Patreon: www.patreon.com/d4a Become a Tuning Pro: hpcdmy.co/dr4a Support the channel by shopping through this link: amzn.to/3RIqU0u Motivation: th-cam.com/channels/t3YSIPcvJsYbwGCDLNiIKA.html
The science is interesting but if any young person asked me about going into internal combustion engineering I would dissuade them and steer them into electronics. Combustion engines have done their time. Their life evolvement has come to its end and will bow out over the next 10 years to electric motors
I have been an engineer all my life, (I'm now 57) I have to say that you explanation of what is essentially dynamic geometry, is the most straightforward and understandable that I have seen. Great video, thanks for helping others understand this fascinating field of engineering.
How the rod to stoke ratio geometry affects efficiency was explained to us in high school physics class. It's also why the 340 Mopar engines would terrorize (and mop the floor with) the small block Ford's and Chevy's back in the day. Because of that geometry - only the 302 Ford's and 302/327 Chevy's had a slight chance. The weakness of the stock SB Mopar was in the hydraulic lifters (neg lash preload+ pump up) and non adjustable rockers, creating valve float and power loss above 6000 rpm. Solve the valve float issue with solid lifters and the 340 became a nightmare for the big block boys and girls. Efficiency = free power.
I don’t have a degree for anything and I’ve built a lot of engines over the last 30 years and always take into consideration rod and crank lengths for the proper rod ratio for its intended use.
No years of automotive education, but a great HS physics teacher 47 years ago, had me seeing all of this intuitively before he even started to speak. And if he wanted to simplify he does not need to review all 4 quadrants of the revolution, any one suffices to explain the others.
Been a motorcycle mechanic and amateur motocross racer for 30 years. I absolutely love your content. Fabulous explanations and animations. I use your content to help other techs all the time! Thank you for all the hard work you put in!
Almost 50 years as a mechanic and this is the best presentation I have seen - going back to my college days I remember the instructor telling us the wild angle of the short connecting rod created greater side thrust on the piston/cylinder wall; so far so obvious, but surprisingly he told us that was a good thing and set about constructing a triangle of forces to prove how the equivalent of that side thrust adds to the force of combustion and causes the engine to produce more torque. It was a long time ago and I don't remember the finer details, in fact I think I did well remembering that much, considering I have never needed to use that calculation in my entire career...
I knew that rotatary to oscillating movement is unbalanced, that’s why the cv joint was invented, but I never gave what happens in one rev of an ic engine any thought. Till now. Brilliant video.
17 minutes and I now understand something I had no idea understanding of before, even having an above-average knowledge of how ICE's work (not saying much). This was so great. Nice job!
Using a longer rod length not only helps to reduce secondary vibrations, but also helps to reduce higher-order oscillations that can be difficult to suppress. Most people know that, in any piston engine, the piston's secondary motion can be broken down into a primary component (one that varies at the same speed as the crankshaft) and secondary component (varying at twice the engine speed). However, what most people don't realise is that the secondary vibration itself is not perfectly sinusoidal and will have _harmonics_ (whole number multiples of the fundamental frequency). The secondary motion becomes more "pointed" at mid-stroke (less sinusoidal) with lower rod ratios, and as the secondary motion gets more and more "pointed" both the secondary oscillation itself and its harmonics (4th order, 6th order, _et cetera_ oscillations) increase in amplitude. The peak-to-peak amplitudes of the secondary oscillation's fundamental and harmonics can be calculated by: A = 2 / π * ∫(cos(nθ) * √(L^2 - (S sin(θ) / 2)^2) dθ, -π to π) Where _n_ is a non-zero even number, L is the rod's centre-to-centre distance, and S is the stroke length. This effect is most prevalent on large two-stroke low-speed marine Diesel engines, where the rod ratio is often around 1 or less than 1. -(to the point where they need crossheads to take up the lateral thrust).- The reason is that these engines have extremely long strokes, so by using crossheads and short rods they can make the engine shorter in height. Most of these engines also lack balance shafts, so they transmit almost all of their external forces and external rocking moments to the ship (for a marine application) or foundation (for stationary land-based power generation). This problem is aggravated by the fact that the components are all very heavy, which makes the forces even greater. Take a look at MAN Diesel's project guides for their two-stroke engines (K-model, L-model, S-model, and G-model engine families, though as of 2022 they don't make K or L engines anymore), and on the section where they list the firing orders of each of the variants they will also list not only the first- and second-order vibrations, but also the second- and third-order harmonics of the secondary vibrations (fourth- and sixth-order vibrations). For example, although the 12G90ME has perfect primary balance, they do _not_ have perfect secondary balance. Although there is no second-order rocking moment, the second harmonic of the secondary vibration is still significant and produces a _fourth-order_ rocking moment of 724 kN•m (534000 lb-ft) at 84 RPM (which is conveniently twice that of the 6G90ME's fourth-order rocking moment of 362 kN•m). The greatest offenders are the secondary rocking moments on five- and six-cylinder engines, which is why they sometimes _are_ fitted with balance shafts. Large six-cylinder engines also have a sixth-order vertical shake. The heavy components and short rods already make fourth- and sixth-order oscillations a problem, and the 60° spacing between crank throws doesn't help either, as the sixth-order forces (the secondary vibration's third harmonic) for each cylinder all point in the same direction. The sixth-order vertical shake on the 6G90ME has a magnitude of about 32 kN (7200 lbf) at 84 RPM. The same is true for four-cylinder engines, as regardless of the firing order the secondary vibrations' second harmonics all point in the same direction, resulting in a fourth-order vertical shake. You'll also notice that the 10- and 11-cylinder engines have non-zero net external forces. This makes me suspect that the 10- and 11-cylinder engines are odd-firing, because if they were even-firing the net forces should all be zero. The reason you only have to deal with primary and secondary vibrations on most engines you'll come across is because their rod ratios are relatively high and their components are relatively light. So not only are the secondary vibrations smaller, they are also much closer to being sinusoidal, which means the higher-order harmonics of the secondary vibrations are negligible.
@@elgoog7830 wouldn't a damper also absorb some energy that you want to go to the load. it's all about reaching that balance between what you need and what you want. those 2 stroke diesels are not running at hi RPM, although the counter weights on the crankshaft actually act as dampers. here's one to thank about... a scotch yoke crank the rod stays inline with the piston???
You've also got to take extreme piston side loading into consideration the shorter the rod. Higher speed engines of larger displacement like the Big Block Chevy always tend to favor a slightly shorter stroke with the longest connecting rod you can get - Now of course there are all sorts of caveats & considerations to that, but for the majority of street & race applications you're more often than not to want the longer rod every time.
I learned more from the 20 minutes of this video that 4 years plus of study! Not only a very professional graphic presentation that displayed it all so accurately but you were able to explain it all and speak in a manner that us lowly wannabes could easily understand. Thank you!
As someone who grew up working on cars and even went on to being an engine builder in two countries before changing careers, you taught me something today. Thank you for this 🙏🏽
After 40 years of tuning Ford engines for club racing in the UK I can say that increasing the rod ratio gave race winning improvements to the engines power, to maximise this effect I also shortened the stroke and increased the bore diameter to restore the capacity allowed in the race class and had some great results. "Sausage" HT Racing Ltd
What kind of cam changes did you do to go along with this? Increasing rod ratio makes cams naturally better for lower rpms (its a relatively small change) while a stroker will naturally move the cams Powerband higher. This is because of the change of piston position at valve opening times
David Vizard said in his Tuning A Series engines that long rods gave better rev performance. His race engines used a 1275 block with short stroke crank and longer rods to restore the piston deck height. Longer stroke engines (eg the 1100) also have longer rods as the cylinder bore can’t accommodate a wide rod angle.
Far more performance was gained by the larger bore and shorter stroke. In the simplest terms, the combustion pressure pushes down on the piston, larger pistons gain more PSI directly for the same exact displacement.
@@Justin-bd2dg yes in theory, but remember that the flame front from the spark plug moves nearly the same speed at all times. So your spark advance has to be earlier creating more pumping losses. Larger bores tend to work better at lower speeds because of this. Typically larger bores are less efficient but make more power with quantity. Another advantage of larger bores is more space for larger valves. There are countless tradeoffs in designing an engine. I wrote an excel spreadsheet once just to help me understand the interactions better
I have an above average understanding of engine dynamics, but every time I watch one of your videos, I learn some nuance that I didn't understand before. Congratulations on the very good videos you produce. Keep up the good work! I hope others appreciate your expertise.
I used to put a lot of effort into building performance Ford 300-6 engines. My pinnacle build was going to be a twin turbo with decently high compression, and one of the things I played around with was rod ratio. Luckily, I could mix and match off the shelf parts to get a decent boost here. Rods from the 240-6 were more than 1/2" longer, 6.2 vs 6.8". Combined with pistons intended for a stroker 347 V8, they fit and gave a compression ratio of about 9.2:1, with the head I was planning on using. Unfortunately, I got married, moved a bunch of times, and the project never got beyond the parts collection stage. I did later build a high compression torque monster 300 for my van, but that's a whole other story.
@@frigglebiscuit7484 There are some pretty wild power potentials with these things. I pretty much stuck with mixing and matching stock block and heads, porting and polishing, various intakes, and custom ground cams usually from Delta.
I just found this channel, and I absolutely love this guy. While I'm not an engineer, listening to your videos is awesome and the explanations are extremely well made!
This was awesome dude! I really liked your animations. I don't think people gave high school geometry class enough respect - little changes in engine geometry seem to be what make the difference between average engines and great engines. Before your channel i hadn't really learned much about engines (even with a mech. Engineering degree lol), but you have some really great info
50 years ago my father gave me the knowledge to build race engines, and the patients to help me turn that into wisdom.... now think of that piston going up & down. F=MA now calulate the G (small g) load on the piston and the connecting rod. heres where the engineering comes in, but its more like material sciences when lightning up the pistons (roods & pins too) almost to the point of failure. street engines are designed to last >10years maybe and a performance engine not so much,,, BTW i said the same thing it my comment about math in school LOL
wasn't that bad but one diagram was dyslexia as after the power stroke the piston is speeding up to max after on the exhaust stroke it slows down and in the compression stroke is being stopped but the mass of the hole engine keeps it going cycling wise
@@dksaevs still rather have a long rod BBM/hemi than a short one same point apply's for the 454 chevy's that side ware out. did you see a 2 pieces pistons? as some geometry's put the pin into the top ring/crown area's and or tricky looking parts
I read about these things ages ago (wrt to motorcycle engines) but for someone new to the subject, this discussion is brilliant and I'm sure you've helped many people understand the concept.
Was aware about the affect of rod length on piston acceleration after studying Kliens construction in my engineering course and playing with high performance 2 stroke engines all my life but the way this guy explains it with the graphics etc is fantastic...great work mate.
I’ve been trying to comprehend piston speed since your first video on it, but never could figure it out (not for lack of good description from you). However this video made it all just click. Thank you so much. Just shows sometimes it take many different ways of explaining something for different people to understand
Piston acceleration is higest at TDC and BDC, this also happens where the relative piston speed is zero. It also goes the other way around, piston acceleration is zero where the speed is the greatest. Holton is also correct, plotting the acceleration and speed in a graph where the x-axis is crank degrees helps visualizing the princip.
@@TheFirstBigCheese It has always amazed me that what most people dint think about is, that piston has to come to a complete stop twice per revolution! That's an amazing thing to do at even 6,000 rpm!
Brilliant explanation,although simple in principle, the comparative dynamics become complicated and this guy takes us through the whole process so coherently, we’ll done,thank you man.
Rod ratio is an engine spec that is almost never published in the basic specs that you might see on the manufacturer website. Before this video I had never even considered rod ratio, but I can see that it can tell you quite a lot about an engine's characteristics.
The technical term for the changing angle of the connecting rod, depending on whether it is a short or long Rod engine, is angular displacement. I started playing around with this stuff when I was 15 years old. You made a excellent explanation of all this.
Wow, the amount of information you passed on in this video is astounding. I seriously can appreciate the engineering behind even just these components so much more now. It's crazy because this is just *one* aspect of these mechanical marvels, and the complexity is still so insane. Huge props to your explanation, excited to learn more from your other things!
@@stanleyhornbeck1625 Yea, like how the clearances between components is so, so tiny, just enough for the oil molecules to fit through and lubricate every piece. Especially with so many pieces too!
I don't find it to be insane. Once you start learning how to disassemble and reassemble engines and transmissions it becomes simpler to understand how they fit together and understanding each part's purpose makes it easy to see why they are there.
You sir, are a MASTER of finding facts that, on the surface, SEEM unimportant, and then showing people why they ARE important. I often know some (or most) of what you say already, but I never dare to skip through a video. BRAVO!
I don't care about how engines work really, yet I find his explanation so clear and compelling that I not only watched the whole thing, I was actually interested.
I'm in a mechanical engineering technology program right now. It specializes in automotive. Currently taking geometry class, and hadn't even considered this. Cool video, definitely gonna keep it in mind.
Back in the 1980s I built up some high performance 2 litre engines based on the Ford Pinto engine. Wiseco produced a forged piston for this engine which had the gudeon pin much higher so that you could fit a longer con rod and hence increase the rod ratio
I'm not even a car person but I put this in my liked videos because you explained everything so clearly and I feel like it could teach somebody a thing or two about it
The rod is most efficient at turning rod motion into crankshaft rotation when the angle between the rod axis and crank throw is 90 degrees. With longer rods, this condition also makes a smaller angle between the rod axis and bore axis, so more of the combustion energy is used to move the rod instead of shoving the piston sideways. So for a given crankshaft rotation a longer rod is more efficient at doing work on the crankshaft, and thus greater torque. Longer rods are heavier, though, so have lower RPM limits, so shorter rods can make more power by allowing the engine to rev higher for the same piston/rod acceleration limits.
It's not that easy - with a shorter connecting rod the angle is better for applying the force from the piston to the crankshaft during the period where the cylinder pressures are highest. Then there are concerns with the valve operating periods - the dwell periods at TDC and BDC are going to be different - port velocities, secondary vibrations, etc.
There's a difference between the length of the rod and the length of bore stroke. A longer bore stroke means the crankshaft has more rotational circumference and therefore more torque. Which is why diesel engines have huge torque and less HP because of the stroke length not rod length
@@landenevans4938 That is not the reason. It's much more involved than that and, with diesels, the most critical reason is being able to minimise the volume of the combustion chamber to achieve the very high compressions required to initiate combustion. These are simplified generalisations, but should give you something for you to ponder on - An engine's capacity is the area of the piston x the stroke x the number of cyinders. So for the same engine capacity and cylinder number, there is a direct relationship between the piston area and the stroke - double the stroke, half the area. Now, for the same cylinder pressure, the force acting on the piston is going to be proportional to the area of the piston - double the piston area, double the force, half the area half the force. The engine's torque is (simplified, remember) force on piston x the throw of the crankshaft - this is half the stroke. From those basics, one can see that the engine's torque is pressure x area x 1/2 stroke. Now if we simplify by dividing the torque equation by the capacity equation be get - torque = (is proportional to) pressure/2 and as the 1/2 is a fixed value, torque : pressure for the same capacity, regarless of configuration. Again, that's a simplification purely to illustrate why the "long stroke = torque" mantra is simply BS repeated by the ignorant. There are many other important factors, even with diesels, such as the discussed "'rod to stroke ratio, and valve area which is where 'large bore-short stoke' engines have a big advantage, and why high rpm engines almost exclusively are designed that way.
@@landenevans4938 doesn't rod length and stroke length work with each other? you can fit a longer rod that goes about TDC. of you can put a short rod in that same stroke length but you better make sure its boosted.
you can observe what short rods can do to a cylinderwalls in peugeot 2.0 xu10 family of engines. Early ones had a rods that were 152mm in lenght and it is very unlikely to find early block with cylinder bores in spec, but when they introduced revised version with 158mm rods cylinder bore wear wasn't as big of an issue anymore
That's definitely not rod ratio problem, with 86 mm stroke, rod ratio is 1,76 which is considered as Ideal, sr20 from nissan has rod ratio 1,58 and don't suffer on cylinder wall demage.
I can go and observe what a rod can do to a cylinder wall just by going and looking at my 1.4 HDi . Cos the French pile of crap put it straight through the bloody sidewall.. That's enough said about Peugeot's...
1.76 is ideal if everything else is ideal. But in the real world an injected engine that is also boosted will run cooler last way longer with a higher rod ratio engine. Sr20s are not all known for high mileage capability. The old volvo 4 bangers from the 80s-mid 90s will go 300,000 and then when they throw a rod the cylinder walls still have cross hatch marks in them and are good for just a re ring....if the rod didnt go thru the block. Some of the turbos would get a loose number one hole around 250,000 but thats partly because volvo thought that because that was the cold cylinder it needed more clearance but a lot of the turbos that were not run hard when cold will last up to 300,000 and still not burn any oil. The 85-87 were the only ones with the goofy number one clearance. Anyhow, 61-84 volvo 4cylinders and B30 straight six from 78-75 have a rod ration of 1.8125:1. 85-95 red block 4s have rod ratio of 1.92:1. By far the longest lasting 4 bangers ever. Chevy guys and even Toyota guys will not dispute that.
Very interesting. Makes me want to look up all the rod ratios of engines I'm currently driving just for fun! Congratulations on 400k subs👍 Amazing effort!
As a theoretical physicist: Solve triangle to find a position of a piston position at a given angle of crankshaft, differentiate twice to get acceleration at a given angle, get somewhat ugly but one line formula, and here you have full information on acceleration as function of angle of crankshaft, with rod ratio as a parameter. All in all took me 1 min by hand (and 15 sec with a graph in Mathematica). Now I understand why it is so difficult to teach mechanics to first year engineers :)
Geez...I was researching longer rods for a high RPM 4-cylinder! Just spoke to Crower the other day about building me a set of rods & I also planned on custom pistons. Now I guess I will incorporate a longer rod into the plan. Thanks!
I saw this tested on Engine Masters. They did a great test. Where the conventional wisdom is that longer is better in theory, the short rod was more powerful at every point in the rpm curve. The theory is that the shorter dwell time at TDC for the short rod, was the reason. The theory also suspects that there would be a crossover point at rpm higher then 7000, but below 7000 is doesn’t really matter. So for practical application anything running lower than 7000 rpm, rod ratio doesn’t matter. We don’t know the crossover point, but I suspect it’s somewhere over 8000. ‘High reving’ is somewhat nebulous in street car applications. Anything running to 7500 rpm or less rod ratio shouldn’t affect you life. 8000 and up is when you need to consider it. That’s my take. Great video!
I also saw the Engine Masters episode, the differences between the two engines were very small. It is a shame engine masters is so focussed on V8 engines and power at wide open throttle. I think it would be more educational if they look at other engines and other parameters too (i.e. European/Japanese engines, durability, part-throttle, driveability, emissions, etc.).
@@d4a I should have added that the changes were minimal. No more than 12 hp at any point, less than 10 ft lbs. Many places it was the same or 2 or 3 numbers at any point. The rod length difference was .58 in, I believe. I love your channel! I have learned so much.
The late Professor Antoni Oppenheim did a lot of work with our small group regarding this issue. From the mid-1990s to his death he helped our team of engineers to develop a more ideal piston dynamic that could be carved into the profile of a cam. CNCs can make any cam profile now to a tolerance of 0.02 mm. The result was the building of now 6 prototypes with such cams driving the pistons. The pistons of these engines are accelerated and decelerated at a constant rate, which more closely matched the dynamic of the flame front. We got complete combustion inside the engine. We reached almost 50% efficiency. Exhaust temperatures were only 450 C, so low we used aluminum exhaust headers. In his last book, he gave us another goal. So in our current design, we incorporated higher temperature, more insulating materials inside the combustion chamber. This permitted us not to have to concern ourselves with the 2300 C fast-moving flame fronts that produce NOX. HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) ignites the charge at much lower temperatures, around 850C. This further increased the efficiency and eliminated NOX. Sadly in 2013 political pressure forced us to move to Asia where doubling the efficiency of the IC engine was not considered by the "Deep State" to be "too disruptive" to the tax structure and the employment of society. We are working to bring this technology to be used in REEV vehicles, which will have less than half the carbon footprint than battery-powered EVs that use Utility generated grid power. REEV technology is now are facing strong lobbying efforts by the so-called "Zero Emission Transportation Association". Whose foremost players are the utilities that generate most of their power with high carbon footprint, massive heat engines. see www.kamtech-sa.com/t-vi
When politicians empowered by their ignorance in engineering start to mandate things, engineering and science became just another slang in their speeches.
Why is it that these forces arrayed against you have not blocked you from TH-cam comments? And why would any company not want a 25% improvement in fuel efficiency over all through fairly minor modifications of the con rod length and cam shaft design?
@@EdDale44135 clearly you are not understanding the fundamentals of what Is being explained here buddy, give the comment a read again carefully and make note of who, he says, is doing the lobbying in relation to whom he represents. Specifically the very last bit. It's USA politics at its finest 👌
[02/06/22] Has anyone documented this "political pressure" that shutdown your group's innovative advances, and caused them to leave North America? Surely, some major articles and documentary exposure could expose these so-called "Deep State" energy actors and bring their nefarious machinations to light. It's difficult to believe that if tomorrow Honda, or Toyota could improve their fuel economy instantly across the board by ≥25%, some government or "Deep State" entity could swoop in and say "there is no way that you will be permitted to do this, it would be far too destabilizing" and thus cause these innovations to be suppressed and snuffed out. People that like to "upset" the status quo like documentary filmmaker Michael Moore would be more than delighted to kick the "Deep State" in the nuts and expose this nonsense. At the very least your group could start its own TH-cam channel.
Improving combustion energy engines is NOT the direction the elite-deep state people are directing the planned economy infrastructure to go. They want those IC engines GONE from the market. I hope the elite-deep state, WEF, central government controllers all fail. Otherwise do you like being their pawns? And the entire electric car concept is flawed as the reason behind global warming being caused by CO2. The young are heavily swayed in schools and the media to believe the world is going to end in a few more years due to burning gasoline and diesel. The entire population can become hypnotized, under the spell, and controlled, that is shown true throughout human history of government control over the people. We have seen numerous attacks against energy infrastructure by them, and in the past, they were shut down, but unless you devastate the opponents to the point of death, they just keep coming back, like in the moves. So the entire ideology of the 'greens' has to be utterly killed, or it will keep coming at you, to wear you down bit by bit. What the end will be is energy poverty for many people, high costs to enjoy the little your allowed to do.
i am watching this with one hand giving my head a massage. rod length, piston travel, tdc, now my head engine is jammed. i need to watch this with a more clear mind. but thanks for explaining. i really want to know this knowledge.
Thanks for this! I will point people to it when they ask about my motor. I have a 4G63T 2.0 long rod in a CT9A Evo. We also updated the cams, valves, and springs then bumped the fuel cutoff by 1000 rpm. This is apparently a very uncommon configuration - most 4G63 builds go for a longer stroke and displacement. I have the weak 6 speed - high torque motors will strip 4th gear - so I was restricting peak torque and trying to maximize area under the higher rpm segment of the curve where MiVEC is active. The person who tuned it - an experienced 4G builder - said he loved how resistant it was to detonation and smooth it is at high RPMs. It would not surprise me if he has built more since. It's fine as a road car, and gets decent fuel economy under 3200 rpm (~70 mph in 6th). But it's even better as a road course car. Coming out of the carousel rolling out to 8000 rpm with all four tires lit up as you slide across the drag strip is a thing of beauty, albeit probably not the fastest way to reach turn 7. The biggest drawback is that it takes forever to get the oil warm.
The short connecting rod, in the intake phase, makes the piston spend more time in near bdc. It allows to improve the filling. This is fundamental in the 2-stroke, Ducati also kept short connecting rods in the twin-cylinders.
Actually, the piston moves out of the head faster causing a greater pressure differential which acts to fill the cylinder quicker. But at some point the volume that the piston is creating overcomes the ability of the port to fill it resulting in a lower torque peak speed, the engine falls off. Traditional solution is to increase the size of the valve and port to allow more filling at higher engine speeds, but the torque falls off at lower rpm's due to reducing charge velocity. Longer rod will give better results as piston dwells longer at tdc while camshaft continues to open valves so that when the piston begins to move downward in long rod engine, it is drawing from a larger port area. I am glad he mentioned the effect of rod angularity on friction as it was one of the main reasons why the 2-strokes gained more power due to less frictional losses.
Fascinating! Bravo! I always learn a little something from every D4A video. This time I learned A LOT about something I had never considered before! Thank you!!!
Fun fact, that was NOT mentioned...: Max piston speed occurs when rod and crank are 90° of each other, AND usually occurs within 1-2° of 74° ATDC. This will cause you to consider Camshaft, Rocker ratio, and cyl head configurations in a different light. (seasoned racer, self taught)
As a complimentary topic to this, can you please do a video on the different bore/stroke ratios, and their effect on power/torque/vibration? Love your videos!
I suggest the same, to see how over squared or undersquared engine combined with different rod ratios affect the engines. And comparing sports bike engine / cruiser bike engine..
Dad explained this to me some years back when I asked why F1 engines are so stubby and it was enough back then. This is now the explanation I needed to answers all the technical questions that arose from back then. Thank you for this video
Engine builders making an existing engine higher performing often includes moving the pin up in the piston to get as long a rod as possible in the block. I've seen a few where they dished the head some to allow some piston mass above the top of the block to make the piston strong enough to deal better with the higher pin ... of course tumble and optimizing the flame front are factors too. Everything you change changes everything else :) Back to add that I should learn not to comment before I get to the end of the video :)
Learned more from this absolutely top of the deck explanation/lecture than what I learned from many in the past. It’s really esoteric knowledge as rod lengths as you rightly said could be so easily overlooked. Keep it up!!
Mind blown! I love that you explain that so clearly and simply! Again thank you so much for your work in explaining engines to us! It is very greatly appreciated! This was truly a wonderful video!
When I started long before the internet was even a fantasy this kind of information was so hard to find. I observed that piston dwell time over the top changed with different geometries, and I measured piston travel with a degree wheel on the crank. but even with observations, there was no way I could find out all the effects of different geometries. What you presented in a 20 min video took me years and so many trips to libraries looking for books that explained it. It was a task just to find out what book titles even covered the topic. And then actually getting your hands on that book was another task. I guess what I'm saying is you are an excellent use of bandwidth
Insanely awesome information man! Thanks so much for all the research that has gone into it and presenting it for the ICE heads like me in the world! Keep doing it mate, you’ve got a lifelong subscriber!
Very well explained. Thank you. I have a much better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of both Long Stroke, Short Stroke and Over-square engines now and their various stress involved.
You may not be confusing stroke and rod ratio, but in case you are: if you can keep rod ratio the same you can stroke an engine and still keep powerband up where it is and not have cylinder walls go out of round or have the thing run really hot but most guys who stroke ( thats on the crank, not the rod) their street rod engine will do it on the cheap end up with a shorter rod yet so a terrible rod to stroke ratio but the thing will start up run great and make torque so most dont care. I dont build lawn mower engines though. I like engines that last and that are daily drivers. But thats just me.
Очень здорово, что помимо объяснения основного геометрического различия в R/S, затронуты побочные эффекты этой темы, такие как повышение трения поршня и мех.потери от этого, рост температуры, понижение ресурса, увеличение юбок поршня, как следствие увеличение массы поршня и т.д. Respect!
Love it. Gonna start my automotive engineering classes next year. Hoping to be the best student in the class since I already know such stuff thanks to D4A. Really a great channel for enginehads and car nerds.
You have an accent as perceived by me as an American. I have to be honest though. I understood what your were saying here better than even the smoothest speaking mechanic on youtube. Well done presentation. I hope the youtube algorithm treats you well, you deserve it.
Thank you for putting this in a fairly concise package. The main reason to use longer rods is to stay farther under the fatigue limit of the rods in my opinion. Sure, the piston motion is more ideal, but that doesn't really matter all that much.
I am not an automotive guy but still I understood your explanation. Thank you team for you effort to bring it down to common men who are not even from engineering background.
Another great, informative video, clearly explained. The use of the same bore and stroke showed the effects of different rod ratios with no other changes. Are you going to do another video explain the trade-offs of over-square and under-square engines as well as stroker cranks including their effects on rod ratio?
I about to embark on a project of stoking a couple of 5.7 litre V8 boat engines to 6.2 litre for a friend. Your videos are giving me great insight into areas I hadn't thought of checking. Thank you for making these videos, excellent work.
Awesome video! I am following the channel for a long time and you never stop impressing me with the things you cover. Just one question if you are comfortable answering, did you learn all those things at a university or a professional school, or did you learn them by yourself?
I must say, a very thorough and well-explained video concerning this very subtle, overlooked, yet consequential geometric condition. Most people, and vids, are all about bore v. stroke, etc.; which are really functions of different factors. I did know about this, but the quality of the OP's concise and accurate explanations, as well as illustrative quality, compels me to subscribe to this channel. Well done!
Longer rods have more dwell time at the top of the stroke and less side loading on the cylinder walls. Theoretically, they produce more power, but there's a range of acceptable rod lengths that work with a given compression ratio.-- things I remember from David Vizard's book
Connecting rod has nothing to do with compression ratio .. fishing ratio can be controlled by the volume of the combustion chamber depth of the valves the shape of the Piston whether it's a don't pissed in a flat top piston or a countersunk piston but connecting rod lengths will be limited to the space inside the engine block..... Can be maximized by allowing the wrist pin hole to go through the oil right groove just as far as you want to push it or you'll have an oil burner but you can also help offset the side load of the piston rod deflection bye offsetting the wrist pin hole so it's not in the center of the Piston but it would be to the side where it would give the rod the greatest advantage of a straighter angle to the crank journal... A good example is the offset wrist pin holes of small block Chevrolet pistons for example and the easiest to see and find to look at I'm not sure that all manufacturers of modern V8 engines do this but they should be. If you see this in diesel engine sand possibly air compressors that are piston compressors
And I want the man's fire too runs the artificial intelligence that keeps changing the words to my comments to meaningless babbling nothing as I spend more time trying to correct what artificial intelligence does to run my comments rewording them after I post them I'm getting really really tired of this incessant aggravation from Google and TH-cam
@@donniebaker5984 The AI is messing with you too? LOL The only way I have to eliminate most of the AI's corrections is to use a tool to type my comments in, then once finished, just CCP into a comment. The main trick is never going back to change or add to your comment. If you do, AI will delete, add to or just plain screw things up with the auto complete program. Here are the commands that I had to put into my private tools textarea tag, autocomplete="off" autocorrect="off" autocapitalize="off" spellcheck="false". If you do a tool search about these commands, you might find one you can CCP out of so your comments aren't jumbled into a mess. Also, what weighs more a short rod or long rod. That is a factor, a very important one. Hum, wonder why that was left out of the video.
@@Mr-Corey-June really im not going crazy ? As you are the first one i know of to have the A.I. game changer that will discredit you to babbling fool ..lol ..now add that thought to a t-mobil smart phone that estimates the letters on your digital keyboard that will type any of the 5 other keys you are trying to target to correctly spell a word only to be corrected wrongly while AI.pats itself on the back thinking it done right and making the same mistake over and over again believing its you screwing up again ...send it and googles A.I. will reword your comment entirely ...so i continue to try and use voice to text ....that google already believes im a mentally handicap person and simply fucks with me rewording with words not even in the ball park of logical ..i fell asleep today typing on my trusty t Mobil and when i woke up the settings page was open with all those slide bars to turn things off labeled of processes unknown to me ..ive got spell check left but it only unlines mispelled words and wont correct them and my mircophone isvgone so u cant tell it whatbto wright anymore ..si now im back yo pecker trck writing using only one finger and qith defiance using my middle fingwr fuck them ....as now i can spell 4 letter words without have them show up as a bunch of stars ..hehehe about your question that sure a longer rod can weigh more ...but its not going to be a distance causing any negative effects but will have less friction from side loading a piston on the power stroke ...so if got time and money for custom pistons and longer rods with the wrist pin hole as far up as just inside the oil ring grove ...plus the expensive Carrillo steel alloy that can be grams lighter weight to offset the weight of a longer rod keep very close to stock spec. Then you should have your entire rotating assembly dynamically balanced by a professional balancing company like this one in indy as they do everything for industry , private owners harley engine or hot rod cars to million dollar indy car engines ..and you will have an engine build experience of more power way smoother than stock that you can only dream about untill you have a balance job by the pros ...had them do my first harley build 37 years ago and its still thumping by the forth owner since i built it ..and they ask me what i had done to it that made it so fast ..imagine that lol
This is jyst great i just niw soent over a galf hour typing ans answer to your question and the all rhe iptions availible to use longer rods and it never pisted when ut said ut did so im outa here
Maximum piston velocity happens about 75-80° ATDC (depending on rod to stroke ratio) when the rod and crank arm are at 90°, not when the crank is at 90° ATDC
You beat me to it, I’ll just add that this means accelerations at the top half of the stroke are greater than those at the bottom as a consequence, complicating harmonic vibrations a bit.
I primarily consider cylinder side loading (aka a high rod ratio) when going high performance supercharging. These engines love the lower sideload and also the additional time the piston spend just after TDC.
A practical example is the Honda B16A engine vs the B16B in the 1997-2000 Civic Type R. The B16B used the taller block and longer rods but kept the same stroke and bore 1600cc. The B16A rev limiter is 8500 and the B16B rev limiter is at 9500.
Well.... The subject is rod ratio, instead of bore to stroke. I disagree with the square engine concept. Simply put, I build the engine to run at high rpm, or lower rpm. Short stroke is better suited for high rpm motors, and vice versa. However, the bottom line is cubic inches. The more inches, the more power you can produce.
A 'square' engine is a generic, but compromised guess. And it is easy to remember. Stroke and Bore are the same. Motion (stroke) is more wasteful of the energy of combustion. However, without enough stroke, you don't have compression (loosing efficiency).
@@PaulAmerican Early drag racers often would stroke the 426 hemi to 482/484 cubic inches by increasing the stroke to equal the piston bore, ie 4.25 by 4.25. The early Chrysler Hemi was often under bore at 4.00 by 4.25 to increase displacement from 392 to 427 cubic inches. Of course these engines were supercharged and ran on nitro fuel rather than gasoline. Your comment made me think of the 400 Ford which is 4.00 by 4.00. Is it a big block or a small block?
This guy explains his subject superbly well. I have wondered about rod ratio for a long time. I didn’t even know what this design parameter was called.
9:16 - the labels/colors on the left side are reversed. From BDC you’re not decelerating, the piston was already stopped. The piston is Accelersted through 270, at which point it starts to decelerate to TDC.
Ooooooh... You're right. 😬 I barely made it in time and was rushing it a bit by this point in the video editing. At least I said it correctly and I hope most will get the point.
@@d4a it understands perfectly! it's just a little error anyway it's always easy to use the x axis for the variable wich in engines is always rpm just use it as an advice for next times!
Very interesting and informative. As a retired mechanic I have never given any thought to engines having the same stroke while at the same time having a different rod length. I feel rather ignorant. But I learned something new.
I’ve been taking in a lot of info about connecting rod length, piston speed, and side loading of the piston and how they affect engine efficiency and longevity. This video was very helpful for me to visualize what I’ve been learning.
I knew about a longer rod gives more dwell time at TDC but was confused about piston speed, I actually had it backwards. Edit : this discussion also sheds light on piston wall scuffing on my oddball Oldsmobile 455 race engine. I now realize I can utilize an even longer rod and shorter piston with less skirt to help reduce scuffing mentioned above.
Patreon: www.patreon.com/d4a
Become a Tuning Pro: hpcdmy.co/dr4a
Support the channel by shopping through this link: amzn.to/3RIqU0u
Motivation: th-cam.com/channels/t3YSIPcvJsYbwGCDLNiIKA.html
Fun fact, if the conn. rod is 2x the stroke, the acceleration of the piston is the same on both piston directions
The science is interesting but if any young person asked me about going into internal combustion engineering I would dissuade them and steer them into electronics. Combustion engines have done their time. Their life evolvement has come to its end and will bow out over the next 10 years to electric motors
@@horsebee1 The modern Nostradamus has spoken 😂
@@horsebee1 yeah...... Sure....... 0-100 in 2 second and 0-200 in 2 minutes and empty batteries...............
I think there is a lot more stuff on this channel that I am curious about. I subbed!
I have been an engineer all my life, (I'm now 57) I have to say that you explanation of what is essentially dynamic geometry, is the most straightforward and understandable that I have seen. Great video, thanks for helping others understand this fascinating field of engineering.
Absolutely Right.
How the rod to stoke ratio geometry affects efficiency was explained to us in high school physics class. It's also why the 340 Mopar engines would terrorize (and mop the floor with) the small block Ford's and Chevy's back in the day. Because of that geometry - only the 302 Ford's and 302/327 Chevy's had a slight chance. The weakness of the stock SB Mopar was in the hydraulic lifters (neg lash preload+ pump up) and non adjustable rockers, creating valve float and power loss above 6000 rpm. Solve the valve float issue with solid lifters and the 340 became a nightmare for the big block boys and girls. Efficiency = free power.
I don’t have a degree for anything and I’ve built a lot of engines over the last 30 years and always take into consideration rod and crank lengths for the proper rod ratio for its intended use.
😊😊😊
@@jackandblaze5956 Spitting straight facts.
4 years of automotive engineering and never seen someone explain this subject so well
Same!
No years of automotive education, but a great HS physics teacher 47 years ago, had me seeing all of this intuitively before he even started to speak. And if he wanted to simplify he does not need to review all 4 quadrants of the revolution, any one suffices to explain the others.
Same ❣️👍🏼😁
Same here
If you studied automotive engineering and didn't pick this up, your school sucked or you sucked.
been a racing mechanic for 5 years (im 26) and I’ve never had anyone have such a good explanation I loved this
If you don’t mind me asking, how’d you get into that? That’s gotta be my dream career
Same
Been a motorcycle mechanic and amateur motocross racer for 30 years.
I absolutely love your content. Fabulous explanations and animations. I use your content to help other techs all the time! Thank you for all the hard work you put in!
Almost 50 years as a mechanic and this is the best presentation I have seen - going back to my college days I remember the instructor telling us the wild angle of the short connecting rod created greater side thrust on the piston/cylinder wall; so far so obvious, but surprisingly he told us that was a good thing and set about constructing a triangle of forces to prove how the equivalent of that side thrust adds to the force of combustion and causes the engine to produce more torque. It was a long time ago and I don't remember the finer details, in fact I think I did well remembering that much, considering I have never needed to use that calculation in my entire career...
I'm not exactly an ignorant on IC engine internals, but every time I watch one of your excellent videos, I learn a lot of new stuff. What a PLEASURE !
I second that
I knew that rotatary to oscillating movement is unbalanced, that’s why the cv joint was invented, but I never gave what happens in one rev of an ic engine any thought. Till now. Brilliant video.
Oh man, I got to hand it to him for the quality of his videos for teaching engineology!
100% agree with you.
An ignorant, what?
17 minutes and I now understand something I had no idea understanding of before, even having an above-average knowledge of how ICE's work (not saying much). This was so great. Nice job!
I coursed engineering, mec tec, and multiple multiple courses in my county. I've also learned more and faster here tho!
Suck, squeeze, bang, blow. Simple to remember
Using a longer rod length not only helps to reduce secondary vibrations, but also helps to reduce higher-order oscillations that can be difficult to suppress.
Most people know that, in any piston engine, the piston's secondary motion can be broken down into a primary component (one that varies at the same speed as the crankshaft) and secondary component (varying at twice the engine speed). However, what most people don't realise is that the secondary vibration itself is not perfectly sinusoidal and will have _harmonics_ (whole number multiples of the fundamental frequency).
The secondary motion becomes more "pointed" at mid-stroke (less sinusoidal) with lower rod ratios, and as the secondary motion gets more and more "pointed" both the secondary oscillation itself and its harmonics (4th order, 6th order, _et cetera_ oscillations) increase in amplitude.
The peak-to-peak amplitudes of the secondary oscillation's fundamental and harmonics can be calculated by:
A = 2 / π * ∫(cos(nθ) * √(L^2 - (S sin(θ) / 2)^2) dθ, -π to π)
Where _n_ is a non-zero even number, L is the rod's centre-to-centre distance, and S is the stroke length.
This effect is most prevalent on large two-stroke low-speed marine Diesel engines, where the rod ratio is often around 1 or less than 1. -(to the point where they need crossheads to take up the lateral thrust).- The reason is that these engines have extremely long strokes, so by using crossheads and short rods they can make the engine shorter in height.
Most of these engines also lack balance shafts, so they transmit almost all of their external forces and external rocking moments to the ship (for a marine application) or foundation (for stationary land-based power generation). This problem is aggravated by the fact that the components are all very heavy, which makes the forces even greater.
Take a look at MAN Diesel's project guides for their two-stroke engines (K-model, L-model, S-model, and G-model engine families, though as of 2022 they don't make K or L engines anymore), and on the section where they list the firing orders of each of the variants they will also list not only the first- and second-order vibrations, but also the second- and third-order harmonics of the secondary vibrations (fourth- and sixth-order vibrations). For example, although the 12G90ME has perfect primary balance, they do _not_ have perfect secondary balance. Although there is no second-order rocking moment, the second harmonic of the secondary vibration is still significant and produces a _fourth-order_ rocking moment of 724 kN•m (534000 lb-ft) at 84 RPM (which is conveniently twice that of the 6G90ME's fourth-order rocking moment of 362 kN•m).
The greatest offenders are the secondary rocking moments on five- and six-cylinder engines, which is why they sometimes _are_ fitted with balance shafts.
Large six-cylinder engines also have a sixth-order vertical shake. The heavy components and short rods already make fourth- and sixth-order oscillations a problem, and the 60° spacing between crank throws doesn't help either, as the sixth-order forces (the secondary vibration's third harmonic) for each cylinder all point in the same direction. The sixth-order vertical shake on the 6G90ME has a magnitude of about 32 kN (7200 lbf) at 84 RPM. The same is true for four-cylinder engines, as regardless of the firing order the secondary vibrations' second harmonics all point in the same direction, resulting in a fourth-order vertical shake.
You'll also notice that the 10- and 11-cylinder engines have non-zero net external forces. This makes me suspect that the 10- and 11-cylinder engines are odd-firing, because if they were even-firing the net forces should all be zero.
The reason you only have to deal with primary and secondary vibrations on most engines you'll come across is because their rod ratios are relatively high and their components are relatively light. So not only are the secondary vibrations smaller, they are also much closer to being sinusoidal, which means the higher-order harmonics of the secondary vibrations are negligible.
I'd like to know what the results would be if it was run with a vibration damper. Very likely make a world of difference.
@@elgoog7830 wouldn't a damper also absorb some energy that you want to go to the load. it's all about reaching that balance between what you need and what you want. those 2 stroke diesels are not running at hi RPM, although the counter weights on the crankshaft actually act as dampers. here's one to thank about... a scotch yoke crank the rod stays inline with the piston???
You've also got to take extreme piston side loading into consideration the shorter the rod. Higher speed engines of larger displacement like the Big Block Chevy always tend to favor a slightly shorter stroke with the longest connecting rod you can get - Now of course there are all sorts of caveats & considerations to that, but for the majority of street & race applications you're more often than not to want the longer rod every time.
@@elgoog7830 in larger marine engines their are vibration dampers, which dampens excessive lateral vibrations.
And what happen if you displace the crankshaft from the piston???
I learned more from the 20 minutes of this video that 4 years plus of study! Not only a very professional graphic presentation that displayed it all so accurately but you were able to explain it all and speak in a manner that us lowly wannabes could easily understand. Thank you!
As someone who grew up working on cars and even went on to being an engine builder in two countries before changing careers, you taught me something today. Thank you for this 🙏🏽
After 40 years of tuning Ford engines for club racing in the UK I can say that increasing the rod ratio gave race winning improvements to the engines power, to maximise this effect I also shortened the stroke and increased the bore diameter to restore the capacity allowed in the race class and had some great results. "Sausage" HT Racing Ltd
What kind of cam changes did you do to go along with this? Increasing rod ratio makes cams naturally better for lower rpms (its a relatively small change) while a stroker will naturally move the cams Powerband higher.
This is because of the change of piston position at valve opening times
David Vizard said in his Tuning A Series engines that long rods gave better rev performance. His race engines used a 1275 block with short stroke crank and longer rods to restore the piston deck height. Longer stroke engines (eg the 1100) also have longer rods as the cylinder bore can’t accommodate a wide rod angle.
Far more performance was gained by the larger bore and shorter stroke. In the simplest terms, the combustion pressure pushes down on the piston, larger pistons gain more PSI directly for the same exact displacement.
@@Justin-bd2dg yes in theory, but remember that the flame front from the spark plug moves nearly the same speed at all times. So your spark advance has to be earlier creating more pumping losses. Larger bores tend to work better at lower speeds because of this. Typically larger bores are less efficient but make more power with quantity. Another advantage of larger bores is more space for larger valves.
There are countless tradeoffs in designing an engine. I wrote an excel spreadsheet once just to help me understand the interactions better
@@BrokeWrench I didn't change the cam, everything was working so well there seemed little point
I have an above average understanding of engine dynamics, but every time I watch one of your videos, I learn some nuance that I didn't understand before. Congratulations on the very good videos you produce. Keep up the good work! I hope others appreciate your expertise.
I used to put a lot of effort into building performance Ford 300-6 engines. My pinnacle build was going to be a twin turbo with decently high compression, and one of the things I played around with was rod ratio. Luckily, I could mix and match off the shelf parts to get a decent boost here. Rods from the 240-6 were more than 1/2" longer, 6.2 vs 6.8". Combined with pistons intended for a stroker 347 V8, they fit and gave a compression ratio of about 9.2:1, with the head I was planning on using. Unfortunately, I got married, moved a bunch of times, and the project never got beyond the parts collection stage. I did later build a high compression torque monster 300 for my van, but that's a whole other story.
you seen those rail dragsters with 300 fords? oh my god. they sound like f1 engines.
@@frigglebiscuit7484 There are some pretty wild power potentials with these things. I pretty much stuck with mixing and matching stock block and heads, porting and polishing, various intakes, and custom ground cams usually from Delta.
I owned an F150 with the inline 300-6,what a workhorse I wish I still had it.
Sounds like a neat van. Man
Huge respect for the time and effort you put into your content! Keep up the great work!
You literally make things easy to understand, you’ve got a gift, thank you for sharing it with us
I just found this channel, and I absolutely love this guy. While I'm not an engineer, listening to your videos is awesome and the explanations are extremely well made!
L
This was awesome dude! I really liked your animations. I don't think people gave high school geometry class enough respect - little changes in engine geometry seem to be what make the difference between average engines and great engines. Before your channel i hadn't really learned much about engines (even with a mech. Engineering degree lol), but you have some really great info
50 years ago my father gave me the knowledge to build race engines, and the patients to help me turn that into wisdom.... now think of that piston going up & down. F=MA now calulate the G (small g) load on the piston and the connecting rod. heres where the engineering comes in, but its more like material sciences when lightning up the pistons (roods & pins too) almost to the point of failure. street engines are designed to last >10years maybe and a performance engine not so much,,, BTW i said the same thing it my comment about math in school LOL
Think you mean trig classes. The use of geometry here is just an expression for shape. Sounds cooler, though.
wasn't that bad but one diagram was dyslexia as after the power stroke the piston is speeding up to max after on the exhaust stroke it slows down and in the compression stroke is being stopped but the mass of the hole engine keeps it going cycling wise
@@dksaevs still rather have a long rod BBM/hemi than a short one same point apply's for the 454 chevy's that side ware out. did you see a 2 pieces pistons? as some geometry's put the pin into the top ring/crown area's and or tricky looking parts
@@richardprice5978 actually the ones i've used are a three piece piston with a bridge on each side for the oil rings... LOL
I read about these things ages ago (wrt to motorcycle engines) but for someone new to the subject, this discussion is brilliant and I'm sure you've helped many people understand the concept.
Awesome video!! I definitely learned something
Thanks for watching ☺️
Was aware about the affect of rod length on piston acceleration after studying Kliens construction in my engineering course and playing with high performance 2 stroke engines all my life but the way this guy explains it with the graphics etc is fantastic...great work mate.
What degree? Never touched on engine geometry in my mech eng degree
Q
Absolutely brilliant. There's no other channels so dedicated to explaining the science behind combustion engines than D4A.
I’ve been trying to comprehend piston speed since your first video on it, but never could figure it out (not for lack of good description from you). However this video made it all just click. Thank you so much. Just shows sometimes it take many different ways of explaining something for different people to understand
Angular velocity needs to be converted into linear velocity. You have to omit the angular velocity of X axis and use just the Y axis.
