| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:17PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > there. > I haven't seen it in decades ... but it's somewhere. > The fact you even *know* about that tool means you know what you speak of. I have fabricated such tools. -- Xeno |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:18AM RS Wood wrote: > I just am saying that nobody in this thread has given any logical reason > why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore. I think I got cranky. Apologies. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > You haven't worked on earthmoving machinery, that much is clear. I am assuming we're talking only street vehicles here. On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often will damage the bolt. Do you disagree? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > I consider my *time* as being valuable and I have many better things to > do with it than work on servicing my own car. We all spend time differently. For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades. Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years. How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years? |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM > e "better rings" has to be better ... somehow ... in some way. > Better design, better metalurgy Sounds just like really good marketing bullshit. It might be true. It might not be true. That's the thing about marketing bullshit. A ring has a metallurgy. It has a cross section. It even has a diameter in so much as there is a slot for blowby. And there are other rings. I know all that. I just am saying that nobody in this thread has given any logical reason why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore. How is the design better? How is the metallurgy better? Proof? That's all I ask. No proof is needed where logic prevails (as in the carb to efi story). But proof is needed for rings having better steel or cross sections. > Actually a LOT of science involved in the base metalurgy, the torsion > design, the surface finish - moly filled, chromed, etc, as well as the > thickness and tension of the rings. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. More bullshit. We all know that stuff. Really. We do. We're all engineers here (at least I am). I know *everything* has details that would knock your socks off. But at the level we're talking, for you to say rings are better and hence engines last longer, requires *more* than bullshit opinions. That's all. Is proof so very hard to ask for? > The ring used in a dragster engine, truck engine, and standard street > engine will all be significantly different. More bullshit. Every time someone brings in racing they're trying to defend bullshit. Why don't you tell me to drive on the street with bald tires too? I'm kind of sick of bullshit ... so sorry if I'm cross. I just ask for something simple. If you're gonna say rings improved so much that they make engines last longer, just stammering that "metallurgy made them do it" is fine, except nobody is gonna believe that without some proof. Likewise with cross sections. Sure, it *can* happen. But did it? Where's the beef? > You just do not understand the complexity of ring sealing - how they > must twist - and bend to seal as both the rings and cyls change size > and shape as they heat and cool. More bullshit. I'm sick of bullshit. I know every single thing is complex when you get down to the grass roots. Do you know how freakin' complicated a spark plug is when you get down to the nitty gritty. And yet, all it does is allow a spark to jump across a gap. A ring is pretty simple in what it does and, like everything, it's complex as all hell if you are the designer of them. I get that. But every bullshitter on the planet begins his bullshit with a blanket statement and then when challenged, instead of finding proof, the bullshitter then stammers that racers do it (we already saw that racers-do-it bullshit on the drilled-versus-slotted rotor bullshit and on the warped-rotor bullshit). Then when you challenge that bullshit with logic, they then go into marketing bullshit mode by bringing out all the bullshit that is meaningless but which is intended to cow the recipient into submission because the recipient isn't a piston-ring engineer. Let's drip this because you're gonna reply with *more* bullshit, when the only reasonable reply is factual scientific references. I'm not gonna look them up because I can smell bullshit a mile away. If you're not gonna look them up, then let's just drop it. So as to stop this nonsense, I won't respond further to any rings-are-better opinion that doesn't have a reliable reference attached. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: > It's not that they have to, it's that they *can do it in 1/2 hour*. In > fact, with the right wheel aligner, I could do a full wheel alignment in > significantly less time. I was just pointing out that time isn't the issue for home whereas time is everything for a shop. That has a HUGE influence on the tools required. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool (and I've met a *lot* of fools who insist you have to have a shop's equipment to do things like alignment or replacing the clutch or changing tires - but they're just fools and that's that). Fools forget the tool equation is totally different for a shop. Especially for a wheel alignment where you can do caster on day one, and then do camber on day two and toe on day three and it won't make a realistic difference from having done all three on day 1. >> My oil changes easily take me a couple of hours. >> A two-hour oil change at a shop would be unheard of. > It'll be unheard of around here too. My point again is that you can do a great oil change at home without the kind of equipment that a shop has. The tools for a shop are different than the tools for home. How well the job is done is NOT dependent on the tools. It's the attitude of the person changing the oil that matters. And their education (e.g., viscosity spread, oil quality, filter quality, new gaskets, sufficient drainage of the old oil, proper tightening of the filter, etc.) Time isn't the issue. Tools aren't the issue. Quality of results is the issue. > You don't pay the tradesman for what he does, you pay him for what he > knows and his *experience*. These days that can also include access to > TSBs and relevant factory data. Wrong. Dead wrong. I don't want to count the number of times I've seen a tradesman do the job wrong. I just don't. I have example after example after example after example. In no case did he not *know* he was doing the job wrong. He just didn't care to do the job right. You're paying him to do the job right. |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM Xeno wrote: >> But isn't the alignment spec with the tires weighted with full load? > Normal load, not full load. I know what you mean, which isn't technically correct, but I know what you meant anyway. I was talking about the guy who jacked the car up to adjust the toe, but he already explained he uses a process which is basically: a) measure b) raise jack c) adjust d) lower jack e) go to a and repeat until the measurement is correct. As for why you're not technically correct, "normal" load means different things depending on the vehicle manufacturer. For the example I know best, on my bimmer, you load with as many pounds as it takes to get the desired measurement of the vehicle suspension to be such that the center of the hubcap to the center of the fender flare above the wheel is so many centimeters. That can take *any* number of pounds spread evenly between each seat and the trunk, where 500 pounds total added weight is not at all abnormal. If you're calling that 500 pounds the "normal" load, then you're technically correct for that vehicle. But it's different for every vehicle, where, for example, the sport suspension takes a different weight than the M suspension which is different weight than the non-sport suspension. > accordingly. Load will alter camber readings hence also toe. Set the > vehicle up with the load the owner normally places in it and you wont go > wrong. I think we're talking different things. I know what you're talking about. I don't know that you know what I'm talking about. Do you need me to give you a reference for what I'm talking about? |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:20PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > I posit that: > 1. The chain is *far* more reliable than the belt > 2. Both can ruin an interference engine if they break The chain will give you fair warning - it will rattle before it breaks. A belt will not. > 3. Repair hassle is probably about the same > The question is how long is the typical MTBF for a belt versus a chain? typical belt replacement interval 40-60k miles. For chains, double or triple that without an issue. -- Xeno |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:21AM Xeno wrote: >> But I don't understand UV protection for car tires. > They have UV protection built in at manufacture. Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them out. >> But I have never had a cracked-sidewall car tire in recent years. > If you don't keep them for longer than 10 years or, alternately, always > park in a garage, you won't. I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine. So UV protection is not for me. > the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years. That's more than twice the time I need! :) > Ordinary glass has a degree of UV protection anyway. Same as the > untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe. It's a little more complex than that (last I spoke to my eye doctor), but you're right, that ordinary glasses "usually" block a lot of UV. The details are that they recommend a UV coating for *some* of the materials, but they know all that so when I'm buying glasses, that's when I ask (because I don't remember without looking it up). |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:13AM > Not as simple as you would make it sound. They might only last 5000 > miles, or they might last 50,000 miles. Same friction ratingf. We don't disagree. In fact, I already said that in a different post in this thread. Let me cut and paste what I said. ------ start cut and paste what I said ------- Life is one thing but the *primary* factor in brake pads is friction. I buy $35 PBR pads with FF or GG friction ratings which last 30K miles or so and the dust isn't objectionable. So my factors are: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) Friction Coefficient Identification System for Brake Linings <http://standards.sae.org/j866_200204/> ------ end cut and paste what I said ------- Still, the MOST IMPORTANT reason for buying pads is friction coefficient. If you had excellent life and lousy stopping power - would you buy them? > They might squal like a banshee - they might be totally quiet - same > friction rating. Good point that a lot of brake installations squeal, but we've researched this and it seems more depending on "situation" than on application. By that I mean that you can put the same pads on two similar cars, and some people complain of noise while others don't. There is a reason, for example, they have those padded shims. But again, my point is that you can give me all the bullshit you want to tell me that you can't choose pads wisely and I will only counter you with logic. If we add noise, it doesn't change the logic one bit. It