dave docwra:
Is that our dear friend CF’s reverse bleeper I can hear in the background ?
…and a full boot of torque from the 17 bar BMEP diesel bomb under the tartan blanket.
Whoops! The snowplough is still attached, it’s on full lock, and was the boss’s stroked 7 litre Jag not parked just next door? 
[zb]
anorak:dave docwra:
Is that our dear friend CF’s reverse bleeper I can hear in the background ?…and a full boot of torque from the 17 bar BMEP diesel bomb under the tartan blanket.
Whoops! The snowplough is still attached, it’s on full lock, and was the boss’s stroked 7 litre Jag not parked just next door?
No the plough was deffo in the shed only frost predicted not snow.No bleepers on the S85.Nor any need for the Perkins 1,216 lbft when an idling 1980/1 spec 265 will generally be enough for shunting.
You seem to have conveniently missed the question that helps the case for not blowing the TL12’s head gaskets at RR type outputs how.Looks like you’ve undershot the pin and put the trailer through the back of the TL12 Roadtrain cab going by your own obvious driving standards.
No answer to the question why all the expense of long stroke stroke crank shafts if just increasing the bore and piston size will supposedly do the same job.
So you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:dave docwra:
Is that our dear friend CF’s reverse bleeper I can hear in the background ?…and a full boot of torque from the 17 bar BMEP diesel bomb under the tartan blanket.
Whoops! The snowplough is still attached, it’s on full lock, and was the boss’s stroked 7 litre Jag not parked just next door?
No the plough was deffo in the shed only frost predicted not snow.No bleepers on the S85.Nor any need for the Perkins 1,216 lbft when an idling 1980/1 spec 265 will generally be enough for shunting.
You seem to have conveniently missed the question that helps the case for not blowing the TL12’s head gaskets at RR type outputs how.Looks like you’ve undershot the pin and put the trailer through the back of the TL12 Roadtrain cab going by your own obvious driving standards.
No answer to the question why all the expense of long stroke stroke crank shafts if just increasing the bore and piston size will supposedly do the same job.
So you agree that 100 lbft per litre = 246 psi BMEP ?.
I don’t bother with imperial measure, other than simple stuff. If I need to calculate anything, I convert to SI units straight away. It reduces the probability of error. 2.46 could be 2.64 could be 4.26.
4π is 4π. If I forget the 4, I can derive it from first principles- the piston does S, the big end does Sπ/2. F=PA=2T/S.
Edit- so:
If Leyland had increased the peak torque of the TL12 to 1200+lbft, by increasing the turbocharger boost and adding an intercooler, they would have seen a proportional increase in head bolt load and rod end bearing load. 1200/860- call it a 40% increase in those loads. Do you agree?
If they had somehow managed to put a longer stroke crank in there- 152 instead of 145mm, that would have reduced the head bolt and rod end loads by 100-145/152= 5% reduction. Do you agree with this too?
[zb]
anorak:
If Leyland had increased the peak torque of the TL12 to 1200+lbft, by increasing the turbocharger boost and adding an intercooler, they would have seen a proportional increase in head bolt load and rod end bearing load. 1200/860- call it a 40% increase in those loads. Do you agree?
If they had somehow managed to put a longer stroke crank in there- 152 instead of 145mm, that would have reduced the head bolt and rod end loads by 100-145/152= 5% reduction. Do you agree with this too?
The TL12 is down by 10 mm ( 142 v 152 mm stroke ).40% more torque required x 7% less leverage to help to make it.That’s the bit which Ramone has issues with.
As I said transfer the 590’s bore stroke ratio to the TL12 that’s 130 x 154 12.2 litre or 130 x 156 12.4.That would be a game changer.Instantly removing the business case for both RR and ■■■■■■■■■■ wait what if the government are batting for DAF, Volvo and the Americans won’t want to see their UK ■■■■■■■ investment wiped out by an AEC coup. 
So how do we make 40% more torque with 7% less leverage with only 40% more force on the piston.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 7% leverage advantage is a force ‘MULTIPLIER’.
That suggests if you stay with the 142mm stroke you’ll need 280% more load on your end bearings and it seems head joint ?.
Make it the same 152mm you only need to make up the 40% torque deficit ?.
Now picture the MX13 more than 100 % more specific torque if it had to make that x 14% less leverage.My guess is the MX13’s ends and head joint are under less stress at 145 lbft per litre than the Eagle’s was at 100 lbft per litre.Just as the Eagle’s was under less stress at 100 lbft per litre than the TL12’s was at 70 lbft per litre.
