Potential spun X302 rod bearing

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by eschaider

One ounce is 28 grams.

Yep, I remember that from college.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Well it was certainly complete. Factual is altogether different.

I think describing it as an opinion would be more accurate.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion Mark, just not your own facts.

If you would like to discuss 'facts' you feel are inaccurate, misleading or otherwise deceptive, please step right up.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Yep, I remember that from college.

Golly, I knew I wasn't the only one ...

[Mark O'Neal]

Originally Posted by eschaider

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion Mark, just not your own facts.

If you would like to discuss 'facts' you feel are inaccurate, misleading or otherwise deceptive, please step right up.

Be happy to. The comment you made about balancing are utter nonsense.

You are also entitled to post your opinions, but don't pretend they are facts. You'll just case people to get disappointed.

Balancing is not near as precise as you seem to think it is.

[Mark O'Neal]

Originally Posted by eschaider

Golly, I knew I wasn't the only one ...

It was the only thing most of the potheads had down pat.....

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Be happy to. The comment you made about balancing are utter nonsense.

You are also entitled to post your opinions, but don't pretend they are facts. You'll just case people to get disappointed.

Balancing is not near as precise as you seem to think it is.

You just posted an opinion / statement. Please elaborate on what was nonsense.

[Mark O'Neal]

Originally Posted by eschaider

You just posted an opinion / statement. Please elaborate on what was nonsense.

1> Balancing to within one gram. Pretty much no one does that. Even if you do, balance is an estimate. Once oil starts flying around no one really knows what that bob-weight is within a gram........or 20.

2> If you were to balance a rotator on our machine, then go re-do the bob-weights and run it on another machine, you would get a different result. Every time.

It's nowhere near as precise as you fantasize. And yes, I'm certain, having done tens of thousands of balance jobs (and engine builds) over the decades.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

1> Balancing to within one gram. Pretty much no one does that. Even if you do, balance is an estimate. Once oil starts flying around no one really knows what that bob-weight is within a gram........or 20.

2> If you were to balance a rotator on our machine, then go re-do the bob-weights and run it on another machine, you would get a different result. Every time.

It's nowhere near as precise as you fantasize. And yes, I'm certain, having done tens of thousands of balance jobs (and engine builds) over the decades.

Mark,

I am surprised that you don’t believe it is possible to balance within a gram. I’ll demonstrate for you how the average site member can do this with a rod balancing fixture, a gram scale, and a spreadsheet. The following numbers are the actual weights of the components in my engine.

I used out-of-the-box Manley 14044R-8 connecting rods, out-of-the-box Arias pistons and pins, out-of-the-box TotalSeal AP Steel top rings, Napier cut cast iron seconds and 3mm oils along with double Spirolox® pin locks. The bearings used were narrowed small pin SBC bearings again out of the box from King Bearings.

I start by weighing all the individual components and recording their weights in an XL spreadsheet (see pic below)



Those weights, other than connecting rods, were recorded in columns B through H and rows 7 through 28. Connecting rod weights were recorded in columns I through N and rows 7 through 14, and rings were accounted for in columns B through D and rows 33 through 35.

The next step requires some basic four-function math to find the lightest and heaviest rods by both total weight and end for end weight. I used control letters A through H to identify the individual components and then matched light and heavy components in columns I through N and rows 21 through 28 to get my final bob weights.

I want to draw your attention to the bob weights in the green fields. The heaviest bobweight is 1696.72 grams, and the lightest bob weight is 1695.54. Now I understand you can be math challenged, so I will do the math for you (again). 1696.72 minus 1695.54 is 1.18 grams. Now, again, I do recognize your handicap with respect to numbers. However, 1.18 grams is, you guessed it, 1696.19 grams +/- 0.59 grams or less than a one gram variation bob weight to bob weight!

The best part is that I did not have to do any barbaric grinding on any component to achieve this end result. Now I recognize this is very different from your experience because you already told us it is.

You might want to be a little more circumspect before you unilaterally toss out someone's freely offered guidance or help for others. You do a considerable disservice to the readership with your uninformed and unfounded proclamations other than your own less than adequate efforts.

The average enthusiast on the site here can obtain all the necessary rod and piston balancing tools for around $300 (maybe a little less) and balance his entire assembly far closer than a guy like you would do (or more likely, by your own personal admission, could do). Even worse you would attempt to convince them that they couldn't do it either.

When Winberg did my crank, I gave them the bob weight to balance the finished shaft to. When they sent the crank to me, they told me they had gotten to within 5 grams (maybe less, I don’t recall anymore) on the flywheel end and zero grams on the snout.

And yes, I almost forgot, I did spin the crank back in California when it arrived, and surprise, surprise, it was within less than a gram of what Winberg told me it would be. So much for repeatability machine to machine.

Now I recognize that comparing this to what you do is not entirely fair. It is more like comparing a butcher to a brain surgeon, but then again, you chose to be what you chose to be. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to set our sights and standards as low.

[Jerry Clayton]

So Mark has done tens of thousands of crank balance jobs? roughly that would be 3 per day for 10 years---long days work----one a day for 30 years ????????that machine must be worn out--------

With my machine I got to be careful not to use it when there's a train going down the tracks as it will pick up the vibes from them-----

[eschaider]

Jerry,

Mark is math challenged and possibly memory challenged. Tens of thousands of crank balancing jobs is rather stunning, but ...

[sunman]

Mark has been here a while and I have learned a lot reading his posts over the years.
Maybe he has someone helping him.


I don’t appreciate a bunch of head running on this forum.

FWIW “four function math” is called arithmetic and you only used two, addition and subtraction.

[eschaider]

Mark fired the first shot, and FWIW four function math includes the use of any of the four functions, although all four were used in the spreadsheet.

It is good that you have learned so much from Mark's posts. He seems to play fast and loose with numbers and other things like facts. His representation of tens of thousands of engines that he maintains he has balanced was given a light review by Jerry when he only counted to the first “tens” of thousands. Mark said tens of thousands.

If we give him the benefit of the doubt and limit his tens to only two tens of thousands, then the number of engines he has balanced in a day over 30 years is three engines every day, every week of every year with no time off for vacation or holidays — a superhuman effort by any standard. If it is over20 years, then it is five engines per day every week of the year with no time off for vacation or holidays. This is not only impossible, the representation is absurd.

Obviously, this kind of balancing performance is beyond the capability of any human being and is yet another example of Mark playing fast and loose with numbers. He projects his own predilection to misrepresent fact onto others when they are delivering the real story about how to do something. This is a person you can not trust, can not respect, and can not rely upon to tell the truth.

If you don't like people attacking the position of others, you should speak to your friend and encourage him not to do that. When he does he will find some people will push back on mistruths to both clarify the actual facts and also to tag the perpetrator of the fiction so others will not be sucked in.

[sunman]

If ya had a big enough shop and sold CARB compliant 347s you probably could do lot of engine work.
CHP google it up

[patrickt]

If only unbalanced people could be balanced as easily as engines.

[sunman]

I’m putting a Fluidampr on the 390 I’m using. Now I’m all confused they say it can’t be balanced…just put it on…what???

Hey I’m putting the 390/C6 El Chico Party Bus on BAT just for kicks, big discount for a forum bro.

[eschaider]

Sunman,

You are looking for excuses. He did not say the shop did the work. It is clear from the wording he uses he is implying that he did the work not the firm. The emphasis below is his not mine.

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

1> ... And yes, I'm certain, having done tens of thousands of balance jobs (and engine builds) over the decades.

This is a man whos is used to playing fast and loose with facts. This is an acquired and learned skill. It is not something that just popped up for the first time. The difference is after disparaging others he got called on the facts this time and fell woefully short of the mark.

Like I said in the earlier post, "This is a person you can not trust, can not respect, and can not rely upon to tell the truth." The only difference with this posting event and his previous performances is he attacked the wrong guy, and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar this time - so to speak.

[Mark O'Neal]

I didn't say it isn't possible. I said pretty much no one does it.

And we, normally, use 4 grams as an oil allowance. You really figure that that is anything other than pure speculation.

[Mark O'Neal]

Originally Posted by eschaider

Sunman,

You are looking for excuses. He did not say the shop did the work. It is clear from the wording he uses he is implying that he did the work not the firm. The emphasis below is his not mine.





This is a man whos is used to playing fast and loose with facts. This is an acquired and learned skill. It is not something that just popped up for the first time. The difference is after disparaging others he got called on the facts this time and fell woefully short of the mark.

