H-beam Rods Link: www.maxpeedingrods.com/Toyota-Corolla-E80-E90-1.6L-4A-GE-122mm-Connecting-Rod-High-Performance-4340-EN24-H-Beam-Conrod.html?tracking=D4A Coupon: D4A -- get 8% OFF for all orders on maxpeedingrods.com. Unboxing video: th-cam.com/video/-E0H2voOC2M/w-d-xo.html Support d4a: driving-4-answers-shop.fourthwall.com/
Sweet ... Though I'm just an engine-ignoramus (who likes physics) ... in your vid re: rod materials: I asked if shot peening could mitigate some material science differences. Though dumb in some respects (obviously it'd make more sense to use it on all high-stress apps)... It was cool to see that it is advisable in this field. PS, as well as New Mind, I can't recommend enough checking out: This Old Tony th-cam.com/users/featony (yes, TO the Driving 4 Answers ... & sure, the audience also)
On a small cheap 2 stroke moped engine, do you think you could drill some holes in the I beam of the rod , to remove some weight while still keeping it strong enough for use, if you didn't go too crazy with drilling?
Mechanical engineer here: I beam is better for the same cross-sectional area due to higher second moment of inertia. It's like you said, people compare it to OEM rods and think is better. And yes i use h-beam in my engine because of what is available at what price. If you have eccentric buckling load due to knocking/detonation you should worry about your tune first rather than the rods.
LTVoyager that doesn’t make sense. Circular tubes are only as good as solids in resisting stresses due to torsion. In tensile/compression, solids are always better because they have more cross-sectional area. Stress = (Force / Area) so given the same compressive/tensile force, the shape with the highest Area can withstand more stress.
A geometrical shape's ability to resist buckling is primarily dependant on the second moment of inertia, in either the x or y direction (I_x or I_y) I'd be driven to think that the design of an I beam would compensate one of the moments of inertia; making it smaller and therefore increase the design's tendency to buckle in the lacking compartment. I'm only on the second semester of mechanical engineering, and I would love to know why this assumption is incorrect I must also state that I am not familiar with buckling in inhomogenous geometries, thank you.
2nd Mechanical Engineer here. Storm33 is on track regarding cross section shape Rods have axial compression force from combustion, axial tension force from induction, and reversing crosswise load from thrashing around. The I beam is better resisting the crosswise bending stresses. The bending stresses increase with the square of RPM, axial combustion stresses don’t. Rod cleavage just above the big end usually RPM failure. Another critical rod condition is high RPM, closed throttle..like a downshift. The rod end cap connection preload and the rod bolts are tortured. In my view, H beam rod superiority is in advertising rather than a prominent technical advantage. Faith trumping science not uncommon in the gearhead community. Cheers
One thing, I don't know why It doesn't even matter how hard you try Keep that in mind I designed this rhyme To remind myself of a time when I tried so hard....to choose between H or I beam.. :B
This part of the comments section is on fire! Rhymes be dropping stoking my rap desire. Who cares about cranks, rods and beams. Let's just boost our engines till they break at the seams.
Interesting and good points. When faced with a choice when I build my engine, I choose forged I beam for lightness, and also a lighter piston and rod means less mass to move, and personally I think lightweight gives better power and 'probably' helps with less bearing wear as there isn't much inertia to hammer the crank and rod bearings during combustion. But maybe for insane power levels and high boost, an H beam is the only choice that can take the kind of abuse from high boost engines.
Actually using an I beam rod is not for the sake of weight but torsional movement. H beams have their place as it allows you to have a moderately strong rod at a lower price. Weight itself, they have found it better to be heavier on the crank and rods with as light as possible piston (i.e. thinnest dome and smallest skirt profile that you can get away with in your combination). If you want to know what to use parts wise say in a naturally aspirated combination, look no further than NASCAR or my preference NHRA Pro Stock. 500ci, around 1600hp NA, and were spinning them to 11,200 plus RPM. Those guys are are literally looking for a single horsepower while doing engine development. They've tried every combination material wise for the internals and found titanium rods flex too much, titanium wrists pins bend, aluminum rods have to be ran shorter as they grow in length which means you can't run tight piston to valve clearance and in turn loses power. So they're right back to a heavy steel I beam like Oliver, CP-Carillo, etc. With taper walled tool steel wrist pins. Aluminum rods are not used for weight as they weigh around the same as a steel rod because of all the mass they carry to equal the same strength. Aluminum is used for it's dampening/cushion and a big reason is when they break they don't ruin the whole engine like a steel rod when it comes apart.
I've got no dog in the race and I'm just spit balling some thoughts here... Is there a point where lightweight it's too lightweight? You said that lightweight produces "better" power... "Better" = More? What is better; torque or HP? Or "Better" = Usability. Where are you using it? You also said that lightweight will wear/longevity better. Less mass changes direction easier. I'm by no means argue with the second statement. But my thinking is this: Would you rather 100lbs spin 400 times (so 800 direction changes) or 75lbs spin 600 times (1200 direction changes)? What weighs more; 100lbs@4000rpm or 75lbs@6000rpm? My point being saving weight to gain the ability to spin faster sometimes ends up weighing more AS WELL AS completing more cycles.... Engines wear and longevity is DIRECTLY related to revolutions/rotations. Weigh/inertia/whatever plays little role when the proper weight oil is used. Why do diesels last so long? Not because they weigh more, not because cylinder Temps or pressures, or oil contamination... Because they spin slower and revolve fewer times per miles/minute. So... That being said? If wear is an issue and to combat this issue you decide to spin fewer times.... Would you rather throw more or less weight around per revolution? Weight plays very minor role when your aren't worrying about race class rules.
