The Carryfast engine design discussion

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
581

Carryfast, a second to none workforce, don’t make me laugh, it is well documented that BL quality control was appalling, who do think it was that put the stuff together?

The Mini, the best selling vehicle they made and each one at a loss, what a superb strategy that was by the management, to compound that they threw it together in the usual shoddy manner so it would have lots of warranty claims too, talk about management and shop floor working in harmony, they nailed it on this one.

Now let’s talk about your long stroke obsession and something anorak has asked you numerous times, force on the rods and big and little ends. Get two pieces of spaghetti, snap one in half and leave one alone, which is stronger in a tensile load situation?

Obviously the shorter one, so therefore a shorter stroke requires less metal, which means less weight, it also makes it a lower profile, both important parameters for an engine of that era.

Not everyone wanted to be first up the hill, not everyone wanted to drift around roundabouts, not everyone wanted independent rear suspension, limited slip diffs and 4.0l V8s. BL was building cars and lorries for the masses, the vast majority of which wouldn’t know a single thing beyond turning the key, putting it in gear and pulling away to start the journey to wherever, that was the criteria they had to satisfy, yes they made a complete balls up of that with a combination of dreadful management and poor workmanship, but the mechanicals were up to the job.

Front wheel drive a mistake? Really? Are you on crack? Is every car manufacturer in the world with the exception of BMW wrong? Seriously mate that one statement is the most ridiculous one you have ever made and there’s quite a few to choose from…

582

newmercman:
Front wheel drive a mistake? Really? Are you on crack? Is every car manufacturer in the world with the exception of BMW wrong? Seriously mate that one statement is the most ridiculous one you have ever made and there’s quite a few to choose from…

I think the BMW 1 series is Front Wheel Drive.

583

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
In the last century, successful engines were made with a wide range of bore/stroke ratios. The torque is proportional to the bore squared multiplied by the stroke. If you think that stroke is more important, how do you explain it in the context of that fact?

Because multiplying less bore squared by more stroke = less force required because it’s multiplied by more distance to obtain the equivalent torque just like using a longer lever.Distance costs nothing in terms of fuel or stress.Force does.

Energy = Force x Distance. Both are exactly equal in their influence on fuel use; any 12 year old knows that.

Now, please- tell us the relationship between force and stress. Try to remember you are addressing adults.

Edit- what about the force on the big end, as a result of its acceleration? How does that vary with stroke? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

The old haulage business owner I have previously mentioned, who was a very skilled engineer, explained the difference between long and short stroke pistons to me. And I did try this demonstration as he suggested. Unfortunately not many households have an old fashioned clothes drying line these days, but old Fred said something like this. “Get your mum’s washing line, tie one end to a post and hold the other end at its extremity and turn it as you would turn a skipping rope. Then gradually shorten the clothes line and keep turning it… the shorter it becomes the easier it is to turn… the easier it is to turn then the faster you can turn it.” A simple practical experiment. Try it. Your rotating arm is the crankshaft; the clothes line is the piston. It is educational.

584

gingerfold:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
In the last century, successful engines were made with a wide range of bore/stroke ratios. The torque is proportional to the bore squared multiplied by the stroke. If you think that stroke is more important, how do you explain it in the context of that fact?

Because multiplying less bore squared by more stroke = less force required because it’s multiplied by more distance to obtain the equivalent torque just like using a longer lever.Distance costs nothing in terms of fuel or stress.Force does.

Energy = Force x Distance. Both are exactly equal in their influence on fuel use; any 12 year old knows that.

Now, please- tell us the relationship between force and stress. Try to remember you are addressing adults.

Edit- what about the force on the big end, as a result of its acceleration? How does that vary with stroke? [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]

The old haulage business owner I have previously mentioned, who was a very skilled engineer, explained the difference between long and short stroke pistons to me. And I did try this demonstration as he suggested. Unfortunately not many households have an old fashioned clothes drying line these days, but old Fred said something like this. “Get your mum’s washing line, tie one end to a post and hold the other end at its extremity and turn it as you would turn a skipping rope. Then gradually shorten the clothes line and keep turning it… the shorter it becomes the easier it is to turn… the easier it is to turn then the faster you can turn it.” A simple practical experiment. Try it. Your rotating arm is the crankshaft; the clothes line is the piston. It is educational.

It’s also a slight cheat…I think…
.
As I understand your description you are shortening the line? You’re keeping it touching the ground but moving nearer the post and changing your grip?
So: less mass is being moved?
.
Keep holding the line at the end and move nearer or farther from the post?
That’ll keep the same mass moving but the radius will change.
.

585

Carryfast:

[quote=“[zb]
anorak”

Because multiplying less bore squared by more stroke = less force required because it’s multiplied by more distance to obtain the equivalent torque just like using a longer lever.Distance costs nothing in terms of fuel or stress.Force does.

Energy = Force x Distance. Both are exactly equal in their influence on fuel use; any 12 yes increase.
[/quote]
Oi! Sort the quotes out in the above posts, or remove my username from the posts. One of them has some of your moon-howling attributed to me.

586

newmercman:
Carryfast, a second to none workforce, don’t make me laugh, it is well documented that BL quality control was appalling, who do think it was that put the stuff together?

The Mini, the best selling vehicle they made and each one at a loss, what a superb strategy that was by the management, to compound that they threw it together in the usual shoddy manner so it would have lots of warranty claims too, talk about management and shop floor working in harmony, they nailed it on this one.

Now let’s talk about your long stroke obsession and something anorak has asked you numerous times, force on the rods and big and little ends. Get two pieces of spaghetti, snap one in half and leave one alone, which is stronger in a tensile load situation?

Obviously the shorter one, so therefore a shorter stroke requires less metal, which means less weight, it also makes it a lower profile, both important parameters for an engine of that era.

Not everyone wanted to be first up the hill, not everyone wanted to drift around roundabouts, not everyone wanted independent rear suspension, limited slip diffs and 4.0l V8s. BL was building cars and lorries for the masses, the vast majority of which wouldn’t know a single thing beyond turning the key, putting it in gear and pulling away to start the journey to wherever, that was the criteria they had to satisfy, yes they made a complete balls up of that with a combination of dreadful management and poor workmanship, but the mechanicals were up to the job.

Front wheel drive a mistake? Really? Are you on crack? Is every car manufacturer in the world with the exception of BMW wrong? Seriously mate that one statement is the most ridiculous one you have ever made and there’s quite a few to choose from…

It was the same workforce that put the Westminster and Cambridge and A40 together.No problems there at all.Repeat custom no need for discounting.

RWD Mercedes not just BMW got that wrong then.

The truth It’s just a way of saving production time engine, transmission, final drive all stuffed in from underneath in one operation so more perceived profit.

Remind me what happened to GM and Ford after introduction of Taurus and Mondeo and Vectra.
It was all downhill from that point.

The driving quality at the wheel is far better with right wheel drive no need for any Roger Clark and Tony Pond rally driving antics.Although power induced neutral to oversteer is a bonus over power understeer.

I thought we’d already sorted that the con rod and ends aren’t in tension during the power stroke they are under a compressive load.It’s the head fastenings and main bearing cap fastenings which are under tension.
Which is all the the only thing that’s providing the torque required to move the truck and the piston needs to put enough shove into the crankshaft only every other revolution of the engine to do it.Best to have as much leverage at the crankshaft as possible to help with that.

I’m sure that a stick of spaghetti doesn’t have limitless strength in compression at any length let alone if you put hinge points at each end of it. :wink:

So how do you intend to compensate for the RR’s 7% leverage advantage with the TL12’s less than 5% piston area advantage added to the increased load on the con rod assembly.
That means 7% more load on the con rod assembly and 2% more cylinder pressure to get the equivalent torque output at equivalent rpm.
Let alone if your opponent decides to go for the same 12.4 litre capacity using the same bore stroke ratio as before.

Oh and 7% and 2% of a lot is a lot.

As for the cylinder head joint, unlike a gun barrel and its breech, having no facility to allow compliance for recoil loads is also a game changer regarding cylinder pressures used to compensate for having less leverage.For every action there is an equal reaction with no way of allowing the the engine to move back with it, unlike a gun.The gasket and the head fastenings have to take the full force of the punches not roll with em. :bulb: :wink:

So when do we get to try this TL12 at 320 hp at 1,950 rpm.If it survives that we’ll turn up the boost to the full fat 1,200 lbft at 1,200 rpm and 400 hp at 1,950.
Hopefully the dyno shed is well insured.

587

dave docwra:

newmercman:
Front wheel drive a mistake? Really? Are you on crack? Is every car manufacturer in the world with the exception of BMW wrong? Seriously mate that one statement is the most ridiculous one you have ever made and there’s quite a few to choose from…

I think the BMW 1 series is Front Wheel Drive.

Yeah and most of the BMW built Mini’s

588

windrush:
The Mini never made money for BMC, that is well documented. However I worked at a BMC dealership from 1966 to 1974 and the Mini was still the best seller and we never had enough to sell. Many customers had repeat orders. However our salemen knew via the factory that it was an expensive vehicle to pruduce but had to be sold cheaply to attract the family clientelle. They were not that bad to work on either, I changed the clutch in my mates Mini in a morning at his house and I had never done one before as I was in the commercial vehicle workshop so didn’t work on cars. It was what it was, Issigonis was given the order to design a four seater car whithin a certain overall length and he did just that. Most of our mechanics ran Mini’s themselves so couldn’t have hated them that much? Regarding the Minor: William Morris never liked it and wanted the Morris Eight series E to continue in production, he himself drove a Wolseley Eight (the only one made) until his death. The Minor was of course designed to have a flat four engine originally, however the sidevalve engine from the E models was actually used as Wlliam Morris wasn’t a fan of overhead valve engines. The Minor was narrower originally as well and had to be widened, hence the raised section in the bonnet which was the the difference in width. When the Marina was unveiled, we had two in the showroom but they remained covered until a certain time on an allotted day, they were much in demand. We actually obtained cars meant for export and our fitters had to put heaters in them for the UK market to keep up with orders. Another big seller was the Wolseley 18/85 and it’s offspring, several of our mechanics and office staff bought them as they were exellent for towing their caravans.

All of this has nothing to do with engine design of course, and ‘somebody’ will say it is a load on rubbish as he has done with other posters regarding AEC etc even though they have access to the ‘written word’ at the time of closure, but I worked alongside folk who had been involved with Morris and later BMC products from the 1930’s and I also had an Uncle who spent his working life at Cowley so learned from them. Anyway I’m away from this thread now, full stop. :cry:

Pete.

When Edwardes took over in 1977 nobody knew which parts of the company made profit, as well as(the well known) tale of the Mini apparently every TR7 sold in America cost BL £800. Stokes got a lot of stick for replacing the Mini Cooper with the 1275GT but is quoted as saying for every Cooper we sold we may just as well have given him(Cooper) £400.

589

newmercman:
Carryfast, a second to none workforce, don’t make me laugh, it is well documented that BL quality control was appalling, who do think it was that put the stuff together?

The Mini, the best selling vehicle they made and each one at a loss, what a superb strategy that was by the management, to compound that they threw it together in the usual shoddy manner so it would have lots of warranty claims too, talk about management and shop floor working in harmony, they nailed it on this one.

Now let’s talk about your long stroke obsession and something anorak has asked you numerous times, force on the rods and big and little ends. Get two pieces of spaghetti, snap one in half and leave one alone, which is stronger in a tensile load situation?

Obviously the shorter one, so therefore a shorter stroke requires less metal, which means less weight, it also makes it a lower profile, both important parameters for an engine of that era.

Not everyone wanted to be first up the hill, not everyone wanted to drift around roundabouts, not everyone wanted independent rear suspension, limited slip diffs and 4.0l V8s. BL was building cars and lorries for the masses, the vast majority of which wouldn’t know a single thing beyond turning the key, putting it in gear and pulling away to start the journey to wherever, that was the criteria they had to satisfy, yes they made a complete balls up of that with a combination of dreadful management and poor workmanship, but the mechanicals were up to the job.

Front wheel drive a mistake? Really? Are you on crack? Is every car manufacturer in the world with the exception of BMW wrong? Seriously mate that one statement is the most ridiculous one you have ever made and there’s quite a few to choose from…

If you listen to the Radio show in the link I put a couple of posts back the manager being interviewed says he walked into the factory one nightshift and found a guy asleep on his workbench.
You have to remember in Carryfast’s world Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit are Documentries, Petrol is less than a Quid a gallon and the Freeways are unrestricted like the Autobahn’s.
According to his logic the 220 powered Scammell Crusader,Day Cab,my dad drove on tipper work (in 1978/9) should’ve been a Detroit engined TM full sleeeper. Even though he did a 20 mile round trip loaded with coal and barely hit top gear because of the roads he was on,he rarely got on to a bypass never mind a motorway’

590

Carryfast:

essexpete:
Not sure I would agree that the Mog was a better car? It really was an out of date heap by the 60s. Of course that is just an opinion to which we are all entitled.

It depends on if you regard an inaccessible to work on wrong wheel drive death trap that uses engine oil to libricate its gearbox as progress.

The Mog had been around for a while admitted but even that was still better.
don’t get involved with 1100’s or Minis.The Allegro and Maxi were no different.Absolute junk.
If anyone wanted to p ex one or needing to fix one then show em the door.
The basic premise that Issigonis’ junk was progress v any BMC rear wheel drive option would by definition mean that a Citroen is supposedly better than a BMW.Although there are front wheel drive cognoscenti who really do think that.Unfortunately for BMC and Leyland Group they won out.

Your mate Harry Webster ,how did you describe him again the only engineer worth talking about,didn’t have a problem with fwd he even,if you read the link considered it for the 2000,
aronline.co.uk/cars/triumph … umph-1300/
He even mentions the fact that he thought Issigonis was and I quote “was right to do it his way for his company”
I know how much you like your youtube videos so here’s a Mini vs Mustang race which shows V8 aren’t always the answer the little Mini gives as good as it gets because power is only good if you have the right place to use it.
youtube.com/watch?v=nS4MIfA … WL&index=6

591

gingerfold:
The old haulage business owner I have previously mentioned, who was a very skilled engineer, explained the difference between long and short stroke pistons to me. And I did try this demonstration as he suggested. Unfortunately not many households have an old fashioned clothes drying line these days, but old Fred said something like this. “Get your mum’s washing line, tie one end to a post and hold the other end at its extremity and turn it as you would turn a skipping rope. Then gradually shorten the clothes line and keep turning it… the shorter it becomes the easier it is to turn… the easier it is to turn then the faster you can turn it.” A simple practical experiment. Try it. Your rotating arm is the crankshaft; the clothes line is the piston. It is educational.

This is analogous to the load on the big end caused by its centrifugal acceleration, multiplied by the mass of the rod and piston. No point trying to get our mate to stop and think about it- when faced with such a challenge, he just shouts the same old stuff, in a more elaborate way. The reasons contributing to the changes in engine design, since the war, are very interesting. We’re not going to learn about them by reading this thread, sadly.

592

[zb]
anorak:

gingerfold:
The old haulage business owner I have previously mentioned, who was a very skilled engineer, explained the difference between long and short stroke pistons to me. And I did try this demonstration as he suggested. Unfortunately not many households have an old fashioned clothes drying line these days, but old Fred said something like this. “Get your mum’s washing line, tie one end to a post and hold the other end at its extremity and turn it as you would turn a skipping rope. Then gradually shorten the clothes line and keep turning it… the shorter it becomes the easier it is to turn… the easier it is to turn then the faster you can turn it.” A simple practical experiment. Try it. Your rotating arm is the crankshaft; the clothes line is the piston. It is educational.

This is analogous to the load on the big end caused by its centrifugal acceleration, multiplied by the mass of the rod and piston. No point trying to get our mate to stop and think about it- when faced with such a challenge, he just shouts the same old stuff, in a more elaborate way. The reasons contributing to the changes in engine design, since the war, are very interesting. We’re not going to learn about them by reading this thread, sadly.

Is there somewhere an interested but not very technical person can read about this for a nutshell version to get the gist?
Thanks

593

dazcapri:
Your mate Harry Webster ,how did you describe him again the only engineer worth talking about,didn’t have a problem with fwd he even,if you read the link considered it for the 2000,
aronline.co.uk/cars/triumph … umph-1300/

Sorry for any misquoting, but was smiling to myself how Michelotti told his man to, “bring your spokeshave Granville” whilst redesigning the Scammell cab.

I love AROnline

594

dazcapri:

dave docwra:
I think the BMW 1 series is Front Wheel Drive.

Yeah and most of the BMW built Mini’s

Yep impossible to compete in that market sector doing the job the right way when everyone else is doing it the cheap way. :unamused:
What could possibly go wrong.
Now see if they dare to do it with the 3 and 5 series.

595

dazcapri:
According to his logic the 220 powered Scammell Crusader,Day Cab,my dad drove on tipper work (in 1978/9) should’ve been a Detroit engined TM full sleeeper. Even though he did a 20 mile round trip loaded with coal and barely hit top gear because of the roads he was on,he rarely got on to a bypass never mind a motorway’

No according to Anorak among others’ logic the 220 should have been a 760 or an L12 it’s my fault and that of Scammell’s workforce because Scammell’s management didn’t agree.Did you actually read anything I’ve said. :unamused:

596

[zb]
anorak:
This is analogous to the load on the big end caused by its centrifugal acceleration, multiplied by the mass of the rod and piston. No point trying to get our mate to stop and think about it- when faced with such a challenge, he just shouts the same old stuff, in a more elaborate way. The reasons contributing to the changes in engine design, since the war, are very interesting. We’re not going to learn about them by reading this thread, sadly.

Cut the bs just tell us why the head bolts and main bearing cap bolts add up to a lot more strength than the big end bearing cap bolts.
If a con rod isn’t going flying off the crankshaft with a 183 mm stroke at 2,000 rpm then it’s not going to do it with a 152 or 154 mm stroke at 1,900 rpm.
The reasons why AEC stayed with a 142 mm stroke obviously had nothing to do with any flying con rods.

597

essexpete:

[zb]
anorak:
This is analogous to the load on the big end caused by its centrifugal acceleration, multiplied by the mass of the rod and piston. No point trying to get our mate to stop and think about it- when faced with such a challenge, he just shouts the same old stuff, in a more elaborate way. The reasons contributing to the changes in engine design, since the war, are very interesting. We’re not going to learn about them by reading this thread, sadly.

Is there somewhere an interested but not very technical person can read about this for a nutshell version to get the gist?
Thanks

Not unless you want to tell CAT that the C18 can’t possibly work without it’s con rods flying apart from the crankshaft at its peak power rpm according to Anorak.

598

So for anybody who has just joined this gong show, despite the title this thread is a continuation of a thread about the Leyland Buffalo, somebody mentioned the L12 engine and the brown stuff hit the spinning thing.

Since then it’s meandered through independent rear suspension on Triumph saloons, a bunch of technical stuff from people that know their onions, but it always comes back to the TL12.

It’s an engine derived from the AEC AV760 for those that don’t know and was rushed through development and put into service out of sheer desperation, thanks to the efforts of the car divisions with the BL group absorbing all the profits of the group.

There’s a huge irony in the posts of the main antagonist here, on one hand he says the workforce was second to none, on the other he says that almost everything they made was junk and even the good things they made could’ve been much improved on.

599

dazcapri:

Carryfast:

essexpete:
Not sure I would agree that the Mog was a better car? It really was an out of date heap by the 60s. Of course that is just an opinion to which we are all entitled.

It depends on if you regard an inaccessible to work on wrong wheel drive death trap that uses engine oil to libricate its gearbox as progress.

The Mog had been around for a while admitted but even that was still better.
don’t get involved with 1100’s or Minis.The Allegro and Maxi were no different.Absolute junk.
If anyone wanted to p ex one or needing to fix one then show em the door.
The basic premise that Issigonis’ junk was progress v any BMC rear wheel drive option would by definition mean that a Citroen is supposedly better than a BMW.Although there are front wheel drive cognoscenti who really do think that.Unfortunately for BMC and Leyland Group they won out.

Your mate Harry Webster ,how did you describe him again the only engineer worth talking about,didn’t have a problem with fwd he even,if you read the link considered it for the 2000,
aronline.co.uk/cars/triumph … umph-1300/
He even mentions the fact that he thought Issigonis was and I quote “was right to do it his way for his company”
I know how much you like your youtube videos so here’s a Mini vs Mustang race which shows V8 aren’t always the answer the little Mini gives as good as it gets because power is only good if you have the right place to use it.
youtube.com/watch?v=nS4MIfA … WL&index=6

I was referring to Webster v Spen King specifically regarding the inconsistency in King’s claim regarding Webster supposedly saying that the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit in the Stag or 2.5.
Combined with the convenient insurance policy that Rover couldn’t meet the supply ( even if it would which it did ). :unamused:
Webster only said it would be difficult.He also said put the 2.5 in it in preference to a dodgy way too small V8.
I don’t buy King’s story.
No one admired the Triumph 1300 like the Acclaim it had no place in the Triumph market sector it was generally rightly laughed at.
Which is why Triumph had to go back to the RWD 1500 and the Dolomite range.
So Webster was diplomatic regards Issigonis and not a hypocrite.Can also at least admire that.
A fwd 2000 and by implication no 2.5.That would have worked out well.Triumph would have been gone before Edwardes even got there.
Yes a Go Kart will beat a Porsche 917 or a 10,000 hp top fuel dragster or even a Mini on a Go Kart track.
Don’t you think I’ve heard it all before.

600

newmercman:
So for anybody who has just joined this gong show, despite the title this thread is a continuation of a thread about the Leyland Buffalo, somebody mentioned the L12 engine and the brown stuff hit the spinning thing.

Since then it’s meandered through independent rear suspension on Triumph saloons, a bunch of technical stuff from people that know their onions, but it always comes back to the TL12.

It’s an engine derived from the AEC AV760 for those that don’t know and was rushed through development and put into service out of sheer desperation, thanks to the efforts of the car divisions with the BL group absorbing all the profits of the group.

There’s a huge irony in the posts of the main antagonist here, on one hand he says the workforce was second to none, on the other he says that almost everything they made was junk and even the good things they made could’ve been much improved on.

Let’s get this right the workforce right across British industry from automotive to aerospace was second to none.
They made and assembled what was on the drawings provided by designers and what the designers’ bosses had called on them to design.
Much of the machine tooling was well worn so index the cut to perfection and it could be anyone’s guess what the vernier or mic actually showed after when you checked it.
( Not where I worked ) excellent reasonably new American machines and some Brit ones too.
None of that was the TL12’s problem.
Someone said we must keep the 142 mm stroke and that’s why a 12.4 litre motor with 270 hp at 2,000 rpm ended up in the T45.Or at least that’s what gave Edwardes the opportunity to sabotage it with.
So assuming Anorak is right how does that C18 stay together at around 2,000 rpm and why did they want to give it a 183 mm stroke when 165 mm isn’t exactly short.