Piston acceleration is higest at TDC and BDC, this also happens where the relative piston speed is zero. It also goes the other way around, piston acceleration is zero where the speed is the greatest. Holton is also correct, plotting the acceleration and speed in a graph where the x-axis is crank degrees helps visualizing the princip.
@@TheFirstBigCheese It has always amazed me that what most people dint think about is, that piston has to come to a complete stop twice per revolution! That's an amazing thing to do at even 6,000 rpm!
Brilliant explanation,although simple in principle, the comparative dynamics become complicated and this guy takes us through the whole process so coherently, we’ll done,thank you man.
Rod ratio is an engine spec that is almost never published in the basic specs that you might see on the manufacturer website. Before this video I had never even considered rod ratio, but I can see that it can tell you quite a lot about an engine's characteristics.
The technical term for the changing angle of the connecting rod, depending on whether it is a short or long Rod engine, is angular displacement. I started playing around with this stuff when I was 15 years old.
You made a excellent explanation of all this.
🤔🤔🤔, k
Ws
@@davidsanders6957 Its a physics term...more specifically, Engineering Dynamics.
Wow, the amount of information you passed on in this video is astounding. I seriously can appreciate the engineering behind even just these components so much more now. It's crazy because this is just *one* aspect of these mechanical marvels, and the complexity is still so insane. Huge props to your explanation, excited to learn more from your other things!
This is why you see many builders move to the 6 inch rod in the 383 /400 small block Chevy engines.
One thing that amazes me here is how did they determine the size,location and diameter of oil passages and oil pressure to make it all work!
@@stanleyhornbeck1625 Yea, like how the clearances between components is so, so tiny, just enough for the oil molecules to fit through and lubricate every piece. Especially with so many pieces too!
I don't find it to be insane. Once you start learning how to disassemble and reassemble engines and transmissions it becomes simpler to understand how they fit together and understanding each part's purpose makes it easy to see why they are there.
@@stanleyhornbeck1625 Science and engineering is how. Thankfully it has since advanced enough you don't need oil tasters to tell the weight.
You sir, are a MASTER of finding facts that, on the surface, SEEM unimportant, and then showing people why they ARE important.
I often know some (or most) of what you say already, but I never dare to skip through a video. BRAVO!
I don't care about how engines work really, yet I find his explanation so clear and compelling that I not only watched the whole thing, I was actually interested.
I'm in a mechanical engineering technology program right now. It specializes in automotive. Currently taking geometry class, and hadn't even considered this. Cool video, definitely gonna keep it in mind.
Back in the 1980s I built up some high performance 2 litre engines based on the Ford Pinto engine. Wiseco produced a forged piston for this engine which had the gudeon pin much higher so that you could fit a longer con rod and hence increase the rod ratio
I'm not even a car person but I put this in my liked videos because you explained everything so clearly and I feel like it could teach somebody a thing or two about it
The rod is most efficient at turning rod motion into crankshaft rotation when the angle between the rod axis and crank throw is 90 degrees. With longer rods, this condition also makes a smaller angle between the rod axis and bore axis, so more of the combustion energy is used to move the rod instead of shoving the piston sideways. So for a given crankshaft rotation a longer rod is more efficient at doing work on the crankshaft, and thus greater torque. Longer rods are heavier, though, so have lower RPM limits, so shorter rods can make more power by allowing the engine to rev higher for the same piston/rod acceleration limits.
But horsepower is torque x rpm and longer rods make more torque
It's not that easy - with a shorter connecting rod the angle is better for applying the force from the piston to the crankshaft during the period where the cylinder pressures are highest.
Then there are concerns with the valve operating periods - the dwell periods at TDC and BDC are going to be different - port velocities, secondary vibrations, etc.
There's a difference between the length of the rod and the length of bore stroke. A longer bore stroke means the crankshaft has more rotational circumference and therefore more torque. Which is why diesel engines have huge torque and less HP because of the stroke length not rod length
@@landenevans4938
That is not the reason. It's much more involved than that and, with diesels, the most critical reason is being able to minimise the volume of the combustion chamber to achieve the very high compressions required to initiate combustion.
These are simplified generalisations, but should give you something for you to ponder on -
An engine's capacity is the area of the piston x the stroke x the number of cyinders.
So for the same engine capacity and cylinder number, there is a direct relationship between the piston area and the stroke - double the stroke, half the area.
Now, for the same cylinder pressure, the force acting on the piston is going to be proportional to the area of the piston - double the piston area, double the force, half the area half the force.
The engine's torque is (simplified, remember) force on piston x the throw of the crankshaft - this is half the stroke.
From those basics, one can see that the engine's torque is pressure x area x 1/2 stroke.
Now if we simplify by dividing the torque equation by the capacity equation be get -
torque = (is proportional to) pressure/2 and as the 1/2 is a fixed value, torque : pressure for the same capacity, regarless of configuration.
Again, that's a simplification purely to illustrate why the "long stroke = torque" mantra is simply BS repeated by the ignorant. There are many other important factors, even with diesels, such as the discussed "'rod to stroke ratio, and valve area which is where 'large bore-short stoke' engines have a big advantage, and why high rpm engines almost exclusively are designed that way.
@@landenevans4938 doesn't rod length and stroke length work with each other? you can fit a longer rod that goes about TDC. of you can put a short rod in that same stroke length but you better make sure its boosted.
you can observe what short rods can do to a cylinderwalls in peugeot 2.0 xu10 family of engines.
Early ones had a rods that were 152mm in lenght and it is very unlikely to find early block with cylinder bores in spec, but when they introduced revised version with 158mm rods cylinder bore wear wasn't as big of an issue anymore
That's definitely not rod ratio problem, with 86 mm stroke, rod ratio is 1,76 which is considered as Ideal, sr20 from nissan has rod ratio 1,58 and don't suffer on cylinder wall demage.
I can go and observe what a rod can do to a cylinder wall just by going and looking at my 1.4 HDi . Cos the French pile of crap put it straight through the bloody sidewall..
That's enough said about Peugeot's...
1.76 is ideal if everything else is ideal. But in the real world an injected engine that is also boosted will run cooler last way longer with a higher rod ratio engine. Sr20s are not all known for high mileage capability. The old volvo 4 bangers from the 80s-mid 90s will go 300,000 and then when they throw a rod the cylinder walls still have cross hatch marks in them and are good for just a re ring....if the rod didnt go thru the block. Some of the turbos would get a loose number one hole around 250,000 but thats partly because volvo thought that because that was the cold cylinder it needed more clearance but a lot of the turbos that were not run hard when cold will last up to 300,000 and still not burn any oil. The 85-87 were the only ones with the goofy number one clearance. Anyhow, 61-84 volvo 4cylinders and B30 straight six from 78-75 have a rod ration of 1.8125:1. 85-95 red block 4s have rod ratio of 1.92:1. By far the longest lasting 4 bangers ever. Chevy guys and even Toyota guys will not dispute that.
Very interesting. Makes me want to look up all the rod ratios of engines I'm currently driving just for fun!
Congratulations on 400k subs👍 Amazing effort!
This is indubitably one of the most interesting and well documented motor channel of the entire TH-cam. Very, very, very well done!!!!!!
Google Jon Kaase
He is the GOAT.
As a theoretical physicist: Solve triangle to find a position of a piston position at a given angle of crankshaft, differentiate twice to get acceleration at a given angle, get somewhat ugly but one line formula, and here you have full information on acceleration as function of angle of crankshaft, with rod ratio as a parameter. All in all took me 1 min by hand (and 15 sec with a graph in Mathematica). Now I understand why it is so difficult to teach mechanics to first year engineers :)
Geez...I was researching longer rods for a high RPM 4-cylinder! Just spoke to Crower the other day about building me a set of rods & I also planned on custom pistons. Now I guess I will incorporate a longer rod into the plan. Thanks!
I saw this tested on Engine Masters. They did a great test. Where the conventional wisdom is that longer is better in theory, the short rod was more powerful at every point in the rpm curve. The theory is that the shorter dwell time at TDC for the short rod, was the reason. The theory also suspects that there would be a crossover point at rpm higher then 7000, but below 7000 is doesn’t really matter. So for practical application anything running lower than 7000 rpm, rod ratio doesn’t matter. We don’t know the crossover point, but I suspect it’s somewhere over 8000. ‘High reving’ is somewhat nebulous in street car applications. Anything running to 7500 rpm or less rod ratio shouldn’t affect you life. 8000 and up is when you need to consider it. That’s my take. Great video!
Did they test for wear and fuel efficiency?
@@Ijusthopeitsquick no. Just power.
Check the link to the vid in description, another test, but different results. It's likely highly engine dependent I think.
I also saw the Engine Masters episode, the differences between the two engines were very small. It is a shame engine masters is so focussed on V8 engines and power at wide open throttle. I think it would be more educational if they look at other engines and other parameters too (i.e. European/Japanese engines, durability, part-throttle, driveability, emissions, etc.).
@@d4a I should have added that the changes were minimal. No more than 12 hp at any point, less than 10 ft lbs. Many places it was the same or 2 or 3 numbers at any point. The rod length difference was .58 in, I believe. I love your channel! I have learned so much.
The late Professor Antoni Oppenheim did a lot of work with our small group regarding this issue. From the mid-1990s to his death he helped our team of engineers to develop a more ideal piston dynamic that could be carved into the profile of a cam. CNCs can make any cam profile now to a tolerance of 0.02 mm. The result was the building of now 6 prototypes with such cams driving the pistons. The pistons of these engines are accelerated and decelerated at a constant rate, which more closely matched the dynamic of the flame front. We got complete combustion inside the engine. We reached almost 50% efficiency. Exhaust temperatures were only 450 C, so low we used aluminum exhaust headers. In his last book, he gave us another goal. So in our current design, we incorporated higher temperature, more insulating materials inside the combustion chamber. This permitted us not to have to concern ourselves with the 2300 C fast-moving flame fronts that produce NOX. HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) ignites the charge at much lower temperatures, around 850C. This further increased the efficiency and eliminated NOX. Sadly in 2013 political pressure forced us to move to Asia where doubling the efficiency of the IC engine was not considered by the "Deep State" to be "too disruptive" to the tax structure and the employment of society. We are working to bring this technology to be used in REEV vehicles, which will have less than half the carbon footprint than battery-powered EVs that use Utility generated grid power. REEV technology is now are facing strong lobbying efforts by the so-called "Zero Emission Transportation Association". Whose foremost players are the utilities that generate most of their power with high carbon footprint, massive heat engines. see www.kamtech-sa.com/t-vi
When politicians empowered by their ignorance in engineering start to mandate things, engineering and science became just another slang in their speeches.
Why is it that these forces arrayed against you have not blocked you from TH-cam comments? And why would any company not want a 25% improvement in fuel efficiency over all through fairly minor modifications of the con rod length and cam shaft design?
@@EdDale44135 clearly you are not understanding the fundamentals of
what Is being explained here buddy, give the comment a read again carefully and make note of who, he says, is doing the lobbying in relation to whom he represents. Specifically the very last bit. It's USA politics at its finest 👌
[02/06/22] Has anyone documented this "political pressure" that shutdown your group's innovative advances, and caused them to leave North America? Surely, some major articles and documentary exposure could expose these so-called "Deep State" energy actors and bring their nefarious machinations to light. It's difficult to believe that if tomorrow Honda, or Toyota could improve their fuel economy instantly across the board by ≥25%, some government or "Deep State" entity could swoop in and say "there is no way that you will be permitted to do this, it would be far too destabilizing" and thus cause these innovations to be suppressed and snuffed out. People that like to "upset" the status quo like documentary filmmaker Michael Moore would be more than delighted to kick the "Deep State" in the nuts and expose this nonsense. At the very least your group could start its own TH-cam channel.
Improving combustion energy engines is NOT the direction the elite-deep state people are directing the planned economy infrastructure to go. They want those IC engines GONE from the market. I hope the elite-deep state, WEF, central government controllers all fail. Otherwise do you like being their pawns? And the entire electric car concept is flawed as the reason behind global warming being caused by CO2. The young are heavily swayed in schools and the media to believe the world is going to end in a few more years due to burning gasoline and diesel. The entire population can become hypnotized, under the spell, and controlled, that is shown true throughout human history of government control over the people. We have seen numerous attacks against energy infrastructure by them, and in the past, they were shut down, but unless you devastate the opponents to the point of death, they just keep coming back, like in the moves. So the entire ideology of the 'greens' has to be utterly killed, or it will keep coming at you, to wear you down bit by bit. What the end will be is energy poverty for many people, high costs to enjoy the little your allowed to do.
The best explaination of secondary imbalance till date....!!keep the good work going mate....:)
i am watching this with one hand giving my head a massage. rod length, piston travel, tdc, now my head engine is jammed. i need to watch this with a more clear mind. but thanks for explaining. i really want to know this knowledge.
Thanks for this! I will point people to it when they ask about my motor.
I have a 4G63T 2.0 long rod in a CT9A Evo. We also updated the cams, valves, and springs then bumped the fuel cutoff by 1000 rpm. This is apparently a very uncommon configuration - most 4G63 builds go for a longer stroke and displacement. I have the weak 6 speed - high torque motors will strip 4th gear - so I was restricting peak torque and trying to maximize area under the higher rpm segment of the curve where MiVEC is active.
The person who tuned it - an experienced 4G builder - said he loved how resistant it was to detonation and smooth it is at high RPMs. It would not surprise me if he has built more since.
It's fine as a road car, and gets decent fuel economy under 3200 rpm (~70 mph in 6th). But it's even better as a road course car. Coming out of the carousel rolling out to 8000 rpm with all four tires lit up as you slide across the drag strip is a thing of beauty, albeit probably not the fastest way to reach turn 7.
The biggest drawback is that it takes forever to get the oil warm.
That was incredibly articulate. You nailed the detail without making it overcomplex. Well played sir
The short connecting rod, in the intake phase, makes the piston spend more time in near bdc. It allows to improve the filling. This is fundamental in the 2-stroke, Ducati also kept short connecting rods in the twin-cylinders.
Claudio. You are backward.
Actually, the piston moves out of the head faster causing a greater pressure differential which acts to fill the cylinder quicker. But at some point the volume that the piston is creating overcomes the ability of the port to fill it resulting in a lower torque peak speed, the engine falls off. Traditional solution is to increase the size of the valve and port to allow more filling at higher engine speeds, but the torque falls off at lower rpm's due to reducing charge velocity. Longer rod will give better results as piston dwells longer at tdc while camshaft continues to open valves so that when the piston begins to move downward in long rod engine, it is drawing from a larger port area. I am glad he mentioned the effect of rod angularity on friction as it was one of the main reasons why the 2-strokes gained more power due to less frictional losses.
@@postulator890 yep
Fascinating! Bravo! I always learn a little something from every D4A video. This time I learned A LOT about something I had never considered before! Thank you!!!
I’m at 1:28…already stopped and had to comment this is one of the best videos on the internet period. Can’t wait for the rest 👌🏼
Fun fact, that was NOT mentioned...: Max piston speed occurs when rod and crank are 90° of each other, AND usually occurs within 1-2° of 74° ATDC. This will cause you to consider Camshaft, Rocker ratio, and cyl head configurations in a different light. (seasoned racer, self taught)
As a complimentary topic to this, can you please do a video on the different bore/stroke ratios, and their effect on power/torque/vibration? Love your videos!
I am subscribing in faith that you will do this video!
I suggest the same, to see how over squared or undersquared engine combined with different rod ratios affect the engines. And comparing sports bike engine / cruiser bike engine..
This is really an awesome explanation and a fantastic engineering channel. Very well explained and graphics are wonderful.
Yay, I finally understood the secondary imbalance! Great informative video overall.
One of the best channels for understanding mechanisms.
Thanks, love your work.
Thank you too!
Bravo! Is the only thing I can say. Your 19-minute video explains what I did not learn in 4 years of my engineering
Dad explained this to me some years back when I asked why F1 engines are so stubby and it was enough back then. This is now the explanation I needed to answers all the technical questions that arose from back then. Thank you for this video
I think this shows the exact opposite, having F1 engines with higher rod to stroke ratios, allowing them to hit high RPM where their HP is maximized.
@@joshualong7517 exactly what I was talking about but sure go off king! ❤️
Engine builders making an existing engine higher performing often includes moving the pin up in the piston to get as long a rod as possible in the block. I've seen a few where they dished the head some to allow some piston mass above the top of the block to make the piston strong enough to deal better with the higher pin ... of course tumble and optimizing the flame front are factors too. Everything you change changes everything else :)
Back to add that I should learn not to comment before I get to the end of the video :)
You brilliantly explained the rod ratio. You have such a gift at breaking down the seemingly complex. Thank you, again.
That was one of the best explained videos on the internet.
Learned more from this absolutely top of the deck explanation/lecture than what I learned from many in the past. It’s really esoteric knowledge as rod lengths as you rightly said could be so easily overlooked. Keep it up!!
Mind blown! I love that you explain that so clearly and simply! Again thank you so much for your work in explaining engines to us! It is very greatly appreciated! This was truly a wonderful video!
Great video. I have never actually thought about additional acceleration/deceleration due to the rod being at an angle, but now it seems so obvious.
So now I understand why my engine builder wanted to go to a longer rod when building my stroker. Thank you
A good engine builder there. Better keep him.
I do research on combustion engines and even after working indepth with them for a time, I still find myself coming back to your videos for summary
When I started long before the internet was even a fantasy this kind of information was so hard to find. I observed that piston dwell time over the top changed with different geometries, and I measured piston travel with a degree wheel on the crank. but even with observations, there was no way I could find out all the effects of different geometries. What you presented in a 20 min video took me years and so many trips to libraries looking for books that explained it. It was a task just to find out what book titles even covered the topic. And then actually getting your hands on that book was another task.
I guess what I'm saying is you are an excellent use of bandwidth
Insanely awesome information man! Thanks so much for all the research that has gone into it and presenting it for the ICE heads like me in the world! Keep doing it mate, you’ve got a lifelong subscriber!
Great video! I’d love to see a discussion about the effects of offsetting the bore centerline from the crank centerline.
Or tilting the bore away from the cranck.
@@metrikmechanik Talk to Volkswagen about their V5 and VR5 engines
@@dennisloobman8013 What do you think they'd tell us?
@@podulox They’d probably tell you something like “we’ve been there, done that and got the t-shirt”.
Very well explained. Thank you. I have a much better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of both Long Stroke, Short Stroke and Over-square engines now and their various stress involved.
You may not be confusing stroke and rod ratio, but in case you are: if you can keep rod ratio the same you can stroke an engine and still keep powerband up where it is and not have cylinder walls go out of round or have the thing run really hot but most guys who stroke ( thats on the crank, not the rod) their street rod engine will do it on the cheap end up with a shorter rod yet so a terrible rod to stroke ratio but the thing will start up run great and make torque so most dont care. I dont build lawn mower engines though. I like engines that last and that are daily drivers. But thats just me.
Best presentation on the subject, visual and audio EVER!!!!
Очень здорово, что помимо объяснения основного геометрического различия в R/S, затронуты побочные эффекты этой темы, такие как повышение трения поршня и мех.потери от этого, рост температуры, понижение ресурса, увеличение юбок поршня, как следствие увеличение массы поршня и т.д.
Respect!
I geek out a lot on engineering... how have I only just cone across this channel?!
Absolutely brilliant stuff, many thanks and new sub👌🏽
Fantastic video. Time to go look up the rod ratios of all my favorite cars! 😁
Love it. Gonna start my automotive engineering classes next year. Hoping to be the best student in the class since I already know such stuff thanks to D4A. Really a great channel for enginehads and car nerds.
The electric revolution is already here so ICE knowledge is starting to become irrelevant
@@siggelindell1931 never buying an electric car unless the s16 is actually a silvia
Automotive engineering is a broad topic, not necessarily covers only ICE.
Would it make sense to aspire becoming the best student YOU can be??
You have an accent as perceived by me as an American. I have to be honest though. I understood what your were saying here better than even the smoothest speaking mechanic on youtube. Well done presentation. I hope the youtube algorithm treats you well, you deserve it.
Thank you for putting this in a fairly concise package. The main reason to use longer rods is to stay farther under the fatigue limit of the rods in my opinion. Sure, the piston motion is more ideal, but that doesn't really matter all that much.
I am not an automotive guy but still I understood your explanation. Thank you team for you effort to bring it down to common men who are not even from engineering background.
Great content. Thorough, honest and correct nomenclature. I learned this years ago but I love a refresher course.
Another great, informative video, clearly explained. The use of the same bore and stroke showed the effects of different rod ratios with no other changes. Are you going to do another video explain the trade-offs of over-square and under-square engines as well as stroker cranks including their effects on rod ratio?
I about to embark on a project of stoking a couple of 5.7 litre V8 boat engines to 6.2 litre for a friend. Your videos are giving me great insight into areas I hadn't thought of checking. Thank you for making these videos, excellent work.
This is one of the best engineering videos i have seen in a long time. Big cheers!
Awesome video! I am following the channel for a long time and you never stop impressing me with the things you cover. Just one question if you are comfortable answering, did you learn all those things at a university or a professional school, or did you learn them by yourself?
Highest ratio , is actually in the wartsilla sulzer x52df container ship engine....
4.45:1
520mm x 2315mm stroke
This one is a forever classic.
This dude explains everything in the best possible way in order to understand even the most complicated things
I must say, a very thorough and well-explained video concerning this very subtle, overlooked, yet consequential geometric condition. Most people, and vids, are all about bore v. stroke, etc.; which are really functions of different factors. I did know about this, but the quality of the OP's concise and accurate explanations, as well as illustrative quality, compels me to subscribe to this channel. Well done!
Longer rods have more dwell time at the top of the stroke and less side loading on the cylinder walls. Theoretically, they produce more power, but there's a range of acceptable rod lengths that work with a given compression ratio.-- things I remember from David Vizard's book
Connecting rod has nothing to do with compression ratio .. fishing ratio can be controlled by the volume of the combustion chamber depth of the valves the shape of the Piston whether it's a don't pissed in a flat top piston or a countersunk piston but connecting rod lengths will be limited to the space inside the engine block..... Can be maximized by allowing the wrist pin hole to go through the oil right groove just as far as you want to push it or you'll have an oil burner but you can also help offset the side load of the piston rod deflection bye offsetting the wrist pin hole so it's not in the center of the Piston but it would be to the side where it would give the rod the greatest advantage of a straighter angle to the crank journal... A good example is the offset wrist pin holes of small block Chevrolet pistons for example and the easiest to see and find to look at I'm not sure that all manufacturers of modern V8 engines do this but they should be.
If you see this in diesel engine sand possibly air compressors that are piston compressors
And I want the man's fire too runs the artificial intelligence that keeps changing the words to my comments to meaningless babbling nothing as I spend more time trying to correct what artificial intelligence does to run my comments rewording them after I post them I'm getting really really tired of this incessant aggravation from Google and TH-cam
@@donniebaker5984 The AI is messing with you too? LOL The only way I have to eliminate most of the AI's corrections is to use a tool to type my comments in, then once finished, just CCP into a comment.
The main trick is never going back to change or add to your comment. If you do, AI will delete, add to or just plain screw things up with the auto complete program. Here are the commands that I had to put into my private tools textarea tag, autocomplete="off" autocorrect="off" autocapitalize="off" spellcheck="false". If you do a tool search about these commands, you might find one you can CCP out of so your comments aren't jumbled into a mess.
Also, what weighs more a short rod or long rod. That is a factor, a very important one. Hum, wonder why that was left out of the video.
@@Mr-Corey-June really im not going crazy ? As you are the first one i know of to have the A.I. game changer that will discredit you to babbling fool ..lol ..now add that thought to a t-mobil smart phone that estimates the letters on your digital keyboard that will type any of the 5 other keys you are trying to target to correctly spell a word only to be corrected wrongly while AI.pats itself on the back thinking it done right and making the same mistake over and over again believing its you screwing up again ...send it and googles A.I. will reword your comment entirely ...so i continue to try and use voice to text ....that google already believes im a mentally handicap person and simply fucks with me rewording with words not even in the ball park of logical ..i fell asleep today typing on my trusty t Mobil and when i woke up the settings page was open with all those slide bars to turn things off labeled of processes unknown to me ..ive got spell check left but it only unlines mispelled words and wont correct them and my mircophone isvgone so u cant tell it whatbto wright anymore ..si now im back yo pecker trck writing using only one finger and qith defiance using my middle fingwr fuck them ....as now i can spell 4 letter words without have them show up as a bunch of stars ..hehehe about your question that sure a longer rod can weigh more ...but its not going to be a distance causing any negative effects but will have less friction from side loading a piston on the power stroke ...so if got time and money for custom pistons and longer rods with the wrist pin hole as far up as just inside the oil ring grove ...plus the expensive Carrillo steel alloy that can be grams lighter weight to offset the weight of a longer rod keep very close to stock spec. Then you should have your entire rotating assembly dynamically balanced by a professional balancing company like this one in indy as they do everything for industry , private owners harley engine or hot rod cars to million dollar indy car engines ..and you will have an engine build experience of more power way smoother than stock that you can only dream about untill you have a balance job by the pros ...had them do my first harley build 37 years ago and its still thumping by the forth owner since i built it ..and they ask me what i had done to it that made it so fast ..imagine that lol
This is jyst great i just niw soent over a galf hour typing ans answer to your question and the all rhe iptions availible to use longer rods and it never pisted when ut said ut did so im outa here
Maximum piston velocity happens about 75-80° ATDC (depending on rod to stroke ratio) when the rod and crank arm are at 90°, not when the crank is at 90° ATDC
You beat me to it, I’ll just add that this means accelerations at the top half of the stroke are greater than those at the bottom as a consequence, complicating harmonic vibrations a bit.
I primarily consider cylinder side loading (aka a high rod ratio) when going high performance supercharging. These engines love the lower sideload and also the additional time the piston spend just after TDC.
A practical example is the Honda B16A engine vs the B16B in the 1997-2000 Civic Type R. The B16B used the taller block and longer rods but kept the same stroke and bore 1600cc. The B16A rev limiter is 8500 and the B16B rev limiter is at 9500.
So simple, yet so complex. Very good explanation.
It’s interesting seeing what happens when you turn vertical movement into rotational movement
I seem to remember the holy grail of performance engine design was to have a “square engine” where bore and stroke are the same dimension
Well.... The subject is rod ratio, instead of bore to stroke. I disagree with the square engine concept. Simply put, I build the engine to run at high rpm, or lower rpm. Short stroke is better suited for high rpm motors, and vice versa.
However, the bottom line is cubic inches. The more inches, the more power you can produce.
The square engine is when your not sure if your a small block girl or big block guy. Your still trying to find out who you are.
A 'square' engine is a generic, but compromised guess. And it is easy to remember. Stroke and Bore are the same. Motion (stroke) is more wasteful of the energy of combustion. However, without enough stroke, you don't have compression (loosing efficiency).
@@PaulAmerican Early drag racers often would stroke the 426 hemi to 482/484 cubic inches by increasing the stroke to equal the piston bore, ie 4.25 by 4.25. The early Chrysler Hemi was often under bore at 4.00 by 4.25 to increase displacement from 392 to 427 cubic inches. Of course these engines were supercharged and ran on nitro fuel rather than gasoline. Your comment made me think of the 400 Ford which is 4.00 by 4.00. Is it a big block or a small block?
@@briansearles4473 thats of of those confused people i mentiond doesnt know what it is.
I like more rod ratio. There is less side loading, or thrust of the piston against the cylinder wall.
You also get less torque.
This can be solved with crank offset
Now I have another piece of knowledge that will never be used. Thank You.
This guy explains his subject superbly well. I have wondered about rod ratio for a long time. I didn’t even know what this design parameter was called.
9:16 - the labels/colors on the left side are reversed. From BDC you’re not decelerating, the piston was already stopped. The piston is Accelersted through 270, at which point it starts to decelerate to TDC.
15:03 graph is wrong
speed should be in the y axis because it's saying at any speed, the combustion rpms are the same and that makes no sense
true, I didn't notice
Ooooooh... You're right. 😬 I barely made it in time and was rushing it a bit by this point in the video editing. At least I said it correctly and I hope most will get the point.
@@d4a it understands perfectly!
it's just a little error
anyway it's always easy to use the x axis for the variable wich in engines is always rpm
just use it as an advice for next times!
I always thought that to increase the stroke is to lenghten the rod, turns out you need to make changes to the crankshaft.
Thats right. Rod length determines not stroke at all but relationship of piston speed and position relative to stroke.
Very interesting and informative. As a retired mechanic I have never given any thought to engines having the same stroke while at the same time having a different rod length. I feel rather ignorant. But I learned something new.
I’ve been taking in a lot of info about connecting rod length, piston speed, and side loading of the piston and how they affect engine efficiency and longevity. This video was very helpful for me to visualize what I’ve been learning.
I knew about a longer rod gives more dwell time at TDC but was confused about piston speed, I actually had it backwards.
Edit : this discussion also sheds light on piston wall scuffing on my oddball Oldsmobile 455 race engine. I now realize I can utilize an even longer rod and shorter piston with less skirt to help reduce scuffing mentioned above.