View single post by Dakota123 | |||||||||||||
Posted: 06-16-2012 05:58 pm |
|
||||||||||||
Dakota123
|
I had originally tacked this on to the end of an old thread but it didn't show up in the Recents, and is really a different topic than the thread title (912 vs 907 cam towers), anyway, so...Judson Manning wrote:Your theoretical analysis of bearing dynamics mirrors my initial work. What opened my eyes was a technical article I read from Clevitte analyzing the performance of 180^, 270^ and 360^ bearing designs. Then I noticed the progression Lotus' made in main bearing combinations in later iterations. Anybody still on this board up on these things by chance? I agree with the idea of a plain lower bearing and grooved upper (after reading the Clevite article http://www.stealth316.com/misc/clevite-main-bearing-grooving.pdf), but current thought is that simple* cross-drilling the crank is generally not a good idea for high-rpm engines (approaching 8,000 rpms and up) because the oil to the rod aerates or is starved completely due to centrifugal force pulling the oil away from the rod bearing supply passages. Figures I've seen indicate the oil pump would have to overcome over 40 psi even at 7,000 rpms. This concept is borne out by research done by Toyota http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/review/rev383epdf/e383_044suzuki.pdf Is there anything different about the 907/912 crank where cross-drilling is indeed necessary for high rpm running and/or to allow a plain (not grooved) lower bearing? Or is the plain lower/grooved upper Clevite's paper discusses, with non-cross-drilled crank, the best way to go? I'm more curious than anything else; not sure I'll be confident enough in my build to take it to 8,000 rpms. *there are apparently sophisticated "cross-drilling" designs that apparently work better than traditional, 180^ cross drilling, but I don't think that's what Judson et al were talking about.
|
||||||||||||
|