and a few other details, you can calculate
*back* to the air flow and thence to the VE. The VE will be greatest at
peak torque and will fall off either side as torque falls off. Aint
maths great? Oh, I forgot, you flunked year 9 and never got to do *trade
maths*. Such a shame.
Anyway, that's only part of the story. VE and torque are but one
measure. They do not account for combustion efficiency and, as you can
imagine, torque will be affected by combustion efficiency. How do we
measure combustion efficiency. Well, the most obvious way is to measure
*fuel consumption*. Combustion efficiency is typically indicated by BSFC
which expresses fuel usage in lbs per HP per Hour. It is *not* a measure
of mixture strength, ie. lean or rich mixtures. Specifically, it is the
rate in pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour that a given engine
consumes to make power. Engines have a range of optimal efficiency and
BSFC defines that range. BSFC figures are usually measured with the
engine on a dyno and are typically quoted for WOT conditions. In the
performance car world BSFC figures are used to judge the efficiency
contributions of various engine combinations and to predict certain
requirements such as injector flow rate. Guidelines for evaluating BSFC
are well established and are frequently used to *predict* engine
performance. When evaluating BSFC numbers, lower is almost always better
- even when the engine is supercharged. 0.60 is more efficient, say,
than 0.65 as long as the combination supports safe combustion without
detonation or overheating. Any engine needs to run at a mixture ratio
that produces best power, usually about 13:1 in NA engines and 11.6:1
and 12:1 in supercharged engines. There is no magic BSFC number that
guarantees maximum horsepower however there is a BSFC number that a
particular engine generates when it is performing at its best. The lower
the number, within reason, the more efficient the engine is at
converting fuel into power. Tune the engine for maximum toque and let
the BSFC numbers tell you how efficiently that torque is being generated.
>
> Things like compression ratio, cam profile, manifold type, transmission
> type, torque converter stall speed, vehicle weight, gear ratios and
> expected use are *all* critical factors in determining exactly what size
> and type of carburettor would be best suited to the individual
> application, and these are all things that *no* "carburettor calculator"
> takes into account when pulling up a number.

You've thrown up a few words there Darren, bit of a word soup really,
but it would seem you have no clue how and where they fit into the
scenario. What you've done is plucked a heap of words that *you think*
sound relevant without having a clue and you prove that by your use of
the phrase; "these are all critical factors". Then you add this bit of
bullshit;

>> and these are all things that *no* "carburettor calculator"
>> takes into account when pulling up a number.

I suspect you've seen this before but here's a carb graph you might find
interesting;

https://documents.holley.com/techlibrary_selecting_a_carburetor.pdf

Notice it is using 100% VE. That means it is the *theoretical* airflow
at given RPM levels. IOW, it's what you calculate the airflow
requirement to be according to the engine's displacement and RPM,
*nothing else*. Now this graph can be used as a *carb size calculator*
and that is what you are intimating *all* carburettor calculators do -
that is so so wrong.

While we're at it, move on to page 2 and 3 of the above link and it's
obvious where your word soup comes from. Been Googling again Darren?
Pity you haven't a clue what it is you've come up with. Anyway, with
theoretical calculations, there's no allowance for the real world. But
wait, there's more! look on the 2nd page under "Volumetric Efficiency".
There's your real world accountability Darren, right in the heading and
in the text. And in the body text there's this;

"Volumetric efficiency should be computed at the
expected operating RPM or your engine application"

Well, you could compute it but it's better to let a *decent* carb size
calculator do it for you. This one; (Darren's been here!)

https://www.holleycarbs.com.au/chooseCarb.htm

Now if you calculate it out *longhand* with the *formula*, for a 350 CI
engine you come up with 608 CFM. Not real big, eh? Well short of 1150.

If you know the VE percentage - from measurement, you could
*recalculate* it using the VE as an additional value to include in the
calcs. Assume, say, it's a bit of a hot performance engine and we're at
85% VE, that gives us carb with 516.5 CFM.

But why not use the calculator built into the above website. Toss in
those same numbers. Note: Some will allow you to specify VE directly,
others give you 3 or 4 performance options to choose from. This one
gives you 3 options but labels it "Engine Type". Don't fret, it's VE
that it relates to. With the same numbers, and *High Performance Engine*
as the Engine type, you get 516 CFM. Does that number look familiar to
you? Seems their default choice for VE is, Ta Dah, 85%. Amazing, huh?

This indicates a number of things. The theoretical calculation without
accounting for VE is *optimistic*. Any car out there, even high
performance engines, will run at *less than 100%* VE with most way down
at ~75% VE or less. That means even fairly all out racing engines will
generally only get up around 95% VE. F1/Nascar machines are more likely
up in the realms of 110% and higher but you would need to have done
considerably better than a failed year 9 to get into that league so we
will set anything *above 95* out of our minds. In fact, I reckon you
would have difficulty with anything better than 85% VE and even then you
could only get 85% VE if you bought a complete crate engine at that
spec. FFS, you don't even understand sonic/choked flows. 85% VE it is.

