Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
Frankshaft
Expert
Expert
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:01 pm

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Frankshaft » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:17 pm

And what do we learn from all that?

User avatar
nickpohlaandp
Pro
Pro
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:50 pm
Location: Lake Charles, LA

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by nickpohlaandp » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:39 pm

Frankshaft wrote:And what do we learn from all that?
That I'm bookmarking that page and my initial "basic" thought of a sine wave graph for piston speed for a particular rod ratio was WAY off
Never half ass two things... Whole ass one thing!

Circlotron
Expert
Expert
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:56 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Circlotron » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:20 am

Frankshaft wrote:And what do we learn from all that?
The simpler something appears to be, the greater the complexity that is just waiting to bite you!

n2xlr8n
Expert
Expert
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Bama

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by n2xlr8n » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:39 am

Frankshaft wrote:And what do we learn from all that?
That not everyone has it all figured out, and like most good students, not afraid to ask.

=D>
He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world.

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by joe 90 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:18 pm

The example used is just an example and it's totally unrealistic.
Just like using a connecting rod of infinite length.

Real engines have rod/ stroke ratios of 1.5 ish to 2 ish and the differences are minimal.


But some really big diesel engines to it a bit different, have a 2 piece conrod to remove side loadings on the piston.
If it wasn't important, they wouldn't do it.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6340
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by David Redszus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:55 am

I ran the equations for a short rod (1.5) ratio and a long rod (2.0) ratio and began to write a description of the piston position, velocity, and acceleration curves. I decided that an explanation would be much too long and probably confusing.

So..for anyone who would like to resolve this issue once and for all, I am offering an excel spreadsheet that will allow a visual and quantitative comparison of various rod ratios. Send me your email address and I will send you the file.

The graphs of the results may then be posted for all to see.

One picture is worth a thousand words of bafflegab.

Erland Cox
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Lund in Sweden
Contact:

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Erland Cox » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:45 am

It is all in the link I sent, calculations and graphic illustrations.

Erland

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6340
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by David Redszus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:45 am

Here are a few rod ratio facts.

Rod ratio has no effect on piston position at TDC or BDC. It does affect position at 90 and 270 deg.

It has no effect on velocity at TDC or BDC. It does effect velocity at max piston speed (approx 76 deg ATDC).

At TDC, the piston acceleration curves are shaped like a sine wave. At BDC, they are not.
There is no piston dwell at TDC but there is dwell at BDC. Rod length cannot affect TDC air flow or combustion.

As the rod length increases, the differences in position, velocity and acceleration converge and have less effect.
If the rod length is long enough (not possible in a real engine) the acceleration curve becomes a sine wave at both TDC and BDC.

Rod ratio should best be ignored and forgotten, never to be revisited again.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3868
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Walter R. Malik » Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:44 pm

David Redszus wrote:Here are a few rod ratio facts.

Rod ratio has no effect on piston position at TDC or BDC. It does affect position at 90 and 270 deg.

It has no effect on velocity at TDC or BDC. It does effect velocity at max piston speed (approx 76 deg ATDC).

At TDC, the piston acceleration curves are shaped like a sine wave. At BDC, they are not.
There is no piston dwell at TDC but there is dwell at BDC. Rod length cannot affect TDC air flow or combustion.

As the rod length increases, the differences in position, velocity and acceleration converge and have less effect.
If the rod length is long enough (not possible in a real engine) the acceleration curve becomes a sine wave at both TDC and BDC.

Rod ratio should best be ignored and forgotten, never to be revisited again.
I am just curious as to why no one seems to address any reasoning for extended time the piston spends near the bottom of the bore when the intake valve is always more open and flowing near maximum mixture velocity. :-k
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

In-Tech
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:35 am

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by In-Tech » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:32 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
David Redszus wrote:Here are a few rod ratio facts.

Rod ratio has no effect on piston position at TDC or BDC. It does affect position at 90 and 270 deg.

It has no effect on velocity at TDC or BDC. It does effect velocity at max piston speed (approx 76 deg ATDC).

At TDC, the piston acceleration curves are shaped like a sine wave. At BDC, they are not.
There is no piston dwell at TDC but there is dwell at BDC. Rod length cannot affect TDC air flow or combustion.

As the rod length increases, the differences in position, velocity and acceleration converge and have less effect.
If the rod length is long enough (not possible in a real engine) the acceleration curve becomes a sine wave at both TDC and BDC.

Rod ratio should best be ignored and forgotten, never to be revisited again.
I am just curious as to why no one seems to address any reasoning for extended time the piston spends near the bottom of the bore when the intake valve is always more open and flowing near maximum mixture velocity. :-k
Math it out and you will see it takes a tremendous change in rod length to add even a degree of dwell, top or bottom.
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl

Tuner
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:26 am

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Tuner » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:48 pm

Look at it from the point of view of how much the combustion chamber volume changes with longer or shorter rod in the top 10 or 20 degrees, + or - 5 or 10 deg. either side of TDC.

statsystems
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:17 am

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by statsystems » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:54 pm

Tuner wrote:Look at it from the point of view of how much the combustion chamber volume changes with longer or shorter rod in the top 10 or 20 degrees, + or - 5 or 10 deg. either side of TDC.
That's why with a higher Rod ratio you can use less total timing and less quench before you get in trouble. The combustion chamber is smaller, longer.

