Flyinfool

This is the saw that I have. It works much better than a power hack saw. Much cleaner cut. https://www.harborfreight.com/horizontal-vertical-metal-cutting-bandsaw-93762.html Then use a 20% off or better coupon on it. The HF saw might even be cheaper than building a power hack saw yourself. On the other hand I fully understand the desire to build things even if it will cost more in the end, It is fun building things. For your math the end answer of 32.07 RPM is correct, You are doing some extra steps that I do not understand what they are supposed to be, but you are getting the right answers. As for strokes per minute, it will be equal to the rpm of the crank shaft. One revolution of the crank is one complete out and back of the blade. Just like a piston on the crank in your engine. I think you are trying to make the last part way more difficult than it is.

An option missing in the choices is gas mileage. A lot of people used to get bikes for the gas mileage to use for commuting. Now cars are cheaper and getting near the same mileage so that incentive is now gone to.

Why would I add food coloring when I already have a dog and access to the real thing? Why did I never even think of such a thing till Cowpuc mentioned it?

Dang, I hate to hear that you two have to jump thru another set of hoops. I sometimes wonder if these lawyers that specialize in dealing with the government don't know that that documentation was needed but this additional delay adds to their bottom line since they get to do it all over again.

Why does this all make me smile and chuckle?????

I guess it all depends on who you talk to. You Have @cowpuc who had 4 or 5, '83 ventures with the 2nd gear issue that he ran each one out to around 250K miles just by skipping 2nd gear. Others are a bit OCD and will dive in to fix it. It is extremely expensive to pay someone to fix it. it is only worth it if you do it your self. It does require pulling the engine and splitting the case to replace some parts in transmission. When 2nd gears goes bad it simply will start to pop out of 2nd gear when under load, it starts by only popping out under a very heavy load and the amount of load to pop it out gradually gets less until it just will not stay in 2nd gear at all. This does not affect any other gears and as Puc has demonstrated it has no bearing on the life of the bike.

Why has water not gotten hard and dry or fluffy yet................?

:sign yeah that: In the last vid that Puc posted the guy spends time talking about the dwell time that the piston and rod spend motionless, they are never truly motionless. except at the very point of top or bottom dead center, there is no dwell time where the piston is motionless and the rod is still moving at the speed or crank rotation, just most of that movement is sideways to the direction of piston travel. This was another nail in the coffin of that vid.

Translated...... BOOM!!!

That seals it. I was liking what I was seeing in the new wing. All the stuff we asked for and did not get. But now that I know it is apple, it is off the list, I refuse to buy apple anything as long as there is another choice.

Yup that guy is almost as far out in left field as you are. ALMOST. If you go back to that vid at the 5:23 mark he lets your cat out of the bag when he says unless the engine is designed to spin faster. That whole vid is about taking a stock car engine that was designed to turn slow and why you can not turn it faster. He is also making some other assumptions that mathematically do not hold water unless you do a LOT of assuming and rounding off. My point all along has been that Yamaha did not have to design this new engine to turn as slow as possible. they could have just as easily designed it to spin up and make some power. Yamaha made a conscious choice to make an engine that was all low end torque and to heck with Horse power that comes in as you wind it up. It is not difficult to make an engine that will spin up, the size of the Yamaha is not the deterrent as is proven by many other manufacturers that have an even bigger stroke that spin up a lot faster in a PRODUCTION engine. Your whole theory is based on this random 4000 FPM for an engine with cheap cast rads and pistons that will grenade at high revs. it is not much of a stretch to put in better pistons and rods that can take the stress of the higher RPM all day long and never break a sweat. You are wanting a higher performance motor in your touring bike, why do you insist on thinking like Yamaha did and use crappy parts that are not much less cost that good parts that will get the job done. I keep hearing this 4000 number thrown about. but in every case it is being used in reference to a stock economy motor like your horizontal shaft minibike motor that was designed to red line at 3600 RPM, or a stock cast iron car engine from 20 years ago. never yet heard that 4000 number used in the same sentence with performance. Do you want a motor to tun the world upside down or a grocery getter? If you want a grocery getter then by all means design for that 4000 number, If you want a world class motor then throw that antiquated 4000 number out the window. Until someone can explain the "scientific" reason for 4000 which the makers all seem to ignore, I aint buyin it. I want to know WHY that 4000 is the limit and then I want you to explain why all of the current real life current examples all exceed it in production engines? Sorry but I have shown proof positive with solid math that the 4000 max is a myth, and in my book that will trump cuz I said so every time.

How to get off the excess depends on just how much excess there is. Pics would help here. If it is a blob, then I would start by heating and wiping it off. There will always be a layer left from wiping that is bonded to the brass, the only way to remove that is with abrasion. use a very small very fine file to get most of it off with out getting into the brass. Then start with about 400 wet dry used wet to get the rest off and down to the bare brass, then work thru finer grits used wet and finally the same polish that the rest is done with so that it matches. If you go real slow and careful you can clean it all off and not damage the base metal an no one will ever know anything happened.

boom!!! :225:

Another option is to put in a trans from a 2nd gen and then do the V-Max rear end. This combination will get you lower engine RPMs cruising down the highway and a lower first gear for better hole shots or getting a trailer or 2 up moving more easily. Those that have done this have been very happy with it. I am looking for a Vmax rear I can snag cheap.

Why did this thread rear it ugly head again? Why it is all @BongoBob fault for getting me started again.

Ya see now Puc this is where you are cornfusing your self. If the piston speed was a scientific constant then it would be the same in all cases. In this calculator they arbitrarily picked 3 speeds as reference points, You can prove this to yourself by entering the info for known sources, 4.7 does not get you the red line that the New venture really has, entering 2.6 does not match the red line of Tweeksis, and entering the 2.1 does not match up with Maggi. This proves that the calculator is just using arbitrary numbers as reference. There is no magic number for piston speed vs red line. All of these examples all prove out that it is all dependent on the design and construction of the engine. Going way back a few Hi-Jacks, you made the comment that it is mathematically impossible for an engine the size of the venture or a big Hardly to turn over 5000 RPM. My point was that built properly it is very possible to wind up a bigger engine AND have it live a long life. There are a few little no name companies that have figured out how to do it, You know the little places like GM, Ford, Dodge, Porsche, BMW........... As confirmed by all of the links so far, the piston is rarely the weak link that will break at High RPM, it is usually the Connecting rod or valve train that lets go first. But yet the discussion seems to focused on the piston and not the actual weak links. As you learned at an early age, the rod usually goes long before the piston fails. And then Mr Bob brought up Inertial reversals. Your right, that one will take a whole nuther case of Hot dogs and another chord of campfire wood.

That is a different thread you silly boy......................

Give it a good coat of auto wax to keep the fingerprints from marring it.

Another interesting thing about that calculator is that they picked the arbitrary number of 3500, 4000 and 5000 FPS for max piston speeds in each of the categories. The listed red line on the new venture is 4750 rpm so it falls between stock and Heavy duty.

OK, here we go. 1. You used the example of the little 5 horse motor that you kept over revving and snapping rods. I would be surprised if the parts in that engine could even get to 4000 Feet Per Minute (FPM) piston speed. You also want to use a very modern example. How about the new Yamaharley since that is what started this whole thing in the first place. the Yamaharley has a stroke of 4.7 and a red line of 4750. Now lets apply a bit of math to those numbers. CUz we know I like numbers and you started with your math. First you need to get all of your units the same, so stroke ÷ 12 to get feet. Then you take your stroke in feet X Pi to get the distance the crank pin travels per revolution. Then you take the circumference the crank pin travels X RPM gives you the speed in FPM that the crank pin will be moving at. When the crank pin is at ~90° is when it is moving fastest in the direction of piston travel and that number is equal to the speed in FPM that you just calculated. so, 4.7 ÷ 12 X 3.14159 X 4750 = 5844 FPM So the Yamaharley has a piston speed of 5,844 FPM. OK so much for your 4000 FPM max piston speed theory. Lets take a look at Tweeksis 2.6 ÷ 12 X 3.14159 X 7500 = 5105 FPM Interesting, 35 year old technology seems to have a lower piston speed than newer, but still well over 4000. How about we try your little liter engine sitting in Maggi. Surely that is an example of using a small stroke to keep piston speed down. 2.1 ÷ 12 X 3.14159 X 11750 = 6460 FPM. Oh rats that sure verifies the 4000 FPM max theory....... This is for stock production street engines that are expected to, and do have a long service life. If you start applying race part technology to get the revs way up there, then even these numbers look pretty small. Now in your defense just cuz I am a nice guy. What you are remembering is from a half century ago. I would not fault your rememberer, it is just that technology has changed a smidgen in the last 50 years. That 4000 number you are remembering probably made a lot of sense back then. Metallurgy was no where near what it is now, and they did not have the modern methods of manufacturing the parts out of these new and wonderful alloys. Then we have newer and better lubricants to keep the metal parts from touching each other so that these higher speeds can be safely achieved. I did not know much of anything about engines back then I did not start to learn about such things until I was in my late 20s so I have a more recent frame of reference than you. You are also pretty close on what you have noticed about where torque and HP curves cross. The actual crossing point is 5252 RPM in a well tuned engine. That is a real number, somewhat irreverent to the discussion but none the less a real number. Does that mean that that should be red line and there is no reason to take the RPM any higher than that? Heck no, For sure don't try to tell Maggi that, she will hurt you if you try to keep her under 5252 RPM, so will Tweeksis. Here is an interesting read on torque vs HP. http://www.lainefamily.com/hp.htm

Some do sound when in video mode. I know that mine does. Mine can be set to instead of a picture it will take a video from 5 seconds to 1 minute each time it is triggered, but you better have a big memory card and good batteries.

You still got cameras up to document this?

Toooooo Late. The wheels are in motion and they have an unstoppable amount of kinetic energy. The snow is a coming and there is noting gonna stop it.http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-10.gif http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-10.gif http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-10.gifhttp://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/boule-neig.gif It will be fun to see if this new 40° stuff holds up. Maybe try again this weekend..................http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/deblneige.gif

Yup that's my story and I'm sticking to it. It is all Mr @cowpuc fault. He is the one that has tasked me with finding a way to make it SNOW at 60°F. Well with all this time that I have had to sit around and do nothing but think about things, I will be doing an interim trial run tomorrow nite and see if we can get the first snow of the season even though it will sill be a little over 40°F. Yea I know that 40° is a long way from 60°, but we have to take baby steps. Someday Mr Puc will get his wish for the elusive 60° http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-12.gifhttp://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-12.gifhttp://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/deblneige.gif http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/boule-neig.gif http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/seasons/hiver/flocon-12.gif

OOpie, I stuttered....... Must be gettin slippery