Like I said in the earlier post, "This is a person you can not trust, can not respect, and can not rely upon to tell the truth." The only difference with this posting event and his previous performances is he attacked the wrong guy, and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar this time - so to speak.

I've done them, my employees have done them and I have had them done. I use I, as I take responsibility for everything my employees touch.

I'll still take my real life experience over your vitriol any day.

As for my reputation in the industry. I'm quite good with it, thank you very much.

Balancing is not a science, or even close to it.....and the factories don't balance every engine individually for a reason. The reason is that within a range, it just doesn't matter. In the aftermarket people pay a lot of attention to it. They also used to pay a lot of attention to rod/stroke ratios.....and those don't matter either....along with a lot of other nonsense that is based on pure opinion.

Nothing I said is false. And I do note that you attacked me, you refuted nothing I said.

[eschaider]

Your words are what they are Mark. In post #20 you begin your unprovoked attack with the following commentary;

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Well it was certainly complete. Factual is altogether different.

I think describing it as an opinion would be more accurate.

If you disagreed with me you could have easily spoken directly to me and challenged what you disagreed with. Instead you chose to use the verbal equivalent of look what foolishness I have uncovered in an attempt to stiffle further commentary.

From there I invited you to discuss the facts you maintain are lacking in veracity. Which you respond to with the following post that lacked any specificity.

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Be happy to. The comment you made about balancing are utter nonsense.

You are also entitled to post your opinions, but don't pretend they are facts. You'll just case [sic] people to get disappointed.

Balancing is not near as precise as you seem to think it is.

Of course, you follow that with the gratuitous slight suggesting impaired cognitive capabilities attributable to pot use in college.

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

It was the only thing most of the potheads had down pat.....

Did you think that would somehow dissuade me from my factual argument? When I return to my request for factual misrepresentations you respond with yet another opinion instead of a factual representation of what you disagree with.

Again you assume a verbal attack without factual representation of what you are disagreeing with but just indignation over the fact someone would challenge your knowledge/authority on the topic.

When I remind you that you are posting an opinion/statement and ask you to elaborate,

Originally Posted by eschaider

You just posted an opinion/statement. Please elaborate on what was nonsense.

You finally, blurt out your two big misrepresentations with a pontification that would make the best snake oil salesman jealous;

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

1> Balancing to within one gram. Pretty much no one does that. Even if you do, balance is an estimate. Once oil starts flying around no one really knows what that bob-weight is within a gram........or 20.

2> If you were to balance a rotator on our machine, then go re-do the bob-weights and run it on another machine, you would get a different result. Every time.

It's nowhere near as precise as you fantasize. And yes, I'm certain, having done tens of thousands of balance jobs (and engine builds) over the decades.

In the next post, I proceed to show you how you are wrong about the 1 gram balance tolerance and also the tens of thousands of balance jobs. You intentionally chose to structure your sentence as if you were personally responsible for that work product when in fact, if it was true, it was the work product output of a firm. Even as the work product output of a firm it reains suspect.

I believe the misrepresentation was intentional, in actual fact, to add false credibility to a fallacious position you put yourself in, not realizing you would be challenged.

What you are behaving like is a close approximation to some of the keyboard commandos that occupy the social media space. You rely on overwhelming those who disagree and if they persist you attempt to bully them into submission.

That kind of behavior has no place on or in this forum. If you have ideas that you think have merit for the readership, God Bless, let's table them for everyone's benefit. When someone else does the same thing if you don't agree or don't understand, challenge the logic or procedure and ask questions to clarify it — not just for yourself but for everyone in the thread.

Save the snide commentary for the social media space it simply does not fit here. When you post please choose to post in a manner that reflects something you actually did rather than taking credit for the work product of a business as if you personally produced it. Those sort of credentials do not enhance your argument, in fact they diminish it.

Your ideas should be able to stand on their own merit and not require artificial support mechanisms. I did not know you were part of CHP. Although I have no feelings one way or the other for the firm, I suspect you probably have meaningful commentary and experience that could be helpful for any number of members on the site. Why not share it in a collaborative environment rather than a confrontational and hostile environment.

Can we agree to do that?

[Jamo]

Everyone shhhhhhhhh....


I may reopen this later, but not before you kids take your nap.



It'll be a looooong nap if you start this up again in another thread.


Sweet dreams.