On 24/8/2022 8:02 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 22/08/2022 7:00 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 22/8/2022 12:45 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2022 10:31 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe
>>>>> at the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was
>>>>> pulling *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it
>>>>> was actually pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the
>>>>> engine to run overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly
>>>>> unlikely in any scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as
>>>>> to exactly where they're wrong :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Trouble with theory is not everyone agrees with a particular theory
>>>> and they also find a variety of ways to achieve whatever it is they
>>>> aim to achieve.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> The thing these clueless muppets don't understand is that carburettor
>>> flow ratings are based on an arbitrary figure of 3 inches of Mercury
>>> for a 2 barrel, and 1.5 inches for a 4 barrel. These are theoretical
>>> figures that mean nothing to anyone *other* than to establish a
>>> "baseline" by which carburettors are measured against each other.
>>>
>>> They mean *nothing* in terms of performance, and claiming that a
>>> "carburettor calculator" can pick the right sized carb for any engine
>>> based on the maximum possible airflow rating of the engine according
>>> to it's capacity and rpm limit is absolutely preposterous and only
>>> serves to highlight a complete and total lack of experience with real
>>> world carburettor selection for performance engines.
>>>
>>> Carburettor calculators are about as accurate a measurement of the
>>> induction needs of any engine as stating that a "three quarter race
>>> cam" is what's needed to improve breathing ability. They exist to
>>> give people a *very* basic starting point in directing them towards a
>>> carburettor that *might* suit their engine depending on a whole bunch
>>> of variables that such a calculator has absolutely no idea about when
>>> reaching it's basic mathematical conclusion.
>>>
>>> Things like compression ratio, cam profile, manifold type,
>>> transmission type, torque converter stall speed, vehicle weight, gear
>>> ratios and expected use are *all* critical factors in determining
>>> exactly what size and type of carburettor would be best suited to the
>>> individual application, and these are all things that *no*
>>> "carburettor calculator" takes into account when pulling up a number.
>>>
>>> There is virtually no one, anywhere in the world, be it OEM or
>>> privateer, who has ever built a modified high performance carburetted
>>> engine who has used or recommended anything like the theoretical
>>> maximum sized carburettor based on capacity and RPM limit, and
>>> suggesting that people do is absolutely ludicrous. You only have to
>>> look at the "high performance" versions of various factory mainstream
>>> engines to see where testing told them what size carburettor worked
>>> best.
>>>
>>> Engines like the 351 Cleveland in the Phase 3 GTHO for example. It
>>> was rev limited from the factory at 6150rpm, and according to the
>>> theoretical calculations it needed a carburettor no bigger than
>>> 530cfm. Yet it left the factory with a 780cfm carb which was switched
>>> to a 1050cfm carb on the track to give it a bit more top end power at
>>> 7500rpm and it was very successful.
>>>
>>> Same deal with Boss 302 Windsor in the 1968 Mustang. The car left the
>>> factory with a "standard" 780cfm carb which was over 80% larger than
>>> what it theoretically needed, but it performed incredibly well
>>> regardless. For track racing Ford released the dual dominator kit
>>> which upped the carb CFm rate to 2400. Almost 5 times the maximum
>>> theoretical flow rate yet the car was *so* successful on the race
>>> track the rules were changed to exclude it and give everyone else a
>>> chance.
>>>
>>> There are *many* similar stories. Most manufacturers released "high
>>> performance" variants of their models, and those models were loaded
>>> with extras which often included larger single or multiple
>>> carburettor installations right off the showroom floor. The
>>> remarkably clueless people like Clasener would have you believe that
>>> this was done as a form of penis stroking and meant nothing, but the
>>> reality was that these options made more power and in a number of
>>> cases quite considerably so.
>>>
>>> The list of factory and privateer cars that have been equipped with
>>> carburettors that were *way* bigger than what any calculator
>>> recommended for the engine size and rpm limit is virtually endless,
>>> and in fact it would be next to impossible to find anyone who
>>> produced a high performance engine using a carburettor that was no
>>> bigger than the mathematical equations recommended. The Japanese
>>> understood this very well back in the days when the used to run
>>> multiple carburettors on their high performance bikes. Virtually
>>> every single one of them used carbs that were way in excess of the
>>> theoretical maximum, but they did so because it made power.
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever had anything to do with increasing the power
>>> output of a given engine *knows* this, just like they know that there
>>> is no "once size fits all" when it comes to what carburettor suits a
>>> particular engine. Claiming that some theoretical CFM number is
>>> "correct" based on a mathematical formula that makes allowances for
>>> nothing is about as ridiculous a statement as anyone can make, and
>>> does nothing but highlight the fact that the person making it has
>>> never spent a single day in their life having anything to do with
>>> high performance carburetted engines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sure seems that way:-)
>> Yesterday I was looking at an older Clubman sports car, it had a Ford
>> Kent engine fitted with 2 dual throat Webers, the big carbs worked
>> very well and especially well at high rpm, based on theory one carby
>> was all that that engine needs yet the twin setup is common.
>>
>
>
> No wonder you found your true calling as a dunny cleaner!
>
> Yep, no understanding of the effect of *pulsed flow* through a
carburettor venturi. With a twin dual throat Weber setup, one cylinder
only ever sees one venturi and only flows for the intake stroke which
is, on average, 25% of the entire 4 stroke cycle. Lead and lag of the
intake valve timing might stretch the flow either side of the intake
stroke a tad, especially with an aggressive cam profile, but most of the
mean flow is at mid valve lift and above. And then there's *reversion*.

Here's reversion with Webers; https://youtu.be/_k05JbdvgXw

And the same with fuel injection; https://youtu.be/hHjf9zhQIRk

Airflows through carburettors are a whole different ball game when each
venturi feeds only one cylinder. More so when you have an aggressive cam
profile with heaps of *overlap*.

--
Xeno

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

On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 21/08/2022 8:15 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/21/2022 6:07 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Explain in your own words how that engine could possibly benefit
>>>> from a 1500CFM carb below. What is your theory on this, mouth?
>>>>
>>> No no no, Darren doesn't do theory! ;-)
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Oh, I'm happy to, but I think it would fall on deaf ears. Especially in
> light of the fact that these simpletons seem to go to some lengths to
> explain why something can't work, while ignoring the video that shows
> not only what they claim won't work actually working, but working very
> well indeed :)
>
> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling *so*
> much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually pulling
> fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run overly
> rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any scenario
> these muppets imagine to be likely :)

So Darren, what is it then? Is the engine pulling in more air than is
theoretically possible? Maybe the engine vacuum is higher than
theoretically possible. What you seem to be intimating above is that
it's doing BOTH! More airflow than theoretically possible and more
vacuum than theoretically possible.

Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
some known facts.

For a start, we know it is 313 CI capacity. We also know that it pumps
out 257.5 ft lbs of torque at 4500 RPM. That's the point of maximum
torque. We know that it pumps out 249.4 Neddies at 5300 RPM.

Airflow = displacement x RPM / 3456

Airflow = 313 Cub inch x 5300 / 3456 = 480 CFM

That's the *theoretical* air flow at the engine's max HP output.

If you rev the engine up to its 6000 RPM redline, you get 543.4 CFM but
the horsepower will be on the way down by then. 5300 was the best point
in the horsepower stakes!

