Lawrence Dunbar:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Come on then Carryfast lets see your cv , just so we can show you some respect let`s read about your career in road transport the list of transport companies you have managed , so come on enlighten us on your experiences 
I’ve referred to having been involved in the truck ‘manufacturing’ industry,which is the relevant point,enough times with no need to repeat it all here.It seems that I’ve probably forgotten more in that regard than what those in question would like to think they know regarding the subject.As for those who should and are paid to know better sometimes getting it wrong.There is a difference between knowledge and arrogance.In general those who always think they know best and won’t listen to anyone considered as being beneath them and who then try to put the blame for their resulting mistakes on others fall into the latter category.Just as those who support them do.
Well C/F, If you were as good as you claim to be why didn’t you doe something about all the faults you have with british built engines at the time you say that the producers had got it all wrong, In fact why didn’t you produce an engine of your own then the transport industry would have been booming with your invention , Eh, Regards Larry.
If I thought I was good enough to be a design engineer and ‘if’ I’d have chosen that line that’s what I would have done.In this case the argument is about the mistakes of those who were supposed to know better and who were paid accordingly not to make mistakes like the design of AEC V8.The obvious question then being how does such a mistake get blamed on people like Stokes.
LOL Defo, But can you tell us all what you are or were good at ■■?, We are all waiting to have another good laugh Eh, Regards Larry.
My only analagy towars people like c/f that have huge disregard towards engineers of that era is very simple…
they have probably skidded more in reverse gear than you have driven forward!
E.W.
I would assume (presumably incorrectly?) that the Head of BL at the time would take the blame for any mistakes made by folk in his employ, just as any good gaffer does. That is part of their job, to ‘carry the can’ and fall on their sword no matter who is actually at fault. Yes, heads would probably roll internally, but to the Public and Shareholders the buck stops with the person at the top who was Lord Stokes.
‘Working in truck manufacturing’ is a very broad spectrum, my Uncle worked in car manufacturing but it only extended to putting wheels on Morris cars on the line at Cowley which hardly made him an expert on car design, though he knew a good wheelnut when he spotted one. 
Pete.
Lawrence Dunbar:
LOL Defo, But can you tell us all what you are or were good at ■■?, We are all waiting to have another good laugh Eh, Regards Larry.
When it comes to being able to seperate the wheat from the chaff in regards to how good a truck is and identifying it’s failings.I’m obviously good enough to still be able to do a better job in that regard than those who’d like to think they could do the job.It’s just that sometimes that can be seen by just looking at the design spec as in the examples quoted here.Bearing in mind that job takes a different type of knowledge than that of a transport operator or publisher and writer. 
windrush:
I would assume (presumably incorrectly?) that the Head of BL at the time would take the blame for any mistakes made by folk in his employ, just as any good gaffer does. That is part of their job, to ‘carry the can’ and fall on their sword no matter who is actually at fault. Yes, heads would probably roll internally, but to the Public and Shareholders the buck stops with the person at the top who was Lord Stokes.
‘Working in truck manufacturing’ is a very broad spectrum, my Uncle worked in car manufacturing but it only extended to putting wheels on Morris cars on the line at Cowley which hardly made him an expert on car design, though he knew a good wheelnut when he spotted one.
Pete.
I think “CF” 's job in the motor industry was washing Fire Engine windscreens when they came out of the build shop and I heard he nicked one for a joy ride around Leatherhead which is why he is now under the care of “Matron” in secure accomodation 
Bewick.
Carryfast:
Lawrence Dunbar:
LOL Defo, But can you tell us all what you are or were good at ■■?, We are all waiting to have another good laugh Eh, Regards Larry.
When it comes to being able to seperate the wheat from the chaff in regards to how good a truck is and identifying it’s failings.I’m obviously good enough to still be able to do a better job in that regard than those who’d like to think they could do the job.It’s just that sometimes that can be seen by just looking at the design spec as in the examples quoted here.Bearing in mind that job takes a different type of knowledge than that of a transport operator or publisher and writer.
There’s an old saying “CF” "Those that can “do” and those that can’t “teach” or in your case “spout” bollox,at least the three examples you give have actually “done it” and have nothing to prove ! So come on then what actually have you achieved by your OWN efforts during your working life?Bewick.