Just what I've found. YMMV?

User avatar
Stan Weiss
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3636
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Stan Weiss » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:56 pm

Moved about a degree on just one side of BDC

Stan

Code: Select all

Pontiac 400 ci

Bore_=_4.12___Stroke_=_3.75___Rod_Length_=_6.625
Crankshaft_Degrees_at_which_Rod_and_Crank_are_90_Degrees_74.1975

Crank______Piston_____Crank_______Rod____Cylinder___Cylinder
Angle______Travel______Rod_______Bore_____Volume_____Volume
Degree_____Inches_____Angle______Angle______CI_________cc
-ATDC_
160.0000__3.668034___14.44518___5.55482__48.90100__801.34378
161.0000__3.676031___13.71316___5.28684__49.00760__803.09073
162.0000__3.683616___12.98264___5.01736__49.10873__804.74791
163.0000__3.690791___12.25354___4.74646__49.20438__806.31536
164.0000__3.697555___11.52578___4.47422__49.29456__807.79307
165.0000__3.703909___10.79928___4.20072__49.37926__809.18109
166.0000__3.709851___10.07397___3.92603__49.45849__810.47942
167.0000__3.715384____9.34977___3.65023__49.53225__811.68808
168.0000__3.720506____8.62660___3.37340__49.60053__812.80711
169.0000__3.725218____7.90438___3.09562__49.66335__813.83653
170.0000__3.729520____7.18302___2.81698__49.72070__814.77634
171.0000__3.733412____6.46246___2.53754__49.77259__815.62659
172.0000__3.736894____5.74261___2.25739__49.81901__816.38727
173.0000__3.739966____5.02340___1.97660__49.85996__817.05842
174.0000__3.742628____4.30474___1.69526__49.89546__817.64005
175.0000__3.744881____3.58656___1.41344__49.92549__818.13217
176.0000__3.746724____2.86877___1.13123__49.95006__818.53479
177.0000__3.748157____2.15130___0.84870__49.96917__818.84793
178.0000__3.749181____1.43407___0.56593__49.98282__819.07160
179.0000__3.749795____0.71699___0.28301__49.99100__819.20580
180.0000__3.750000____0.00000___0.00000__49.99373__819.25053

SBC 400 ci

Bore_=_4.126___Stroke_=_3.75___Rod_Length_=_5.565___RPM_=_6500
Crankshaft_Degrees_at_which_Rod_and_Crank_are_90_Degrees_71.3799

Crank______Piston_____Crank_______Rod____Cylinder___Cylinder
Angle______Travel______Rod_______Bore_____Volume_____Volume
Degree_____Inches_____Angle______Angle______CI_________cc
-ATDC_
160.0000__3.673997___13.38277___6.61723__49.12325__804.98587
161.0000__3.681429___12.70239___6.29761__49.22262__806.61431
162.0000__3.688476___12.02375___5.97625__49.31685__808.15830
163.0000__3.695138___11.34674___5.65326__49.40592__809.61800
164.0000__3.701416___10.67128___5.32872__49.48986__810.99353
165.0000__3.707311____9.99727___5.00273__49.56867__812.28502
166.0000__3.712822____9.32463___4.67537__49.64236__813.49259
167.0000__3.717951____8.65326___4.34674__49.71094__814.61634
168.0000__3.722698____7.98308___4.01692__49.77441__815.65641
169.0000__3.727063____7.31398___3.68602__49.83277__816.61287
170.0000__3.731047____6.64589___3.35411__49.88605__817.48584
171.0000__3.734651____5.97871___3.02129__49.93423__818.27539
172.0000__3.737874____5.31235___2.68765__49.97732__818.98161
173.0000__3.740717____4.64671___2.35329__50.01534__819.60457
174.0000__3.743181____3.98171___2.01829__50.04828__820.14434
175.0000__3.745265____3.31726___1.68274__50.07614__820.60097
176.0000__3.746970____2.65326___1.34674__50.09894__820.97451
177.0000__3.748296____1.98963___1.01037__50.11667__821.26500
178.0000__3.749243____1.32627___0.67373__50.12933__821.47247
179.0000__3.749811____0.66309___0.33691__50.13692__821.59695
180.0000__3.750000____0.00000___0.00000__50.13945__821.63844
Stan Weiss / World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
Do you use engine simulation software that uses cylinder head flow files?
We have a package of more than 3000 DFW or FLW Files

GerryP
New Member
New Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:26 am

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by GerryP » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:08 pm

This guy does a good job of white board explanations for those of us without engineering degrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHQ8aTfiQQ

Yes, it's about balance but it covers the topic.

Belgian1979
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:34 am
Location: Belgium - Koersel

Re: Rod ratio and dwell time... doesn't make sense

Post by Belgian1979 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:25 pm

All these comments make me wonder why usually a change in rod, requires a change in ignition timing.

Post Reply