@@chadthomasriggs of course going too far there is always a point of diminishing returns. I was generalising. And I agree with you that it all boils down to application.
I and H beam (given same cross sectional area) have different area moment of inertia but the differences are only apparent if the beam is resisting bending due to a moment (caused by forces normal to the surface of the beam) like in a building. The way a rod operates in engine almost eliminates the differences between their moments of inertia (because they’re not really resisting bending like they would in a building) so it’s best to focus on things like the material / process used to making the rods, stress concentrations (you don’t want sharp transitions) and luxuries like shot pinning and case hardening. 8:41 and onward has really good information ☝️
The most critical situation the rods needs to withstand is actually buckling which relates directly to the moment of inertia and the buckling coefficient/effective buckling length that comes from the buckling mode. The buckling mode is ofcourse different in the diffrerent directions. I beam is the better way in this regards as the bucling length for that is the true length of the rod as the round surfaces acts as pivot points. The other way is supported by the flat parts in the piston pin and the cranckshaft so the bucling length is only 0,5 times the length of the rod so all being equal it requires half the force to buckle to the I-beam direction compared to the H beam direction which is why it is reasonable to create an I beam design.
josbanse thanks for the info. I’ll read up on buckling in rods tonight. Have you seen the crazy forged carbon fibre rods made out of trusses? I wonder how they stack up against traditional rod designs.
thanks, i am building a vw beetle (classic ofc) and want to boost it and the engine already has a relatively low redline, so now i know what part to buy👍
Thank you for clearing this up, I play with 4g63 Mitsubishis and for years all I ever heard was ("I" Beams are the best for our engines) which the stock "I" Beam rods have broken the stereotypical notion of "stock rods are too weak". So that's all I ever used was that up until I got a block recently with "H" and was going to tear it down to replace them with "I" but now I think I'll just send it and 🤞🏻 she holds up. And if she does then I won't ever be afraid of using"H" Beams. Thanks for this video 😉👍🏻
Hey, I've been watching your videos for a few months now and I just wanted to say your channel is great and waaay under rated. I'm surprised you dont have more subscribers to be frank. I always enjoy the deep level of detail you get into and how you look at everything from an engineering perspective. Keep up the good work!
So I-beam or H-beam doesn't really matter. The important is what you want to build, what power figure you planning to make, and also rod design. All clear now. Thank you man! Your videos are very helpful!
Just when I thort I knew it all, this guy pops up. Great video, content & comments. And perfect command of the English language. He's obviously an engineer, but doesn't use engineer-speak. You are a Gem, Sir. Thank you.
Kind of like which came first; the chicken or the egg. Depends on a lot of factors. For the casual user it only matters that the rod design can handle the hp and rpm. Enjoyed your video. Very thought provoking and that’s a good thing. I’m sure you will get lots of response from some very wise people on engine design. Much to be learned from your video and comments from viewers.
in some engine desings (V-6 with split pin crank shafts, boxer engines etc.), there is very littly bearing lentgh, here the H-beam is clearly the better choise because it offers better buckling resitance in the critical direction. For inline engines, I agree, it doesn't really matter...
Great video. So has someone tried to make box connecting rods? If H or I have flaws in one direction, it stands to reason that a square, hollowed connection rod would be able to do both. I also realize this would be a more expensive option.
Algo sent me here. Good job on this video! There are many H beam rods out there and lots I've encountered in the past were garbage. At least in the VW type I and IV world. For additional confusion, I've settled on Pauter X beam patterns for most of my builds!
In thirty years of professional race engine building (and I've been lucky in working for places that did things properly), I have never seen a rod or big end bolt failure, not even when we had to use modified OEM rods because of regulations. On the other hand I've had several engines sent to me with reported rod or bolt failure. But in every case that I have dealt with, the real cause was lubrication failure which caused the bearing to fail. This then allows the rod to hammer up and down on the crankpin. It is this violent hammering that causes the rod or bolt to break, leading to misdiagnosis. As an aside, you can almost guarantee that a nitrided forged steel crankshaft that has been reground will be cracked on the crankpins - because it will almost certainly have been through the same ordeal as the rods mentioned above. It seems that most people don't have the experience to realise that you should NDT any components that have had this sort of incident. I'm guessing that most people wouldn't be happy to fly on an aircraft where the same attitude had been taken to maintenance.
I wanna make a ls3 twin turbo'd supercharged engine. I don't really know what parts I'd need to change in the stock engine. Thank you for your guys knowledge. I'm a car enthusiast but can't really study on it because my other career im studying for requires a lot of my time learning about it.
Rods are mostly loaded in compression but contrary to what some said section stiffness matters because there is a risk of buckling. The overall stiffness of the part will be important to prevent buckling that's why the tapering/progression of the section is important.. Strong ends will significantly limit eventual buckling. For static strength the H looks better because without or with low dynamic load the weakest plane might be the perpendicular one where the H help prevent buckling (it's not an easy answer without all dimensions). Contrary to common belief i would tend to think the I one is better for high rpm because the dynamic loads will be huge and in the rotation plane the I beam will help, those dynamic loads will "help" the part buckle by inducing flex. I will limit that more than H. That said the video answer the most important thing for customer : this does not matter as much as the other properties of the part.
Outstanding! I always learn something new with each of your videos, despite thinking that I already know all the basics. Pretty much every time I think I already know something, it turns out that I was wrong all along. Haha. Thanks for the great content!
Be careful with the arp L-19 bolts. They are sensitive to moisture, dont use break cleaner on them and dont touch them with your moist hands. It can cause micro-cracks.
This was a pretty good video, just to the point with the right amount of explanation, yeah, definitely a very good video! But you can talk about the "+" connecting rods? The "+" is considered to be more aerodynamic than H or I connecting rods and more suited for high rpm applications! Of course you need a special crank shaft to be paired with those rods because if the counterweights are not designed to be more aerodynamic as well as the "+" rods, that's useless too.
Hammer die forged chromoly I-beam rods are hard to say no to. They are strong, they do weigh slightly more than typical cast steel fracture split factory rods, but they are the cheaper of the options in rods and won't let you down.
I'm also looking to get some Carrillo rods for my 4g63, but here's the thing... I'm looking both for beefiness and high rpm. If u install em tell me if they perform good or not
@@goosebee I'm on a 4g63 too, i did a lot of reading and settled for the CP pistons with upgraded wrist pins. Also I went with stock 150mm rods with ACL bearings. The motor spins up fast and goes hard, i think the tuner red lined it at 8.5k.
THANX THIS PUT'S SOME OF MY CURIOSITY TO REST AS I NOW KNOW (MOOOORE) THAN PREVIOUSLY AND I'M 67 YRS OLD AND BEEN BUILDING MOTORS MOST OF MY LIFE BUT MIND YOU NOT FOR RACE OF HIGH PERFORMANCE 👍
Hi man, I'm seeing your videos and as materials engineer, your information are pretty accurate, really really good information, I have a question, don't you have any explanation about the performance of engine bearings in different materials?
One additional benefit of H-beam is that it better sheds oil than an I-beam. Aftermarket H-beams tend to be cheaper and often lighter, as well. Aftermarket I-beams will always be king in very high-torque applications.
Bless you for being such a good teacher AND such a child! ;) pew pew! It would have been easy to talk a bit about both and say it doesn’t matter which is chosen, but you go further... explaining the pro’s and con’s, the key aspects that would help someone choose the best type for them and rule out poorer designs. As with your videos discussing forged / billet etc, there’s a lot of marketing on factors that a layman might go for, but the crucial details are deeper down and I love that you always deliver on that!
Some engines have H beam stock (ie 2004 Mustang Cobra). H beam has less windage, but I beam is better at resisting beam bend since it is the correct orientation for the loads of the piston. That said, they are both overkill.
I was super interested in H beans until I realized the fact that they're normally compared to the bad wrap of I beams being linked to shock rods. Now I just look for the nicest beefy looking rod with the most appropriate weight (I got reallyinto building high revving smalblocks). If its built better than stock it's better than stock. The way I see it the strongest piston rod is a blue printed crankshaft lol
Very rare a rod breaks on it's own, but CAN happen, instead, are mostly from collateral damage. If a rod is gonna break, like anything else, it won't matter what material it's made from, or what shape it is. That said, it has been my experience when diagnosing a rod failure, is that they break from outside in, not the other way around. That alone tells me, and why I mostly use them, is an I-beam, being thicker and stronger on the outside of the beam, is stronger. Ever see an aluminum H-beam? Also, H-beam design rods hold a ton of oil weight in the channel of the beam, which most don't realize. I do use them in moderate builds with success, but my first choice is an I-beam design.
I was always under the impression that I beams were stronger than H beams because of the opposing side loadings, where an H-beam usually has a single center loading which is just as thin as a single side of an I-beam. H beams were just as strong as I beams at a lower weight but couldn't resist compression as much as i beams. In high turbo applications at high rpm, the sides tend to flare out.
Hi, greetings... I have a sugestion for a video. Talk about, "What makes more power with the same turbo pressure, a low compression turbocharged engine or a high compression turbocharged engine?". A comparison talking about ignition timing and volumetric filling... We heard here, that, the theorically a low compression engine fits more air/fuel into the cylinder and accept more ignition timing and the high compression engine will accept less ignition advance and fits less air/fuel into cylinder. The high compression engine cannot go into higher pressures of turbo, because the major risks of engine breaking, and the low compression turbo, can uses more turbo pressure. That makes the low compression engine turbocharged engine with a higher pressures of turbo makes more horsepower than the high compression engine with the same pressure. Thanks in advance.
Custom build Pankl Ti rods at £1K each, H section.. stop slobbering! We ought to have a video on Ti Alu and steel rods - which is best. These are great videos.
Jim,I see that now they are making caged roller bearings for use as cam bearings is it possible to use caged roller for big end rod bearings and even wrist pin roller bearings finally, caged roller bearings main crankshaft bearings maybe the Germans could do it with high pressure cold oil cooling ?
Watching your program I like what you’re saying I like how you explain it so when I built my small block Chevy I had everything balanced crankshaft rods pistons wristbands and works very well are used ARP fasteners throughout studs on the lower end studs on cylinder heads keep this small block together thank you for your video I’ll be watching more and putting this on save to reference later thanks again. DAGO. Linda Vista.
Given that the connecting rod is the point of failure, which one would do less damage to the block, crank, and piston? assuming it bent but didn't break.
watched your first vid on these, then watched this one... will be ordering a set for my Hayabusa, that will be getting some boost. hope they work out as well as we are hoping =D
no. that's kinda how force loading works. the polar moment of inertia is how we express a shapes ability to withstand moments. the superior shape is the one with the highest moment of inertia in the loaded plane. you can make an H beam better than an I beam purely by thickening up those webs. if you are going to compare the same exact weight rod with the same exact cross sectional area, the I beam will win. barring a silly design, you will be able to make the I shape have a much higher moment of inertia. these bent rods are likely from buckling stress, so you would need to balance both directions so the rod doesn't buckle sideways in either direction. if rod manufacturers provided cross sections and materials with temper, you could objectively compare each rod and determine who is better. direct cross sectional area is only used to compare tensile stresses, and cannot be used to determine the effectiveness of a bending moment. if these rods were loaded purely in tension, the bigger cross section would likely win. the nature of friction on the wrist pins and crank causes moment loading though which is not a pure tensile load.
The point that you havent made is, when a rod breaks ,its at is centre of gravity point, and why it breaks, because the fatigue strength of the material is not high enough , fatigue strength thats whats important,and if you want a very fatigue resistant standard rod then get it Shot Peened at a reputable shop. Then it will with stand fatigue better than most after market rods. This is due to their forgings being overall machined which cuts through the forging fibres. Turbo used rods normally bend through detonation and usually people who change an engine by sticking a turbo on dont remapp the ecu. So the rod bends ,in very high turbo engines rods dont bend. And rods break in engines with very high rpm because of Fatigue .....60years designing engines from high performance sportscar engines through to F1.
your channel deserves so much more. would you cover piston port 2 strokes in a video? im at a cross roads with mine, i race a 13hp motor with very strict regulations vs a 17hp open for mods motor, i can compete however i dont have the understanding to take it further within the rule book. even just a basic run down would really help. if you need any photos or videos (that is if u give enough of a shit to cover it) just ask, i can provide
If the H-beam conrods were in ANY category better than I-beam rods (i.e. cost, weight, strength, available space, ...) then you would see H-beam conrods by any manufacturer - but you don't. Because they are not superior in any category. Which makes sense, because of material physics. For aftermarket products there is a special category that seems to be quite important: standing out, beeing special, looking different - and that is where the H-beam conrods comes in. After all I do support your statement: buy what is made out of the right material with the right manufacturing process and with a reasonable price. If a H-beam conrod fits those criteria, then there you go!
0:11: Let me stop you right there: I reckon the difference in size is all that matters in the comparison of I vs H beams. In short, I'd think that for short stroke engines H might have the superior desirable properties while for long stroke, you'd probably want I beams. Now, what happens in the middle of the range engines between short stroke and long stroke, I hear you ask. I dunno. It was all a hunch anyway. That was the best I could come up as to the why of one versus the other. Now, I'll get back to watching the rest of the video... : )
Some rods have a horsepower rating with them. I wonder, do they have test engines that they test the rods in, to the point of failure, and then apply that Failure@Horsepower rating to the label?
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
H-beam Rods Link: www.maxpeedingrods.com/Toyota-Corolla-E80-E90-1.6L-4A-GE-122mm-Connecting-Rod-High-Performance-4340-EN24-H-Beam-Conrod.html?tracking=D4A
Coupon: D4A -- get 8% OFF for all orders on maxpeedingrods.com.
Unboxing video: th-cam.com/video/-E0H2voOC2M/w-d-xo.html
Support d4a: driving-4-answers-shop.fourthwall.com/
Sweet ... Though I'm just an engine-ignoramus (who likes physics) ... in your vid re: rod materials:
I asked if shot peening could mitigate some material science differences.
Though dumb in some respects (obviously it'd make more sense to use it on all high-stress apps)...
It was cool to see that it is advisable in this field.
PS, as well as New Mind, I can't recommend enough checking out: This Old Tony
th-cam.com/users/featony (yes, TO the Driving 4 Answers ... & sure, the audience also)
Maxpeedingrods have sharpish edges on the bottom just next to where the bolts screw in - do you think it matters at all in this case?
There is a company in texas that has created a X beam basically a combination of the h and I beam rods the company is called lunati
I heard that there's actually a new type of connecting rod on the block. "x-beam" or something like that.
On a small cheap 2 stroke moped engine, do you think you could drill some holes in the I beam of the rod , to remove some weight while still keeping it strong enough for use, if you didn't go too crazy with drilling?
A technical school should hire this man, he knows how explain properly
Seriously, i could see him being a teacher
2nd!
I 3rd that idea, as long as he stays on here 😜😉
Other careers pay more than teaching.
Why, they will just show his videos for free and charge a ton
Interesting! The answer is obvious: H-beam rods give you a nice, smooth side to put your brand name on.
😊😊😊
And a Bigget surface, to have a Bigger brand name on !!! ;-)
Think you hit the nail on the head here mate.
Mechanical engineer here: I beam is better for the same cross-sectional area due to higher second moment of inertia. It's like you said, people compare it to OEM rods and think is better. And yes i use h-beam in my engine because of what is available at what price. If you have eccentric buckling load due to knocking/detonation you should worry about your tune first rather than the rods.
St0RM33 But neither is as good in compression as is a circular tube. But that would be much more expensive to manufacture.
LTVoyager that doesn’t make sense. Circular tubes are only as good as solids in resisting stresses due to torsion. In tensile/compression, solids are always better because they have more cross-sectional area. Stress = (Force / Area) so given the same compressive/tensile force, the shape with the highest Area can withstand more stress.
Eccentric loading. Buckling happens at some point, regardless, but eccentric loading will propagate buckling sooner.
A geometrical shape's ability to resist buckling is primarily dependant on the second moment of inertia, in either the x or y direction (I_x or I_y) I'd be driven to think that the design of an I beam would compensate one of the moments of inertia; making it smaller and therefore increase the design's tendency to buckle in the lacking compartment.
I'm only on the second semester of mechanical engineering, and I would love to know why this assumption is incorrect
I must also state that I am not familiar with buckling in inhomogenous geometries, thank you.
2nd Mechanical Engineer here. Storm33 is on track regarding cross section shape
Rods have axial compression force from combustion, axial tension force from induction, and reversing crosswise load from thrashing around.
The I beam is better resisting the crosswise bending stresses. The bending stresses increase with the square of RPM, axial combustion stresses don’t. Rod cleavage just above the big end usually RPM failure.
