Nowadays I beam rods can be made just as strong as H beams but if you want to guarantee that 600 hp isn't going to blow a rod and don't want to spend for 1000 HP I beams or H beams, typically H beams are strong enough. Unless they're bad from the factory, but H beams can also be made just as light as I beams with ease. When an H beam bends though it's going to take a lot more force to bend it and keep bending it than an I beam. Once the I beam gives it's most likely just going to fold like paper and if it doesn't give right away it's not going to take much to go all the way
Watching this while shopping for rods, it seems that I rods are better for all motor high rev setups (which im building) and H rods are better for handling peak top end power (boosted setups). Thats what i get from this.
There are also cross beam rods, as in Pauter rods, and X beam rods as in I can't recall who they are made by! Also, Miller, and Offenhauser (what Miller became in a way), one of the sexiest race engines ever, used tubular section rods.
Those Pauter rods must be pretty light comparatively. Good in long rod setups for high rpm? The thin ribs of the H-beam apparently can be induced to flex (e.g. by a slightly off-axis compressive force) and that then causes the whole rod to be weakened and bend, or buckle. X-Beams look to be the best for all around rigidity (in lieu of a reliable way to make tubular ones) thanks to the longer, diagonal ribs - hence their use in Diesels with their heavy pistons? This must be significant, because large marine Diesels often use skinny-looking circular section connecting rods. I wonder if this is because the crosshead guides prevent rotation of the piston and so remove any torsional load on the rod. I would imagine, then, that much of the bending load on the rod really comes from the inertia of the piston near top and bottom dead centres, and is not so much a concern in a slow speed engine?
"Those Pauter rods must be pretty light comparatively. Good in long rod setups for high rpm?" Never weighed them in comparison to other aftermarket rods, they are heavier than the factory rods from my Evo 6 though, althought that isn't surprising. They've had a really good pounding in many highly boosted VW flat four drag engines over the years without any trouble. Pauter started out making VW flat 4 tuning parts.
You need a rubber con rod to show the bending moment, exaggerate it and show how it cycles through high and low stress? Like the channel mate, you’ve really built something.
It would be neat to see you discuss and analyze any potential flaws or benefits associated with Pauter's single rib connecting rods, while comparing them to I-beam and H-beam designs.
I’ve been super curious in this topic as of late. One bit of info I recently heard about H-beams is that the two flat sides of the beam, helps keep the big end of the rod round. Something to think about I guess...
I haven't managed to give a complete fuck about I-beam vs H-beam. Aftermarket H-beams are forged 4340 instead of the Optimized Powdered I-beam Metallurgy (pronounced "Opium" because we're cool as fuck.), so they likely promote ductile failure before brittle failure as a forgiving failure mode. Given that most hot rodders are stupid, what difference does it make? My LS came came with I-beams from the factory. I bet if you re-built it on H-beams, the power loss would be less than what atmospheric anomalies cause. When you run an energy audit on any engine, it's always the total assembly that makes the grade.
Can you answer a question, where does the bending moment come from, you can't have a bending moment on somehting with two pivot joints. You can only have and net force and a side loading from the thrust side of the piston. The rod then only experiences tension and compression. How did you model the forces to input the boundary conditions for your fea simulation?
" you can't have a bending moment on somehting with two pivot joints" - great comment, and I'd love to hear your explaination of why you can't but moving on. So straight to it. Put in a simple way, and you're probably drawing this out so I'll explain it this way. When the centre-line of the conrod through the crankpin is perpendicular torque is at its maximum. So from wrist pin through the rod and then to the crankpin this is your primary force. Now looking at the crankpin to crank centre-line you have the greatest reaction force opposing that froce down the rod. This is when the force acting against the piston has the greatest resistant force from the load of the system all the way back to the rear wheel. So the resistant force at the crank pin, vs the force down the beam of the crank gives you a linear component. With the piston force applied towards the crank CL this gives you your bending moment. As this system is dynamic the bending moment is constantly moving within the rod. So to this end you have to work on a static analysis. In other words this is a bending moment and not a simple shear.
I've never found h beams to be heavier... Actually usually the opposite. All the lightest rods I've seen have been h beams. But maybe that's just with Honda car engines or something idk
That H rod at the end with that massive kink in it was awesome looking. Would love to know what he was running in that engine. I would almost guess a ton of nitrous. It hits hard and fast, turbos which "roll" on the power would give the rod enough time to slowly absorb the stress and maybe hold up. Opinion??? Love the video
ESSENTIAL SUPER BIKE package in the late 90s , I think they said the piston has up to 10 tons of preacher pushing it down . the files are still here but It will take an age to fined that again lol
I would hazard that an optimized 3D printed rod would look a lot like a chicken leg bone. A strong shell with a network of supports inside to stay as light as possible.
