Talk:Stroke ratio

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don't delete[edit]

Hopefully this article is not thrown away and erased. I thought that as the stroke ratios had caused me headaches before finding some facts about them I thought it might be a good idea to create an article of it to wikipedia. Hopefully someone could organize the writing better as it is in quite a terrible shape. - Anonamous machine enthusiath from Finland 6.10.2005 (day.month.year)

Merger[edit]

Why not. - Diceman 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect[edit]

I'm working on a better version of this, but in the mean time, I want everybody to know that the reason why an undersquare engine develops more torque has NOTHING to do with the leverage advantage of the longer crank arm. This has become "common sense" among mechanics, and citations are definitely needed to the contrary. I'm going to have to dig a bit. If Wikipedia allowed original research, I could mathematically prove it to you. kevinthenerd (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Kevin, you could override the wikipedia rules by creating independent page explaining the effect of leverage and use it as your citation. Such a thing is not forbidden as far as I know... :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is almost useless as it stands[edit]

It's all "citation needed" and "with the aid of modern technology, this may not be a problem." So in other words, it all translates to "I don't know what the hell I'm writing." I'm tempted to throw out all of that junk. --Novous (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't take it. It had to go. Feel free to bring back the facts if you can back them up with a credible web source. But there's no point in having an article literally fight itself in it's own presentation.

I had some issues:

- "<--this assumes a stroker engine, " was out of place. It was a cliff note without a source and killed the flow of the paragraph.
- The modern technology part is bogus. What technology? And at what point does it negate physics, or general engine information?
- Emissions is bogus. It's more of a head issue than anything else.
- Compression ratio is silly. Automotive manufacturers seem to have no problem running the compression ratio they want. Again, it's more of a head issue. 
- Overheating is a lie. Name one engine? And then explain how its supposed to apply to the cooling jackets of all engines?
- Formula 1 cars do rev that high. I don't know the exact ratio off-hand, but it's close to that. I left it in. But "citation needed" everywhere is so unprofessional looking. It's like saying "I don't really know what I'm talking about."

--Novous (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need new article[edit]

Need 'Short Stroke Engine' article to explain in more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]