How many of you Windoze users can read an .rtfd file? That is a Rich Text File with graphic attachments (pictures).

Wish I could be of more help.

Dan

Funny, nobody says anything until the exact minute I post the explanation. LOL.

The other post tells the tale. I have a Mac, too. I suppose there is some text-based Windows prog that might do similar things to TextEdit, but I'm not looking to figure that out.

I had an idea for Wes' website that involved condensing and/or reorganizing information. For practice, I redid the 5-page Hot Rod 465 buildup by Joe Sherman that Bob linked to in the Marauder post below. The result was everything was on one page, with the larger pictures included, and text reorganized to make it easier to read. The ads are gone, of course, and the file would open in a text window with no connection to the Net necessary.

I thought the Microsoft operating system was able to parse .rtf files, but I guess I was wrong. My bad.

However, in that article is a reference to Napier rings. Anyone hear of those before? Also, Sherman somehow came up with a 1.93 ratio on his Comp Cams (Dove) rockers. WTF?

Maybe this will help.

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/os-x-operating-system/27354-howdoya-convert-rtfd-file-textedit-into-pdf.html

Steve
68GTFB

Thanks. I didn't know there was a .pdf option in the Print dialog. I tried that and it took my nice single page job and hacked it into 14 pages with arbitrary breaks that mismatched pictures to the text. This kinda defeated half the reasons for doing the project. It did knock the file size from 28 megs down to 9, but that was because it reduced the size of everything down to illegible size.

I also saved the .rtfd into a .webarchive format. This makes the file open up in a web browser window at the nice big original size. But again, I don't think the Windows will recognize a .webarchive file.

Eventually, I may learn more about creating .pdf documents from scratch so I can space things out better. Oh well, it was worth a shot...

A Napier ring is just a "stepped" ring, it fits the ring land, but is narrower where it seals against the wall.



I believe Joe used it on the second ring and a gapless ring on top.

As far as his rockers, he didnt expect them to be like that. On Speedtalk he was telling us that he was checking lift at the valve and it turned out to be much more lift that he expected. I believe he had to change springs to make up for it.

It was a decent motor, but he fought a lot of valvetrain problems that regulars here would have known. He also bitched every step of the way LOL, he sure didn't sound like the FE fan the article made him out to be!



---------------------------------

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, TKO-600 5 speed, 3.70 9 inch

- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 397 cid FE, headers, Street Dominator, 280H, 5 lug Dana 60, 4 speed

Could you tell me how springs affect the rocker ratio?

The spring rating was probably not high enough after the correct lift was identified. Just guessing.


53 F100, Volare clip, 4 wheel disc 390-wide ratio toploader

As a result of the effective rocker ratio, it wasnt the spring that caused the ratio difference.

I was just making the point that the difference between the advertised ratio and what he saw at the valve was far enough apart to require new springs in his opinion.



---------------------------------

- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, TKO-600 5 speed, 3.70 9 inch

- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 397 cid FE, headers, Street Dominator, 280H, 5 lug Dana 60, 4 speed

That's what I thought. But to clarify, are we saying here that those rockers actually had a 1.93 ratio? And if so, why? And if so, shouldn't other buyers be concerned?

I am not sure why they were so far off, for S&G, next time I pull the covers I'll see what my Ersons are.

I'll ask him what he thinks and report back...

Maybe a bunch of us should start checking our own though and see if its a trend. They were Comp/Dove I think, but I haven't read the article in a while.


---------------------------------
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, TKO-600 5 speed, 3.70 9 inch
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 397 cid FE, headers, Street Dominator, 280H, 5 lug Dana 60, 4 speed

The ones in the build were Comp/Dove, yes. Can you imagine that, under certain circumstances, this could wipe a lobe or two. Most likely on the low end of an block deck. You know, the end with an unsupported rocker shaft.

Think about this: a cam with a net .550 valve lift with a stock adjustable rocker would be about .602 with a 1.93. Yike!

He had switched to a ball/ball type pushrod and said it could have been the issue. However like us the ratio just surprised him. See below:

"This was real embarrasing for everybody--Comp gets them made by Dove-- Comp says they never heard anything like this-- Marlan Davis(Hot Rod) says he ran across this same thing with Dove years ago--I had the heads all together ready for .660 lift---I put one head on to check piston to valve clearance and the engine would not even turn over because of coil bind--thats when I checked the lift at the valve--It was over .100 more than the cam card said,so I had to get different springs and retainers. There might have been something weird about the big lift because I changed the adjuster screws from the ball end type to the cup end type--I am going to change them back before I deliver the engine to the customer."

IMO Probably worth a second look during assembly, I am guilty of often using mathematical coil bind and not physically checking unless its real tight.

Another thing to remember though is that Joe supports running a spring very close to coil bind to lessen harmonics of the extra coil, he doesnt have a lot of room for error. At lower lifts and further from coil bind it isnt going to be a severe of an issue


---------------------------------
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, TKO-600 5 speed, 3.70 9 inch
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 397 cid FE, headers, Street Dominator, 280H, 5 lug Dana 60, 4 speed

Hmm. What was the outcome from his double-check of the adjuster situation? Still doesn't make sense that adjuster type would affect the actual rocker ratio.

A puzzling situation from a noted builder who appears a bit out of his element.

Matter of fact, that response was from yesterday, sort of seems like he still hasnt delivered the engine after all this time. I'll nudge a bit more


---------------------------------
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, TKO-600 5 speed, 3.70 9 inch
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 397 cid FE, headers, Street Dominator, 280H, 5 lug Dana 60, 4 speed

There is a time-honored "nudging" tool from another part of the Big Block world for situations such as these. It is a rusty camshaft. One gentle "nudge" and you have lacerations and lockjaw. Works real well. Reeeaaaal well.

Or, Mr. Sherman may just 'fess up on his own, iff'n he knows what's good him, hehehe.

That whole article was stupid. They could have picked a host of FE builders that would have done a better job than Sherman did. It's akin to asking a guy that's worked on Boeing's his whole life to go fix an Airbus. He's going to make all the rookie mistakes until he figures it out. Yes, they're all engines but we all know they're different......in their own special way!


53 F100, Volare clip, 4 wheel disc 390-wide ratio toploader

The article itself made a good guinea pig for my attempts to make a user-friendly file format for us here. As I mentioned to Wes a few days ago, I have an extraordinary number of saved tech spanning 10 years on the Net. Consider having multiple files on a topic edited and condensed down to a single page that has pictures and live URL's embedded in it. Something you could also print out and use in the garage as needed. Tasty?

.

Mickey Thompson's 63 1/2 #997 S/S Hi-Rise 427 Lgt/Wgt Galaxie,

1957 C-600 Cab-over carhauler w/390-4V, 2-speed rear-end

FGCofA member #4908

MCGC member #75



"There will ALWAYS be an FE in my LiFE"

There's a guy who lurks on the forum here who swears by a 2 to 1 rocker ratio for FE's and has for years. Oddly enough that type of ratio (and more) is common in Nascar now.

Consider what Jay discovered about cam timing when the ratio changes a bunch the other way like on the SOHC.