But this is all *theoretical*. We need to take into account some real
world factors. We do that by taking into account factors that affect
airflow - either positively or negatively, by using *Volumetric
Efficiency* But this engine is a *very* custom build. We don't know what
the VE percentage is on this beast but *logic* tells us it will be
better than the stock engine that only put out 90 HP (IIRC).

We have most of the info we need to backtrack to the VE, we need only
one more item, the compression ratio. We know that to be 9.2:1 so we can
now calculate back from HP and torque figures to get the VE.

Using engine size (313), RPM (5300), HP (249.4) and CR (9.2), we come up
with a VE of 88%. Now that's at maximum HP and it won't be the best VE.

The best VE is available at maximum torque. So, using engine size (313),
torque (257.5) and CR (9.2, we come up with a VE of 92%.

That's very impressive for a flathead V8 of those dimensions. The reason
the torque peaked at 4500 RPM and power peaked at 5300 RPM was simply
air flow limitations. The engine began to choke after the power peak. An
impressive effort nevertheless. Even more impressive was the 9.2:1
compression ratio. The combustion chamber design of a flathead does not
lend itself to high CR numbers and the head on this flathead was well
and truly tricked up. It was alloy for a start, that's a help as far as
reducing detonation risks go.

Now, how about we calculate the airflow using the actual engine's VE
numbers.

So Airflow = 313 x 5300 / 3456 x 0.92 = 441 CFM

So, when the engine is pulling the maximum HP, it is only flowing 441
CFM of air/fuel mixture Darren. Can you explain that? Note, these are
the real figures for *that engine* as derived from a dyno test. These
are no longer *theoretical numbers* we're dealing with here - these are
the real deal. This engine simply cannot physically flow more air than
441 CFM at 5300 RPM and it's the laws of physics that dictate that, not
me. I'm simply the messenger. You want that engine to flow more yet
maintain or improve that power, the only way you can get that to happen
is to *improve the VE*. If you simply up the revs you will cause the
engine to flow more air (revs are like that) but the VE is already
dropping off so your *power will drop off too*. This example is the
*best* that team could do with the engine they had and within the
constraints of the rules and the engine design.

Now Darren, the onus is upon you to explain just how it is that the
venerable old flathead is able to use 1500 CFM of carb airflow
capability with its own airflow capacity at a mere 441 CFM in its
current specification. Remember Darren, that is its airflow capacity at
its maximum horsepower - the critical point in its RPM range and what
they are targeting for a *speed record*. That they are targeting a speed
record should be a clue as to the way that engine/carb package has been
tweaked. Well, it would give a *motor mechanic* a clue, a faker like you
- not so much.

FWIW Darren, I already *know* the answer and it became apparent as soon
as I looked at your video. BTW, I still haven't watched it all, no need,
I looked up what I needed to know on another website where the summary
was all textual with relevant graphics. This one;

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/automotive-specialists-flathead-build-bonneville-record

>
> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
> exactly where they're wrong :)

Nah Darren, the only penny that dropped was the one that showed you to
be wrong and me to be right. It hasn't dropped for you yet, that's for sure!

So Darren, what is it about the build that allows that carb setup to
work with only 441 CFM of airflow at max neddies? Over to you!

--
Xeno

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

On 25/08/2022 9:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:

>
> Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
> some known facts.

Lets *not* listen to you're spiel of *others* work.

> For a start, we

"we" ? Who the fuck is "we", shit fer brains? "Google is your friend" ,
remember, shit fer brains"? You're nothing but a sponge, Tomas Clasener.
A fucking Google repeater.....

"A clue Noddy, if you want to big note yourself, stick to topics about
which you have a clue or can Google sufficient info to make yourself
look knowledgeable." 28/06/15

"The Googlemeister at work! Where would you be without it Noddy?"

"Noddy needs to improve his Googling before he spins his bullshit!"

"The death of the group is past tense. The moment anyone mentions
anything related to cars, Noddy, with his insecurity hanging over him
like a black cloud, goes full retard with his display of Google knowledge."
"He is definitely a Googlemeister."
"That'll be a test of his googling skills because that's the only place
he gets his auto experience from."

You dirty filthy hypocritical pox-ridden cunt, Tomas Clasener.

What an *absolute cunt* of a teacher you must have been....relying on
others text to puff your chest out... as usual.

It is proven you are a plagiarist, it is proven you are a liar, and it
is proven you have the IQ of a drunk garden snail.

You've now even admitted to using others work to push your barrow...

Perhaps it's about time you had another medical issue, and phoned a
"friend," deadshit... You need help for your NPD, Tomas Clasener.

Mirror Mirror on the wall,
who's the biggest lying cunt of all
Well, Tomas Clasener it'd have to be
Simply look above to see
the Running half man's hypocrisy.

lindsay <nope@nunnya.business.com.au> wrote in
news:K60OK.875039$ssF.765980@fx14.iad:

> On 25/08/2022 9:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
>> some known facts.
>
> Lets *not* listen to you're spiel of *others* work.

Righto everyone listen up! Starting now it is verboten to refer to
anything written by someone else.
>> For a start, we
>
> "we" ? Who the fuck is "we", shit fer brains? "Google is your friend"
> , remember, shit fer brains"? You're nothing but a sponge, Tomas
> Clasener. A fucking Google repeater.....

lol! For someone who flings "hypocrite" around like drunken yobbos chuck
tomatoes at the Bunol Tomato Festival you've taken out first prize here.
It's your mad little mate who's SOP is collective nouns.

Anyhoo, you enjoy yourself at the next book-burning rally. Just remember
not to get too close, otherwise you'll get burnt. Again.

alvey

On 27/8/2022 7:10 am, alvey wrote:
> lindsay <nope@nunnya.business.com.au> wrote in
> news:K60OK.875039$ssF.765980@fx14.iad:
>
>> On 25/08/2022 9:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
>>> some known facts.
>>
>> Lets *not* listen to you're spiel of *others* work.
>
> Righto everyone listen up! Starting now it is verboten to refer to
> anything written by someone else.

