Honda Car Forum

jim beam wrote:

>> True. But putting the tensioner on the taut side allows the timing to
>> retard MORE, because the delta-length for the WHOLE chain or belt
>> appears on the taut side, versus 1/2 or less the total delta-L if you
>> tension on the back-side.
>
>
> bullshit. dude, you ****ed up the first time. now you're /really/
> talking through your ass. timing retards with the stretch between crank
> and cam on the tight side. anything else is utterly totally irrelevant.

Draw yourself a picture, you'll eventually see the important difference.
What matters is where you let the slack ACCUMULATE. You never want
that on the tension side.

>
>> The change in length of the taut side ONLY is what alters the cam
>> timing, so it is CATEGORICALLY STUPID to put the tensioner on that
>> side. And no sensible manufacturer does it anyway, so I don't know why
>> you're bleating about it.
>
>
> if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the length
> of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story.
>

You really are clueless. It MATTERS which of the chain or belt runs you
PUT the increasing slack in!! If you don't see why its silly to put the
accumulated slack in the side that DETERMINES the timing, there's no
hope in explaining it.

>
> stop bullshitting kiddo. you said first there's no need for tensioners,

On cam-in-block engines....

> then there is

On OHC engines. Just like I said from day 1.



> so why doesn't everybody use belts? because whiners like you bleat
> about changing them!!!

ROTFL!!!!

>>
>>
>> OK, here's a fact I'd like to know. What cam drive mechanism does the
>> Honda IRL V8 engine use? IF its a belt, I sure can't see it in any
>> pictures of the engine, but then maybe the engine is just shown
>> without the cam drive installed. I haven't been able to google up a
>> definitive answer...... but I'll bet you a donut its got a chain. :-p
>
>
> see above. just like honda dropped wishbone suspension, they're
> pandering to the whiners and using chains. nice little earner for the
> bean counters if motors fail emissions because of timing drift and thus
> need replacing sooner. but adoption doesn't change the facts - belts
> are technically superior for the reasons stated above.

So you think the engine custom-built for the INDY RACING LEAGUE,
contains an engineering decision made on basis of MARKET APPEAL?

This discussion is over. Its obviously been useless for days, but now
its over.

Steve wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>> True. But putting the tensioner on the taut side allows the timing to
>>> retard MORE, because the delta-length for the WHOLE chain or belt
>>> appears on the taut side, versus 1/2 or less the total delta-L if you
>>> tension on the back-side.
>>
>>
>> bullshit. dude, you ****ed up the first time. now you're /really/
>> talking through your ass. timing retards with the stretch between
>> crank and cam on the tight side. anything else is utterly totally
>> irrelevant.
>
> Draw yourself a picture, you'll eventually see the important difference.
> What matters is where you let the slack ACCUMULATE. You never want that
> on the tension side.

dude, you need to go back to school and do basic trig over again.


>
>>
>>> The change in length of the taut side ONLY is what alters the cam
>>> timing, so it is CATEGORICALLY STUPID to put the tensioner on that
>>> side. And no sensible manufacturer does it anyway, so I don't know
>>> why you're bleating about it.
>>
>>
>> if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the
>> length of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story.
>>
>
> You really are clueless. It MATTERS which of the chain or belt runs you
> PUT the increasing slack in!! If you don't see why its silly to put the
> accumulated slack in the side that DETERMINES the timing, there's no
> hope in explaining it.

let me repeat:
"if you want to compensate for chain stretch, if you increase the
length of run by the same degree as the chain stretches. end of story."

if you read that enough times, and read your engineering books and do
your trig homework, you might eventually get a clue.

>
>>
>> stop bullshitting kiddo. you said first there's no need for tensioners,
>
> On cam-in-block engines....
>
>> then there is
>
> On OHC engines. Just like I said from day 1.
>
>
>
>> so why doesn't everybody use belts? because whiners like you bleat
>> about changing them!!!
>
> ROTFL!!!!
>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, here's a fact I'd like to know. What cam drive mechanism does the
>>> Honda IRL V8 engine use? IF its a belt, I sure can't see it in any
>>> pictures of the engine, but then maybe the engine is just shown
>>> without the cam drive installed. I haven't been able to google up a
>>> definitive answer...... but I'll bet you a donut its got a chain. :-p
>>
>>
>> see above. just like honda dropped wishbone suspension, they're
>> pandering to the whiners and using chains. nice little earner for the
>> bean counters if motors fail emissions because of timing drift and
>> thus need replacing sooner. but adoption doesn't change the facts -
>> belts are technically superior for the reasons stated above.
>
> So you think the engine custom-built for the INDY RACING LEAGUE,
> contains an engineering decision made on basis of MARKET APPEAL?

of course! what part of irl using "production-based, normally-aspirated
engines" is hard to understand?

>
> This discussion is over. Its obviously been useless for days, but now
> its over.
>

if you'd bothered to get a clue, maybe you wouldn't have been making
such an ass of yourself.

On 2007-07-23 17:16:54 -0400, "claymore" <clay@claymore.com> said:

> Steve wrote:
> :: piclistguy@yahoo.com wrote:
> ::
> ::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
> ::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
> :::
> ::
> :: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
> :: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
> :: were still in business.
>
> Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?

So he can continue to provide us with a cheaper alternative to lining
the pockets of
Bush & Cheney's friends?

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

"claymore" <clay@claymore.com> said in ca.driving:

>Steve wrote:
>:: piclistguy@yahoo.com wrote:
>::
>::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
>::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
>:::
>::
>:: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
>:: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
>:: were still in business.
>
>Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?

Since when does Venezuela own Arco?
--
More reasons why PayPal SUCKS:

Whatever. Citgo is the state-owned oil company of Venezuela not Arco. Arco
is a subsidiary of BP. They all suck.


"Slim" <slim@pickins.com> wrote in message
news:4716ac07$0$11054$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> On 2007-07-23 17:16:54 -0400, "claymore" <clay@claymore.com> said:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> :: piclistguy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ::
>> ::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
>> ::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
>> :::
>> ::
>> :: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
>> :: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
>> :: were still in business.
>>
>> Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
> So he can continue to provide us with a cheaper alternative to lining the
> pockets of
> Bush & Cheney's friends?
>
> --
> "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
>

Slim wrote:

> On 2007-07-23 17:16:54 -0400, "claymore" <clay@claymore.com> said:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>> :: piclistguy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ::
>> ::: I noticed that Arco is the cheapest priced gas around.
>> ::: Is there anything wrong with it or it bad for Honda engines?
>> :::
>> ::
>> :: A Honda engine is no different than any other. As for ARCO, they
>> :: pulled out of my area so long ago that I didn't even realize they
>> :: were still in business.
>>
>> Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
>
> So he can continue to provide us with a cheaper alternative to lining
> the pockets of
> Bush & Cheney's friends?
>


Ain't CITGO the Chavez brand?

Besides, oil prices are set by speculators and hysteria.

Time to invoke some taut Texas rope...

JT

["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
On 2007-10-18, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Why buy Arco and give Hugo Chavez more profit?
>
> Since when does Venezuela own Arco?

Venezuela doesn't, the British crown does. BP bought Atlantic Richfield in
'00.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,5871580.story

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <hcqdnUwbmo1IpjjbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>> you measured but you don't believe it???
>> Only because I can't think of a mechanism that would explain the car feeling
>> slightly better when running on premium, but getting slightly poorer gas
>> mileage.
>
> It's your mind, fool.
>
> Here's an idea: have someone else fill up the car, but don't tell you
> what's in it.
>
> You have fooled yourself into believing that "premium gas" equals
> "better" and so you THINK the car "feels slightly better".
>
> You, sir, are a fuel marketer's dream customer.

I like the way you tell him to perform an objective test and then
comment as though you, for one, have already made up your mind. Guess
you didn't notice the contradiction there, ey?

I actually tried the experiment once. Felt better on premium, though
admittedly the difference was small and only really noticeable when
starting to accelerate from a complete stop.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven