That's a great way to describe it. There were some two-stroke motors in the 60's and 70's that had huge crankcases - mainly snowmobile engines. They were designed to produce a wide power/torque band and have good power in a lower RPM range. They were kind of lazier motors though - they didn't wind up well or even have the greatest acceleration. But they did make good, consistent power at a fairly low RPM range where the machine was designed to run.
It was the same situation with some two-stroke water pump motors used in the fire services - they would be run at a constant RPM that was fairly low (6-8,000 rpm).
First CSM I ever ran was two 076’s on a 60” bar. Big and slow but unstoppable. It made very consistent cuts and was reasonably fast considering the rpm. Unfortunately it was .404 skip. Half the log ended up as sawdust. And the boards had a texture that was probably 1/8” deep.Based on what you stated here, it seems like this would be an ideal setup for dedicated milling saws
It has more to do with case volume than balance. Therefore affecting throttle response and torque.Is there a perceived benefit? They are just designed for different saws? Both will be dynamically balanced and well it's a toss-up on other matters. The top flywheel will give a more even chart on torque over a cycle and will run smoother whereas the more traditional crank probably has less overall rotating mass. Interesting, thanks.
Husqvarna call it revboost. When full circle crank.
What are you using for the outer band?
i had wondered about the stuffers from bigger saws.What are you using for the outer band?
FWIW, the stuffers from a k970 crank look like they could fit 395 with a little work.