"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote
> "-jc" wrote
> > "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" wrote
> > > -jc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I only pointed out your misstatement. Regardless of the earlier
> > > > discussion, 50:1 is richer than 25:1.
> > >
> > > Is that the way you richen your two cycle?
> >
> > Yes. Forget about the oil when considering the richness of mixture and
> > concentrate on the fuel/air ratio. Oil is for lubrication and cooling
of
> > the internals. More oil = less fuel + same air = leaner. Less oil =
more
> > fuel + same air = richer.
> >
> Actually, forget about the air. We are talking about the ratio of oil to
> gas, not the mixture of fuel and air.

Not when you are talking about the richness of the mixture, you're not.

> There is more oil in a 25:1 mixture than there is in a 50:1 mixture. We
> don't care what will run in a motor, we only care that the relationship of
> ratios is understood. The relationship of 3.73:1 gears vs. 4.56:1 gears is
> the inverse of a 25:1 oil/gas mixture vs. a 50:1 oil/gas mixture.

Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1
Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1

> The higher numbers in the gear ratio means lower speed and more power, but
> the lower numbers in the oil/gas mixture means more oil. The analogy was
> first expressed as though the lower number meant less oil, but it means
more
> oil.

Trying to build an analogy using these two is not a good idea because they
do not relate to each other. Try using pipes. Same pressure in big pipe
versus small pipe ... fluid will flow faster in small pipe. Smaller number
+ faster flow like the gearing.


--
- Jeff
- ........................ then again, what do I know.

 

>
> No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always
(or
> should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
> is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
> illustrate it another way?
>
> If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
> all of them are wrong.
>


My mistake, I used "richer" to describe that there is more oil in a 25:1
gas/oil mixture than in 50:1. This condition may not be richer, and I used
the wrong word. In any event, the analogy is flawed when used to correlate
gear ratios.

 

>
> No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always
(or
> should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
> is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
> illustrate it another way?
>
> If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
> all of them are wrong.
>


My mistake, I used "richer" to describe that there is more oil in a 25:1
gas/oil mixture than in 50:1. This condition may not be richer, and I used
the wrong word. In any event, the analogy is flawed when used to correlate
gear ratios.

 

>
> No need to get testy. When you are talking richer/leaner you are always
(or
> should be) talking about the fuel/air mixture as that is what burns. 50:1
> is richer than 25:1. How many times do I need to repeat it? Shall I
> illustrate it another way?
>
> If it's any consolation, a lot of people think about it the way you do and
> all of them are wrong.
>


My mistake, I used "richer" to describe that there is more oil in a 25:1
gas/oil mixture than in 50:1. This condition may not be richer, and I used
the wrong word. In any event, the analogy is flawed when used to correlate
gear ratios.

 

I was going to get out this conversation... but I can't help it :-)

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btfl4i$p08$1@heap.juniper.net...
>
> Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1

When you say "higher" what do you mean?
(It sounds like your saying "higher ratio")

This is the whole point of my argument... 3.73:1 is a lower "ratio" than
4.56:1 (ask your math teacher).

The OP (poor guy... all he wanted was a simple answer) asked:
"1) How difficult and expensive would it be to go to a higher ratio?
(addition to my wish list)"

And CRWLR wrote:
"First, you want a lower ratio, which is a higher numeric value."

That's where I disagreed...
The OP is correct in wanting a "higher" ring/pinion gear ratio which
produces a more power to turn bigger tires, what we call a lower gear.

We all agree that 4.56:1 is a lower "gear" than 3.73:1

> Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1
Agreed


JimG

 

I was going to get out this conversation... but I can't help it :-)

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btfl4i$p08$1@heap.juniper.net...
>
> Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1

When you say "higher" what do you mean?
(It sounds like your saying "higher ratio")

This is the whole point of my argument... 3.73:1 is a lower "ratio" than
4.56:1 (ask your math teacher).

The OP (poor guy... all he wanted was a simple answer) asked:
"1) How difficult and expensive would it be to go to a higher ratio?
(addition to my wish list)"

And CRWLR wrote:
"First, you want a lower ratio, which is a higher numeric value."

That's where I disagreed...
The OP is correct in wanting a "higher" ring/pinion gear ratio which
produces a more power to turn bigger tires, what we call a lower gear.

We all agree that 4.56:1 is a lower "gear" than 3.73:1

> Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1
Agreed


JimG

 

I was going to get out this conversation... but I can't help it :-)

"-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
news:btfl4i$p08$1@heap.juniper.net...
>
> Gear ratio 3.73:1 is higher than 4.56:1

When you say "higher" what do you mean?
(It sounds like your saying "higher ratio")

This is the whole point of my argument... 3.73:1 is a lower "ratio" than
4.56:1 (ask your math teacher).

The OP (poor guy... all he wanted was a simple answer) asked:
"1) How difficult and expensive would it be to go to a higher ratio?
(addition to my wish list)"

And CRWLR wrote:
"First, you want a lower ratio, which is a higher numeric value."

That's where I disagreed...
The OP is correct in wanting a "higher" ring/pinion gear ratio which
produces a more power to turn bigger tires, what we call a lower gear.

We all agree that 4.56:1 is a lower "gear" than 3.73:1

> Fuel/oil Ratio 25:1 is leaner than 50:1
Agreed


JimG

 

"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:8RlKb.35046$p82.18667@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> When you say torch, some will think you are going to burn a new vent hole
> yourself (with an acetylene torch), or keep your coffee hot. Having
> traveled "down under" a bit, I recon you're talking about a flashlight.
>
> JimG
>

Man we live in an interesting world. Yes, I meant flashlight but
unfortunately it has been raining for the past 24 hours and I don't have a
covered garage. I'll just have to wait.

TW

 

"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:8RlKb.35046$p82.18667@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> When you say torch, some will think you are going to burn a new vent hole
> yourself (with an acetylene torch), or keep your coffee hot. Having
> traveled "down under" a bit, I recon you're talking about a flashlight.
>
> JimG
>

Man we live in an interesting world. Yes, I meant flashlight but
unfortunately it has been raining for the past 24 hours and I don't have a
covered garage. I'll just have to wait.

TW

 

"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:8RlKb.35046$p82.18667@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> When you say torch, some will think you are going to burn a new vent hole
> yourself (with an acetylene torch), or keep your coffee hot. Having
> traveled "down under" a bit, I recon you're talking about a flashlight.
>
> JimG
>

Man we live in an interesting world. Yes, I meant flashlight but
unfortunately it has been raining for the past 24 hours and I don't have a
covered garage. I'll just have to wait.

TW