EW car truck & bus:
My only analagy towars people like c/f that have huge disregard towards engineers of that era is very simple…
they have probably skidded more in reverse gear than you have driven forward!
E.W.
Fair enough but that obviously seems to be being applied selectively by many in the case of Stokes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald … and_career
While if a design/s is/are zb then it won’t do anyone any good to not call a spade a spade in that case.Which just leaves the question of who should carry the blame the stupid zb who made the mistake/s or a scapegoat.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
Let’s just say that my pay grade and status was ( way ) below that of the firm’s design engineers… Blah blah…To put it simply there’s three main ways to make torque in that you either apply a longer lever at the crank or you apply more pressure to the piston…Blah…
This is a very well-argued post. You say there are three ways to make torque, then mention only two of them. That provides ample evidence to support your opening statement. Well done.
If you’d have quoted the whole post instead of just selectively some of it you’d have seen that it included the third to my knowledge being the ‘optimum combination’ of both. Blah, blah, blah…
If there are three ways, then there must be three ways. You can’t have a combination of the first two ways as a third way. That is like saying that you have three parents because your mum and dad are married, or that you have three testes because two of them are attached to the same forehead.
Yet another example of your level of intelligence.
You can increase the torque output of an engine by increasing the length of the stroke.That’s one example.
‘Or’ you can also increase the torque output by increasing the pressures on the piston such as in the case of using forced induction.That’s a second example.
‘Or’ you can increase the torque output even more than ‘either’ of the previous ‘two’ ‘different’ examples by using a ‘combination’ of ‘both’.Which will provide more torque than either of the former two ‘different’ examples.The relevant bit being that an engine with a longer stroke needs less pressure to make the same torque or will provide more torque for the same pressure.
Bore.
Seconded and motion carried unanomously !!
windrush:
I would assume (presumably incorrectly?) that the Head of BL at the time would take the blame for any mistakes made by folk in his employ, just as any good gaffer does. That is part of their job, to ‘carry the can’ and fall on their sword no matter who is actually at fault. Yes, heads would probably roll internally, but to the Public and Shareholders the buck stops with the person at the top who was Lord Stokes.
‘Working in truck manufacturing’ is a very broad spectrum, my Uncle worked in car manufacturing but it only extended to putting wheels on Morris cars on the line at Cowley which hardly made him an expert on car design, though he knew a good wheelnut when he spotted one.
Pete.
The inconvenient fact being that Stokes wasn’t head of BL when the stroke measurement of the AEC V8 was dreamed up by it’s designer and set.
As for manufacturing being a broad spectrum.Norman Dewis wasn’t an expert on car design either but he obviously knew a ‘bit’ more about it than your uncle.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
Let’s just say that my pay grade and status was ( way ) below that of the firm’s design engineers… Blah blah…To put it simply there’s three main ways to make torque in that you either apply a longer lever at the crank or you apply more pressure to the piston…Blah…
This is a very well-argued post. You say there are three ways to make torque, then mention only two of them. That provides ample evidence to support your opening statement. Well done.
If you’d have quoted the whole post instead of just selectively some of it you’d have seen that it included the third to my knowledge being the ‘optimum combination’ of both. Blah, blah, blah…
If there are three ways, then there must be three ways. You can’t have a combination of the first two ways as a third way. That is like saying that you have three parents because your mum and dad are married, or that you have three testes because two of them are attached to the same forehead.
Yet another example of your level of intelligence.
You can increase the torque output of an engine by increasing the length of the stroke.That’s one example.
‘Or’ you can also increase the torque output by increasing the pressures on the piston such as in the case of using forced induction.That’s a second example.
‘Or’ you can increase the torque output even more than ‘either’ of the previous ‘two’ ‘different’ examples by using a ‘combination’ of ‘both’.Which will provide more torque than either of the former two ‘different’ examples.The relevant bit being that an engine with a longer stroke needs less pressure to make the same torque or will provide more torque for the same pressure.
Bore.
It’s understandable that you’d find all that difficult to get your head around.
Carryfast:
Blah
Bore.
You can increase the torque by enlarging the bore. That is your Third Way, along with increasing the stroke and the combustion pressure.
Carryfast:
The inconvenient fact being that Stokes wasn’t head of BL when the stroke measurement of the AEC V8 was dreamed up by it’s designer and set.