Really interesting to hear a bit of a comparison of these types of rods. We've made some I beam rods for old motorbike engines at work but didn't really understand the strengths and weaknesses of the design, just copied an old one... Would it be correct to look at the I beam as 2 separate beams with a joiner in the middle (like you said about the H beam) but the beams being in a better position to take the bending moment you talked about?
Lime Its quite the opposite to what Matt has explained in aftermarket Subaru con-rods. The strongest and heaviest rods are usually always I beams. The lighter and lower horsepower rated rods are typically H beams. Dunno why its like that? Might be a difference between sports bikes and boosted car engines.
For a given weight. You did talk to rod manufacturers, and their strongest rods will be I beams, you're confusing what's on offer vs a comparison for the same weight. That's were the term 'generally' comes in. The other thing is what the fuck does 'strongest' mean? Tensile, compression, bending, tortionally?
Couldn't you start off by explaining why a tube is stiffer than a solid rod of the same mass, and then show how removing material from the conrod to lighten it, does not decrease its stiffness when it subjected to the bending moment? Then you could explain why different sorts of engines require different considerations when balancing lightness with stiffness in different dimensions. I only ask you to do it because I can't do it myself. Cheers!
Ricko what up I may be buying x beam rods for my k24 engine from skunk2. They cost $480. Skunk2 x beam rods. I want 880whp. I wish companies would share the torque numbers not HP numbers. TQ is what will destroy rods.
The point of american V8s was never high RPM, it was low(er) end torque due to their cars being bigger = heavier. Also the big blocks are similar to truck engines, or they are de facto truck engines, which helped mass production = mass scale economies = lower cost.
In terms of engine design fundamentals Con-Rod design factors were maybe established (I'm guessing) around 90 years ago - If I was cynical I would say that H design came from across the pond?
This videos pretty awesome, I never really thought about it xD but it does make sense that v8 guys use H rods because the old school v8 couldn't rev high because of the shitty oil pump design... So they'd stroke the fuck out of it then nitrous or a blower all making power between 2000 to 6000 rpm so their oil pump wouldn't shake apart on the street xD so definitely making power with cylinder pressure and not rpm. Love your videos!
If there's a bending force in one direction as well as axial compression then they should all be I (this is why we need serifs) beam shaped. Something between a UB and UC section that would be used in buildings, but, proportionally, fatter. If there's any torsional force and I guess there shouldn't be, then a hollow section makes sense. So this H section seems to be bollocks. And even if you're saying well we want it heavier due to higher forces you still want it as light as possible surely (Unless it using the principle of a flywheel and maintaining inertia but why would you not want a free revving engine? Maybe to lessen engine braking?) ....and the most efficient way of making it strong yet light is an I beam in the correct orientation. The bending would only come in one direction surely. Can't see any reason for the H orientation. As you say for tensile forces it's just cross sectional area. But yeah...you want the mass in the flanges further away from the neutral axis not in the web. I'm sure there's some actual mechanical engineers that can tell me I'm talking bollocks...
...but if you want a conrod heavier on purpose why bother with the grooves at all. Maybe it's a heat disipation thing, increasing the surface area without losing the mass...?
"So this H section seems to be bollocks." - LOL What? As in they don't exist? "And even if you're saying well we want it heavier due to higher forces you still want it as light as possible surely" - Yes you do. "and the most efficient way of making it strong yet light is an I beam in the correct orientation." - I think you're confused here..... " The bending would only come in one direction surely." - Again I'm lost... " I'm sure there's some actual mechanical engineers that can tell me I'm talking bollocks..." - That would be mean, and yes some of what you say is either bollocks or I don't understand what you're getting at?
No one wants a heavier rod. You've missed the point completely. For compression forces a 'thicker' rod if you wanna call it that is stronger. H rods are for increased compression forces like turbo's etc.
The Workshop You talked about a bending moment during the piston stroke. So that doesn't occur perpendicular, only the one way. That would be the optimal way to orientate the section i.e an I as opposed to an H'. For combined bending and axial compression well that's beyond me but generally a column in a building is square in terms of dimensions, a UC section. They are I think nearly as strong in both axes as it is only as strong as the weakest axis in buckling so they need to be similar in x and y directions. Even so they're stronger in the I direction. Basically...you want your conrod as strong as possible for as little weight so put it in orientated as an I. If it needs to be stronger I'm compression and for fatigue...thicken it up. But it makes no sense to rotate it to an H. Because it could just be rotated and be stronger for the same section. Do bigger cylinders cause forces in a different direction? Doubtful. Just bigger numbers.
In no situation is a h beam rod heavier than a I beam rod. I’ve built over 700 engines and have yet to see a heavier h beam rod. Eagle and Carrillo rods are not heavier my friend.
Isn't it also more expensive to make I beam rods in low volumes then making H beam rods ? Ducati race department used H beam for all there engines up to the 999 Factory bikes . From the 1098 generation onwards they used I beam rods similar to the ones used in there road homoligation bikes .. just wondering if cost has something to do in this matter aswell . Low volumes H rods are cheaper to produce then I beam TI rods .. as Ducati used TI rods for all homoligation road bikes
Depends if they're forged or not. The ttoling set-up for forging is the expensive bit. But not many people do low volume. For racing its just the cost of racing, hence why the bikes cost about 1 million.
how do they actually make H beams, forge a solid and mill out the sides? Its seems like I beam would quite a bit simpler with only (mostly) features on two sides rather than four
Wait! at 3:46 you draw two H rods and try to sell the slimmer one as an I rod??? Are you trying to fuck with us or did you just had a brain fart? OMJ! (Bottom Left Dude)
I`m sorry but I can`t find a heavier H-Beam rod than an I-Beam ror for my Engine and a lot other engines O.o The I-Beams are almost 100gr heavier than H-Beam and the H costs always less. Btw. I`ve seen a F1 N/A Engine with MAHLE internals...and they have H-Beam or a mix of both. I still don`t see the benefits for Forced Induction engines going H. All manufacturers with high HP outputs use I-Beam and even F1 Turbo engines use I-Beam. I`m not an engeneer but to me it looks like I is the stronger while heavier rod that is up to task in BIG HP applications. Even conrod manufacturer saying that I beam is the way to go for more power.
If your gonna bash the american v8 talk about another engine that makes low end torque like that... clean up the diesel industry perhaps? in the UK you just drive a box truck and never see interstate miles
"If you have 2 rods that are the same... then a H rod is going to be heavier" Well then clearly they're not the SAME!... so what the heck are you talking about?!
Bro he took 15mins out of his day to explain it to you for free. That's how a women wins an argument.....picks one thing, throws it out of context and adds an insult.🤣🤣🤣
So it's just an optimisation problem between the second moments of area and overall mass of the component, well why didn't you bloody say so instead of mucking about for 10 mins? ☺️
if h beams are soo much better for high boost applications why are all the strongest rods I beams? take a look at manly rods they make a series of i beam rods called "turbo tuff" which are far stronger than their best H beam rods.
I seems that it depends which site you go to. Some say I beam and some say H beam - www.tarmacsportz.co.uk/wrx-sti-manley-turbo-tuff-connecting-rods.html
@@dirtygarageguy no that's definitely wrong the turbo tuff rods are I beams, i am an apprentice engine rebuilder and we use them at work all the time, they are definitely an I beam and we build alot of subaru ej20 and ej25s.
And to add no one said they are sooo much better. That's the point. The marketing wank makes people think that they are. That's what I said at the very beginning of the vid. The other thing is that this is a broad generalisation. Some of the F1 rods are actually both and are called x beam rods. The point is that some people have it in their heads that H beams are just better. As for the rods themselves, because of the profile of rods in general H beam rods are usually heavier because they have more 'meat'. This makes them more 'useful' in boosted applications for a like for like rod.
Formula 1 cylinder pressures are no where near most American v8 dragcars spraying 200 shot plus of nitrous if you put I beams in a nitrous motor of high boost motor you will destroy the rods besides formula 1 is gay f1 car 0 to 60 2.7 a pro stock or pro mod 0 to 60 0.5
Yeah, those antique V-8s using archaic technology like pistons, connecting rods, and crankshafts unlike modern 4-bangers which use super-advanced technology to turn explosions into torque. Seriously, is there a law requiring any non-American to bash V-8s even in a video that doesn't in any way relate to engine architecture? What is it about that one specific architecture that triggers you people? You love 4, 6, and 12 cylinder engines... but mention a V-8 and you have a pathological urge to scream, "stuck in the '50s". You want overhead cams? We got overhead cams. You want fuel injection? We got fuel injection. You want aluminum blocks? We got aluminum blocks. Exactly what is it that you think is "stuck in the '50s"? Too much displacement? Too much focus on low-end torque? Doesn't sound like an out-of-tune leaf blower? I have never seen a factory American V-8 with H-beam rods in 45 years of messing with cars. Wherever H-beams came from, it wasn't "stuck in the '50s" American V-8s.
It's not V8's - its the fanboy American club that think the 'mercian' V8 are special when infact they're cheap - and outdated. For example - the LS engine. Barely oversqaure single cam per bank 2 valves. Still running the 2 valves per cylinder. Why? Because it's cheap. This basic layout was fine for the 1950's but think have moved on. The Merlin RR engine used in the P51 has the same thing but with 4 valves per cylinder and that was designed in 1930.
@@dirtygarageguy The first DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder engine ever was built in 1912. Does that mean every 4-valve car is "stuck in the teens"? Point being that whatever DOHC engine you happen to fancy is just as old in concept as the V-8s you claim are outdated. You talk about V-8 fanboys but you're the one screaming that your stuff is sooooo much better even though it relies on technology dating back a century. For the record, for my money, the best engine architecture isn't V-8 as much as I like them. The best is V-12.
"The first DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder engine ever was built in 1912." - no. But for the rest of the world they migrated over from 2 valves to 4 valves. "Point being that whatever DOHC engine you happen to fancy is just as old in concept as the V-8s you claim are outdated." - No. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Engines like the LS engine use 2 valves for a reason. It's cheap. "For the record, for my money, the best engine architecture isn't V-8 as much as I like them. The best is V-12." - Actually the best engine is the V4.
Put a longer out takes, With the tube being total wankers now putting thumbnails right over videos at the end. If you want anyone to see them, I actually enjoy them but have to stop and remove the elements of the video manually, not something everyone understands how to do, not to mention a total pain in the ass. Just run your promo gibber from the start again would do it, 8-10 seconds. There being total assses with it now. I don't want to sound like a shit about it, but something to be aware of/
Matt, are you kidding me! What you tell around 6:34 is absolute bullshit! There is no bending force in that example of yours! The conrod is hold in place by bearings. You cannot put a torque in that direction because the bearing would turn. Your example will only work when your lower bearing is locked/fixed! This is very basic engineering! Your video goes on and on after this mistake. However, in the end you do show that bending forces are apparently there. The pictures of the F1 conrords are interesting. A bending force can only be created by the circular motion and acceleration of the conrod. Apparently that force is big enough that it causes problems. That is interesting. Furthermore I don't agree with the statement that H beams rod are heavier than I beam rods. As an engineer you have the option to make beams as heavy as you like. An I beam can be nearly solid if you like. Your statement should be: "I beams are easier to make lighter than H beams". Keep up the videos! I do like most of them.
I forgot bearing friction. This will also create some bending force on the rod. Although that force should be relatively small because of the low coefficient of friction.
like how he bashes american v8. one of the best and most use motor is american aka the LS. i will take my angry v8 compared to those pissed off little v8 in European cars.
![H Beam VS I Beam | Does It Even Matter? [TECH TALK]](/img/n.gif)
Ah the fooking production value of this show is outstanding the lighting and pre-staging is out of this fucking world.
Nowadays I beam rods can be made just as strong as H beams but if you want to guarantee that 600 hp isn't going to blow a rod and don't want to spend for 1000 HP I beams or H beams, typically H beams are strong enough. Unless they're bad from the factory, but H beams can also be made just as light as I beams with ease.
When an H beam bends though it's going to take a lot more force to bend it and keep bending it than an I beam. Once the I beam gives it's most likely just going to fold like paper and if it doesn't give right away it's not going to take much to go all the way
Watching this while shopping for rods, it seems that I rods are better for all motor high rev setups (which im building) and H rods are better for handling peak top end power (boosted setups). Thats what i get from this.
been working months on fea stuff with this and you summed it up so well
If I looked down my cylinder bore too see my rod has a cross section of an “I” I’d be very concerned mate
Chickennn thank you for the laugh lol
6:47 "Get my monster rod out ..."
Now your just bragging Matt. Lol
Bragging, no way, dreaming...
Nice, finally someone explained it in a way that I can understand!
That's truly fucking unbelievable 😂
Excellent video!
A no nonsense video to show the guys at the garage. =)
There are also cross beam rods, as in Pauter rods, and X beam rods as in I can't recall who they are made by! Also, Miller, and Offenhauser (what Miller became in a way), one of the sexiest race engines ever, used tubular section rods.
Those Pauter rods must be pretty light comparatively. Good in long rod setups for high rpm?
The thin ribs of the H-beam apparently can be induced to flex (e.g. by a slightly off-axis compressive force) and that then causes the whole rod to be weakened and bend, or buckle.
X-Beams look to be the best for all around rigidity (in lieu of a reliable way to make tubular ones) thanks to the longer, diagonal ribs - hence their use in Diesels with their heavy pistons?
This must be significant, because large marine Diesels often use skinny-looking circular section connecting rods. I wonder if this is because the crosshead guides prevent rotation of the piston and so remove any torsional load on the rod.
I would imagine, then, that much of the bending load on the rod really comes from the inertia of the piston near top and bottom dead centres, and is not so much a concern in a slow speed engine?