What? Not even that which is written in *automotive text books*?
>
>>> For a start, we
>>
>> "we" ? Who the fuck is "we", shit fer brains? "Google is your friend"
>> , remember, shit fer brains"? You're nothing but a sponge, Tomas
>> Clasener. A fucking Google repeater.....
>
> lol! For someone who flings "hypocrite" around like drunken yobbos chuck
> tomatoes at the Bunol Tomato Festival you've taken out first prize here.
> It's your mad little mate who's SOP is collective nouns.

Yes, I was being a tad sarcastic in my use of "we". I erred in thinking
they had the ability to use abstraction. My bad.

It's funny, but sad. From birth humans are little sponges taking in
information from anywhere and everywhere, amassing, sorting, processing
and analysing it in an effort to make sense of the world. Most people,
at least those with a clue, call that *learning*. Some here, in
particular the FLCJC *collective*, seem only able to learn from their
own experience, however limited that may be. It explains their (lack of)
success in education, in training, and the real world in general. They
remain firmly embedded in their own little *concrete world*, never
having been able to progress beyond the concrete operational stage of
cognitive development to thinking in the abstract or hypothetical,
something that most people seem able to do once they enter their teens.
That *limitation* manifests itself as an inability to *qualify* for an
apprenticeship or, should they somehow fluke an apprenticeship,
manifests itself as an inability to *complete* an apprenticeship.
>
> Anyhoo, you enjoy yourself at the next book-burning rally. Just remember
> not to get too close, otherwise you'll get burnt. Again.
>
For sure! ;-)
>
>
> alvey

--
Xeno

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

On 25/8/2022 9:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 21/08/2022 8:15 pm, jonz wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2022 6:07 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain in your own words how that engine could possibly benefit
>>>>> from a 1500CFM carb below. What is your theory on this, mouth?
>>>>>
>>>> No no no, Darren doesn't do theory! ;-)
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Oh, I'm happy to, but I think it would fall on deaf ears. Especially
>> in light of the fact that these simpletons seem to go to some lengths
>> to explain why something can't work, while ignoring the video that
>> shows not only what they claim won't work actually working, but
>> working very well indeed :)
>>
>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
>> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling
>> *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually
>> pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run
>> overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any
>> scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>
> So Darren, what is it then? Is the engine pulling in more air than is
> theoretically possible? Maybe the engine vacuum is higher than
> theoretically possible. What you seem to be intimating above is that
> it's doing BOTH! More airflow than theoretically possible and more
> vacuum than theoretically possible.
>
> Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
> some known facts.
>
> For a start, we know it is 313 CI capacity. We also know that it pumps
> out 257.5 ft lbs of torque at 4500 RPM. That's the point of maximum
> torque. We know that it pumps out 249.4 Neddies at 5300 RPM.
>
> Airflow = displacement x RPM / 3456
>
> Airflow = 313 Cub inch x 5300 / 3456 = 480 CFM
>
> That's the *theoretical* air flow at the engine's max HP output.
>
> If you rev the engine up to its 6000 RPM redline, you get 543.4 CFM but
> the horsepower will be on the way down by then. 5300 was the best point
> in the horsepower stakes!
>
> But this is all *theoretical*. We need to take into account some real
> world factors. We do that by taking into account factors that affect
> airflow - either positively or negatively, by using *Volumetric
> Efficiency* But this engine is a *very* custom build. We don't know what
> the VE percentage is on this beast but *logic* tells us it will be
> better than the stock engine that only put out 90 HP (IIRC).
>
> We have most of the info we need to backtrack to the VE, we need only
> one more item, the compression ratio. We know that to be 9.2:1 so we can
> now calculate back from HP and torque figures to get the VE.
>
> Using engine size (313), RPM (5300), HP (249.4) and CR (9.2), we come up
> with a VE of 88%. Now that's at maximum HP and it won't be the best VE.
>
> The best VE is available at maximum torque. So, using engine size (313),
> torque (257.5) and CR (9.2, we come up with a VE of 92%.
>
> That's very impressive for a flathead V8 of those dimensions. The reason
> the torque peaked at 4500 RPM and power peaked at 5300 RPM was simply
> air flow limitations. The engine began to choke after the power peak. An
> impressive effort nevertheless. Even more impressive was the 9.2:1
> compression ratio. The combustion chamber design of a flathead does not
> lend itself to high CR numbers and the head on this flathead was well
> and truly tricked up. It was alloy for a start, that's a help as far as
> reducing detonation risks go.
>
> Now, how about we calculate the airflow using the actual engine's VE
> numbers.
>
> So Airflow = 313 x 5300 / 3456 x 0.92 = 441 CFM
>
> So, when the engine is pulling the maximum HP, it is only flowing 441
> CFM of air/fuel mixture Darren. Can you explain that? Note, these are
> the real figures for *that engine* as derived from a dyno test. These
> are no longer *theoretical numbers* we're dealing with here - these are
> the real deal. This engine simply cannot physically flow more air than
> 441 CFM at 5300 RPM and it's the laws of physics that dictate that, not
> me. I'm simply the messenger. You want that engine to flow more yet
> maintain or improve that power, the only way you can get that to happen
> is to *improve the VE*. If you simply up the revs you will cause the
> engine to flow more air (revs are like that) but the VE is already
> dropping off so your *power will drop off too*. This example is the
> *best* that team could do with the engine they had and within the
> constraints of the rules and the engine design.
>
> Now Darren, the onus is upon you to explain just how it is that the
> venerable old flathead is able to use 1500 CFM of carb airflow
> capability with its own airflow capacity at a mere 441 CFM in its
> current specification. Remember Darren, that is its airflow capacity at
> its maximum horsepower - the critical point in its RPM range and what
> they are targeting for a *speed record*. That they are targeting a speed
> record should be a clue as to the way that engine/carb package has been
> tweaked. Well, it would give a *motor mechanic* a clue, a faker like you
> - not so much.
>
> FWIW Darren, I already *know* the answer and it became apparent as soon
> as I looked at your video. BTW, I still haven't watched it all, no need,
> I looked up what I needed to know on another website where the summary
> was all textual with relevant graphics. This one;
>
> https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/automotive-specialists-flathead-build-bonneville-record
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
>> exactly where they're wrong :)
>
> Nah Darren, the only penny that dropped was the one that showed you to
> be wrong and me to be right. It hasn't dropped for you yet, that's for
> sure!
>
> So Darren, what is it about the build that allows that carb setup to
> work with only 441 CFM of airflow at max neddies? Over to you!
>
>
Hmmm, a big fat *silence* from Darren! How *expected*! ;-)

So, we have an engine that can only flow 441 CFM of air at 5300 RPM with
92% volumetric efficiency. As I said before, 92% VE on a naturally
aspirated flathead engine is excellent. But the real question here is
how the engine can possibly use the full 1500 CFM possible with the twin
dominator setup. The answer to that is - it can't! In fact, it's only
using ~30% of the potential airflow the carb setup is capable of. So
what gives here?