only repeats a step. The factors would just be: a. Friction rating (anything less than FF is worthless) b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners) > The linings might fall off the backing plates il less than a yeat. > They might wear brake rotors like a grind-stone. > They might promote uneven material transfer - making brakes "thump" More of the same above. What you're completely whooshing on is that you have no way of knowing that crap unless you ask someone - and - even then - you have no way of knowing if you'll get that crap on your application. Worse ... it's NOT at all what brakes do. If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's still a worthless pad, even though it a. Has an EE rating (which makes it almost worthless as a brake pad) b. Yet, it has no dust c. And it lasts forever (and so does the rotor!) d. And it's as quiet as a whisper If I was going to market that bullshit pad above, I'd say: "Quietest, most dustless, longest lasting pads in the business!" That's marketing bullshit for you. If it doesn't stop the vehicle - all that other crap is useless. > Actually GG is pretty UNCOMMON. - and many OEM pad sets have > different frictiom material on the inner and outer pads.. For my bimmer, FF and GG are pretty common. But maybe it's different for other makes. I haven't seen anything better than G in the real world. But I'm sure we can look up what exists. > The FG Thermoquiets on my Ranger work pretty good - - - and they are > different inside to outside. FG is fine as long as that's as good or better than OEM. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:23PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > Two vehicles that are worthless to me: > 1. FWD > 2. Belt The past half dozen cars I've had have been FWD. I don't have a problem with them. My first FWD car was a Morris Mini back in 74 and I have had heaps of them since. Had heaps of RWD cars too. Totals in the hundreds. -- Xeno |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:25AM RS Wood wrote: > If you have an EE pad that meets all your bullshit requirements, then it's > still a worthless pad I think I got cranky. Apologies. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:28PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: > 1. Chain > 2. Belt > 3. Pushrod Pushrod is a false comparison because they can be gear, chain or belt driven. Just add gear to your list and delete pushrod. We are talking about driving the *camshaft*. gear, chain, belt. There are a few varieties of chain in use; single row, double row, hyvo. > 2. Belt ? > 3. Pushrod ? > I don't hear anyone talking about pushrods, so, all I see here are that That's because pushrods don't drive camshafts. Pushrods are *driven* by camshafts. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:31PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 3:49 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> would be double that today and there was still a lot of engineering and >> new tooling to pay for. That said, I have no ideal today. > I remember $1000 but they didn't pass that on to the consumer in toto. Cars are cheaper now than they were when I was a boy. > I posit it gets them almost nothing. > Then the hoi polloi don't understand what they lose. > I posit they lose handling. They gain handling as long as they understand it's *different handling*. > Maybe FWD is better now ... but I think I'll have to go to my deathbed > before owning a FWD car... simply because I don't want to fall for the > marketing trap that everyone else easily falls into. FWD works for me. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:33PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> Lots of traps for the unwary in that little task. > I don't disagree that an automatic is a completely different thing to > rebuild than a manual would be for a typical rebuild. Far more than most people realise. Even more complex now that trans operation is integrated with a TCU and the ECU. -- Xeno |
| RS Wood <rswood@is.invalid>: Nov 06 06:35AM Xeno wrote: >> Warp is measured on a flat bench. >> Just like head warp is measured. > Or with a dial indicator - on both sides - for comparison. You *can* measure warp with a dial indicator if you control the centerline precisely, but nobody sane would do it that way. I'm only speaking logic. If you have a head that you need to know if it's warped, would you use a. a dial gauge or b. a flat benchtop with a feeler gauge? Pick one. > Use to check for warp every time. With a dial gauge? Or a flat bench and feeler gauge? I'm not saying it's hard to check warp (heck, people do it for heads all the time I suppose). I'm just saying that warp doesn't happen for the most part in street cars (I already have a half dozen references) and yet *every* idiot out there *thinks* his rotors warped. Every time I asked anyone to prove it, they *said* all sorts of bullshit, but they can't even tell me *how* they'd prove it. If they use a dial gauge, for example, while the rotor is on the vehicle for example, then I have to wonder how to respond because that just proves my point. Nobody who ever said their street rotors warped ever supplied proof. They all are bullshit artists. >> And nobody measures it. >> So it didn't happen. > Some do. I did. I also taught apprentices to measure for it. Measuring it is trivial if you have a bench and a feeler gauge. But show me a single picture on the entire Internet that shows someone measuring a street rotor for warp. Just one. Now show me the bullshit of someone saying they measure warp all the time. (HINT: We don't enough space on the Internet for the bullshit references.) There has never been a topic more filled with bullshit than rotor warp, and all the "experts" who claim they measure it and yet can't show a single picture of anyone on the planet doing that (not themselves either) for a street rotor. >> The problem is the temperature never gets hot enough. > It can under specific circumstances. See it most often on autos in very > hilly country. I give up. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:41PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > First, you read this: > Rotors: Blank vs Cross Drilled vs Slotted and Warping > <http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/> I did and they agree with me on why rotors are slotted. BTW, I don't agree with cross drilled rotors anytime. > <http://www.ebay.com/gds/Drilled-vs-slotted-rotors-what-is-better-/10000000005243690/g.html?rmvSB=ue?> > I'm talking legal normal street driving speeds because we're not talking > racing here. In the old days of asbestos in brakes, brake fade was valid even in street cars. These days asbestos is no longer used so fade is much less a problem on street cars driven normally. Again, your link agrees with me. The pads on my Toyotas are good for 60k miles so they definitely arent the asbestos pads of old. For sure you don't get the smell of fried Ferodo like you once did. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:44PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > b. Non-objectionable dust (the only way to know is to ask owners) > c. Decent life (the only way to know is to ask owners) > d. Noise (the only way to know is to ask owners) The pads on my car(s) have both long life and good braking ability. Did I mention they don't squeal too. They are the OEM Toyota pads that came with the car and that's what they will be replaced with. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:46PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > e) go to a and repeat until the measurement is correct. > As for why you're not technically correct, "normal" load means different > things depending on the vehicle manufacturer. I know but I adjust for the load the driver usually has in the car. For a traveling salesman, for instance, his car might be fully loaded all the time. Adjust wheel alignment in that situation. -- Xeno |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 06 01:52AM -0500 On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:50:30 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >combustion chamber during the intake stroke. Under part load conditions >the engine uses charge stratification with the throttle valve fully open >and fuel is injected during the compression stroke. Detonation is generally not an issue at higher speed, so the stratified charge provides the advantage I ststed. Under full throttle at speed homogenous charge is not a problem. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:52PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > On street engines, an adjustable wrench often won't fit, and just as often > will damage the bolt. > Do you disagree? Up to a point, I agree with you. Where I disagree is that most people use them incorrectly (backwards) or size them inappropriately. They are no different to an open end spanner when used correctly and, need it be said, they are of a decent quality. When working on earthmoving equipment, the most common adjustables I used were 15". 18" and 24". You have no idea how many different spanners those three adjustables replaced. In field work you need to cart *all your tools* with you. You always look to minimise that load. -- Xeno |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Nov 06 01:53AM -0500 On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:51:59 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> changes the other on most non-strut suspensions. Struts are a whole >> lot simpler. >Changing camber on a strut still changes toe. I didn't say it didn't. camber has a lot less effect on camber, and vice versa on a strut system than on a double wishbone system |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:53PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:13 PM, RS Wood wrote: > For example, I haven't owned a TV in many decades. > Hence I know I spent zero hours watching TV in the past 30 years. > How much time did you spend watching TV in the past 30 years? Fractionally more than you. I watch the news on TV. That's it. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:55PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:18 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> why rings would be "better" today than in the days of yore. > I think I got cranky. > Apologies. It does tend to deter people from responding when you do that. -- Xeno |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Nov 06 05:58PM +1100 On 6/11/2017 5:21 PM, RS Wood wrote: >> They have UV protection built in at manufacture. > Makes sense since they are rated for longer than it takes me to wear them > out. That is precisely the idea. >> park in a garage, you won't. > I forgot about the garage. Good point. Yes. I garage mine. > So UV protection is not for me. You just have ozone issues in the garage. Look that one up, it's very interesting. >> the inbuilt tyre UV protection is typically good for 5 to 7 years. > That's more than twice the time I need! :) That's the allowance for low mileage drivers. >> untinted windows on your car - up to 80% I believe. > It's a little more complex than that (last I spoke to my eye doctor), but > you're right, that ordinary glasses "usually" block a lot of UV. I have worn glasses since I was 8 years old. I know all about it. Lots of my non glasses wearing friends are now suffering from cataracts but, so far so good, I'm not at 65. -- Xeno |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic"
Post a Comment