- Jun 6, 2012
Hobot is correct, both in his explanation of energy transfer loss factors, & his view re theory, -stick with it until proven otherwise, if any sound data emerges to dis-prove so be it...
Sorry if you can't get to these pictures, of course they are scanned '70s picture quality, if you want to friend Steve Adlem on FB (and I accept :lol: ) you will get to see them. I tried to join Photobucket yesterday but it said both my emails were already in use (unlikely) so no joy there, sorry. Will try again some other time.SteveA said:http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theaterRohan said:Interesting post Steve.
Got a pic of your Rickman, or in action ?
2 pictures here of original incarnation and 2 of the '79 version, all track pictures Cadwell Park, Lincolnshire.
Currently the original frame is back from repair and with the tank maker for a second new tank!, because after getting one made similar to the original I need a shorter and lower one to accomodate me today :roll:
J.A.W. said:Hobot is correct, both in his explanation of energy transfer loss factors, & his view re theory, -stick with it until proven otherwise, if any sound data emerges to dis-prove so be it...
yethobot said:Of course the *percentage* of drive train loss varies greatly with the input power
andhobot said:Don't know how we could determine the drive train lost but its a constant that don't increase as power on it increasesso
sohobot said:If same drive train is used, then same hp drag to turn it to some rpm, regardless of the power plant turning it to same speeds.
I think there are enough words quoted above that if you rearrange a few of them you get the facts. I see your point :roll:hobot said:so I think Nortons only loses about 10 %
and someone calls them on it...........hobot said:I've looked it up.
This is like "whack the mole" game at the arcade; never know where it's going to pop up next. Ah yes, the un named inertial dyno guy in California, because the water brake dyno guy in Arkansas does not carry the credibility of California. Does this go with the unretreivable references you use. Your calling around like this suggests to me that you are uncertain and obsessed with your multitude of stances. There may have been an accusation that you misunderstood but I have a hunch you have some sort of grasp.hobot said:Confusing to discuss the cheese and chalk of this post, top speed vs power, so suggest we carry it on the post Jim Schmidt started on crank horse power. I have posted some of my references there, if you've desire enough to strain learning the terms and principles being confused -while accusing me of miss-understanding. I'm competitive as hell so a good looser so lets have it out there rationally for future references on reality checks.
Just to worry ya ahead of time when picking on hobot in public -to put up or shut up-, I just spoke with a Calif. dyno shop to verify that if same dyno or drive train used, then its a constant power drag factor to add or subtract from all the engines tested on it... percentage will vary but not the total mechanical inertial drag resistance.
Do you even know my position :lol: Besides, it's a dissertation.J.A.W. said:DwS, WHERE is YOUR thesis to clearly demonstrate the irrefutable logic of your position?
J.A.W. said:DwS, WHERE is YOUR thesis to clearly demonstrate the irrefutable logic of your position?
Fair enough.J.A.W. said:DwS, I am not asking to see a copy of your PHD, a simple cogent post of your position setting out where you are demonstrably correct in your assertions - that`ll do...
Works motor claim seems unlikely. And 270 does not sound likely as a '70s fit.J.A.W. said:Classic Bike, July`12, P.16; Race meeting feature, Cadwell Park.
Has a yellow Norvil racer - Ian Gibson, owner/racer reckons "its always been a racer...may have been a works motor"- being an 850 with [unusually] a 270 degree crank, twin discs..
I.G. is quoted, "Its fantastic...very fast & the crank makes it smooth, with loads of low down grunt".
Apparently they went back to the original crank again and again, he said the 180 worked but revved enough to need expensive treatments and the valve gear was not up to it anyway....sounds familiar to me.... quote]
Re; "and the valve gear was not up to it anyway...."
And would the light weight valve gear today be up to it; i.e. titanium valves, Triumph cam follows that are available :?: