Counterweighted crank

mlpankey wrote: the crank wither it has counterweights to absorb bad frequencies by its mass or uses (overlap ) larger journals to stiffen and though attenuation rid bad frequencys isnt going to make it pull tweenty feet further . if you had have asked a realistic question I would have taken the time to answere.  Hp is what makes it pull further and a crank absorbing motion due to its mass isnt going to make the hp one that isnt absorbing motion but reacting to does.

Wow, is all I have to say to this. Epic post hahahaha, where do you come up with this nonsense?

Counterweights absorb transient torque by there mass which negatively effects overall torque. A builder can achieve the same desired outcome without utilizing coumterweights by using the methods I mentioned and cranky summarized with more torque being measured at the flywheel than is absorbed by heavier mass counterweights. the counterweights inertia itself can impart twisting loads on the shaft.

Ihateillinoisnazis wrote: mlpankey wrote: Counterweights absorb transient torque by there mass which negatively effects overall torque. A builder can achieve the same desired outcome without utilizing coumterweights by using the methods I mentioned and cranky summarized with more torque being measured at the flywheel than is absorbed by heavier mass counterweights. the counterweights inertia itself can impart twisting loads on the shaft. Well thank The Lord they don't use counter weights in modern engines..........    Silly engine builders must be doing It all wrong. It's so fastenating how everyone in the industry is doing the opposite thing you claim, yet you're the only one doing it the "right" way...   Coincidence as to why your 's junk....? I think not.

Thats why counterweights are being reduced and made more compact . Counterweights are primarly used to balance the crank interanally in the automotive realm.  In the automotive industry they are still cranks without counterweights being ran at engine speeds that a pulling tractor could only dream of seeing. I have never broke a crank once I went to the overlap . Its amazing what .100 in journal size does to stiffen up a crankshaft

Edited by mlpankey - 25 Feb 2013 at 2:48pm

Mitch, you put together a 504 cube light superstock tractor, any brand you want, built per ntpa rules, if you can beat peissig, Lynn, Blackburn, and even Marty, for a season with no counterweight on your crank ill pay for a tv commercial on RFD TV promoting your shop and you as the greatest builder ever!!!!!

Its amasing that some dont even pedall pull but are creditable. Heavier mass takes more to mkve you would think pullers would know that. But that means they pull which most on here xont. You want to free up torque and horsepower lighte thing up instead of making it heavie.r .all you counterweght nuts needs to explkre what a .100 larger journal does cor you

Edited by mlpankey - 25 Feb 2013 at 7:01pm

Nascar. No ones dumb enough to weld counterweights onto a stock crank for a 15 to 3000 hp engine when they build billet cranks daily if they were really worried with reliability . 1.75 journal ran 5 pulling seasons. Pretty reliable wouldnt you say.

Heres some ceditable knoweldge. The first stroker 226 crank we did was 5 3/4 stroke with a 1.75 rod journal it had 11.1 compression ran top 4 .it didnt have straps or main girdles just stock main caps. The crank broke in august of the fifth season right behind the number four rod. We then did a 5.77 stroke 2 inch rod journal it never broke .never had anything but stock main caps and 14.1 compression. We then did a 6 inch stroke. With 1.88 journal crank never broke but it did have a billet center main cap the other two were stock. Those cranks had a stronger wire used in the journal and a 40.rockwell in radius so the crank could flex. When welded all the way with a 50 rockwell the crank would be cracked after first few runs.

You mean to say the engine you bought from Taylor that came from Tarbil. Otherwise why are you looking for someone to stroke a crankshaft and giveing thanks in those linked threads that others previously posted.

The only "we" in your shop is you and Benjamin Franklin.

Yo daffey duck, your lies are comeing full circle to bite you in the beak. Wi posted some pics of a really hacked up poor lookin crank of yours in a different thread. You gave some explanation of it, and now the same crank is from "your shop" in this thread. To bad you boned Kendak on that piece of junk.

mlpankey wrote: no need to do it if you make the journals large enough unless you need a way to balance the crank internally cause your opposed to doing it externally . No one yet has said how many cranks they lost before doing it vs after doing it to promote it . the only promotion thus far is monkey sees monkey do

Keith Haney runs a 426 with a German ac crank, thats a semi weighted crank at best, anything over 4500 rpms and it will basically start to fall apart. The guys with the weight added ac cranks will turn in excess of 6000 rpms with no problems.

Larry W. wrote: Your world of naturally aspirated antique gas engines does not overlap with high rpm, high boost pressure superstock type engines.

Pankey's world does not overlap with reality.

Glockhead SWMI wrote: Ihateillinoisnazis wrote: Larry W. wrote: Your world of naturally aspirated antique gas engines does not overlap with high rpm, high boost pressure superstock type engines. Pankey's world does not overlap with reality. But his sentences run on forever! <div id="lx_inz" style="visibility: ; display:none;">

Hahah so true!

mlpankey wrote: . the only promotion thus far is monkey sees monkey do

Edited by Butch(OH) - 26 Feb 2013 at 4:24pm

LOL ! End of story!

a 400ci  scat crank