Another critical rod condition is high RPM, closed throttle..like a downshift. The rod end cap connection preload and the rod bolts are tortured.
In my view, H beam rod superiority is in advertising rather than a prominent technical advantage. Faith trumping science not uncommon in the gearhead community. Cheers
I tried so hard
And got so far
But in the end
H or I beam doesn't matter!
*Even 😉
One thing, I don't know why
It doesn't even matter how hard you try
Keep that in mind
I designed this rhyme
To remind myself of a time when
I tried so hard....to choose between H or I beam.. :B
@@googlesucks0623 I left it out to match the syllables better. 😂
@@crxtodd16 Bent rod, I don't know why,
It doesn't even live with E85. 😂
This part of the comments section is on fire!
Rhymes be dropping stoking my rap desire.
Who cares about cranks, rods and beams.
Let's just boost our engines till they break at the seams.
Interesting and good points. When faced with a choice when I build my engine, I choose forged I beam for lightness, and also a lighter piston and rod means less mass to move, and personally I think lightweight gives better power and 'probably' helps with less bearing wear as there isn't much inertia to hammer the crank and rod bearings during combustion. But maybe for insane power levels and high boost, an H beam is the only choice that can take the kind of abuse from high boost engines.
The most durable rod is actually aluminium rods for high boost due to its cushioning effect which absorbs some pressure
Actually using an I beam rod is not for the sake of weight but torsional movement. H beams have their place as it allows you to have a moderately strong rod at a lower price. Weight itself, they have found it better to be heavier on the crank and rods with as light as possible piston (i.e. thinnest dome and smallest skirt profile that you can get away with in your combination).
If you want to know what to use parts wise say in a naturally aspirated combination, look no further than NASCAR or my preference NHRA Pro Stock. 500ci, around 1600hp NA, and were spinning them to 11,200 plus RPM. Those guys are are literally looking for a single horsepower while doing engine development. They've tried every combination material wise for the internals and found titanium rods flex too much, titanium wrists pins bend, aluminum rods have to be ran shorter as they grow in length which means you can't run tight piston to valve clearance and in turn loses power. So they're right back to a heavy steel I beam like Oliver, CP-Carillo, etc. With taper walled tool steel wrist pins.
Aluminum rods are not used for weight as they weigh around the same as a steel rod because of all the mass they carry to equal the same strength. Aluminum is used for it's dampening/cushion and a big reason is when they break they don't ruin the whole engine like a steel rod when it comes apart.
I've got no dog in the race and I'm just spit balling some thoughts here...
Is there a point where lightweight it's too lightweight? You said that lightweight produces "better" power... "Better" = More? What is better; torque or HP? Or "Better" = Usability. Where are you using it?
You also said that lightweight will wear/longevity better. Less mass changes direction easier. I'm by no means argue with the second statement. But my thinking is this: Would you rather 100lbs spin 400 times (so 800 direction changes) or 75lbs spin 600 times (1200 direction changes)? What weighs more; 100lbs@4000rpm or 75lbs@6000rpm?
My point being saving weight to gain the ability to spin faster sometimes ends up weighing more AS WELL AS completing more cycles....
Engines wear and longevity is DIRECTLY related to revolutions/rotations. Weigh/inertia/whatever plays little role when the proper weight oil is used. Why do diesels last so long? Not because they weigh more, not because cylinder Temps or pressures, or oil contamination... Because they spin slower and revolve fewer times per miles/minute.
So... That being said? If wear is an issue and to combat this issue you decide to spin fewer times....
Would you rather throw more or less weight around per revolution?
Weight plays very minor role when your aren't worrying about race class rules.
@@chadthomasriggs of course going too far there is always a point of diminishing returns. I was generalising. And I agree with you that it all boils down to application.
I and H beam (given same cross sectional area) have different area moment of inertia but the differences are only apparent if the beam is resisting bending due to a moment (caused by forces normal to the surface of the beam) like in a building. The way a rod operates in engine almost eliminates the differences between their moments of inertia (because they’re not really resisting bending like they would in a building) so it’s best to focus on things like the material / process used to making the rods, stress concentrations (you don’t want sharp transitions) and luxuries like shot pinning and case hardening. 8:41 and onward has really good information ☝️
Fedora Cheeto When you plagiarize the writing of another you should at least credit the original author.
@@mikek5298 this is first year stuff bud. No plagiarizing just explaining how they differ.
The most critical situation the rods needs to withstand is actually buckling which relates directly to the moment of inertia and the buckling coefficient/effective buckling length that comes from the buckling mode. The buckling mode is ofcourse different in the diffrerent directions. I beam is the better way in this regards as the bucling length for that is the true length of the rod as the round surfaces acts as pivot points. The other way is supported by the flat parts in the piston pin and the cranckshaft so the bucling length is only 0,5 times the length of the rod so all being equal it requires half the force to buckle to the I-beam direction compared to the H beam direction which is why it is reasonable to create an I beam design.
josbanse thanks for the info. I’ll read up on buckling in rods tonight. Have you seen the crazy forged carbon fibre rods made out of trusses? I wonder how they stack up against traditional rod designs.
@@1uzfe These? >> www.thedrive.com/news/31173/these-3d-printed-carbon-composite-connecting-rods-are-strong-enough-to-withstand-3000-hp www.speedhunters.com/2018/11/pushing-the-boundaries-carbon-conrods/
This is important info. I went with Carilo H beam for the rod bolts. 1.3 liter 11.5K 1.5Bar 396RWHP
thanks, i am building a vw beetle (classic ofc) and want to boost it and the engine already has a relatively low redline, so now i know what part to buy👍
I just can't help it to get excited for D4A videos.
So professional, so enthusiastic, so Motorhead.
