Chris,http://webmail.roadrunner.com/do/mail/message/reply?msgId=INBOXDELIM68586&replyAll=on&referrer=msg#
Look at Pauter Rods. they advertise their design as an x-beam. I can't say that
they are any better based on long term use but a lot of us switched over due to
the increase cost of Carillo's over time.
http://pauter.com/parts/rods/
It just occured to me that you are probably running a custom crank, Chevy rods
with custom pistons to match. They may make comparable models to fit that too
since I believe that setup was designed around the rods.
http://webmail.roadrunner.com/do/mail/message/reply?msgId=INBOXDELIM68586&replyAll=on&referrer=msg#
Bob Kramer
rkramer3@austin.rr.com
---- MadMarx <tr4racing@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> After my engine blow at the last race and a rod in two pieces I investigated
> about rod design.
>
>
>
> In US forums I found an interesting opinion:
>
>
>
> H-beam rods are for low rev high torque engine (turbo, compressor)
>
> I-beam are for medium torque engines with high revs
>
>
>
> As engineer I agree with this statement. On high revs the rod shaft gets
> bended back and forth by the inertia caused by the rotation.
>
> I could imagine that the sharp sides of the H-beam rod will create a crack
> after a while because the stiffness for bending along the rotation axis
> smaller than with an I-beam rod.
>
> That means to me that the fatigue resistance is smaller on an H-beam rod at
> high revs.
>
> With high revs on a long stroke engine I mean 6000+.
>
>
>
> The manufacturer of the broken H-beam rod was Scat.
>
>
>
> I think next time I order an I-beam rod from Scat.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net
http://www.fot-racing.com
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
|