<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Oct 12 2009, 02:09 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>no one said .... about certain parts being top ten..engine failure is engine failure... my bad, not a numb nut, a ....... ...... would think an engine thats been wound out for 3 races straight is gonna be better than the engine fresh for a race..
Sounds like you wouldn't know an engine failure if it hit you in the face
I never said better I said more power, but defiantly more unreliable.
Instead of calling people names maybe you could try an argument for change?
Exactly what is it that gets so worn that it creates a measurable power loss?
All I say is that friction wear is not an issue i.e. not reaching a critical limit, material fatigue is. Beginning material fatigue does not change engine power output at all, it runs just as good (or bad) as it started out doing until something snaps. Friction wear on the other hand change the internal friction and that is a big ting for power in two ways: First of all the direct gain by less friction means more output, secondly less friction means less heat and indirectly more power.
Even if pure race engines are probably built with more clearance between cylinder and piston than what a production engine have there must be considerable gains from wear of all tight fittings inside an engine.
In fact, I'm a bit chocked. I thought this was general knowledge for anyone interested in engines. For a race engine wear is a Good Thing up to a certain limit. Pistons are better the looser they are until they start rattling to much. As long as the rings do their job the engine will seem tight and without excessive oil consuption. And finally, friction wear are either painfully slow, or almost instantly fatal. there is not too much in between. If the oil film breaks you have a fatal blow up in no time, if it holds the wear is very small and need considerable time to go from within spec to dangerously outside spec.