Now maybe you can see all of the long stroke developments we’ve seen to date by most if not all manufacturers in that light.
Which leaves the question what was really behind that suicidal decision making at Leyland in 1979.
Carryfast:
ramone:
So the Roadtrain is launched a 32 ton unit produced by Leyland with an AEC engine. They didn’t offer the RR or ■■■■■■■ for that matter or a Fuller or Synchro option or a full size sleeper but lets blame the TL12 for this. The engine was a 273 running at 32 tons. Not every haulier had faith in the RR diesels they had a bad reputation and the die hard ■■■■■■■ and Gardner men wouldn’t touch them . But Leyland who were rationalising the company should take on another load of employees and build the engines themselves with no money for development so how would that work , bearing in mind Foden, ERF and SA wouldnt want to buy engines from a direct competitor. So Leyland would end up with another load of trouble they didnt need when all they had to do was offer the RR has an option which they did.I am sure Mrs Thatcher would have been well up on her stroke measurements but probably more interested in how much of tax payers money had been wasted on an out of control group that hemmoraged money at an alarming rate mainly due to militant shop stewards. Her priority was to the British tax paying public not left wing extremists. Why Did Volvo carry on with the F10 at 38 tons , because they could sell them . Business only works if you have customers and customer demand is what you need to run a successful one.
You say that the imminent 38 ton limit was nailed on in 1980 , really just like the 40 ton limit was in 68. All those British manufacturers that produced 6 wheeler units all in vein. I think the 38 ton limit was supposed to be more 40 tons but it wasnt agreed and they settled at 38 tons in 83. Nothing is certain in this world apart from your utter BS posts with absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theories that smack of someone who spent too much of his youth alone. Were you bullied at school?Tell us more about what suddenly changed regarding all those ‘die hard’ RR haters in 1983 when the TL12 was ditched.Either they suddenly realised the error of their ways or as usual you’re talking utter bs.
A product with a supposed bad reliability record.That Scammell obviously didn’t agree with among others to the point where this ‘unreliable’ piece of junk got into the posession of Perkins who like everyone else ran with it up to 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12.
The 220/280 RR had a poor reputation for bad oil leaks heavy on fuel and basically not a very good all round engine . One well known haulier on here commented on a Seddon unit fitted with a 220 bhp RR , stating it was the cheapest 32 ton unit on the market. They had a bad reputation in the haulage sector.
What happened to all the RR haters when the TL12 was dropped … erm they carried on buying ■■■■■■■ or Gardner obviously. Did RR engined Roadtrains out sell ■■■■■■■ engined Roadtrains. You contradict yourself . By taking over RR and using the RR only then they would lose the ■■■■■■■ users . Perkins took RR after the Eagle had been sorted by an ex AEC man they didn’t take over in the early 70s when the engines were causing problems .Go give your head a shake
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
If Leyland had increased the peak torque of the TL12 to 1200+lbft, by increasing the turbocharger boost and adding an intercooler, they would have seen a proportional increase in head bolt load and rod end bearing load. 1200/860- call it a 40% increase in those loads. Do you agree?
If they had somehow managed to put a longer stroke crank in there- 152 instead of 145mm, that would have reduced the head bolt and rod end loads by 100-145/152= 5% reduction. Do you agree with this too?
The TL12 is down by 10 mm ( 142 v 152 mm stroke ).40% more torque required x 7% less leverage to help to make it.That’s the bit which Ramone has issues with.
As I said transfer the 590’s bore stroke ratio to the TL12 that’s 130 x 154 12.2 litre or 130 x 156 12.4.That would be a game changer.Instantly removing the business case for both RR and ■■■■■■■■■■ wait what if the government are batting for DAF, Volvo and the Americans won’t want to see their UK ■■■■■■■ investment wiped out by an AEC coup.
So how do we make 40% more torque with 7% less leverage with only 40% more force on the piston.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 7% leverage advantage is a force ‘MULTIPLIER’.
That suggests if you stay with the 142mm stroke you’ll need 280% more load on your end bearings and it seems head joint ?.
Make it the same 152mm you only need to make up the 40% torque deficit ?.Now picture the Blah blah…
Two questions, each with a Yes or No answer. Have another go.
Hahahaaaaaa!!!
Edit I got the number wrong, as if it changes anything. Here are the questions again, with the trifling error corrected FFS:
If Leyland had increased the peak torque of the TL12 to 1200+lbft, by increasing the turbocharger boost and adding an intercooler, they would have seen a proportional increase in head bolt load and rod end bearing load. 1200/860- call it a 40% increase in those loads. Do you agree?
