Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

cspeier wrote:I think a lot of people do their own testing and coming to their own conclusions.

I can give you names of guys that dyno for a living that would swear Pipemax is as accurate as the day is long.

Does that make them or the program wrong? Does that make someone whose data doesn't match right?

It means who gives a shit, do it any way you choose. Believe anything you want.. PROVE YOUR OWN THEORIES.

But I will say this. To survive in this business for decades you just can't make stuff up.

Most are honest in their conclusions is what I have found.

I am guessing that pipemax came about from the data gathered by years of testing, I doubt that Larry just threw together some theoretical numbers and got lucky but at the end of the day the best engine combo comes from testing.

My observations, honest as they can be, don't necessarily produce facts. I hate that, but working with PhD Physicists taught me that my education only goes so far- e.g., hits a brick wall to the absolutes they work with. They even debate among themselves. Debate is a part of academia; they do not take it personally, they simply ask that one prove the theory / observation.

I used to take that personally- then I figured out that I'd learn from it if I adapted to their method.

Poking fun and demeaning someone's credibility will not teach us anything.

We have talented folks on this board coming from different schools of thought.

Keep debating.

randy331 wrote:

RevTheory wrote:It only applies to you, David. You know that. You could invent the first portal to another dimension and some of these guys would poo-poo how you did it. It doesn't scale!

See, I'm stuck in a different position than you.

Since my own actual testing don't follow neatly along with charts and formulas, I have to decide if I'm gonna give up and follow neatly along, or continue to dyno test things myself and make decisions on those tests.

What would you do ?

Randy

Randy,

You postion here is very valid. I want to address this in detail as it makes for a very interesting situation - not just for you and me but many serious engine specialists. I am out most of the weekend so look for somthing here about Monday.

thanks

DV

randy331 wrote:
See, I'm stuck in a different position than you.

Since my own actual testing don't follow neatly along with charts and formulas, I have to decide if I'm gonna give up and follow neatly along, or continue to dyno test things myself and make decisions on those tests.

What would you do ?

Randy

Randy,
I don’t believe you are in a different position to me.

Think about this. I have to decide if I am going to ignore a vast amount of dyno testing done just to establish trends like this. Your dyno testing has almost certainly had goals slightly different to mine in as much as you were looking to get the best of any given build in the first instance and then to note what conditions and situations got you there.

I am well aware of your expertise and reputation for building stout motors so I would absolutely not dismiss your findings. In fact I would look at them more closely than those who did not have any issues with what I had produced.

Think about this. In my position someone who can find a legitimate issue with my work and the interpretation of the results is far more use to me than someone who simply agrees. IF THERE IS A MISTAKE I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT!


About 25 years ago I was part of a small study group by a sports doctor at a big Long Beach CA. research hospital. It covered physical and mental functions of successful drivers and leading support group members.

One of the findings was that an above average degree of stubbornness was a characteristic of a successful race car driver and his team and that also included the engine builder. I did not find that to be a very flattering quality but then I found out that stubbornness comes in two different forms.

There's stubborn like a donkey and that means not moving in any direction almost no matter what. Then there’s stubborn which comes about when a high degree of tenacity is involved. If you or I are going to succeed in an arena as competitive as motor sports we had better pursue our goals with a tenacity well above and beyond the norm and not to quit on anything until it’s proven almost beyond doubt we should.
Ask anyone who really knows me and they will tell you I am stubbornly tenacious in my pursuit for a given goal. (best folk to ask is those who have had to race against me). I really don’t think we are that much different on that score. If our results are from well controlled dyno tests we should not be arguing but combining results to see if there is a more unified method of understanding and more importantly predicting results.
So to answer your last question as to what would I do? I would be doing much as you do except I would be industriously investigating how your data might fit and further my knowledge on the subject.

Rather than arguing we should be teaming up and making the most of an additional research source – so how about it???
DV

Seems most guys only care about peak #s so after a few experiments with valves and surface textures I beat my best number by a bit. Time to box these up. Thanks, Charlie

No comments at all on this? I am guessing it has been done and failed? Input welcome. Thanks, Charlie

Charlie, from what I have seen over the years is not so much that it has failed but that it has been done in different verity and never proven.
I think for starters you would have to do an ABA test and I can't say I have ever seen it done, I have seen people test textured valves and make claims but not ABA.
On the other hand you have Larry/Pipemax do some extensive ABA testing on port texture as well as Chad and DV I believe has written on the subject as well as others, all have had similar results although very few are willing to accept their test results.

I would say test it, if you find it as an advantage then you have one that others don't!

Theses should Flow close to 230 cfm when done.

more pic

pic, Roof raise .100 all the way to past guide, Boy I need some sharper BURS!

NXBOY, welcome to ST. Please post flow numbers and dyno/track times along with the engine combo. It looks like you gave the sonic a workout on these. Thanks, Charlie

Will Flow and take Air speed readings in the next week. There not maxed out, I could spend forever Making port bigger But not needed, this is for a mild build, DARN OCD strikes again. did the pot work Then found this post., Glad I'm doing something right

OCD and porting heads. Tough to progress because something could always use more attention! These heads will be much better than most would expect. Thanks, Charlie

With the thin spot I beleive the SSR is plenty layed back, Crest height is .900

The ssr is very tricky to get accurate sonic numbers. I left them thicker on my 65 set. They were also from a water cooled boat so I was worried about a corrosion pocket even though they looked clean.