From: John_H on
Jason James wrote:
>
>It's because Oz runs to Google, then quotes it without fully reading the
>article. Similar to him claiming there was no Hillman Minx prior to '57.
>He's read a website only to get the Minx info out of context or just plain
>wrong. Anyone interested in cars would know Hillman made Minxs from a very
>early time,...but not Oz.

First Hillman 'Minx' marketed in Oz was 1932, along with the 'Wizard
65' and 'Wizard 75'. Minx was the smallest model (10hp).

That didn't come from google, it's from a list of all cars marketed in
Oz pre WW2. :)

--
John H
From: OzOne on
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:03:59 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:nisha5h841p1vg39oaanecnaf576vcc0bg(a)4ax.com...
>
>> I'm careful Nod...I built Mini engines that didn't leak as well.
>
>Thanks for that Oz.
>
>I was expecting you to completely avoid that question, but I didn't think
>you'd be as totally lame about it as you were :)

Such an accomplished engine builder as yourself should be aware of
what careful means...
Me I bordered on pedantic with cranks and cams fitted and spun, bores
miced within an inch of their lives, rings adjusted to the nth degree,
oil pumps deburred and flowed and internal clearances checkedetc etc
etc.

and 40 secs around the last 4 corners (counting the dogleg as 2) is
not all that arduous as it involves 2 heavy braking areas and only the
run up to the dogleg that uses full noise.

You need to get out more, get to places where there are more than 3
gear changes and one braking area!
>
>> Actually Nod it's the people who have unfounded faith in their
>> knowledge despite what experts in any field may say taht are most
>> often called knowalls.
>
>By people like you usually.
>
>But hey, you're the type who won't question an "expert" just because he is
>one, and assume you've got "issues" based on what someone you don't know
>from Adam writes in a magazine article.

Actually Nod, It's more people who recognise that they don't have the
facilities to come up with results like the experts who can use xray
analysis of oils to determine aeration..
>
>Two points here Oz: You have no concept of the saying "there's more than one
>way to skin a cat", and you strike me as someone who thinks you can't make
>something work unless you throw shitloads of money at it.

Actually Nod, I threw very little at my early racing.I prided myself
on being highly competitive with people spending far more than I was
even earning.
>
>Sucks to be you I guess.

And there you are thinking you're it.....Pity you.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:50:17 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:m1sha5ho3h29pha880ukk0s5jjd11ijfvk(a)4ax.com...
>
>> Odd that the worlds fastest mini is dry sumped eh!!!!?
>> http://www.mlemaitre.dial.pipex.com/mini/driving.htm
>
>Odd indeed, but I have a couple of questions.
>
>Firstly, that article makes no mention of the car being the world's fastest
>Mini other than the headline which is most likely the author's opinion, and
>secondly the article makes no mention of a dry sump *at all*.

Sorry, wrong link

http://www.mlemaitre.dial.pipex.com/mini/miniworld.htm
>
>Still, even if it did have one, that wouldn't make it the slightest bit
>faster or imply that it couldn't be as fast or reliable without it.

Nod...You are convinced by your own superior knowledge and experience
that dry sumping is a waste of time, that it has no benefits other
than a short sump and the then ability to lower the engine in the
chassis.

I'd suspect that you'd disagree with even the best engine builders on
the planet claiming that your way was better and that you couldn't
learn anything.

So be it!




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:59:09 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:

>
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>news:uvsha5lhk6cg69hbq20hhb23iqvkbacrlt(a)4ax.com...
>
>> It's another benefit,,,but hey who's counting....
>
>I don't know about your understanding of things Oz (well I have a fairly
>good idea, but anyway), but if you can achieve something by significantly
>simpler and cheaper means than what you can by spending a lot more money on
>something that's overly complex, then it *ain't* a benefit.

Ahhh if you need to do a number of things to achieve the benefits that
you can by doing one....and get even more benefits than you're ahead.

Lest see

aeration
Cooling
Capacity
Surge
crank impacting oil
better filtering
better ring sealing because of reduced crankcase pressures
no oil ponding in the engine because blowby gases held it there (talk
to John, I'd never thought of it)

Then there's the little things like better pumps
weight distribution,
level checking

No need to reply...I know you'll find negatives for each.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: OzOne on
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:13:58 +1000, John_H <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote:

>Jason James wrote:
>>
>>It's because Oz runs to Google, then quotes it without fully reading the
>>article. Similar to him claiming there was no Hillman Minx prior to '57.
>>He's read a website only to get the Minx info out of context or just plain
>>wrong. Anyone interested in cars would know Hillman made Minxs from a very
>>early time,...but not Oz.
>
>First Hillman 'Minx' marketed in Oz was 1932, along with the 'Wizard
>65' and 'Wizard 75'. Minx was the smallest model (10hp).
>
>That didn't come from google, it's from a list of all cars marketed in
>Oz pre WW2. :)

Thanks for Googling that John....or are you really that interested in
the Minx?




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.