If they had somehow managed to put a longer stroke crank in there- 152 instead of 142mm, that would have reduced the head bolt and rod end loads by 100-142/152= 7% reduction. Do you agree with this too?
Just a yes or no, to both questions, please.
Carryfast:
The TL12 is down by 10 mm ( 142 v 152 mm stroke ).40% more torque required x 7% less leverage to help to make it…blah blah…So how do we make 40% more torque with 7% less leverage with only 40% more force on the piston.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 7% leverage advantage is a force ‘MULTIPLIER’.
That suggests if you stay with the 142mm stroke you’ll need 280% more load on your end bearings and it seems head joint ?.
Make it the same 152mm you only need to make up the 40% torque deficit ?.… etc. etc.
To hell with force, pressure and area etc: if you’ve got two variables, that’s an accumulator. LOLOL
Get yourself down to Leatherhead’s branch of Ladbrokes now!
I’ve been away for the last couple of months and I just cannot believe he’s still rambling on! Plus ca change, as the Welsh say.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The TL12 is down by 10 mm ( 142 v 152 mm stroke ).40% more torque required x 7% less leverage to help to make it…blah blah…So how do we make 40% more torque with 7% less leverage with only 40% more force on the piston.Bearing in mind the Eagle’s 7% leverage advantage is a force ‘MULTIPLIER’.
That suggests if you stay with the 142mm stroke you’ll need 280% more load on your end bearings and it seems head joint ?.
Make it the same 152mm you only need to make up the 40% torque deficit ?.… etc. etc.
To hell with force, pressure and area etc: if you’ve got two variables, that’s an accumulator. LOLOL
Get yourself down to Leatherhead’s branch of Ladbrokes now!
To be fair I qualified the calculation with question marks.The maths is in the realms of rocket science. 
But what is certain is that increasing 860 lbft to 1,200 lbft with a 7% shorter bar is going to require some serious force difference based on torque = force X distance.
That force multiplying massively again when imposed on the smaller end bearing and head bolt areas v piston area.
The premise that the MX 13 is putting out around 40% more specific torque than the Eagle for less force on its end bearings and head fastenings ?.
Also likewise that the Eagle ultimately put out 43% more specific torque than the TL12 for less force on its.Taking into account the leverage multiplication differences ?.Seems feasible.
As I said why would anyone want to go to all the material expense of making longer stroke crankshafts up to more than 170 mm and taller/wider crank cases to house them if a bigger bore and larger piston and/or more forced induction boost pressure does the same job.
Also don’t buy your answer that they want longer strokes to handle higher cylinder pressures when more leverage obviously means less force needed to obtain the equivalent torque.Nor do I buy the idea that you could have just used more boost on the TL12 to obtain the equivalent specific torque output without breaking the thing.
Also bearing in mind that the respective stroke increases of Eagle v TL12 and MX13 v Eagle seem to have resulted in corresponding specific torque increases of around 40% in both cases.Which seems more than coincidence to me.
Well I think that these Gardner Engines were the founders to the modern stuff that we have today , Lewis Gardner along with his workforce designed many Engines that were very widley used world wide., Lets face it it a changed world now, So to put my views forward as an old Man, Let me say this Ive no problems with the present day Engineering of Engines Gearboxes in these modern times, So C F My friend get real and accept that what Im saying is , Of course just my humble opinion That The Gardner Co paved the way to what we have today, 
Regards Larry.
Carryfast:
Also don’t buy your answer that they want longer strokes to handle higher cylinder pressures when more leverage obviously means less force needed to obtain the equivalent torque.Nor do I buy the idea that you could have just used more boost on the TL12 to obtain the equivalent specific torque output without breaking the thing.…
I didn’t say any of that. It is obviously crap. Who are “they”? Is your computer infected with a virus that turns stuff into gibberish every time you press Enter, or are you on some sort of medication?
I asked two questions, both with Yes/No answers, both receiving replies which could have addressed completely different questions. Try this:
The head bolt loads are proportional to the peak torque. A longer stroke means lower head bolt loads. Do you agree? Y/N.
I don’t expect anything other than piffle in reply. Why am I doing this? Because it is good training for dealing with the charlatans that can prevail in British engineering. It is a game of cat and mouse, in which the mice are turds in disguise. Apart from one. I hope.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Also don’t buy your answer that they want longer strokes to handle higher cylinder pressures when more leverage obviously means less force needed to obtain the equivalent torque.Nor do I buy the idea that you could have just used more boost on the TL12 to obtain the equivalent specific torque output without breaking the thing.…
I didn’t say any of that. It is obviously crap. Who are “they”? Is your computer infected with a virus that turns stuff into gibberish every time you press Enter, or are you on some sort of medication?