"Those Pauter rods must be pretty light comparatively. Good in long rod setups for high rpm?"
Never weighed them in comparison to other aftermarket rods, they are heavier than the factory rods from my Evo 6 though, althought that isn't surprising. They've had a really good pounding in many highly boosted VW flat four drag engines over the years without any trouble. Pauter started out making VW flat 4 tuning parts.
I was a bit worried when you said you were getting your monster rod out. 😳
Holy hell, those are some serious effing rods you've got laying around.
Cuz they've got a lot of spare time... Yeah, stick it to those lazy F1 guys!
You need a rubber con rod to show the bending moment, exaggerate it and show how it cycles through high and low stress? Like the channel mate, you’ve really built something.
Learned something new today👍👍
It would be neat to see you discuss and analyze any potential flaws or benefits associated with Pauter's single rib connecting rods, while comparing them to I-beam and H-beam designs.
I’ve been super curious in this topic as of late. One bit of info I recently heard about H-beams is that the two flat sides of the beam, helps keep the big end of the rod round. Something to think about I guess...
I haven't managed to give a complete fuck about I-beam vs H-beam. Aftermarket H-beams are forged 4340 instead of the Optimized Powdered I-beam Metallurgy (pronounced "Opium" because we're cool as fuck.), so they likely promote ductile failure before brittle failure as a forgiving failure mode. Given that most hot rodders are stupid, what difference does it make?
My LS came came with I-beams from the factory. I bet if you re-built it on H-beams, the power loss would be less than what atmospheric anomalies cause. When you run an energy audit on any engine, it's always the total assembly that makes the grade.
Its not that were stuck it the past. A chevy small block has the most information around and is the cheapest aftermarket for them.
A cam in block, rockers and pushrods. No of course its not stuck in the past.
nice explanation. awesome videos
Can you answer a question, where does the bending moment come from, you can't have a bending moment on somehting with two pivot joints. You can only have and net force and a side loading from the thrust side of the piston. The rod then only experiences tension and compression. How did you model the forces to input the boundary conditions for your fea simulation?
" you can't have a bending moment on somehting with two pivot joints"
- great comment, and I'd love to hear your explaination of why you can't but moving on.
So straight to it. Put in a simple way, and you're probably drawing this out so I'll explain it this way.
When the centre-line of the conrod through the crankpin is perpendicular torque is at its maximum. So from wrist pin through the rod and then to the crankpin this is your primary force. Now looking at the crankpin to crank centre-line you have the greatest reaction force opposing that froce down the rod.
This is when the force acting against the piston has the greatest resistant force from the load of the system all the way back to the rear wheel. So the resistant force at the crank pin, vs the force down the beam of the crank gives you a linear component.
With the piston force applied towards the crank CL this gives you your bending moment. As this system is dynamic the bending moment is constantly moving within the rod. So to this end you have to work on a static analysis. In other words this is a bending moment and not a simple shear.
I've never found h beams to be heavier... Actually usually the opposite. All the lightest rods I've seen have been h beams. But maybe that's just with Honda car engines or something idk
zach miller
Same with subarus. I beams are typically the heavy and stronger choice. And H beams are lighter and often not rated for as much power.
That H rod at the end with that massive kink in it was awesome looking. Would love to know what he was running in that engine. I would almost guess a ton of nitrous. It hits hard and fast, turbos which "roll" on the power would give the rod enough time to slowly absorb the stress and maybe hold up. Opinion??? Love the video
Matt's just made that american V8s can be built with the tolerances of IKEA furniture, and for about the same price too.
ESSENTIAL SUPER BIKE package in the late 90s , I think they said the piston has up to 10 tons of preacher pushing it down .
the files are still here but It will take an age to fined that again lol
98kN....... Yeah quite easily
That is a LOT !!!! Mus be the 1000 s that have it
If cost wasn't an issue, could a 3D printed rod with organic design, outperform this the space age designs? or would it look almost the same?
I would hazard that an optimized 3D printed rod would look a lot like a chicken leg bone. A strong shell with a network of supports inside to stay as light as possible.
Very informative.....some fuckin cool rods laying around ya shed mate👌
Really interesting to hear a bit of a comparison of these types of rods. We've made some I beam rods for old motorbike engines at work but didn't really understand the strengths and weaknesses of the design, just copied an old one... Would it be correct to look at the I beam as 2 separate beams with a joiner in the middle (like you said about the H beam) but the beams being in a better position to take the bending moment you talked about?
@Matt, so this also applies to Automotive cars too right on what you're talking about?
Lime
Its quite the opposite to what Matt has explained in aftermarket Subaru con-rods. The strongest and heaviest rods are usually always I beams. The lighter and lower horsepower rated rods are typically H beams.
Dunno why its like that? Might be a difference between sports bikes and boosted car engines.
Would a hexagonal rod be a good idea?
Using this video to distract my 6 week old son whilst his mum showers and he's loving it 😂😂👍👍
Charlie Cozens *while me and his mum shower* 😘🚿
@@jstefa2 whilst you were riding that unicorn in your dreams 😂👍
Did not know that.
Glad i know the diference now.
The two rods drawn at 4 min are both H?
Oh yeah - what a dumbarse
Look at you making a good video 👍
well mat i have contacted a couple of major rod manufacturers and they recommend forged i beams as their strongest rods!
LOL - your point?
you said H beams were strongest, they are not!
For a given weight. You did talk to rod manufacturers, and their strongest rods will be I beams, you're confusing what's on offer vs a comparison for the same weight. That's were the term 'generally' comes in. The other thing is what the fuck does 'strongest' mean? Tensile, compression, bending, tortionally?
Couldn't you start off by explaining why a tube is stiffer than a solid rod of the same mass, and then show how removing material from the conrod to lighten it, does not decrease its stiffness when it subjected to the bending moment? Then you could explain why different sorts of engines require different considerations when balancing lightness with stiffness in different dimensions. I only ask you to do it because I can't do it myself. Cheers!
tube is not stiffer just lighter with almost the same stiffnes
And X beam rods!
Ricko what up I may be buying x beam rods for my k24 engine from skunk2. They cost $480. Skunk2 x beam rods. I want 880whp. I wish companies would share the torque numbers not HP numbers. TQ is what will destroy rods.
The dragster rods are a bad comparison, since they are made of aluminium and only meant to go a very limited number of runs.
The point of american V8s was never high RPM, it was low(er) end torque due to their cars being bigger = heavier.
Also the big blocks are similar to truck engines, or they are de facto truck engines, which helped mass production = mass scale economies = lower cost.
In terms of engine design fundamentals Con-Rod design factors were maybe established (I'm guessing) around 90 years ago - If I was cynical I would say that H design came from across the pond?
Would you be willing to share your Nastran models for these rods?
The entire model or the data?
FAE, huh? You got a link to an SEA paper on that? :P
Is a H rod out of Steps...?
So buy these cheap Chinese H-Beams in bulk or not? lol
What’s that Rod off Matt? It’s huge!!!
V8 long block - dragster engine.
Kin el, looks indestructible
DUDE YOU DREW 2 h RODS
LOL I know - my fuck-up
This videos pretty awesome, I never really thought about it xD but it does make sense that v8 guys use H rods because the old school v8 couldn't rev high because of the shitty oil pump design... So they'd stroke the fuck out of it then nitrous or a blower all making power between 2000 to 6000 rpm so their oil pump wouldn't shake apart on the street xD so definitely making power with cylinder pressure and not rpm. Love your videos!
If there's a bending force in one direction as well as axial compression then they should all be I (this is why we need serifs) beam shaped. Something between a UB and UC section that would be used in buildings, but, proportionally, fatter. If there's any torsional force and I guess there shouldn't be, then a hollow section makes sense. So this H section seems to be bollocks. And even if you're saying well we want it heavier due to higher forces you still want it as light as possible surely (Unless it using the principle of a flywheel and maintaining inertia but why would you not want a free revving engine? Maybe to lessen engine braking?) ....and the most efficient way of making it strong yet light is an I beam in the correct orientation. The bending would only come in one direction surely. Can't see any reason for the H orientation. As you say for tensile forces it's just cross sectional area. But yeah...you want the mass in the flanges further away from the neutral axis not in the web. I'm sure there's some actual mechanical engineers that can tell me I'm talking bollocks...
...but if you want a conrod heavier on purpose why bother with the grooves at all. Maybe it's a heat disipation thing, increasing the surface area without losing the mass...?
"So this H section seems to be bollocks."
- LOL What? As in they don't exist?
"And even if you're saying well we want it heavier due to higher forces you still want it as light as possible surely"
- Yes you do.
"and the most efficient way of making it strong yet light is an I beam in the correct orientation."
- I think you're confused here.....
" The bending would only come in one direction surely."
- Again I'm lost...
" I'm sure there's some actual mechanical engineers that can tell me I'm talking bollocks..."
- That would be mean, and yes some of what you say is either bollocks or I don't understand what you're getting at?
No one wants a heavier rod. You've missed the point completely. For compression forces a 'thicker' rod if you wanna call it that is stronger. H rods are for increased compression forces like turbo's etc.
The Workshop You talked about a bending moment during the piston stroke. So that doesn't occur perpendicular, only the one way. That would be the optimal way to orientate the section i.e an I as opposed to an H'. For combined bending and axial compression well that's beyond me but generally a column in a building is square in terms of dimensions, a UC section. They are I think nearly as strong in both axes as it is only as strong as the weakest axis in buckling so they need to be similar in x and y directions. Even so they're stronger in the I direction. Basically...you want your conrod as strong as possible for as little weight so put it in orientated as an I. If it needs to be stronger I'm compression and for fatigue...thicken it up. But it makes no sense to rotate it to an H. Because it could just be rotated and be stronger for the same section. Do bigger cylinders cause forces in a different direction? Doubtful. Just bigger numbers.
Should do a video on sky active x and the opposed desiel piston design
Done the OPOC engine
In no situation is a h beam rod heavier than a I beam rod. I’ve built over 700 engines and have yet to see a heavier h beam rod. Eagle and Carrillo rods are not heavier my friend.
It depends on the design - obviously.......... and what they are made from. In the models provided they are heavier.....
you should do some lecturing Matt! swearing included! good stuff mate.
Hiyaaa! Kowabunga!
All rods will look like s after a while, if not you don't have enough power.
Isn't it also more expensive to make I beam rods in low volumes then making H beam rods ? Ducati race department used H beam for all there engines up to the 999 Factory bikes . From the 1098 generation onwards they used I beam rods similar to the ones used in there road homoligation bikes .. just wondering if cost has something to do in this matter aswell . Low volumes H rods are cheaper to produce then I beam TI rods .. as Ducati used TI rods for all homoligation road bikes
Depends if they're forged or not. The ttoling set-up for forging is the expensive bit. But not many people do low volume. For racing its just the cost of racing, hence why the bikes cost about 1 million.
how do they actually make H beams, forge a solid and mill out the sides? Its seems like I beam would quite a bit simpler with only (mostly) features on two sides rather than four
Forged H-beam connecting rods are more expensive to produce in any quantity because of the inherent required profile machining/milling.
Wait! at 3:46 you draw two H rods and try to sell the slimmer one as an I rod??? Are you trying to fuck with us or did you just had a brain fart? OMJ! (Bottom Left Dude)
I is betterer technically 😂
HI. See what I did there.
I`m sorry but I can`t find a heavier H-Beam rod than an I-Beam ror for my Engine and a lot other engines O.o The I-Beams are almost 100gr heavier than H-Beam and the H costs always less. Btw. I`ve seen a F1 N/A Engine with MAHLE internals...and they have H-Beam or a mix of both. I still don`t see the benefits for Forced Induction engines going H. All manufacturers with high HP outputs use I-Beam and even F1 Turbo engines use I-Beam. I`m not an engeneer but to me it looks like I is the stronger while heavier rod that is up to task in BIG HP applications. Even conrod manufacturer saying that I beam is the way to go for more power.
I'm beginning to believe you really don't like V8 engines.
If your gonna bash the american v8 talk about another engine that makes low end torque like that... clean up the diesel industry perhaps? in the UK you just drive a box truck and never see interstate miles
But american V8 make shit torque for hte amount of fuel they use. Anyone can waste fuel and get fuckk all out
@@dirtygarageguy meh ive yet to see a dohc do it only thing toyota hasnt mastered... Fuel or not
Titanium con rods are supposed to be the dogs b*******.
"If you have 2 rods that are the same... then a H rod is going to be heavier" Well then clearly they're not the SAME!... so what the heck are you talking about?!
If the big/small ends are the same ID and the same distance apart - then.......
Don't blame me because you're stupid
@@dirtygarageguy Don't blame me because you're shit at explaining things.
Bro he took 15mins out of his day to explain it to you for free. That's how a women wins an argument.....picks one thing, throws it out of context and adds an insult.🤣🤣🤣
So it's just an optimisation problem between the second moments of area and overall mass of the component, well why didn't you bloody say so instead of mucking about for 10 mins? ☺️
Fisting matt @ 7:03 ha ha
if h beams are soo much better for high boost applications why are all the strongest rods I beams? take a look at manly rods they make a series of i beam rods called "turbo tuff" which are far stronger than their best H beam rods.
I seems that it depends which site you go to. Some say I beam and some say H beam - www.tarmacsportz.co.uk/wrx-sti-manley-turbo-tuff-connecting-rods.html
@@dirtygarageguy no that's definitely wrong the turbo tuff rods are I beams, i am an apprentice engine rebuilder and we use them at work all the time, they are definitely an I beam and we build alot of subaru ej20 and ej25s.
shop.boostinperformance.com/product-p/manley-htuff-dsmevo-rod.htm
And to add no one said they are sooo much better. That's the point. The marketing wank makes people think that they are. That's what I said at the very beginning of the vid. The other thing is that this is a broad generalisation. Some of the F1 rods are actually both and are called x beam rods. The point is that some people have it in their heads that H beams are just better.
As for the rods themselves, because of the profile of rods in general H beam rods are usually heavier because they have more 'meat'. This makes them more 'useful' in boosted applications for a like for like rod.
I dont agree H beams are better for boost maybe tomorrow ill find some more info and show it to you
First, now lets see if there are any fisting gestures
Chuck Finley dam you
Formula 1 cylinder pressures are no where near most American v8 dragcars spraying 200 shot plus of nitrous if you put I beams in a nitrous motor of high boost motor you will destroy the rods besides formula 1 is gay f1 car 0 to 60 2.7 a pro stock or pro mod 0 to 60 0.5
Beam me up Scotty!!! ;)
I think u got it mixed I beams are always heavier than h beams in after market
rods!
Yeah, those antique V-8s using archaic technology like pistons, connecting rods, and crankshafts unlike modern 4-bangers which use super-advanced technology to turn explosions into torque. Seriously, is there a law requiring any non-American to bash V-8s even in a video that doesn't in any way relate to engine architecture? What is it about that one specific architecture that triggers you people? You love 4, 6, and 12 cylinder engines... but mention a V-8 and you have a pathological urge to scream, "stuck in the '50s". You want overhead cams? We got overhead cams. You want fuel injection? We got fuel injection. You want aluminum blocks? We got aluminum blocks. Exactly what is it that you think is "stuck in the '50s"? Too much displacement? Too much focus on low-end torque? Doesn't sound like an out-of-tune leaf blower? I have never seen a factory American V-8 with H-beam rods in 45 years of messing with cars. Wherever H-beams came from, it wasn't "stuck in the '50s" American V-8s.
It's not V8's - its the fanboy American club that think the 'mercian' V8 are special when infact they're cheap - and outdated.
For example - the LS engine. Barely oversqaure single cam per bank 2 valves. Still running the 2 valves per cylinder. Why? Because it's cheap. This basic layout was fine for the 1950's but think have moved on. The Merlin RR engine used in the P51 has the same thing but with 4 valves per cylinder and that was designed in 1930.
@@dirtygarageguy The first DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder engine ever was built in 1912. Does that mean every 4-valve car is "stuck in the teens"? Point being that whatever DOHC engine you happen to fancy is just as old in concept as the V-8s you claim are outdated. You talk about V-8 fanboys but you're the one screaming that your stuff is sooooo much better even though it relies on technology dating back a century.
For the record, for my money, the best engine architecture isn't V-8 as much as I like them. The best is V-12.
"The first DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder engine ever was built in 1912."
- no. But for the rest of the world they migrated over from 2 valves to 4 valves.
"Point being that whatever DOHC engine you happen to fancy is just as old in concept as the V-8s you claim are outdated."
- No. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Engines like the LS engine use 2 valves for a reason. It's cheap.
"For the record, for my money, the best engine architecture isn't V-8 as much as I like them. The best is V-12."
- Actually the best engine is the V4.
Put a longer out takes, With the tube being total wankers now putting thumbnails right over videos at the end. If you want anyone to see them, I actually enjoy them but have to stop and remove the elements of the video manually, not something everyone understands how to do, not to mention a total pain in the ass. Just run your promo gibber from the start again would do it, 8-10 seconds. There being total assses with it now. I don't want to sound like a shit about it, but something to be aware of/
Matt, are you kidding me! What you tell around 6:34 is absolute bullshit!
There is no bending force in that example of yours! The conrod is hold in place by bearings. You cannot put a torque in that direction because the bearing would turn. Your example will only work when your lower bearing is locked/fixed! This is very basic engineering!
Your video goes on and on after this mistake. However, in the end you do show that bending forces are apparently there. The pictures of the F1 conrords are interesting. A bending force can only be created by the circular motion and acceleration of the conrod. Apparently that force is big enough that it causes problems. That is interesting.
Furthermore I don't agree with the statement that H beams rod are heavier than I beam rods. As an engineer you have the option to make beams as heavy as you like. An I beam can be nearly solid if you like. Your statement should be: "I beams are easier to make lighter than H beams".
Keep up the videos! I do like most of them.
I forgot bearing friction. This will also create some bending force on the rod. Although that force should be relatively small because of the low coefficient of friction.
like how he bashes american v8. one of the best and most use motor is american aka the LS. i will take my angry v8 compared to those pissed off little v8 in European cars.
You mean those pissed off engines that are better and faster than the shit American dated V8's with pushrods LOL
@@dirtygarageguy yes faster but less relible. Can't have your cake and eat it too
I don't know but both of those look like a H to me.