Talk:Helical camshaft

Cleanup
Some very good info here and pics, but I think this needs quite a bit of clean up work and maybe some rewriting to condense it a bit. Also, some parts feel like they've been pulled from an advertisement and should be removed.

Plagerism?
It appears almost the whole, if not the whole thing has been copied from http://www.helicalcamshaft.com/. I don't known if that website is GFDL compatible though. I have an odd feeling one of the editors is the own though, and can clear this up. Wizard191 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the problems. This is my (Clivedog) first attempt at Wikipedia writing and I have found it extremely tricky - to put it mildly. I understand only a fraction of the various rules etc. relating to Wiki matters. I certainly do have copyright permission to use the material in the website. I was originally writing a totally new article but then I saw that it was heading in much the same direction as the material on the website.  I decided then to basically rewrite the website article but make it more neutral and leave out anything that appeared to be promotional material etc. I thought it was a bit over-long myself. You (Wizard) appear to have a distinctly engineering background (or interest in engineering) so perhaps you can suggest where changes can be made or do a bit of editing yourself.  Is there a form or whatever I should fill in about the copyright matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clivedog (talk • contribs)
 * Not a problem, please see your talk page for a continuation of the discussion. Wizard191 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement/POV
My recommendation for this article is to decrease the amount of point of view comments (POV). It reads like a advertisement because it makes the helical camshaft out to be the best cam ever invented and nothing even comes close. While this may be true, its an extreme POV and would require a LOT of references to back it up. As such, the POV needs to be neutralized. Spend more time talking about what it does, how it works, applications and future, than how it is better than any other VAA (camless or mechanical). There's nothing wrong with noting its advantages, as long as the disadvantages are laid out too. Create a "Advantages and disadvantages" section to do so. Wizard191 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From this link I see that this article is linked to Internal combustion engine, Grand Prix motorcycle racing, Poppet valve, Camshaft, VTEC, Variable valve timing, Overhead camshaft, Overhead valve, Homogeneous charge compression ignition, Motorcycle engine, Camless, Valvetrain, Cam-in-block, Pneumatic valve springs and Variable valve actuation. I'd be very surprised if this article is really relevant to most of those. TomRawlinson (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC).
 * You are right, most of those links are probably unnecessary. Wizard191 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this design is so non-notable that it should not be linked from any of the major articles above. Perhaps leave at Pneumatic valve springs and Variable valve actuation only. TomRawlinson (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wizard191 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left it at Variable valve timing, Homogeneous charge compression ignition, Camless, Pneumatic valve springs and Variable valve actuation. If this gets me in a shit-load of trouble I'll expect you to back me up! TomRawlinson (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you won't "get in trouble". The worst thing that can happen is someone reverts it. But in either case I'll back you up. Wizard191 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop a line on this talk page noting that this is a fascinating mechanical concept I hadn't been exposed to. It'd be great to see some more references and perhaps external links if there are any. 69.193.11.2 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Googling "helical camshaft" - the company's website is first in the list of "hits". The website is quite interesting (if you are interested in the more radical aspects of VVT). The whole thing is a little long-winded but has some interesting video segments as well. I think it is probably the most comprehensive description of the HC system available publicly. There is some more interesting material on the Wiki article "talk" page as well (- in case you didn't see it). Clivedog (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)