I asked two questions, both with Yes/No answers, both receiving replies which could have addressed completely different questions. Try this:
The head bolt loads are proportional to the peak torque. A longer stroke means lower head bolt loads. Do you agree? Y/N.
The head bolt loads are proportional to torque made by force on the piston/con rod .
A longer stroke means equivalent or more torque made by multiplying less or the equivalent force by more leverage so YES a longer stroke means lower head bolt loads and lower end bearing loads.
So you agree that using more boost, to compensate for less leverage, to bring the TL12 up to the Eagle’s specific torque output, would break thing one way or another sooner or later.Yes or no.
Development of long stroke designs is all about maximising torque outputs by using more leverage to multiply the equivalent or less force and minimising the stress caused by using more force multiplied by less leverage to create the equivalent or more torque output.Yes or No.
[zb]
anorak:
I don’t expect anything other than piffle in reply. Why am I doing this? Because it is good training for dealing with the charlatans that can prevail in British engineering. It is a game of cat and mouse, in which the mice are turds in disguise. Apart from one. I hope.
Feel free to approach any major engine producer championing the cause of a 142 mm stroke and 0.95 bore stroke ratio.
Yes we saw the results of what the charlatans in British engineering did to our industries.
Not least Leyland truck division with AEC’s short stroke piece of junk bus derived motor in the Roadtrain.
Charlatan for championing the work of RR as opposed to those like you admiring Edwardes and his decision to lumber the Roadtrain with the TL12 v the DAF DKS and 3300 and Volvo TD120.You couldn’t make it up.
So what was the difference in service of the RR 290L and the TL12 . Was the RR a more reliable faster and more economical motor on the road . It’s a shame someone on here couldn’t post a test match from Truck or a road test of the two motors from the CM to see what difference there was in performance and earnings from the ridiculously short stroked TL and the RR. That would show them dimwits from Southall , pffffff call themselves engineers , how many poor hauliers have been taken in over the years by a lorry manufacturer putting a bus engine in a lorry , who would have thought it. Can you imagine Volvo , Scania , Daf , ERF , Foden SA or any other manufacturer offering units with 270 bhp to run at 32/38 tons , no way only the Southall boys would do that It’s grim up north but there’s no hope in Leatherhead
Retired Old ■■■■:
I’ve been away for the last couple of months and I just cannot believe he’s still rambling on! Plus ca change, as the Welsh say.
I believe I last looked in around page nine Rof (and passed a comment that probably got trashed anyway 
) and I thought I might risk a glance again today. Doesn’t seem any different to back then, Anorak and Ramone have amazing staying power but poor old Dennis has probably given up on getting his new engine for the proposed ‘supertruck’ by now and is possibly opening those barn doors once more even as we speak! Gardner 240 rules, OK!
Pete.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
…
The head bolt loads are proportional to the peak torque. A longer stroke means lower head bolt loads. Do you agree? Y/N.The head bolt loads are proportional to torque made by force on the piston/con rod .
So we can agree that, the more torque a given engine makes, the loads on the head bolts will be higher?
Carryfast:
A longer stroke means equivalent or more torque made by multiplying less or the equivalent force by more leverage so YES a longer stroke means lower head bolt loads and lower end bearing loads.
Good. I like that.
Carryfast:
So you agree that using more boost, to compensate for less leverage, to bring the TL12 up to the Eagle’s specific torque output, would break thing one way or another sooner or later.Yes or no.
Hmm… One engine will have slightly higher compressive loads, the other will have slightly higher tensile loads. The rod end bearings see both, and fatigue failures are caused by tensile stress- in the rod, the rod cap bolts, the main cap bolts and surrounding crankcase, and areas of the cranks, which increase proportional to stroke. It is a balance.
Carryfast:
Development of long stroke designs is all about maximising torque outputs by using more leverage to multiply the equivalent or less force and minimising the stress caused by using more force multiplied by less leverage to create the equivalent or more torque output.Yes or No.
Yes- development over the past 50 years has gone in the direction of increased torque and lower rated speeds, favouring a longer stroke. The difference is nowhere near proportional- BMEP has doubled in that time, but only a few engines have a slightly reduced bore/stroke ratio. Rated power speeds have reduced from 22-2500rpm to 1600-1800rpm in that period, so you can see which loads have been reduced more, as things have been developed.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
…
The head bolt loads are proportional to the peak torque. A longer stroke means lower head bolt loads. Do you agree? Y/N.The head bolt loads are proportional to torque made by force on the piston/con rod .
So we can agree that, the more torque a given engine makes, the loads on the head bolts will be higher?
Carryfast:
A longer stroke means equivalent or more torque made by multiplying less or the equivalent force by more leverage so YES a longer stroke means lower head bolt loads and lower end bearing loads.Good. I like that…
Carryfast:
So you agree that using more boost, to compensate for less leverage, to bring the TL12 up to the Eagle’s specific torque output, would break thing one way or another sooner or later.Yes or no.Hmm… One engine will have slightly higher compressive loads, the other will have slightly higher tensile loads. The rod end bearings see both, and fatigue failures are caused by tensile stress- in the rod, the rod cap bolts, the main cap bolts and surrounding crankcase, and areas of the cranks, which increase proportional to stroke. It is a balance.
Carryfast:
Development of long stroke designs is all about maximising torque outputs by using more leverage to multiply the equivalent or less force and minimising the stress caused by using more force multiplied by less leverage to create the equivalent or more torque output.Yes or No.Yes- development over the past 50 years has gone in the direction of increased torque and lower rated speeds, favouring a longer stroke. The difference is nowhere near proportional- BMEP has doubled in that time, but only a few engines have a slightly reduced bore/stroke ratio. Rated power speeds have reduced from 22-2500rpm to 1600-1800rpm in that period, so you can see which loads have been reduced more, as things have been developed.
152 mm stroke 1,950 rpm = 4.3% more piston speed v 142 mm at 2,000 rpm but with a lighter piston and negligible regardless.
MX13 0.80 bore stroke ratio, Volvo D13 0.77, D16 0.87,Scania V8 0.84 modular with 6 cylinders,
Detroit/DB DD13 0.84.
That’s a bit more than only a few.
As I said the 590 was as high as AEC needed to go and precisely where Scania and DB is today.
132 x 156 sounds good to me.
As I said Volvo, DAF and ■■■■■■■ UK would have hated it.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
…
The head bolt loads are proportional to the peak torque. A longer stroke means lower head bolt loads. Do you agree? Y/N.The head bolt loads are proportional to torque made by force on the piston/con rod .
So we can agree that, the more torque a given engine makes, the loads on the head bolts will be higher?
Carryfast:
A longer stroke means equivalent or more torque made by multiplying less or the equivalent force by more leverage so YES a longer stroke means lower head bolt loads and lower end bearing loads.Good. I like that.
Carryfast:
So you agree that using more boost, to compensate for less leverage, to bring the TL12 up to the Eagle’s specific torque output, would break thing one way or another sooner or later.Yes or no.Hmm… One engine will have slightly higher compressive loads, the other will have slightly higher tensile loads. The rod end bearings see both, and fatigue failures are caused by tensile stress- in the rod, the rod cap bolts, the main cap bolts and surrounding crankcase, and areas of the cranks, which increase proportional to stroke. It is a balance.
Carryfast:
Development of long stroke designs is all about maximising torque outputs by using more leverage to multiply the equivalent or less force and minimising the stress caused by using more force multiplied by less leverage to create the equivalent or more torque output.Yes or No.Yes- development over the past 50 years has gone in the direction of increased torque and lower rated speeds, favouring a longer stroke. The difference is nowhere near proportional- BMEP has doubled in that time, but only a few engines have a slightly reduced bore/stroke ratio. Rated power speeds have reduced from 22-2500rpm to 1600-1800rpm in that period, so you can see which loads have been reduced more, as things have been developed.
So Anorak could the TL12 if the money was available be developed into a more powerful engine we have been told 320bhp was achieved could they have gone further?
ramone:
So Anorak could the TL12 if the money was available be developed into a more powerful engine we have been told 320bhp was achieved could they have gone further?
No reason not, given the available information. Compressive loads 7% higher than 6" stroke engines is nothing, compared to the increase in compressive loads achieved in the 1980s, in all engines. With an ordinary development programme, it would have gone 320 in 1983, 360 in '86 then 400 in 1990. If GB had wanted home-owned vehicle manufacturing in the long term, that would have given it ample time to create a completely new engine for the 1990s onward. It seems they threw in the towel, some time in the early 1980s, hence abandoning their vertically-integrated ambitions and allowing things to peter out.