11:13 I can relate... We all have that playful 11yr old at heart really pushing for it... Thanks for the video...
Thank you for clearing this up, I play with 4g63 Mitsubishis and for years all I ever heard was ("I" Beams are the best for our engines) which the stock "I" Beam rods have broken the stereotypical notion of "stock rods are too weak". So that's all I ever used was that up until I got a block recently with "H" and was going to tear it down to replace them with "I" but now I think I'll just send it and 🤞🏻 she holds up. And if she does then I won't ever be afraid of using"H" Beams. Thanks for this video 😉👍🏻
Hey, I've been watching your videos for a few months now and I just wanted to say your channel is great and waaay under rated. I'm surprised you dont have more subscribers to be frank. I always enjoy the deep level of detail you get into and how you look at everything from an engineering perspective. Keep up the good work!
So I-beam or H-beam doesn't really matter. The important is what you want to build, what power figure you planning to make, and also rod design. All clear now. Thank you man!
Your videos are very helpful!
a ford 460ci,will rev to 7k,std.with a mild cam,flat tops,over 500 hp,reliable,forever.&,cheap.pity it wont fit in your rice burner,,eh..
@@phantomwalker8251 rice burner
You mean civic? Ups!
Just when I thort I knew it all, this guy pops up. Great video, content & comments. And perfect command of the English language. He's obviously an engineer, but doesn't use engineer-speak. You are a Gem, Sir. Thank you.
Kind of like which came first; the chicken or the egg. Depends on a lot of factors. For the casual user it only matters that the rod design can handle the hp and rpm. Enjoyed your video. Very thought provoking and that’s a good thing. I’m sure you will get lots of response from some very wise people on engine design. Much to be learned from your video and comments from viewers.
in some engine desings (V-6 with split pin crank shafts, boxer engines etc.), there is very littly bearing lentgh, here the H-beam is clearly the better choise because it offers better buckling resitance in the critical direction. For inline engines, I agree, it doesn't really matter...
For na high rpm get the lighter rods. For boost higher hp get the heavier one. If you want both get aluminum rods but need to replace more often.
Fantastic A very good explanation i have used both and have no preference other then H beam is good for hi RPM thank you
And if you really want lightweight you can always go for titanium 💵 rods 😉
oh how bad i want it but oh how expencive it is....
Ståle Mahoney
Arrow Precision Connecting Rod (BMW M50) at $319,95 suddenly seem like a bargain 😁
Or carbon fiber 😋
Lightweight and strong...
@@arkangel2487 good in tension, bad in compression
I would love to see a OEM vs Aftermarket bearing video
The 03/04 cobra mustang came from the factory with Manley H-beam rods
Great video. So has someone tried to make box connecting rods? If H or I have flaws in one direction, it stands to reason that a square, hollowed connection rod would be able to do both. I also realize this would be a more expensive option.
Thanks for a great video, blew my mk7 gti engine, will go with H beam to take loads of boost on the rebuild
thanks man
Man i remember your early videos about your mr2, you've come such a long way since then. Glad to see your coming up! almost 100k!
The aw11 is still a huge part of this channel. I'm building a turbo engine for it now 😊
It offers a wide choice, a good explanation.
Algo sent me here. Good job on this video!
There are many H beam rods out there and lots I've encountered in the past were garbage. At least in the VW type I and IV world.
For additional confusion, I've settled on Pauter X beam patterns for most of my builds!
In thirty years of professional race engine building (and I've been lucky in working for places that did things properly), I have never seen a rod or big end bolt failure, not even when we had to use modified OEM rods because of regulations. On the other hand I've had several engines sent to me with reported rod or bolt failure. But in every case that I have dealt with, the real cause was lubrication failure which caused the bearing to fail. This then allows the rod to hammer up and down on the crankpin. It is this violent hammering that causes the rod or bolt to break, leading to misdiagnosis. As an aside, you can almost guarantee that a nitrided forged steel crankshaft that has been reground will be cracked on the crankpins - because it will almost certainly have been through the same ordeal as the rods mentioned above. It seems that most people don't have the experience to realise that you should NDT any components that have had this sort of incident. I'm guessing that most people wouldn't be happy to fly on an aircraft where the same attitude had been taken to maintenance.
Perfect video, thank You. And how about X-beam rods?
Thanks for this honest answer for this complex problem. Thumbs up!
I wanna make a ls3 twin turbo'd supercharged engine. I don't really know what parts I'd need to change in the stock engine. Thank you for your guys knowledge. I'm a car enthusiast but can't really study on it because my other career im studying for requires a lot of my time learning about it.
Rods are mostly loaded in compression but contrary to what some said section stiffness matters because there is a risk of buckling. The overall stiffness of the part will be important to prevent buckling that's why the tapering/progression of the section is important.. Strong ends will significantly limit eventual buckling.
For static strength the H looks better because without or with low dynamic load the weakest plane might be the perpendicular one where the H help prevent buckling (it's not an easy answer without all dimensions).
Contrary to common belief i would tend to think the I one is better for high rpm because the dynamic loads will be huge and in the rotation plane the I beam will help, those dynamic loads will "help" the part buckle by inducing flex. I will limit that more than H.
That said the video answer the most important thing for customer : this does not matter as much as the other properties of the part.
Thanks for the info it really help me a lot on my decision on which to get for my engine modification in the near future.
Love your videos man! So clear and detailed and the way you present the info never feels boring. Thanks for making them! 👍😊
Outstanding! I always learn something new with each of your videos, despite thinking that I already know all the basics. Pretty much every time I think I already know something, it turns out that I was wrong all along. Haha. Thanks for the great content!
Be careful with the arp L-19 bolts. They are sensitive to moisture, dont use break cleaner on them and dont touch them with your moist hands. It can cause micro-cracks.
A very knowledgeable and precise person
This was a pretty good video, just to the point with the right amount of explanation, yeah, definitely a very good video! But you can talk about the "+" connecting rods? The "+" is considered to be more aerodynamic than H or I connecting rods and more suited for high rpm applications! Of course you need a special crank shaft to be paired with those rods because if the counterweights are not designed to be more aerodynamic as well as the "+" rods, that's useless too.
Hammer die forged chromoly I-beam rods are hard to say no to. They are strong, they do weigh slightly more than typical cast steel fracture split factory rods, but they are the cheaper of the options in rods and won't let you down.
I chose carrillo pro h rods, best rods on the market and they're light too. I payed extra for the car bolt too.
I'm also looking to get some Carrillo rods for my 4g63, but here's the thing... I'm looking both for beefiness and high rpm. If u install em tell me if they perform good or not
@@goosebee I'm on a 4g63 too, i did a lot of reading and settled for the CP pistons with upgraded wrist pins. Also I went with stock 150mm rods with ACL bearings. The motor spins up fast and goes hard, i think the tuner red lined it at 8.5k.
@@jethrox827 thanks for the info man, I'm running a 6 bolt 4g63 what are u running?
@@goosebee stock bottom end, evo 9, dyno'd at 400hp AU hp which is about 500 USA hp lol
@@jethrox827 nice numbers dude good luck!
THANX THIS PUT'S SOME OF MY CURIOSITY TO REST
AS I NOW KNOW
(MOOOORE) THAN PREVIOUSLY AND I'M
67 YRS OLD AND BEEN BUILDING MOTORS MOST OF MY LIFE BUT MIND YOU NOT FOR RACE OF HIGH PERFORMANCE 👍
Hi man, I'm seeing your videos and as materials engineer, your information are pretty accurate, really really good information, I have a question, don't you have any explanation about the performance of engine bearings in different materials?
what about a cross or box shaped con rod?
One additional benefit of H-beam is that it better sheds oil than an I-beam. Aftermarket H-beams tend to be cheaper and often lighter, as well. Aftermarket I-beams will always be king in very high-torque applications.
Now ik what rods to put on my project corolla that im gonna but a 4age 20v 💪 thanks man
@Alan cZar wait what?
Maan, i'm never disappointed by ur vids, THANK YOU
Bless you for being such a good teacher AND such a child! ;) pew pew! It would have been easy to talk a bit about both and say it doesn’t matter which is chosen, but you go further... explaining the pro’s and con’s, the key aspects that would help someone choose the best type for them and rule out poorer designs. As with your videos discussing forged / billet etc, there’s a lot of marketing on factors that a layman might go for, but the crucial details are deeper down and I love that you always deliver on that!
Just watched. How about comparing these two configurations with other custom ones? Like the Pauter MQB Gen 3 4340.
I was going to ask the exact same question and specifically how the Pauter compares to the H/I beams in MQB Gen 3 looking forward to any insights
It's over Anakin! I have the I-beam!
You underestimate my H-beam.
Don't try it
Thank you that was very good .Have you ever seen a Stihl 084 chain saw con rod ? It is like a H beam with no center wow it different thanks again
Some engines have H beam stock (ie 2004 Mustang Cobra). H beam has less windage, but I beam is better at resisting beam bend since it is the correct orientation for the loads of the piston. That said, they are both overkill.
I was super interested in H beans until I realized the fact that they're normally compared to the bad wrap of I beams being linked to shock rods. Now I just look for the nicest beefy looking rod with the most appropriate weight (I got reallyinto building high revving smalblocks). If its built better than stock it's better than stock. The way I see it the strongest piston rod is a blue printed crankshaft lol
Simple, choose the hollow square , best design mathematically, but to manufacture it, good luck.
3 d printing ftw
@@chewylewy1714 3D printing, LOL.
A great discussion would be compressive loads and tensile loads in determining rod design for your engine
Love your channel brother!!
I've got a maximised shaft to end connection.
Only one thing you missed... machine split or fractured split rod comparison. Other than that, great video, good points.
best day ever you make my day every week
Next up valves and then how to setup your Speeduino
Very rare a rod breaks on it's own, but CAN happen, instead, are mostly from collateral damage. If a rod is gonna break, like anything else, it won't matter what material it's made from, or what shape it is. That said, it has been my experience when diagnosing a rod failure, is that they break from outside in, not the other way around. That alone tells me, and why I mostly use them, is an I-beam, being thicker and stronger on the outside of the beam, is stronger. Ever see an aluminum H-beam? Also, H-beam design rods hold a ton of oil weight in the channel of the beam, which most don't realize. I do use them in moderate builds with success, but my first choice is an I-beam design.
What parts need to be changed to make such powerful motors
I was always under the impression that I beams were stronger than H beams because of the opposing side loadings, where an H-beam usually has a single center loading which is just as thin as a single side of an I-beam. H beams were just as strong as I beams at a lower weight but couldn't resist compression as much as i beams. In high turbo applications at high rpm, the sides tend to flare out.
Hi, greetings...
I have a sugestion for a video. Talk about, "What makes more power with the same turbo pressure, a low compression turbocharged engine or a high compression turbocharged engine?". A comparison talking about ignition timing and volumetric filling... We heard here, that, the theorically a low compression engine fits more air/fuel into the cylinder and accept more ignition timing and the high compression engine will accept less ignition advance and fits less air/fuel into cylinder. The high compression engine cannot go into higher pressures of turbo, because the major risks of engine breaking, and the low compression turbo, can uses more turbo pressure. That makes the low compression engine turbocharged engine with a higher pressures of turbo makes more horsepower than the high compression engine with the same pressure.
Thanks in advance.
Custom build Pankl Ti rods at £1K each, H section.. stop slobbering! We ought to have a video on Ti Alu and steel rods - which is best. These are great videos.
Perfect 👌
Wait for the gearbox's materials comparison 🔥🔥
Thank you for the great video!!! You always make it sound so simple
Jim,I see that now they are making caged roller bearings for use as cam bearings is it possible to use caged roller for big end rod bearings and even wrist pin roller bearings finally, caged roller bearings main crankshaft bearings maybe the Germans could do it with high pressure cold oil cooling ?
The whole entire video it felt like you where holding guns and the and part confermed my thoughts haha
do people practically apply heavier rods for high rpm applications to run high rpms longer while making bigger power?
Really good stuff man! These videos are killin' it.
Watching your program I like what you’re saying I like how you explain it so when I built my small block Chevy I had everything balanced crankshaft rods pistons wristbands and works very well are used ARP fasteners throughout studs on the lower end studs on cylinder heads keep this small block together thank you for your video I’ll be watching more and putting this on save to reference later thanks again. DAGO. Linda Vista.
Man- You ALWAYS seem to have interesting subjects on yer videos- Nice job!
Given that the connecting rod is the point of failure, which one would do less damage to the block, crank, and piston? assuming it bent but didn't break.
Hi I’m Joe could tell me more about GM crack rods on how they are made
watched your first vid on these, then watched this one... will be ordering a set for my Hayabusa, that will be getting some boost. hope they work out as well as we are hoping =D
Great information! Well laid out, thank you 🙏
Please tell me which type of rods I need for my electrical car ? A H or I beam ?
no. that's kinda how force loading works. the polar moment of inertia is how we express a shapes ability to withstand moments. the superior shape is the one with the highest moment of inertia in the loaded plane. you can make an H beam better than an I beam purely by thickening up those webs. if you are going to compare the same exact weight rod with the same exact cross sectional area, the I beam will win. barring a silly design, you will be able to make the I shape have a much higher moment of inertia. these bent rods are likely from buckling stress, so you would need to balance both directions so the rod doesn't buckle sideways in either direction. if rod manufacturers provided cross sections and materials with temper, you could objectively compare each rod and determine who is better. direct cross sectional area is only used to compare tensile stresses, and cannot be used to determine the effectiveness of a bending moment. if these rods were loaded purely in tension, the bigger cross section would likely win. the nature of friction on the wrist pins and crank causes moment loading though which is not a pure tensile load.
Eccentric loading should be considered for buckling, too.
My V8 has fracture split connecting rods. Can you discuss the advantages?
I mean just asking. Wouldn’t the h beam be better for forged pistons? Because of the pistons slapping all around the cylinder?
first teacher who i realy listen to xD
The point that you havent made is, when a rod breaks ,its at is centre of gravity point, and why it breaks, because the fatigue strength of the material is not high enough , fatigue strength thats whats important,and if you want a very fatigue resistant standard rod then get it Shot Peened at a reputable shop. Then it will with stand fatigue better than most after market rods. This is due to their forgings being overall machined which cuts through the forging fibres. Turbo used rods normally bend through detonation and usually people who change an engine by sticking a turbo on dont remapp the ecu. So the rod bends ,in very high turbo engines rods dont bend. And rods break in engines with very high rpm because of Fatigue .....60years designing engines from high performance sportscar engines through to F1.
New idea, x beam. Perfect combo
Now to find aftermarket rods for the Toyota 3ZRFE 🤷♂️
i have a goal to build myself a v4 engine from bottom up
Very informative video, as always.
WOW AMZING LIKE ALWAYS.KEEP THE GREAT WORK THANK YOU
your channel deserves so much more. would you cover piston port 2 strokes in a video? im at a cross roads with mine, i race a 13hp motor with very strict regulations vs a 17hp open for mods motor, i can compete however i dont have the understanding to take it further within the rule book. even just a basic run down would really help. if you need any photos or videos (that is if u give enough of a shit to cover it) just ask, i can provide
Time for X beams.
My engine doe 8k rpm and is boosted (super charged) and I use I beam rods. No issues.
If the H-beam conrods were in ANY category better than I-beam rods (i.e. cost, weight, strength, available space, ...) then you would see H-beam conrods by any manufacturer - but you don't. Because they are not superior in any category. Which makes sense, because of material physics.
For aftermarket products there is a special category that seems to be quite important: standing out, beeing special, looking different - and that is where the H-beam conrods comes in.
After all I do support your statement: buy what is made out of the right material with the right manufacturing process and with a reasonable price. If a H-beam conrod fits those criteria, then there you go!
RPMs what are they ? And how do you measure Revs per minutes and how many minutes do you use ?????
Excellent presentation. Thank You.
it does matter if you have options of lighter or stronger choices.
0:11: Let me stop you right there: I reckon the difference in size is all that matters in the comparison of I vs H beams. In short, I'd think that for short stroke engines H might have the superior desirable properties while for long stroke, you'd probably want I beams. Now, what happens in the middle of the range engines between short stroke and long stroke, I hear you ask. I dunno. It was all a hunch anyway. That was the best I could come up as to the why of one versus the other.
Now, I'll get back to watching the rest of the video... : )
Fantastic good explanation. Thank you!
Can you make a video about the Honda H22 motor? F20b and h33 but mostly H22
Some rods have a horsepower rating with them. I wonder, do they have test engines that they test the rods in, to the point of failure, and then apply that Failure@Horsepower rating to the label?
Excellent presentation
Does a laminated rod exist and or is there any benefit to it?