Talk:SU carburettor

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The entire

The history information contained on this page was indeed taken from the SU Carburetter Company corporate website. This is because we own the SU Carburetter Company and hold all of the copyrights as it was our company that wrote the original history featured of the corporate site itself. 14:08, 20 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlenwiki (talk • contribs)

This article desperately needs a rewrite from somebody other than the manufacturer of the SU. It is crammed with weasely opinions with almost no citations. "The beauty of the SU lies in its simplicity and lack of multiple jets and ease of adjustment" is a bad one, and so is referring to the venturi carburettor as "an inherently inaccurate device whose design must incorporate many complex fudges to obtain usable accuracy of fuelling." Andacar (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write those? I would have done. The beauty of the SU is that it's a simple and elegant mechanism. Emulsion tubes, in comparison, are a horror. It wants citation of course, but I (as someone who has built a good many engines with both SUs / Strombergs and Webers) would strongly agree with everything you quoted here. Andy Dingley (talk)

Alright then. Could we please get a specific reference that mentions the inherent inaccuracy of venturi carburetors? I've done a lot of work on cars as well, but I'd still need a verifiable source for the comment if I said it. I don't doubt you are correct, but for better or worse that's how Wikipedia works. Andacar (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The peswiki.com source is about as unreliable as one could find - a wiki (obviously) linked to a conspiracy-theory pushing 'free energy/cold fusion/gravity motor/tinfoil-hat-required' blog. Can I ask that someone finds an alternative source for this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do we mean by "edit" and "source" here ?

I can't find a single edit that is the problem, such that it could be reverted. Nor can I see content here that looks dubious, no matter where it came from. I would support removing any "peswiki" content, just to get the sourcing tag off the article page.

I can't see peswiki in use as a

WP:RS

here for citation purposes. That would been wrong, but I can't see an instance of it. SU carburettors are well known and very easy to source, so other sources aren't a problem. We did have an excellent contributing editor here, from Burlen Fuel Systems (now the owners of the SU), so of course Wikipedia did it's usual teenager behaviour and threw them out on their ear. 8-( The article, and its content line-by-line, are also a target for deletion because they're about automobiles, yet aren't American. This is clearly wrong and is itself (many articles passim) sufficient reason for deletion.

From a brief look though, the peswiki article is better than the Wikipedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be a 'better' article - but it is sourced to a wiki, and we don't use wiki's in general as sources, never mind ones linked to the likes of pesn.com. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references here citing peswiki

I can see no obvious edit for a paste of peswiki content (If you can point to one, that would be helpful)

Per past discussion, peswiki and WP both seem to have sourced this content from Burlen Fuel Systems, rather than each other.

Looking at it quickly, I can't see any obvious content problems.

Overall, I'm not seeing a problem on this article - although I agree your general case, and it might be a problem on others. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the PesWiki notice, but I agree that I can't see content derived from it. I'll go over this and source it to better places (my Haynes manual, for one).—Kww(talk) 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley. The 'References' section says that "As of this edit, this article uses content from PESWiki...". Either the relevant content is user-generated on the peswiki.com site, in which case it won't pass

WP:RS

, or it is copied from somewhere else - which then leads us into possible copyvio territory. To be honest, I'm not sure what the solution is though, beyond the obvious one of actually finding a better source. If we can be sure that the original source was indeed Burlen Fuel Systems, and there is no copyright problem regarding its use (for which we'd really need evidence), I can't see any need to cite peswiki.com at all.

What does "As of this edit," mean though? That's not even a relevant edit - it's just an interwiki. Much of the copy history here is at user talk:Burlenwiki Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KWW. Thanks. That will solve the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the "clarification of the dashpot" edit years ago (2006).

It would be nice if the the entity (SU official pundits or otherwise) who did later edits dropped the term "depression" from their edits and used a more universal term for (in american english, vacuum or less atmospheric pressure). "Depression" is how I feel after work. Not wanting to get into a language pissing match, but...

I also agree with previous comments about the lack of description of the failings of traditional carbs (multiple circuits/"barrels" and emulsion tubes, bubbling air into the liquid fuel in order to try to replicate air's volume change with pressure changes). Perhaps this page could explain why the SU carb is so brilliant!

There is no discussion on this page about how the effects of pressure difference of gasses ("air") and liquids (gasoline/petrol) differ (gasses are subject to PV=nRT liquids do not!) affect the problem of trying to combine the two in an exact ratio during varying pressure circumstances , and how the SU carb got around this problem by eliminating pressure differences!

Previous talk: Alright then. Could we please get a specific reference that mentions the inherent inaccuracy of venturi carburetors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dye46 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a carburettor. Is it appropriate to gum it up with biographies of the inventor and CEO of the manufacturer? Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Children of William Banks Skinner 1847-1914 and Jane Lilley 1850-1889 married 1871
  

George Herbert Skinner, 1872-1931, Emily Janet Skinner, 1874- , Thomas Carlisle Skinner, 1882-1958, John Hershell Skinner, 1884-1947, Margaret Elaine Skinner, 1886-

• Children of William Banks Skinner 1847-1914 and Isabella Rea 1853-1910 married 1892
  

William Banks Rea Skinner, 1896-1968

• Children of William Banks Skinner 1847-1914 and Florence Emma Adams 1874-1939 married 1911
  

none Eddaido (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo labeled "HS6 piston" is actually a dashpot!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dye46 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is carburetor spelled with two t’s throughout this article ? GTO3DEUCES (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. S. U. were a British company, so we use the British English spelling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]