As I said in my previous post, as soon as I saw the manifold setup I
knew the answer.

All you need to think of is a single cylinder engine with a single
throat carburettor. A CFM rating is *meaningless* in such a situation
since the carb venturi is only flowing on the *intake stroke*, IOW, one
stroke out of a potential 4 strokes or 25% of the total engine cycle. In
fact, if you have an aggressive camshaft profile, you could have the
intake valve open for as much as 270 degrees giving both lead and lag
with some serious valve overlap. You can be flowing for 30% of the cycle
and high performance engines typically do.

The intake on the flathead was a custom designed tunnel ram manifold!
These types of manifolds are desirable for all out racing applications
because they provide the best configuration for equalising intake runner
length and volumes. Runner length, BTW, is the length of the runner from
the plenum to the intake valve head. Tunnel rams provides the most
direct and unrestricted flow path from the carburettor(s) to the intake
valve. At the same time they offer the best design opportunity to
optimise flow velocity and mixture quality and are particularly
effective at engine speeds above 7000 RPM. A longer tunnel ram can be an
effective high performance choice for a heavier drag car needing a
torque boost at lower engine speeds. Shorter tunnel rams, with
appropriately sized plenum volumes provide superior high speed
performance and they tend to be used almost exclusively on professional
drag racers. Tunnel rams provide the best opportunity to optimise runner
length, volume and taper. This means you're less likely to see
variations in runner dimensions in these applications because they
operate in a very narrow power band that doesn't require the engine
builder to pursue multiple torque boosts by selective intake and exhaust
dimensional matchmaking. Since the flathead engine will be operating up
in the max horsepower range for a speed record, and isn't looking for an
*acceleration record*, that tells you where the runner length, volume
and taper dimensions will be aimed.
There are two types of tunnel ram manifolds, off the shelf and custom.
Surprisingly, there are quite a few *off the shelf* manifolds available
for the venerable old flatheads, though not tunnel rams as such.

