[Fot] FW: Racing rod design

[rkramer3 at austin.rr.com]

Marcel,

Those are Carillo's on a TR spec Moldex crank spinning Wieseco pistons.  

I did buy some Pauters but they are in another engine and haven't been tested as hard as the Carillos. I still have a TR4 race car that my son drives and the Pauters are in that engine. It has a camshaft of unknown origin that builds power between 2500- 5500.

Bob Kramer
rkramer3 at austin.rr.com

---- Marcel Van Mulders <van.mulders.marcel at telenet.be> wrote: 
>  
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Marcel Van Mulders [mailto:van.mulders.marcel at telenet.be] 
> Verzonden: woensdag 22 juli 2015 19:29
> Aan: 'MadMarx'
> Onderwerp: RE: [Fot] Racing rod design
> 
> Hi Chris and Bob,
> As you know, I bought Bob's TR4A and I did have a look at the rods : Pauter
> may call these rods X-beam but they actually are H-beam rods, much the same
> design as the H-beam rods of Carrillo. (b.t.w. Carrillo's I beam rods are
> less expensive than their H-beam one's). 
> Marcel 
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Fot [mailto:fot-bounces at autox.team.net] Namens MadMarx
> Verzonden: dinsdag 21 juli 2015 21:39
> Aan: 'FOT'
> Onderwerp: Re: [Fot] Racing rod design
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> from engineer basis x-beam are the worst you can get. I'll never get a clue
> how someone could imagine this design.
> 
> Cheers
> Chris
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: rkramer3 at austin.rr.com [mailto:rkramer3 at austin.rr.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Juli 2015 21:31
> An: 'FOT'; MadMarx
> Betreff: Re: [Fot] Racing rod design
> 
> 
> Chris,http://webmail.roadrunner.com/do/mail/message/reply?msgId=INBOXDELIM68
> 586&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&re
> plyAll=on&referrer=msg#
> Bob Kramer
> rkramer3 at austin.rr.com
> 
> ---- MadMarx <tr4racing at 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 at autox.team.net
> 
> http://www.fot-racing.com
> 
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/van.mulders.marcel@telenet.be
> 
> 
> 
>