Rohan said:So, can anyone name an engine simulation package that would be applicable to my Norton,
AND give meaningful results. ??
Yeah I can, its called 'DREAM WORKS' FOR TOTAL TOSSERS
Rohan said:So, can anyone name an engine simulation package that would be applicable to my Norton,
AND give meaningful results. ??
Yeah I can, its called 'DREAM WORKS' FOR TOTAL TOSSERS
splatt said:Yeah I can, its called 'DREAM WORKS' FOR TOTAL TOSSERS
Rohan said:A mate did his thesis on vibration analysis (of buildings),
Rohan said:splatt said:Yeah I can, its called 'DREAM WORKS' FOR TOTAL TOSSERS
First time I've ever totally agreed with you.
Rohan said:Something that was seriously able to sort all all the minor variables and variations would cost $squillions$,
and who would tweak it for an obsolete old Commando...
Heck, Harley don't even do their own engine design work.
Dances with Shrapnel said:A very inexpensive and half way decent package is Desktop Dyno5. The efficiency of these packages is being able to test incremental changes once the model is benchmarked. Not rocket science. The most tedious work is collecting the data to feed into the system. So you benchmark the simulation to say a stock 850, 750 or Combat Commando, whatever you want, enter the attributes of the new Full Auto head, rerun the simulation and voila! (or your brother is your Uncle), you get a pretty good idea of net change.
Clear case of projection yet over the top. 8)Rohan said:Irony is lost on you.....
Reread my posts, particularly about benchmarking, especially with simpler software packages. I suppose Virtual 4-Stroke with a FLUENT CFD of ports will answer all the irrelevant what-if minutiae you can rapid fire but that is not the point.Rohan said:So if Desktop Dyno says a FullAuto head will produce 100 hp on a Commando, will we believe it ??
What did Jims theory say his FA design was good for ?
I have a head with a flat just before the inlet guide.
How does that factor into a simulation. ?
Without actually testing it like that, no package would be aware that it is quite beneficial ...
Comparing that 4 cyl head to the race one I showed earlier would be seriously 'tedious'.
How accurate would the comparo be, we wonder....
https://s31.postimg.org/6h4kkx8kr/heads.jpg
Rohan said:P.S. If you want to play comparo with engine designs, call up the Commando 750/850 specs as against the GT750 Laverda and Yam TDM850. On paper, these are all quite similar designs, when you just look at the numbers.
And all parallel twins too,
Be a good simulation package that could accurately differentiate those, and successfully predict engine outputs ?
And, if you throw a bevel drive Duc into the equation, even with their smaller valves and v-angle, they are similar too in many ways.
Until you throw the desmo and SFC versions into the mix.
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE5NFgxNjAw/ ... D/$_57.JPG
The color scheme remind you of anything in a Commando lineup ?
We diverge, it hasn't quite got a FA head on it...
Dances with Shrapnel said:You need to understand it.
Dances with Shrapnel said:Your questions are showing you don't understand. Key in on the term benchmark. You cannot benchmark a model to a Laverda and then use that model to see how a Commando will respond to a change - that is being silly.
Rohan said:Prof Gordon Blair was all the rage in the 1970s.
Although all he did, and I don't want to trivilize this, is to apply sound mathematics to what
had previously been a black art...