Race Engine Challenge II

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:13 pm

Curtis Mc wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:02 pm
"What if" this was in fact set up like a claimer series, for say $10k, $15k, $20k (pick a number), and the 'general public' was invited, with their wallets. You as the builder own the R&D and recipe, and you (may) have someone there to purchase your engine right off the pump? Help offset (some of) the costs right there on the spot. The hours certainly would not be recovered, but it would make someone think long and hard about the hours as well as the parts with the possibility that they won't be carting the engine home after the event.
My first thought is, this would give a huge advantage to the bigger volume engine builders, who won't care how much they lose on the engine, because they're looking at it from a marketing standpoint, and will sell enough engines from the publicity, to cover the loss on the one engine. The smaller engine builder, that only builds a few engines a year, can't absorb as big of a loss.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3339
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:14 pm

CamKing wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:06 pm
GARY C wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:45 pm
Thats why I was thinking hyd roller, non min travel and no hollow stem or titanium valves, both would keep cost and valve train in the realm of what is done everyday.
The problem with the hydr rollers is, they're too easy to cheat, and very hard to tech. You don't want to be having to pull apart the lifters. You'll end up a competition between builders that can figure out how to turn their hydr roller lifters into mechanical roller lifters, and not get caught.
Wouldn't that be tech on the winning engine and a random 1 or 2 after the competition as is done in the racing world?
Then a guy has to decide if he wants to risk being disqualified and exposed for cheating and possibly not allowed to compete in future competitions.

On thing for sure is with a solid you can push it to what ever level you choose and if it's flat tappet you could utilize a launcher design which could never be detected.

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3407
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Walter R. Malik » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:19 pm

CamKing wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:47 am

If a customer comes to you, and wants the engine to run 5,000 miles a year, you're not going to run .900" lift, with 1,100# over the nose. You're going to look at the endurance springs that you believe can handle that mileage,find the ones that have the pressures you feel your lifters can handle, and work within their limits.
My suggestion, is to limit the lift to a lift that is at the top-end, of what can be run reliably in a street/strip engine that has to see a given number of miles a year. Something a paying customer would actually ask for, reliability wise. I'm thinking around .750" net lift. I would also mandate, no dwell cams(this is easily checked).
I was thinking somewhat along those same lines but, "0" lash, gross lift in the .725" to .750" range.

That would also tend to eliminate a lot of the heads which only flow well above .500" valve lift.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:41 pm

GARY C wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:14 pm
Wouldn't that be tech on the winning engine and a random 1 or 2 after the competition as is done in the racing world?
Then a guy has to decide if he wants to risk being disqualified and exposed for cheating and possibly not allowed to compete in future competitions.
Morel already though about that, when they started making cheater HR lifters for drag racing. They purposely put the cross-bar rivet, where you can't pull the lifter apart without removing the rivet. We've also EDM'ed very small holes in the hydr units, so they wouldn't pump up. What about the guy that limits the oil to the lifters, so they don't pump up? There's a reason a lot of the racing classes that required hydr lifters, have changed to mechanical lifters. It'd too hard to tech the hydr lifters.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3339
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:47 pm

CamKing wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:41 pm
GARY C wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:14 pm
Wouldn't that be tech on the winning engine and a random 1 or 2 after the competition as is done in the racing world?
Then a guy has to decide if he wants to risk being disqualified and exposed for cheating and possibly not allowed to compete in future competitions.
Morel already though about that, when they started making cheater HR lifters for drag racing. They purposely put the cross-bar rivet, where you can't pull the lifter apart without removing the rivet. We've also EDM'ed very small holes in the hydr units, so they wouldn't pump up. What about the guy that limits the oil to the lifters, so they don't pump up? There's a reason a lot of the racing classes that required hydr lifters, have changed to mechanical lifters. It'd too hard to tech the hydr lifters.
Good point, unless they are going to specify what parts you can or can't run and what mods can't be done as they do with other parts.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:59 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:19 pm
I was thinking somewhat along those same lines but, "0" lash, gross lift in the .725" to .750" range.

That would also tend to eliminate a lot of the heads which only flow well above .500" valve lift.
I like using Net Lift at the valve, over Gross Lift, because that eliminates the need to run a very tight lash cam, to get more net lift.
For the 24 hours of Daytona, the LS engines had a Gross valve lift rule, so I designed the lobes to only have .011" Hot Lash. This required them to pre-heat the oil to get the engine worm enough to get the cold lash above .000".
Going with a Net Valve Lift limit, would reduce the advantage of using custom designed lobes, over existing lobe designs, and that will reduce costs.

As for the head flow characteristics, with a net lift rule(.725", .750", .775", whatever), it's up to the engine builder to go with the port that works best with that limit. That's exactly what they'd have to do, if they were limiting lift because of reliability concerns.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:06 pm

GARY C wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:47 pm
Good point, unless they are going to specify what parts you can or can't run and what mods can't be done as they do with other parts.
I've spent the last 34 years, working around rules. I've seen rules that work, and rules that don't.
The best rules packages, are usually the simplest, and written with the mindset, that no rules package will even out the competition, but can effectively lessen the advantage between the have's and have-not's. The guy that spends the most money, will always see an advantage. You just want the rules to be written, so that advantage can still be over-come by ingenuity and hard work.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

statsystems
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:17 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by statsystems » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:16 pm

CamKing wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:06 pm
GARY C wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:47 pm
Good point, unless they are going to specify what parts you can or can't run and what mods can't be done as they do with other parts.
I've spent the last 34 years, working around rules. I've seen rules that work, and rules that don't.
The best rules packages, are usually the simplest, and written with the mindset, that no rules package will even out the competition, but can effectively lessen the advantage between the have's and have-not's. The guy that spends the most money, will always see an advantage. You just want the rules to be written, so that advantage can still be over-come by ingenuity and hard work.
Exactly. The rules that supposedly save money or help the little guy usually bone the little guy hard. Out see that crap in local dirt track racing all the time.

And claimer rules have never worked that I've seen.

Vee-Dizzie
New Member
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:29 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Vee-Dizzie » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:41 pm

Yes rules will always favor money. But there are always exceptions. I can clearly remember running circles around the competition in my VW Golf(modified and raced by myself) in the Linton lx gp.


Without so much as a dollar to spare for a proper lunch. :

But, I will admit my case tends to be the exception as opposed to the rule!!!!!!
.......Vincent Dizziano
"An inventor is simply a fellow who doesn't take his education too seriously."
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."

plovett
Expert
Expert
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by plovett » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:25 pm

Is Vee-Dizzie, David Vizard with a new login?

Anyhoo, I like the train of thought that the engines produced for the contest, should represent high-end real-world street/strip engines. Net lift restraints sound good. I like maximum open spring pressure as a restraint, as well. I don't think it would be that hard to test. Test the springs at the max lift before they are on the engine. If they pass before the engine is run, then you don't test them again.

JMO,

paulie

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:16 am

CamKing wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:54 am
David Vizard wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:19 am
CamKing wrote:
Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:58 am


Huge problem with that.
If that was the rule, I would put the largest intake valve I could fit in the bore(way over what it needs), and just do the valve job, and seat work to make it act like the proper size valve. Now I've got an engine with the effective valve size that's proper for the engine, running the allowed valve lift of the much larger valve.

You'd be handicapping engines with smaller bores, and heads with smaller valves. For a given CID and RPM, the smaller valve will need more lift, not less, to make the power of the larger valved engine.
Mike,

I think you may have over thunk this!!
It is almost impossible to get a valve/port that will work above .35D. Think about this - it does not matter what size valve you choose it still won't work above .35 D. If that does not produce the results it is not because that valve is restricted on lift. It's because the rest of the head and block specs are out of whack!!

(no more rum and coke for you!!!)

DV
I think you're hitting the sauce a little early today.
Here's an example.
Chevy Bow Tie 034, Ported by Meaux Racing
223cc Intake runner
2.085/1.585 valves
4.125" Bore
138/107 @.200"
199/150 @.300"
246/201 @.400"
279/216 @.500"
296/222 @.600"
307/224 @.700"
316/224 @.800"
322/225 @.900"

According to you, with that 2.085" valve, it's almost impossible to get the port to work above .730" lift.
As you can see, you're only .170" off.
It's not uncommon to see a 1.94" valve flow past .800" lift, a 2.15" valve go past .900", or a 2.18" flow to 1.000"

Restricting lift to a % of valve diameter is a horrible rule, that will do nothing but give a large advantage to the guys that can fit the largest intake valves in their bores.
Mikey,

My apologies for not being as precise with my original valve size values as I could/should have been.

However my little slip there did reveal one thing – namely that you're very concerned about how this engine competition goes and I am well pleased with that.

But back to this lift deal. Whether we look at it your way or mine, the final results, which is all that matters, means we are closer on this than you might think.

Here’s the deal. The more precise numbers (as I spell out in my classes) are:-

95% of vertical/parallel valve heads reach 98% of their max flow at lifts no more than 38% of the valve diameter.

If they do not closely approach this then the ports, from an all out power prospective, have room for improvement.

Let’s use the figures from Larry’s Dart heads as you did.

At 38% D lift the valve will be 0.792 off the seat where its flow is 318 cfm. Peak flow was recorded as 322 so at 38%D lift the flow has reached 318/322 = 98.7% so, based on Larry’s head, which BTW is somewhat above the norm, what I teach in class actually proves very precise.

But (there always is one) I did say set the limit at .35 or 35% of the valve diameter so let’s look at how much off I was on that as I think that was the real issue that got you going here (hence the first line apology).

At 35% D the flow would be 310 cfm so we have 310/322 which comes out at 96.3% of max flow. So with your example we would, at 35% D, be able to access 96.3% of the flow even with a port as good at hanging in there as Larry’s.

The bottom line here Mike is not whether we should use a lift rule based on valve diameter,(although it seems like an easy way of doing it) but that we should pick a way to allow for a good working percentage so that whatever valve size is used no one will be penalized. In that respect we are both intent on achieving the same goal but are approaching this same target from significantly different directions.

And by the way, apologies aside, it is still your turn to buy lunch!!!!

DV

PS Mervyn is bringing over a $250 a bottle premium rum – saving it for
Xmas - are you in on a test run!!! (should be able to grind some really way out cams after!!)
Last edited by David Vizard on Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:22 am

plovett wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:25 pm
Is Vee-Dizzie, David Vizard with a new login?

Anyhoo, I like the train of thought that the engines produced for the contest, should represent high-end real-world street/strip engines. Net lift restraints sound good. I like maximum open spring pressure as a restraint, as well. I don't think it would be that hard to test. Test the springs at the max lift before they are on the engine. If they pass before the engine is run, then you don't test them again.

JMO,

paulie
Paulie,

I don't used a a screen name, I personally take full responsibility for what I write!!!

Although I have severe doubts as to it's accuracy I have heard it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!!!
DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:26 am

Warp Speed wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:50 pm
Classic! LOL
???
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Warp Speed » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:22 pm

David Vizard wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:26 am
Warp Speed wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:50 pm
Classic! LOL
???
Your comment on the lift vs valve diameter.
You explained your thoughts above, so no need to explain any further.

Vee-Dizzie
New Member
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:29 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Vee-Dizzie » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:55 pm

Warp Speed wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:22 pm
David Vizard wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:26 am
Warp Speed wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:50 pm
Classic! LOL
???
Your comment on the lift vs valve diameter.
You explained your thoughts above, so no need to explain any further.
=D>
.......Vincent Dizziano
"An inventor is simply a fellow who doesn't take his education too seriously."
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder."

Post Reply