Ian
Have you ever thought of a career in politics?
A thoroughly reasonable argument which answers the question well. Only problem is that the question it answers is why we don't need to choke some engines. It does not answer my question as to why your method is BETTER than mine in that it actually DECREASES the likelihood of a seize in cases where the engine is on the limit and we DO need to choke.
However even here I detect a gap in your obfuscation. Your argument appears to centre on your belief that "a PROPERLY adjusted Tillotosn is ALREADY delivering EXCESS fuel and oil (i.e., more than the engine can BURN with the current air-flow).... and THAT excess SHOULD be enough to prevent the seize in the moment BEFORE you apply the hand to the choke!"
From this I take it that you do admit that there is an inherent risk in your method. In my method the cooling slug of petrol/oil mix from the choke is delivered without delay and does not rely on a HOPE that the engine SHOULD be OK before you choke as yours does. Either you need to choke or you don't. Your method carries an inherent risk which you acknowledge. Therefore unless you can show my method carries an even greater risk of seizure the simpler method wins QED.
Oh, the last question is irrelevant, we are not discussing the correct set-up procedure, but as it happens I use yours :)
....and as it is clear this is going nowhere I will make this my very last post on the matter and hope those we race our 100's against think your argument more convincing.
|
|