As for manufacturing being a broad spectrum.Norman Dewis wasn’t an expert on car design either but he obviously knew a ‘bit’ more about it than your uncle.
No matter who dreamed the thing up somebody had to carry the can and it can hardly be the design team as they were just employees of the company, the same as if you as a driver cocked a deliver up to a customer your employer would take the blame for it as company head! Norman Dewis was a Jaguar test driver but that didn’t make him any more proficient at wheel fitting than my Uncle Ted, the same as Uncle Ted wouldn’t be able to comment on the handling or performance of a vehicle as well as Norman Dewis! 
So, both involved in manufacturing a product in different ways which brings us back to the original question asked ‘what did you actually contribute in the grand scheme of things’?
Pete.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
Blah
Bore.
You can increase the torque by enlarging the bore. That is your Third Way, along with increasing the stroke and the combustion pressure.
More like a half baked second and a half way.Bearing in mind we don’t have an unlimited overall capacity limit and an under square design out performs an over square one in terms of torque output just as Scania etc knew.Which in this case would have meant putting around 30 mm on the stroke instead of 5 mm on the already too large by comparison zb bore.IE typically flawed AEC thinking in action.
windrush:
Carryfast:
The inconvenient fact being that Stokes wasn’t head of BL when the stroke measurement of the AEC V8 was dreamed up by it’s designer and set.
As for manufacturing being a broad spectrum.Norman Dewis wasn’t an expert on car design either but he obviously knew a ‘bit’ more about it than your uncle.
No matter who dreamed the thing up somebody had to carry the can and it can hardly be the design team as they were just employees of the company, the same as if you as a driver cocked a deliver up to a customer your employer would take the blame for it as company head! Norman Dewis was a Jaguar test driver but that didn’t make him any more proficient at wheel fitting than my Uncle Ted, the same as Uncle Ted wouldn’t be able to comment on the handling or performance of a vehicle as well as Norman Dewis! So, both involved in manufacturing a product in different ways which brings us back to the original question asked ‘what did you actually contribute in the grand scheme of things’?
Pete.
If you really must find a scapegoat for the failings of the thing’s designer/s then it’s obviously not going to be Stokes because he wasn’t in charge at the time when the figure was arrived at on the drawing board.If he had been I’m sure that his background knowledge would have resulted in the designer/s responsible being sacked and a different engine being made.Unless that is he was even more stupid than the designer/s in question.Which I doubt.
As for what did I contribute contrary to Bewick’s ideas obviously more than your uncle.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
Blah
Bore.
You can increase the torque by enlarging the bore. That is your Third Way, along with increasing the stroke and the combustion pressure.
More like a half baked second and a half way.Bearing in mind we don’t have an unlimited overall capacity limit and an under square design out performs an over square one in terms of torque output just as Scania etc knew.Which in this case would have meant putting around 30 mm on the stroke instead of 5 mm on the already too large by comparison zb bore.IE typically flawed AEC thinking in action.
^^^More rubbish from the master^^^
Torque is proportional to piston area (bore squared) multiplied by combustion pressure multiplied by lever length (stroke/2). I learned this equation by reading the How Things Work section of a 1946 copy of the Beano. You have wasted about ten pages of an adult discussion forum by not learning it.
Your abuse of the right to free speech dissuades people with technical knowledge from contributing to the forum, which spoils it for everyone. Bore off.
The thing you are missing here is that it WAS Stokes’ fault as the correct method of running a successful multi department company is for each level of management to check on the work of their underlings, when it had been ascertained that the job was a good un, it gets passed up to the next level and so on… Ultimately it lands on the top man’s desk and it is his job to make sure that ALL the people beneath him had done a proper job, as that is essentially his role as figurehead of the company.
He failed with the AEC V8, he failed with the 500 series, he failed with the Marina, he failed with the Allegro, he failed with the Triumph Stag, he failed with the TR7, he failed quite a lot really 
Carryfast:
As for what did I contribute contrary to Bewick’s ideas obviously more than your uncle.
Possibly so, he was there in the thirties and on the assembly line along with many others, but until you let us all in on YOUR contribution to motor manufacturing we only have your word for that. For all we know you could have been fitting wiper blades, until you can substantiate YOUR part in the giant that is vehicle manufacturing and involves literally hundreds of people all doing vital tasks we cannot realistically take what you say with any conviction.
Pete.
