> Papa _ wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I could see not pre-building motors because most of the customers would
> be like: “can I get the number 7, but like… with the number 2 crank and
> a go-fast piston instead?”
>
> I think the part missing from most reliable builds is the precision. I
> would love a shop to be tooled up for balancing and alignment and sell
> me that.
>
> If I buy a crank and kit, they could weigh the reciprocating mass and
> balance the crank for my horizontal engine. Spin the flywheel, clutch,
> and bell up to 12,000 rpm on a balancing machine and fix them to be
> perfect. Key the cylinder to the case somehow so the crank is perfectly
> centered and no lateral stress is on the con rod bearing for the
> cylinder being .5mm off to one side.
>
> If all is built to it’s best possible, the limiting factor should be
> piston rings. At least that’s what I remember from Jennings.
>
> All that said, it’s still probably best to build around that 8.5-10k rpm
> just for practicality. That’s the target rpm that lets you run a
> reasonable pipe for a clutch that grabs at survivable rpms. If I had to
> sell a customer on the idea of “8,500 rpm” I would approach it from the
> clutch and pipe perspective.
OK someone has watched too many two stroke stuffing videos.
with all this talk about balancing reciprocating mass and spinning parts up to 12k on some sort of magic "balancing machine", you've lost sight of even mentioning if the crank is true or not.
you gotta walk before you run, but everyone wants to be a track-star. (edited)