Rod Ratio Kinematics

The sketch on the left shows a piston moving

down a cylinder bore as a consequence of
combustion pressure. This pressure is
converted to a force on the piston.(It is
interesting to note that for a given combustion
pressure, a bigger bore will give rise to a
larger force on the piston)
The piston in turns pushes on the rod, and this
force is subsequently used to create a torque
on the crank, causing it to rotate. Thus the
burning of fuel and air is converted to
mechanical energy that can be used to propel
an automobile down the road (or track).

The length of the rod is depicted as L1 in the figure. Similarly the length of the crank arm is denoted
by L2. Observe that L2 is not equal to the stroke. The stroke is in fact twice L2.
stroke = 2 x (crank arm length)

The ratio of the rod length to stroke is called "rod ratio" and is a useful term to quantify the kinematics
(relative motion) of the piston as the crank completes a cycle. Rod ratio can also be used to quantify
the dynamics of piston motion (the relative forces) but that is for another article.
The equation for the rod ratio is as follows:
Rod Ratio = rod length / stroke

The total distance that the piston moves down the bore is solely determined by the stroke of the
crank. But both the speed, and the acceleration of the piston are dictated by the rod ratio. The piston
speed and acceleration can have numerous effects on the performance of an engine. The velocity of
the piston (it's speed) can be important in determining how the intake charge is pulled through the
ports and past the valves. A fast moving piston will pull harder on the ports, creating a larger Delta-P
to "suck" air into the cylinder on the intake stroke. Here one might think of correlating the point of
maximum piston speed to the point of maximum valve lift for example.
The acceleration of the piston on the other hand, leads to forces on the rod and main bearings, as
well as on the wrist pin. These forces put a limit on the rpm's that the bottom end of the engine can
reliably withstand. The rod ratio also determines the "dwell-time" of the piston at top-dead-center
(TDC) during combustion. This means that the position of the piston relative to the point at which
maximum combustion pressure occurs can be altered through changes in rod ratio. This could be
used to try to correlate the point of maximum combustion pressure to the point at which the piston
has the greatest mechanical advantage on the crank for instance. In fact, the very nature of the
combustion process can be affected by the position of the piston, and how long it dwells at TDC.

These are all interesting topics, but in this article we restrict ourselves to an investigation of piston
displacement and velocity, and we concentrate mostly on piston acceleration.

The equation that governs piston position along the bore is readily determined. A "back of the
envelope" derivation is shown in the following link:

Once the piston displacement from TDC is known, it is a relatively simple matter to determine
the piston velocity and the acceleration. This was done via an Excel spreadsheet which
generates curves of piston position, velocity and acceleration as a function of the crank angular
rotation. A case with all three curves shown together is presented in the following link. Note that
the piston acceleration was divided by 1000 to keep it on the same scale as the other two

curves. The situation modeled here is an Evo III spec S14 engine with 87 mm stroke and a
144.25 mm long rod:

Observe that the velocity and acceleration curves are not perfect sinusoids. They approach being
perfect sinusoids as the rod is lengthened (increasing the rod ratio). Also, the maximum piston
velocity occurs well before 90 ATDC. Furthermore, the maximum piston acceleration occurs at TDC,
being roughly twice as large here as compared to BDC. But the peak piston acceleration at TDC
occurs very briefly, while near BDC the piston is accelerated upwards at a relatively constant rate for
almost 70 degrees of crank rotation. This curve was constructed for 8000 rpm. Clearly at a lower rpm
the velocity and accelerations would be smaller, while the displacement would remain the same.

So, on to the question of interest: Can we use a longer rod to decrease piston acceleration, and
thereby build a bottom end capable of reliably sustaining higher rpms?

We have asked the question - can a longer rod be used to decrease piston acceleration and thereby allow
the bottom end of an engine to reliably sustain higher rpms?

The following link shows how the piston acceleration curve changes as the rod length is modified (again
for an Evo III stroke of 87 mm and a constant engine speed of 8000 rpm):

This series of curves shows that a longer rod reduces the maximum piston acceleration. An infinitely
long rod (approximated here as one that is 10 meters long) will reduce the peak acceleration by 23%
(relative to a factory Evo III configuration). But that's as low as the acceleration can be made to go
with an 87 mm stroke at 8000 rpm. As the rod gets shorter, on the other hand, the max. piston
acceleration is increased, but only at TDC. At BDC, the piston acceleration is actually reduced by a
shorter rod (at least intially). The piston acceleration curve also begins to form a characteristic
"double-hump" shape. If one were to keep making the rod shorter until it was only as long as the
crank arm radius (a shorter rod than this would prevent the crank from completing a rotation), then
the piston essentially would come to a "sudden" stop at 90 ATDC and it would "suddenly" start
moving upwards again at 90 BTDC. These sudden stops and starts lead to infinite acceleration at
90 after and before TDC, and this is what the double-hump is starting to show. Of course this is all
pure theory, as in practice the piston and rod consume space which makes the previous example
impossible to achieve. But looking at the theoretical limits of an engineering problem is always
instructive.
Now a seasoned engine builder might consider trying to package a longer rod into the existing
cylinder block. The reasons for wanting to try this can vary, and one of them might be to try and
reduce the max. piston acceleration in an attempt to allow the bottom end to safely maintain higher
rpms. So let's say we want to try this on an S14 engine with an Evo III crank. If we work real hard at
squeezing the ring pack together, possibly pushing the wrist pin up past the oil scraper ring, and we
reduce the OD of the wrist pin to a minimum, then we might just be able to wedge in a 1 cm longer
rod. Having accomplished this we could be quite proud of ourselves in having built an S14 capable of
higher rpms due to the reduced max. piston acceleration. But how much has the max. piston
acceleration really been brought down? This is easy to determine with our spreadsheet, as shown in

the following link:

The curve is blown up to concentrate on the region near TDC (0 crank rotation) in order to better see
the change in max. piston acceleration. And the answer is somewhat discouraging. The acceleration
is only reduced by roughly 1.5% after all our efforts to lengthen the rod. Now this result should not be
considered inconsequential. For example, if the previous redline limit for bottom end integrity had
been, say 8200 rpm, then it is now raised to 8323 rpm. That's something you can hang your hat on.
But depending on your application, it may or may not be worth the effort required. Remember too
that, as previously mentioned, there are additional reasons why one might want to try a different rod
ratio.
The piston kinematics spreadsheet is fun to play around with. Should the reader desire to perform
further experimentation, the spreadsheet can be downloaded via the following link: