SS/GN
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,881
What HP are the rods you are looking at made to withstand?In N/A the H beam seems to be favoured.Why The I beam in forced induction
Thanks great info
Kevin

Kevin
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!I am going to try and keep this in as simple terms as I can as some people will loose interest in this thread if it is too complicated.
Referring to the "Manual of Steel Construction" most engineers refer to it as "The Green Book"..... it has tables for the properties of many structural shapes..... including I-beams. Two particular properties listed in the tables that engineers refer to..... to "pick" a particular beam size based on a load.....are "moment of inertia" and "section modulus" These values directly relate to the beams particular strength in a particular direction..... i.e. your hypothetical situation on the I-beam on the sawhorses above. There are separate values for relative strengths about the "x-x" axis and the "y-y" axis.
A general note: In the green book.... the "s" beam is what most people call an "i-beam". From this point forward... I'm going to refer to the beam as an I-beam so as to hopefully not confuse anyone.... I hope.
If you break an I-beam down into it's basic parts that make up a shape..... there are two "flanges" and one "web"..... with the web separating the two flanges. I-beams are significantly stronger if turned right for the given load..... in the case of the sawhorse example..... you would want one flange laying flat on the sawhorse.... and the web sticking up vertically... with the top flange parallel to the bottom flange..... make sense?
Anyway.... to give you some idea of the relative strengths of i-beams in general if you want to compare the "values" of section modulus or moments of inertia.... you can easily see how much stronger the i-beams are if loaded correctly....
Looking at a small 4" x 7.7 I-beam.... (7.7# per foot).... the moment of inertia in the "strong axis" which would be loaded like above with one flange laying flat on the sawhorse.... is 6.08 in^4. But if you loaded it on the weak axis.... the moment of inertia is only .764 in^4.
This should give you some sort of "feel" for how much stronger an I-beam is in one direction vs. loading it in the other direction.
In the case of the "twist" that I mentioned in my post above.... I would think you would find after some lengthy engineering analysis....that the "h-beam" rods are weaker when the load moves from loading one axis to another.... i.e. a twisting load....
One observation is that when you compare the two different rods and how they are installed in a motor.... the i-beams have their "flanges" turned 90° from the way the h-beam rods are when installed in the motor. How does that come into play? I am not real sure without some 3-d modeling..... which I don't have time to do at the moment...
I hope I didn't loose anyone...
This is a good way of looking at the issue but since the piston / wrist pin is pushing on the end of the beam and not pushing on the side of the beam as if it were on a pair of sawhorses, it is not really applicable. With an I-beam rod, you have two parallel members with a thin web between them. On the power stroke, the cylinder pressure is trying to drive the wrist pin right through the center of the rod with only the thin web supporting the load. When this happens, the web will crush and the two side beams will split out like a banana peel.
Hi Tom. thanks for adding to the discussion. You may want to add what your background with performance rods is for those who have no idea who you are.
Take care, Kip
Take it easy, Mike. We're all here to share and learn. It's not every day we get a con rod designer to participate in a simple forum thread. Take it down a few notches.I would definitely NOT LISTEN TO TOM!!! At least I would take any advice he may give , with a large grain of salt!! I can tell you from first hand experience , he is clueless as to what a high HP Buick v6 needs as far as rod design!!! Period , end of discussion!!! At least in my opinion!! Mike![]()
Take it easy, Mike. We're all here to share and learn. It's not every day we get a con rod designer to participate in a simple forum thread. Take it down a few notches.
Can you add your experiences with rods that you've found to be successful for your project? I think we can skip which designs you don't like.
Mike your blown V6 the outer limits of Buick engines. I know nothing about what it needs but my first thought is alumunum. As far as 99% of the members here the K1 rod is great, they have a proven track record of holding up, some is some very fast cars. The guy that designed them and Oliver rods which many other very fast V6 guys use is here trying to help, we understand your opinon but lets not blow the guy out of the forum. There is enough suppliers who want nothing to do with us because of this type of thing.
Mike
I just started another thread "K1 Rods How much HP" in this section. I will try to keep myself contained here, but It will be intresting to hear from others that some experience with them as to what they will withstand!! Nothing personell Mike!! Mike![]()
Very cool documentation on the build. Is it finished?I have these rods (Dyer's Rods) in my twin turbo Mustang - 1-800-TOP-RODS
I was turned on to them from a friend who runs them in his 10.5 Outlaw Firebird that makes 2000rwhp. You can see the build up here - Stenod Performance Photo Gallery - Tom's "Money Shot" Drag Radial Formula
Nice thing about them is they are made of 300m material which I'm told is some really strong stuff.
You guys might want to check them out and see if they can do something for a Buick engine.
Very cool documentation on the build. Is it finished?