Newbie Questions
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
"TW" <a t t w @ w a v e . c o . n z> wrote in message
news:btfsbd$dj5$1@news.wave.co.nz...
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8RlKb.35046$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.
>
Wait for what? Just fire up that torch and go check the gas tank. You'll be
warm enough soon ... :-)
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
"TW" <a t t w @ w a v e . c o . n z> wrote in message
news:btfsbd$dj5$1@news.wave.co.nz...
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8RlKb.35046$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.
>
Wait for what? Just fire up that torch and go check the gas tank. You'll be
warm enough soon ... :-)
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
I understand all of that... you obviously are not comprehending a word I
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > I was going to get out this conversation... but I can't help it :-)
> >
> > "-jc" <SpamFree@DieSpammers.com> wrote in message
> > news:btfl4i$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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
I understand all of that... you obviously are not comprehending a word I
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
I understand all of that... you obviously are not comprehending a word I
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
write.
By :-)
JimG
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvmu4kiu5bn335@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
> news:VpJKb.47042$ug2.13370@news02.roc.ny...
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> Think in terms of the transmission. 1st gear, the lowest gear is probably
> something on the order of 4.22:1. The engine and input shaft go around
4.22
> times for 1 revolution of the output shaft. The highest gear is 5th, with
a
> ratio of about .73 to 1, where the input shaft goes around less than once
> for each revolution of the output shaft.
>
> Every time you select a new gear (by shifting), you effectively do the
same
> thing as a R&P swap. If you do an R&P swap to a higher numerical value
> (changinf from 3.07s to 4.56s, for example), you are downshifting to a
lower
> gear. Obviously regearing the diffs and downshifting are not the same at
> all, but for the purposes of illustrating the higher and lower gear
ratios,
> it works reasonably well. If you had to drive around in 1st all day, you
> couldn't go very fast, but you would have gobs of power, and if you had to
> drive around in 5th all day, starting going would be painful indeed, but
you
> could go as fast as you wanted.
>
> Regearing the diffs to lower gear ratios allows you to go slower in a low
> gear than you would otherwise go, but it also limits the top speed. What
it
> does in the middle though is it raises the engine speed relative to the
> ground speed in order to get the power band back to a normal location
after
> getting larger tires. If you regeared the diffs to a lower ratio, but
> retained the original tire size, you would find that you could not
maintain
> the same cruising speed as before. You get the crusing speed back by
> regearing after larger tires are installed. What happens with the larger
> tires is that the engine speed drops relative to the ground speed, and it
> can drop so low as to be outside of the power band. Without regearing, and
> installing larger tires, you might find that going slow is difficult, and
> 5th gear no longer works because the power band is gone in that gear.
>
>
>
>
>
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
CRWLR wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
CRWLR wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
CRWLR wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> >
> > 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 worked in a 2 stroke bike shop for a couple years and we always used
the term 'richer' for the 25:1 mix and 'lean' for the 35 or 50:1 mix.
It is a richer oil mix. This is also the way the manuals state it.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:vvo0vtd5bmng69@corp.supernews.com...
> I understand all of that... you obviously are not comprehending a word I
> write.
> By :-)
>
> JimG
>
Lower gears have higher numbers. You have repeatedly expressed that this is
curious. I am only trying to draw analogies that remove the curiosity. Sorry
if I have offended you.
Bye. :-)
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Newbie Questions
"JimG" <jimg@cj7_2muchspam.com> wrote in message
news:vvo0vtd5bmng69@corp.supernews.com...
> I understand all of that... you obviously are not comprehending a word I
> write.
> By :-)
>
> JimG
>
Lower gears have higher numbers. You have repeatedly expressed that this is
curious. I am only trying to draw analogies that remove the curiosity. Sorry
if I have offended you.
Bye. :-)