On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
> On 25/8/2022 9:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 21/8/2022 8:51 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2022 8:15 pm, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2022 6:07 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain in your own words how that engine could possibly benefit
>>>>>> from a 1500CFM carb below. What is your theory on this, mouth?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No no no, Darren doesn't do theory! ;-)
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm happy to, but I think it would fall on deaf ears. Especially
>>> in light of the fact that these simpletons seem to go to some lengths
>>> to explain why something can't work, while ignoring the video that
>>> shows not only what they claim won't work actually working, but
>>> working very well indeed :)
>>>
>>> In fact, if they watched the video I linked to, they would observe at
>>> the 33:00 minute mark that the little 313 cube flathead was pulling
>>> *so* much air through the 1500cfm of carburettor that it was actually
>>> pulling fuel out of the pump squirters and causing the engine to run
>>> overly rich. Something you'd think would be highly unlikely in any
>>> scenario these muppets imagine to be likely :)
>>
>> So Darren, what is it then? Is the engine pulling in more air than is
>> theoretically possible? Maybe the engine vacuum is higher than
>> theoretically possible. What you seem to be intimating above is that
>> it's doing BOTH! More airflow than theoretically possible and more
>> vacuum than theoretically possible.
>>
>> Well what is the *theoretical air flow* of that engine? Let's gather
>> some known facts.
>>
>> For a start, we know it is 313 CI capacity. We also know that it pumps
>> out 257.5 ft lbs of torque at 4500 RPM. That's the point of maximum
>> torque. We know that it pumps out 249.4 Neddies at 5300 RPM.
>>
>> Airflow = displacement x RPM / 3456
>>
>> Airflow = 313 Cub inch x 5300 / 3456 = 480 CFM
>>
>> That's the *theoretical* air flow at the engine's max HP output.
>>
>> If you rev the engine up to its 6000 RPM redline, you get 543.4 CFM
>> but the horsepower will be on the way down by then. 5300 was the best
>> point in the horsepower stakes!
>>
>> But this is all *theoretical*. We need to take into account some real
>> world factors. We do that by taking into account factors that affect
>> airflow - either positively or negatively, by using *Volumetric
>> Efficiency* But this engine is a *very* custom build. We don't know
>> what the VE percentage is on this beast but *logic* tells us it will
>> be better than the stock engine that only put out 90 HP (IIRC).
>>
>> We have most of the info we need to backtrack to the VE, we need only
>> one more item, the compression ratio. We know that to be 9.2:1 so we
>> can now calculate back from HP and torque figures to get the VE.
>>
>> Using engine size (313), RPM (5300), HP (249.4) and CR (9.2), we come
>> up with a VE of 88%. Now that's at maximum HP and it won't be the best
>> VE.
>>
>> The best VE is available at maximum torque. So, using engine size
>> (313), torque (257.5) and CR (9.2, we come up with a VE of 92%.
>>
>> That's very impressive for a flathead V8 of those dimensions. The
>> reason the torque peaked at 4500 RPM and power peaked at 5300 RPM was
>> simply air flow limitations. The engine began to choke after the power
>> peak. An impressive effort nevertheless. Even more impressive was the
>> 9.2:1 compression ratio. The combustion chamber design of a flathead
>> does not lend itself to high CR numbers and the head on this flathead
>> was well and truly tricked up. It was alloy for a start, that's a help
>> as far as reducing detonation risks go.
>>
>> Now, how about we calculate the airflow using the actual engine's VE
>> numbers.
>>
>> So Airflow = 313 x 5300 / 3456 x 0.92 = 441 CFM
>>
>> So, when the engine is pulling the maximum HP, it is only flowing 441
>> CFM of air/fuel mixture Darren. Can you explain that? Note, these are
>> the real figures for *that engine* as derived from a dyno test. These
>> are no longer *theoretical numbers* we're dealing with here - these
>> are the real deal. This engine simply cannot physically flow more air
>> than 441 CFM at 5300 RPM and it's the laws of physics that dictate
>> that, not me. I'm simply the messenger. You want that engine to flow
>> more yet maintain or improve that power, the only way you can get that
>> to happen is to *improve the VE*. If you simply up the revs you will
>> cause the engine to flow more air (revs are like that) but the VE is
>> already dropping off so your *power will drop off too*. This example
>> is the *best* that team could do with the engine they had and within
>> the constraints of the rules and the engine design.
>>
>> Now Darren, the onus is upon you to explain just how it is that the
>> venerable old flathead is able to use 1500 CFM of carb airflow
>> capability with its own airflow capacity at a mere 441 CFM in its
>> current specification. Remember Darren, that is its airflow capacity
>> at its maximum horsepower - the critical point in its RPM range and
>> what they are targeting for a *speed record*. That they are targeting
>> a speed record should be a clue as to the way that engine/carb package
>> has been tweaked. Well, it would give a *motor mechanic* a clue, a
>> faker like you - not so much.
>>
>> FWIW Darren, I already *know* the answer and it became apparent as
>> soon as I looked at your video. BTW, I still haven't watched it all,
>> no need, I looked up what I needed to know on another website where
>> the summary was all textual with relevant graphics. This one;
>>
>> https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/automotive-specialists-flathead-build-bonneville-record
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps they might watch the vid again and the penny might drop as to
>>> exactly where they're wrong :)
>>
>> Nah Darren, the only penny that dropped was the one that showed you to
>> be wrong and me to be right. It hasn't dropped for you yet, that's for
>> sure!
>>
>> So Darren, what is it about the build that allows that carb setup to
>> work with only 441 CFM of airflow at max neddies? Over to you!
>>
>>
> Hmmm, a big fat *silence* from Darren! How *expected*!  ;-)
>
> So, we have an engine that can only flow 441 CFM of air at 5300 RPM with
> 92% volumetric efficiency. As I said before, 92% VE on a naturally
> aspirated flathead engine is excellent. But the real question here is
> how the engine can possibly use the full 1500 CFM possible with the twin
> dominator setup. The answer to that is - it can't! In fact, it's only
> using ~30% of the potential airflow the carb setup is capable of. So
> what gives here?
>
> As I said in my previous post, as soon as I saw the manifold setup I
> knew the answer.
>
> All you need to think of is a single cylinder engine with a single
> throat carburettor. A CFM rating is *meaningless* in such a situation
> since the carb venturi is only flowing on the *intake stroke*, IOW, one
> stroke out of a potential 4 strokes or 25% of the total engine cycle. In
> fact, if you have an aggressive camshaft profile, you could have the
> intake valve open for as much as 270 degrees giving both lead and lag
> with some serious valve overlap. You can be flowing for 30% of the cycle
> and high performance engines typically do.
>
> The intake on the flathead was a custom designed tunnel ram manifold!
> These types of manifolds are desirable for all out racing applications
> because they provide the best configuration for equalising intake runner
> length and volumes. Runner length, BTW, is the length of the runner from
> the plenum to the intake valve head. Tunnel rams provides the most
> direct and unrestricted flow path from the carburettor(s) to the intake
> valve. At the same time they offer the best design opportunity to
> optimise flow velocity and mixture quality and are particularly
> effective at engine speeds above 7000 RPM. A longer tunnel ram can be an
> effective high performance choice for a heavier drag car needing a
> torque boost at lower engine speeds. Shorter tunnel rams, with
> appropriately sized plenum volumes provide superior high speed
> performance and they tend to be used almost exclusively on professional
> drag racers. Tunnel rams provide the best opportunity to optimise runner
> length, volume and taper. This means you're less likely to see
> variations in runner dimensions in these applications because they
> operate in a very narrow power band that doesn't require the engine
> builder to pursue multiple torque boosts by selective intake and exhaust
> dimensional matchmaking. Since the flathead engine will be operating up
> in the max horsepower range for a speed record, and isn't looking for an
> *acceleration record*, that tells you where the runner length, volume
> and taper dimensions will be aimed.
> There are two types of tunnel ram manifolds, off the shelf and custom.
> Surprisingly, there are quite a few *off the shelf* manifolds available
> for the venerable old flatheads, though not tunnel rams as such.
>
> https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-1301-flathead-ford-intake-manifold-smackdown
>
> But if you look at the horsepower figures they are getting, there's a
> problem with them. They are all cast and that makes them a little
> difficult to modify and modified they would need to be to achieve the
> aims of this particular flathead Ford V8. What's more, I'd be hard
> pressed to call any of them tunnel rams in the modern sense of the word.
> This one looks like a tunnel ram;  https://www.flatattackracing.com
> But it is tailored for very high RPM ranges, hence the short runners.
> The venerable old flathead, with its tortuous intake and exhaust tracts,
> is never going to be a serious contender for power in the high RPM ranges.
>
> So, custom it had to be.
>
> Custom intakes can be built with very specific dimensions designed to
> closely match the engine's specifications and desired application.
> Runner length, shape, taper, and cross sectional area are specifically
> matched to the engine's requirements and plenum shape. Plenum volume and
> carburettor mounting surface are sized to accommodate the exact
> requirements of the engine. Most tunnel ram applications operate at
> extremely high engine speeds so it is important to match plenum volume
> to displacement and the actual air demand at the engine's most effective
> operating range. A bigger plenum is not necessarily better. The
> established rule dictates that optimum performance is gained from the
> smallest possible dimensions that adequately support the engine's
> airflow requirement. The plenum is, after all, a pressure recovery
> chamber. Optimising airflow is no more difficult than with any other
> manifold and is primarily a matter of getting the shapes and sizes right
> for the application. These include runner cross section, runner length,
> runner taper, port entry angle, plenum volume, carburettor offset and
> top shape. Runner cross section can position the torque peak relative to
> engine speed and vehicle requirements. Runner lengths returning multiple
> pulse reflections tune best to the second reflected pulse (wave) if the
> engine requires a peaky narrow power band. Engines requiring a lower and
> slightly broader power band are best tuned to the third or even fourth
> pulse. The formula, and the constant as determined by Chrysler over 60
> years of testing, is this;
> Optimal flow path length = pulse constant / target operating RPM
> Where
> 2nd pulse constant = 108,000
> 3rd pulse constant =  97,000
> 4th pulse constant =  74,000
> 5th pulse constant =  54,000
>
> Using the 4th pulse constant, you come up with a runner length of 19.47"
> and that length starts at the runner entry inside the plenum and
> finishes at the valve port so includes all of the runner length inside
> the block (or head in an OHV).
>
> So, having correctly identified a power band with the desired RPM spread
> between peak torque and peak power, you can use the McFarland
> cross-sectional area formula to establish the optimal runner
> *cross-section* for the chosen torque peak. You then use the reflected
> pulse formula above to pinpoint the supporting runner length. So you
> know what those carburettors are going to sit on. But that only shows
> the whys of using a tunnel ram. What is the advantage in a dual 4 barrel
> carb setup in this instance?
>
> Now, I seem to recall you made a big deal of *manifold vacuum* so let's
> look at that aspect - for it is key.
> Since we're on about 4 barrel carburettors, we'll stick with them. These
> carbs are rated in cubic feet per minute (CFM). In order to get this
> rating the carbs are flow tested and the volume of air that passes
> through it for 1 minute at 1.5" Hg is measured. That measurement, in
> CFM, becomes that carb's rating. Plug that carb onto an engine and, at
> WOT, the carb's rated CFM will *only be delivered* at the same 1.5" Hg.
> Now here's the rub! If the carburettor is *smaller* than the recommended
> size for the engine, the manifold vacuum at WOT will be *higher* than
> 1.5" Hg and the CFM will *increase*. The engine's higher vacuum forces
> the carb to deliver commensurately more flow. Conversely if the carb is
> *larger*, the reverse occurs. The manifold vacuum at WOT will fall
> *below* 1.5" Hg and the CFM is commensurately *reduced*. The engine
> simply cannot pull the rated vacuum. This point is key to understanding
> the large carb on small engine scenario. Naturally there is a
> mathematical formula you can use to calculate this but you need to know
> the *actual vacuum reading* of the engine - so you plug in a vacuum
> gauge and go off and test it. Once you have your reading, you divide it
> into the rated vacuum (1.5") and then take the square root of the
> result. You then divide this number into the carbs rated CFM to get the
> result. I don't have any real world scenario to test this out on but
> what I do know is that if your vacuum at WOT drops to 0.5" Hg, then the
> signals at the boosters become too weak to properly meter the fuel and
> your fuel curve becomes decidedly strange. You could adjust the air
> bleeds and the jets but it would be difficult to get the engine running
> properly. But that flathead engine, one that would be comfortable with a
> single 500 CFM carb, had 3 times the carb airflow capability so would
> have had a very low manifold vacuum. We know they were having mixture
> issues but ones which would indicate higher airflow and higher vacuum.
> So what gives here? Well, it's potentially a lot of things but I will
> focus only on the intake manifold.
>
> Firstly, I must make a point. The CFM rating of a carb is achieved at a
> constant (steady state) flow on a test bench. When we measure the vacuum
> in an intake manifold we are getting an *average* vacuum reading. When
> the engine is running, vacuum in the individual runners is rising and
> falling, much like a sinusoidal half wave, as its cylinder goes through
> its intake cycle. That same intermittent vacuum is present at the
> carburettor, though damped by the confluence of signals from the other
> cylinders. Essentially, the vacuum at the carb is never constant, hence
> the flow through the carb is never constant. The intake vacuum cycles
> don't overlap completely, even in V8s. In V8 engines, a lot of the
> common factory manifolds treat the engine as if it were 2 four cylinder
> engines with each half of the carb only feeding 4 cylinders.
>
> Back to that tunnel ram manifold. Well, if you are precise in your
> placement of the carbs over the runners, you get into the situation
> where each carb throttle bore can feed an individual runner with minimal
> interference from adjacent runners, especially so at high RPM levels and
> even in the presence of a plenum volume. That means that each carb
> venturi is acting the same as it would if it were feeding only a single
> cylinder engine. What's more, instead of anything resembling a steady
> state draw on the booster, you get a strong *pulse* flow for
> approximately 260 degrees of engine rotation, then no flow for the
> remaining 460 degrees of the 4 stroke cycle. Because it is sinusoidal,
> that peak would likely be higher than if there were a constant flow of
> air through the booster and that would explain why the engine was
> drawing excess fuel and flooding. The number of degrees of rotation for
> the flow period will be determined by the cam profiles and the manifold
> ramming but will generally be between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total cycle of
> 720 degrees of crank revolution. So, whilst they have 1500 CFM of
> *steady* *state* airflow potential at their fingertips, their engine is
> only creating 442 CFM at 5300 RPM and distributing that airflow through
> those 8 venturis via a single pulse at a time each. I might add, for
> this to work, those dominator carbs would likely need 4 corner idle and
> definitely need the throttle bodies set up for direct (1:1) rather than
> progressive. The dominators allow for this flexibility.
>
> In summation, the tunnel ram manifold is the *primary aspect* of getting
> this engine to work with so much flow capacity available. Probably the
> only way it would work with such a low average vacuum. This
> configuration however is pretty much useless in anything other than all
> out speed. I suppose I'd have to include all out acceleration in there
> as they use these tunnel rams on dragsters. The tunnel ram is the worst
> option for idle quality, throttle response and mixture velocity. That
> makes it useless in a street car. It is however the best of all the
> different types of manifold for maximum power potential. This explains
> why it was chosen for this speed record attempt.
>
> So, at the end of the day, that 1500 CFM of carb capacity was still only
> flowing what volume of air the engine could pump - 442 CFM. The
> *trickery*, if you want to call it that, was in each venturi's *duty
> cycle* and it's why a CFM rating is *meaningless* in any situation where
> a single carb venturi feeds a single cylinder, as in a single cylinder
> motorcycle and where the manifold vacuum is not at the spec for rated
> CFM, 1.5" Hg in the case of a 4 barrel carb.
>
> So Darren, your Googling efforts got you to a *mention* of vacuum and a
> few other salient points, but you couldn't progress the discussion from
> there because you simply had no clue. Googled information leaves you
> flat like that! Now, had you ever been involved in *drag racing*, you
> would have been the full bottle on all this guff and schooling me on how
> it all works. But you couldn't do that, could you? You just *ran away*.
> FFS, how could you not know all this stuff and hope to be competitive in
> your racing class? As it stands, all you have proven is that you,
> contrary to your grandiose claims, have never been involved in *drag
> racing* except as a *spectator in the stands*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:

>   Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long enough
> to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>
>    Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((

It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt of
a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely no
idea what he's talking about.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 31/8/2022 11:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>    Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long
>> enough to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>>
>>     Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((
>
> It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt of
> a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely no
> idea what he's talking about.
>
>
No Darren, the latest iteration of your bullshit is *contemporary*! You
used the example of a current flathead engine build in a doomed attempt
to prove *your past claim*. It did nothing of the sort, that poor old
flathead engine *still* only flowed 442 CFM with the carbs just using
that limited airflow *differently*. It's all in the vacuum readings and
the manifold and it's all fully explainable by the relevant maths and
science, but you have no clue about that! As I said, given all your
claims about *experience*, you should have been able to school me on the
*principles involved*. Instead, it was you who was schooled!
Unfortunately it has been a waste of effort because you still don't get it.

What your response here has proven is that the *clueless noisemaker*
here is you Darren, and *you* have no idea what I'm talking about! Not a
clue! Since you cannot attack my message, all you have left to you is an
attack on the messenger. What a little man you are!

--
Xeno

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

On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>    Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long
>> enough to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>>
>>     Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((
>
> It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt of
> a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely no
> idea what he's talking about.
>
>
>
>

You just described yourself perfectly.

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

On 31/08/2022 10:04 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 31/8/2022 11:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>    Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long
>>> enough to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>>>
>>>     Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((
>>
>> It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt
>> of a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely
>> no idea what he's talking about.
>>
>>
> No Darren, the latest iteration of your bullshit is *contemporary*! You
> used the example of a current flathead engine build in a doomed attempt
> to prove *your past claim*. It did nothing of the sort, that poor old
> flathead engine *still* only flowed 442 CFM with the carbs just using
> that limited airflow *differently*. It's all in the vacuum readings and
> the manifold and it's all fully explainable by the relevant maths and
> science, but you have no clue about that! As I said, given all your
> claims about *experience*, you should have been able to school me on the
> *principles involved*. Instead, it was you who was schooled!
> Unfortunately it has been a waste of effort because you still don't get it.
>
> What your response here has proven is that the *clueless noisemaker*
> here is you Darren, and *you* have no idea what I'm talking about! Not a
> clue! Since you cannot attack my message, all you have left to you is an
> attack on the messenger. What a little man you are!
>
>
It's telling that he offers no explanation or alternate theory that
supports his assertion.

Apparently physics, carb manufacturers, race engine manufacturers,
mechanics and engineers and everyone else is *wrong* but he offers
nothing to support his position.

Could it be possible that *he* is wrong and everyone else if right?
Naaaaaahhh, what would those smart bastards know that some
inexperienced, uneducated, uneducable and unqualified buffoon like him
wouldn't know?

It's his (and only his) laughably silly centrigufal force in the CV's
theory all over again.

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

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tenoie$1qrj5$1@dont-email.me:

> On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
>> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>   Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long
>> enough
>> to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>>
>>    Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((
>
> It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt
> of a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely
> no idea what he's talking about.
>

"Interesting how the retard thinks he can speak on behalf of other people".
Fraudster, 08Aug22.

It's a fact that you are a liar, fraud and coward Fraudster. And now, given
the number of these contradictory statements you've made, it is now an
indisputable fact that you're also a hapless buffoon.

alvey

On 1/9/2022 11:42 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 31/08/2022 10:04 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 31/8/2022 11:43 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 31/08/2022 9:43 pm, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2022 4:49 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>>    Sigh, the dead 'orse has now been flogged hard enough and long
>>>> enough to reduce the poor old thing to a pile of bone fragments.....
>>>>
>>>>     Will that be the end of it?...You wish!!... :(((
>>>
>>> It was years ago. Nobody pays attention to a *word* the useless cunt
>>> of a thing says as he's a clueless noise making cunt with absolutely
>>> no idea what he's talking about.
>>>
>>>
>> No Darren, the latest iteration of your bullshit is *contemporary*!
>> You used the example of a current flathead engine build in a doomed
>> attempt to prove *your past claim*. It did nothing of the sort, that
>> poor old flathead engine *still* only flowed 442 CFM with the carbs
>> just using that limited airflow *differently*. It's all in the vacuum
>> readings and the manifold and it's all fully explainable by the
>> relevant maths and science, but you have no clue about that! As I
>> said, given all your claims about *experience*, you should have been
>> able to school me on the *principles involved*. Instead, it was you
>> who was schooled! Unfortunately it has been a waste of effort because
>> you still don't get it.
>>
>> What your response here has proven is that the *clueless noisemaker*
>> here is you Darren, and *you* have no idea what I'm talking about! Not
>> a clue! Since you cannot attack my message, all you have left to you
>> is an attack on the messenger. What a little man you are!
>>
>>
> It's telling that he offers no explanation or alternate theory that
> supports his assertion.

Very telling - but expected. He understands neither the science nor the
maths involved. All he does is parrot a few impressive sounding words or
facts in order to *appear* well versed in the topic. The *reality* - he
hasn't a clue. He should crawl away and hide under his rock.
>
> Apparently physics, carb manufacturers, race engine manufacturers,
> mechanics and engineers and everyone else is *wrong* but he offers
> nothing to support his position.
>
> Could it be possible that *he* is wrong and everyone else if right?
> Naaaaaahhh, what would those smart bastards know that some
> inexperienced, uneducated, uneducable and unqualified buffoon like him
> wouldn't know?
>
> It's his (and only his) laughably silly centrigufal force in the CV's
> theory all over again.
>

--
Xeno

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