Lang Racing on the S54 Rod Bearing problems

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, some of you guys really can't read. When/where did I ever say that stoke/rod length is unimportant OVERALL. Again, what I said, which is true is that for high rpms when inertial loading dominates combustion loading and when comparing two very similar engines, the ratio of their bearing forces (and then loads, if the bearings are close to the same size), will be given by the ratio of the stroke x rpm^2 for each engine. I said nothing more and nothing less. If you want to switch gears entirely and discuss combustion pressure load that is a different topic.

First off, it was a informative post, no where in there did I direct it at you trying to smack you down.
You can continue to sit behind that engineering book and we will continue to do many GM r&d projects, kind of like that new Z06. One thing is for sure, I will place a bet that you wont see rod bearing problems out of the GM cars. Maybe we should hire you because you know so much more about this stuff than we seem to.

I will not post in this thread anymore because quite frankly it is just geting
stupid. It is one of the larger pissing contests I have ever seen.

[bigjae1976]

What is this thread talking about again?

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

What is this thread talking about again?

Versus

[StealYourFace]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I appreciate your reply and I try not to get that way on here. Swamp has tried to discredit my experience and training many times saying that large diesels are irrelevant to what we are talking about on here.

I just don't have the time to research the math and prove him wrong, in fact I am at work right now and only have a few minutes...... There is no doubt that swamp is a smart guy, and engineering is a field that I have an extremely high opinion of (one of my best friends is a mechanical engineer and he is brilliant), but, in my years in the trade, you talk to some really great and personable engineers who will participate in a discussion like this without trying to make anyone feel small. Then, there are others who just try and belittle you as soon as they open their mouth.

I am no engineer, I don't claim to be, but I know engines and when I made the comparison between the Audi V8 and the S65 I knew the answers regarding bearing loads before posting. Swamp made the comment that I was indeed "right for the wrong reasons" but why even say that..... It is totally unnecessary.

I am a man in my 30's who tries to come on here an add some relevant info, I just built a house, work shift work and am in the process of starting a family. I don't have time to be on here all the time as is demonstrated by my low post count over the last 9 years. When someone goes out of their way to discredit people all the time it just gets old. Look at the bearing thread, and every other thread regarding the S65 he is there with the same arrogant posts saying there is no bearing issue in the S65.

So any way pat, thanks for calling me to task, I will try and post more facts and technical info in the future, and I will ignore Swamp...... You guys don't need to see the arguing on here!

Sounds like you have a lot on your plate, you should probably sell me that e36 for a low price to ease your responsibilities

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by StealYourFace

Sounds like you have a lot on your plate, you should probably sell me that e36 for a low price to ease your responsibilities

I am gonna sell the E36 this summer, but not for a low price

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

First off, it was a informative post, no where in there did I direct it at you trying to smack you down.
You can continue to sit behind that engineering book and we will continue to do many GM r&d projects, kind of like that new Z06. One thing is for sure, I will place a bet that you wont see rod bearing problems out of the GM cars. Maybe we should hire you because you know so much more about this stuff than we seem to.

I will not post in this thread anymore because quite frankly it is just geting
stupid. It is one of the larger pissing contests I have ever seen.

I'm really not sure why this has to be so difficult.

But, please separate you from your company. You keep resting on your company laurels. I have no doubt your company has wonderful facilities and does wonderful things. What I question, and it is based on obviously 100% incorrect things you've posted about basic engine dynamics, is your background (which you've been completely unwilling to share). It seems plenty obvious to me that you've got no formal engineering background. That's fine, you bring plenty of other skills and experience to the discussion and I've complimented and pointed those out. I'm glad you are here and contribute to the forum, honestly.

For me I do have plenty of hands on engineering experience as well. The silly labeling me as nothing but a "text book guy" is patently false. I've got years of general mechanical engineering "hands-on" experience; bearings, hydraulics, brakes, shock absorbers, fatigue testing, etc. included. No, I have no actual automotive engineering experience, but I do and have wrenched on many cars and a few engines. In addition my company is heavily involved in engineering simulation for the entire global automotive engineering community, mechanical and electrical. And I am speaking literally saying "entire" and "global". In my opinion the "magic" of the education and experience I have is indeed on the more formal and mathematical aspects of this discussion. Again, we each have strengths and weaknesses. Let's just admit that and move on.

I'm happy to call a truce here with the bickering, however, I certainly won't stop pointing out errors of omission, in fact, in math, etc. when I see them. False information is entirely counterproductive to any progress or any understanding. I've received many PMs thanking me for my perspective, skepticism and a more analytical approach on these bearings/oil/engine failure topics.

Cheers.