I suppose really its easiest if i think about it this way......reduction of crankweb mass = increased area for more mixture/gasses.....vs increased web masss = less area for mixture/gasses. Also, as the crankcase is housing the mixture that flows thorough the engine....it needs less 'flat' faces and surfaces (restricting flow) and more smoother/rounder edges and corners to aid flow in....and flow out of crankcase.Adspeed wrote:Not exactly - I did ask what the theory is behind this crank producing a better gas flow........?156 D wrote:
Looks as though you`ve covered everything then?........
The crankcase area is not a sealed unit, and is not excluded from the gas flow process.....its part of it, so anything that eases that transition must therefore help. So its surely arguable that a reduction in crankweb mass will increase area for mixture, plus the reduction of 'flat' surface faces (the crank web edge) that restrict flow, and the use of tapered edges that to increase flow (reduction in an area of resistance) should........well.....improve gas flow.
Combine that with a small reduction in PCR and a reasonable reduction in rotating mass and we should see an improvement over a standard crank...........maybe?
Anyway...................we can be judged by the forum-masses, based on the results of my back to back dyno run when i compare the same engine with 2 cranks.
